[2dogs]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/gillespie/gillespie2.html


F**k the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry

by Mark Gillespie

I will admit openly that I carry weapons, both openly and concealed. I will also admit to having done this most of my life. Even as a child, I carried knives, sticks and even homemade nunchaku to defend myself. I grew up in a housing project in Kansas City , and while violence wasn’t necessarily more prevalent there, it happened often enough to warrant protecting myself.

More recently, I acquired my first firearm. As a new weapon owner, I didn’t even think twice about carrying it on my person. It was a matter-of-fact thing to me. I have never and will never ask anyone’s permission to do what is perfectly natural for me to do. However, most Libertarians and ignorant anarchists cheer when the state passes a concealed-carry law. “A boost for freedom-lovers everywhere,” “The state finally respecting the Second Amendment,” et cetera, is what I am hearing on a daily basis. Silly fools . . . .

In the last year, my home state of Missouri has become one of a group of states that has passed a concealed-carry law. On October 11, this law came into effect. Now, never mind the fact that there is no way to acquire a concealed-carry permit, and never mind that in the larger cities, people are already banding together (in violation of the law) to prevent you carrying anywhere other than inside your house. Let’s look at the idea of a concealed-carry law. The principal idea behind the concealed-carry law is that the State can determine what level of protection you are entitled to. After all, don’t they have their different security apparatuses like the police and the various alphabet soup agencies? Why does a “citizen” need to avail themselves of personal protection, is the question foremost on their minds. The idea of someone taking their protection in their own two hands either is anathema to them or something that they cannot comprehend. They also don’t realize that there could possibly be a deeper agenda to the whole gun control idea. So, they sheepishly continue to follow the gun control nuts to their doom, while criminals get bolder and bolder.

The fact is that, as an anarch, I don’t feel that any other individual or their chosen tool, the State, has the right to tell me how much protection and what form of it I may have. Sure, I could see everyone’s nervousness if I was nuclear armed, but a pistol? So, I say, f**k the law! Until the state can guarantee with 100 percent certainty that they can protect me from all harmful individuals (and they never will), I will carry, regardless of their “law.” It has always been possible to have your weapon stolen (confiscated) and your ??? locked up. However, you may find, like I did, that the police might be more on your side than you think. I have never been arrested or had my weapon confiscated. I attribute this to more luck than anything else, but it does prove a point. If the person on the frontlines of fighting crime feels safer with you carrying a weapon, then what the hell does your couch potato, 2.2 children-having, statist neighbors have to say about it?

[bountyhunter]

More recently, I acquired my first firearm. As a new weapon owner, I didn’t even think twice about carrying it on my person.

The fact is that, as an anarch, I don’t feel that any other individual or their chosen tool, the State, has the right to tell me how much protection and what form of it I may have. Sure, I could see everyone’s nervousness if I was nuclear armed, but a pistol? So, I say, f**k the law!


I'm sure Mr. Gillespie will find many other people in prison who will agree with his viewpoint. One of them will probably make him his girlfriend.

[Harold Mayo]

I applaud his stance. If more people were like him, there would be no need for concealed carry laws because it would never have been made illegal in the first place.

Remember...concealed is concealed. How many people have have ever been physically searched for weapons? Relatively few. You have to do something else before you get searched (until we become a true police state, anyway).

[Art Eatman]

Well, there's Philosophy, wherein he's absolutely correct.

And there's Reality, wherein he better be calm, clever, subtle, and very, very careful...

Art

[rock jock]

The fact is that, as an anarch, I don’t feel that any other individual or their chosen tool, the State, has the right to tell me how much protection and what form of it I may have. Sure, I could see everyone’s nervousness if I was nuclear armed, but a pistol?
So, no one can tell him what weapon he can carry, except maybe they can?:rolleyes:

[Gordon Fink]

How many people have have ever been physically searched for weapons?

The trouble is that the police may search you (for “officer safety” reasons) whenever they feel like it. Perfectly “legal;” no probable cause needed.

What was that other amendment again?

~G. Fink

[Ian]

Good for Mr Gillespie.

