I’ve had the opportunity to test out the Alien Gear Tuck 3.0 IWB (inside the waistband) holster – and the the new Alien Gear MOD OWB (outside the waistband) holster. They are excellent holsters, each suited for different styles of carry, depending on your own requirements and preferred method of carry. I’ve been wearing the Tuck 3.0 IWB for about a month a half.
Alien Gear Tuck 3.0 IWB
The material selection and overall thought into the design of the Alien Gear Tuck 3.0 IWB is beyond excellent. I’ll get into that more in a moment, as well as cover 3 other areas: Comfort & Wearability, Retention & Access and Concealability.
The holster is a hybrid, which means they’ve paired multiple material types neoprene, their own ‘Alien-skin’, stainless steel retention plate, boltaron plastic shell, ballistic nylon clips and steel screws. They’ve put a lot of thought into the design of the holster. Let’s get into it.
Materials & Design
I honestly can’t think of any improvements in the choices they made for the materials. The backing is neoprene and a thermo-elastomer ‘Alien Skin’ texture. The neoprene side is the back, the side next to your body, and it’s very comfortable. It also doesn’t have issues with soaking sweat like leather, and has a little sponginess which adds to the comfort. The thermo-elastomer ‘Alien Skin’ is the textured outer layer of the backing and it aids with weapon retention, drag and durability.
Sandwiched inbetween the neoprene and thermo-elastomer Alien Skin is a stainless spring-steel plate to help with retention. The retention plate is opposite of the holster shell.
The holster shell itself is made of boltaron, which is kind of like kydex, but lighter and still very rigid. Each shell is molded based on the model of handgun. So for example a Glock 21 won’t fit in a shell made for a Springfield XD or a 1911 handgun shell. The good news for those that carry multiple types of handguns, is that the shell is swappable. If you were carrying a S&W Shield and now you want to carry your Sig Sauer, you can simply swap out the shell and you’re on your way. (You do have to order a shell for each gun type).
Finishing out the materials are ballistic nylon clips and steel screws. The ballistic nylon clips in my experience wearing this holster provide excellent retention and are still easy to get on and off.
The steel screws keep the ballistic nylon clips and the holster shell attached to the backing. The screws for the clips may need to be tightened with the provided hex key occasionally. In my experience, this was maybe once a week or less. Screws allow you to adjust the tension.
Comfort & Wearability
The Tuck 3.0 IWB is very comfortable to wear. I carry a full size handgun, so the weight is still the weight of a full size gun. One couldn’t honestly say “I didn’t even know it was there” because that comes with the turf carrying a full size handgun. However, the weight is distributed nicely with the Tuck 3.0, and the neoprene backing makes it quite comfortable.
Alien Gear recommends wearing the Tuck 3.0 inbetween the 4 & 5 O’Clock positions. I don’t prefer this style of carry myself. I like it around 3 O’Clock with a cant. The larger area of the backing does limit your ability to wear it more forward. You couldn’t appendix carry very easily, for instance, with the Tuck 3.0. This was my only mild negative in wearing this holster. It does have 3 holes for the ballistic nylon clips to attach to on each side. This allows you to raise or lower how high the holster rides inside your waistband. At first, I tried it lowered all the way. I didn’t like at all. So I raised one side all the way to give me the greatest angle of cant. This worked for the 3 O’Clock position. It’s a little more bulky than a single clip non-hybrid would offer because of the “wings” on the hybrid style, though it wasn’t too cumbersome for my preferences. Each of us has a way we prefer to carry, and the Tuck 3.0 does offer a great deal of flexibility in how you adjust it to meet your preference.
Weapon Retention & Access
The retention was excellent. I had absolutely zero concerns about my handgun not being retained properly while in the holster. Access, or drawing my handgun was easy. Re-holstering my handgun was a breeze. This is the advantage of hard plastic kind of shells over just neoprene or leather. With other holsters I’ve worn, I usually need to take off the holster, re-holster the handgun, and then re-attach the holster in my waistband. With Tuck 3.0, I was easily able to re-holster while it was still in my waistband.
