Friend got harassed by the police for OC


PDA






chris in va
September 16, 2008, 05:03 AM
Thought I'd pass this along.

Two nights ago I was to meet a friend and his GF at Denny's for a late dinner. I'm waiting for them at the table, his GF comes up and says the deputies are questioning him for his OC outside the place.

I jumped up and casually strolled onto the scene. There were 5 units in the parking lot dealing with a disturbance not related to this one, but two LEO's happened to see my friend walking up to the entrance and stopped him.

LEO 1 started asking questions then gave him the n'th degree why it was a bad idea to open carry in a "family restaurant" and "we'll just get called back for a man with a gun". LEO 2 ambles up and listens in on the conversation. I interjected at this point, stating it was perfectly legal to OC in Virginia. He didn't like that, pointing out his "15 years of law enforcement" experience on the matter.

My friend got fed up and decided to just leave it in my car (he forgot his CC permit, I have one). His GF was telling him, "just leave it in the car!" etc.:rolleyes:

Now I just found out today he overheard LEO 2 remarking to #1 that he needed to lay off the stiff arm and understand nothing is wrong with a man OC provided he's not doing anything illegal. I didn't hear this however.

Thing is, at that hour NO kids/families are patronizing that Denny's. Locals out to get a late snack mostly. They could care less. Oh, I was CC my Ruger the whole time.:p

If you enjoyed reading about "Friend got harassed by the police for OC" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
September 16, 2008, 05:31 AM
"Family restaurant" is code for mediocre food, mediocre service, and lots of undisciplined children.

jughead2
September 16, 2008, 06:06 AM
what difference does it make if children are present???????????????/

dogmush
September 16, 2008, 06:31 AM
what difference does it make if children are present???????????????/

If there are children present, they could be coruppted in to thinking weapons, and by extension self reliance, are good and normal things. Imagine what would happen to society if a generation grew up like that!!

Kind of Blued
September 16, 2008, 06:40 AM
I need to buy a big fancy 1911 and start open carrying again.

Eric F
September 16, 2008, 07:03 AM
what difference does it make if children are present???????????????/Some folks ket really defensive over nothing when kids are involved, shouldnt make any diffrence but it does, I think we are all guilty of this as parents at one time or another involving guns or not, there is always something you will pass on but if your kids are there then its time to go else where.


To the op do you mind revealing what city this was. if it was in the south east or northern Va then I can see why you got the shaft for open cary, they arnt too receptive to it in those areas.

cpttango30
September 16, 2008, 07:08 AM
This is why I don't open carry here in VA. I just don't want the hassel of dealing with the police. Don't like them to much anyways. Why do I want to give them a reason to harrass me even more than they have in the past?

LKB3rd
September 16, 2008, 07:16 AM
I think if you allow them to bully you into behaving in a way that is appropriate in their personal opinion, rather than according to the law, and your own opinion as a free man (or woman), then a bad thing has happened. It is unfortunate that this means that you might run into conflict with police, but it is worth it in my opinion. Emphasis on *my* opinion :)

tinygnat219
September 16, 2008, 07:43 AM
Interesting. Could the OP post more information re: the city, etc?
I'd LOVE to do a FOIA on this.
I live in Alexandria, and the only Denny's that I can think of nearby is in Fairfax, VA.

VARifleman
September 16, 2008, 07:53 AM
Am I free to go?

What locality was this in, Chris?

CajunBass
September 16, 2008, 07:59 AM
Your friend should have pointed out that IF they got a "man with a gun" call from that Denny's, the officer could say he had already checked it out, and no law was being broken, which he already knew, or he would not have said it was a "bad idea." (Bad ideas are not against the law.) No need for him or anyone else to come back.

tinygnat219
September 16, 2008, 08:06 AM
Still, in general be respectful to the Police Officer. Respond "yes sir" or "no sir" to questions. Always inquire: "What's this about?" Always ask "Am I free to leave?" if so, then by all means. There's no need to listen to a lecture from some overbearing police officer when no laws are being broken. There's always the need to be polite and respectful to them.
This is good for several reasons:

You cannot be viewed as being uncooperative
You cannot be cited for some BS trumped up charge
You can always use this behaviour to your advantage if you are ever in court.


ALWAYS get the officer's name and badge number, preferably on a business card, so you know exactly who you were talking to and for FOIA purposes later.

jahwarrior
September 16, 2008, 08:08 AM
the Denny's in my area (NEPA) doesn't allow firearms, period. don't be surprised if you see a sign on the door saying so the next time you go. i don't care, myself; Denny's sucks, anyway.

i got the same "family restaurant" crap from local PD for eating at a local diner; meanwhile, the only kids that were present were miy own. everyone else there was 50+, it seems.

i understand not wanting to be hassled, but we pay the salaries of our local PDs; they work for us. i'm not going to be bullied into behaving a certain way because some guy in uniform doesn't like what i'm doing, especially if my behavior is perfectly legal. if you let them do that, what will you let them do next? tell you how to dress? let them pull you over for driving in the wrong neighborhood. avoiding the hassle isn't the answer; reminding LEOs of their limits is.

ScottsGT
September 16, 2008, 08:28 AM
"15 years of Law Enforcement, bla, bla, bla.."

"Then go enforce the law and make everyone else OC!"

Pat-inCO
September 16, 2008, 08:33 AM
I interjected at this point, stating it was perfectly legal to OC in Virginia. He didn't like that, pointing out his "15 years of law enforcement" experience on the matter.
You obviously do not watch the TV program COPS.

The LEOs do not like someone telling them how to do their job. The other half of that equation is immediately claiming "I've got my rights" (what you effectively did) is also a real turn off to the LEOs. Keep in mind that they were there on a "man with a gun" call, for starters, from what you said.

The time to establish the officers correctness or his incorrect action is NOT in the first thirty minutes. When you attempt to do that, you come across as the BG, or at least the BGs friend. In this case neither of you were the BG so why act like one? :confused:

deaconkharma
September 16, 2008, 08:34 AM
My first time seeing OC in VA was kinda strange. being an SC boy the only OC I ever saw was off duty Police with badge on belt next to firearm.
Talked with the old fella and he told me all about VA and his 1911 racegun he had on. Nice guy. Strange how a culture shock it was to see OC for the first time by a common serf. Some VA laws are pretty sweet. Though I'd never OC unless in a group that is, just cause of the age old tactical argument that never seems to get solved here... Still like the idea of a free man making choices for himself..

CajunBass
September 16, 2008, 08:49 AM
Keep in mind that they were there on a "man with a gun" call, for starters, from what you said.

Actually what he said was:

There were 5 units in the parking lot dealing with a disturbance not related to this one, but two LEO's happened to see my friend walking up to the entrance and stopped him.

wyocarp
September 16, 2008, 09:25 AM
This is exactly the reason we need to open carry more where it is legal. So that the public and the police officers become more used to seeing a legal activity being carried out by someone other than a criminal.

Bubbles
September 16, 2008, 09:27 AM
I'd suggest that your friend contact VCDL and give Phil the details about this incident. When similar events have occurred in VA they have been very effective at getting the departments involved in giving all of the officers some remedial training wrt the open carry laws.

bnkrazy
September 16, 2008, 09:46 AM
Am I free to go?

Exactly. No law was broken. Your friend should have simply said "I appreciate the advice. Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

I'm strongly opposed to anyone in an authoritative position giving "advice" based on their "experience" when that "advice" is contrary to the law. Simply do your job and enforce the law, please. No need to go out of your way to hassle law abiding folk.

Also, If he is in the habit of dispensing "advice" that is contrary to law, he needs to be retrained. I don't care how many years of experience he has.

ArmedBear
September 16, 2008, 12:40 PM
"Family restaurant" is code for mediocre food, mediocre service, and lots of undisciplined children.

That's putting it kindly.:)

But I think of Denny's as a road-trip-refueling restaurant. It serves that purpose admirably, as a general rule.

All of that said, the only law I know of that changes when children are present is the speed limit near a school.

General Geoff
September 16, 2008, 12:43 PM
Sounds like he has 15 years of bad habits that need to be remedied.

Treo
September 16, 2008, 12:57 PM
Officer, are you detaining me ( if yes see response A) or am I free to go ( if yes see response B)

A) I do not wish to make any statement or answer any questions W/ out my attorney present.

B) Thank you for your time officer. Have a nice day.
(Spoken over your shoulder as you leave the area)

Mainsail
September 16, 2008, 01:09 PM
I think once you reach the 15 year mark you are entitled to make up your own laws. :rolleyes:

If something like this dissuades you from carrying openly, I have to wonder what pressure wouldn't make you cast your rights off. Sad, very sad....

kcshooter
September 16, 2008, 01:34 PM
First of all, I would have walked away in the middle of the lecture.

But this is one of the reasons I don't open carry. I don't have time for this kind of crap.

TexasRifleman
September 16, 2008, 01:39 PM
Officer, are you detaining me ( if yes see response A) or am I free to go ( if yes see response B)

A) I do not wish to make any statement or answer any questions W/ out my attorney present.

B) Thank you for your time officer. Have a nice day.
(Spoken over your shoulder as you leave the area)

Seriously. Print this out on a card and carry it with you in case you forget. This should be the extent of any contact with LE.

It's not about being a jerk, thinking bad about LEO's etc, it's simple self protection.

searcher451
September 16, 2008, 04:49 PM
This seems to be a common theme these days. Despite good law and many attempts at education, lots of folks -- common citizens and LEOs alike -- do not get it, will not get it tomorrow, and will not like it, even when it's explained to them. And the folks who choose to OC are going to have to put up with that for a long time to come, if not forever.

It's one of the reasons why those who live in states where concealed carry is allowed invariably obtain a permit and go about their business with their guns tucked away; the alternative is far too often unpleasant, even with the law on your side.

Ala Dan
September 16, 2008, 05:10 PM
Chris My Friend-

Not trying too be a wise a$$ here, but just trying to be of help-
IMHO, you should not have gotten involved. Yes its true, even
the best and most experienced LEO's have little patience with
citizens that cite the law. Please give the LEO a break here, as
I'm quite sure he knew that it was perfectly legal for your pal to
openly CCW in Virginia. You don't know what kind'a shift prior to
this call, the officer had been having. After all, we (including me)
are human; and we make mistakes. Just be thankful no harm was
done, and no one lost their life (or lives) over this matter.

Best Wishes,
Dan

jhco
September 16, 2008, 06:15 PM
i dont know why people have a prob with oc. here in the south in my small town i think if i OCed(if it was legal) people would just think that i was a local detective (they dont wear uniforms or badges here just slacks and a polo)these guys look like average joes but with a gun on their side

Treo
September 16, 2008, 06:33 PM
I don't open carry in the city but threads like this are starting to make me wonder if I should.

We can't just concede the battle to the cops. We need to stand our ground and exercise our rights W/in the law. Then once we've consolidated our hold on the ground we have, we can go after the unjust laws.

You don't know what kind'a shift prior to
this call, the officer had been having.

And with all due respect I don't care, it was the cop who chose to begin the interaction and harass chris' friend for taking an action to which he was legally entitled. And if the cop really did know that O.C. was legal in VA. then I submit that he was abusing his authority by using it to bully someone out of acting in a manner that , while he didn't like, was perfectly W/ in the bounds of the law.

There's no way in Hell I would have put that gun in the car.

Officer, are you detaining me ( if yes see response A) or am I free to go ( if yes see response B)

A) I do not wish to make any statement or answer any questions W/ out my attorney present.

B) Thank you for your time officer. Have a nice day.
(Spoken over your shoulder as you leave the area)

Cosmoline
September 16, 2008, 06:33 PM
"Family restaurant" is code for mediocre food, mediocre service, and lots of undisciplined children.

LOL Yup. And there's NO WAY I'd set foot in one unarmed. They're worse than bars.

jaholder1971
September 16, 2008, 06:40 PM
Quote:
"Family restaurant" is code for mediocre food, mediocre service, and lots of undisciplined children.
LOL Yup. And there's NO WAY I'd set foot in one unarmed. They're worse than bars.

The ones around here use prison work release and halfway house parolees for cooks in the back. The corrections vans shows up every 8 hours to pick them up and drop them off.

BigBlock
September 16, 2008, 06:42 PM
When I was in high school, I was eating lunch in my car parked just outside of school grounds. An officer came up and knocked on my window, yelling at me because my school had a "closed campus" and you aren't "allowed" to leave for lunch. I basically told him to go **** himself and that I was 18 and could eat lunch where ever I choose... (furthermore I did have permission from the school to leave the grounds)

Anyway, the funniest part, as he was walking away, probably embarrassed for making an idiot of himself he yells "well turn your music down, there's children around!" :confused: I was listening to country music, with no bad lyrics, at a moderate volume with the windows up....:rolleyes:

Deanimator
September 16, 2008, 06:51 PM
Yes its true, even
the best and most experienced LEO's have little patience with
citizens that cite the law.
Nor do I have any patience for "Os" who either don't know, or make up the "Ls" they're supposed to be "E"ing.

If you don't know the law, don't try to enforce it.

If you disagree with the law, don't make up substitutes more to your liking.

Please give the LEO a break here, as
I'm quite sure he knew that it was perfectly legal for your pal to
openly CCW in Virginia. You don't know what kind'a shift prior to
this call, the officer had been having.
Nor do I CARE what "kind'a shift" he's been having, certainly no more than he cares what kind of day I've had at work if I am verbally abusive toward him or resist his lawful commands. As we used to say in the Army, "Sounds like a personal problem to me."

I'm not interested in the officer's day.

I'm not interested in his unsolicited opinion of what state law OUGHT to be, especially when it's imposed upon me by the threat of force, explicit or implied.

If state law says I can open carry, nobody wants to hear what he thinks of that. He needs to just shut up and do his job. And NO part of that job involves lecturing people on why HE doesn't think that they should engage in completely lawful activities.

If he can't handle that, I'm going to ask him if I'm free to leave. If he says no, I'm going to make him justify that to his superiors, in court or both. That's non-negotiable. He can have his fun in the street. I'll have mine in the courtroom... and at the Sheriff's sale.

BigBlock
September 16, 2008, 07:03 PM
If he can't handle that, I'm going to ask him if I'm free to leave. If he says no, I'm going to make him justify that to his superiors, in court or both. That's non-negotiable. He can have his fun in the street. I'll have mine in the courtroom... and at the Sheriff's sale.

I agree completely. Personally, I believe it is your DUTY as a good citizen to file an official complaint against every police officer that deserves one, the same way it is your duty to report a crime if you see one. Police officers are not allowed to have a "bad day", EVER. (unless they change the rules and let me throw a hissy fit at the officer during a traffic stop if I've had a bad day)

Think about it like this: If you ever see a cop doing something you don't like, legal or not, is it ok for you to go chew him out about it? Only if you need a free place to stay for the night while you clean the mace out of your eyes...

wyocarp
September 16, 2008, 07:54 PM
But this is one of the reasons I don't open carry. I don't have time for this kind of crap.


This is the reason I open carry! Even if I don't have time, I make the time to preserve and exercise my rights!

BigBlock
September 16, 2008, 07:57 PM
Well said. I'm wearin' my Blackhawk tonight! :)

tpaw
September 16, 2008, 08:14 PM
chris in va writes:

I interjected at this point, stating it was perfectly legal to OC in Virginia. He didn't like that

I think it would have been better if you said nothing. If your friend is old enough to carry a gun, he's old enough to speak for himself. Your butting in did not help. Besides, it may have also made him feel foolish in front of his GF. If it happens again, stay out of it, and let your friend be his own man.

kcshooter
September 16, 2008, 09:03 PM
But this is one of the reasons I don't open carry. I don't have time for this kind of crap. This is the reason I open carry! Even if I don't have time, I make the time to preserve and exercise my rights!Understandable, but I personally wouldn't have taken kindly to the harrasement. Harsh words from me would have followed the officer's lecture. More trouble than it's worth to me. (I also have a few other reasons I don't open carry.)

scrat
September 16, 2008, 09:12 PM
Well im glad to hear that he got out of it. Too many people across the country keep getting their firearms taken away and get arrested. To have the DA drop the charges later on. Then a huge mountain of red tape to get your firearm back.

jonmerritt
September 16, 2008, 09:19 PM
I hear that alot, the police do not like to be told what the law is.
Well someone needs to tell them, beacause obviously, the police don't have a clue about gun laws, and they carry at least one on there hip ALL DAY!!!

jordan1948
September 16, 2008, 09:43 PM
Am I free to go?

Gotta be carefull about that here if they think you're being a smart ass with them they'll take ya in and hold you for 24 hours just 'cause they can.
I'm not sure about the OC laws here in TX but I'll check 'em out, or if someone else knows if you could drop me a line it'd be great

scrat
September 16, 2008, 09:46 PM
oc not allowed in texas its trying to get approved though. do a search on it. lot of talk on it. dont do it though. not yet at least

FieroCDSP
September 16, 2008, 10:11 PM
In a situation where you know you're within your rights and the law backs you, get the Officer's name and badge number, and write a certified letter to the city or state's AG's office detailing the situation, asking politely that they review the pertaining laws with the officers/department in question, and ask for a response to your letter.

