Friday, April 30, 2010

Open Carry and scaring the straights.

Received this comment that seemed worthy of further discussion.

Ed Rasimus has left a new comment on your post "What passes for critical thinking at the Wall Street Journal":

At issue isn't the protesting against the administration, but the prudence and wisdom of flaunting the firearms at Starbuck's and park gatherings. We shouldn't question the right to do it and we should always be aggressive in defense of the Second Amendment, but we have to recognize that there is the aspect noted in the WSJ which is that it gives the hoplophobes something to illustrate their meme about redneck, dangerous, militia types who are a social hazard.

We act against our interest when we do that.

Do we really? Is it really in our interest to worry about whether we scare the straights or not?

Your thoughts, Irregulars.



Charlie said...

My rights aren't subject to majority vote or opinion.

If I censor myself for fear of upsetting the easily-offended, then I will have surrendered my freedom of speech. Similarly with the right to bear arms.

Anonymous said...

My thoughts are that the problem with this argument is that it implicitly accepts responsibility for the fact that there are so many pants wetters out there.

If I happen to be wearing a pistol, & some moron gets all scared because s/he has been watching too much TV, I'd like to know how that's MY fault?

The response to such mewling from "hoplophobes" shouldn't be

"I'm sorry I scared you", but

"Why in the world are you acting like a 3 year old who just saw a spider in the back yard? Grow up."


Anonymous said...

You can generally tell a liberal because thats how they start a conversation. With, what their afraid of. As in;
People who feel the need to carry a gun are paranoid crazies. It frightens me to think they should be allowed to walk the streets.
My general reponse is to say; You don't have a gun on you? How you going to fight off the paraniod crazies?......mthead III

Anonymous said...

I guess it may partly depend upon where one resides. In my area, Oprah is considered a straight shooting conservative (to give you an idea of what life is like in southern New England.) The mere sight of a firearm in public would make these frantic weenies swoon to the point of convulsions, and may even, on a good day, temporarily convert a few to Christianity thinking death was imminent. Our beloved state politicians would be licking their chops at the prospect of a panicked populace if open carry ever became popular. While I wholeheartedly agree that we have the right to open carry, I am divided as to whether it is always prudent.

Some may say that this is a cop-out; that allowing others to mitigate our freedoms due to their ignorance is just giving the opposition more room to further their fascist cause. While I am sympathetic to that view, I also cannot ignore the fact that open carry proponents are in the extreme minority where I live, and trying to force the issue onto a populace that isn't ready for it would only result in stricter gun control laws. Sometimes it's better to lay low and wait in ambush than to run in open fields.

Phelps said...

There's no good cop without a bad cop.

Anonymous said...

Heck, they don't care about what WE think or feel, as demonstrated by their health care passing scheme. Conviction and passion do not hold back.

triptyx said...

How can we possibly expect folks to observe the 2nd Amendment and Open Carry as normal, natural things without desensitizing them to peaceable armed citizens???

When in AZ, (TX does not allow me the "privelege" outside of my own property), I attempt to Open Carry whenever the opportunity arises. While doing so, I'm always friendly and have a smile for everyone that doesn't appear to be up to something shady. I'd like to think that folks that notice I'm carrying and yet am friendly and peaceful will maybe begin to think more about their preconceived notions.

We need to desensitize as many people to openly carried firearms as possible. With every friendly encounter, we add another potential seed that may just sprout into ivy on that wall of anti-gun bias and perhaps further the effort of tearing it down.

Charlie said...

re: "...(to give you an idea of what life is like in southern New England.) The mere sight of a firearm in public would make these frantic weenies swoon..."

As a native New Englander and direct descendant of colonial militia leaders, I am ashamed of how far we have fallen since Lexington & Concord and Bunker Hill. These people would have made excellent subjects for George III.

May posterity forget they were our countrymen.

Anonymous said...

He is wrong!


CaptainAttila said...

Tactical concerns aside, when we act like we have something to hide, we validate the feelings of the hoplophobes. If some idiot "feels" insecure because it can see my holstered primary arm but be unperturbed by the presence of concealed arms, that's evidence of delusional thinking and most definitely not my problem. A rational person would worry far more about the unknown weapon than the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Flaunting has two definitions and therein lies the problem.

