Bellevue Kroger

[molonlabetn]

I actually agree with your belief, Mars (and others who've reasoned this way). But let's remember that the anti-gun element will push for a ban on any type of carry or firearms ownership regardless of how it is presented to them. For that reason, I prefer to be a visible proponent of carry... if my sole concern was self-protection and obscurity from criticism, I would only ever conceal. I do respect the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners will only go that far. But I am ultimately only responsible for my own beliefs and actions.

[Marswolf]

But I am ultimately only responsible for my own beliefs and actions.

I only wish that was true. Unfortunately your beliefs and actions based on them are likely to result in both you and me being unable to legally open carry when it would be appropriate. My concern is not criticism but the concrete results of foolishness. Needless OC will ultimately bring about the death of OC.

[Guest ETS_Inc]

By the same authority that they use to arrest drunk drivers, armed robbers and wife beaters. You do not get to pick and choose the laws that you obey.

Actually, you do. There is no inate requirement for a person to follow the law. There are legal repurcussions should you decide not to follow it, but there is nothing in your brain that prohibits you from deciding to ignore a law.

Martin Luthur King Jr. would have (and did) argue that you are bound to a higher power, and part of that duty is the need to oppose unjust laws. Hence his protests against segregation and Jim Crow laws. It was perfectly legal in America to segregate buses, schools, lunch counters, bathrooms, and even water fountains, based on the color of a person's skin. King felt that that was unjust and while legal under the law of man, it was improper under natural law. (Remember a certain document saying something about "all men are created equal?") King argued that when confronted with an unjust law, it is the duty of every citizen to oppose that law. Obviously, the first choice is to work within the system to effect change. However, when the system will not listen, or worse yet, is actively opposing you, it might become necessary to work outside of the system. That is the very reason our Founding Fathers gave us the rights to protest, speak freely, ask questions, and if all else fails, use any means necessary to dispose of the evil and corrupt government.

Am I comparing the Civil Rights Movement with the movement to protect the Right To Keep And Bear Arms? Absolutely! Both movements are about preventing the stripping of liberties guaranteed to us within the Bill of Rights. Those who oppose the movements are after one thing: control! Regardless of what their propagnda says about safety, the children, or public order, it is simply about control. They want to dominate others, and bringing the public around to their point-of-view is just a way to subjugate the masses.

Should we hold sit-ins or march the streets of Nashville, demanding that more places allow us to carry our weapons in their stores? Not yet. But letting your legislators know how you feel is a great first step. Another reason not to begin sit-ins: there are, for the most part, other options. Tell the manager of Kroger that you are going to do business elsewhere, and that you are suggesting to your friends and family that they do likewise. It might not seem like much, but given enough grassroots support, it works. Then, take your money elsewhere. And when you find that new place, inform the management why you chose their business. Tell them "I have proven myself to the State of TN to be a responsible citizen through my actions, but your competitor refuses to accept that. You, however, have given me the respect of trusting me, and I greatly appreciate it. I will be telling my friends and family to shop here."

And, if there is somewhere you must go that prohibits carrying a weapon, and there are no alternative places to do business, you have a few choices. 1) you can go without, 2) you can comply with State law, or 3) you can engage in Civil Disobedience, a la Gahndi and King. Now, if the place is prohibited, and you elect to go there anyways, you have two further choices: 1) Open Carry and just ask to be arrested, or, 2) conceal your firearm and don't tell a soul. (Remember, concealed means hidden, out of sight - out of mind.) If you do it correctly, no one will ever be aware that you did it. If something should happen, and you must defend yourself, there is a wonderful affirmative defense in TN, competing harms. While it may have been illegal to have the weapon, you can show just cause as to why you needed to break the law at that time. (It's similiar to breaking the speed limit to rush someone to the hospital.)