You may or may not get all of that, but at least you tried. Ohio has had a few clashes between departments and OC'ers. The Pro-2A groups have been pushing where it gives and we're getting results. Departments are being given info that covers the legality of OC and what to/not to do in an encounter, etc. The only way to combat the problem of lack of training or ignorance is to bring the squeaky wheel to someone's attention.

wyocarp
September 16, 2008, 10:15 PM
AMEN FieroCDSP

ArizonaTRex
September 16, 2008, 10:39 PM
Well the more people open carry-the more people would get used to it!
I went to the bank and grocery store today, OC'ing and had no problems. Only discussion I have ever had with LEO was during a traffic stop-he asked why-told him why and no problems. But thats Arizona for ya.:)

BigBlock
September 16, 2008, 11:09 PM
Only discussion I have ever had with LEO was during a traffic stop-he asked why-told him why and no problems.

Any time a cop asks you why you have a gun, ask him the same question. ;)

Exmasonite
September 16, 2008, 11:14 PM
"Family restaurant" is code for mediocre food, mediocre service, and lots of undisciplined children.

All the more reason to carry the OC, IMO. :)

That being said, i'd be careful to interject if CC'ing with cops on edge. do you have to inform if CCing in your state?

basicblur
September 16, 2008, 11:16 PM
VCDL member gets $10K from Norfolk for harassment
Norfolk had to cough up $10,000 because of the Norfolk PD harassing gun owner Danladi Moore for openly carrying. Between Danladi and Chet (next article below), looks like Norfolk has money to burn on harassment and false arrests.
http://tinyurl.com/57nu2u [PDF]

VCDL member's suit against Norfolk moves forward on privacy violations

Thanks to Alan Rose for the link:

Alan notes: "Referencing the headline, exactly what gun law did the judge say was 'OK'? Some editor is playing fast and loose with the facts. As the article states, the charge was dropped and the city knew they had an invalid ordinance. Exactly opposite of the headline!"

That's what happens when a paper's editor is biased.

Actually, the *federal* judge simply said that as far as the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION is concerned, the preempted Norfolk ordinance is not unconstitutional. Under Virginia law, however, that ordinance is not legal, of course.
http://tinyurl.com/3j5kf3

HamptonRoads.com
Judge: Norfolk gun law OK, but not request for private info
NORFOLK

The arrest of a man for openly carrying a gun at a Norfolk festival did not violate the U.S. Constitution but the police officer who asked for the man's Social Security number might have violated his civil rights, a federal judge ruled this week.

Chester "Chet" Szymecki Jr. of Yorktown sued the city after his arrest in June 2007 on a charge of violating a city ordinance prohibiting firearms at Harborfest, held annually at Town Point Park.

Szymecki, a gun rights advocate, has challenged handgun bans in the past. During his arrest, Szymecki claims police pushed him and that when he complained that the handcuffs were on too tight, an officer made them tighter.

During his arrest and later, when he was released from custody, police asked him for his Social Security number. He initially balked, but gave it to the officers to avoid being detained longer, he says in his suit.

The charge was later thrown out after city officials learned that it violated a state law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms.

Szymecki sued in federal court claiming multiple constitutional violations, including the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches
and seizures.

U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. ruled Thursday that Szymecki cannot sue claiming constitutional violations under state or local law. Morgan ruled earlier this year that the city did not violate the Second Amendment for the same reason.

"It is well settled law in this circuit that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states," Morgan wrote in dismissing Szymecki's constitutional claims. "Because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, neither a state law nor a local ordinance can run afoul of
any right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

However, Morgan ruled that the police demand for Szymecki's Social Security number - if the allegation is true - would have violated the federal Privacy Act.

Morgan will allow the case to go to trial on that issue alone. The trial has been set for Dec. 16.

Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, m.mcglone@pilotonline.com

ProficientRifleman
September 16, 2008, 11:46 PM
Now now... the Cops are always right.

Just submit and comply and everything should be fine.

scrat
September 16, 2008, 11:54 PM
And remember what they say "if you cooperate and tell us everything i will see that we make it easier for you" "Just tell me everything you can and it will be so easy" "if you cooperate and tell us everything you will feel so much better"

SomeKid
September 17, 2008, 12:08 AM
I think I will go out and open carry tomorrow. Just because I can.

jimbob86
September 17, 2008, 12:08 AM
"Respond "yes sir" or "no sir" to questions."

I was under the impression that the Officer was working for ME (and the rest of the public). Sir, hell...... "Yes, Officer _________ (read from name tag)/ No, Officer ______ (read from nametage).........

kwelz
September 17, 2008, 12:20 AM
I was under the impression that the Officer was working for ME

You are acting under a mistaken impression then. Police work for the State, county, or city they are an officer in. Their job is to uphold the law and no where in their do they work for YOU.

Saying Yes sir or No Sir is a matter of respect. No you don't have to do it, however I for one prefer to treat people with respect till such a time that they give me reason to treat them otherwise.

Maelstrom
September 17, 2008, 12:32 AM
"Respond "yes sir" or "no sir" to questions."

I was under the impression that the Officer was working for ME (and the rest of the public). Sir, hell...... "Yes, Officer _________ (read from name tag)/ No, Officer ______ (read from nametage).........

:rolleyes:Oh brother. You sure know how to teach those uppity pigs a lesson.....

Majic
September 17, 2008, 12:42 AM
Politely ask the officer for his name, badge number, and vehicle number then start with his duty officer and work your way up questioning whether what the officer did was legal or harrassment.

mtruette
September 17, 2008, 03:04 AM
First let me say I have more years with a badge (Star) than the Officer you are talking about. I have never stopped a vehicle that was not speeding and explained to the driver why he should never speed. I have never stopped at a house that I was not called to and told the occupants why they should not fight. Now, in defense of the officer (only for the interview) someone with a gun on a disturbance call could be trouble. Once it was established that your friend was not involved in the disturbance the interview should have been over. I have a question, how do you tell if the person with the oc is a good guy or a bad guy? Do they wear signs in the state? Just curious. Also what kind of advise did the officer give your friend? :uhoh:

Elza
September 17, 2008, 04:17 AM
I fully believe that there is only one reason some cops are twitchy about citizens with guns. It goes against their personal agenda/ego. “Only cops should have guns” or “Only cops should provide protection” are the ones that come readily to mind.

It is a moot point in Texas as OC is not legal. In the states where it is legal do the bad guys walk around with a gat on their hip? This doesn’t seem logical to me. Even if OC is legal and accepted it still draws attention. I should think that the bad guys would want to keep a low profile. Seeing an exposed gun would be the very least of my worries.

skidmark
September 17, 2008, 05:33 AM
Now, in defense of the officer (only for the interview) someone with a gun on a disturbance call could be trouble. Once it was established that your friend was not involved in the disturbance the interview should have been over. I have a question, how do you tell if the person with the oc is a good guy or a bad guy? Do they wear signs in the state? Just curious. Also what kind of advise did the officer give your friend?

How do you tell if the person with the oc is a good guy or a bad guy? Sheesh! With all your experience, please relate any encounter with a bad guy that was open carrying. I'll sit here and whistle while you review all your field notes, OK?

As for the advise [sic] the officer gave, please reciew the opriginal post.

stay safe.

skidmark

Eric F
September 17, 2008, 07:46 AM
First of all, I would have walked away in the middle of the lecture.

Sounds like a good way to cost your self more time being lectured.

Look folks I am not saying any one is right or wrong here, even though one side is clearly not right. My point is if you value your time just be polite when the incident is over then you can make complaints through channels.

IF you dont like that idea then you can always stand there and argue with the officer until you totally piss him off then get arested for some sort of minor offence like disturbing the peace.

all in all it only has to get as far out of control as we allow it.

chieftain
September 17, 2008, 07:59 AM
I have a question, how do you tell if the person with the oc is a good guy or a bad guy? Do they wear signs in the state? Just curious. Also what kind of advise did the officer give your friend?

Never met or saw a perp wearing a holster for his gun.

I guess you have to use the exact same method as to who a good guy or a bad guy is without a gun. We used to call it police work, I don't know what it's called today in your jurisdiction. Maybe, you do have to wait for a sign.

Go figure.

Fred

Deus Machina
September 17, 2008, 08:22 AM
Heh, 'complain through channels'. That's rich. :D

I've tried 'going through the channels' before, with some paperwork around here. Bottom-line paper-pusher. Their supervisor, who assured me it would be taken care of post-haste. Twice.

So let's try the guy above them. he said they were both wrong--it was actually above him. Oh, well that's perf-- No.

To heck with the next level or two, DA gets a call. She says she'll look into it. A week passes. Another call, another promise. Another week, and I end up on the phone telling the DA, personally, that, quote, "I have a list of names here. Someone on this list isn't doing their job, and someone is covering them. Please, inform me who this is, so I'll know who I need to talk to or if I need to get my lawyer (I mentioned his name, he had a few things to say about the DA himself, and I knew they had bad blood between them) involved to talk to a few people." I really do hate having to play politics.

I got the paperwork three days later, dated for a week before that date on one spot, and the day after on another, earlier portion. :rolleyes:

Point is, people watch the the people under them, if just because they want to shift the blame up. The trick is to skip a few channels. Then the bigwigs start yelling over why the heck it got that far, and they're pretty eager get stuff done when failure to do so means they get a call from a judge or a visit from a rival.

Pat-inCO
September 17, 2008, 08:57 AM
Eric has an excellent summary posted there. Why not listen to what he has to say?! :banghead:

During a contact, the officer IS in charge. It's their job. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you get to go on with your business. The less flack you give them, the sooner it will be concluded. The more polite you are, the sooner it will be concluded. Does anyone NOT see a trend there?!

It does NOT matter if the officer is not 100% correct. During the contact is NOT the time to resolve the accuracy of his comments. You have his name (this presumes you can actually read), you have the city/county information and, presuming you can read your watch, you have the date/time. If - AFTER - the contact is concluded, you feel the need to complain, do so. You are allowed to do that. If, instead, you choose to scream like and idiot about your rights (watch several episodes of COPS on TV and make note of how many of the bad guys take that approach), yell at the officer for daring to ask you a question, or assert the "fact" that you pay their salary, PLAN on spending hours getting the issue resolved, :eek: rather than the three minutes it would have taken otherwise. :rolleyes:

If you believe the cops are bad, try looking at over half of the rest of the world and how the cops in other countries treat transgressors (Russia, for example). Our guys and gals in law enforcement have a lousy job. The sooner you QUIT attempting to make it worse, in the name of your "rights", the sooner you will find they are some nice people (not 100% mind you, but the vast majority are). Just because you had a bad experience with an LEO previously, doesn't mean the one talking to you will not treat you fairly, if you let them. :D

ProficientRifleman
September 17, 2008, 09:47 AM
mtruette said,
I have a question, how do you tell if the person with the oc is a good guy or a bad guy? Do they wear signs in the state? Just curious. Also what kind of advise did the officer give your friend?

I am not, nor have I ever been a cop. I have never wanted to be. But the question has been asked, so here goes...If I am correct, this incident happened at a restaurant, i.e. in a public place.

Johnny Law says, "Hey mister, are you involved in this? Do you know these people?"

Good Citizen replies, "No officer Law, I don't know these people. My friends and I are just having a meal."

Johnny Law, "Very well then have a nice evening!" Then Johnny law goes about his business and Good Citizen does the same.

Elza said
I fully believe that there is only one reason some cops are twitchy about citizens with guns. It goes against their personal agenda/ego. “Only cops should have guns” or “Only cops should provide protection” are the ones that come readily to mind.

I would tend to agree with this, given the OP's original statement of the scenario.

Eric F said,
IF you dont like that idea then you can always stand there and argue with the officer until you totally piss him off then get arested for some sort of minor offence like disturbing the peace.

Now there is the attitude! Be a good little citizen and just submit and comply! Then maybe you won't totally piss him off and get arrested for...well, he'll think of something.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 09:53 AM
Sounds like a good way to cost your self more time being lectured.
"Officer, am I free to leave?"

If the answer is "yes", I go about my business.

If the answer is "no", lawyers get involved.

If you want to "lecture" me about my lawful activities at gunpoint, know that there will be consequences that go FAR beyond letters of complaint. And don't whine about your family. If you don't care about them, why should I? Enjoy explaining to your kids why they eat ramen for dinner every night and why there won't be any presents for Christmas. Video it and put it on YouTube. It'll be a hoot.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 10:13 AM
It does NOT matter if the officer is not 100% correct. During the contact is NOT the time to resolve the accuracy of his comments.
No, that's PRECISELY the time to at least determine their accuracy.

If he starts talking smack that indicates that he either doesn't know the law or that he plans to VIOLATE it, he gets "Officer, am I free to leave?" If the answer is "no", I refuse consent to ANYTHING and refuse to speak without a lawyer present and things go downhill from there. I'm perfectly willing to be falsely arrested and spend a night in jail, if he's willing to have me take a dump on his career and make sure that he can't sell his house without the money going to creditors (me) instead of him. I don't have any more interest in his personal problems than he has in mine. If he's got a "hard job", it's pretty dumb of him to needlessly make it harder, isn't it? I'll go after him with everything I've got, just like he and the prosecutor would go after me if I took a swing at him. I hope he enjoys it.

Drgong
September 17, 2008, 10:14 AM
it was reasionable for the officer to inquire if your friend was involved in said disturbance. I never had a problem with a LEO, nor seen anyone have trouble with a LEO who treated them politely. Yes Sirs and No sirs (or yes officer X or nn officer X)

If A officer wanted to lecture me, I would wait till he paused for a second (so he was not interrupted) then ask the "am I free to leave now Officer X?"

Those who try to make waves with officers get rocked, while those who are following the law and are polite at most just get a warning.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 10:20 AM
Those who try to make waves with officers get rocked, while those who are following the law and are polite at most just get a warning.
This isn't about politeness or warnings. It's about cops who either don't know or don't respect the law making things up.

I'm perfectly willing to answer reasonable questions REQUIRED BY LAW, and a little bit beyond. I am UTTERLY unwilling to be lectured by someone who has no idea what he's talking about, or worse, to be unlawfully threatened by someone for engaging in totally lawful activity. Do either one and I invoke my rights then and there. Go ahead and falsely arrest me. I won't resist. But that's the day your life changes forever.

Eric F
September 17, 2008, 10:25 AM
Now there is the attitude! Be a good little citizen and just submit and comply! Then maybe you won't totally piss him off and get arrested for...well, he'll think of something.

Lets see hers an attitude! Stand there and argue get arrested sit in a holding cell for an hour or two while possibly car gets impounded then spens another 2 hours getting it out oh yeah now pay for a cab or wait for a ride to resume your life.........and what did you get in the end if not charged? 4-8 hours of your life waisted. And thats if you never got charged, now if you did get charged you get to waist say 2 hours in court for an areignment and another 2-6 hours for your case to be heard, then the sentence if found guilty.................hey its your time I guess you would like to deal with all the hassel.

I want to spend my time doing what I want to do. Oh and if its that important I spend an hour writing a letter and sending it up the chain.

so in summery 0-1 hour of waisted time for me
for your trouble 2-16 hours of waisted time with out a sentence from the court.........hmm

I'm perfectly willing to answer reasonable questions REQUIRED BY LAW, and a little bit beyond. I am UTTERLY unwilling to be lectured by someone who has no idea what he's talking about, or worse, to be unlawfully threatened by someone for engaging in totally lawful activity. Do either one and I invoke my rights then and there. Go ahead and falsely arrest me. I won't resist. But that's the day your life changes forever.
I agree however there are ways to go about protesting/resisting this and being polite and listening to the officer for 5 minutes and saying ok once or twice then go do what you want to do, beets being held up for hours for arguing with a guy that has no clue. Report the officer later.

Drgong
September 17, 2008, 10:26 AM
Deanimator, I am not saying if somone was stupid enough to arrest you in VA for open carry that you should not sue. (and don't resist)

Just that I have seen it many times, those that are polite, even if they disagree with the officer, and politely disagree, that they don't have problems with officers.

Those who come in with a chip when talking to a officer get "picked on" a lot more then a polite non-LEO who gets a few questions from officers.

The only reason why I don't open carry more often is that under NC law if your shirt tail covers the gun, you can be arrested for conceal carry, and if you don't have a permit for Conceal carry is a major violation under NC law.

of course, VA is just 15 mins away and I might need to go to eatery with my Model 15 or BHP to my side.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 10:36 AM
Just that I have seen it many times, those that are polite, even if they disagree with the officer, and politely disagree, that they don't have problems with officers.
I'm polite [but not particularly friendly] to everyone, at least until they indicate that they don't deserve that politeness. I'm a student of Japanese culture. I can be perfectly polite to you while leaving no doubt that I think your mother shouldn't have mated with a sibling.

