DOES OPEN CARRY TRUMP DISCREET?

Dr.Julius Decker

The benefits of traditional open carry are well understood. There’s the degree-of-deterrence factor, quick draw and carry comfort. It’s true to our his­toric roots, evokes the classic and valuable Hollywood manliness so demeaned by the left wing these days, and just looks and feels good.

In contrast, discreet or “concealed” carry has the indispensable advantage of surprise; it can turn the tables quickly on unsuspecting attackers, and creates a subliminal deterrent and oc­cupational hazard for miscreants who prey upon seemingly easy victims. Cru­cially, discreet carry also deftly avoids unwanted attention from hoplophobes, snooty high-society people, social-jus­tice warriors, high-strung leftists, over­protective mothers, rambunctious chil­dren and assorted drama seekers.

Often undervalued but a critically significant benefit to law-abiding gun owners—discreet carry avoids tragic and disastrous entanglements with law-enforcement officers. It’s half the reason reciprocity works—the issue never arises.

No one really knows how many law-enforcement officers respect the Sec­ond Amendment and constitutional right of people to keep and bear arms. And there’s no way to tell for sure—though obviously there must be some, maybe many. It’s equally likely some number of officers do not care for it, especially in blue states and major met­ropolitan areas, who might even prefer if you idiot individuals had your guns summarily taken. We know that’s true (a cadre of high-profile groups swore in against gun rights in the Heller case).

A surprise to most folks, people who know realize an officer’s foremost con­cerns are not to protect and serve, stop crime, or uphold your precious rights. Bluntly, their priorities are to survive their shifts, return home alive to their families, collect their salaries, benefits and live to retirement age to enjoy bloated pensions coerced by their unions from city councils. In a choice between your rights and an officer’s real needs, the latter win early and often, of­ten enough. Is this really surprising?

To a vast swath of law-enforcement officers in urban areas, armed citizens are a threat that must be disarmed. They realize disarming the law-abiding does not make people any safer because they continue to be preyed upon by criminals. Nevertheless, too many offi­cers are happy with fewer firearms to account for in the streets.

Many officers today are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, who were trained in military tactics to occupy and pacify hostile enemy populations—or were instructed by such veterans. As described by Radley Balko in his stun­ning 2013 book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Po­lice Forces, officers in urban America routinely apply the military protocols of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those officers want to enjoy unfettered powers to as­sume anyone in the streets without a uniform, who appears to have a gun, is a “bad person” and have at least a con­ditional green light to shoot. Mayberry may still exist somewhere, but it’s not mainstream.

“To a vast swath of law-enforcement officers in urban areas, armed citizens are a threat that must be disarmed”

Officers, their superiors, their unions, city risk managers and elected officials fear armed citizens. They’re supposed to—it’s why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment—for public safety. “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny:’ -Thomas Jefferson

A safety net the Founders didn’t antic­ipate, shooting innocent armed or un­armed citizens results in internal-affairs investigations, prosecutions, multimil­lion-dollar jury verdicts, out-of-court settlements, recalls and bad publicity. Officials have vested interests in dis­couraging armed citizens, who can get uppity, or make targets of themselves.

Harassing open-carry citizens and pretextually demanding to see their sidearms, then running serial numbers through databases satisfies this per­verse need. Ostensibly to verify they aren’t stolen, it’s incremental registra­tion and they know it. They don’t run your other property through databases.

Citizens can face arrest if an open-carry sidearm can’t be seen from every conceivable angle—even on the right from the left!—on the pretext it’s un­lawfully concealed with no license. Pure harassment: Officials v. You.

If you openly carry a sidearm in any urban area these days you face a spe­cial risk. One hypersensitive anti-gun civilian dials 911 to report a person with a gun and your tragedy unfolds. Imagine what the person might con­coct to the dispatcher… I thought I heard a foreign language… he said Trump or something… he looks an­gry… it’s one of those big guns. Adren­aline-junkie police officers rush to the scene, lights and noise on! This is what happened to now-deceased:
Philando Castille, Dillon Taylor, and John Crawford

Brave Second Amendment patriots who carry openly and face the addi­tional risks to their lives and safety de­serve our gratitude for not meekly sur­rendering this right to the government leviathan and our enemies within. Dis­creet carriers avoid unwanted atten­tion, circulate amongst us and bolster the armed presence that provides law, order and the peaceful society Amer­ica cherishes. Repeatedly, the armed populace augments, supplements, and frequently supplants the “officials” who are here from the government to protect us. Open and discreet. It’s a good plan.

Disclaimer: “The views expressed by bloggers and reprints of blogs are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of EHP Training LLC.”