In my opinion, this category of evaluating a holster system is extremely subjective. As noted, Alien Gear recommends carrying the Tuck 3.0 at 4 to 5 O’Clock. If you’re skinnier than I am, that may be perfect for you. I don’t like it, generally. If I do carry at 4 to 5 O’Clock, I need to have layers of clothing to wear over it, or a jacket that will cover it. Then, my concern with that style of carry, is exposure when bending over or squatting down. I like my handgun on my hip with a cant, my preferred style of carry, and the Tuck 3.0 does accommodate this pretty well. I’d love to see an option from Alien Gear that kept all the materials in the current design: neoprene backing with their ‘Alien Skin’ material that included the stainless steel retention plate and holster shell, but with a single clip instead of the wider 2 clip style that characterizes the hybrid design (for basically all hybrid holster manufacturers). [Are you writing this down, Alien Gear? 😉 ]
The Tuck 3.0 is still very concealable at the 3 O’Clock position, as-is. It does take a little longer to get on than a single-clip option. Sometimes I still opt for a simple IWB holster depending on how quickly I need to get out the door, where I’m going, etc. For my body type, I always need to think through what kind of clothing I’m wearing. I definitely can’t do just a t-shirt and call it good, and that would be the case for me with any style of carry or holster.
Overall Grade: A
They might be able to get an A+ if the single clip attachment is workable with this line. Maybe a Tuck 4.0, or Tuck Single Clip line.
Alien Gear MOD OWB:
I’ve worn the Alien Gear MOD OWB holster much less than the Tuck 3.0 IWB because I conceal carry unless I’m in the woods. I fully support those who wish to open carry in town, but that’s not my own preference. I have however worn the MOD OWB holster on several outdoor hikes, including an overnight hike with bivy/shelter style camping, and it was great!
Materials & Design
The major difference in material from the Tuck 3.0 is that the MOD OWB holster is not really a hybrid (it does have some kind of rubberized layer, so maybe technically it qualifies — but it doesn’t have the neoprene/’Alien Skin’ wings as attachment points for the ballistic nylon clips). It’s primarily hard plastic.
It comes with a paddle clip and an optional belt slide attachment. I opted to leave the paddle clip on. The paddle and belt slide attachment, holster back and holster shell are all hard plastic — I assume it’s all boltaron, like the holster shell, to keep the weight down.
There’s a stainless steel retention plate just like the Tuck 3.0 and it’s behind some sort of rubberized plastic layer. The rubberized layer and the holster shell are what retains your handgun. The rubberized layer gives it grip and aids in retention.
Finally, there are the steel screws and spacers which are adjustable for retention tightness. I found it to be excellent retention strength as it was sent to me from the factory.
Comfort & Wearability
Outside the waist carry is where it’s at for comfort, and I think anyone who’s done both IWB and OWB is aware of this fact. This is true regardless of holster I think. The MOD OWB is very comfortable. With the paddle clip, it’s a breeze to put on and take off, which is why I opted it that way. I found it does bend/flop over a little on my pants/belt with the paddle attachment. You’ll get better retention on your belt with the belt slide option, but sacrifice ease of getting on and off. It’s a matter of your preference.
Weapon Retention & Access
Weapon retention between the rubberized layer and holster shell is excellent. I have complete confidence the weapon will remain in MOD OWB holster. Drawing and re-holstering is also easy. The steel screws have spacers that allow you to adjust tightness to loosen or tighten to your preference. As noted, I left it as-is from the factory.
I wore this holster on an overnight hike and bivy/shelter camping trip. I hiked lightweight, and slept with my hiking gear, belt and the MOD OWB holster on. I was never concerned even slightly about retention. And this was with the paddle clip. If you changed out the attachment for belt slide one, this wouldn’t go anywhere until you wanted it to and took it off your belt.
I don’t really worry about concealment when I’m hiking in the woods. And I don’t open carry in town, so I’m not the best person to ask about concealing in this style of carry. I’ve seen people wear longer shirts over an outside the waistband style of carry, but in my opinion, this method is way less concealable than inside the waistband carry. I wouldn’t rate the MOD OWB holster high for concealability, but no less so than other OWB holsters. It’s simply a limitation in the style of carry.
Overall Grade: A+
I can’t imagine any way to improve the outside the waist carry option that Alien Gear offers in this holster.
Obama and anti-gun liberals everywhere are citing a National Journal article that features a chart that purports to show that states with more gun laws have less “gun deaths”. Obama said “States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens [to obtain guns] and criminals will still get their guns, is not borne out by the evidence.” There’s a problem with this claim though: it’s completely wrong.