I don't expect breaks when I do something wrong. I don't react well to bullying when I don't.

deaconkharma
September 17, 2008, 10:42 AM
"Because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, neither a state law nor a local ordinance can run afoul of
any right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Uh I thought the bill of rights could be run afoul of at any governmental level... What kind of semi-retarded idiocracy is this *@#$???

It is a right of an individual. It was written into the constitution so the states WOULD ratify said constitution. It gave certain things to the people not to the governement. Said government then removes right in DIRECT VIOLATION of BOR... I mean did anyone else read this buffon's position?

Lets replace 2nd amendment with the first in his "opinion"... see if it still flies

Mr_Rogers
September 17, 2008, 10:49 AM
"I'd like to answer your questions officer but the attorney I have on retainer told me very specifically what to say in this situation. May I call him?"

Halo
September 17, 2008, 10:59 AM
"Because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, neither a state law nor a local ordinance can run afoul of
any right guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Uh I thought the bill of rights could be run afoul of at any governmental level... What kind of semi-retarded idiocracy is this *@#$???

I was wondering about that too. So based on what the federal judge said, the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government. In other words, every state in the union could make firearms completely illegal under state law and that would not violate the 2nd Amendment?

If that's true, why are all these towns and cities across the country told they can't have certain Christmas decorations on the basis that doing so violates the 1st Amendment? If the 1st Amendment is held to restrict the government's power at all levels, why not the 2nd?

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 11:05 AM
I was wondering about that too. So based on what the federal judge said, the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government. In other words, every state in the union could make firearms completely illegal under state law and that would not violate the 2nd Amendment?

If that's true, why are all these towns and cities across the country told they can't have certain Christmas decorations on the basis that doing so violates the 1st Amendment? If the 1st Amendment is held to restrict the government's power at all levels, why not the 2nd?
Unlike the 1st Amendment, the 2nd has not YET been formally "incorporated" via the 14th. The 1st applies to the states but not the 2nd... YET.

Have no fear, that's coming in the Heller followups, Chicago in particular. The next couple of years are going to be very sad ones for anti-gunners and Heller paved the way.

Halo
September 17, 2008, 11:12 AM
On the subject of incorporation, from Wikipedia:

Justice Felix Frankfurter, however, felt that the incorporation process ought to be incremental, and that the federal courts should only apply those sections of the Bill of Rights whose abridgment would "shock the conscience," as he put it in Rochin v. California (1952).

Well it certainly shocks my conscience that millions of people in "the land of the free" are denied the means of self-defense by the power of law!

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 11:17 AM
I agree however there are ways to go about protesting/resisting this and being polite and listening to the officer for 5 minutes and saying ok once or twice then go do what you want to do, beets being held up for hours for arguing with a guy that has no clue. Report the officer later.
NO, I am NOT going to listen to somebody misstate the law, or even worse express his intention to BREAK it for five minutes or five seconds. I wouldn't listen to some Islamist nutcase harangue me about how women have to wear burqas or how I can't eat a bacon cheeseburger, much less how he's going to behead people who do. I have no more duty to listen to a cop misstate the law or state his intention to commit criminal acts and or civil torts against me. People have the right to their opinions, even mind numbingly stupid opinions. They DON'T have the right to impose those opinions on a captive audience by force or the threat thereof. I don't care one whit if your name is Abu Musab al Bubba or Officer Friendly.

"Am I free to leave?"

If the answer is no, there are going to be consequences and I'm more than willing to spend a few hours in jail to impose those consequences, especially given that those few hours in jail are prima facie evidence of crimes and civil torts against me, with the perpetrator's signature on the dotted line. If the cop's co-workers hear he's living in his mom's basement and his wife's leaving him because he can't pay the bills, others will think twice about waxing idiotic at gunpoint.

ProficientRifleman
September 17, 2008, 11:24 AM
Eric F said,
Lets see hers an attitude! Stand there and argue get arrested sit in a holding cell for an hour or two while possibly car gets impounded then spens another 2 hours getting it out oh yeah now pay for a cab or wait for a ride to resume your life.........and what did you get in the end if not charged? 4-8 hours of your life waisted. And thats if you never got charged, now if you did get charged you get to waist say 2 hours in court for an areignment and another 2-6 hours for your case to be heard, then the sentence if found guilty.................hey its your time I guess you would like to deal with all the hassel.

And the cop who decided, on his own, "You don't need to...", gets a pass (again) after harassing and intimidating another honest, peaceable citizen who's only offense was exercising his right to carry openly and going about his business. Any cop who would give a peaceable citizen a hard time for exercising his right to carry openly, isn't worthy of his office. The worst part is, his fellow officers WON"T square him away.

It sickens me when this type of conversation starts, and the common reply is..."Why don't you just get your CWP, CHL, CCW, and you won't have to worry about it." That, my friends, is the root of the problem.

What that question means is, what you should do is beg for and receive permission from the State to do what you have a natural right to do. Then your betters will benevolently permit you to go about your business unmolested. That is, as long as you have your permission slip with you.

I don't suppose it matters. The "us vs. them" mentality is so fully entrenched that this whole discussion is moot. The answer is to get more people to open carry where ever it is legal. It should become so commonplace as to not raise an eyebrow anywhere.

zxcvbob
September 17, 2008, 11:34 AM
First of all, I would have walked away in the middle of the lecture.

Sounds like a good way to cost your self more time being lectured.

Or a bullet in the back.

ZeSpectre
September 17, 2008, 11:38 AM
I've pondered this thread a bit before replying.
You want to know what I think?

(too damn bad I'm gonna tell ya anyway :evil: ).

I think Chris in VA is a TRUE friend.

How many of YOUR "friends" (or mine for that matter) would stick around and back you in such a situation? Not too damn many I can tell you.

Hell I had my own wife once say to me "oh do we have to go through this AGAIN?" when I refused to disarm to go to a posted movie theater. I can just imagine the grief I'd endure if there were an "official" confrontation.

(P.S. to my friends. It is, however, fully acceptable for you to stand back and just be a witness to the situation in case I need you in court later! <grin>)

bnkrazy
September 17, 2008, 11:44 AM
I'm surprised at the number of people that admit they would let a cop illegally deny them a right to avoid a hassle or because they wouldn't want to be inconvenienced for a few hours or days.

I know it might be hard for you to miss out on that steak dinner you were looking forward to or the game you were going to watch later that evening if you're sitting in a patrol car or cell.

Imagine if the Founding Fathers had your attitude. You don't have to imagine. Just take a look across the pond and you'll see where we'd be. And, that's where we will be if everyone adopts the attitude some of you have. Sure, things are heading in the right direction on the Federal level, but I can think of a few states that have a long way to go. And the only thing that will help in those states in the near future is people taking a risk to get the system corrected.

If you don't want to stand up for your rights, that's fine. Instead, stand up for future generations. I don't want to have to tell my grandson about how it used to be "in the good old days". And, I'll do all I can to make sure I never have to.

Eric F
September 17, 2008, 01:56 PM
I'm surprised at the number of people that admit they would let a cop illegally deny them a right to avoid a hassle or because they wouldn't want to be inconvenienced for a few hours or days.
Whats the real alternative here in this case? 1 put your gun away (rights violated through intemidation):fire:
2. listen to the officer and say ok then go about your business(no rights violated now you can post your story in an internet forum):)
3. Stand there and argue proclaim your 2nd amendment rights and get arested:banghead:

What I dont get is the amount of folks that say they would do this that or the other(read as step 3) on the forum but in real life will likely go with step 1 or 2:neener:

Are you really willing to go to jail/get arested or would you rather just go else where.:scrutiny:

Further more I doubt most folks responding to this thread would even make a formal complaint against the officer.:neener:

Of this I can only say I am not afraid to make a complaint I did it just 2 weeks ago not fire arms related but an officer was just wrong, I did get results though.:cool:

And what do you loose if you just stand there for a couple of minutes and listen and say ok.......nothing, the officer leaves thinking he muscled another person you walk away knowing a cop is wrong and you still get to cary your gun.........sounds like a winner to me.

lucky_fool
September 17, 2008, 02:18 PM
3. Stand there and argue proclaim your 2nd amendment rights and get arested

Arrested for what? Show me the section of the Code of Virginia where it states that you can't tell a cop that he's wrong.

the officer leaves thinking he muscled another person... ...sounds like a winner to me

Really? Having the cops go around thinking they can "muscle" law-abiding citizens sounds like a winner to you?

bnkrazy
September 17, 2008, 02:23 PM
Eric,
Of the three choices you listed, 2 and 3 are "doing something." I was referring to those people that would comply with an unlawful "request" to disarm (or stop any other lawful activity) just because a cop asked nicely (or not).

You're in VA. You know how well the VCDL has been doing in getting these kinds of things squashed quickly and effectively. That's because they don't let ANYTHING slide. We're not talking drastic measures here. Most of the time, the PD is asked to retrain the officers and that's the end of it as they usually don't want their officers doing the wrong things.

The result is problems are less frequent or stop altogether. No lawsuits filed, etc. unless the PD doesn't want to play ball. You being near Norfolk should know this situation well.

The only thing wrong with letting the police officer say his/her piece and then not taking their advice, is it leaves them thinking that is an OK practice, and the next person they encounter might take their opinion as law.

I can say I'm prepared to spend the night in jail if I must to try and correct an officer overstepping his bounds. I do think the level of risk involved is dependent upon the location, and can see the issue that people in less free states have with being the guinea pig.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 02:33 PM
Whats the real alternative here in this case? 1 put your gun away (rights violated through intemidation)
2. listen to the officer and say ok then go about your business(no rights violated now you can post your story in an internet forum)
3. Stand there and argue proclaim your 2nd amendment rights and get arested

One MORE time:

4. "Am I free to leave?" If he says "no", he has to articulate WHY. If that "why" is to make me listen to him run his mouth about a law he either doesn't understand or disagrees with, that is simply UNLAWFUL. If it WERE lawful then there'd be nothing stopping him from holding me against my will and making me listen to him recite passages from Leviticus or from "Glengarry Glen Ross". He has ZERO power to impose himself upon me absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspiction. When he DOES, that's a crime AND a civil tort. I'm not INTERESTED in his ill-informed opinions, just as I'm not INTERESTED in the ill-informed opinions of Holocaust deniers or 9/11 "truthers". And I have NO legal obligation to listen to either.

If he's too stupid or lazy to learn the law, or if he's too arrogant to obey it, I'm not going to argue with him OR listen to him past the point of proof that he's a buffoon. At that point he's going to have to use the threat of state sanctioned force to keep me there. When we cross that line, a formal complaint is purely incidental. We're going to court and he's going to come out on the losing end, because he's unlawfully deprived me of my liberty outside of the normal scope of his duties. And the city is going to be in a bind because it clearly both failed to properly train AND to supervise him. In fact, it could be found negligent in hiring him in the first place if it knew or should have known that he had a propensity for such behavior.

I can afford a night in jail. Can he afford to have his wages garnished or his property attached? I'm certainly willing to find out if he is. I wonder if his wife and kids feel the same way. Once we cross that threshhold, there's no going back.

Eric F
September 17, 2008, 02:38 PM
Lucky Fool
When I wrote step 3 in my post I was meaning getting baligerent about things there is nothing wrong with saying you have the right to do(fill in the blank) I am talking about fanatical responces of yelling and argueing.

Quote:
the officer leaves thinking he muscled another person... ...sounds like a winner to me
Really? Having the cops go around thinking they can "muscle" law-abiding citizens sounds like a winner to you?

Thats a half quote throwing off the whole meaning of my statement. the whole quote was the officer leaves thinking he muscled another person you walk away knowing a cop is wrong and you still get to cary your gun.........sounds like a winner to me.
Some cops already go around harassing civilians your not gonna get away from that ever, its a power trip for some of them. Where you win is you still get to cary your gun because the law suports you and you are right.........see how diffrent that is when you put the whole quote out there?

The only thing wrong with letting the police officer say his/her piece and then not taking their advice, is it leaves them thinking that is an OK practice, and the next person they encounter might take their opinion as law.
this is why there is a process in every police department for citizens to make complaintsI can say I'm prepared to spend the night in jail if I must to try and correct an officer overstepping his bounds. I know I couldnt do it, I am the only source of income for my family and I would loose my job over going to jail or getting arrested(if convicted of a major crime) Also I am not built got going to jail I like all of my teeth where they are.............

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 02:43 PM
Some cops already go around harassing civilians your not gonna get away from that ever
Some cops already go around committing violent felonies, such as rape, robbery and murder and "your(sic) not gonna get away from that ever". Does that mean you should simply shrug and let it happen? That's what they do in Chicago. I LIKE the town I live in. I kind of like the cops. I don't want my town to become Chicago. I don't want the police department to become the Chicago PD. The best way to make sure that they DO is to shrug off bullying and criminal behavior by police. I'm not doing it.

Eric F
September 17, 2008, 02:48 PM
Does that mean you should simply shrug and let it happen? no you file a complaint as I have said before.............If you dont then nothing gets done, A complaint will certianly work faster than you going to jail calling a lawyer sueing the city and or the officer. Its tomorrow/next week v/s next year.

If you come out ahead on the trial you will likely get more responce in the department. A complaint will get a faster responce.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 02:55 PM
no you file a complaint as I have said before.............If you dont then nothing gets done, A complaint will certianly work faster than you going to jail calling a lawyer sueing the city and or the officer. Its tomorrow/next week v/s next year.

If you come out ahead on the trial you will likely get more responce in the department. A complaint will get a faster responce.
I'm more interested in the right thing than the fast thing.

Of course that assumes that anything would be done administratively in the first place. I consider that a naive assumption, at least in certain places. In Chicago, the ONLY recourse you have against police misconduct of even the most horrific sort is civil suit, PERIOD.

bnkrazy
September 17, 2008, 02:59 PM
There's nothing wrong with filing a complaint. It's just a matter of how much BS you're willing to put up with before you can file it. :)

As noted before, some places have good results with complaints, others, not so much.

When in doubt, ask if you're free to leave. If they deny you that ability, they must be able to articulate a reason. If as stated before, it's because you're not following an unlawful "request," then they just stepped in it and should be reprimanded.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 02:59 PM
A complaint will get a faster responce.
How fast is NO response? A few years ago, a Florida TV station ran a series on the disfunctional nature of the citizen complaint process in a number of local departments. My favorite part is the sergeant THREATENING the person asking for a complaint form, ON CAMERA. Right after that, the reporter's personal information was posted on a police oriented website.

Yep, I guess that counts as a "fast" response...

Fleetwood_Captain
September 17, 2008, 02:59 PM
Well most cops arn't gun guys, so what do you expect? It's not like they teach comprehensive firearms classes in college LEO curriculums. I've talked to people with law enforcement degrees that didn't know the differences between 9mm and .45acp.

It's like talking to someone with an "I turn the key, and it goes" knowledge base about cars.

makarovnik
September 17, 2008, 03:00 PM
Even though open carry is legal in many states you are going to arouse suspicion and sometimes cause a panic. If you open carry and police give you a bad time you can always ask if you are under arrest. If not you can always walk away even though this will piss off the LEO.

Bottom line is don't be surprised if you are hassled. If you aren't expecting to be hassled for OC then you need to rethink it.

bnkrazy
September 17, 2008, 03:02 PM
Well most cops arn't gun guys, so what do you expect?

I expect an officer to enforce the law. And, be open minded enough to realize he/she might not know everything. Not that much really.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 03:04 PM
Well most cops arn't gun guys, so what do you expect? It's not like they teach comprehensive firearms classes in college LEO curriculums. I've talked to people with law enforcement degrees that didn't know the differences between 9mm and .45acp.

It's like talking to someone with an "I turn the key, and it goes" knowledge base about cars.
That doesn't matter.

What matters is that if you're going to ENFORCE a particular law, you'd BETTER know the relevant provisions of that law. It's even MORE important to know that such a law EXISTS, and in THAT jurisdiction. If you don't, you make yourself look like a fool and open yourself to civil suit. Clearly some cops don't understand simple cause and effect relationships or the concept of actions having consequences.

JesseL
September 17, 2008, 03:21 PM
Even though open carry is legal in many states you are going to arouse suspicion and sometimes cause a panic. If you open carry and police give you a bad time you can always ask if you are under arrest. If not you can always walk away even though this will piss off the LEO.

Bottom line is don't be surprised if you are hassled. If you aren't expecting to be hassled for OC then you need to rethink it.

You really should provide some delimiters for statements like this. There are some places where open carry, despite being legal, is likely to get you unwanted attention from the police or perhaps cause a panic (anyone have a documented case of this happening?)

There are other places (like where I live) where the police know open carry is legal and most regular folks don't take much notice of it.

I don't expect to be hassled for open carry because in 9 years of doing it, I never have.

Fleetwood_Captain
September 17, 2008, 03:23 PM
Well I never said that it didn't matter.

What I meant to say is that it doesn't strike me as suprising.