Good to see that you support our common-sense gun laws, bounty hunter. After all, how could we protect the children if just anyone could carry a gun with getting gooberment permission first? :rolleyes:

[rock jock]

Let me clear up a misconception about a shall-issue CCW system. You are NOT asking for permission to carry a gun when they cannot say "no", which they cannot unless you are prohibited by virtue of being a felon or mentally incompetent.

[AJ Dual]

I applaud his stance. If more people were like him, there would be no need for concealed carry laws because it would never have been made illegal in the first place.

True, but the state laws that banned concealed carry were mostly enacted when open carry was normal and accepted practice, and concealed was mainly the purview of criminals, and ladies, two groups easily discounted, albiet for different reasons. And those in good public standing with a legitamate "need" to carry concealed (i.e. "Middle and upper class Whites" at least in in MO as one example :rolleyes: ) knew they need not fear that law as it would "never" be enforced against them. No one forsaw the day when gun-ownership and carry by the law abiding would be demonized to the extent it is today.

I'm not saying it's right, but the people who didn't fight CCW banning laws when they were first enacted just couldn't forsee when it would be used as a pretext by the states to ban most all public self defense.

True, in many states open-carry has been left on the books as legal, but it mostly serves hunters and the states as a "loophole" to create a de-facto carry ban, because they can point to "open carry" on the books, even though it's nearly impossible to practice other than in the wilderness and in certain locales in the south and western U.S.

[Ebbtide]

I'm sure Mr. Gillespie will find many other people in prison who will agree with his viewpoint. One of them will probably make him his girlfriend.

How true. That is why there are not many people willing to give up all their freedoms (prison), so they can exercise one of them, including me.

[Harold Mayo]

Well, guys, if it were not invasive, I would start a poll to see which THR members would carry and which would not in a case where concealed carry was illegal but there was a definite danger...

Who would be sheep and who would be wolves?

It's easy to say that you wouldn't carry where it's illegal to do so since most people will never have a need for a weapon and most, even on THR, probably don't carry even if they live in a place that "allows" them to do so.

Without beating around the bush and saying something about avoiding dangerous places rather than carrying, how many are willing to give a definite answer to the question, "In an area of known danger, would you carry a concealed weapon even if it were illegal to do so?"

Would it matter to you just how illegal it was (i.e. misdemeanor, felony, shoot you on the spot, etc.)? Would the degree or type of danger matter (i.e. are you willing to get mugged but not killed, are you willing to be raped but not killed, etc.)? Would it matter if it were just you or if you had family along?

[Ian]

Rock jock - If you have to apply for and pay for a permit, you are being forced to get permission. It doesn't matter how lenient the criteria are that the state uses, the fact is that they are claiming the right to forbit you to carry if they don't want you to carry.

Harold - In answer to your question, I would.

[braindead0]

The principal idea behind the concealed-carry law is that the State can determine what level of protection you are entitled to

That just makes me cringe.. we've already let the feds determine that we aren't entitled to protection on school grounds.... and other places..

[rock jock]

the fact is that they are claiming the right to forbit you to carry if they don't want you to carry.
They cannot forbid you a license if you are not a prohibited person. They must give you a license if you file the paperwork even if they REALLY REALLY don't want to. You don't have to contribute to some politicians campaign or be a celebrity. You don't even have to be nice about it. Saying this constitutues permission is like saying you need permission to receive an inheritence. You don't. Your inheritence is yours, but the state will still require that you complete a few perfunctory steps like proving who you are and filing some paperwork.

BTW, the fee is simply to cover their costs so the blissninnies don't whine about using additional tax funds. Most states have provisions for the poor so money is not an issue.

[G-Raptor]

Let me clear up a misconception about a shall-issue CCW system. You are NOT asking for permission to carry a gun when they cannot say "no", which they cannot unless you are prohibited by virtue of being a felon or mentally incompetent.

Sure they can...if you don't pass their required test.

Permit = Permission

[rock jock]

Sure they can...if you don't pass their required test.
Forgot about that one. However, that is still not asking persmission. You are simply demonstrating the most basic proficiency at using a gun. And I mean BASIC, as in 12-inch groups at ten yards. Timed draws play no part. If someone can't do that, they have no business carrying a gun in the first place.