The chart in National Journal ranks each state by their rate of “gun-related deaths” and a check list in column format showing whether each state has gun-restricting laws like waiting periods, state-level universal background checks, or requiring a gun permit to purchase a gun, and also laws that expand gun accessibility and use, like concealed-carry, or ‘right to carry’ laws and stand-your-ground laws. The chart’s is offered as the proof of the article’s title: The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths.
There are several problems with this article and its chart: it includes suicides by gun to account for the vast majority (over two-thirds) of “gun deaths” which gun control policy doesn’t even remotely address, it employs gross distortion of the facts, focuses on gun homicides while ignoring the overall homicide rate in each state, and disingenuously includes “lawful” gun deaths by law enforcement and citizens who have lawfully defended themselves with a gun. It also completely ignores the other side of the coin, which is that according to the CDC and other Federal agencies, people lawfully use their gun to defend themselves, reduce injury and save lives far more often than people are murdered regardless of what means is used to murder (knives, guns, blunt objects, etc.). Even the most restrictive, conservative estimates show self-defense far outpaces murder in America.
Gun control doesn’t address suicide deaths
The largest problem is the National Journal article relies on suicide numbers to make “gun deaths” seem like an epidemic related to crime like gangland shootings and Roseburg, OR shooting at Umpqua Community College. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show 8,124 firearms homicides, 444 justifiable homicides by law enforcement and 277 justifiable homicides by civilian in 2014. The CDC reports 505 accidental gun deaths and 21,175 gun suicides out of approximately 41,149 total annual suicides (page 22, Table 10, full PDF linked below) in 2013. There is some debate about access to guns resulting in successful suicide attempt versus other means, but unless anti-gun rights activists are taking the position that all guns should be outlawed and confiscated and destroyed, then this is a disingenuous point to quibble over. To date, very few gun control advocates are brazen enough to suggest repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating all firearms.
There are several problems with including suicide gun deaths in the total when pushing for gun control policy like universal background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, banning certain types of firearms, so-called “smart” gun technology, micro-stamping bullet casings, increasing waiting periods, or any of the other policies advocated to-date by gun control activists.
First, gun control advocates don’t actually at all about suicides. Anti-gun rights activists have been documented admitting that suicides are not their problem, nor are they interested in solving the issue of suicides. Falsely conflating suicides with gun homicides just a convenient way to make it appear that gun crime is three times as bad as it actually is. Which begs the question: if the anti-gun rights Left believed the facts support their case, then why do they feel compelled in exaggerate the facts and conflate data to make their case?
Second, the empirical data for suicide rates overall in the U.S. compared to gun sales rates do not logically support the idea that less guns results in less suicide. Gun sales have skyrocketed over recent years (with estimates ranging from 310 to 350 million), while suicide rates in the U.S. have plummeted. We have more guns and less suicide, which is the exact opposite correlation from the false narrative promoted by gun control advocates like Obama. Internationally, many nations with very strict gun control have much higher suicide rates than the U.S. does, which cannot be attributed to more guns in those nations. Japan, for instance, which virtually no gun ownership and no gun homicides but almost double the U.S. suicide rate. Australia, which is frequently referred to as a shining example of gun control in a developed nation, has higher suicide per capita than the U.S. does (13.8 per 100k vs 10.1 per 100k in the U.S.). The data does not support the claim that fewer guns results in less suicide. A Harvard-published study of 36 developed nations by professors Kates and Mauser found there is no link between gun availability and suicide rates.
Third, there is no gun control policy proposal that would logically reduce suicides. Magazine capacity restrictions? How many bullets over 1 does it take to suicide? How could a person even attempt to commit suicide by firing a weapon even 10 times, which is the current policy being advocated, much less a full 30 times? How would universal background checks solve suicide? What stops a person from passing the check, maybe years prior to attempting suicide, and then committing suicide later? The problem of waiting periods also suffers from the same issue: how does a five or 10 day waiting period stop a suicide attempt after they’ve passed the waiting period and now have possession of the gun? How would micro-stamping, which simply marks the bullet casing with a unique mark, prevent suicide? How would banning certain types of guns prevent suicide? Suicide has been successful even with .22LR, which is about the smallest, least-powerful bullet caliber available. The fact that anti-gun rights activists do not have a single proposal that would actually address suicide demonstrates that this is not an issue that genuinely concerns them.