Cops do stupid **** all the time. My brother was pulled over one time in Wisconsin Dells with his buddies. The cop told him that unless he let them search the car for drugs and give give his buddies breathalyzer tests, he would write him a ticket for not having a front plate.

Ironically, they never tested my brother for BAC. He was 19 and he was the DRIVER. So I guess it's illegal to be an intoxicated passenger in Wisconsin, but ok to be an intoxicated driver.

Intune
September 17, 2008, 03:49 PM
3. Stand there and argue proclaim your 2nd amendment rights and get arested I'll take #3 all day, every day and any night. I guess it comes from being a child of the '60's & '70's!

There are a bunch of answers to "you wanna go to jail?" The ones that come immediately to mind do not meet THR standards. Well, they really do but we conduct ourselves with the sensitivity of others in mind. As we should. :cool:

Don't threaten me. Badge or no badge. Polite evisceration is an art form :uhoh:

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 03:57 PM
Polite evisceration is an art form
Ain't that the truth?

The best part is that you can make somebody like that look like the biggest jackass in the world, in front of his boss or in front of a jury, and he won't even realize it.

There was a cop in Tennesse, I think, who hassled a guy for open carrying, based on the law in an entirely different state where the cop had lived previously! The victim elected not to sue, but oh how I wish he had! I can only imagine the fun that my attorney could have had with that officer. I haven't got one iota of doubt that he could have reduced the officer to irrational rage in front of the jury!

ProficientRifleman
September 17, 2008, 04:05 PM
makarovnik said,
Bottom line is don't be surprised if you are hassled. If you aren't expecting to be hassled for OC then you need to rethink it.

This should not be the case. If you are doing something perfectly legal, and harming no one, you should not be "hassled" by anyone.

Arouse suspicion? For doing something perfectly legal and lawful? For doing something perfectly natural and normal, like carrying short-range defensive weaponry when you are out and about? Something in my soul tells me that this is exactly what free men do!

Catherine
September 17, 2008, 04:43 PM
P.R.,

Bingo! Thank you.

Some people do not understand the concept of liberty or rights when it comes to FREE men and FREE women.

The basic concepts and foundations are there. All people have to do is USE it or lose it.

I believe that EVERYONE should open carry anywhere if that is their choice. (We still have those nasty restrictive laws on WHERE it is allowed though at this time.) It might nip this crapola in the bud. If you are in jail or in an insane asylum... not allowed until you get out and served your time or got 'healed'. If you are a FREE man or woman out in society... you are FREE to protect yourself, your loved ones, your property and/or your country against foreign and domestic enemies IF called upon.

We should all have an equal playing field in our basic RIGHT to self defense if we need it.

Our Founding Fathers weep.

Catherine

BigBlock
September 17, 2008, 04:53 PM
NO, I am NOT going to listen to somebody misstate the law, or even worse express his intention to BREAK it for five minutes or five seconds.

I don't know about your state, but Oregon has a specific statute that states you MUST submit to a "peace" (peace, LOL) officer even if they are knowingly breaking the law.

As totally, incomprehensibly stupid as that sounds, it's the law.

Deanimator
September 17, 2008, 05:08 PM
I don't know about your state, but Oregon has a specific statute that states you MUST submit to a "peace" (peace, LOL) officer even if they are knowingly breaking the law.

As totally, incomprehensibly stupid as that sounds, it's the law.
I'm going to MAKE that officer tell me I'm not free to leave, ON THE RECORD, in front of as many witnesses as possible.

I'm going to refuse consent to ANYTHING.

I'm going to demand a lawyer and REFUSE further comment without one present.

If he then chooses to falsely arrest me, I will EAGERLY submit to that false arrest, secure in the knowledge that by so doing, I have secured a SIGNED ADMISSION by the officer of his criminal and tortious acts committed against me. That's pure gold in court. I going to make sure that others have to endanger their careers, finances and freedom in order to cover for him. Let's see who's willing to fall on THEIR sword for a goof like that.

At that point, there's exactly ZERO possibility either of any resolution short of a civil suit or of an out of court settlement.

Mainsail
September 17, 2008, 05:57 PM
It’s somewhat ironic, perhaps hypocritical, that many of the people who swear they won’t give up their firearms to the government should the storm troopers come to get them don’t want to open carry because it’s too much of a hassle.

“You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers, or if you hassle me.” :scrutiny:

bnkrazy
September 17, 2008, 06:13 PM
Interesting observation, Mainsail.

tpaw
September 17, 2008, 07:24 PM
Just curious. For all of you who have open carry states, have there been any incidents where a firearm has be ripped from a holster and stolen or even used on it's owner? We don't have OC in my state, only CC. If we were to get OC, I would feel very uncomfortable having my firearm displayed. It would make me feel that I would have to be on guard all the time just waiting for some jerk to run past me, grab my gun and keep going. It could even turn into a fad by a group of idiots, like those streakers at football games who run across the field nude. :confused:

dalepres
September 17, 2008, 07:27 PM
He didn't like that, pointing out his "15 years of law enforcement" experience on the matter.

Pretty typical. He's been violating your rights for so long he certainly knows more about them than you do.

Still, in general be respectful to the Police Officer. Respond "yes sir" or "no sir" to questions.

Are you kidding? You have absolutely got to be kidding. Yes, Sir? No, Sir? That's not respect, that's subservience. Perhaps it should be Yes, Master? I've had to delete a dozen potential responses to your post just to try to have any semblance of "high road" in my response. I am totally stunned that a free man would suggest that I, a 53 year old man, has to call some punk 21 year old kid Sir just because he has a badge and a gun.

Besides, LEOs don't automatically get respect, any more than anyone else does. Respect is earned. What LEOs do get, as should most people you interact with in life, is courtesy. That's it.

JesseL
September 17, 2008, 07:34 PM
tpaw, I've heard reference to one instance of an openly carried gun bieng snatched and used on its owner a decade or two ago in Phoenix (no hard reference). I think I heard about something similar in New Mexico (again no hard reference). And there was an incident of an open carrier in Virginia who was ambushed and robbed a year or two ago (I saw that one documented in reputable online news, but the story didn't completely pass the sniff test).

So there is at least anecdotal evidence of it happening, but it's extremely rare and certainly shows no indication of becoming a fad. In spite of the apparent level of intelligence of the populace today, most people don't seem that eager to play pranks on armed citizens.

dalepres
September 17, 2008, 07:42 PM
I have a question, how do you tell if the person with the oc is a good guy or a bad guy? Do they wear signs in the state? Just curious. Also what kind of advise did the officer give your friend?

Help me understand. Are you saying that everyone is a bad guy until proven otherwise? Some how, that just doesn't seem right - unless you feel that you're better than us or that us, as in "the people", are your enemy.

I don't know about your state, but Oregon has a specific statute that states you MUST submit to a "peace" (peace, LOL) officer even if they are knowingly breaking the law.

Do you know if that law has been tested in the state or federal supreme court? I am pretty sure that there have been rulings to the effect that an illegal or unconstitutional law does not have to be followed. That would apply to the cop knowingly giving illegal orders and to the law requiring a free man to follow those orders.

kcshooter
September 17, 2008, 08:01 PM
It’s somewhat ironic, perhaps hypocritical, that many of the people who swear they won’t give up their firearms to the government should the storm troopers come to get them don’t want to open carry because it’s too much of a hassle.I have other reasons than just the hassle not to OC. I already said that. I also feel a concealed weapon has the potential to give me a edge in an incident. There are other reasons, but the hassle isn't my only one.

And for those who keep saying things like the statement above, I have just as much right to carry concealed as you do openly, so why the hell is it such an affront to you?

I've carried concealed for over a decade now, and have no plans on switching to OC just to get a reaction from everyone until it's considered acceptable.

My gun's under my shirt so now I'm giving up my rights? Please. Carry open if you want but don't give me any crap if I decide not to.

ZeSpectre
September 17, 2008, 08:05 PM
regardless of whether or not they should be hassleing someone for open carry, you're delusional if you think they won't.

Well, so far my experience tells me that there's only one way to change that...

chris in va
September 17, 2008, 08:07 PM
Wow, sorry. Didn't know it would garner so much attention.

Winchester.

And he would have CC, but left his wallet at home (with his permit and photo ID).

For all of you who have open carry states, have there been any incidents where a firearm has be ripped from a holster and stolen or even used on it's owner?

Can't say as I've heard anything here in VA. I do however know of a possibly thwarted robbery due to a man OC in a bank.

cassandrasdaddy
September 17, 2008, 08:38 PM
there was an armed security guard robbed gun taken within last year in the hampton roads area

ProficientRifleman
September 17, 2008, 08:45 PM
Kcshooter said,
And for those who keep saying things like the statement above, I have just as much right to carry concealed as you do openly, so why the hell is it such an affront to you?

How you choose to carry your weapon isn't an affront to anyone here. I congratulate you for choosing to carry short-range defensive weaponry. That is a rational and logical choice.

You do NOT have a right to concealed carry...you have permission from the state.

Begging permission from the state to do what I have a natural right to do IS and affront to me. As it should be to all free men.

BigBlock
September 17, 2008, 10:05 PM
Do you know if that law has been tested in the state or federal supreme court? I am pretty sure that there have been rulings to the effect that an illegal or unconstitutional law does not have to be followed. That would apply to the cop knowingly giving illegal orders and to the law requiring a free man to follow those orders.

I have no idea if the law has been used. I just remember reading it in the codes and being very angry and wondering why the hell anyone would ever write or vote for that law. Unfortunately I believe there are similar laws in other states.



As for calling a cop "sir", no, I refuse to do that too. I am nice and respectful, but they are no better than I, and there fore, they are not a "sir". I am simply polite to them the way I would be to any random stranger I have to talk to. If I met the president I might call him sir...maybe.

Halo
September 17, 2008, 10:24 PM
I've never been a "sir and ma'am" person, I simply can't say it without sounding sarcastic even when that's not the intent.

dalepres
September 17, 2008, 11:00 PM
Even if someone might say Sir when getting a ticket, that's completely different from when the lecture starts. Once the lecture starts, then we're just shooting the **** and sharing opinions. Now it is time to get casual, lean against the car, grin, ask his name.. and shoot the **** like to new buddies on the side of the road. He is, afterall, no longer performing his official duties so he must be on break. We all like to shoot the **** when we're on break. Treat him like he's shooting the ****.. like an equal; no more than that.

*EDIT*: I see that I used too few asterisks. The word "breeze" should have had 6 stars, not 4. :)

SomeKid
September 17, 2008, 11:24 PM
dale,

Anything you say, can and will be used against you. He is not your friend, or nice acquaintance to chat with. He can and will lull you into a false sense of relaxation (or if a chick, might try to casually distract you) until you incriminate yourself.

dalepres
September 17, 2008, 11:54 PM
You're right. Good point. So the conversation about my gun turns to his gun. So, Jim, what do you like about your Glock? How many times do you practce? Wow, that's great. So, do you hunt? What kind of animal? What kind of guns?

In other words, considering the correctness of SomeKid's point, shooting the **** with someone who can use it against you is best done by getting the other guy to talk about himself. Sort of like a job interview over lunch. I am going to try to get the boss to talk about himself; or if I am the interviewer, I'll try to get the candidate to talk about himself But in any case, when the cop wants to go off the clock qnd argue with you, just turn it into a casual conversation. Don't submit and don't defend. Just chat. Disarm him without arming yourself.

SomeKid
September 18, 2008, 12:06 AM
dale,

Still a gamble. I have never had a friendly conversation that wasn't give and take (he asks, I ask). When I was interviewed for my current job for example, I asked questions and inquired about my interviewer/job. Just as they want a good employee, I want a good employer.

Now, look at my previous paragraph. Without prompting I shared a bit of personal trivia. Why? This is a friendly conversation. It happens. Done with a cop? Who knows.

CliffH
September 18, 2008, 12:39 AM
..... have no plans on switching to OC just to get a reaction from everyone until it's considered acceptable.

Not to address anyone specifically...

If I interpreted that statement correctly; I read it as "I'll wait for someone else to make it happen, then I'll take advantage of their work".

That kind attitude isn't much help for furthering gun rights, or any other rights for that matter.

I'm noticing more and more that people seem to be adopting the attitude that "someone else" will take care of "it" and don't want to get personally involved.

IMO, that's not a good sign.

dalepres
September 18, 2008, 12:57 AM
Well, you are right. Friendly conversations are never just a friendly conversation with someone who always considers himself on the job and who sees me as less than or separate from them. So just enough casual conversation to disarm the lecture and then on to dinner.

That's one of the things I like about the Internet forums. I can adjust and improve my plans all the time.

SomeKid
September 18, 2008, 01:07 AM
I hear that dale. I wish I had saved a video, but someone posted a lawyer giving a 30 min lecture on the 5A, and why talking to cops was bad. Until then, I thought exactly as you did: Talk and be friendly. I don't do any talk or friendly chit-chat. My game plan is to give them as cold a shoulder as possible, while doing the bare minimum I legally must.

Stevie-Ray
September 18, 2008, 01:14 AM
Just curious. For all of you who have open carry states, have there been any incidents where a firearm has be ripped from a holster and stolen or even used on it's owner? We don't have OC in my state, only CC. If we were to get OC, I would feel very uncomfortable having my firearm displayed. It would make me feel that I would have to be on guard all the time just waiting for some jerk to run past me, grab my gun and keep going. It could even turn into a fad by a group of idiots, like those streakers at football games who run across the field nude. :confused:None in Michigan, AFAIK. I open carried today for the first time since I received my CPL, as I was trying out a new holster both ways. Most of our full-time OC'rs are people that live in the sticks, so I don't hear too much about it.

BigBlock
September 18, 2008, 01:23 AM
Anything you say, can and will be used against you. He is not your friend, or nice acquaintance to chat with.

Well, you can have a chat with 'em, you just have to be really careful about what you say. I got pulled over a while ago and was given the drunk test. (I was sober as a priest) We ended up having a chat on the side of the road for about 15 minutes about my truck and one like it he was building. :)

Catherine
September 18, 2008, 01:47 AM
Kcshooter said,
Quote:
And for those who keep saying things like the statement above, I have just as much right to carry concealed as you do openly, so why the hell is it such an affront to you?

How you choose to carry your weapon isn't an affront to anyone here. I congratulate you for choosing to carry short-range defensive weaponry. That is a rational and logical choice.

You do NOT have a right to concealed carry...you have permission from the state.

