View Full Version : Another OC vs LEO
This one actually goes better than the Texas black powder arrest.
but still not exactly smooth sailing.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/14/see-what-happens-when-a-pair-of-girls-open-carry-in-a-walmart-hint-it-involves-the-police/
This is simple harassment. If a leo doesn't know that open carry is legal in Missouri, he should seek another line of work. Whoever called this in to the police in the first place should have immediately been informed that open carry is legal here.
Hey guys,
Are you all aware that if this kind of approach towards gun rights continues that someone will eventually get shot by a responding officer?
In regards to the video:
When the hell did a U.S. passport become a questionable form of identification?
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 00:19
Open carry is stupid enough said.
Pat
Opinions are like Alaskapopos.
Everybody's got one.
Open carry is stupid enough said.
Pat
Honestly, some of the stuff you say really makes me wonder about you... Please, regale us with a wonderful explanation of why the right to keep and bear arms in a public setting is stupid. I can not wait to hear the reasons you have behind this opinion.
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 00:50
Honestly, some of the stuff you say really makes me wonder about you... Please, regale us with a wonderful explanation of why the right to keep and bear arms in a public setting is stupid. I can not wait to hear the reasons you have behind this opinion.
It has been covered before and I am not the only one against it even on this forum.
1. It gives away your tactical advantage.
2. It scares the sheep.
Most open carry advocates don't carry openly for self defense they do so for attention and they hope for a confrontation like this with the police. Sooner or later its going to end badly. This is not the type of attention we need for the second amendment. Open carry types are their own worst enemy because they are not generating support for their cause but rather generating quite the opposite even among other gun owners.
Want to make a statement put a bumper sticker on your car. Want to be a responsible armed citizen carry concealed. Wonder about be all you want I really don't care.
Pat
I don't care if others on the forum, in my city, or John Moses Browning himself happen to be against it. It's still my legal right to do so, and I do not care if other people aren't a fan of it. The only legitimate argument that I have heard denouncing open carry is the loss of tactical advantage, and that's easily countered with the potential for deterrence. Do you think that an armed guard in a bank loses "the drop" on the crooks, or serves to prevent the issue from coming up in the first place. The thread doesn't need to devolve into an OC debate because you won't be changing my mind any time soon and I know that I won't be changing yours.
The fact that there have been repeated reported instances of OC issues and ignorant LEOs. The problem is not people needing to change their law abiding behavior, but the people tasked with enforcing the law actually knowing what their doing. I understand that between state and municipal codes this is a huge task, but I also understand that I work in one of the most heavily regulated fields in the nation (finance) and ignorance of the law doesn't work as a defense for me. It shouldn't for them either. I screw up, I lose my licenses, get fired, fined, bared from working in the industry, or go to prison. You better believe that continuing education is a major part of my life. I can't see how the same should not be relevant in law enforcement. I know there are a ton of great LEOs out there. My mother was one of them. It just seems like a few bad apples seem to have the mindset that the law is whatever they feel it is at the moment. That sets dangerous precedent if your dealing with uninformed members of the public who don't know the exact law, and simply move forward with what they're told.
Case in point, a friend today "warned me" about a knife I had purchased with a 2.75" blade as being illegal for carry in Seattle. A policeman had told him the limit was 2.5" and he took it as gospel. I had to walk my buddy through the Municipal Code section on weapons and show him the section defining a dangerous knife (prohibited for carry) as one with a blade in excess of 3.5" fixed or folding. The man simply heard something and given the authority position of the person telling him, he accepted it as "the law" when it was clearly wrong.
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 01:17
I don't care if others on the forum, in my city, or John Moses Browning himself happen to be against it. It's still my legal right to do so, and I do not care if other people aren't a fan of it. The only legitimate argument that I have heard denouncing open carry is the loss of tactical advantage, and that's easily countered with the potential for deterrence. Do you think that an armed guard in a bank loses "the drop" on the crooks, or serves to prevent the issue from coming up in the first place. The thread doesn't need to devolve into an OC debate because you won't be changing my mind any time soon and I know that I won't be changing yours.
The fact that there have been repeated reported instances of OC issues and ignorant LEOs. The problem is not people needing to change their law abiding behavior, but the people tasked with enforcing the law actually knowing what their doing. I understand that between state and municipal codes this is a huge task, but I also understand that I work in one of the most heavily regulated fields in the nation (finance) and ignorance of the law doesn't work as a defense for me. It shouldn't for them either. I screw up, I lose my licenses, get fired, fined, bared from working in the industry, or go to prison. You better believe that continuing education is a major part of my life. I can't see how the same should not be relevant in law enforcement. I know there are a ton of great LEOs out there. My mother was one of them. It just seems like a few bad apples seem to have the mindset that the law is whatever they feel it is at the moment. That sets dangerous precedent if your dealing with uninformed members of the public who don't know the exact law, and simply move forward with what they're told.
Case in point, a friend today "warned me" about a knife I had purchased with a 2.75" blade as being illegal for carry in Seattle. A policeman had told him the limit was 2.5" and he took it as gospel. I had to walk my buddy through the Municipal Code section on weapons and show him the section defining a dangerous knife (prohibited for carry) as one with a blade in excess of 3.5" fixed or folding. The man simply heard something and given the authority position of the person telling him, he accepted it as "the law" when it was clearly wrong.
It is still stupid and most of the guys I see doing it are arrogant asses going around with slung rifles and video cameras looking for a confrontation. With that type of image its not going to be long before people start to want to repeal these types of laws. Also so what a cop got the knife law wrong by one inch. We make mistakes too. We obviously disagree and I don't feel like debating this tired topic.
Pat
"We make mistakes too"
Most brilliant defense of a position ever. I believe my point soared over your head, or you simply chose to ignore it. Best of luck to you.
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 01:20
"We make mistakes too"
Most brilliant defense of a position ever. I believe my point soared over your head, or you simply chose to ignore it. Best of luck to you.
So you never make mistakes?
Pat
So you never make mistakes?
Pat
At work? They're a rare effing sight... Think I might have had a paperwork error a couple of years back that I caught before sending everything out. Like I said, I screw up and there are consequences. I love what I do, and I plan on doing so for a few more years. So I make sure my things are right before anything goes out.
The example I gave wasn't missing a line on a ticket or driving at the wrong speed. That cop would have arrested someone for a legally carried knife because of ignorance of the law. What if the mistake was the other way, and lead to an arrest and misdemeanor weapons charge? It's a job with a hell of a lot of responsibility. If someone's going to sign up for it, they should be prepared for that.
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 01:33
At work? They're a rare effing sight... Think I might have had a paperwork error a couple of years back that I caught before sending everything out. Like I said, I screw up and there are consequences. I love what I do, and I plan on doing so for a few more years. So I make sure my things are right before anything goes out.
The example I gave wasn't missing a line on a ticket or driving at the wrong speed. That cop would have arrested someone for a legally carried knife because of ignorance of the law. What if the mistake was the other way, and lead to an arrest and misdemeanor weapons charge? It's a job with a hell of a lot of responsibility. If someone's going to sign up for it, they should be prepared for that.
Ok so your next to perfect at work. Congrats. Also I doubt anyone would have been arrested based on the knife law you quoted as we tend to check the statutes before making arrests. Its when people ask you questions in casual conversation that mistakes can happen. The one you mentioned is so very slight as not to be even considered. 1 freaking inch come one really? Yes its a job with a lot of responsibility and relatively low pay. That said your not always going to get perfect answers from street level cops on every law on the books.
Pat
Are you all aware that if this kind of approach towards gun rights continues that someone will eventually get shot by a responding officer?
And who's fault would that be?
so is LEO trampling on peoples rights !
Open carry is stupid enough said.
Pat
I don't agree with open carry (for the most part) but this officer was out of line. There was no crime committed so I don't understand why there was a compelling need to produce I.D, especially from those that weren't even involved in the initial contact.
The best option is to file a formal complaint and consult a lawyer since they were being detained with no explanation as to why.
When the officer answers "I don't know" when the guy asked if he was suspected of something is outright plain stupid.
I think U.S. v. DeBerry and Brown v. Texas would be two good starting points.
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 03:05
I don't agree with open carry (for the most part) but this officer was out of line. There was no crime committed so I don't understand why there was a compelling need to produce I.D, especially from those that weren't even involved in the initial contact.
The best option is to file a formal complaint and consult a lawyer since they were being detained with no explanation as to why.
When the officer answers "I don't know" when the guy asked if he was suspected of something is outright plain stupid.
I think U.S. v. DeBerry and Brown v. Texas would be two good starting points.
Had a PD officer act the same here on WA at store parking lot. I was actually off duty but was shopping. Saw the altercation, identified myself and spoke with the officer. He called me an idiot for supporting his suspect, yeah guy was OC, a. 44mag in a chest holster getting supplies for hunting camp complete with his dogs. I said to him he was a disrespectful and ignorant twit. Guess who is no longer a PD cop, got to love where I live. If you don't like guns stay out of N. ID and E. WA.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
The only times I OC'd when I was in WA was when I was camping or on some occasions when I was doing bailbonds. Other than that I kept it covered. Which was pretty easy to do since it is cool most of the time. I never really ran into any crazy cops as far as firearms were concerned.
Had a PD officer act the same here on WA at store parking lot. I was actually off duty but was shopping. Saw the altercation, identified myself and spoke with the officer. He called me an idiot for supporting his suspect, yeah guy was OC, a. 44mag in a chest holster getting supplies for hunting camp complete with his dogs. I said to him he was a disrespectful and ignorant twit. Guess who is no longer a PD cop, he is Got to love where I live. If you don't like guns stay out of N. IS and E. WA.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 04:12
The only times I OC'd when I was in WA was when I was camping or on some occasions when I was doing bailbonds. Other than that I kept it covered. Which was pretty easy to do since it is cool most of the time. I never really ran into any crazy cops as far as firearms were concerned.
Yeah, I think the best option is to always keep things covert. No sense displaying your show cards to the other players. But on the same token I can't stand an officer that violates the rights of a fellow citizen either through ignorance or disdain. He got what he deserved for being a heavy handed thug starting an issue where there was none.
Personally, a. 44 for CCing is a stretch, but OC, not a problem if I was a hunter. ;-)
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
polymorpheous
09-16-13, 05:18
The left regularly use this tactic to make whatever agenda they're pushing the norm.
Look at the homosexual agenda.
It is in your face, and being more and more accepted by mainstream population.
Eurodriver
09-16-13, 07:42
The left regularly use this tactic to make whatever agenda they're pushing the norm.
Look at the homosexual agenda.
It is in your face, and being more and more accepted by mainstream population.
Saw a video on YouTube yesterday. It had 7,000,000+ views and was titled "Home Depot Wedding Proposal"
Thought it looked cool so I clicked. The description said something like "Bob had no idea what to expect when he walked into HOme Depot today".
My first thought was "Wow, a woman proposing? odd."
As soon as I saw a man get on his knee in front of the other man I shut it off. I guess they haven't converted me yet.
What I won't understand is why the left gets to do anything they want: attack ads, in-your-face promotion, etc but the second we do anything of the sort we are stopped by the "We are better than they are" and "That will just make it worse" crowd. The bottom line is that shit works. Its why even the left acknowledges the NRA being viewed as a "mainstream" organization. Because they put themselves out there.
Belmont31R
09-16-13, 07:54
OC should be legal just to protect people who conceal carry from getting charged if their shirt rides up or some other issue.
Just because you might be hassled by the police for doing something legal doesn't make that act wrong. Another case of blaming the victim for someone else's actions. All these people with cameras wouldn't be putting videos on YouTube if they had been allowed to go about their way doing something perfectly legal.
As pointed out, the gays have been pushing with in your face antics for a long time. If we had politicians with half the balls of the left we'd be a lot better off. If we supported each other instead of dividing ourselves we'd be a lot better off.
I don't agree with open carry (for the most part) but this officer was out of line. There was no crime committed so I don't understand why there was a compelling need to produce I.D, especially from those that weren't even involved in the initial contact.
But you see, he needs to determine if there is any way a crime is being committed and therefore he has to run your ID in order to see if there's anything he can arrest you for since you aren't actually doing anything technically wrong at the moment. :p
While I'm not a big fan of OC, I'm starting to think I'm glad someone is doing it, while we still have the right to. If we don't excercise that right, sooner or later someone else is going to take it away (Look at the NFA fiasco for example). I'm buying an SBR/Supressor not because I need it, but I feel I should exercise the right to do so...
A similar situation happened nearby a couple of days ago. I'm not sure if it went national or not. I'm not sure how I feel about people pulling these kind of stunts. I think it does more harm than good. Especially since OC is already legal here & no one is contesting it. Why bring the negative publicity?
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/2-men-detained-after-showing-up-with-rifles-at-Appleton-Farmers-Market-223608121.html
The left regularly use this tactic to make whatever agenda they're pushing the norm.
Look at the homosexual agenda.
It is in your face, and being more and more accepted by mainstream population.
I'd much rather see people walking around with AR's slung over their backs in protest than to see two gayrods kissing each other. Unfortunately, their method seems to work better than "ours".
Sent via Tapatalk
Had a PD officer act the same here on WA at store parking lot. I was actually off duty but was shopping. Saw the altercation, identified myself and spoke with the officer. He called me an idiot for supporting his suspect, yeah guy was OC, a. 44mag in a chest holster getting supplies for hunting camp complete with his dogs. I said to him he was a disrespectful and ignorant twit. Guess who is no longer a PD cop, he is Got to love where I live. If you don't like guns stay out of N. IS and E. WA.
Awesome! I sincerely hope you're still going to run for office.
Its great to see that people are still going out of their way to be hassled and "oppressed" by the po-po.
