Living where I do, out in the woods in south-central Alaska, it shouldn't be big news to anyone conversant in firearms and their use that I carry when I'm out and about in the bush, fishing, hunting or just mooching around avoiding work. When in the woods, I'm open-carrying, as are a lot of the folk you run into hereabouts. I'm not worried about human goblins with ill intent so much as a moose with a bad attitude or the chance of inadvertently getting between a mama grizzly and her cubs. To that end, I'm almost always open-carrying one of my two .45 Colt sixguns stuffed full of my own hot .45 Colt handloads, which will blow a fist-sized chunk of chips from the far side of a railroad tie and will (from personal experience) pass lengthwise through a big corn-fed Iowa whitetail and keep going.
When I need to go down to Anchorage, though, that Alaskan city that is sadly falling prey to some of the problems that plague many of our cities today, I don't open carry, but I generally do have my Glock 36 concealed somewhere about my person.
Different situations, different methods.
These days we are dealing with a lot of unrest in our cities, along with some of the other problems, like the Bidenville homeless encampments that our urban areas are contending with. College campuses across the country are in turmoil. Crime rates are up. So it's not surprising that the open-carry v. concealed-carry discussion has fired up again in the Second Amendment community, not that it ever really died down. Over at our sister site Bearing Arms, Tom Knighton recently penned an interesting piece.
The subject of open carry is one of those in the gun community that will likely never be resolved. People have strong opinions on it, to be sure. Those opinions are typically discussed in a fashion only slightly less aggressive than 9mm Parabellum versus 45 ACP.
Slightly.
And while we tend to talk more about gun politics of late, it's not because Cam and I, nor any of our other contributors aren't gun people. We carry, shoot, and definitely have opinions on this topic and many others.
Let's understand that this is not about the right to open carry. In my view, that right is as sacrosanct as the right to keep and bear arms itself. Nothing in the Second Amendment says that the manner in which someone chooses to bear arms.
I won't re-hash everything Tom said; he makes his own case very well. So I'll just throw in my two cents worth. When someone asks me if I prefer open carry or concealed carry, my answer is "yes." Why? Well, here's why and I'm gonna tell you. As I see it there are two arguments for open v. concealed carry; those are situational and political.
I described the situational aspects at the very beginning. Even when fishing along one of the rivers hereabouts - in fact especially when fishing along one of the rivers when the salmon are running - I have a .45 revolver in a belt holster. I like the .45 Colt, and I like my Vaquero and my big 25-5 Smith, I've had them both for years, I've used the same handloads for years, and I can clear leather and shoot fast if I have to. Ditto for the 36 Glock, which is that company's compact .45ACP, which usually rides in a paddle holster under a long shirt or in a holster built into an insulated vest made for that purpose.
The political aspects are a little different. One might open carry to make a statement. You see, at Second Amendment rallies, a lot of people open carrying not only sidearms but long arms, and that can - in proper circumstances - make a very profound and telling statement, in the "come and get them" sense. Now, are there situations where open carry isn't advisable? Sure. One of the reasons I carry concealed when in the city is because, if I am forced to draw and fire in defense of myself or others, I want to take the bad guy by surprise. I don't want him to see that I'm packing and decide, "I'm shooting that guy first."
There are other reasons, and I'll give you a personal example. When we still lived in Colorado, we went to movies more often than we do now, when the nearest theater is 30 miles away. And, being that I respect private property rights when a theater had a "no firearms" sign posted, I would leave my sidearm at home. Then came the infamous Aurora theater shooting, which happened less than five miles from our house; after that, I decided, screw the signs, I'm carrying, and henceforth went to movies with Mr. Glock at my side. If anyone in the theater had somehow determined I was carrying, all they could do would be to ask me to leave, and I would have immediately and politely complied; but if another goblin had come in to shoot the place up, he would have met with unexpected and armed resistance.
The "unexpected" side of concealed carry can be a substantial advantage.
But in the end, I'll say this: All of this is a personal preference. That's all it is. As far as the law goes, there is only one thing that matters:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's the final rule. The rest is up to us. Use your head. Consider the situation and act accordingly. That's what the Founders intended.
