OC in Minnesota is not constitutionally guaranteed and as such is a right that can be abrogated by a change in the legislative winds. The fact that few if any on this forum agree with that is beside the point because our job title doesn't include the word "judge." At this juncture, a change for the worse in the carry law appears unlikely. I would hope it stays that way.

Consider the parallels however:

* The recent closure of vast swaths of public land in Minnesota to ATVs. Done in the name of water quality and soil conservation, the real reason was that the hikers, adjacent landowners, xc skiers, the DNR, the iron range ER docs, and the traditional (on foot) hunters were fed up with the noise, injuries, and trail damage.

* The new legislation restricting personal watercraft that was enacted a few short years after these craft became popular, the reason being that too many operators had the attitude that "it's a public lake" and "the right of way rules let me do xxx if I want to."

* In Florida, a requirement to conceal was passed during the legislative session following the adoption of Florida's landmark carry permit legislation, because widespread open carry was perceived as disruptive by the public at large.

No doubt there are others.

Open carry in places like, say, the Edina Byerly's or the skyways in St. Paul fires up the anti-gun base and sets them about writing editorials, calling their representatives, senators, and congresscritters, and making donations to the Brady campaign.

OC in Minnesota is not constitutionally guaranteed and as such is a right that can be abrogated by a change in the legislative winds. The fact that few if any on this forum agree with that is beside the point because our job title doesn't include the word "judge." At this juncture, a change for the worse in the carry law appears unlikely. I would hope it stays that way.

Consider the parallels however:

* The recent closure of vast swaths of public land in Minnesota to ATVs. Done in the name of water quality and soil conservation, the real reason was that the hikers, adjacent landowners, xc skiers, the DNR, the iron range ER docs, and the traditional (on foot) hunters were fed up with the noise, injuries, and trail damage.

* The new legislation restricting personal watercraft that was enacted a few short years after these craft became popular, the reason being that too many operators had the attitude that "it's a public lake" and "the right of way rules let me do xxx if I want to."

* In Florida, a requirement to conceal was passed during the legislative session following the adoption of Florida's landmark carry permit legislation, because widespread open carry was perceived as disruptive by the public at large.

No doubt there are others.

Open carry in places like, say, the Edina Byerly's or the skyways in St. Paul fires up the anti-gun base and sets them about writing editorials, calling their representatives, senators, and congresscritters, and making donations to the Brady campaign.

What this is crazy talk you are so naive! Maybe one of the soccer mom's at Byerly's will ask what load you think has the best stopping power in your 44 on your hip. Ever think of that, bet you didnt.

Site owner hat on:
Chill. Argue your position; attack other positions, if you like. Don't attack other people. You've got something to contribute here; it'd be a shame if you got yourself locked out for not following the rules.
Site owner hat off:
This isn't a new issue here. It's fine to discuss it, honest, but if you think that you've got new insights that others haven't run into before, you're not overly likely to be right, all in all.

"New-Insights" means you are stirring a sh*tpot that has boiled over numerous times... Some take a few min searching "open carry" and you will see that. It's not new ground.

Roger that, I will stand down. I like hearing lots of opinions.

Like I said I have been lurking here reading this stuff for a while, for some reason I felt compelled to jump into the fray. It’s a good forum, don’t need to raise everyone’s blood pressure more. I made my point.

Well done...

Just don't go starting posts about: 9mm vs. .40 cal vs. .45, Carrying +1 or Unchambered, Glock vs. 1911, and Joe Penaz, and you might get out alive.

Sir, it was tong-in-cheek to Mostly Harmless. I was not attacking anyone. I apologize if one of my comments appeared inappropriate. I meant no disrespect.

I don’t get the “new insights” comment but hey that’s cool whatever.

If you feel you need to ban me from the board that’s ok too, it’s your house.

I pro carry either ccw/oc but it’s all in the audience, IE where appropriate. I just don’t want to have to revert back to the dark years where no one could carry. That’s how I feel Sir.