My point is simply this: You can pick and choose which laws you decide to obey. Treason was against the law in the British Empire during the second half of the 18th Century. That didn't stop a dedicated group of people in the American colonies from disobeying that law. The use of a "Whites Only" lunch counter by him being illegal didn't stop Martin Luthur King Jr. and others from sitting in the stools, affecting their ability to do business, and forcing change. You must only be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Remember, you are a human being, and as such, are empowered to think for yourself. Part of that thinking process involves the ability to weigh the outcomes of your actions, and using that information, decide what course of action you are willing to take. Be a free man, not a subjugated sheep. Think for yourself! (Not the quoted poster, everyone in general.)

[Guest Fastzntn]

Frankly, I cannot help but wonder if at some base level the people who advocate open carry are just looking for a fight with the establishment.

Agreed. The undertone of the attitude I hear is more "I'm going to do something that could create controversy, and I dare someone to say something to me about it".

The way I see it, there's really no reason to get upset with the grocery store, or the manager, or write snide emails to their headquarters. If I were a business owner I would not want someone open carrying in my establishment either. You have to understand that the general public does not view handgun carrying the way most of the people do on this site. Like it or not, a business is within their right to ask you to leave, or in this case not to bring your gun back in their store.

Some people have indicated in certain situations that open carry might have an advantage over concealed. Just out of curiousity, could someone explain to me the advantages, if any of open carrying a handgun in a grocery store as compared to concealed carry?

[bteague2]

Some people have indicated in certain situations that open carry might have an advantage over concealed. Just out of curiousity, could someone explain to me the advantages, if any of open carrying a handgun in a grocery store as compared to concealed carry?

I have one holster, in OWB holster and I wear tshirts almost exclusively during the summer. So it is basically open carry or unarmed, guess which one I'm going to choose? So I'd say being armed is quite an advantage to being unarmed.

[The Rabbi]

Actually he was asking about the advantages of open vs. concealed carry, not carry vs non carry.

But if wrote that my choice was to carry a Lorcin .22 or nothing do you think everyone would say to carry the Lorcin or do you think they might suggest that I have improperly limited my choices?

[DaveTN]

The way I see it, there's really no reason to get upset with the grocery store, or the manager, or write snide emails to their headquarters. If I were a business owner I would not want someone open carrying in my establishment either. You have to understand that the general public does not view handgun carrying the way most of the people do on this site. Like it or not, a business is within their right to ask you to leave, or in this case not to bring your gun back in their store.

Another reason… and the biggest in my opinion.

Big businesses that have law firms on retainer are going to ask the lawyers what they should do. If you shoot someone in a businesses whether you are right or wrong the probability is high that there is going to be a civil suit. And guess who the “Deep Pockets†will be? Why would any business want to bear the burden of your decision making in a shooting situation…. That would be insane.

If I owned a business (and I don’t) that wasn’t firearms related I would post a sign that carry is not allowed. I would overlook concealed carry even if I noticed it, but if someone was open carrying I would ask them to leave. It may not help much, but it can’t hurt.

In my personal opinion it is a liability issue, not an issue of whether or not a business owner likes firearms.

[bteague2]

Actually he was asking about the advantages of open vs. concealed carry, not carry vs non carry.

But if wrote that my choice was to carry a Lorcin .22 or nothing do you think everyone would say to carry the Lorcin or do you think they might suggest that I have improperly limited my choices?

And if you read what I posted concealing isn't an option so it's open or nothing, so I did answer his question.

[Marswolf]

I'm trying to get out of this topic. I've pretty much had my say, but the comment about only dressing one way and that limiting carry strikes me as odd. I dress in a lot of different ways from suits to shorts and my choice of handgun and holster depend on what I wear and the situation. Sometimes it is OC on the side, sometimes IWB, sometimes a shoulder holster and sometimes a BUG in a pocket. For summer non-duty use, I'm often in shorts or jeans and a T-shirt or Polo type shirt tucked into my shorts. For those occasions, my P3AT goes into my rear pocket in an appropriate holster.