Begging permission from the state to do what I have a natural right to do IS and affront to me. As it should be to all free men.
~~~~~

P.R.,

Bingo again and that is EXACTLY my point again. Thank you.

Catherine

Catherine
September 18, 2008, 02:27 AM
No offense here but I was raised saying, Yes sir/ma'am or No sir/ma'am or fill in the blanks. I was raised in a fairly strict household yet with very loving, kind, common sense, smart parents who would NOT put up with a 'Brat' or BACK TALK aka sassing to a parent, mentor, etc. ONE LOOK meant that you knocked it off - you were expected to act like well behaved children and teens INSIDE the house, outside the house, in school, in Church, in a restaurant, shopping, etc. We had CHORES too. Responsibilities. Manners. You were raised 'properly' yet you were NOT raised to be a door mat in politics or in other ISSUES. We were raised that NO question was off limits and we had open discussions about ALL subject manners... not this or that was NOT allowed because it might OFFEND someone. There is a big difference between being OPEN and polite versus this new age P.C. garbage. Gag!

I might not ALWAYS say it NOW in every social situation but to an older person including my late parents, mentors, teachers, etc. it was VERY normal and common to say such things because GOOD MANNERS and respect for people was expected in raising a young lady or gentleman.

Emily Post manners, white gloves, clean hankies, don't LITTER, treat the other person according to the "Golden Rule" out of the Bible and because it was the right/proper THING TO DO, treat all people with respect and don't PUT one person above another person because we are ALL equal.

Just because some people THINK that they are ABOVE THE LAW AND ACT LIKE IT IN ANY PROFESSION INCLUDING POLITICS - does not make them 'god like'. If a person in ANY profession treats ME with respect - they get treated with respect back from me. Sometimes when people are real JERKS or 'high/mighty' types... I try to treat them with even more good manners and/or talk to their 'boss' because that REALLY ticks them off. Grin. Now, if the man or woman, in any profession, has NO freaking clue about x, y or z and treats ME, the customer, the taxpayer, etc. like CRAPOLA - I might just need to kick off the jogging shoes, put on MY high heels and put them in their place. I don't mean being RUDE, not being a lady, a jerk or an idiot like they are... people that don't know their own job... you can be a lady or a gentleman and follow through. GET all names, facts, etc. written down.

Disclaimer: I have never had a parking ticket or a problem with a peace officer.

I don't like people who don't do their JOBS especially when I am paying TAX dollars to support their jobs, their bennies, their overtime, their vacation, their retirement, etc. I had some of those 'winners' in my former state from the lying, RINO, anti ccw Gov. to an idiot in the county's office who was HIRED to take an election ballot issue for my former township - all of the way to the FREAKING state supreme court. We won on the county level with the judges on this issue and it went to the state capitol - the black suited folks did NOT want it on the ballot. BIG money you know! That #%(@ is another LONG story and not allowed here. Too bad those idiots did not get fired but as I told HIM... money talks and bs walks - incompetent people sometimes end up to be in a HIGHER political office! Gag a maggot time. True story.

Catherine

VPLthrneck
September 18, 2008, 02:33 AM
Chris in VA: I applaud you for stepping in; unfortuately your friend gave in eventually but I hope he sees that a little knowledge and get-involved-attitude will help to educate others (no matter who they are); and maybe it will also strenghten his spine back up; it seems he got a little wilted at the end.:(

With all the current cops/prior cops/related-to-a-cop members that we have here, I'm always baffled by the amount of these post we get. How many cops on here correct members of their departments when they see/here of a co-worker goofing up something related to OC'ing? If you can't come out and say "Yeah I do" then you're just as guilty, plain and simple. In the 2 military services I've been in we use the term "corrected on sight."
(Side note-DA's, Police Chief's, and Judges do come up for re-election--just something to think on.)
Now someone mentioned that a majority of cops are good, respectable, professional people; but this guy "might have had a bad day" (or something to that effect). Well, these professionals that I've met live up to that term, are respectable to the people around them, and it is returned back to them. The ones I've met that aren't, well that is also returned.

But I'm really curious as to how a judge doesn't think that the 2A applies to states, kind of baffling there.

Unlike the 1st Amendment, the 2nd has not YET been formally "incorporated" via the 14th. The 1st applies to the states but not the 2nd... YET.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I did go to public school after all), but doesn't 2 come before 14? It's seems that people are forgetting why the first 10 are called the "Bill of Rights." Our Constitution only had 10 Amendments for 4 years, then in 8 years only 2 were added. It took 61 years until the 13A added. The 2A doesn't need to be "incorporated" via anything.:scrutiny: I think to many people use this as a way out.:fire:

Catherine
September 18, 2008, 02:53 AM
I don't think that the statistics are that HIGH where some bad guy took a gun away from an open carry man or woman. I remember reading about this 10 or so years ago though. However... I am NO expert on this and I can't quote figures verbatim. I used to WRITE about this in my 'former life' on many, many gun issues.

I think that many people in NON O.C. and NO or 'little' conceal carry states tend to think this way due to their gun laws or due to how they were raised/taught including what their fearless leaders aka politicos tell them.

It is a VERY common thing to think/say/write/question especially coming from anti O.C. Folks and even from some anti gunners. I am NOT saying that statement to anyone specific here but it is a very common 'question/statement'. This is NOT directed to the nice NY man on here, hello and I hope that you are well. I am just answering what some may have asked on here including him. He is PRO GUN - the nice New York man along with others on HERE.

JOHN LOTT and Gary Kleck mention this in their books along with many other famous authors and gun experts.

I do NOT have those figures but I think that it is VERY LOW - most people would not want to steal a gun that is already ON the person where he or she could STOP the criminal from his crime by shooting BACK. QUICK draw or fairly quick response time.

It is easier for me to open carry than to conceal carry. Easier for me to 'draw' and I happen to be a HUGE supporter of open carry for ALL people in this country and for people overseas/around the world. IT might just NIP it in the bud when it comes to perps wanting to hurt, rape, maim, kidnap, knife, shoot, gang up on some lady or man with one bad guy or a GANG of them and leave the VICTIM DEAD or left on the road to die - tossed off like trash on the side of the road by the bad people!

I think that it would STOP them in their tracks from the gitgo, they would think twice about doing the dirty deed with full intent, they might not want to take a chance with a man or a ticked off lady who is NOT willing to ROLL over and play dead when it comes to a criminal.

Catherine

Catherine
September 18, 2008, 03:08 AM
The military and 'most' job professions would not put up with continued abuses of x, y or z when it comes to what is right or wrong or legal or illegal because of many reasons. The non military ones don't want to get sued in this day and age.

The MILITARY would stop it almost immediately and nip it in the bud because you know what... well... I can't say it HERE. An old military saying of my late husband's. Grin.

In most job professions - you don't always have the cover ups or covering the other guy's @@@ because it WILL eventually come back and bite them in the @@@! Ouch!

It does happen in 'politics' though and in a FEW professions.

If the guy/peace officer made an honest mistake... correct him and have his superiors correct him. He or she should know the LAWS on open and/or conceal carry in his state. It is not an uncommon issue - guns!

The man or woman who has a problem with OPEN carry because an authority figure of any type or profession is ON their CASE, not only a police person, should have the TESTICULAR FORTITUDE to speak up for themselves without having anyone speak up UNLESS they ask for someone else to speak UP for them. IF you can't speak UP for yourself in an open carry issue or situation from the gitgo... well... as they say... grow a pair! You don't have to give a speech but you have the right to speak UP and correct the ILL INFORMED person NO matter who it is and where this happens.

Catherine

dalepres
September 18, 2008, 05:31 PM
No offense here but I was raised saying, Yes sir/ma'am or No sir/ma'am or fill in the blanks.

When I was young, all of the 7 children in our family were required to read Emily Post from cover to cover. I know manners. I was taught to say Sir or Ma'am to my elders.

I don't say it to my children. My youngest child is 32. So why would I say Sir to a 21 year old cop or even a 30 year old cop? He's not my elder; he's younger than my children. Most cops should, according to polite society rules, call me Sir.

Cop: Good afternoon, sir.
Me: Hello there, young man.
Cop: I clocked you doing 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. I'm going to have to issue you a summons. May I have your driver's license and proof of insurance, sir?
Me: Certainly. Here.
Cop: Please sign here, sir.
(I sign and return the ticket book)
Cop: Thank you, sir. Please try to keep it under the speed limit. Drive carefully and have a nice day.
Me: You be careful, too, young man. We appreciate all that you do.
(I roll up the window, turn on my turn signal, and carefully pull into traffic.)

That's how a traffic stop should go - leaving out the part where the officer, for his safety and mine, hands over his weapon until our interaction is over because that's a topic for a different thread.

dalepres
September 18, 2008, 05:39 PM
Catherine,

I think you're a great asset to the discussions here. You're right on about the 2nd Amendment and about personal freedom and what it really means to be free. Even so, you are wrong here:

The military and 'most' job professions would not put up with continued abuses of x, y or z when it comes to what is right or wrong or legal or illegal because of many reasons. The non military ones don't want to get sued in this day and age.

The MILITARY would stop it almost immediately and nip it in the bud because you know what... well... I can't say it HERE. An old military saying of my late husband's. Grin.

In most job professions - you don't always have the cover ups or covering the other guy's @@@ because it WILL eventually come back and bite them in the @@@! Ouch!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00413.htm

The Army and Marine Corps would, if stories like these are true, prefer to let rapists and murderers walk among them than to admit that life in the military is less than heaven on earth.

kcshooter
September 18, 2008, 08:03 PM
Not to address anyone specifically...But you did quote me, so I'll respond.

If I interpreted that statement correctly; I read it as "I'll wait for someone else to make it happen, then I'll take advantage of their work".No, you don't interpret that correctly. I stated several times that I have no interest in open carry for many reasons, not just because I don't want hassled. It is perfectly legal for me to do so now, yet I choose not to. If you're going to only quote a small part of the paragraph, at least take the time to read it yourself.

That kind attitude isn't much help for furthering gun rights, or any other rights for that matter.Whether it is or isn't, I'm still not going to carry openly.

That wasn't my point at all. I don't think you are getting it. I won't be open carrying for many reasons. I don't think my choice to carry concealed as I have for a decade means I am not "doing my part" for gun rights.
I'm noticing more and more that people seem to be adopting the attitude that "someone else" will take care of "it" and don't want to get personally involved.
I am doing my part to protect myself and my family, and regardless of your opinion as to whether or not I'm doing enough for the cause, my family is what's most important to me.

Again, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for me to do so right now and I choose not to.

Seminole
September 18, 2008, 09:47 PM
If you aren't expecting to be hassled for OC then you need to rethink it.

So should you expect to be hassled if you wear a hat?

Should you expect to be hassled if you sport tatoos?

Should you expect to be hassled if you wear sandals rather than wing-tips?

Should you expect to be hassled if you are walking down the sidewalk instead of driving a car?

Should you expect to be hassled for inviting friends over for a barbecue?

Should you expect to be hassled for going to synagogue?

Should you expect to be hassled for drinking iced tea?

All of these activities are perfectly legal--exactly as is open carry in VA (and in TN, for that matter, with a carry permit). That being the case, you should no more expect to be hassled for OC than you should expect to be hassled for any of these or other perfectly legal activities. To expect to be hassled for them is to concede that Law Enforcement Officers are actually Personal Preference Officers. Should we concede that?

Aran
September 18, 2008, 11:43 PM
no you file a complaint as I have said before.............If you dont then nothing gets done, A complaint will certianly work faster than you going to jail calling a lawyer sueing the city and or the officer. Its tomorrow/next week v/s next year.

If you come out ahead on the trial you will likely get more responce in the department. A complaint will get a faster responce.

That's cute.

My last run-in with a state trooper, where I was cuffed and detained in a manager's office at WalMart for about 20 minutes and screamed at by both the state trooper and their loss prevention officer in front of other employees and a few customers, and flat out accused of being a career criminal by the state trooper, was followed up by a complaint to his CO.

http://www.songofthewinds.com/PSPResponse.jpg

The higher ups are in full agreement with this treatment here.

Catherine
September 18, 2008, 11:44 PM
Dalepress,

Thanks for the compliment.

Regarding that story that you posted about the military, I do know that there are GOOD and BAD people in all professions including the military, police force, etc.

I know that they do and did have incidents and CRIMES in war time, in peace time and that includes various abuse stories, some rapes, some murders, etc.

I do think that in MOST cases they try to CLEAN up their own mess (Bad apples, if you will, that SPOIL the good ones in the basket.) and they TRY to not let those abuses of any kind and/or crimes done by a bad person or criminal get SWEPT under the rug.

I could be wrong because I am positive that I do NOT know every crime case in the military or in NON military situations = Civilian.

I see 'crimes' done by Congress and in the White House along with x, y or z (Which I could make an outline of here but it is Not Allowed.) that would make my straight short hair literally CURL and my B/P rise if I stated to write it all down. Those crimes are let go and vastly IGNORED... accepted as BUSINESS as USUAL. Ugh.

Thanks again. Take care and nice to meet you.

Catherine

kcshooter
September 20, 2008, 06:13 PM
All of these activities are perfectly legal--exactly as is open carry in VA (and in TN, for that matter, with a carry permit). That being the case, you should no more expect to be hassled for OC than you should expect to be hassled for any of these or other perfectly legal activities. To expect to be hassled for them is to concede that Law Enforcement Officers are actually Personal Preference Officers. Should we concede that?I understand your point. In theory you are correct.

However, I live in the real world, and know what happens when you have a firearm exposed on your person in public without a uniform. Right or wrong, it's pretty much the reality of it.

VARifleman
September 20, 2008, 06:29 PM
kcshooter, getting hassled is the exception, not the rule. Many of us OC without any problems what-so-ever.

NonConformist
September 20, 2008, 06:33 PM
A lot of that going around!

I applaud those willing to face such people for their rights! If we had open carry here, and it was not so harshly restricted id OC all the time!

glockdriver
September 20, 2008, 07:58 PM
whats to stop the bad guy from carrying also , Do we want to start walking around like an old western movie

I was stopped from entering a department store once because I had a fixed blade sheathed on my hip. The leo was very polite about it saying if I went in the store like that he was going to be called back about it , so I stashed it in my back pack. To me it was no harm no foul. My neighbor (a fellow gun person) had his .44 special stuck in his rubber boots . as he sat down to eat in a local restraunt Someone saw it and complained , the police came , confiscated his weapon and wrote him a summons .Cost him $250 to get his gun back

BigBlock
September 20, 2008, 08:08 PM
My last run-in with a state trooper, where I was cuffed and detained in a manager's office at WalMart for about 20 minutes and screamed at by both the state trooper and their loss prevention officer

May I ask how you ended up handcuffed in a Walmart? Did you try to steal something? Sometimes it is OK for cops to be a little strong...if you've actually done something wrong.

And, just as a counter point to your post, my complaint on a police officer a few years ago lead directly to his firing.

Catherine
September 20, 2008, 08:50 PM
Quote:
whats to stop the bad guy from carrying also , Do we want to start walking around like an old western movie

Snippet and quote from a post.

~~~~~


I think that it would be a good idea if we started to walk around like in the 'old west'! We would not 'force' anyone to do this but if someone wanted to exercise their God Given and/or natural rights in self defense issues... there YOU GO!

The bad guys might be OUTNUMBERED by the good guys and GALS.

There would be an EQUAL playing field in those former NO open carry or NO conceal carry states where the VICTIM would have a chance and NOT have to WAIT for a 911 response - in my former state, county and township the response time was 45 MINUTES @ night. Been there - done that!

People and politicos including EVIL ones... would know that WE the PEOPLE would not put up with any BS or TYRANNY or fill in the blank from a foreign and/or DOMESTIC ENEMY.

That would just be a beginning answer for me.

Catherine

Treo
September 20, 2008, 09:01 PM
glockdriver

My neighbor (a fellow gun person) had his .44 special stuck in his rubber boots . as he sat down to eat in a local restraunt Someone saw it and complained , the police came , confiscated his weapon and wrote him a summons .Cost him $250 to get his gun back

A little more information please. Was your friend carrying legally? Does your state allow open carry?

What was your friend charged with?

If something is legal you shouldn't refrain just because a cop asks you to. If you were legally carrying your knife you should have told the cop so and cited the relevant statute. If he continues to harass you you go into the "Am I free to go?" loop

Officer, are you detaining me ( if yes see response A) or am I free to go ( if yes see response B)

A) I do not wish to make any statement or answer any questions W/ out my attorney present.

B) Thank you for your time officer. Have a nice day.
(Spoken over your shoulder as you leave the area)

NonConformist
September 20, 2008, 10:09 PM
..so your solution is for us to not carry so the BGs wont carry!?!?! :scrutiny:

They already carry, so why should we have to ask, pay and prove, to excercise a right?

ProficientRifleman
September 20, 2008, 10:14 PM
glockdriver said,
whats to stop the bad guy from carrying also , Do we want to start walking around like an old western movie


YOU have a right! You can choose to exercise that right or not to.

The bad guys, those criminally minded, don't care what the laws are. They will carry a gun when ever they choose to, no matter how illegal!

As Catherine said, there are far more good guys out there than bad guys. Wouldn't be better if all the good guys were at least as well armed as the bad guys?

I say again. Gun control laws are meant to control YOU, not the criminals. It isn't about crime, its about control.

Aran
September 21, 2008, 01:03 AM
May I ask how you ended up handcuffed in a Walmart? Did you try to steal something? Sometimes it is OK for cops to be a little strong...if you've actually done something wrong.

And, just as a counter point to your post, my complaint on a police officer a few years ago lead directly to his firing.

I was standing there comparing two things, both hands full, he rushed me, I set them down just in time for him to grab me and cuff me.

The only thing I did wrong was not follow up on my complaint after I got the response letter.

20nickels
September 21, 2008, 02:04 AM
Can't we all just talk this over a Moons over My Hammy's? :D

Treo
September 21, 2008, 02:33 AM
Can't we all just talk this over a Moons over My Hammy's

Ohh Gawd I can feeeeeeeel my arteries hardening

knicks118
September 21, 2008, 02:43 AM
Funny I just saw this thread today.

Whenever I go to Denny's in Richmond, I always CC. Considering that I always go to Denny's at midnight or whenever everything healthy is closed.

It seems the Denny's anywhere within 15 miles of downtown is full of the sketchiest people at night.

Winchester is considered N.VA and I wasn't surprised this happened there.

starboard
September 21, 2008, 03:44 AM
I don't think it's generally worth it to escalate the situation at the point of contact solely to make an academic point, potentially get arrested for whatever BS, and potentially get the patrolman into legal hot water. What the rest of the rank and file will hear in the locker room is that their buddy is getting screwed by some overzealous OC troublemakers, and the antagonism will increase wrong though it may be.

I would hope that in general, a constructive approach with the brass would yield better overall results than confrontation with a patrolman. The local gun/OC club or the NRA has a legally competent person chat with the chief after a few holes of golf, and lo, the department may issue a policy clarification for the rank and file and everyone is happy.

I realize that things are different with specific bad apples and with bad department culture in traditionally anti-RKBA jurisdictions, but on the whole across the country, I think law enforcement is overwhelmingly on our side. The lists of DAs and police officer associations endorsing pro-2A Heller amicus briefs are quite substantial, even including a whole bunch from the socialist sheep-hole that is Kalifornistan.

I applaud the intent behind using and protecting our rights, but I also think that pragmatism is helpful in dealing with a generally positive force in our society that's sometimes uninformed and/or cranky from dealing with sh*tbags all day long. I think as more ground is taken after Heller, as more statistics pile up, and more cases occur of CCW folk happening upon officers in trouble and helping out, sentiment and policy will keep shifting in our favor. And of course CCW/OC activism should help considerably.