I could rehash the many reasons why open carry is asinine, but I'm sure everyone knows them.
I'll share how I deal with folks that open carry........I smile, wave, and keep driving. However when jellyfish-joe schmo gets scared out of his panties because "that man is wearing a gun!!!! (gasp)" I have to contact them (since you know joe schmo pays my salary and all, and he'll probably bitch to the chief or an lt if I don't. I know its crazy that I don't dream of hassling open carriers right???). Then it goes something like this "Hey hows it going, Im Officer blah blah, with blah blah police dept. During our interaction i'd ask that you don't make any sudden movements toward your firearm please, thanks. Im sorry to bother you, but some jellyfish...I mean folks are alarmed that you are carrying. Are you a felon? Do you have any bad intentions today? Nope? Awesome, have a good day.
Then maybe lecture the guy on a friendly level about how it would make much more sense to conceal carry.
Lets look at if from another stand point. Most think its completely retarded for police to bother anyone that's carrying a firearm openly. Would you feel the same way about someone walking down a street at 3am looking in to car windows?? I mean, there is nothing illegal about that either right??
I am not a fan of OC also ,if you want to then by all means do. but for me i would rather people not see what i have .there are times you can tell i am carrying and have had my shirt pull up exposing My HK only to have a officer to ask me to be "a little more careful ,not to scary the anti's" he did not even ask to see my CCW .
Even here in Alabama where the 99% is pro-gun you will always have 1 that sees a firearm and not a badge and think you are going to shoot the place up .
to me it is not worth the Hassle .
here is a funny little moment i was crossing the Canada Border not long ago from New york I drive a tanker truck . the Canada Border guard asked if I owned any firearms as he is holding my DL and Passport card I said " see which state I am from ,I am from the South " and I smiled He just looked at me and said "I will take that as a yes" stamped my paperwork and off I went
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 10:45
Awesome! I sincerely hope you're still going to run for office.
Plan to run for council or County commission. Either way I don't put up with bullshit and I curse, smoke cigars, and drink.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 10:49
Its great to see that people are still going out of their way to be hassled and "oppressed" by the po-po.
I could rehash the many reasons why open carry is asinine, but I'm sure everyone knows them.
I'll share how I deal with folks that open carry........I smile, wave, and keep driving. However when jellyfish-joe schmo gets scared out of his panties because "that man is wearing a gun!!!! (gasp)" I have to contact them (since you know joe schmo pays my salary and all, and he'll probably bitch to the chief or an lt if I don't. I know its crazy that I don't dream of hassling open carriers right???). Then it goes something like this "Hey hows it going, Im Officer blah blah, with blah blah police dept. During our interaction i'd ask that you don't make any sudden movements toward your firearm please, thanks. Im sorry to bother you, but some jellyfish...I mean folks are alarmed that you are carrying. Are you a felon? Do you have any bad intentions today? Nope? Awesome, have a good day.
Then maybe lecture the guy on a friendly level about how it would make much more sense to conceal carry.
Lets look at if from another stand point. Most think its completely retarded for police to bother anyone that's carrying a firearm openly. Would you feel the same way about someone walking down a street at 3am looking in to car windows?? I mean, there is nothing illegal about that either right??
Make contact yes. Hassle and then attempt to quote code and statute when you are a completely clueless officer of the law... NO!
I'm a citizen and a patriot. LE is just a ****ing job until I move forward.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Plan to run for council or County commission. Either way I don't put up with bullshit and I curse, smoke cigars, and drink.
Bless your heart, I think I'm blushing :D
ETA - I hope you make it into office man! That would be great for the freedom loving citizens in your area.
MountainRaven
09-16-13, 10:53
Open carry is stupid enough said.
Pat
Makes you wonder why cops and armed guards do it, doesn't it.
:confused:
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 10:58
Bless your heart, I think I'm blushing :D
ETA - I hope you make it into office man! That would be great for the freedom loving citizens in your area.
Blushing? Hey now DADT bro:-)
Yeah, we have a mixed bag politically currently. Mostly right leaning Democrats in office. They support gun rights but are bad for giving away tax dollars to useless window licking non hackers... Welfare, addicts, criminals!
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
So sad how many 2A "supporters" are against and talk down about open carry. Youa re speakin gout against your right to bear arms, you do realize this right? WTF?!?!?!?!?!
You either have the right or you do not. Period. Who gives a flying **** what the anti's think, they're trying to take away your rights either way.
We have already allowed our RIGHT to carry concealed be turned into a permission, not long before open carry will be a mere persmission as well; especially with some of your attitudes- being the supposed "pro" gun guys and all.
It's pathetic that people derride those who exercise their rights because someone might get their feewings huwt and be scawed of that person excersising their rights.
I've got some news for you- FREEDOM isn't ahappy lolli-pops and rainbows ideal, it doesn't make me magically safe or taken care of; it is dangerous and beautiful, but never has freedom been safe or all smiles and chocolate kisses.
If you all weren't so worried about how you are perceived by those who seek to take away your rights; and instead excersised them- maybe those rights wouldn't have been erroded to the point they are today.
Pat, you open carry as you perform your job duties, no? Is that stupid? Please extrapolate on why a citizen OC'ing is so "Stupid" but a citizen who is also an LEO is not. I really would like to know your logic here. Please.
Do you realize that A LOT of people feel the same about police carrying guns as they do anyone else? That they are scawed of it?
Should you conceal carry because of that as an LEO? I mean, come on, they are scawed and you should just bend to their will even though you have a right to do so- right?
Just yesterday I was out getting a frothy mug of ale with my wife at a local watering hole and overheard a group of idiot twenty-somethings discussing "Cops" and how they are "brutes" who hide behind their "Guns" and that is the only reason they have any authority. That they should be like the "Cops" in Britain and only have night sticks, afterall, most crime/criminals they deal with do not need a gun pointed at them; they don't need guns to effectively get their jobs done as "Cops"- "just look at England" they said.
You might find yourself on the wrong side of your own argument one day; then again you may agree that "cops" shouldn't open carry- because it is "Stupid" to open carry; I mean what reason would anyone have for the open carrying of a weapon right?
It is freaking rediculous on a pro 2A forum people will talk up concfealed carry; when it is a ****ing permission. But talk down open carry- which is still a right in MOST places. They are one and the same at heart, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! How some of you allow them to be separate ideals and have separate rules is beyond logic and quite frustrating.
Gun owners that worry about perceptions and change their actions due to the idiots who seek to disarm them and take away their rights are only screwing themselves over- and the rest of us gun owners.
Do you think the anti's care what the hell you think about them? Do you think they will change their opinions/goal of taking away your rights just becuase of your "Feelings"?
Some food for thought. In places like Denver where OC is illegal, and CC is by permission only, they have literally destroyed your right to bear arms. Do any of you really think stopping people from OC in other regions is going to help us gain any freedom or expand our rights?
It is hilarious and quite frustrating the logic behind the anti-OC crowd (Both non firearms enthusiast and firearms enthusiast)- "Don't OC because people might get scawed and try to take away your right to OC". IF you're not excersising your rights in the first place; it matters not anyway.
They will try to take away any and all gun rights they can to justify their biased ill-informed bullshit opinions anyways, regardless of if you OC or not. So go ahead and take your own rights away by not excersising them, I will continue to be a ****ing free man.
I am not against it nor do i think it should be talked down . I just feel for me I would rather not let everyone know what I have and risk the chance of a LE not knowing the Law Hassle me .
if it works for you than do it I support any Law abiding Citizens right but some of us just don't do it .Like I said I feel I am losing the surprise element .and you Have to admit there are a bunch of jackasses that like to open carry looking like a Rambo want to be Bowed up and strutting around that hurts us all and does major damage for the sheep think all of us are that way
I am not against it nor do i think it should be talked down . I just feel for me I would rather not let everyone know what I have and risk the chance of a LE not knowing the Law Hassle me .
if it works for you than do it I support any Law abiding Citizens right but some of us just don't do it .Like I said I feel I am losing the surprise element .and you Have to admit there are a bunch of jackasses that like to open carry looking like a Rambo want to be Bowed up and strutting around that hurts us all and does major damage for the sheep think all of us are that way
I understand. I totally agree it is up to each individual to decide how they carry their weapon. And it should be- it should also NOT be necessary to get "PERMISSION" to conceal carry. Period.
There will always be jackasses in every walk of life. I do not like those guys either, but as long as they aren't breaking any laws; they are free to be jackasses- no law against that yet.
The sheep will think the same of you regardless. They do not listen or respond to logic, it is all about feelings; and specifically THEIR feelings; no one elses.
To the antis we are all a bunch of elmer fudd, redneck, drooling, mouthbreathing, hicks and nuts. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told this by how many people. Regardless of how I present myself.
I couldn't care any less what the spineless rights-hating idiots of the world think of me or my fellow gun owners. Nothing we would do other than submit to their will and give up our rights will change this. Nothing.
How come every single group of people no matter how minor or deviant can literally SHOVE their crap into everyone elses faces and get away with it; but not gun owners? We have to walk on egg shells and hide ourselves away...
Maybe because we have ALLOWED it to get to this point by submitting and hiding instead of being proud and being ourselves regardless fo what others think?
Maybe collectively as gun owners we need to "come out of the closet" and have a "We're here we're armed to the teeth and we're proud of it" moment?
Worked for other groups...
Opinions are like Alaskapopos.
Everybody's got one.
Yes!
*Sits back and waits for him to derail another thread & receive no recourse*
The police chief handled this really well.
Open carry is stupid enough said.
Pat
So in your view Pat:
1) If you want a constitutionally limited Government or are Libertaian; that equates to you wanting our country to be Somalia? (See AlaskaPopos sigline)
Seriously?
2) If you are upset with the blatant over reach of your Government; you are a right wing conspiracy theorist. (See AlaskaPopos sigline)
Seriously?
3) Unless you are an LEO; you are stupid for excersising your right to bear arms.
Seriously?
Great stuff Pat. Really good to see you aren't fomenting the US Vs. THEM mentality- oh wait...:rolleyes:
I've given you every benefit of the doubt and remained very civil to date. But you are wearing me incredibly thin with statements like this one quoted above and your sigline that is an under the radar jab at every libertarian or right winger on this site that questions the government.
What's the deal man?
Well let me set the record straight. If it were up to me I WOULD LOOOOOVE to be in plain clothes carrying a concealed weapon and driving an unmarked vehicle.
Now I'm sure since you geniuses open carry all time (I mean you tout it as the mark of a true patriot so you must do it), I'm sure you train religiously for weapon retention correct? You know how to defend yourself and protect your weapon if someone were to grab it? You carry in a level II or III holster right?? You're always conscious about who your gun side is turned to and your distance proximity to others on that side, right?
If not, chances are pretty good that you'll be killed with your own weapon. It sucks, I know. That's why most Officers would suggest you conceal carry, and why most if not all do so while they're off duty.
I spend 4 days a week worrying about all that stuff I mentioned earlier, I'd rather not on my own time. Not to mention if I was a bad guy looking to shoot up a walmart and walked in and saw a dude open carrying, i'd probably kill him first.....just sayin.....
***edited***
For all you complete morons that are using the whole "ah you ****ing cops think open carry is stupid, but you do it.....derrrrrr"
Well let me set the record straight. If it were up to me I WOULD LOOOOOVE to be in plain clothes carrying a concealed weapon and driving an unmarked vehicle.
Now I'm sure since you geniuses open carry all time (I mean you tout it as the mark of a true patriot so you must do it), I'm sure you train religiously for weapon retention correct? You know how to defend yourself and protect your weapon if someone were to grab it? You carry in a level II or III holster right?? You're always conscious about who your gun side is turned to and your distance proximity to others on that side, right?
If not, chances are pretty good that you'll be killed with your own weapon. It sucks, I know. That's why most Officers would suggest you conceal carry, and why most if not all do so while they're off duty.
I spend 4 days a week worrying about all that stuff I mentioned earlier, I'd rather not on my own time. Not to mention if I was a bad guy looking to shoot up a walmart and walked in and saw a dude open carrying, i'd probably kill him first.....just sayin.....
But hey, since we "pigs" open carry we have no right to tell joe citizen it would be smarter to conceal his personal defense weapon................we just bein da gestapo man
Nope, I guess I'm just a moron like you said- you've got it all figured out J-Dub; why even ask us "morons"? :rolleyes:
You love to put words in peoples mouths. Pretty effing lame.
:bad:
I'm not even going to rip apart your post any further; it speaks for itself.
Take care.
For all you complete morons that are using the whole "ah you ****ing cops think open carry is stupid, but you do it.....derrrrrr"
But hey, since we "pigs" open carry we have no right to tell joe citizen it would be smarter to conceal his personal defense weapon................we just bein da gestapo man
Your sensitivity meter is way out of calibration dude.
But hey, since we "pigs" open carry we have no right to tell joe citizen it would be smarter to conceal his personal defense weapon................we just bein da gestapo man
Before all of you guys get carried away...... it's quite possible some of these OCers have no choice. Like the girls.... Maybe they couldn't get CC reciprocity across state lines.
OC is not blanket stupid. Sometimes it's necessary. The issue is not one of carry technique though.
The issue is "right to bear arms".
Certainly there must be an OC vs CC thread on the forum and thus is a bit Off Topic in this thread?
Voodoochild
09-16-13, 13:01
Everyone needs to step back and take a breather right now... Enough name calling and finger pointing. Knock it off or timeouts will be issued.
You love to put words in peoples mouths. Pretty effing lame.
:bad:
***edited***
NCPatrolAR
09-16-13, 13:06
Alright; I'm sick and tired of the bickering and flat-out insulting going on in here and it ends now. I've already dropped several infractions on people and I'm more than willing to continue doing so.