One definition is to "display shamelessly". Why should a legal firearm carrier be ashamed to obey the law? In fact, they shouldn't!

The other definition is to "show contempt for". Technically, firearm carriers don't fit in this category unless they openly carry when it not being legal for them to do so. However, it could be said firearm carriers show contempt for the "feelings" of others who are uncomfortable around firearms. Unfortunately, that's just too bad for them.

If those opposed have a personal problem with certain objects then they need to get some professional help and overcome their fears. They can't expect everyone around them to surrender personal security simply so a fearful stranger can "feel" better.

It's funny though, many on the left don't seem to have a problem flaunting their expensive tastes in the midst of the have-nots.
They know such a display can stir up negative feelings in the poor, but they do it anyway. Why? Simply because they can.

They have something in common with firearm carriers: Both love life enough to want to live it fully no matter what the cost.

Bill (Bad Cyborg) Mullins said...

As we used to say when I had stripes on my sleeves "F*** 'em if they can't take a joke."

I want to carry openly (but can't living in Texas) and would if I could. Not to impress folks. Certainly not to scare 'em. Not to "make a point" either. I want to carry because things are getting more hairy (hairier?) by the day. I keep remembering the times I was packing as a security guard and was GLAD. I also remember the times WISHED I had been packing but was either not on duty or on an unarmed post.

Gonna spend a week in New Mexico in June. Plan to pack every day. Just to get used to it.

Oh, and to the guy who mentioned being able to tell a liberal because they talk about their fears, I reply, "Yes you can tell a liberal - but you CAN'T tell 'em much!"

dwayne chandler said...


Patrice said...

You notice there was no mention of cops "open carrying" in the WSJ article, why? Could it be that contrary to 'crazies' grabbing for openly-holstered guns wherever they 'appear' people in fact suddenly get more 'obedient' or at least more reserved in the presence of one wielding one - kinda like I get 'more obedient' on the highway when I see a cop's car in the vicinity.

Multiply the cop openly-carrying at the proverbial donut shop times dozens of citizens routinely doing so in any one business locale and you'd have the unWild-West, or New England or wherever. But, alas, dear choir-members, you already know the tune: "more guns equals less crime" concealed-or-not.

Patrice Stanton (Lenaburg)

Dan said...

While I never would intentionally intimidate another, I'm not going to allow somebody else to intimidate, shame, guilt or whine their way into forcing me to act as they see fit.

The open carry movement, I think, is more akin to the III percent letting the powers-that-be know we will stand up and be counted, peacefully first, but when pushed too far, we will push back.
I see it as a warning. Without the shot.

Unknown said...

"Do we really? Is it really in our interest to worry about whether we scare the straights or not?"


I do on occasion ask a "straight" if he is also frightened by pliers or hammers or power drills. My point, of course, is that a firearm is simply a tool. I was actually understood once.

The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit said...

Remember back when guys who carried concealed were presumed "bad" and ones who carried openly were presumed "good?" Aaah, the good old days.

So for anyone who talks about "losing freedoms," just make sure you answer the question before you start down the road - what are you going to do if they physically attempt to stop the exercise? As more open carry happens, more states are going to look - as California is - to restricting that carry. Are you ready, then, to defend your right against a state-employed agent who attempts to infringe on it?

Make sure you've got a good answer to that before you get all harumphy about "losing rights."

And no, I'm not going to "give" you an answer. Liberals "give" their followers stuff. Look at what examples like our host here or David Codrea do. Then decide for yourself. But at least be honest to make the decision and be ready to back it up.

Dreaming West said...

The only way to encourage open carry is to normalize it. The only way to normalize it is to make it common. The only way to make it common is to do it, whenever and wherever we can, in large numbers.

In short, no, that's a weak excuse for not open carrying. People who are afraid of inanimate objects need counseling and maybe medication. It's not our responsibility to kowtow to their irrational fears. Enabling their phobias is doing them a disservice, anyway. They need help and this will encourage them to get it.

Really, the biggest favor we can do for these people is carry as often as possible, and without fanfare. We need to normalize it and let them see that yes, Virginia, normal people do take responsibility for their own safety. And it's about as scary and exciting as seeing a carpenter with a hammer hanging from his tool belt.

Dreaming West said...