[Roadkill Coyote]

You are simply demonstrating the most basic proficiency at using a gun. And I mean BASIC, as in 12-inch groups at ten yards. Timed draws play no part. If someone can't do that, they have no business carrying a gun in the first place.
The problem is that my definition of basic proficiency and your definition may differ considerably. The Brady people may have another slightly differing definition. Although I support shall issue, it is still a control point that could be used to deny people their rights, and we need to remain vigilant and press forward politically. If we rest on our "protected' rights we will lose them.

[Intune]

How about this: anyone who wants to carry a weapon can, if one uses it in an inappropriate manner or is stopped by the police and is a felon or someone that the law has deemed “unfit” then a stiff penalty would be levied. Oops, sounds too much like a RIGHT! BAH!

I have lived in many states before coming to TN and receiving my “permission” license. I never felt unprotected. That’s all I’m going to say ‘bout that! :cool:

[Standing Wolf]

I've never seen anything in the Second Amendment about permits to carry concealed weapons.

[Triad]

rock jock, getting a permit is asking for permission. If you don't have a permit you are not allowed to carry. If you ask for one and they give it to you, you now have permission to carrry. The fact that they have to give it you does not change the fact that you have to ask for it.

[rock jock]

The fact that they have to give it you does not change the fact that you have to ask for it. Well, that is one perspective. Another is that you are demanding it. The fact remains that "permission" implies the ability to say "no", which they cannot do.

is still a control point that could be used to deny people their rights
It could be, and yes, we must be.

[Glock Glockler]

Rock jock,

Would you apply for religous freedom permit, even if it was shall issue?

[Ed Brunner]

Let me clear up a misconception about a shall-issue CCW system. You are NOT asking for permission to carry a gun when they cannot say "no", which they cannot unless you are prohibited by virtue of being a felon or mentally incompetent

This doesn't really apply. I have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. How can the state infringe this right? If I am not asking their permission, why do I have to BUY the permit?


Anarchy is not the answer as it provides no solution.
Instead of **** the law, lets change it.

[Triad]

It does not matter to me that they cannot say no. What bothers me is that they have already said no by making it illegal to carry without a permit.

BTW, from dictionary.com.

permit- 1. Permission, especially in written form.

license- 1. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.
2. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.

[Ian]

If a law is unconstitutional, it's null and void from the moment it is passed, and may be broken with impunity, according to law (that's from one SC case or another...). And if a law violates peoples' rights, one has no business enforcing it or obeying it.

Ignoring and disobeying may not be the safest thing to do, but it's undoubtedly the right thing to do.

Also, keep in mind that changing the law requires changing a lot of minds first (or having a lot of money). Brazenly and publicly ignoring the law is a good way to spread the idea of changing it. So, full steam ahead - **** the law! :)

[rock jock]

If I am not asking their permission, why do I have to BUY the permit?
When you go to the grocery store, do you first ask the grocer permission to purhase a loaf of bread, or is it a rather simple transaction taking place? That is what a permit under the shall-issue system is.

I never claimed that a shall issue permit system is perfect, but it is far from the egregious violation that the author makes it out to be.

[TallPine]

I'm sorry, I would have posted a reply to this thread, but my "free speech" permit expired and I had to go down to the courthouse to get it renewed.

[rock jock]

If a law is unconstitutional, it's null and void from the moment it is passed
Try arguing that before a judge.

I'm sorry, I would have posted a reply to this thread, but my "free speech" permit expired and I had to go down to the courthouse to get it renewed.
Hey, I'm with you all the way. I don't think we need a permit either. I just don't think it is a big deal from a practical sense. From a philosophical sense, yeah, it goes against the grain of the Constitution. But we live in a real world with real rules and real consequences and it is only a minor inconvenience to me compared to the many real outrages in our 2A struggle. If you want to carry w/o a permit, I say more power to you. I hope you never get caught. But if you do, be prepared to pay the piper.

[Intune]

I just don't think it is a big deal from a practical sense. From a philosophical sense, yeah, it goes against the grain of the Constitution. But we live in a real world with real rules and real consequences and it is only a minor inconvenience to me compared to the many real outrages in our 2A struggle.
I don’t know of any right-to-carry state that will wave the application fee for a CCL or the required class. If you are poor, tough luck. If I am in error in this, please correct me. When did a RIGHT become a matter of convenience or lack thereof?