For you people calling out Alaska; it stops now. He has the ability to voice his opinion just like everyone else and he, nor anyone else, shouldnt be met with constant insults when he makes a post. We dont tolerate that action toward any other poster, and he is no exception. If you have an issue with a forum member's post then you debate the post; you dont instantly launch into insults against the poster.
When it comes to "recourse"; if you dont know what happens behind the scenes here then you might not want to comment on what is and isnt happening.
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 13:06
So in your view Pat:
1) If you want a constitutionally limited Government or are Libertaian; that equates to you wanting our country to be Somalia? (See AlaskaPopos sigline)
Seriously?
2) If you are upset with the blatant over reach of your Government; you are a right wing conspiracy theorist. (See AlaskaPopos sigline)
Seriously?
3) Unless you are an LEO; you are stupid for excersising your right to bear arms.
Seriously?
Great stuff Pat. Really good to see you aren't fomenting the US Vs. THEM mentality- oh wait...:rolleyes:
I've given you every benefit of the doubt and remained very civil to date. But you are wearing me incredibly thin with statements like this one quoted above and your sigline that is an under the radar jab at every libertarian or right winger on this site that questions the government.
What's the deal man?
I removed that from my sig line. I apologize that was pretty petty to put in my sig line.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 13:10
Makes you wonder why cops and armed guards do it, doesn't it.
:confused:
We are already targets because of the uniforms. I sure as heck did not do it when working plain clothes as an investigator. Who I feel bad for is unarmed security. Targets and no way to effectively defend themselves if someone singles them out who was armed.
Pat
Make contact yes. Hassle and then attempt to quote code and statute when you are a completely clueless officer of the law... NO!
I'm a citizen and a patriot. LE is just a ****ing job until I move forward.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
The way it should be. Kudos to you sir!
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 13:30
The way it should be. Kudos to you sir!
Thank you sir. Just another duck on the pond.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I removed that from my sig line. I apologize that was pretty petty to put in my sig line.
Pat
Pat,
I appreciate it, that is a stand up move.
I know you get ganged up on here a lot- thank you for continuing to post your opinions/beliefs, although we disagree about 95% of the time on most subjects; I truly apprecaite it and really like discussing these things with you.
I always gain a better perspective on these issues from your posts and enjoy debating with you.
Take care,
Tom
I know right???? In fact after thinking about it, I'm going to start suggesting that people open carry. 1. its just too ****ing cool not to 2. everyone looks like a badass when they have a drop leg holster 3. natural selection will take over from there.
I get it. I'm stupid. Carry on...literally, just make sure to do it in a kydex level I placed in the small of your back......no reason, just do it.
Never said you were stupid, never called you a pig. I do not think those things either.
For the record, I CC 99% of the time and OC the other 1% when it makes more sense or I HAVE to do so given the circumstances.
I am fine with others open or concealed carrying (As long as it is in the safest manner possible) and find it abhorrent that concealed carry has been allowed to become a mere permission.
Not sure where the anger, sarcasm & animosity directed towards me/my posts is coming from J-Dub; I'm just debating the issue of open carry, and how it isn't the "Dumbest" or most evil thing one can do. It is a basic right, one we shouldn't deride eachother for excersising.
Take care,
Tom
boggyboy72
09-16-13, 14:08
I'll share how I deal with folks that open carry........I smile, wave, and keep driving. However when jellyfish-joe schmo gets scared out of his panties because "that man is wearing a gun!!!! (gasp)" I have to contact them (since you know joe schmo pays my salary and all, and he'll probably bitch to the chief or an lt if I don't. I know its crazy that I don't dream of hassling open carriers right???). Then it goes something like this "Hey hows it going, Im Officer blah blah, with blah blah police dept. During our interaction i'd ask that you don't make any sudden movements toward your firearm please, thanks. Im sorry to bother you, but some jellyfish...I mean folks are alarmed that you are carrying. Are you a felon? Do you have any bad intentions today? Nope? Awesome, have a good day.
What would help just as much or more than LE knowing the OC laws would be the folks answering the phone at 911 knowing the laws.
911 operator-911 what is your Emergency?
Caller- THERE'S A MAN WITH A GUN IN WAL- MART!!!
911-OK,sir calm down.What is this man doing?
Caller-HE'S BUYING BREAD AND MILK!!!!
911- That's not illegal in this state,Sir.If He fires the gun call back.
While I understand what the OCs are doing and agree on a certain level, I'll keep mine under my shirt.
Hey guys,
Are you all aware that if this kind of approach towards gun rights continues that someone will eventually get shot by a responding officer?
In regards to the video:
When the hell did a U.S. passport become a questionable form of identification?
Not to fan the flames, but when is a responding officer going to be shot? I mean, some people are a little off, and if "trampling my rights" sets off the law-abiding citizen ...
There are plenty of stories of SWAT busting in the wrong house, right? Some day the wrong officer is going to be in the way of a guy thinking it's a home robbery. Same idea here.
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 14:27
Not to fan the flames, but when is a responding officer going to be shot? I mean, some people are a little off, and if "trampling my rights" sets off the law-abiding citizen ...
There are plenty of stories of SWAT busting in the wrong house, right? Some day the wrong officer is going to be in the way of a guy thinking it's a home robbery. Same idea here.
Strange as it may seem. But city PD where I live call first before coming on my property. Of course they think all of us at the SO are crazy gun toting rednecks.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Strange as it may seem. But city PD where I live call first before coming on my property. Of course they think all of us at the SO are crazy gun toting rednecks.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
You think that's bad? The local FBI agents are jealous of MY arsenal! :D
You think that's bad? The local FBI agents are jealous of MY arsenal! :D
At least something in this world is as it should be!
jklaughrey
09-16-13, 16:11
At least something in this world is as it should be!
Agreed. And everyone should have their property ranged and marked appropriately to repel invaders.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I understand. I totally agree it is up to each individual to decide how they carry their weapon. And it should be- it should also NOT be necessary to get "PERMISSION" to conceal carry. Period.
There will always be jackasses in every walk of life. I do not like those guys either, but as long as they aren't breaking any laws; they are free to be jackasses- no law against that yet.
The sheep will think the same of you regardless. They do not listen or respond to logic, it is all about feelings; and specifically THEIR feelings; no one elses.
To the antis we are all a bunch of elmer fudd, redneck, drooling, mouthbreathing, hicks and nuts. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told this by how many people. Regardless of how I present myself.
I couldn't care any less what the spineless rights-hating idiots of the world think of me or my fellow gun owners. Nothing we would do other than submit to their will and give up our rights will change this. Nothing.
How come every single group of people no matter how minor or deviant can literally SHOVE their crap into everyone elses faces and get away with it; but not gun owners? We have to walk on egg shells and hide ourselves away...
Maybe because we have ALLOWED it to get to this point by submitting and hiding instead of being proud and being ourselves regardless fo what others think?
Maybe collectively as gun owners we need to "come out of the closet" and have a "We're here we're armed to the teeth and we're proud of it" moment?
Worked for other groups...
This is a excellent post .with the fighting between each other on this and that ,we need to figure a way to Push forward as a group of One .
what is the saying " united we stand ,divide we fall "
I have talked to many Hunters with the old "you don't need a AR!" mindset and after some butting heads they see now that is just the start their weapons would be next .
With More and More States allowing open carry ,one would think the Police should be versed on the new laws .At least I would if I was a Officer I have seen many youtube videos show LE know the Laws and all ends well in a OC situation .
Ok so your next to perfect at work. Congrats. Also I doubt anyone would have been arrested based on the knife law you quoted as we tend to check the statutes before making arrests. Its when people ask you questions in casual conversation that mistakes can happen. The one you mentioned is so very slight as not to be even considered. 1 freaking inch come one really? Yes its a job with a lot of responsibility and relatively low pay. That said your not always going to get perfect answers from street level cops on every law on the books.
Pat
We're not talking about some obscure technicality here! The fact that open carry is legal here in Missouri should be basic and common knowledge for anyone wearing a badge in this state. What part of this is unclear to you? I see guns on belts all over town, it doesn't seem to bother most people.
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 20:34
Personally I don't want open carry to be illegal but I wish people would not do it looking for a confrontation with police. I think open carry makes a lot of sense in some situations like hunting, hiking and other outdoor activities.
Pat
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That sword has 2 edges.
Alaskapopo
09-16-13, 20:42
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That sword has 2 edges.
I agree that cops should know the law and if you don't know something you find out before you try to enforce it. On the other hand watching the videos with these guys going around looking for a confrontation so they can sue is aggravating as hell.
Pat
I agree that cops should know the law and if you don't know something you find out before you try to enforce it. On the other hand watching the videos with these guys going around looking for a confrontation so they can sue is aggravating as hell.
Pat
I watched the video this morning and don't feel like running through it again... From my recollection there was only one girl OC'ing and they were traveling to somewhere. Anyhow, it didn't appear to be the "typical" confrontational type of crowd from what I remember.
Has any OC activist sued the police for this type of thing? If so, what was the outcome?
Pat,
Here's the problem. If I break a law (even if it was unknowingly) I am going to be charged and ignorance of the law isn't going to work.
Law enforcement officers go to an academy and receive training. Part of that training is about laws. If an officer makes a mistake it would appear that they are given a free pass.
Based on the video I saw, the officer did not appear to be some recent academy grad with no experience. This means he should be well aware that open carry of firearms in MO is legal.
I fail to see how what law was broken, and in fact the officer himself when asked couldn't articulate what law was broken. He then engaged on a group fishing expedition asking friends who weren't even involved to show I.D. It is also clear that they were being detained since they weren't free to leave (unless I am missing something). Unless I am wrong, since open carry is legal, the detainment would have been unlawful, is that not right?
If I am off the mark please explain why.
If I am unlawfully detained and my rights are violated because an officer didn't pay attention in the academy or doesn't understand the law that's not my problem. If my rights are violated then I am filing a complaint and I am going to sue the department.
Personally I don't want open carry to be illegal but I wish people would not do it looking for a confrontation with police. I think open carry makes a lot of sense in some situations like hunting, hiking and other outdoor activities.
Pat
If I am unlawfully detained and my rights are violated because an officer didn't pay attention in the academy or doesn't understand the law that's not my problem. If my rights are violated then I am filing a complaint and I am going to sue the department.
Unfortunately that's what it's going to take. Organizations don't often take to change and new thinking until something starts costing them money. An open, reasonable, educated proof in difference of opinion is simply not enough. There has to be fear of financial burden.
That's basically all these police are doing. They are instilling the fear of potential court time which every citizen simply sees as dollar signs. Lost wages, court costs, fines, etc.. While to some officers the down side is simply a day in court sipping coffee.
Alaskapopo
09-17-13, 12:09
Pat,
Here's the problem. If I break a law (even if it was unknowingly) I am going to be charged and ignorance of the law isn't going to work.
Law enforcement officers go to an academy and receive training. Part of that training is about laws. If an officer makes a mistake it would appear that they are given a free pass.
Based on the video I saw, the officer did not appear to be some recent academy grad with no experience. This means he should be well aware that open carry of firearms in MO is legal.
I fail to see how what law was broken, and in fact the officer himself when asked couldn't articulate what law was broken. He then engaged on a group fishing expedition asking friends who weren't even involved to show I.D. It is also clear that they were being detained since they weren't free to leave (unless I am missing something). Unless I am wrong, since open carry is legal, the detainment would have been unlawful, is that not right?
If I am off the mark please explain why.
If I am unlawfully detained and my rights are violated because an officer didn't pay attention in the academy or doesn't understand the law that's not my problem. If my rights are violated then I am filing a complaint and I am going to sue the department.
We are held accountable for not knowing the law. If its ignorance we can be sued, fired etc. If it goes beyond simple ignorance we can be charged with false arrest violating someones civil rights etc. I am not defending the officer in the video rather I am commenting on the open carry supporters who go around looking for these types of interactions with police.
Pat
Can you blame the police? Have you ever seen "People of Walmart"? Lots of nutjobs and if someone wanted a wide open target for a killing spree, this wouldn't be a bad choice. The police have got to respond. These people knew they would stir up a scene, legal or not. Trying to find balance. If I walk into Walmart Open Carry, legal or not, I would expect the police to at least check me out, but then let me go if I'm following all the laws.
I can sympathize with police being nervous when they find anyone carrying. Remember, they don't just face 'normal' people, they face every dark part of society that exists. They are trained to NEVER be complacent, because that one 'normal' person they turn there back on is the one that is going to kill them, and they'd like to go home to their families tonight too.
Mostly that's OUR job to be nice and non-confrontational (you are NEVER going to win with a Police Officer at the scene, only later in court). I am always very cautious with my actions with LE when carrying. Always let them see your hands, no fast movements, notifiy them (whether required by law or not); speak in a non-confrontational tone, let them do their job to protect the public, and they will, 99% of the time, be polite and respectful in return, and let you go your way. Having a camera may make them nervous, but if it's your INTENT to create an incident (and they were) then you'd better record it for documentation. A video record can either save you or burn you either way. There are waaay too many people out there who have just gotten into firearms and carrying, that have zero training or good sense for me to turn my back on ANY of them.
Eurodriver
09-17-13, 15:06
Can you blame the police? Have you ever seen "People of Walmart"? Lots of nutjobs and if someone wanted a wide open target for a killing spree, this wouldn't be a bad choice. The police have got to respond. These people knew they would stir up a scene, legal or not. Trying to find balance. If I walk into Walmart Open Carry, legal or not, I would expect the police to at least check me out, but then let me go if I'm following all the laws.