Anonymous, if they decide to try for more gun grabs, it won't be because of open carry. The only rights you have are the ones you aren't afraid to exercise. If you won't open carry because you're worried about upsetting the slaves, then you might as well be one yourself. They don't need more laws if people are too scared to behave lawfully. That's truly scary.

Anonymous said...

For some reason here in Texas we can't carry in the open. We can carry concealed if we get the government permission. I think that's pretty FUBAR myself. So as to not attract attention from the legal class I carry concealed without applying for government permission. I'm sure I will be in trouble if I have to defend myself or my wife but so be it. I would prefer to carry as I wish, concealed or open as the mood suits me. I will be working for this in the next Texas legislation session. I hope as the distrust grows with the governments actions in DC this will just get easier here.

Anonymous said...


Our job as I see it as RKBA advocates is to educate the masses about "tools" and what that word defined truly means.
The reason I don't fear guns but rather people is that I was educated about both guns and people and the differences between the two as a very young child.
When we can remake the image of guns, ie:as tools, then we will have made the first serious step towards preserving the right that the secound amendment so clearly defines.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that it is an exercise in de-sensitizing the public. For 40 years or more, the Second Amendment and carrying guns has been vilified by the media and we did not have other outlets. Today, with the internet, the truth can get out like in this very blog.

It is reminiscent of the City of Fort Worth and concealed carry there. In Texas, the state preempts municipalities from having stricter gun control laws so when the City put up metal detectors, I knew they could not keep concealed carriers out. Instead, they started a system of signing in when you entered. % years ago when that started, the police manning he metal detectors were very oppositional and even followed me throughout the City offices a time or two. Today however, they hardly give me a second look. They have become desensitized to the concealed carrying of guns. I feel sure that open carry would be the very same.
In exercising our open carry prerogative where possible, we are helping the public to accept the practice. Remember, it was not just the last straw that broke the camel's back, it took them all. Be a straw.


Brock Townsend said...

"......redneck, dangerous, militia types who are a social hazard."

Really? FU.

Dan in Calif. said...

My question is since when did they(the Hoplophobes)ever bother with the truth as a rationale for their arguments?

My rights come from G-d and if they don't like it,they should probably leave me and mine alone!


Ed Rasimus said...

Lest I be accused of leaving the field of conflict prematurely, let me note that I'm a proud gun-bearer in Texas where would conservatively estimate that one quarter of the adults that I encounter daily are carrying.

I ask simply what is to be gained by the flaunting? I can similarly offend panty-wetters by filling my conversation with four-letter crudities. I will be expressing my First Amendment freedoms but what will I be proving.

If there is something to be gained from open carry displays, I'll be happy to join the party but for now it seems a poor place to engage the battle.

As with all of our Constitutional freedoms, I will defend with my life (and I did actively for 23 years), your right to express them. If carrying openly to Starbuck's serves your purpose, go for it.

And after reading the entire op-ed piece when the mailman delivered my WSJ to the hinterland today, I've got to say it didn't seem much of a bed-wetter whimper to me.

The answer to Anonymous' query regarding whether I have a gun on me, is that of course I do...and one in the car and one in the desk and one in...Nevermind.

MamaLiberty said...

This whole idea of being accused of "disorderly conduct" or disturbing
the peace simply because some idiots are pathologically "uncomfortable"
with a holstered gun or slung rifle... needs to be directly addressed
by MUCH more than the statement that our activity is legal.

What we must hammer on is that nobody has any right whatsoever to be "comfortable" and that nobody has any obligation to alter their own peaceful and non-threatening actions to accommodate someone with an irrational fear of anything.

The mere possibility of someone being uncomfortable, or even actually frightened, cannot constitute any legitimate claim on our actions or choices as long as we are not actually threatening or harming anyone.

This point seems to have been totally lost almost everywhere. It is completely IMPOSSIBLE to conduct ourselves so that EVERYONE is at all times comfortable!! We cannot read their minds or anticipate their phobias.

There is no difference here with the thinking that, if we must have the filthy guns, we should be decent enough to hide them all the time.

When you think about it, the actual number of people in this part of the
country (the Midwest) who demonstrate real fear of guns is very, very small. Many from other places do not understand the law or the customs, but I've talked
to a great many of them and they usually respond positively to honest information. I've handed out hundreds of my "Why do you carry a gun" cards, and have only run into a very few who were overtly hostile.
[link to image of the card: ]

Dennis308 said...