Oh, and it should help tremendously to keep the "half honky, all donkey" out of office. The guy makes Ted Kennedy look like Pat Buchanan, serious bad news.

SCKimberFan
September 21, 2008, 07:35 AM
I was standing there comparing two things, both hands full, he rushed me, I set them down just in time for him to grab me and cuff me.

Yeah right. :scrutiny:

Where's Paul Harvey? I want the rest of the story.

Aran
September 21, 2008, 10:42 AM
You'd fit in real well over at PAFOA.

SCKimberFan
September 21, 2008, 10:49 AM
Probably because I was born and raised in PA. :D

Aran
September 21, 2008, 10:50 AM
You poor thing.

SCKimberFan
September 21, 2008, 10:52 AM
Yeah, but I was smart enough to move away 25 years ago.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 10:55 AM
I was standing there comparing two things, both hands full, he rushed me, I set them down just in time for him to grab me and cuff me.


Not following up on the responce letter was IMO a poor decision, where is the false arrest law suit? What about the assault law suit for rushing you? Did you even consider going to court? IS/WAS it even an option for you?

Aran
September 21, 2008, 11:03 AM
I'm a poor college student with a family who is 2000% anti-gun. Even if I could find a lawyer to help me out for the ~$20 I had at the time that wasn't already promised out to my creditors, the backlash from the family would have been horrendous.

Tim Burke
September 21, 2008, 11:04 AM
The recommendation to contact the VCDL was good. At the very least, I'd suggest doing that. I've joined the VCDL because I've been impressed with the work they are doing, and I don't even live in VA.
Everything else I have to say about this thread has already been said by Deanimator.

jdomin
September 21, 2008, 11:08 AM
typical cop response. they like to stiff arm everyone.one step from a felon

bnkrazy
September 21, 2008, 05:15 PM
Tim Burke, thanks for your support!

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 09:28 PM
Oh, and it should help tremendously to keep the .................. out of office. The guy makes Ted Kennedy look like Pat Buchanan, serious bad news.

Wow. Couldn't you dislike him just for his politics?

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 21, 2008, 09:35 PM
"we'll just get called back for a man with a gun".

To which the appropriate response by the dispatcher should be "so what - get a life" - it should never get past the dispatcher. Why would they respond to a call reporting something legal?

"Hey, my neighbor is walking his dog, fercripessake!" "OK, sir, we'll send some units right away!!" :rolleyes:

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 09:39 PM
Why would they respond to a call reporting something legal?Because of the mall, church, and campus shootings that have taken place in the last couple years, maybe?

You're suggesting police no longer respond to "man with a gun" calls??

VARifleman
September 21, 2008, 09:48 PM
What they are supposed to do is ask if they are carrying it around or if it's holstered. They should say to buzz off if it's holstered because that's completely legal.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 21, 2008, 09:50 PM
Because of the mall, church, and campus shootings that have taken place in the last couple years, maybe?

You're suggesting police no longer respond to "man with a gun" calls??

Absolutely I'm suggesting that, if it's holstered and therefore legal.

"Hey there's a guy with a gun."
"Is it holstered, worn on his person?"
"Yes."
"That's legal; have a nice day; goodbye."

What is so difficult about that? It's extraordinarily simple.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 09:51 PM
To which the appropriate response by the dispatcher should be "so what - get a life" - it should never get past the dispatcher. Why would they respond to a call reporting something legal?


ok I am a bit on the ball with this one. I am a firefighter on light duty for the time.....again........I work 911 dispatch right now. Man with a gun call=send pd why you ask? Liability. All calls now matter how insignificant must be investigated because of liability. In this case we get a call, "yeah there is a guy here with a gun in a holsetr walking around the parking lot" Then we take your method of so what - get a lifefor the reason ofWhy would they respond to a call reporting something legal?
now the reasoning:
1 with a responce to a customer like that I would get a letter for sure
2 how do I know he is legal?
3 if he did break loose and blast away or hurt/harm people or property the department/city and I would be in civil court from now on. Then the criminal charges filed against me.

so I say maybe you were not aware of this, now you know. If you were aware of this then you should rethink your statement.

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 09:56 PM
Oh, I see. So concerned gun-ignorant citizen calls in and the dispatches says, "Oh, it's in a holster? That's legal, we're too busy to worry about stuff like that. Call me back if he starts shooting."

So then concerned citizen calls the local news, the local news puts any spin they want on this story, and dispatchers and supervisors all lose their jobs.

Yeah, no public outcry risk on that one. You obviously have no idea of the politics involved in trying to run a city's police force.


What is so difficult about that? It's extraordinarily simple.Oh, yeah, it's just so simple. Where do you live??

cassandrasdaddy
September 21, 2008, 09:56 PM
there you go again throwing messy facts in and spoiling the fantasy and paranoia buzzkiller!

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 21, 2008, 09:57 PM
Would you be liable if a concealed carry holder went berserk and shot people after someone called and said they thought someone was carrying concealed? No.

Would you liable if a person reported a guy walking his dog, and then he went berserk while on said dog walk and shot people? Of course not.

Would you liable if a person reported a cop with a holstered gun, and then the cop went berserk while on duty and shot people? Of course not.

There is no principled difference. Either it's LEGAL. Or it's NOT. It's very very very simple to ask "is it holstered?". If so the response should be "get a life" in a nice way. There is nothing to re-think. It doesn't get any more clear cut. Either it's legal, or it's not. Resources should NEVER be wasted on some joker's reporting LEGAL activity. The chief can and should be held accountable for such a ridiculous waste of resources.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
September 21, 2008, 10:03 PM
Oh, I see. So concerned gun-ignorant citizen calls in and the dispatches says, "Oh, it's in a holster? That's legal, we're too busy to worry about stuff like that. Call me back if he starts shooting."

So then concerned citizen calls the local news, the local news puts any spin they want on this story, and dispatchers and supervisors all lose their jobs.

Yeah, no public outcry risk on that one. You obviously have no idea of the politics involved in trying to run a city's police force.

Absolutely improper flawed logic.

Oh, I see. So concerned gun-ignorant citizen calls in and the dispatches says, "Oh, it's in a holster? That's legal, we're too busy to worry about [legal stuff]. Call me back if he starts [doing something illegal]."

Yes, absolutely, that makes perfect sense.

So then concerned citizen calls the local news, the local news puts any spin they want on this story, and dispatchers and supervisors all lose their jobs.

No chance - it would happen so many times the news channels would tell them the exact same thing - get bent - yeah, that's a real yawner - a guy doing something legal....

Yeah, no public outcry risk on that one.

Maybe an extremely small amount of outcry the first time, but then nothing after that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time. So enduring watching some news knuckleheads spinning is story is not worth it to enhance and protect our rights? Heck, you don't even have to watch it - change the channel.

You obviously have no idea of the politics involved in trying to run a city's police force.

Of course I do. I know that what's right and what cops WANT to do ain't always the same thing. A JOB, by definition, is doing stuff you don't want to do. That's their JOB, to not waste resources on investigatimg LEGAL stuff. Frankly, what you suggest is absurd - great idea - send cops out to investigate LEGAL activity so no one is available when a crime actually occurs - beautiful idea.

Do you even have legal carry in Kansas City? If not, how do you know what would happen?

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 10:04 PM
There is no principled difference. Either it's LEGAL. Or it's NOT. It's very very very simple to ask "is it holstered?". If so the response should be "get a life" in a nice way. There is nothing to re-think. It doesn't get any more clear cut. Either it's legal, or it's not. Resources should NEVER be wasted on some joker's reporting LEGAL activity. The chief can and should be held accountable for such a ridiculous waste of resources.
Couldnt agree more as to it being legal or not. But since there are two sides to every story, the callers and the other person, we here at dispatch can not know for certian. It becomes the officers responcibility to investigate the situation. This is what the tax payers pay for.

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 10:07 PM
Would you be liable if a concealed carry holder went berserk and shot people after someone called and said they thought someone was carrying concealed? No.If someone called in and said "this guy has a gun," and you decided to ignore the call, YES, you most certainly would!

Would you liable if a person reported a guy walking his dog, and then he went berserk while on said dog walk and shot people? Of course not.See above response.


You are way oversimplifying this. You aren't understanding that, legal or not, if someone calls and says "there's a man with a gun!", in today's society, the police have a responsibility and a S.O.P. to respond. Like it or not, that's the reality of it. If you live in a rural setting, it may be different for you, but for those that live in a city, it isn't generally considered normal to walk around with a gun on your hip. And there are people, maybe 10-20% of the population, that vehemently hate guns. They are going to call the cops in fear and ignorance if they see one on you without a badge to accompany it. Like it or not, legal or not, this IS the reality of it.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 10:10 PM
"Oh, it's in a holster? That's legal, we're too busy to worry about [legal stuff]. Call me back if he starts [doing something illegal]." Yes, absolutely, that makes perfect sense. yeah because only good guys have holsters:banghead:

No chance - it would happen so many times the news channels would tell them the exact same thing - get bent - yeah, that's a real yawner - a guy doing something legal....
no the media would soak it up over and over until it changes no matter how many people loose their jobs.:banghead:

Of course I do. I know that what's right and what cops WANT to do ain't always the same thing. A JOB, by definition, is doing stuff you don't want to do well that tells me where your logic comes from no one likes their Job any where right?:banghead:

send cops out to investigate LEGAL activity so no one is available when a crime actually occurs - beautiful idea. again how do you know with out being there 100% for certian there in no legal activity? you dont!:banghead:

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 10:12 PM
Absolutely improper flawed logic.Nope, sorry buddy, that's called reality.

No chance - it would happen so many times the news channels would tell them the exact same thing - get bent - yeah, that's a real yawner - a guy doing something legal....Don't be ridiculous. "The cops ignore "man with gun call"! Story at 10!" Again, where do you live??

Heck, you don't even have to watch it - change the channel.Right, people don't just eat stories like this up.
send cops out to investigate LEGAL activity so no one is available when a crime actually occursAgain, you are confusing what you would like to have happen with what actually happens. Welcome to reality.
Do you even have legal carry in Kansas City? If not, how do you know what would happen?Indeed yes we do, both OC and CCW are legal here. Know what else we had here a couple years ago? A guy go into a mall and start shooting. So if you think cops aren't going to respond to "man with a gun" call, holstered or not, well, sir, your ignorance is showing.

Stevie-Ray
September 21, 2008, 10:14 PM
Seems to me that if OC is going to be the norm, the dispatchers are going to have to get used to asking, "Am I to understand that he/she has it in his/her hand?" when taking "there's a man/woman with a gun!" calls. Seems it will save a lot of time and resources.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 10:23 PM
Seems to me that if OC is going to be the norm, I would agree that a change in policy would be in order IF but it is not the norm at all any where in this country. And again holstered or in hand whats the diffrence if some one feels threatened enough to call 911 it must be investigated again for liability reasons. Besides in you example of OC and the norm, folks likely would not call for just seeing a gun

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 10:34 PM
1 with a responce to a customer like that I would get a letter for sure
2 how do I know he is legal?
3 if he did break loose and blast away or hurt/harm people or property the department/city and I would be in civil court from now on. Then the criminal charges filed against me.

I don't generally get into the open carry issues; it's not an option where I live anyway. I do feel the urge to respond here, though.

If you dispatched a unit based on the complaint of man with a gun, the responding officer would be too late to do a thing if the gun owner had bad intentions. The police would, as is their custom, get there in time to take pictures of the mess.

A person exercising their rights should not have to show that it is legal for them to exercise those rights. The assumption should always be that they have the right unless something suggests otherwise. That's one of the other amendments that seems to get forgotten: the 4th.

VARifleman
September 21, 2008, 10:39 PM
If someone called in and said "this guy has a gun," and you decided to ignore the call, YES, you most certainly would!
Actually..no you wouldn't. This has been decided in court many times.

It is a waste of resources to send someone out to investigate a legal activity. Back when Tony's Pizza happened, it came out that there were ACTUAL CRIMES that weren't responded to immediately BECAUSE the officers were dispatched to investigate a group of guys that were following the law.

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 10:40 PM
again how do you know with out being there 100% for certian there in no illegal activity? you dont!

I fixed what I think was an error in your post, based on the context as I understood it. Is that correct?

You aren't trying to say that the police should investigate seemingly legal behavior to ensure that there is no illegal behavior going on behind the scenes, are you? Wouldn't that be called a police state?

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 10:46 PM
If you dispatched a unit based on the complaint of man with a gun, the responding officer would be too late to do a thing if the gun owner had bad intentions. The police would, as is their custom, get there in time to take pictures of the mess.

A person exercising their rights should not have to show that it is legal for them to exercise those rights. The assumption should always be that they have the right unless something suggests otherwise. That's one of the other amendments that seems to get forgotten: the 4th

For the first part this may be the case but none the less the dispatch atleast put the call out.

I agree with the second part but again we in the dispatch center can only take calls we can not determin legality.

I will say this, there is common sense applied to all this stuff too. We wont put a call out for some things, "my neighbor has a gun in his yard taking pictures of the deer he killed today" would be a good example(I personaly took that call last year)

And thanks for fixing my post it was a type-o on my part. Stick around there are plenty I do.

cassandrasdaddy
September 21, 2008, 10:47 PM
the cops here responded to 60 shots fired calls from the new neighbor from jersey before she got used to the hunt club with 3000 acres across the river

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 10:48 PM
Actually..no you wouldn't. This has been decided in court many times. Read closer. Quote:
Would you be liable if a concealed carry holder went berserk and shot people after someone called and said they thought someone was carrying concealed? No.

If someone called in and said "this guy has a gun," and you decided to ignore the call, YES, you most certainly would! Yes, in your example, the cops responded to a non-crime. In the example set forward to which I responded, the subject did indeed commit a crime, but the dispatcher decided not to send a cop to even have a look until after the shooting started. If you think that doesn't equate to liability enough for a few folks to lose their jobs, you're kidding yourself.

Stevie-Ray
September 21, 2008, 10:51 PM
And again holstered or in hand whats the diffrence if some one feels threatened enough to call 911 it must be investigated again for liability reasons. I would say the same as the difference between a holstered CCW and a gun in the hand. You're saying the same thing as printing when you carry concealed. In that case the call would be I think a man has a gun. Feeling threatened because you saw what might be the imprint of a gun, or because you saw a gun on someone's hip, both of which otherwise seem normal, equates to nuisance calls, IMO. In shall issue + OC states, it should be the dispatcher's opinion also.

VARifleman
September 21, 2008, 10:51 PM
No, kcshooter, you're ignoring case law, which I pointed out to you, but you ignored it.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 10:51 PM
Quote:
If someone called in and said "this guy has a gun," and you decided to ignore the call, YES, you most certainly would!

Actually..no you wouldn't. This has been decided in court many times.
this has been decided many times in both directions based on individual case circumstances.

cassandrasdaddy
September 21, 2008, 10:55 PM
what case law do you imagine applies here.

VARifleman
September 21, 2008, 10:55 PM
The most notable being a call from 3 women getting raped in an apartment, called multiple times, and no one came out. If the cops weren't liable then, they CERTAINLY wouldn't be liable for coming out for a holstered gun call. That's just crazy talk.

Warren v. DC, CS.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 10:59 PM
I would say the same as the difference between a holstered CCW and a gun in the hand. You're saying the same thing as printing when you carry concealed. In that case the call would be I think a man has a gun. Feeling threatened because you saw what might be the imprint of a gun, or because you saw a gun on someone's hip, both of which otherwise seem normal, equates to nuisance calls, IMO. In shall issue + OC states, it should be the dispatcher's opinion also.
StevieRay I have read this 3 times and I dont understand what your saying(I am tired)but I will say this.

Folks its not my rules it is my responsibility for the job I do right now. I dont agree with everything about it but it is what it is. All complaints have to be investigated they are prioritized but they are all looked into, regardless of time and circumstances, well execpt for obvious common sense things like the guy taking pictures with his rifle next to the deer he shot earlier in the day. Or there is a man with a gun in the feild down the road, well whats he doing? hunting? ok no problem forward complaint to game warden where they choose to ignore or investigate it. Just a couple of examples.

Big Daddy Grim
September 21, 2008, 11:01 PM
Does anybody by chance know where open carry is allowed I only know for my State. Just wondering how many states allow it.

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 11:01 PM
They were dispatched in the warren case, however they were dispatched improperly and responded improperly. It really isn't the same thing. Thereby not really case law. Thereby doesn't really apply. There's not set precedence here, and it would end up going into a court because of that if it were taken that far.
It doesn't matter, however, as I never said that anyone would be charged with anything, just that jobs would be lost. Again, read closer.

VARifleman
September 21, 2008, 11:02 PM
Except dispatchers send out police to legal OC calls like Tony's Pizza or Chet's incident and don't send cops to actual crimes. We've shown this after Tony's, yet you and CS, and KCS, don't want to consider that. You're talking about liability, yet you think it's perfectly ok to dispatch officers to a non-crime when there are actual crimes going on?