I can sympathize with police being nervous when they find anyone carrying. Remember, they don't just face 'normal' people, they face every dark part of society that exists. They are trained to NEVER be complacent, because that one 'normal' person they turn there back on is the one that is going to kill them, and they'd like to go home to their families tonight too.
Mostly that's OUR job to be nice and non-confrontational (you are NEVER going to win with a Police Officer at the scene, only later in court). I am always very cautious with my actions with LE when carrying. Always let them see your hands, no fast movements, notifiy them (whether required by law or not); speak in a non-confrontational tone, let them do their job to protect the public, and they will, 99% of the time, be polite and respectful in return, and let you go your way. Having a camera may make them nervous, but if it's your INTENT to create an incident (and they were) then you'd better record it for documentation. A video record can either save you or burn you either way. There are waaay too many people out there who have just gotten into firearms and carrying, that have zero training or good sense for me to turn my back on ANY of them.
Do you stop people who talk on cell phones, protest against their employers and do other things totally within their legal rights?
Do you stop people who talk on cell phones, protest against their employers and do other things totally within their legal rights?
That's a "straw man" arguement and you know it...
Actually, this event went down much better than some others I've seen lately. In this case, the citizens did politely comply while asking the officer why they were being detained. They complied when the officer asked (well, he COULD have asked more politely) them to step outside. They DID provide ID and cooperate even though the law says they don't really have to. And they still made their point.
IF these kinds of activites get too much out of hand or happen too much, eventually someone is going to get shot by accident. The moderate portions of the public who still support 2A and whose votes determine that we KEEP this rights could turn against it, and we WILL lose.
I'm glad there are people out here doing this, they need to continue to politely do so.
Do you stop people who talk on cell phones?
While driving? Yup, per city ordinance.
Do you do your job?
Pat,
I know you're not defending him, but not saying anything is almost the same. I would really encourage you to watch the video and then please explain how anything that he did beyond the initial contact was justified.
A smart cop would have done this.
"Ma'am or folks, the reason I am here is because someone called the 911 dispatch about someone with a firearm in the establishment". I am making contact with you as part of that call. I see that you are open carrying a firearm. Did anyone ask you to leave or say anything to you? Under Missouri law open carry is legal and I just want to be sure that everything is ok.
Prior to that. The officer could (or should) have asked the dispatcher who the complainant was, and whether they requested to be contacted or remain anonymous. If there was no complainant present and the law did not appear to be violated, I fail to see how anything more should have happened.
He could have then said "May I please have your I.D or can you give me your name and information so I can make a note for the police report". He then could have rounded it out by saying; "Please understand that although open carry is legal, some people may have misconstrued your intentions or felt uncomfortable and I am simply responding to ensure that everything is OK". Had that happened I can almost guarantee that no one would have said anything and all parties would have been happy. Instead the officer portrayed comes off as an idiot and can't even answer the simply question of what law was allegedly broken, if any.
We are held accountable for not knowing the law. If its ignorance we can be sued, fired etc. If it goes beyond simple ignorance we can be charged with false arrest violating someones civil rights etc. I am not defending the officer in the video rather I am commenting on the open carry supporters who go around looking for these types of interactions with police.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-18-13, 00:49
Pat,
I know you're not defending him, but not saying anything is almost the same. I would really encourage you to watch the video and then please explain how anything that he did beyond the initial contact was justified.
A smart cop would have done this.
"Ma'am or folks, the reason I am here is because someone called the 911 dispatch about someone with a firearm in the establishment". I am making contact with you as part of that call. I see that you are open carrying a firearm. Did anyone ask you to leave or say anything to you? Under Missouri law open carry is legal and I just want to be sure that everything is ok.
Prior to that. The officer could (or should) have asked the dispatcher who the complainant was, and whether they requested to be contacted or remain anonymous. If there was no complainant present and the law did not appear to be violated, I fail to see how anything more should have happened.
He could have then said "May I please have your I.D or can you give me your name and information so I can make a note for the police report". He then could have rounded it out by saying; "Please understand that although open carry is legal, some people may have misconstrued your intentions or felt uncomfortable and I am simply responding to ensure that everything is OK". Had that happened I can almost guarantee that no one would have said anything and all parties would have been happy. Instead the officer portrayed comes off as an idiot and can't even answer the simply question of what law was allegedly broken, if any.
I have to admit I did not watch the video and I should. I just assumed it was like so many others with some young wanna be attorneys baiting patrol officers who have better things to do. I admit however you still need to act professionally even when dealing with people who are trying their best to get under your skin. I will take a look at the video and I am sure you're right.
Ok just watched it and yes the officer is acting like an ass. But a camera and smirking voices can put anyone in a bad mood. In the video the male admits he was looking around for cops to see if they would violate his rights. Basically this type of encounter does not need to happen.
If I had gotten the call I would have informed the caller that open carry is legal in Alaska and ask the caller if the people open carrying were doing anything illegal? If not then I would not even bother going.
skijunkie55
09-18-13, 09:16
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/23460269/does-this-2nd-amendment-protest-go-too-far
ahhh boy... :rolleyes:
I have to admit I did not watch the video and I should. I just assumed..... .
LOL. :suicide:
A smart cop would have done this.
"Ma'am or folks, the reason I am here is because someone called the 911 dispatch about someone with a firearm in the establishment". I am making contact with you as part of that call. I see that you are open carrying a firearm. Did anyone ask you to leave or say anything to you? Under Missouri law open carry is legal and I just want to be sure that everything is ok.
Prior to that. The officer could (or should) have asked the dispatcher who the complainant was, and whether they requested to be contacted or remain anonymous. If there was no complainant present and the law did not appear to be violated, I fail to see how anything more should have happened.
He could have then said "May I please have your I.D or can you give me your name and information so I can make a note for the police report". He then could have rounded it out by saying; "Please understand that although open carry is legal, some people may have misconstrued your intentions or felt uncomfortable and I am simply responding to ensure that everything is OK". Had that happened I can almost guarantee that no one would have said anything and all parties would have been happy. Instead the officer portrayed comes off as an idiot and can't even answer the simply question of what law was allegedly broken, if any.
In my professional opinion, this would have been the way to handle the situation. It's not often what you say, but how you say it.
While driving? Yup, per city ordinance.
Do you do your job?
How about other officer's talking on cell phones while driving? ;)
In my professional opinion, this would have been the way to handle the situation. It's not often what you say, but how you say it.
Would it be appropriate for this officer to run for warrants, etc? They do that with most traffic stops, whether or not they write you a ticket.
Would it be appropriate for this officer to run for warrants, etc? They do that with most traffic stops, whether or not they write you a ticket.
I would not have checked in front of the open carry people. There would be no need to embarrass them in front of other patrons. It can be accomplished later after you break contact and they are still in the area.
Eurodriver
09-18-13, 22:29
While driving? Yup, per city ordinance.
Do you do your job?
Settle down. I didn't ask you, and that wasn't the question.
Eurodriver
09-18-13, 22:32
I would not have checked in front of the open carry people. There would be no need to embarrass them in front of other patrons. It can be accomplished later after you break contact and they are still in the area.
Don't you need probable cause or reasonable suspicion or something to just start running information? What if the OC advocate refused to produce ID? Someone is going to get shot over this one day and a cop is going to end up in jail for murder and OC everywhere is going to go the way of the dodo.
I'm going to say it again after saying it before:
Someone is going to get shot soon if these protests continue.
The tactics that are being used in these events are the same that have been used for decades in this country for non-violent civil disobedience. The tactics are such that they put the burden on the state representative (usually a police officer) to make an "action", whether that action is an arrest, a detainment, a forced eviction, or a violent altercation. The passive resistance of "non-violence" combined with a legal observer who documents the incident, and a very broad knowledge of local, state, and federal laws combines to put the power in the hands of the protesters.
It was used with great success by the Civil Rights Movement, and later the Pro Life Movement.
What these OC idiots fail to see with their adoption of this tactic for their (not our) "cause" is that when such movements gain REAL momentum it is always directly after a large show of police force to break up a non violent protest. Translation: Cops come in, bust some protestor's heads/pepper spray/mass arrest/fire hose/shoot/kill/seriously injure enough people that it captures the minds of citizens sitting on the fence regarding an issue.
Meaning for this tactic to actually work it would require that an officer react violently.... When Blacks were fighting for Civil Rights those that did these kinds of actions accepted that they could be killed by their actions. So did Pro Life activists in the 90's. Death was something they had come to terms and made peace with. They believed enough in what they were doing to literally die for it. I don't see that in these videos, I see a bunch of wannabes...
Do any of you actually think that these idiots have come to the conclusion that they are willing to die for their rights? Are they willing to take a bullet for their right to OC at a Starbucks, Walmart, or Subway? I'm sure once one of them get's shot it will cause an immediate stir and a ton of hype among the more zealous gun owners out there, but I guarantee that the people involved in the action were to arrogant or stupid to consider that their protest could get them killed.
That's why I can't respect this kind of nonsense.
Police officers are trained to respond to certain situations in a certain way. A "passive" activist who is also carrying an AR15 and a pistol is not really a "passive" activist in the eyes of the police. The Black Panthers (the original ones) tried this tactic 40+ years ago and it ended very poorly for them. A police officer who is in fear of his life, who knows he has the backing of the union and the department if ass goes over tits will shoot first and ask questions later. In the case of the original posted video that means 'innocent' little 19 year old's brains get scooped off the pavement and put in a bag while her family cries, her boyfriend posts on youtube and a few gun zealots on a web forum bang their chests. Not exactly what a social movement usually consists of...
Will she be a martyr for the OC movement? Probably...
Is it worth it? Guess that's up to you to decide.
My thoughts are if you're actually willing to die for your beliefs then man up and start a Revolution. Pulling your iPhone out at a Subway to record your girlfriend getting hassled is ****ing pathetic and far from a revolutionary action.
When someone open carries , some is going to call the police. There seems to be a mass shooting every other month.
When the police are called we have to investigate wheather the person carrying has the legal right to do so. Do they have a permit/ are they a felon, is the gun stolen.
How are the police going to determine this if by not getting proper I.D.?
If its legal to open carry in your state do you want felons open carrying?
If you don't want the "hassle" how about carrying the firearm concealed? I'm 5'9 170 and carry a full size gun off duty, concealed usually by a tshirt and have never had anyone call the police on me.
People that do this to film it are just cop baiting.
Believe me I'm all for law abiding citizens have the right to carry, but again if you do it open in today's world you should expect someone to call the police, and for the police to check if your a felon by obtaining your I.D., simple as that.
The whole "Am I violating law?" Deal is lame, how can the police know if your a felon if they don't get your I.D.
Conceal it and carry it all day without the "hassle from the man".
We have better things to do then play stupid games so people can post it on youtube.
When someone open carries , some is going to call the police. There seems to be a mass shooting every other month.
When the police are called we have to investigate wheather the person carrying has the legal right to do so. Do they have a permit/ are they a felon, is the gun stolen.
How are the police going to determine this if by not getting proper I.D.?
If its legal to open carry in your state do you want felons open carrying?
If you don't want the "hassle" how about carrying the firearm concealed? I'm 5'9 170 and carry a full size gun off duty, concealed usually by a tshirt and have never had anyone call the police on me.
People that do this to film it are just cop baiting.
Believe me I'm all for law abiding citizens have the right to carry, but again if you do it open in today's world you should expect someone to call the police, and for the police to check if your a felon by obtaining your I.D., simple as that.
The whole "Am I violating law?" Deal is lame, how can the police know if your a felon if they don't get your I.D.
Conceal it and carry it all day without the "hassle from the man".
We have better things to do then play stupid games so people can post it on youtube.
So the idea is to run ID of people that aren't even suspect of committing a crime? The officer had no PC and his fellow office talking about disturbing the peace is BS.
Why is it everyone with a video camera is now suspected of wrongdoing especially if they have a gun? How do you know they didn't hear about themselves being called in and started the video just to make sure their rights weren't violated? It wasn't against the law for them to be filming but the responding officer sure had a problem with it.
If open carry is completely legal then why do we need nervous nannies watching over us to make the masses feel safer? Do you really think if somebody is going in to shoot up the place their MO is going to be OC? How many legal open carries have gone bad versus criminal shootings? I don't even need the numbers to know it's a fraction. We can't know how many criminals an OC has warded off just to have them move on to an easier target.
This reeks of nanny state protecting the sheep from fear of guns. This is making more and more people politically correct and think guns are bad. Do any of you not see why we live in a society where gun control is on the rise?
People think our guns have to stay hidden then if a person sees an actual gun they panic and LEOs strapped with ARs don't ease tensions. If people were used to seeing guns in law abiding citizens' hands instead of just police and criminals' hands this wouldn't be happening. We would all be a lot safer and officers' jobs would be a lot simpler.
Why not check all people suspected of CC? They have to pass a background check and have a CC permit so wouldn't they be just as likely if not more likely to be breaking the law than a person OC-ing? This is leading down a frightening path.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 00:21
So the idea is to run ID of people that aren't even suspect of committing a crime? The officer had no PC and his fellow office talking about disturbing the peace is BS.
Why is it everyone with a video camera is now suspected of wrongdoing especially if they have a gun? How do you know they didn't hear about themselves being called in and started the video just to make sure their rights weren't violated? It wasn't against the law for them to be filming but the responding officer sure had a problem with it.
If open carry is completely legal then why do we need nervous nannies watching over us to make the masses feel safer? Do you really think if somebody is going in to shoot up the place their MO is going to be OC? How many legal open carries have gone bad versus criminal shootings? I don't even need the numbers to know it's a fraction. We can't know how many criminals an OC has warded off just to have them move on to an easier target.