I have But ONE Question,Why would the sight of a Law Abiding Citizen With A Firearm Scare You?
Unless You intend to Make that Citizen a Criminal by Outlawing Their Firearm or would condone such action by your own INACTION.
As for Myself I feel more comfortable and safe in the presence of Armed Patriots For They will Defend My Rights As I will Defend Theirs.
And whenever Kermit feels Frogy all he needs to do is jump.

TPaine said...

When you see a coffee shop full of open carriers, you also see a coffee shop that no bozo will consider as his next "hit-n-go" job. It is businesses who accept gun owners and produce proof that there is no danger to the public that demonstrate wisdom.

I could care less if anyone dislikes the fact I am sitting in a Starbucks with an XD-40 and a P-11, sipping my latte. What they should worry about is the guy in the alley outside the coffee shop who wants their purse, wallet and car keys.

J. Croft said...

So when and how do we norm our Rights back to open usage?

Do we have to ask a bureaucrat's permission before we can speak our minds, follow our beliefs, buy, sell, keep and bear arms?

It is because we have submitted to this crap over the past century that we're at a point where exercise of the Bill of Rights is tantamount to domestic terrorism.

Fortunately these types cling tightest to the beast. Let them stay there...

Anonymous said...

My inalienable rights are exactly that. They are not optionable by someone else or entity.

I cannot control nor will I assume responsibility for what someone else thinks or gets skerred of. That's on them.

It's not about 'feelings', it's about my personal God given right AND responsibility to defend myself, my family and my country.

Bob Katt

kylben said...

Taking council of our own fears is bad enough, taking council of the fears of others is moral suicide. We have zero control over others' fears, so if we allow it, those fears will have total control over us. And then, some wise guy will get the idea that if he could gin up those fears artifically, he could rule the world. Let's hope that never happens.... err...

The *only* way to overcome irrational fear is to confront it. Recoil from it and it only gets stronger.

Unknown said...

Phelps said "there is no good cop without a bad cop".

In other words, there are no absolutes in terms of how lefty/liberal/Obameites feeeeeeel. Of course we know that there are absolutes. Our rights are absolute. But, there is a point at which the less informed feeeeel that their safey is being jeopardized by us gun toters. So, hanging your hog leg on your hip is your right, no doubt about it. But you probably don't wear in in the shower or maybe mowing the lawn. So, there are situations wherein you can wear it and there are situations wherein you probably elect not to do so.

pdxr13 said...

They will get used to it. WE will demonstrate that carrying guns without a uniform and a badge is a little bit of a PITA, but the first time a known-and-released bad guy is killed in the street while committing a felony, the general public will turn the corner. A few opinion pieces in the local dead fishwrapper supporting safe (meaning holstered) open carry will help.

They will get used to it and some new fellows who were raised fatherless will also want to carry safely and effectively to defend when out.

To "legally" open-carry in Portland Oregon, I have to be carrying a concealed weapon permit. The cops will give grief without, and a warning to hide it better with. They are just going along to get along with the scared bunnies.


Ahab said...

What I wonder, and I have to wonder because the liberals in New England surely don't want anyone to know, is about any incidents in the land of the truly crazy, i.e., New England, where concealed carry proved of life saving correctness. Has anyone heard of any incidents where someone carrying concealed foiled an attempt to commit armed robbery, or murder?

Are there any incidents where an armed good guy shot and killed, or even wounded thereby bringing to an end, a felonious rampage that took place up North? That would certainly bring "rightness" to the argument.

Phil in Ohio said...

Here is another guy whose head we get to live in for free. Hahaha Phil

Anonymous said...

The logical end to what Ed says is that the press has the story pre-written-gun or no gun.

A tip of the boonie hat and a great big "F'in A!!" to Charlie. I primarily carry for myself-not as a political exercise. But if the open, peaceful, public exercise of my rights can offend those who expect me to meekly offer my liberty on the altar of niceness, or those who intend to take that liberty from me, then so much the better.

Screw having a nice day. Have a FREE day for a change.


straightarrow said...

Anon said "..... I also cannot ignore the fact that open carry proponents are in the extreme minority where I live, and trying to force the issue onto a populace that isn't ready for it would only result in stricter gun control laws. "

My question for him is how do we help them get ready for it, if we always hide it from them?