Either buy another holster or buy another shirt. That's not a reasonable excuse for why one "has" to OC.

[TGO David]

I have one holster, in OWB holster and I wear tshirts almost exclusively during the summer.

When you consider that the cost of most handguns of quality is above the $400 mark and that shooting ~100 rounds a month of ammo for practice carries at least a $20 price tag, it seems reasonable to assume that most folks can afford more than one holster. I'd invest in an IWB holster if all I had was an OWB holster.

[Guest Hyaloid]

What bothers me is the thinly or un- veiled hostility or avarice shown by fellow "gunnies" against people who want to OC. It's even funnier, that many of the same arguments that folks who are ANTI-gun use, get trotted out by our fellow gun lovers. For example:

THE TACTICAL ARGUMENT

The ultimate tactical weapon is the mind, specifically, being aware of your surroundings.

ANTIGUN: "Well just avoid the places where you need a gun, it's easy!". Misplacing the blame from attacker, to the victim being somewhere, or involved in something, they shouldn't be.

CCer: "It would be tactically unsound to let everyone know you have a gun, you lose the element of surprise on your would be attacker! "

How many credible stories have there been when someone was CCing, and when faced with a possible threat, converted to OC to act as a visual deterrent? How many thousands of times is the mere presence of a firearm used to visually deter an impending crime? Something self defense advocates like to tout as something that goes underreported

THEY'LL JUST USE IT AGAINST YOU (related to tactical)

ANTIGUN: "They'll just take your gun away and use it on you, or even someone else. It's better to not have a gun at all!"

ANTI-OC: "They'll SEE the gun and take you out first, or pull it from your holster while you aren't looking!"

THEY ARE JUST LOOKING FOR CONFRONTATION

ANTIGUN: "The blood will run in the streets, and every traffic altercation will lead to a shootout. These are just people itching to shoot someone, why else would they need a gun?"

ANTI-OC: "I think that people who OC are just out looking to be confrontational and in your face. They are daring someone to call them on it, and are just looking for a reason to show off."

THEY ARE COMPENSATING FOR SOMETHING

ANTIGUN: "People who own guns are just insecure in their manhood, and compensating for small penises (if male), or wish they had a penis (if female).--or-- "They are just beer guzzling, hot-headed rednecks who want to show how tough they are with their strappe don phallic symbols."

ANTI-OC: "They are just macho redneck/wannabie/cowboys/arsehats who want to show how 'badass' they are."

It's rare that someone that supports or advocates OC, comes out against those who choose to CC. Why is it acceptable, even in our pro-gun circles, to single out those who OC, using shades of the same logic as those who would ban ALL firearms? It is definitely a personal choice, one we certainly are lucky enough to have in Tennessee. It just really bothers me that some folks who are "pro-gun" will turn on their own, and label the OCers, much as the ANTIGUN crowd labels ALL gun owners.

I threw this together quickly (screaming baby and all), and I hope my point comes across.

To those who are worried specifically about Tennessee losing their legislated ability to carry their firearm concealed or openly. What is there to worry about if you'll never choose to exercise that right?

[saintsfanbrian]

Point blank, carry how you feel comfortable, but carry.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Point blank, carry how you feel comfortable, but carry.

I could not agree more.

[The Rabbi]

And if you read what I posted concealing isn't an option so it's open or nothing, so I did answer his question.

Bosh.

Unless you are completely penniless you have plenty of options. Your statement is a cop-out.

As for comparing the arguments of anti-gunners with people who do not advocate OC, I again ask: which professional trainers advocate open carry? I suppose they are really anti-gun too.

[DaveTN]

What bothers me is the thinly or un- veiled hostility or avarice shown by fellow "gunnies" against people who want to OC. It's even funnier, that many of the same arguments that folks who are ANTI-gun use, get trotted out by our fellow gun lovers.