This reeks of nanny state protecting the sheep from fear of guns. This is making more and more people politically correct and think guns are bad. Do any of you not see why we live in a society where gun control is on the rise?
People think our guns have to stay hidden then if a person sees an actual gun they panic and LEOs strapped with ARs don't ease tensions. If people were used to seeing guns in law abiding citizens' hands instead of just police and criminals' hands this wouldn't be happening. We would all be a lot safer and officers' jobs would be a lot simpler.
Why not check all people suspected of CC? They have to pass a background check and have a CC permit so wouldn't they be just as likely if not more likely to be breaking the law than a person OC-ing? This is leading down a frightening path.
Open carry will feed the sheeplys fear and it will make it easier for anti gun politicians to pass more gun control. Open carry activists are not helping they are hurting the 2nd amendment cause. As for the video cameras. What is going on is pretty obvious. People are fishing for a negative interaction with LEO's to post on YouTube. The problem is going to be when someone gets killed over it. It won't matter then whos fault it was rather it was the cops or the idiot OC people. The people shot will still be dead and the anti gunners will use it as fuel for more gun control. Tell me is it worth it so someone can have a few nice comments on their youtube channel.
Pat
It disturbed someone peace enough they dialed 911.
A felon in possession of a firearm is a crime, how are the police supposed to know if your a felon? Most felons don't have it tattooed on their forehead.
Again do you want felons walking around open carry because if the police can't run id's then guess what the felons are going to do? They're going to open carry because the cops can't run your I.D.
Again legally carry all you want, why stir the pot when all you have to do is conceal it????
If the answer to that is "Because it my right!!!", fine expect someone to call the police, and for the police to investigate if your legal to do so.
thopkins22
09-19-13, 00:43
I don't disagree that open carry activists likely harm our image in the minds of many undecided/previously ambivalent voters. I don't doubt for a second that they are fishing for a cop to step over the line/violate their rights, and that is the reason there are 15 video cameras rolling at any given time. I generally wish they'd focus their efforts on things that I believe would be more productive.
What I(and the Supreme Court of the United States) contend is that unless the police have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, you do not have to present ID. If open carry is legal, you are polite/cooperative, and you haven't been witnessed/accused of a crime then I fail to see where that suspicion comes from.
To argue otherwise is to make the same argument that got shot down in the courts regarding traffic checkpoints. They can talk to you, but they surely can't order you to help them form a suspicion. It's like consent to search...if they have PC your consent or lack thereof matters not. If they can articulate suspicion, then you are disregarding a lawful order...if they can't then you are free to go on your way. It's a dangerous game to play though.
thopkins22
09-19-13, 00:52
It disturbed someone peace enough they dialed 911.
A felon in possession of a firearm is a crime, how are the police supposed to know if your a felon? Most felons don't have it tattooed on their forehead.
Again do you want felons walking around open carry because if the police can't run id's then guess what the felons are going to do? They're going to open carry because the cops can't run your I.D.
Again legally carry all you want, why stir the pot when all you have to do is conceal it????
If the answer to that is "Because it my right!!!", fine expect someone to call the police, and for the police to investigate if your legal to do so.
Disturbing the peace is generally bogus. Either something is lawful or it isn't...I can't be expected to know when lawful behavior is disturbing someone and when it isn't. People do not have the right to not be offended, nor do they have the right to have someone arrested when that person was acting within the law. What if my music is disturbing my neighbor, but is less than the amount needed to get myself a noise violation? What if my state issued license plate that says "Come And Take It," disturbs someone when I'm visiting CA? It's ridiculous.
Freedom is scary to some...I don't want to live in a society where the authorities conduct their daily business with the assumption that everyone is a felon. Frankly, I believe that if a felon is too dangerous to own a firearm, then they're too dangerous to be released in the first place. Frankly, I'm more afraid of a felon who has stuck the gun in his waist band and is going grey.
I think these people expect the police to come and attempt the parts of an investigation that are considered constitutional without reasonable suspicion,(which on the face of it they don't have since what's being done is lawful.)
Don't misinterpret my post as being in favor of open carry, nor the generally implied political statements being made by open carry advocates. I'm not in favor of open carry if one can legally conceal, and I think they do more harm than good to gun rights. BUT I still want the law of the land applied to them.
Eurodriver
09-19-13, 01:01
A felon in possession of a firearm is a crime, how are the police supposed to know if your a felon? Most felons don't have it tattooed on their forehead.
I don't care if felons carry firearms, legal or not, until they do something illegal with that firearm. Felon doesn't = bad guy. Felon means they committed a felony.
You know who wasn't a felon? Aaron Alexis. Still dangerous. You know who is a felon? Martha Stewart.
So tell me why I should feel safer because you're checking IDs making sure a person open carrying isn't a felon. Which, by the way, is hillarious. How many people walking around OC'ing with video cameras are doing so illegally?
I don't care if felons carry firearms, legal or not, until they do something illegal with that firearm. Felon doesn't = bad guy. Felon means they committed a felony.
You know who wasn't a felon? Aaron Alexis. Still dangerous. You know who is a felon? Martha Stewart.
So tell me why I should feel safer because you're checking IDs making sure a person open carrying isn't a felon. Which, by the way, is hillarious. How many people walking around OC'ing with video cameras are doing so illegally?
This post is a fail. So your cool with felons having guns??? That in its self is a felony crime.
Again why stir the pot when you can carry all you want without the "hassle" by concealing it??
Some people get upset or scared by guns, like it or not that's a fact.Those people then call 911, then the police show up, then all the drama starts and sooner or later someone is going to get shot, be it a police officer or the pot stirrer.
So why do it? Just conceal the gun. Your not "losing" anything by that.
Again I'm all for law abiding citizens carry sidearms. I stop people all the time that have a ccw.
Guess what I do after I check to make sure they aren't a felon, and that the gun isn't stolen.
I thank them for their cooperation , then we talk about their gun.
Then I say have a nice night.
You're debating against a law you don't agree with and not the actual case. Where do you get that they were pot stirrers? It was my understanding the gun owner wasn't a resident of that state and knew she could legally OC but you want to make her get a CCW permit. Wow.
I couldn't care less what some wishy washy middle of the roader thinks of OC anyway. If they can't respect the law then either advocate to have it repealed or move. If they take the actions of a few gun rights pot stirrers and apply a blanket mentality to all gun owners then they're ignorant. They may be pro gun rights today but if the public tomorrow is in an uproar then they're suddenly anti gun. Screw that.
I'm not going to tap dance around them today just to have them sell me down the river tomorrow.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 01:34
You're debating against a law you don't agree with and not the actual case. Where do you get that they were pot stirrers? It was my understanding the gun owner wasn't a resident of that state and knew she could legally OC but you want to make her get a CCW permit. Wow.
I couldn't care less what some wishy washy middle of the roader thinks of OC anyway. If they can't respect the law then either advocate to have it repealed or move. If they take the actions of a few gun rights pot stirrers and apply a blanket mentality to all gun owners then they're ignorant. They may be pro gun rights today but if the public tomorrow is in an uproar then they're suddenly anti gun. Screw that.
I'm not going to tap dance around them today just to have them sell me down the river tomorrow.
You may feel that way until they vote away your carry rights. This is battle of perception.
Pat
Who said I wanted her to get a ccw permit? Also if your state allows open carry I could care less.
But the facts are someone is going call 911. So the police have to show up, if so why is it so hard to understand why the police would want to check if your legal to open carry?
Again why cause drama wheather you agree with it or not when all you have to do is conceal the firearm?
Your not losing the right to carry , and again I'm all for people being able to carry.
I'm not for people looking to cause drama. Like the guy standing on the corner with the rifle. That's just stupid, and its going to cause someone to get hurt.
Correct me if I am wrong. Aren't there at least a few court cases that have stated in a state where open carry is permitted, and the person is not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity (fighting, selling drugs, etc...) the officer doesn't have reasonable suspicion to conduct a further interview/interrogation?
In fact you can't be compelled to produce I.D in many states unless there is reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in some type of criminal activity.
When someone open carries , some is going to call the police. There seems to be a mass shooting every other month.
When the police are called we have to investigate wheather the person carrying has the legal right to do so. Do they have a permit/ are they a felon, is the gun stolen.
How are the police going to determine this if by not getting proper I.D.?
If its legal to open carry in your state do you want felons open carrying?
If you don't want the "hassle" how about carrying the firearm concealed? I'm 5'9 170 and carry a full size gun off duty, concealed usually by a tshirt and have never had anyone call the police on me.
People that do this to film it are just cop baiting.
Believe me I'm all for law abiding citizens have the right to carry, but again if you do it open in today's world you should expect someone to call the police, and for the police to check if your a felon by obtaining your I.D., simple as that.
The whole "Am I violating law?" Deal is lame, how can the police know if your a felon if they don't get your I.D.
Conceal it and carry it all day without the "hassle from the man".
We have better things to do then play stupid games so people can post it on youtube.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 01:41
Correct me if I am wrong. Aren't there at least a few court cases that have stated in a state where open carry is permitted, and the person is not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity (fighting, selling drugs, etc...) the officer doesn't have reasonable suspicion to conduct a further interview/interrogation?
In fact you can't be compelled to produce I.D in many states unless there is reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in some type of criminal activity.
Your correct you can not compel someone to ID themselves unless you have reasonable suspicion they have committed a crime.
Pat
Eurodriver
09-19-13, 01:51
This post is a fail. So your cool with felons having guns??? That in its self is a felony crime.
Again why stir the pot when you can carry all you want without the "hassle" by concealing it??
Some people get upset or scared by guns, like it or not that's a fact.Those people then call 911, then the police show up, then all the drama starts and sooner or later someone is going to get shot, be it a police officer or the pot stirrer.
So why do it? Just conceal the gun. Your not "losing" anything by that.
Again I'm all for law abiding citizens carry sidearms. I stop people all the time that have a ccw.
Guess what I do after I check to make sure they aren't a felon, and that the gun isn't stolen.
I thank them for their cooperation , then we talk about their gun.
Then I say have a nice night.
Devil dog,
I can be cool with anything I want. I can be cool with bank robbery, rape, hate crimes, cops getting abducted by scores of beautiful victoria secret models. How is that illegal? Now you're just making shit up bro.
I don't open carry. I don't know anyone that does. I think it's pretty stupid and I couldn't imagine myself ever doing it. But you do it. Can I demand to see your credentials at any time? Specifically your home address, date of birth, and DL #? Why not? You think you're special or something?
The fact that you think you're within your LEO authoritah to go around checking ID's of anyone not commiting a crime is the entire reason threads like this stretch on for billions of pages. The fact is you can't. You can lie, exaggerate, beg, and bullshit all you want (The court says so) but I'd never hand you my ID if I was open carrying unless you could (and you probably would) articulate that I was doing something illegal.
Example - I'm standing around an industrial area at 3:00am. You ask for ID. I tell you to go pound sand. Then you tell me I'm loitering, now I have to hand you ID...and I would.
But if I was minding my own business in a shopping mall (and knew I had security footage of me *not* doing anything illegal...video footage makes for great evidence against overzealous LEOs) and you came up to me demanding ID, I wouldn't even acknowledge you. Take me down, bro. Tase someone for not doing anything illegal at all. Lets go to court. I've got time and money to burn. Skyline your whole department because you couldn't take "no" for an answer from a citizen minding his own business. Watch the NAACP, ACLU, et al decend upon you like a swarm of locusts all because you felt the need to violate someone's rights when the court already says you can't. I can see the headline now. "US Marine Christmas shopping gets tased by former Marine police officer because he wouldn't produce ID. On commute to jail they both reminisce about 3rd Battalion in Parris Island being way out in BFE"
Of course, this would never happen because I don't open carry.
Who said I wanted her to get a ccw permit? Also if your state allows open carry I could care less.
But the facts are someone is going call 911. So the police have to show up, if so why is it so hard to understand why the police would want to check if your legal to open carry?
Again why cause drama wheather you agree with it or not when all you have to do is conceal the firearm?
Your not losing the right to carry , and again I'm all for people being able to carry.
I'm not for people looking to cause drama. Like the guy standing on the corner with the rifle. That's just stupid, and its going to cause someone to get hurt.
I'll restate what I said. You are apparently against open carry and believe in concealed carry. To conceal you must have a permit in most places or am I wrong? So you'd want her to get a CCW permit, right? If not then are you saying she should just carry concealed illegally?
-----------------------------
This is what really rubs me the wrong way about your and Pat's mentality and I'm sure several more judging by their statements. You live in a world of fear of what might happen some day. Somebody might get hurt. Wow.
List all of the things you do on a daily basis that might hurt somebody.
Eurodriver
09-19-13, 01:58
Your correct you can not compel someone to ID themselves unless you have reasonable suspicion they have committed a crime.
Pat
But - you can lie to them and tell them that they are going to go to jail if they don't produce ID. You can get pretty detailed and even somewhat physical with the encounter too. What decent American without a rap sheet is going to risk getting hauled off to jail just to prove a point?
Not many.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 02:02
But - you can lie to them and tell them that they are going to go to jail if they don't produce ID. You can get pretty detailed and even somewhat physical with the encounter too. What decent American without a rap sheet is going to risk getting hauled off to jail just to prove a point?
Not many.
You can use deception to get a confession but you can't use cohesion, violence etc. Your correct most good people will just show their ID when asked.
Pat
You don't even have to lie to me just keep silent when I ask you if I'm being detained. This is why people want video for when they are ambiguously detained because a LEO won't answer a direct damned question. You all see these videos. They don't make front page news if the officer is a straight up calm guy. It's when the LEO have the person confused as to whether they're being detained or not and dodge questions. That's what pisses me off.