You can't normalize something by burying it in the backyard or hiding in the closet, or your pocket.

Son of Sam Adams said...

Well, since you phrased it that way... coming out of the closet hasn't hurt the gay cause any.

Anonymous said...

In a perfect world any honest law abiding person should be able to open carry. I am old enough to remember when you could do so in Massachussetts. However we live in a very imperfect world. The media is biased and at least one (perhaps both) of the parties in our two party system is dedicated to destroying our rights and constitution. All you need is a test case and a judge that favors your position. I am suggesting that we don't hand that to the enemies of the 2nd amendment. I am sure you have noticed how the liberal Supreme Court Judges who wished to retire choose NOT to retire when Bush was in office. Could an impartial judge make such a decision?? It is obvious the courts are stacked (by both sides just a lot more effectively by the left). If the SCOTUS becomes stacked in favor of the left (which seems likely) you do not want any 2nd amendment test cases going to them. There may be a time to scare the "paranoid crazies" but do not play into the hands of the left wing.

Anonymous said...

screw 'em. if they don't like having rights as a citizen here, then there are many, many socialist countries that would be glad to accept them as their newest citizen/victim.

Capt45 said...

In my state, TN, open carried is "allowed" if you have a conceal-carry permit. As a middle aged woman, I struggle with this issue and I can see merits in both sides. But more and more, I am tiring of'tip-toeing'in order to placate the hoplophobes. While I wasn't quite as active a radical as Mike, I was involved with leftist activists back during my high school and college days.

We are not going to change their minds with scholarly arguments or via the ballot box. They consider themselves 'higher life forms'. They will push us until we either give up or push back. They are not used to being shoved in return and this is why they're reacting as they are to the Tea Party, OathKeepers, Sipsey Street, et al.

Tomorrow is May Day. The left will be out in force over the Arizona law, so maybe it's a good day to resolve to open carry as a sort of "counter-protest" where you can.

I teach history and history teaches not pushing back empowers tyranny. I have at least 10 Patriot ancestors who stood firm and said "not one more inch".

They pushed back and I find I can do no less.

Anonymous said...

straightarrow said (about my comment) "My question for him is how do we help them get ready for it, if we always hide it from them?"

Good question, and I'm not sure of the answer.

A couple of weeks ago (or so) there was a front page story in our main state newspaper about open carry. Apparently a guy walked into a restaurant open carrying and got arrested for it not too long ago. The general understanding in this state (CT) is that carry permits are supposed to be "concealed" carry permits only, but apparently that is incorrect. The guy who was arrested won his court battle. So we can legally open carry in CT after all!

But, and here's my point in all this, this one guy caused quite a stir. There were state reps and state senators getting involved, talking about changing our gun laws so that they can protect the frantic public from mass anxiety - and they have the support of the public. Even many permit holders that I have spoken to think that open carry is a bad idea and they foolishly would not oppose new legal restrictions.

Thankfully the buzz seems to have calmed since the story broke, and I have not heard any new talk. But as one who lives in this state of socialist lemmings, I know what will happen when more of us start carrying openly. People here will not "get used to" seeing people carrying guns. Rather, they will yell, scream, faint, cut themselves and lock their children in the basement until their communist superheros in the legislature come to their rescue.

Right now in CT gun owners have it pretty good, as communist states go. It's easy to get carry permits, and aside from a few asinine assault weapon bans we can get pretty much what we want, relative to what most other states can get. (I just bought a Kel Tec Su-16ca, for example.) Considering who is in our legislature, that will change with any new gun laws. Call me whatever you want, but I don't consider it prudent to give the collectivists any more reason to come to our doors trying to collect firearms from someone like me who will not surrender them. While we desparately need to somehow inform the ignorant masses that guns in the hands of average folk is a good thing, I also don't think that it will be productive to scare the Borg public into creating a real crisis.


Anonymous said...

If we continue to allow our opponents to treat open carry as something unusual, radical, and fearsome, then we have already conceded a premise we need not grant. I open carry partly to help bring about the day when doing so is viewed as unremarkable, and the people who object to it as sufferers of mental illness.


Anonymous said...