President Obama’s was implying if only obstinate gun clingers would just get out of the way and let the benevolent benefactors on the Left implement some “common-sense gun controls”, then we’d see less mass murders like the Roseburg, OR shooting at Umpqua Community College. He asserted that states with more gun laws are somehow safer. But Obama’s comments have been criticized by the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, who gave Obama “Two Pinocchios” which means “Significant omissions and/or exaggerations”. This is again largely because suicides are unrelated to gun control laws. The Washington Post cited academic studies (including by authors from Harvard and Boston University) that “have shown little connection between suicides and access to guns,” and “A 2004 report published by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.” The Post recalculated the chart taking out suicides and found no correlation between gun laws and gun deaths: some highly restrictive gun law states had high gun deaths, and some states with comparatively looser gun laws had fewer gun deaths. They note there is a mix and academics disagree on whether there is an overall trend.
Homicides or just gun homicides?
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh (author at the Volokh Conspiracy) wrote a response in the Washington Post titled “Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws”, where he writes “it turns out that there is essentially zero correlation between [homicide] numbers and state gun laws.” Professor Volokh’s approach is more honest when talking about crime reduction as he focuses on homicide rates overall, not just homicides committed with a gun. There are two common tactics by the anti-gun rights Left: one is to conflate gun homicides with other non-criminal gun deaths and refer to it as “gun-related” or simply “gun deaths” while they are purportedly advocating reducing crime. The other is to ignore other methods of homicides and focus solely on homicides committed by a gun, as if that somehow not crime, or that it is uniquely worthy of your moral outrage, where murder by any other means is somehow not. Murder doesn’t exist in a vacuum however, and focusing on one instrument by which it is carried out is morally bankrupt and intellectually inane.
Lawful interventions disingenuously included
There is additional criticism that both the Washington Post Fact Check and professor Volokh did not address. Neither tackles the fact that the National Journal chart includes lawful intervention in the context of criminal activity. The key here is that Obama and others on the anti-gun rights Left argue and/or imply that more restrictive gun laws will reduce criminal gun activity (“…criminals will still get their guns, is not borne out by the evidence.”).
Lawful intervention may be either by law enforcement or by law-abiding citizens. Neither is criminal activity. Do anti-gun rights activists want the police to not intervene to stop crime? Including lawful interventions as part of nefarious-sounding “gun deaths” is the height of duplicity. No crime is occurring when lawful intervention results in the death of (a criminal) by use of a gun.
Further, what is not considered in the anti-gun rights equation is the number of instances where guns are lawfully used for self-defense. According to the CDC, lawful self-defense with a gun occurs a minimum of 500,000 times annually, deters crime and reduces injury to potential victims when they use a gun for their own defense. Other academic criminologists have put the number of defensive gun uses much higher. Other studies found the number of instances to be 1.5 million annually (and higher). Whatever the accurate number is, anti-gun rights activists have completely ignored the lives saved with a gun, while fraudulently including gun suicides as justification for how bad “crime” is.
There is no clear link between gun control restrictions and reducing suicides, in fact, the empirical evidence shows quite the opposite correlation. Even if there were a clear link, there is no gun control policy being pushed that could be logically expected to reduce suicides. What is being promoted by the anti-gun rights Left is misinformation, cherry-picked partial information, and half-truths to outright falsehoods.
Criminal violence and mass murder are problems that we ought to work towards reducing. In point of fact, child homicides in schools, the national homicide rate overall, and violent crime nationally have dropped by half since the early 1990’s. It’s a good start. More could be done, but not by promoting falsehoods and misinformation. We ought to increase lawful gun carry, which is the CDC reports deters crime and is supported by law enforcement, and we should end completely ineffective “gun free” zones. We ought to address the underlying causes of violence, including drug abuse, the drug trade, gangs, poverty (especially urban poverty), and other factors that lead to increased crime per capita in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s). Exploiting tragedies to push false narratives doesn’t genuinely help anyone.
AUSTIN — The Texas State legislature has passed open carry and campus carry in Texas. The Senate gave its final approval to open carry, voting 20-10 in favor for a bill that allows licensed gun permit holders to openly carry handguns. Texas currently recognizes the concealed handgun licenses issued in more than 40 states, and license holders from those states will be allowed to openly carry in Texas once it becomes law. The Senate also approved legislation requiring the state’s public universities to allow handguns in dorms, classrooms and campus buildings. The campus carry bill only allows concealed handgun license holders to carry their firearms on campus, and private universities would be allowed to opt out. Other places where concealed carry is currently not authorized remains the same.