Edit:
Not to mention detain and ID the young lady's friends and family. Abuse of authority is where my patience ends.
Devil dog,
I can be cool with anything I want. I can be cool with bank robbery, rape, hate crimes, cops getting abducted by scores of beautiful victoria secret models. How is that illegal? Now you're just making shit up bro.
I don't open carry. I don't know anyone that does. I think it's pretty stupid and I couldn't imagine myself ever doing it. But you do it. Can I demand to see your credentials at any time? Specifically your home address, date of birth, and DL #? Why not? You think you're special or something?
The fact that you think you're within your LEO authoritah to go around checking ID's of anyone not commiting a crime is the entire reason threads like this stretch on for billions of pages. The fact is you can't. You can lie, exaggerate, beg, and bullshit all you want (The court says so) but I'd never hand you my ID if I was open carrying unless you could (and you probably would) articulate that I was doing something illegal.
Example - I'm standing around an industrial area at 3:00am. You ask for ID. I tell you to go pound sand. Then you tell me I'm loitering, now I have to hand you ID...and I would.
But if I was minding my own business in a shopping mall (and knew I had security footage of me *not* doing anything illegal...video footage makes for great evidence against overzealous LEOs) and you came up to me demanding ID, I wouldn't even acknowledge you. Take me down, bro. Tase someone for not doing anything illegal at all. Lets go to court. I've got time and money to burn. Skyline your whole department because you couldn't take "no" for an answer from a citizen minding his own business. Watch the NAACP, ACLU, et al decend upon you like a swarm of locusts all because you felt the need to violate someone's rights when the court already says you can't. I can see the headline now. "US Marine Christmas shopping gets tased by former Marine police officer because he wouldn't produce ID. On commute to jail they both reminisce about 3rd Battalion in Parris Island being way out in BFE"
Of course, this would never happen because I don't open carry.
If its legal to open carry in your state, that's great, what I've said is in today's society like it or not, someone is going to call 911, police show up, ask for I.d. To determine who you are and if you can legally carry. Why is this a big deal? And if you don't want the "hassle" why not just conceal it and save everyone the trouble?
Police officers checks to see if your good to go, if you are then we can talk about guns, if the complaintant then still has an issue, the officers can explain the open carry/ccw law and that the person carrying is not a felon and can do so. But these types of videos are done just bait officers, and get some youtube hits. Like the douche with the rifle saying "scumbags " really?? You stand on a corner with a rifle and don't expect the police to show?
3rd Herd??? No way, 1st BN. All the way.only the nasties went to 3rd herd.
:D
jklaughrey
09-19-13, 06:29
I'm a LEO and even when I have been asked for ID on the rare occasions that I have... I tell them to go pound sand. Being officer I know all the bullshit we spew to get info. I for one don't do it. I'm up front and honest. If you're going to be jammed up anyways I'll find it honestly versus being deceptive. Besides most timers I've met and dealt with prefer a cop to be honest versus treating them like a fish. I will state however I have a severe disdain for any officer who violates a person's rights without justified cause. I bought myself a suspension pending outcome for tossing a fellow cop on his grape. He deserved it, I got the weenie but was found in the right after 2 weeks paid vacation. Everyone thinks all cops are brothers and in the club, **** your club it's just a job not a special God damn secret handshake fraternity.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
1)Don't you need probable cause or reasonable suspicion or something to just start running information?
2)What if the OC advocate refused to produce ID?
3)Someone is going to get shot over this one day and a cop is going to end up in jail for murder and OC everywhere is going to go the way of the dodo.
1) No
2) If you are respectful, most people will present ID when asked. I don't know the laws in Missouri, but in our area LEO would not have the right to compel someone to present ID. The O.C. most likely did not walk to Missouri from Oklahoma, so LEO could wait until they returned to their vehicle and run the registration.
3)You are on point about O.C. ending if advocates keeping setting up circumstances where they can be confrontational with LEO.
I would hate to see anyone get hurt.
I would hate to see further restrictions on firearms rights, because a few well intentioned people pushed the envelope and intentionally provoked a confrontation with LEO.
In this particular case, I did not see a problem with the way the way the ladies were carrying and IraqGunz' post identified a very good way to handle the situation.
I also agree with jklaughrey's post about being honest and straight forward with people.
I never forgot the fact that I answered to my supervisors, but I did not work for them. I worked for the tax payers.
I'm a LEO and even when I have been asked for ID on the rare occasions that I have... I tell them to go pound sand. Being officer I know all the bullshit we spew to get info. I for one don't do it. I'm up front and honest. If you're going to be jammed up anyways I'll find it honestly versus being deceptive. Besides most timers I've met and dealt with prefer a cop to be honest versus treating them like a fish. I will state however I have a severe disdain for any officer who violates a person's rights without justified cause. I bought myself a suspension pending outcome for tossing a fellow cop on his grape. He deserved it, I got the weenie but was found in the right after 2 weeks paid vacation. Everyone thinks all cops are brothers and in the club, **** your club it's just a job not a special God damn secret handshake fraternity.
You never cease to make me laugh! You, glocktogo and a few others here have read the Constitution a few more times than a lot of others, I'll leave it at that. Be safe!
jklaughrey
09-19-13, 09:38
You never cease to make me laugh! You, glocktogo and a few others here have read the Constitution a few more times than a lot of others, I'll leave it at that. Be safe!
Nothing special, just pragmatic and honest.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
It is still stupid and most of the guys I see doing it are arrogant asses going around with slung rifles and video cameras looking for a confrontation. With that type of image its not going to be long before people start to want to repeal these types of laws. Also so what a cop got the knife law wrong by one inch. We make mistakes too. We obviously disagree and I don't feel like debating this tired topic.
Pat
It doesn't matter whether you agree or dis agree to open carry, the fact of the matter is that it is our 2nd amendment right to do so. Perhaps "Arrogant asses" would not have to carry a slung rifle in public, looking for confrontation, if more LEOs like yourself actually upheld, or believed in the oath you swore to the Constitution of the United States of America. Use your rights or lose your rights, case and point.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 13:39
It doesn't matter whether you agree or dis agree to open carry, the fact of the matter is that it is our 2nd amendment right to do so. Perhaps "Arrogant asses" would not have to carry a slung rifle in public, looking for confrontation, if more LEOs like yourself actually upheld, or believed in the oath you swore to the Constitution of the United States of America. Use your rights or lose your rights, case and point.
You can exercise your rights without making a spectical of yourself. In reality if you abuse your open carry rights you will probably lose them in the end. We live in a political world and if enough people don't like what you are doing they can change the law.
Pat
NCPatrolAR
09-19-13, 13:40
It doesn't matter whether you agree or dis agree to open carry, the fact of the matter is that it is our 2nd amendment right to do so. Perhaps "Arrogant asses" would not have to carry a slung rifle in public, looking for confrontation, if more LEOs like yourself actually upheld, or believed in the oath you swore to the Constitution of the United States of America. Use your rights or lose your rights, case and point.
Worked well with Starbucks didn't it?
thopkins22
09-19-13, 13:47
Worked well with Starbucks didn't it?
Not so much....
I firmly believe in the first amendment. I believe that extends to art, and I believe that art includes things that we may find...challenging or off-putting. I believe in the right of people to make and distribute crazy weird pornography(as long as everyone involved is willing and 18.)
I do not believe that my first amendment rights hinge on using or losing my personal right to film myself engaged in a orgy with seventeen Japanese gals wearing nothing but an eye patch...even though the first amendment affirms my right to do so.
Almost everyone who isn't advocating open carry here, probably believes that in an ideal world it would be fine. Most of us even believe that you should be able to do it in today's world without hassle. What I don't believe, is that it's somehow good for the movement.
So sad how many 2A "supporters" are against and talk down about open carry. Youa re speakin gout against your right to bear arms, you do realize this right? WTF?!?!?!?!?!
You either have the right or you do not. Period. Who gives a flying **** what the anti's think, they're trying to take away your rights either way.
We have already allowed our RIGHT to carry concealed be turned into a permission, not long before open carry will be a mere persmission as well; especially with some of your attitudes- being the supposed "pro" gun guys and all.
It's pathetic that people derride those who exercise their rights because someone might get their feewings huwt and be scawed of that person excersising their rights.
I've got some news for you- FREEDOM isn't ahappy lolli-pops and rainbows ideal, it doesn't make me magically safe or taken care of; it is dangerous and beautiful, but never has freedom been safe or all smiles and chocolate kisses.
If you all weren't so worried about how you are perceived by those who seek to take away your rights; and instead excersised them- maybe those rights wouldn't have been erroded to the point they are today.
Pat, you open carry as you perform your job duties, no? Is that stupid? Please extrapolate on why a citizen OC'ing is so "Stupid" but a citizen who is also an LEO is not. I really would like to know your logic here. Please.
Do you realize that A LOT of people feel the same about police carrying guns as they do anyone else? That they are scawed of it?
Should you conceal carry because of that as an LEO? I mean, come on, they are scawed and you should just bend to their will even though you have a right to do so- right?
Just yesterday I was out getting a frothy mug of ale with my wife at a local watering hole and overheard a group of idiot twenty-somethings discussing "Cops" and how they are "brutes" who hide behind their "Guns" and that is the only reason they have any authority. That they should be like the "Cops" in Britain and only have night sticks, afterall, most crime/criminals they deal with do not need a gun pointed at them; they don't need guns to effectively get their jobs done as "Cops"- "just look at England" they said.
You might find yourself on the wrong side of your own argument one day; then again you may agree that "cops" shouldn't open carry- because it is "Stupid" to open carry; I mean what reason would anyone have for the open carrying of a weapon right?
It is freaking rediculous on a pro 2A forum people will talk up concfealed carry; when it is a ****ing permission. But talk down open carry- which is still a right in MOST places. They are one and the same at heart, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! How some of you allow them to be separate ideals and have separate rules is beyond logic and quite frustrating.
Gun owners that worry about perceptions and change their actions due to the idiots who seek to disarm them and take away their rights are only screwing themselves over- and the rest of us gun owners.
Do you think the anti's care what the hell you think about them? Do you think they will change their opinions/goal of taking away your rights just becuase of your "Feelings"?
Some food for thought. In places like Denver where OC is illegal, and CC is by permission only, they have literally destroyed your right to bear arms. Do any of you really think stopping people from OC in other regions is going to help us gain any freedom or expand our rights?
It is hilarious and quite frustrating the logic behind the anti-OC crowd (Both non firearms enthusiast and firearms enthusiast)- "Don't OC because people might get scawed and try to take away your right to OC". IF you're not excersising your rights in the first place; it matters not anyway.
They will try to take away any and all gun rights they can to justify their biased ill-informed bullshit opinions anyways, regardless of if you OC or not. So go ahead and take your own rights away by not excersising them, I will continue to be a ****ing free man.
Totally agree with all of this.
You can exercise your rights without making a spectical of yourself. In reality if you abuse your open carry rights you will probably lose them in the end. We live in a political world and if enough people don't like what you are doing they can change the law.
Pat
Except concealed carry is no longer a right- it is a permission.
I do agree that how people OC and how they act whilst doing so is very important. When OC'ing people should hold themselves to the highest standards of safety, present themselves positively, neatly and be the nicest kindest people in the room.
CC is a better option in most circumstances I agree 100%, but it is not the only option, and it isn't always an option 100% of the time.
Rights are meant to be excersised. Otherwise it really doesn't matter if they are legal or not.
I'm tired of the fan-boy idiot in your face OC'ers as well.
But not all OC'er are idiots, some of them happen to be intelligent, passionate and articulate ambassadors for our rights.
You can exercise your rights without making a spectical of yourself. In reality if you abuse your open carry rights you will probably lose them in the end. We live in a political world and if enough people don't like what you are doing they can change the law.
Pat
Yes, if you abuse them, you could lose them. But if no-body takes a stand and exercises their rights...we will all lose them eventually.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 13:58
Except concealed carry is no longer a right- it is a permission.
I do agree that how people OC and how they act whilst doing so is very important. When OC'ing people should hold themselves to the highest standards of safety, present themselves positively, neatly and be the nicest kindest people in the room.
CC is a better option in most circumstances I agree 100%, but it is not the only option, and it isn't always an option 100% of the time.
Rights are meant to be excersised. Otherwise it really doesn't matter if they are legal or not.
I'm tired of the fan-boy idiot in your face OC'ers as well.
But not all OC'er are idiots, some of them happen to be intelligent, passionate and articulate ambassadors for our rights.
Concealed carry permits are very easy to get in most states. I would rather see people pushing for a Vermont/Alaska style law on concealed carry vs pushing open carry.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 14:01
Yes, if you abuse them, you could lose them. But if no-body takes a stand and exercises their rights...we will all lose them eventually.
I don't think we will lose them if people are responsible and don't draw negative attention our way. Before open carry we were getting CCW laws passed in nearly all the states. Peoples view of gun ownership has been going up. I don't want to reverse that trend. It is all about public opinion. If we lose support we will lose our rights.
Pat
Concealed carry permits are very easy to get in most states. I would rather see people pushing for a Vermont/Alaska style law on concealed carry vs pushing open carry.
Pat
"Easy to get permission" is not the ssame thing as- "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Our constitution and the intent with which it was written is DAMN clear; even though some would say otherwise out of pure ignorance.
I understand how easy they are to get in SOME states, most in fact, but that doesn't change the fact it is now a permission, not a right.
Concealed carry SHOULD be a right without having to go to the local Sheriff and get him to sign off and give permission (And then be in a registered data base) to do so; regardless of the ease in which one may do so. Period.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 14:09
"Easy to get permission" is not the ssame thing as- "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Our constitution and the intent with which it was written is DAMN clear; even though some would say otherwise out of pure ignorance.