In the coming civil war who will issue concealed carry permits and will it be OK to carry openly? And will it be OK to pick up a squad weapon that a commie dropped and haul it on yer mule or will ya need a permit? So many commies out there there's going to be a lot of work for SCOTUS, so much they won't get around to open carry concerns. Probably won't get around to Lincoln IIs suspension of Habeas Corpus either.
Tigers and lions and bears, oh My. Liberty is a lot of trouble when you got all them rights.

Anonymous said...

In the coming civil war who will issue concealed carry permits and will it be OK to carry openly? And will it be OK to pick up a squad weapon that a commie dropped and haul it on yer mule or will ya need a permit? So many commies out there there's going to be a lot of work for SCOTUS, so much they won't get around to open carry concerns. Probably won't get around to Lincoln IIs suspension of Habeas Corpus either.
Tigers and lions and bears, oh My. Liberty is a lot of trouble when you got all them rights.

patriot_ohio said...

Sorry, but last time I checked I lived in a FREE country where Constitutional Rights mean something to most people (except Judges, Law Enforcement and Hall Monitors).

I could care less what a bed wetting, pansy, liberal crybaby is afraid of. Or not.

Dan Galena said...

The Leftists, the Libs, the Progressives....those who want to deny fellow Americans their freedom....they will always be quick to ridicule those with beliefs different from their own.

What I can tell all of you from personal experience, is that ANYTHING one does out of the ordinary today, invites trouble by the Left AND the behemoth government. Sadly the Left and the government, at all levels, appears to be one and the same now.

Government is not our friend....and "government" is no more than some dirtbag who puts his pants on one leg at a time, like us.

Whatever we do today, "legal" or otherwise is risky business. Think twice before one acts.


Anonymous said...

When I lived in Alaska in the 70's everyone open carried and conceal carried without license. With few exceptions everyone you met while out in the great outdoors had a gun or two on them. Sometimes it was a revolver in a holster other times it was a semi in a back pocket. I neither saw nor heard of any abuse of this right. I'm not saying it never happened but apparently nothing serious enough to be talked about happened. How could this be? Alaskans were certainly no more civil or law abiding then citizens of other states. Why couldn't this work just as smoothly anywhere. Sure there are criminals and nuts everywhere but should we all be treated like criminals and nuts

TJP said...

Steve @ April 30, 2010 8:17 PM:

We have a plainly written right to arms here in the state of Connecticut; it has no modifiers. "Permits" are illegal taxing of a civil right. Carry, possession, sale, manufacture and trade of any sort is not in violation of the letter of the law, but many state agents and legislators are.

I had the dubious privilege--back in the 90s--of knowing the feeling of complete abandonment as I watched while supposed fellow "gun rights" (whatever those are) activists left me holding the standard on a shrinking island. I felt like the only person in the state who refused to violate my rights by seeking a "permit". Is that true?

This made me very bitter; I had discovered that I was apparently unique in the understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of my liberty. For more than a decade, I fostered an attitude that various "gun rights" organizations were taking money, living high and selling out low, and whenever someone claimed he supported the Second Amendment, I thought, "Yeah right, you probably don't even understand it."

I'm therefore as interested in people's understanding as I am in action; action without understanding is fractured and ineffective. I don't want people to think that effective defense of rights is the choice of either the passivity of giving money to a lobby group and holding hope, or the other extreme, which involves violence. There has to be a general understanding, and the day my trust is rebuilt, is the day I hear this: "No [fill in with state agent or media hive mind of your choosing], what you're doing is not legal by any stretch of the imagination. However, I remain in compliance because your illegal orders are backed by a threat of lethal violence. My respect for your rules is the reciprocal your reckless disregard for my liberties. Expect no cooperation from me, either in enforcing those illegal, immoral rules, or in collecting taxes under threat of force, in order to pay someone to enforce them."

In response to MBV's question: I don't intend to terrorize people, but I have no control of it, since to be terrorized is a state of mind. I make no specific threats, nor do my actions suggest any.

Defense can only be construed as a threat by those intent on assault.

Neil E. Wright said...

iving in AZ, I open carry frequently, even though I have a concealed weapons permit. And now that AZ has gone to CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY, I might, or might not, renew my CWP in a couple of years when it expires.

When I first moved back to AZ, I open carried all the time. During the snowbird season, some pants wetting liberalS from up north would call the PD and the PD would have to explain to said pants wetting liberal that in AZ it is LEGAL to carry openly ... :)