KP89
September 21, 2008, 11:02 PM
Pretty soon criminals are going to start OCing once they find out its legal, if a cop stops - them all they have to say is that they are OCing, even a felon could be OCing and the police would not know.

CCW permits have the purpose of weeding out people who shouldn't be able to do something from doing it, or at least not giving them a usable explanation when a cop stops them.

Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 11:03 PM
Does anybody by chance know where open carry is allowed I only know for my State. Just wondering how many states allow it.
opencarry.org I think would be a good answer

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 11:06 PM
You're talking about liability, yet you think it's perfectly ok to dispatch officers to a non-crime when there are actual crimes going on?You aren't getting it. I'm not stating this is how I feel it should be or shouldn't be, I have no side on this issue as I never, ever open carry. I can if I want to, but I choose to conceal. So this is completely a non-issue for me.
I'm telling you how it actually is, and that how it is may not align with either how it should be or how you want it.


The reality of the situation is this:

There are many people terrified by any weapons they see. These people will call the police if they seen you wearing a gun. The police will come out and investigate, whether it is to stop and pester you or just to see you with their own eyes and "profile" you.


This isn't anything but a simple explanation of the process. Whether or not the process is right is not what I'm trying to argue.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 11:10 PM
yet you think it's perfectly ok to dispatch officers to a non-crime when there are actual crimes going on? HMM VaRifleman I think this is a case where we are all talking about diffrent things based on the same subject. The Dispatch can only do what their sop says to do. If they act with in those confines they are not liable.

Cs and KCS VAR has a point that it can be a flawed system due to manning issues that all locations have from time to time. If you hav x amount of officers and X+5 calls your 5 calls short so some one is getting a longer responce. Just the way it is no locality will ever get away from it.

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 11:14 PM
the cops here responded to 60 shots fired calls from the new neighbor from jersey before she got used to the hunt club with 3000 acres across the river

They must not be quick learners where you are. :)


Pretty soon criminals are going to start OCing once they find out its legal, if a cop stops - them all they have to say is that they are OCing, even a felon could be OCing and the police would not know.

CCW permits have the purpose of weeding out people who shouldn't be able to do something from doing it, or at least not giving them a usable explanation when a cop stops them.

Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.

You're kidding, right? You believe that all guns should be licensed and registered? Only licensed and approved people should be allowed to possess a gun? Perhaps only approved people should be alowed to vote as well? And maybe it is ok to search without a warrant unless the person being searched has a no-search card? If I want to PM you on the Brady forums, what user name do you use there?

VARifleman
September 21, 2008, 11:17 PM
KCS, I don't care what people say the norm is, it's still NOT normal to have the cops called on your for OC in VA. It just doesn't happen all that often for how many people do it. You may not know this being halfway across the country, but that's how it is here. I'm saying that the attitude that it should be ok for a cop to investigate a gun owner/carrier following the law needs to change or we're in serious trouble. Cops need to respond to crimes, not harass people that aren't doing anything wrong.

KP89
September 21, 2008, 11:18 PM
Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 11:19 PM
Oh, I see. So concerned gun-ignorant citizen calls in and the dispatches says, "Oh, it's in a holster? That's legal, we're too busy to worry about stuff like that. Call me back if he starts shooting."

So then concerned citizen calls the local news, the local news puts any spin they want on this story, and dispatchers and supervisors all lose their jobs.

Yeah, no public outcry risk on that one. You obviously have no idea of the politics involved in trying to run a city's police force.

So you are suggesting that the police should enforce laws or uphold the Constitution based on expected reaction from the local TV station?


politics involved in trying to run a city's police force
If police enforce laws based on this, then you have a police state.

Eric F
September 21, 2008, 11:21 PM
KP89 are you in the U.S.? Just wondering, dalepres I had to ask as this is a common line of thinking in some other countries. We do have members all over the world here.

KP89
September 21, 2008, 11:22 PM
I live in the US, and it is a common line of thinking in the US as well...........

cassandrasdaddy
September 21, 2008, 11:24 PM
varifleman? yhe case you reference dosn't work in reference to this situation. hence my choice of the word imagine

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 11:25 PM
Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.

What about the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights? Could they require licenses as well? And I am not asking if they do or should. Do you think it is constitutional to require a license to not get searched without a warrant? Or to be able to protest against the government? Is this licensing clause you propose on the Constitution specific and unique to the 2nd Amendment or would you have it apply to all of them? If not all of them, what is it about the 2nd Amendment that you believe separates it from the rest of the Constitution?

cassandrasdaddy
September 21, 2008, 11:26 PM
"I live in the US, and it is a common line of thinking in the US as well..........."

really? what part

kcshooter
September 21, 2008, 11:27 PM
KCS, I don't care what people say the norm is, it's still NOT normal to have the cops called on your for OC in VA. It just doesn't happen all that often for how many people do it. You may not know this being halfway across the country, but that's how it is here. I'm saying that the attitude that it should be ok for a cop to investigate a gun owner/carrier following the law needs to change or we're in serious trouble. Cops need to respond to crimes, not harass people that aren't doing anything wrong.I see. In my area, OC will often have a police response. I know people who have had it happen. Actually, I think everyone I know who OC's has had a cop question them at some point in time. Right or wrong, this is the reality of the situation. Maybe geographic differences are the true cause of the difference in feelings here.


So you are suggesting that the police should enforce laws or uphold the Constitution based on expected reaction from the local TV station?Emphasis is mine, I don't have a "should" in this discussion. Again, I said many times I have no stake in this race. What I said is this is how it will happen, and if you think the police won't alter S.O.P. to align with public response, you're not paying very close attention. Replace "should" with "do" and I think you've hit the nail on the head.

KP89
September 21, 2008, 11:28 PM
No right is absolute and that includes the 2nd, whats best for society will always take precedent(as much as I have a feeling some here will argue over).

So instead of the two sides ramming heads(people advocating gun bans / people advocating no gun laws at all) I support taking the middle ground as it is usually best.

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 11:30 PM
I live in the US, and it is a common line of thinking in the US as well

You're right; it is a common line of thinking. You can find others who think the same thing at http://www.bradycampaign.org.

dalepres
September 21, 2008, 11:33 PM
No right is absolute and that includes the 2nd, whats best for society will always take precedent

Well, I'm sure we should move this to APS. Until then, let me point out that the purpose of the Constitution is to ensure just the opposite of what you say. Your idea reeks of "majority rule" but the Constitution specifically protects us from that. And if you're not suggesting majority rule who is it that you suppose should decide "what's best for society"?

KP89
September 21, 2008, 11:35 PM
You're right; it is a common line of thinking. You can find others who think the same thing at http://www.bradycampaign.org.

Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vilify her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.

Many people get so entrenched in their position that they never look at things from the other prospective.

JesseL
September 21, 2008, 11:36 PM
I would agree that a change in policy would be in order IF but it is not the norm at all any where in this country. And again holstered or in hand whats the diffrence if some one feels threatened enough to call 911 it must be investigated again for liability reasons. Besides in you example of OC and the norm, folks likely would not call for just seeing a gun

Open carry may not exactly be the norm around here but it's certainly not uncommon. I hardly ever go a week anymore without seeing someone else open carrying. The local police chief's comment on the legality of open carry was "The carrying of unconcealed firearms is lawful conduct. No further comment", so there seems to be a pretty clear understanding with the local law enforcement. I've never heard of police here responding to a call about a anyone with a holstered gun.

I understand that in many places there are all sorts of political, legal, and social roadblocks to open carry, but I like to point out that my hometown is one absolute exception to all that nonsense. Please don't assume that the kind of silliness you tolerate is universal.

bnkrazy
September 21, 2008, 11:37 PM
KP98, what's best for the individual should always take precedence. No one individual should ever be subject to society's whims.

This country was set up as a Constitutional Republic to combat Democracy and by extension, your exact line of thinking. People that believe as you do give me less hope for the future.

I'm sorry, what I meant to write was...don't feed the troll.

Stevie-Ray
September 21, 2008, 11:40 PM
StevieRay I have read this 3 times and I dont understand what your saying(I am tired)but I will say this.
Folks its not my rules it is my responsibility for the job I do right now.:D:D:D Eric, I'm not trying to be difficult, really. And I realize you're just following rules not of your making. As far as holstered or in hand, what's the difference? that sort of shocked me because you don't pull your gun unless you're planning to use it, CC or OC. It makes a big difference to me and I figured it would to cops as well. Seems as though even if you have to send a unit, an answer from the caller of "Well it's in a holster on his hip" or "It looks like a gun under his shirt" would be assigned a pretty low priority. That's why I think, especially in, as I said, shall issue + OC states such as mine, I think the dispatchers should ask.

Get some sleep.;)

bnkrazy
September 21, 2008, 11:40 PM
Regarding OC in VA, this past Friday I was standing in line checking out at FoodLion. I was OCing and a Richmond City officer was in line ahead of me. He noticed, nodded, and finished checking out.

That's the way all interactions should be when dealing with an obvious case of a law abiding citizen exercising a right.

Sniper X
September 21, 2008, 11:43 PM
First off the whole "Man with a gun" thing is BS. Thats a bad excuse cop number one made to try to give you a hard time. If it were a man with a gun call, there would be more information for the responding officer to make him not think the call was about you. Or, at least he would not have started a lecture. Secondly, when someone sees a person carry open they should know by now it is either a law abiding citizen excersizing their rights, or a undercover cop or detective. I have been open carrying for about thirty years and NEVER been in the prediciment where some weirdo calls the cops for a "man with a gun" whic is stupid.

I have had two cops ask me to cover it up though....both BEFORE CCW was adopted here in NM.

KP89
September 21, 2008, 11:44 PM
KP98, what's best for the individual should always take precedence. No one individual should ever be subject to society's whims.

So what happens when what is best for you, is damaging to another group of people?

People talk about their personal rights allot but never look at the rights of anyone else or how what they are doing - effects those around them.

It is important to understand something and that is, what you do does not only affect you.

JesseL
September 21, 2008, 11:48 PM
KP89, there's a corollary to what you're saying. Why should the personal rights of the many be infringed because of the indiscretions of the few?

And remember, merely having a holstered defensive sidearm doesn't effect anyone else (unless they choose to be effected by it). My sidearm doesn't need to be the concern of anyone else, no more than the color of my skin or my underpants.

SomeKid
September 21, 2008, 11:58 PM
Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vileness her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.

Italics mine. Proved to me what kind of new troll, ah poster we have. Anyone who automatically equates guns to violence has drank too much Kool-Aid. Guns are tools, nothing more. It is the anti-gunners who believe guns are the root of all violence.

Stevie-Ray
September 22, 2008, 12:02 AM
Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vileness her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.
I take it you mean vilipend. But I certainly can't figure out why. She strives to remove guns and remove violence from guns through laws. Anybody that has a measurable IQ knows that laws affect only the law-abiding.

KP89
September 22, 2008, 12:02 AM
KP89, there's a corollary to what you're saying. Why should the personal rights of the many be infringed because of the indiscretions of the few?

It comes down to a compromise where both parties hopefully can agree. It also fairly dependent on what exactly the issue is as our current social standards obviously have sway.

Unfortunately you must make your laws based upon the lowest common denominator.

I could argue that it is unfair that I cannot walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a fully functional M16, the thing is even if I would use it responsibly - the potential damage it could do when used in a inappropriate manner is of far greater magnitude then that of any gain in allowing me to purchase one in such manner.

It is unfair to the majority of the people, to have to suffer the cost of that gun being used inappropriately if it could be prevented by me giving up something relatively minor.

bnkrazy
September 22, 2008, 12:04 AM
It is important to understand something and that is, what you do does not only affect you.

You're right, individual rights don't extend to the point of interfering with someone else. There's an excellent 1st Amendment example: yelling fire in a theater. My 1A rights do not allow me to endanger others.

Please explain how my carrying a gun affects others. I'm not affecting or endangering anyone by carrying a gun for self protection, unless as JesseL mentioned, they choose to be affected.

And, if you truly believe that the removal of firearms will do anything to thwart violent crimes, you're unbelievably naive.

In any case this is off optic for the thread.

VARifleman
September 22, 2008, 12:06 AM
CS...

varifleman? yhe case you reference dosn't work in reference to this situation. hence my choice of the word imagine
It is case law on the issue that actually was being discussed, and that is what is the liability if the police aren't dispatched.

KP89...it always seems like when you first start finding out about gun laws that these laws, and perhaps more are effective at stopping crime. But...then you learn more, and it just isn't the case. I hope you stick around and learn, because it may seem like licensing stuff is good over having it unrestricted, but it just isn't the case. The gun laws hurt our society by helping criminals, and helping an out of control government. They hamper technology, which hurts us when we fight in wars. They lock up good people while bad people walk around with impunity.

KP89
September 22, 2008, 12:09 AM
I take it you mean vilipend. But I certainly can't figure out why. She strives to remove guns and remove violence from guns through laws. Anybody that has a measurable IQ knows that laws affect only the law-abiding.

Sorry I meant vilify,

If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

She is simply guided to believe that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is very likely they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.

I certainly don't have a problem with the background check system she implemented, felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.

Eric F
September 22, 2008, 12:11 AM
that sort of shocked me because you don't pull your gun unless you're planning to use it, CC or OC. It makes a big difference to me and I figured it would to cops as well. Seems as though even if you have to send a unit, an answer from the caller of "Well it's in a holster on his hip" or "It looks like a gun under his shirt" would be assigned a pretty low priority. Ah I see now, I wish it did work this way but it does not.

This thread has many good and valid points in almost all directions. Makes me think a bunch about all aspects of OC laws the way it is the way it should be.............then you cant make every one happy all the time.

bnkrazy
September 22, 2008, 12:15 AM
If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

Ah, but that's the thing, it won't. Bad guys will always have guns.

She is simply guided to believe that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is very likely they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.
Gun control does not control the criminal, only the law abiding. Knowing that, I don't care if she has good intentions. She's still going after the wrong group of people. Make penalties stiffer, mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with a firearm, etc. There are many better options than restricting the good guys.

I certainly don't have a problem with the background check system she implemented, felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.
IMHO, if they aren't ready to be trusted with a gun they aren't "rehabilitated" and shouldn't be released.

JesseL
September 22, 2008, 12:23 AM
It comes down to a compromise where both parties hopefully can agree. It also fairly dependent on what exactly the issue is as our current social standards obviously have sway.

Compromise sounds nice; but when you compromise with evil you still get evil.

Now I understand that you may not think Sarah Bray's goals are evil, but it is to me an inescapable conclusion. The only arguments that favor gun control come down to either willful ignorance of its effectiveness or make it a part of a larger plan to pacify and control people against their will. I don't think Mrs. Brady is particularly stupid, so that narrows it down some...

I could argue that it is unfair that I cannot walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a fully functional M16, the thing is even if I would use it responsibly - the potential damage it could do when used in a inappropriate manner is of far greater magnitude then that of any gain in allowing me to purchase one in such manner.

It is unfair to the majority of the people, to have to suffer the cost of that gun being used inappropriately if it could be prevented by me giving up something relatively minor.

How much damage do you really think an M-16 could do compared with aimed fire from an AR-15?

How many minor rights are you willing to abdicate in the pursuit of safety? There's a popular quote attributed to Ben Franklin that applies remarkably well here.

JesseL
September 22, 2008, 12:25 AM
Ah I see now, I wish it did work this way but it does not.


It does work that way. Just not where you live, apparently.

Like I said above, where I live it works exactly that way and it works very well.

Stevie-Ray
September 22, 2008, 12:27 AM
She is simply and completely misguided in her beliefs that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is certain they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.There. Fixed it for you.:D

Treo
September 22, 2008, 12:30 AM
felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.

Ummmm felons, by definition, couldn't get guns legally before instacheck.

I smell a troll

KP89
September 22, 2008, 12:34 AM
JeeseL:

She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies. Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.

A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.

I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.

I will withdraw from this conversation as it has drawn it off topic, but I simply felt a reply was within regulations due to the comments in regards to rights and perceived violations.

chieftain
September 22, 2008, 02:37 AM
It comes down to a compromise where both parties hopefully can agree. It also fairly dependent on what exactly the issue is as our current social standards obviously have sway.

The civil rights abusers, here known as the anti gun left, do not compromise. Compromise is where two parties give something of value for a settled agreed value exchange.

The Anti civil rights crowd, gives nothing, their functional “compromise” is to take less of our civil rights than they originally were trying to take. That isn’t compromise, that is discounting.


Unfortunately you must make your laws based upon the lowest common denominator.

Not for an Americans we don’t. For the anti American pro socialist left, they do. That is the nature of socialism. Settling to the lowest common denominator.


I could argue that it is unfair that I cannot walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a fully functional M16, the thing is even if I would use it responsibly - the potential damage it could do when used in a inappropriate manner is of far greater magnitude then that of any gain in allowing me to purchase one in such manner.