I understand how easy they are to get in SOME states, most in fact, but that doesn't change the fact it is now a permission, not a right.
Concealed carry SHOULD be a right without having to go to the local Sheriff and get him to sign off and give permission (And then be in a registered data base) to do so; regardless of the ease in which one may do so. Period.
I understand what your point is but I have mixed feelings. Personally I would prefer if people had to take a basic class on the law and how to shoot before being able to carry a gun in public. Its your right to own them but the court has imposed limits on how they are carried outside of your home. We can disagree on rather that should be the case but the reality is it is. If open carriers bring enough negative attention our way then people will vote to restrict how we can carry our guns even further. Even if laws are not passed more and more private business could ban carry in their establishments making open carry illegal except on the street and in your home.
Pat
Concealed carry permits are very easy to get in most states. I would rather see people pushing for a Vermont/Alaska style law on concealed carry vs pushing open carry.
Pat
Unless you're poor, live in a shitty neighborhood, need to carry a piece and can't afford the CCW class, the fingerprints, the fees, etc.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 14:19
Unless you're poor, live in a shitty neighborhood, need to carry a piece and can't afford the CCW class, the fingerprints, the fees, etc.
Those fees are pretty low generally. If you can't afford them you probably can't afford a gun or the bullets to put in it to stay proficient. Also if you push for a Alaska style law there is no permit needed to carry concealed no fees etc.
Pat
I understand what your point is but I have mixed feelings. Personally I would prefer if people had to take a basic class on the law and how to shoot before being able to carry a gun in public. Its your right to own them but the court has imposed limits on how they are carried outside of your home. We can disagree on rather that should be the case but the reality is it is. If open carriers bring enough negative attention our way then people will vote to restrict how we can carry our guns even further. Even if laws are not passed more and more private business could ban carry in their establishments making open carry illegal except on the street and in your home.
Pat
Personal mixed feelings or not, forcing citizens of the USA to get permission to conceal carry/bear arms is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.
I take infringement of my rights (ANY and ALL of them) INCREDIBLY SERIOUSLY- regardless of what SCOTUS/courts have said, they have not the power to make these rulings. The power of judicial review of our constitutional rights by SCOTUS was never granted by or enumerated in the Constitution. They just up and started doing it and it has caused a lot of damage to this country to give SCOTUS so much power- power that was never intended to be extended to them.
It's all in black and white because some good men decided to spill some red to fight for these rights and regardless of "how it is" due to the courts- it is unconstitutional and wrong.
It is possible for people to take classes and be educated to the law without being added to a database and getting permission/sign-off to conceal carry/bear arms form a sherriff- is it not?
Would you be okay with SCOTUS ruling that to simply buy a gun one had to obtain a sign off from their local Sheriff and be added to a data base?
The right to KEEP VS> the right to BEAR should be no different and should not have separate rules. The constitution is crystal clear on this.
I don't think we will lose them if people are responsible and don't draw negative attention our way. Before open carry we were getting CCW laws passed in nearly all the states. Peoples view of gun ownership has been going up. I don't want to reverse that trend. It is all about public opinion. If we lose support we will lose our rights.
Pat
Believe me, I do see logic in your statements. But we are living in very shaky times, where in my opinion, we are not a free country anymore. Do you think people 100 years ago even gave someone that was open carrying a second look? Of course not, it was the norm. So why have peoples views changed so dramatically? Why is carrying a firearm only socially acceptable if it is hidden? In my opinion, the mainstream has dumbed down the population to such a level that Hitler himself would be envious. It's funny to me on how all of the mass shooting that have happened since warlord obummer got in office, have gotten so much attention, that it is threatening our 2nd amendment rights. What about all the mass shootings that happened in the 80's or the 90's. The main stream won't tell you that fatal shootings have actually declined quite a bit. They also wont tell you that you have more of a chance to get struck by lightening, get killed in a car accident...etc. The bottom line is that we Americans have to either take a stand at some point, or just accept that we are slaves.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 14:28
Personal mixed feelings or not, forcing citizens of the USA to get permission to conceal carry/bear arms is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.
I take infringement of my rights (ANY and ALL of them) INCREDIBLY SERIOUSLY- regardless of what SCOTUS/courts have said, they have not the power to make these rulings. The power of judicial review of our constitutional rights by SCOTUS was never granted by or enumerated in the Constitution. They just up and started doing it and it has caused a lot of damage to this country to give SCOTUS so much power- power that was never intended to be extended to them.
It's all in black and white because some good men decided to spill some red to fight for these rights and regardless of "how it is" due to the courts- it is unconstitutional and wrong.
It is possible for people to take classes and be educated to the law without being added to a database and getting permission/sign-off to conceal carry/bear arms form a sherriff- is it not?
Would you be okay with SCOTUS ruling that to simply buy a gun one had to obtain a sign off from their local Sheriff and be added to a data base?
The right to KEEP VS> the right to BEAR should be no different and should not have separate rules. The constitution is crystal clear on this.
We live in a representative democracy. With enough support even the constitution can be changed. Lets not push public opinion that direction by abusing our rights. With rights come responsibilities.
Pat
Unless you're poor, live in a shitty neighborhood, need to carry a piece and can't afford the CCW class, the fingerprints, the fees, etc.
In addition to
take a basic class on the law and how to shoot before being able to carry a gun in public.
And what about time? What if some lady rats out her gangster husband, and needs to protect herself? Sorry; waiting for classes, CHL in the mail, etc is irresponsible.
Those fees are pretty low generally. If you can't afford them you probably can't afford a gun or the bullets to put in it to stay proficient. Also if you push for a Alaska style law there is no permit needed to carry concealed no fees etc.
Pat
The assumption you're making is that if they can't afford one then they can't afford everything. If they can afford a gun and bullets that's really all they need. The law doesn't require one to train and stay proficient. The vast majority of uses of legally owned firearms are not from "trained" pistoleros. I'm all for no-permit CCW.
And what about time? What if some lady rats out her gangster husband, and needs to protect herself? Sorry; waiting for classes, CHL in the mail, etc is irresponsible.
There have been several cases of people waiting on paperwork, CCW, etc. and have had to rely on a piece of paper to keep the predator away... Conclusion, they were killed by the predator before they could legally carry concealed.
We live in a representative democracy. With enough support even the constitution can be changed. Lets not push public opinion that direction by abusing our rights. With rights come responsibilities.
Pat
Correction...we live in a Constitutional Republic. I challenge you to even find the word Democracy in the Constitution.
Those fees are pretty low generally. If you can't afford them you probably can't afford a gun or the bullets to put in it to stay proficient. Also if you push for a Alaska style law there is no permit needed to carry concealed no fees etc.
Pat
I know people who shoot MUCh better than me that only shoot once a year and only shoot about 50 rounds pistol/100 rounds rifle.
I also know some guys who outshoot me by a LARGE margin who cannot shoot worth shit.
The idea that everyone needs to shoot 1000's of rounds a year and spend thousands of $$$ on training classes to be able to defend their lives should the situation arise is erroneous.
Plenty of examples in real life of this.
Training will help, indeed. And obviously it is a good idea to practice as much as possible with anything you wish to be good at.
I am not saying that everyone should/could just buy a gun, (50) rounds of ammo and shoot 10 rounds a year and can be good at it, but if they are proficient in doing so, safe and capable- what's the issue?
If I couldn't afford to shoot as much as I do, my dryfire drills would help to assure I could still be proficient.
In fact I've dry fired more in this year alone than in the last (3) years due to ammo prices and availability. When I do go to the range I am not seeing a loss of skills.
Permission to excercise a right is wrong, unconstitutional and goes against many an oath.
We live in a representative democracy. With enough support even the constitution can be changed. Lets not push public opinion that direction by abusing our rights. With rights come responsibilities.
Pat
You're wrong Pat. We do not live in a representative Democracy. The constitution is not a living breathing document that can just be altered. Period.
We live in a Constitutional Federal Republic and it is pretty clear in article V how things MUST happen to change/ammend the constitution.
Indeed with rights comes responsibility, first and foremost UPHOLDING those rights above all else!
ETA: Cammoman beat me to it...
Rights are a dangerous thing. They are going to be abused.
Show me numbers please. How many shootings have their been due to OC? Legal OC. Not this BS about "the criminals are OC-ing because it's legal." Or bad things may happen. That tells me there isn't jack shit to back up that bad things are happening now.
Being on the fence and saying you don't support the idiotic OC fanatics isn't going to help. Gun grabbers already think we are a bunch of wing nuts going to gun shows constantly, supposedly buying ARs without background checks, and hoarding ammo and supplies prepping for doomsday. You can't reason with people who think that way. All you're doing is laying the ground work for more of our rights to be stripped.
For the record the Brady bunch and anti-gun groups started stirring the pot with Starbucks several years ago. Starbucks stayed out of the politics until now.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 15:57
Correction...we live in a Constitutional Republic. I challenge you to even find the word Democracy in the Constitution.
A republic is a representative democracy by definition. The people elect their representatives who vote the actual issues.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 15:59
You're wrong Pat. We do not live in a representative Democracy. The constitution is not a living breathing document that can just be altered. Period.
We live in a Constitutional Federal Republic and it is pretty clear in article V how things MUST happen to change/ammend the constitution.
Indeed with rights comes responsibility, first and foremost UPHOLDING those rights above all else!
ETA: Cammoman beat me to it...
With respect it is a living breathing document. Its very hard to change and that is a good thing but it can be changed. Hence women's suffrage, ending slavery, prohibition etc. If enough people wanted to do away with the second amendment because of the actions of a few foolish gun owners it could happen. With rights comes the responsibilities of not exercising your rights to the point of trampling someone else's.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 16:01
Rights are a dangerous thing. They are going to be abused.
Show me numbers please. How many shootings have their been due to OC? Legal OC. Not this BS about "the criminals are OC-ing because it's legal." Or bad things may happen. That tells me there isn't jack shit to back up that bad things are happening now.
Being on the fence and saying you don't support the idiotic OC fanatics isn't going to help. Gun grabbers already think we are a bunch of wing nuts going to gun shows constantly, supposedly buying ARs without background checks, and hoarding ammo and supplies prepping for doomsday. You can't reason with people who think that way. All you're doing is laying the ground work for more of our rights to be stripped.
For the record the Brady bunch and anti-gun groups started stirring the pot with Starbucks several years ago. Starbucks stayed out of the politics until now.
Starbucks stayed out of it until Open Carriers started making an ass of themselves. While the anti gunners think we are a bunch of idiots there are pro gun people who don't care for open carriers and people in the middle who see them as cooks but are ok with people owning firearms. We don't need to alienate anyone we need to be working hard to improve the image of gun owners.
Pat
Apparently you haven't see the pics of people OC'ing AK's, AR's, shotguns and the like at Starbucks taking stupid hero pics. Yeah, they're educating alright.... :rolleyes:
Show me how they made asses out of themselves just by showing up to exercise their rights outside the store.
Either you have drunk the koolaid or you just think everybody OCing is an ass.
I fail to see how anything threatening occurred unless they were disturbing the peace. :rolleyes:
With respect it is a living breathing document. Its very hard to change and that is a good thing but it can be changed. Hence women's suffrage, ending slavery, prohibition etc. If enough people wanted to do away with the second amendment because of the actions of a few foolish gun owners it could happen. With rights comes the responsibilities of not exercising your rights to the point of trampling someone else's.
Pat,
This is wrong. You are misinterpreting what "living and breathing" means.
The Constitution is a set of rules, and like any other set of rules, it is meant to be strict and uncompromising. Of course, the Constitution can be modified through the amendment process, but once ratified, any amendment becomes like the rest of the Constitution; rigid.
And while any amendment may be repealed, as was the case with the 18th Amendment, until that happens, it is just as concrete as any other part of the Constitution, and not subject to interpretation beyond the literal meaning of its text. The Constitution does not live, breath, or do the electric slide, for that matter. It is in many ways an instructional manual for the way our country was designed to run, and amending it is very serious business.
When a judge refers to it as "living and breathing," what he or she means is that the words within it can be taken in different ways, depending upon who is looking at it at any given time. They also apply words like "evolving" to it, as if it is some sort of life form that routinely adapts to its environment.
That, of course, is ridiculous. Our Constitution only "evolves" when an overwhelming majority of the American citizenry determines that a change is necessary, not because of some judge's personal belief in how that document should read.
Words mean what they mean, not what we wish they would mean, whenever we become uncomfortable reading them. One cannot rightfully look at the Constitution and determine that its text means something other than what it has always meant, and was intended to mean upon its ratification.
One may only disagree with the principles underlying those words, and seek to further amend the document, thereby introducing new words and rationales into it.
Just because there is an amendment process does not make the constitution a living breathing document.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 16:55
Pat,
This is wrong. You are misinterpreting what "living and breathing" means.
The Constitution is a set of rules, and like any other set of rules, it is meant to be strict and uncompromising. Of course, the Constitution can be modified through the amendment process, but once ratified, any amendment becomes like the rest of the Constitution; rigid.
And while any amendment may be repealed, as was the case with the 18th Amendment, until that happens, it is just as concrete as any other part of the Constitution, and not subject to interpretation beyond the literal meaning of its text. The Constitution does not live, breath, or do the electric slide, for that matter. It is in many ways an instructional manual for the way our country was designed to run, and amending it is very serious business.
When a judge refers to it as "living and breathing," what he or she means is that the words within it can be taken in different ways, depending upon who is looking at it at any given time. They also apply words like "evolving" to it, as if it is some sort of life form that routinely adapts to its environment.
That, of course, is ridiculous. Our Constitution only "evolves" when an overwhelming majority of the American citizenry determines that a change is necessary, not because of some judge's personal belief in how that document should read.