Texas has about 850,000 concealed handgun license holders, a number that has increased sharply in recent years.
An amendment – the so-called Dutton Amendment – was removed by the Committee Conference. The amendment would have prohibited police officers from stopping someone solely because they are openly carrying a handgun. However, some legislators argued earlier this week that court rulings already prohibit such investigatory stops.
Texas’ prohibition on openly carrying handguns dates to the post-Civil War era, and was aimed at disarming former Confederate soldiers as well as freed slaves. Gun rights advocates have argued open carry is about personal protection, though anti-gun rights groups, like Moms Demand Action, have claimed open carrying of handguns is about intimidation. Prior to Texas passing this bill, open carry was already legal in 44 states where intimidation by open carriers is not an issue. OpenCarry.org lists a number of quotes from law enforcement officials that were initially skeptical about open carry in their state, but found it not to be a public safety problem.
Notwithstanding, some liberal politicians and anti-gun rights activists made hysterical statements about passing open carry in Texas. Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis (D – Houston) said he fears violence on the streets, stating “I hope we don’t have a host of Texans running around with a Rambo mentality.” Nevermind that the Texas law only allows already-licensed gun owners who have been concealed carrying in Texas for years to openly carry, or that none of the other 44 states that allow open carry have issues with open carry “Rambos”. Sandy Chasse, from the Texas chapter of Moms Demand Action, said “There is no evidence to show the open carry of handguns makes Texas safer.” Since open carry is only now set to become legal in January of 2016, there is no empirical evidence that open carry does anything one way or another, because it’s never occurred previously. We do have empirical evidence from 44 other states however that open carry hasn’t make the people in those states less safe. Further the CDC found that lawful gun carry is a deterrent to crime, reduces injury to potential victims and saves lives. All available evidence suggests that open carry in Texas will only make Texas safer. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed. Texas State Senator, Joan Huffman (R – Houston) said, “I think what we’re talking about here are responsible citizens who are trained who have gone through a background check and we will expect them to act responsibly.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has already said he will approve the open carry bill. Once the final approval from the Texas legislature was final, he tweeted the bill’s next destination is “My Pen”.
The full text of the open carry bill is here:
An Islamic terrorist mass murder plot was stopped. A free speech event outside of Dallas, Texas was targeted by Muslim terrorists with possible links to ISIS. The event in Garland, Texas featured controversial cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. The suspects traveled from Phoenix, Arizona. Police searched the suspects residence in Phoenix in connection with the case. The suspects were armed with semi-automatic rifles and wore body armor.
The shooting is drawing comparisons to similiar attacks in other Western nations. Reuters reported:
The shooting incident in the Dallas suburb of Garland was an echo of past attacks or threats in other Western countries against images depicting the Prophet Mohammad. In January, gunmen killed 12 people in the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in what was said to be revenge for its cartoons.
The main difference between the Texas Mohammed cartoon drawing and the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, France over Mohammed cartoon drawings is that in America we have guns. Security for the event was worked out months in advance. The organization hosting the event paid an additional $10,000 for security to have the facility guarded by FBI and ATF officers, and local police. Both suspects were shot and killed by a traffic officer working after-hours as security for the event; he was armed with .45 caliber Glock handgun.
Texas cartoon shooting suspects
ISIS has claimed responsibility for the the attack. One of the suspects had declared loyalty to ISIS, and was convicted in 2011 of making a false statement involving international and domestic terrorism. He had planned to travel to Somalia to engage in “violent jihad”. Court records show he was sentenced to three years of probation. Prior to the attack in Texas, he tweeted “May Allah accept us as mujahideen.”
Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who attended the event said: “We will never allow barbarism. New leadership is required to defend freedom of speech.”
Analysis: Free Speech
Some are blaming the event sponsors for the deaths of the terrorists. This ignores personal responsibility for ones actions, and that being offended is no justification to murder other people. Nearly everyone in a free society could potentially be offended by someone else’s choices, words or actions. That’s the pricetag of our freedom: another’s liberty may not be our own liking. But in a civilized society, we don’t kill or condone killing of others simply because of being offended. No, the people responsible for the terrorists deaths are the terrorists themselves. It used to be that good guys cheered when the bad guys lost, instead of blaming the bad guys deaths on someone else. Failing to see it correctly as such is because of the infection of so-called “political correctness”, which is really merely an scheme by which certain types of thought and speech are sanctioned (as “correct”), while suppressing others. Thinking people who value liberty and freedom ought to reject the illogical, inane, and stunted thought sanctioned under so-called political correctness. We certainly should not make excuses for terrorists intent on murdering people who simply offend them with art or their words.