To exercise a right isn’t about potential damage. The largest mass murder in America was caused, not by automatic weapons, but by plastic knives and such. You argument is specious and very elitist and assumes that our legal principle against preemptive restrictions to reduce civil rights. Should we place people in jail because we know they have the ability to be a mass murderer? NO. Yet you assume this with an inanimate object.


It is unfair to the majority of the people, to have to suffer the cost of that gun being used inappropriately if it could be prevented by me giving up something relatively minor.

No what is unfair and much more dangerous to the national welfare is for an elite few to decide what is minor to someone else. I think it is minor to make someone to give up their “free speech” because it “hurts” so many other folks.

Or better yet, a legal theory so deep in our ‘justice’ system as to allow known murderers loose to feed on the body politic, just because some LEO or Prosecutor made a bureaucratic error. People actually wind up dying, instead of the person who made the error suffering any consequences, some civilian who is the Criminals next victim/s does.

My owning a fully automatic weapon is no threat. Releasing a known murderer certainly is a threat, yet our legal system does it every day, and we pat ourselves on the back and say how great our system is.

We don’t want to “profile” to prevent thousands of potential terrorist deaths, but you and Sarah don’t want me to own a full auto weapon, because, I might choose to go kill many folks. There is no logic or reason for that argument. I believe it is totally driven by ideology.


If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

If evil, theft, rape and murder would cease to exist there would be even less gun violence. Like all fairy tales, it doesn’t exist. It is called a fantasy. May be your goals.

My goals and life are squarely planted in the real world. Guns exist and will until we replace them with more effective weapons. That is a FACT!


She is simply guided to believe that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is very likely they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.

I believe anyone trying to restrict another honest citizens personal civil rights is a bad person. And they keep saying they are doing it for a fantasy. I don't believe that, I believe their agenda is ideology driven. That makes sense. It is logical and reasonable, based on their actions.

Add to the fact that not only would her fantasy abuse and restrict our civil rights, she would put us and my loved ones at risk of being harmed, by the very violent crime and criminals she ‘states’ is her reason for restricting them in the first place.

I believe there is another agenda. The anti civil rights folks total lack of logic of their argument, must point to a logical reason to restrict our constitutional right to bear arms for other reasons. I look at who they have politically aligned themselves with and I can come up with an educated opinion of what it maybe.


I certainly don't have a problem with the background check system she implemented, felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.

I don’t like felons them getting them illegally either. Obviously there is no “CONTROL” of the criminals getting weapons, because......wait for it......criminals break and ignore laws. Apparently a stretch for the Anti civil rights folks.

So it boils down to:

With gun control, the bad guys have weapons and the good guys don’t.
Without gun control, the bad guys have weapons and the good guys do too.

Which world do you want to live in?


She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies. Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.

YES! We do have two different ideologies. I believe in the American Constitution, and the concept of freemen. She doesn’t. Just who is no longer controlling themselves? Criminals? Of course! The honest American Citizen doesn't need to be controlled by elitists like her. Their very act of control is evil. She supports, proposes, and preaches evil. That is my definition of an evil person. What is yours?

So this woman wants to ‘allow’ me and my family to have to fight the armed criminals unarmed. Frankly where I went to school, that is evil personified.


A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.

Now you are discounting again. It ain’t about what could happen. Again look at 9/11, not a single fully automatic weapon in sight.

I have extensive combat experience. Frankly most folks with a fully auto M16 would inflict LESS casualties with full auto than semi auto fire. Trained operatives rarely if ever use a rifle on full auto, even in a firefight. There is a reason for that. Full auto is to positively stop the one guy, not to hit a bunch of guys at once. Again, Movies and TV promote fantasy. (we are not discussing crew served weapons here)

The local gang banger will shoot up a lot of ammo full auto, and hit, thankfully, little or nothing. The fear of full auto non crew served weapons is much mythology and little fact. Usually put out by amateurs, people truly ignorant of real combat, and folks with a political agenda.


I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.

What have you prevented by giving up your gun rights? NOTHING! What will you prevent by giving up your gun rights? According to well vetted research and increase in criminal and violent crime. Maybe that is your and her goal? What on earth could possibly be any other reason?

We have science that has proved we will have more death, rape, theft etc. if we DO give up our civil gun rights. Why would you support something so unsupportable?


I will withdraw from this conversation as it has drawn it off topic, but I simply felt a reply was within regulations due to the comments in regards to rights and perceived violations.

Good, study the subject with facts and the concept of pro American Civil Rights and the basis for the Bill of Rights. Every one of your arguments, here have been frankly wrong. And that isn’t a matter of opinion.

Sheesh!.

Go figure.

Fred

PS: As some have already stated, this may well be a troll. Sounds very ideology driven to me.

F

Treo
September 22, 2008, 02:50 AM
Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.

I agree W/ the above 100%. The only problem I have is that I don't think the poster realizes that we already have a license. And it's opening words are.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ( notice it's the militia not the people that's regulated)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I said it before I'll say it again We got a Brady Troll amongst us

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 04:44 AM
Quote from KP89:

Pretty soon criminals are going to start OCing once they find out its legal, if a cop stops - them all they have to say is that they are OCing, even a felon could be OCing and the police would not know.

CCW permits have the purpose of weeding out people who shouldn't be able to do something from doing it, or at least not giving them a usable explanation when a cop stops them.

Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.

~~~~~

PEOPLE KILL - guns don't KILL. GUNS do not have a pulse nor do many other objects including CARS/TRUCKS! ALL kinds of tools and objects can KILL if they are used by a HUMAN BEING or a WELL TRAINED MONKEY TO KILL.

WHY the heck should anyone, including a peace officer, STOP anyone from open carrying if they are NOT doing anything wrong?!? SO if you carry any which way - you are a crook! Ha ha! !@#$%^&*()_+!

I have NEVER or pretty close to never read such a ______ statement on a PRO GUN BOARD!

Are you a pro gun person or are you an 'anti gun' person who wants to learn and/or contribute to this board? You remind me of a Miss P from years ago.

NO offense, but this type of post reminds me of some board people back in the 1990's and on.

If you are anti gun - welcome and I hope that YOU learn and become PRO GUN.

If you are 'pro gun' - you need to learn some more things about RIGHTS and the mere fact that it DOES NOT MATTER HOW THE HECK ANYONE CARRIES IF HE IS A GOOD GUY OR A BAD GUY. THE BAD GUY WILL DO THE DIRTY DEED WITH FULL INTENT AND NOT FOLLOW THE 'LAW'.

THE GOOD GUY FOLLOWS THE 'LAW' NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF THE LAW IS BS OR ANTI THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS BECAUSE HE IS A GOOD GUY.

A MERE PIECE OF PAPER GIVEN TO YOU BY THE 'STATE' DOES NOT MAKE YOU A GOOD OR BAD PERSON EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE THE CCW BACKGROUND CHECK. YOU CAN HAVE A ZILLION CHECKS AND BALANCES AND IF YOU DECIDE TO DO A CRIME OR THE DIRTY DEED... THAT STINKING PIECE OF PAPER WILL NOT PREVENT YOU, THE CRIMINAL - WITH YOUR PIECE OF PAPER, FROM DOING THE DIRTY DEED. Gggrrrrr. (LOOK at Congress and the White House to get an IDEA of what the heck I am talking about now! LOOK around you when it comes to criminals!)

It takes a well trained MONKEY or a criminal to do the dirty deed with ANY FREAKING OBJECT! That OBJECT or TOOL or firearm can be any type and can be hidden or in FULL VIEW! The well trained monkey or criminal doing the dirty DEED - has a PULSE and can SQUEEZE the TRIGGER on the gun because the monkey or criminal has a PULSE and the OBJECT/TOOL is inanimate!

The well trained and GOOD guy/gal can SQUEEZE the trigger and DEFEND HERSELF/HIMSELF, HER SPOUSE, FAMILY, FRIENDS AND HER COUNTRY FROM A FOREIGN and/or DOMESTIC ENEMY!

THE MERE FACT whether a GUN or ANY OBJECT is CONCEALED OR OPEN DOES NOT MEAN JACK SQUAT!!! :banghead:

A criminal will CHOOSE to be a C R I M I N A L or not!

A lady who REFUSES TO BE A VICTIM WILL BE ABLE TO DEFEND HERSELF AND SO WOULD A GENTLEMAN! Personal responsibility, ever hear of it?

Wow... I need a cup of tea. I can't believe what I READ sometimes on PRO GUN BOARDS!

Geesh - no offense!

Catherine

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 04:50 AM
DISagree with!

Catherine

~~~~~

QUOTE from KP89:

Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.

~~~~~

We have met an anti gun - ANTI FREEDOM PERSON here.

Gun control = control!

Catherine

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 05:00 AM
After reading more of the posts by KP89, I have come to the conclusion that he or she is working for the Brady Bunch, ugh, is an anti gun - anti freedom person or is NEW and needs to understand something called the Constitution/Bill of Rights and the RIGHTS endowed to a person by their Creator or in 'natural law' if they want to call it that. Everyone in the WORLD has those rights given to them... it is the 'state or politicians' that want to change those basic fundamental RIGHTS. (See other posts of mine - no sense in repeating myself.) :banghead:

Catherine - Armed and Female
Montana Territory

RDak
September 22, 2008, 05:16 AM
You're right Catherine.

Brady and her followers clearly favor total prohibitions of private firearms ownership. They only want the police and military to own firearms, (oh, and maybe personal bodyguards).

They refuse to listen to irrefutable facts showing firearms ownership, by law abiding citizens, reduces violent crime. They refuse to accept that self-defense, with commonly used weapons, is a fundamental, natural right.

They also refuse to address the most pressing problem with their philosophy (i.e., that, with a total ban on private firearms ownership, the seeds of tyranny are planted).

They have an irrational fear of firearms that has little to do with logic and more to do with sheep-like emotion.

I assume they would fear a tyrant as much as we do - yet their philosophy goes a long way to ensure a tyrant would eventually rise to power. Oh, maybe not in their lifetimes, but eventually IMHO. (The Founding Fathers realized this could happen and enacted the 2nd Amendment accordingly. They lived it, yet the Brady people refuse to recognize this fatal flaw in their position.)

They say "oh, that could never happen in America". I'd bet the Founding Fathers would say "oh, that could eventually happen anywhere without safeguards like the 2nd Amendment".

If that isn't evil then, at best, it is ignorant and stupid IMHO.

Edit: As to the original intent of this thread, we have open carry in Michigan but I'm still afraid of what the police would do to me if I open carried. I know that is wimpy but I'm afraid about how I would be treated. (And that's the problem with laws that mimic the Brady philosophy and mindset. Over time, it makes some of us 2nd Amendment proponents sheep and, in some ways, I've been programmed to be one of those sheep.) :o

And, I'm telling you, it is that same philosophy and mindset that would eventually lead to tyranny IMHO.

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 06:27 AM
Yes, it will lead to TYRANNY and in many cases we already have TYRANNY here in Amerika, errrr, America.

It will lead to a TEA PARTY one of these days too.

People, the ones with testicular fortitude, may just say to the 'STATE':

"ENOUGH is enough! What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?!"

Heck, most people still don't understand their own RIGHTS which have been perverted and stolen by the 'state'!

ALL of us have our own Declaration of Independence!

Keep your powder dry!

Catherine

Deanimator
September 22, 2008, 06:41 AM
Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vilify her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.
She can BELIEVE anything she wants, just like David Duke or Osama bin Laden.

When she starts IMPOSING those beliefs on others to their detriment, there's a problem.

Many people get so entrenched in their position that they never look at things from the other prospective.
I've got a political science degree. I look at other "perspectives" all the time. That doesn't mean that I have to respect EVIL perspectives, whether they come from Josef Stalin, Nathan Bedford Forrest or Sarah Brady.

Deanimator
September 22, 2008, 07:00 AM
She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies.
You mean like me and Charles Manson? We certainly have different ideologies. So he's NOT evil, right?

Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.
But that's NOT what you want. You want to control people who MIGHT do something wrong, who HAVEN'T.

Most homosexuals AREN'T pedophiles. Some ARE. Does that mean we need anti-sodomy laws against ALL homosexuals to control the few?

A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.
And in my basement, I can make a more reliable and appropriate automatic weapon (Sten SMG) for that purpose. Does that mean that I shouldn't be able to own a sheet metal break, power tools or an arc welder?

I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.
"MINOR rights"? What's a minor right?

The right to be a homosexual?
The right to be a Jew?
The right to have no religion at all?

You're not harmed by any of those... any more than you're harmed by me owning an M16... or a water cooled .50 machinegun for that matter.

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 04:21 PM
Quote:

She can BELIEVE anything she wants, just like David Duke or Osama bin Laden.

When she starts IMPOSING those beliefs on others to their detriment, there's a problem.

~~~~~

Deanimator,

Thank you and you TOOK the words right out of my mouth.

Catherine

Catherine
September 22, 2008, 04:23 PM
There are no such things as 'minor' rights.

Rights are RIGHTS! Period!

Thanks again.

Catherine

kcshooter
September 22, 2008, 11:39 PM
If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist. Of course, they'd also have to ban knives. And bats. And big sticks. And fists.

Violence exists. Don't let anyone tell you differently. And DON"T let anyone tell you you can't have the tools needed to even the odds when violence is headed your way. You are the only one you can count on to protect yourself and the lives of those you love. A firearm is the one tool that will allow my wife or mother to defeat a 250lb man without sustaining injury.

Would you let the gov't take away YOUR mother's or wife's to protect her life?

dalepres
September 22, 2008, 11:44 PM
Sorry I meant vilify,

If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

Read the crime stats in Great Britain. Besides the fact that guns only disappeared from the hands of law-abiding citizens, knife and even sword violence is way up, as is baseball bat violence. Banning guns didn't, and doesn't work.

Compromise sounds nice; but when you compromise with evil you still get evil.

Now I understand that you may not think Sarah Bray's goals are evil, but it is to me an inescapable conclusion. The only arguments that favor gun control come down to either willful ignorance of its effectiveness or make it a part of a larger plan to pacify and control people against their will. I don't think Mrs. Brady is particularly stupid, so that narrows it down some...

I agree. And I think that anti-gun people are, often, evil. Many of them don't want to ban guns as a means of ending gun violence. Many of them want to ban guns as a step toward subjugating the people of the United States to their will. Gun control is truly evil in its intent.

dalepres
September 22, 2008, 11:47 PM
You're not harmed by any of those... any more than you're harmed by me owning an M16... or a water cooled .50 machinegun for that matter.

You own a water cooled .50 machine gun? *Drool*

dalepres
September 22, 2008, 11:49 PM
After reading more of the posts by KP89, I have come to the conclusion that he or she is working for the Brady Bunch, ugh, is
an anti gun

Yes, you're right. At first I thought it was just more of the usual a-little-gun-control-is-ok sentiment that we get here. Now I am convinced that he's just a troll. Time to just ignore him and he'll go away. :)

Tacbandit
September 22, 2008, 11:53 PM
All these experts...geezzzz...can't we all just get along???:confused:

Flyboy
September 23, 2008, 12:34 AM
So then concerned citizen calls the local news, the local news puts any spin they want on this story, and dispatchers and supervisors all lose their jobs.

Yeah, no public outcry risk on that one. You obviously have no idea of the politics involved in trying to run a city's police force.


Nor do I give a tinker's damn. It is absolutely not within the proper purview of the police to harass a citizen for a perfectly legal action just to make themselves look good to the ignorant masses.

If you feel otherwise, please advise me of what legal-but-socially-undesirable habits you have (and everybody has some), and I'll be happy to drive the point home in a most personal fashion.

kcshooter
September 23, 2008, 12:37 AM
Nor do I give a damn. It is absolutely not within the proper purview of the police to harass a citizen for a perfectly legal action just to make themselves look good to the ignorant masses.There's a difference in harrasement and sending out a unit to examine the situation. That's what the post was refering to. Read the whole thing before making a comment like that.

Treo
September 23, 2008, 01:38 AM
There's a difference in harrasement and sending out a unit to examine the situation. That's what the post was refering to. Read the whole thing before making a comment like that.

Said the man who didn't

jumped up and casually strolled onto the scene. There were 5 units in the parking lot dealing with a disturbance not related to this one, but two LEO's happened to see my friend walking up to the entrance and stopped him

Ummm Pot meet Kettle

Intune
September 23, 2008, 10:02 AM
kp89-Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.:banghead: Nope, the only "intended purpose" of a gun is to fire a projectile.

Please, please, I beg you. Don't make it so easy, the entertainment factor is already low enough.

Have a nice gun-filled day. Y'all come back now, ya hear? :cool:

kcshooter
September 23, 2008, 12:01 PM
Said the man who didn't

Ummm Pot meet KettleI suggest you do the same. This had led to a tangent within the thread where we were discussing whether or not a dispatcher should tell a caller to buzz off when reporting. Again, if you can't read the whole thread, at least read the section you are refering to. Duh.

If you enjoyed reading about "Friend got harassed by the police for OC" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!