It's rare that someone that supports or advocates OC, comes out against those who choose to CC. Why is it acceptable, even in our pro-gun circles, to single out those who OC, using shades of the same logic as those who would ban ALL firearms? It is definitely a personal choice, one we certainly are lucky enough to have in Tennessee. It just really bothers me that some folks who are "pro-gun" will turn on their own, and label the OCers, much as the ANTIGUN crowd labels ALL gun owners.

If the most highly trained firearms person that you knew, someone that you had the utmost respect for told you that it didn’t matter to him how you carry but that in his opinion open carry was one of the dumbest things that you could do; and then went on to explain why; would you think that he may be trying to educate you or would you think that he was “Turning on his own�

To those who are worried specifically about Tennessee losing their legislated ability to carry their firearm concealed or openly. What is there to worry about if you'll never choose to exercise that right?

Tennessee law is not clear on open carry. That is why the State Attorney General wrote an opinion on it. I see open carry as a fail safe for the carry permit holder that accidentally exposes his weapon. It would be a shame to lose it.

[molonlabetn]

...As for comparing the arguments of anti-gunners with people who do not advocate OC, I again ask: which professional trainers advocate open carry? I suppose they are really anti-gun too.

They sure do run their classes and training sessions while open-carrying though... even if they aren't verbally advocating it.

[Mike.357]

That is why the State Attorney General wrote an opinion on it. I see open carry as a fail safe for the carry permit holder that accidentally exposes his weapon.

This is the exact purpose that OC was allowed in. Inadvertantly flashing your gun while carrying. The purpose was never to OC. All the proponents of OC will say that the law allows for it so do it. Fine.

I took my permit class through the Knox County Sherrifs office. The class was taught by a Sgt Lett, who also trains new deputy recruits. Lett has been a cop forever. He specifically cited the Attorney Generals opinion about open carry. He also warned everyone in the class to think long and hard before doing OC. Knox County deputy's are trained to take a person down for OC'ing a weapon, plain and simple. If you are legal you will be released and get you gun back. But I already have seen what the local cops do around here, not worth it to me. And to anyone I care about I would really stress to them to not OC.

I stand by my statement a while back in this thread about looking for confrontation and sooner or later you will find it.

They sure do run their classes and training sessions while open-carrying though... even if they aren't verbally advocating it.

Time and a place for everything, most reasonable people would say that gun shops and gun training classes OC would be acceptable, but leave the building and put it under cover.

PS: by confrontation I mean someone approaching you and questioning your OC, not a gunfight or physical confrontation,just to clarify.

[Guest Hyaloid]

If the most highly trained firearms person that you knew, someone that you had the utmost respect for told you that it didn’t matter to him how you carry but that in his opinion open carry was one of the dumbest things that you could do; and then went on to explain why; would you think that he may be trying to educate you or would you think that he was “Turning on his own”?

Depends on his reasons why. See, I am free to form my own opinion, and I try to listen to all viewpoints without hostility. When I say we are "turning on our own", it is in reference to the hostility that some professed "progun" people deride others who decide differently than them.

Tennessee law is not clear on open carry. That is why the State Attorney General wrote an opinion on it. I see open carry as a fail safe for the carry permit holder that accidentally exposes his weapon. It would be a shame to lose it.

Tennessee law isn't clear on ALOT of things. The AG issues opinions on ALOT of things. OC isn't unique in that regard. Secondly, the AG opinion ISN'T unclear about OC. I know that it isn't LAW, but it certainly has some weight behind it. I don't even necessarily disagree with your and others' interpretation of the law. I can see that viewpoint as well, I just happen to disagree. If the lawmakers had wanted OC to be illegal, it would have been explicitly outlined in the statutes, in my opinion, and in the AG's opinion. Do you think the legislators had no idea about OC when they drafted the current legislation?

1.The primary objective of statutory construction is to ascertain legislative intent. If

the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts are supposed to ascertain that intent

from the plain and ordinary meaning of the language. Honsa v. Tombigbee Transport Corp., 141

S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2004).