Words mean what they mean, not what we wish they would mean, whenever we become uncomfortable reading them. One cannot rightfully look at the Constitution and determine that its text means something other than what it has always meant, and was intended to mean upon its ratification.
One may only disagree with the principles underlying those words, and seek to further amend the document, thereby introducing new words and rationales into it.
Just because there is an amendment process does not make the constitution a living breathing document.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but the point remains it can be changed. Lets hope its does not happen.
Pat
It all depends on location. Some states can get expensive with fees, fingerprints and the training.
In addition from what you mentioned above, it would have to be federal because all states have different requirements and that means states' rights.
I am all about people carrying without training, qualification, etc... We live in a society where people should be allowed to fail. If someone shoots someone on accident and is then sent to present for manslaughter and/or sued, that's on them.
However, a person shouldn't have to pay to exercise a right. We did away with the poll tax didn't we?
Those fees are pretty low generally. If you can't afford them you probably can't afford a gun or the bullets to put in it to stay proficient. Also if you push for a Alaska style law there is no permit needed to carry concealed no fees etc.
Pat
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but the point remains it can be changed. Lets hope its does not happen.
Pat
I mean no disrespect- but I believe you are misunderstanding what "living and breathing document" means.
"Living and breathing" in the correct context is the "words" themselves being interpreted based on the times and the individual reading them to fit their ideals or understanding of the words-
EG-
"A well regulated militia" in the time that the document was written had a very specific meaning- that could be interpreted to have a different meaning today IF the Constitution really was a "living and breathing" document (Which it most definitely is NOT).
It could be (And often is) interpreted that only members of a "militia" that is "well regulated" by the fed govt can be allowed the right to keep and bear arms.
Well that is 100% false.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
So the words are resolute and rigid, as are the amendments; the Constitution is not a living and breathing document.
Apparently you haven't see the pics of people OC'ing AK's, AR's, shotguns and the like at Starbucks taking stupid hero pics. Yeah, they're educating alright.... :rolleyes:
No offense intended but I don't care what gun they had. I would argue that a long gun across the back is safer than a side holster pistol because it shouldn't be as easy to take by another person.
If they were unsafe handling it and somebody felt threatened that's a different issue. Apparently nobody broke the law or was hurt.
I'm not sure what you mean by hero pics unless people were taking photos of themselves glorifying their weapons by Starbucks. Not something I would do but not necessarily illegal.
You may not like their behavior but you can't legislate or regulate legal behavior. If your concern is the image of the gun community quite a few states are expanding carry rights so they must know a few misfits don't reflect the whole. The states that are trending anti gun were already going for the jugular with assault rifle bans and mag capacity bans for the most part. The NRA isn't helping by saying no comment when asked about OC last I read.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 18:56
It all depends on location. Some states can get expensive with fees, fingerprints and the training.
In addition from what you mentioned above, it would have to be federal because all states have different requirements and that means states' rights.
I am all about people carrying without training, qualification, etc... We live in a society where people should be allowed to fail. If someone shoots someone on accident and is then sent to present for manslaughter and/or sued, that's on them.
However, a person shouldn't have to pay to exercise a right. We did away with the poll tax didn't we?
That is why I have mixed feelings. If we require education and testing for basic proficiency with a firearm the state could use that to exclude people. But on the other hand people would benefit from that education and training. Not sure what the best answer is. I don't think one exists.
Pat
RogerinTPA
09-19-13, 20:06
That is why I have mixed feelings. If we require education and testing for basic proficiency with a firearm the state could use that to exclude people. But on the other hand people would benefit from that education and training. Not sure what the best answer is. I don't think one exists.
Pat
If a firearm training requirement was left optional, I'd have no problems with it. Placing mandatory restrictions on a right, I have problems with. It's like the literacy test for blacks in the south during the Jim Crow era. They had the right to vote all along, but Democrats imposed that test to restrict, discourage, and nullify that right. When a basic right is amended by the government to institute it's requirements to be mandatory (or completely restricted as in the city of Chicago as an example), in order to exercise that right, it's no longer a right. It's a restriction to exclude people, and those who impose those restrictions should be voted out of office.
NCPatrolAR
09-19-13, 21:13
I would argue that a long gun across the back is safer than a side holster pistol because it shouldn't be as easy to take by another person.
Retention is only one aspect. A lot of these individuals displayed poor muzzle discipline which could result in an injury-producing AD should there safety be swept off by their latte and their love handle press the trigger.
I'm not sure what you mean by hero pics unless people were taking photos of themselves glorifying their weapons by Starbucks.
Here's a few samples:
http://notthesingularity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/open-carry.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/daccb0490614c03e7372207eaf00b15f/tumblr_mgvr9lKRMY1rkuiqeo1_500.jpg
http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Fashion-Accessory.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/b80efe52fa109485b39364eeb0c98043/tumblr_mr9rkkVL2T1qjo9duo1_500.png
You may not like their behavior but you can't legislate or regulate legal behavior.
But you can force neutral business to sway toward a more negative outlook on firearms. This is exactly what happened with the asinine Starbucks "campaign".
PA PATRIOT
09-19-13, 21:37
States are starting to allow urban cities with a population above a certain level to restrict open carry unless that person possesses a concealed carry permit. This allows police to stop and investigate a visually armed person for said concealed carry permit as it is a requirement for the open carry.
Also while recently traveling I have notice many more "No Firearms, Replicas or Primitive weapons allowed" signs and more "Weapons prohibited safe zone" signs. There are ways to push the O/C'ers and CCW's out of usable real estate unless those doing so use a bit of common sense.
Hell,
Even the NRA has a "No Comment" about O/C'ing during these mass public displays so what does that say.
Alaskapopo
09-19-13, 21:55
Retention is only one aspect. A lot of these individuals displayed poor muzzle discipline which could result in an injury-producing AD should there safety be swept off by their latte and their love handle press the trigger.
Here's a few samples:
http://notthesingularity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/open-carry.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/daccb0490614c03e7372207eaf00b15f/tumblr_mgvr9lKRMY1rkuiqeo1_500.jpg
http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Fashion-Accessory.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/b80efe52fa109485b39364eeb0c98043/tumblr_mr9rkkVL2T1qjo9duo1_500.png
But you can force neutral business to sway toward a more negative outlook on firearms. This is exactly what happened with the asinine Starbucks "campaign".
The guy in the yellow shirt looks like Private Pile from Full Metal Jacket.
Pat
MountainRaven
09-19-13, 22:45
The last pic, the guy with the shotgun in the grey shirt, was apparently taken in Iraq.
If you think the NRA not commenting means anything then maybe you don't remember them going from not having a problem with ARs to the no comment angle and now to pro AR because they decided not to be dumb enough not to support the most popular rifle ever. Maybe you don't remember the discussions we had here about whether they would throw AR owners under the bus.
I never thought I would see people on this forum who just went through one of the largest battles in recent history for gun rights allow their opinion to be swayed by image and perception rather than facts and real numbers.
If you want to find idiots with poor muzzle discipline hunt for them all day taking photos and you will find them I have no doubt. It doesn't change the fact that you're magnitudes more likely to die by an idiot texting and driving than an OC shooting. But taking pictures of idiotic drivers who are risking theirs and everybody else's lives isn't as fun or cool as finding OC heros.
If you think the NRA not commenting means anything then maybe you don't remember them going from not having a problem with ARs to the no comment angle and now to pro AR because they decided not to be dumb enough not to support the most popular rifle ever. Maybe you don't remember the discussions we had here about whether they would throw AR owners under the bus.
I never thought I would see people on this forum who just went through one of the largest battles in recent history for gun rights allow their opinion to be swayed by image and perception rather than facts and real numbers.
If you want to find idiots with poor muzzle discipline hunt for them all day taking photos and you will find them I have no doubt. It doesn't change the fact that you're magnitudes more likely to die by an idiot texting and driving than an OC shooting. But taking pictures of idiotic drivers who are risking theirs and everybody else's lives isn't as fun or cool as finding OC heros.
That has absolutely nothing to do with it man (the likelihood of dying). It is about projecting a responsible and positive image of gun owners as responsible people who show respect to their neighbors and community.
I have been around guns since before I was crawling. I knew gun safety before I was three. I am Very Comfortable around firearms.
With that said I can't on both hands the number of times I have seen someone open carry a firearm outside of a hunting/backwoods/range session and every single one of those times I did a double take, assessed the situation, made sure myself and others were safe. IE it made me ALERT (some may say uncomfortable), and I am VERY pro gun.
Some people don't want to be in the middle of this debate. They may not have a dog in the fight at all. They may be indifferent about us owning guns, but not want guns in their life (about 85% of my friends are like this, not anti gun, but not pro gun, they just don't care and don't really "like" guns). Why in the world would you want to turn even one person on the fence into an anti gunner because you walk into their local coffee shop and you muzzle flash them while they drink their latte and eat a biscotti?
The Gay Pride parade analogy really says it all. People that do this kind of thing look as silly and fit into the same category of "type" of individual as the bondage boys tweaking their nipples on Main St. USA.
If that's how you want to be perceived I guess go for it.
I'm going to walk softly though...
That has absolutely nothing to do with it man (the likelihood of dying).
Did the fatality stats not figure into the AR debates we were having with anti-gun people?
That was one of our strongest points!
It has everything to do with it because if there is less risk of someone getting hurt by OC than a list of a dozen other activities we voluntarily do on a daily basis then what are you afraid of? What 'might' happen, right?
That sounds like the anti gun crowd being scared by those scary looking guns because there 'might' be another public shooting.
It is about projecting a responsible and positive image of gun owners as responsible people who show respect to their neighbors and community.
I have been around guns since before I was crawling. I knew gun safety before I was three. I am Very Comfortable around firearms.
With that said I can't on both hands the number of times I have seen someone open carry a firearm outside of a hunting/backwoods/range session and every single one of those times I did a double take, assessed the situation, made sure myself and others were safe. IE it made me ALERT (some may say uncomfortable), and I am VERY pro gun.
I'm sure many of us were raised with guns and safety in mind. That doesn't mean your opinion carries more weight than anyone else or makes more sense. Grown people become new responsible and safe gun owners everyday. Like I said, if people have a right some are going to abide by it responsibly and a small part aren't going to be responsible. It's a fact of life you want to gloss over to keep up an image that isn't reality.
Why do you think OC can't be responsible and safe gun ownership? Again tell me how many OC incidents there have been. I know there haven't been that many because the media would be beating it into our brains 24-7. "See how dangerous OC is! Save our children and make them safe by passing more laws!" they would say.
You're insinuating because you don't like OC or find some people that aren't safe that OC is unsafe. You seem to be confusing the Starbucks argument with the OC argument.
Some people don't want to be in the middle of this debate. They may not have a dog in the fight at all. They may be indifferent about us owning guns, but not want guns in their life (about 85% of my friends are like this, not anti gun, but not pro gun, they just don't care and don't really "like" guns). Why in the world would you want to turn even one person on the fence into an anti gunner because you walk into their local coffee shop and you muzzle flash them while they drink their latte and eat a biscotti?
The coffee shop analogy is being blown way out of proportion. You guys are once again letting the left drive a wedge issue with Starbucks and the people that even the OC community would frown on. If Starbucks would've just said no guns allowed from the beginning like a lot of businesses this wouldn't even be a big issue.
The Gay Pride parade analogy really says it all. People that do this kind of thing look as silly and fit into the same category of "type" of individual as the bondage boys tweaking their nipples on Main St. USA.
And people that are smart enough to know better know they only represent a small fraction of those people. You have just made my point.
If that's how you want to be perceived I guess go for it.
I don't let the few on the fringe affect me and don't care if someone want to pass judgement on me because of what they do. I couldn't care less how anyone perceives me except if it's on my own actions. If you're particular about whether you appear favorable to people on the fence that's your own problem and you can tip toe around them if you want. That's like saying I'm perceived as a school mass murderer or condoning it because I own an AR. I can't affect much how people already perceive gun owners.
I'm going to walk softly though...
You guys are letting a few wingnuts get the tension ratcheted up and missing the forest for the trees. A lot of you besides the moderates here were firm when it looked like the antis may have a chance at taking away ARs or mag capacity but now you want to let some Starbucks demonstrations get the best of this situation? OC has been gaining popularity for nearly a decade and suddenly you're all playing right into the antis hands again.
Retention is only one aspect. A lot of these individuals displayed poor muzzle discipline which could result in an injury-producing AD should there safety be swept off by their latte and their love handle press the trigger.
Here's a few samples:
http://notthesingularity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/open-carry.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/daccb0490614c03e7372207eaf00b15f/tumblr_mgvr9lKRMY1rkuiqeo1_500.jpg
http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Fashion-Accessory.jpg
http://31.media.tumblr.com/b80efe52fa109485b39364eeb0c98043/tumblr_mr9rkkVL2T1qjo9duo1_500.png
But you can force neutral business to sway toward a more negative outlook on firearms. This is exactly what happened with the asinine Starbucks "campaign".
People have the right to open carry. If I saw that many people feeling they needed to be that well armed outside a combat zone, I would think that the place was a little too dangerous to have a cup of coffee and read the newspaper. I would pick someplace else to have a cup.
PA PATRIOT
09-20-13, 11:59
I don't have a problem with folks who wish to open carry a reasonably sized handgun in a responsible manner. But I do have issue with the open carry of long guns especially with the current concerns of active shooters in public places. Its only going to take one open carry person armed with a long gun who refuses police commands or makes a foolish move and a tragic accident is going to occur.
That said the more responsible open carry folks present their self to the general public will only help promote their cause in a positive light.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.