Gun control France saw Muslim terrorists with fully automatic weapons kill a dozen people for being offensive (of note: Christians and Jews were also mocked by the Charlie Hebdo publication, but no Christians or Jews killed anyone or even threatened to). But in the United States, any law-abiding citizen can own a Glock .45 handgun, the same type of gun used to kill the Muslim terrorists in Texas. This is rightly called justifiable homicide. According to the FBI, there were 410 justifiable homicides by police in 2012, and another 310 by civilians. However, not all lawful defensive gun uses result in death: According to the CDC, guns are used for self-defense a minimum of 500,000 times per year. Obviously, most of these defensive gun uses do not result in justifiable homicide (like this one). The moral of the story is: The bad guys always find a way to get a gun, whether with fully automatic guns in gun control France, or with guns in gun control Chicago. Failing that, the determined find another way to hurt innocent people, sometimes with fertilizer bombs, sometimes with box cutters and commercial airliners. Making good people helpless, as in Paris, France, doesn’t make the bad guys harmless. But when people are armed for their self-defense, whether off-duty (or on duty) cops – or civilians, they can stop bad guys, often before lots of good people get hurt. In Texas, many lives were saved because a planned mass murder by Muslim terrorists was stopped by a good guy with a gun.
Yakima, WA — A felony assault charge was filed against the man who attacked a Wal-Mart shopper with a baseball bat. The victim, 32-year-old Brandon Walker, was shopping with three children while lawfully openly carrying a handgun on his person. Police say he was the victim of an unprovoked assault by Trevor Zumwalt who struck him with a metal bat. According to statements, Walker and Zumwalt did not know each other and did not exchange any words before Zumwalt attacked Walker. It seems that Zumwalt, at 5 feet, 6 inches, attacked much larger Walker at 6 foot, 1 inch and 360 pounds because he was openly carrying a firearm.
It’s a strange case. Imagine you’re Walker, taking your son to buy a baseball bat. You imagine it’s going to be a quick trip in and out of the store. It’s hot, so you decide to leave your jacket – which normally conceals your handgun – in your car, and then are attacked with a bat. Video from the store’s security system shows Zumwalt pick up a metal bat from a rack and struck Walker in the shoulder. Walker said he drew his .357 Sig Sauer handgun and ordered Zumwalt to the floor. Walker kept the gun on Zumwalt, asking store employees to call police, and he holstered his gun only when officers arrived.
According to an interview with Bearing Arms, Walker said the only thing that makes sense is that he was attacked because of openly carrying his handgun. Mr. Walker believes that Zumwalt may have wanted to take the firearm. Bearing Arms also reported that one of Zumwalt’s friends “contacted Mr. Walker via Facebook, and thanked him for showing restraint. According to her [Zumwalt] has long had a history of mental illness, and has never gotten the help that he needs.”
Open carry is lawful in Washington state. Concealed carry is licensed on what is known as a “shall-issue” basis, meaning Washington state will grant a license to anyone who passes the FBI background check. The background check is used to verify there is no legal reason to bar firearm possession, like prior felony convictions. Walker had a concealed carry weapon (CCW) license, which wasn’t necessary since it is lawful to openly carry without one. Walker, who normally carries concealed, says that he will not open carry again. He said he already has a firearm picked out for the summer months ahead, and from now on, he’ll only open carry at the gun range.
Debate runs within the gun community over whether to open-carry or concealed-carry firearms in public. Walker said he thought it was going to be a quick shopping trip, but it ended up being potentially serious by being targeted ostensibly because he was openly carrying. Open carry advocates say they like to open carry to reduce stigma of carrying, and to reduce potential for crime on the reasoning that a criminal is less likely to attempt a crime where people are openly carrying firearms. Advocates of concealed carry say it helps the individual maintain anonymity precisely so that they don’t stand out as a target while keeping the tactical advantages of being armed combined with the element of surprise should they need to draw their firearm.
What do you say?