The plain meaning of the statutes governing, or prohibiting, the carrying of handguns and

other weapons indicates that, in situations where the legislature has permitted the carrying of handguns, the legislature intended to authorize the carrying of handguns both openly and concealed

The statutes governing the wearing and carrying of firearms neither expressly prohibit the permit

holder from carrying a handgun openly, nor expressly require the permit holder to carry the handgun concealed.

Reading Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1351 in pari materia with §§ 39-17-1307 and 1308(a)(2

indicates that the legislature intended to allow carry permit holders to carry their handguns both

openly and concealed. If the legislature had intended to require a permit holder to carry his or her

handgun concealed, it would have done so by prohibiting the open carrying of a handgun and expressly requiring the concealed carry of a handgun.

--- AG_05-154 Paul G. Summers Attorney General October 11th, 2005.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Bosh.

Unless you are completely penniless you have plenty of options. Your statement is a cop-out.

As for comparing the arguments of anti-gunners with people who do not advocate OC, I again ask: which professional trainers advocate open carry? I suppose they are really anti-gun too.

Just drawing a parallel between the arguments, and I thought it interesting the similarities that cropped up. Are those against OC antigun? Of course not, but they may not be the strident supporters of the 2nd Amendment they project themselves to be, especially when they look upon those who would legally OC with derision and mockery.

I am a firm believer in the old adage, "To each his own". Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world isn't.

--edited to add--

Also, I could care less if they ADVOCATE it, but why look down on those who legally DO it? That's part of the issue I think.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I took my permit class through the Knox County Sherrifs office. The class was taught by a Sgt Lett, who also trains new deputy recruits. Lett has been a cop forever. He specifically cited the Attorney Generals opinion about open carry. He also warned everyone in the class to think long and hard before doing OC. Knox County deputy's are trained to take a person down for OC'ing a weapon, plain and simple. If you are legal you will be released and get you gun back. But I already have seen what the local cops do around here, not worth it to me. And to anyone I care about I would really stress to them to not OC.

I am not being confrontational or a smartass, I truly mean it. Do you have a link to any coverage of an incident where this has occurred?

I stand by my statement a while back in this thread about looking for confrontation and sooner or later you will find it.

When I OC, I most certainly DO NOT want a confrontation. I just want to go about my daily activities in peace, while armed in the most comfortable and practical fashion available to me. I know, I am probably asking too much to be left alone while going about my life not breaking any laws, but hey, a guy can dream can't he?

Time and a place for everything, most reasonable people would say that gun shops and gun training classes OC would be acceptable, but leave the building and put it under cover.

Color me unreasonable

[Rightwinger]

I like Oreo's better than Chip's Ahoy !

[Guest ETS_Inc]

I like Oreo's better than Chip's Ahoy !

Ahhh, the ever-present internet debate: Oreo's, or Chip's Ahoy! Personally, I prefer Oreo's with white milk, and Chip's Ahoy with chocolate milk. Of course, if there is no milk at all, I go with Nutter Butters.

[Branket]

I like Oreo's better than Chip's Ahoy !

I think you're missing the point here. On one hand people who like Oreo's give cookie lovers in general a bad name but on the other hand people who only like Chips Ahoy use anit-cookie sentiment to belittle fellow cookie lovers.

[bteague2]

Bosh.

Unless you are completely penniless you have plenty of options. Your statement is a cop-out.

Your right I'm a college student who has student loans paying for just about everything during the school year, who saved up paychecks this summer to buy a handgun because I'd rather be safe then feel safe. But your right I should spend a couple of hundred dollars trying to find the perfect concealing holster which will take a couple tries even though I already have a perfectly good OWB holster which I like. But your right, my bad I was just trying to cop-out.

[Guest BigBoostDSM]

Couple of 21 year old knoxville residents I see...good to know there are other people in my age group that wish to exercise their rights.

Hate to get off topic but are any of you interested in doing a little get together for some shooting? I just moved here, I could use some friends