For me, the Second Amendment exactly as it was written is the real world. In fact, I believe it is what keeps our small chunk on this earth from becoming an unreal nightmare of totalitarian rule. With each additional strap of the muzzle and constraint levied against this God-Given Right OUR power is diminished while theirs is strengthened. Each & every time, bit by bit.

Pay the Piper indeed. I fear we shall…

Alas, alas for Hamelin!
There came into many a burgher's pate
A text which says that heaven's gate
Hopes to the rich at as easy rate
As the needle's eye takes a camel in!

The mayor sent East, West, North and South,
To offer the Piper, by word of mouth,
Wherever it was men's lot to find him,
Silver and gold to his heart's content,
If he'd only return the way he went,
And bring the children behind him.

But when they saw 'twas a lost endeavor,
And Piper and dancers were gone for ever,
They made a decree that lawyers never
should think their records dated duly
If, after the day of the month and year,
These words did not as well appear,
"And so long after what happened here
On the Twenty-second of July,
Thirteen hundred and seventy-six:''
And the better in memory to fix

The place of the children's last retreat,
They called it, the Pied Piper's Street --
Where any one playing on pipe or tabor,
Was sure for the future to lose his labour.
Nor suffered they hostelry or tavern
To shock with mirth a street so solemn;
But opposite the place of the cavern
They wrote the story on a column,

And on the great church-window painted
The same, to make the world acquainted
How their children were stolen away,
And there it stands to this very day…



Robert Browning 1888


For us, the piping has begun…

[tyme]

Well, that is one perspective. Another is that you are demanding it. The fact remains that "permission" implies the ability to say "no", which they cannot do.
They can and do. The only way I can get permission is to pay them $140 and the cost of a training class I don't need. Or $117 for a florida permit that I have paperwork for but haven't bothered with, which brings up the next point...

The permit and training cost is not my main problem with it, anyway. The reason I don't have one yet is because of all the places where carry is prohibited even if you have the permit. Therefore, it is a permit. You cannot carry in places they decide you shouldn't even if you're Ghandi, Yoda, or the Dalai Lama.

Furthermore, while getting the permit may not forfeit your RKBA, in TX if I'm not mistaken there are specific statutes for ccw holders who carry into verboten places. The crime may be the same with or without a permit, but I don't like the fact that I'm subjecting myself to a seperate set of laws by getting a permit.

Last, the "get out of jail free" effect of CCW licenses on traffic tickets. I realize it would be personally advantageous for me to get one for that reason, but the overall ethics of the whole thing are terrible. Speed limits are silly and should be raised, not enforced selectively if citizens fail to show proof of "goodness."

[Ian]

Try arguing that before a judge.
I don't decide what to do based on what some judge might think of it. My life is my own, and I have the right to live it the way I see fit, not the way someone else wants me to live it. How often can you sacrifice principles for convenience before you have no principles left?

Like I said before, it may not be the safest or easiest way, but it's the right way.

[Tamara]

It's been said more eloquently (http://www.frontiernet.net/~lendringser/declaration.htm)...

[revlar]

I find no validity in blatant anarchy.

Also, as a citizen of Missouri, Mr. Gillespie should know that while certain people may be trying to band together "to prevent you carrying anywhere other than inside your house" - under the law they simply can't "prevent" it. Even carrying in a prohibited area (if discovered) will only result in; 1) you will be asked to leave, and should you refuse to leave the premises and an LEO must be called, 2) you are given what amounts to a traffic ticket. There is no arrest, there is no criminal prosecution whatsoever - even after the third such incident. Yes, you may be required to pay a fine and may have your LTC suspended for a time - but any and all such attempted "prohibitions" are FAR from amounting to anything even remotely resembling "prevention". After all, "concealed" carry is the key. If you do it right - even where you shouldn't be doing it (under the law) - how would anyone even know? If you get caught and they ask you to leave - leave. No harm no foul. Besides, at that point, you are no longer carrying concealed and then the entire point of the act itself is defeated. Nearly all of the places where concealed carry would be prohibited in Missouri are locales I rarely (if ever) frequent anyway. I find the law to be, as a whole, quite well written.

Of course, such fine points of any law are completely lost on an avowed anarchist.

[S_O_Laban]

I'm with revlar on this. This law is very well written and has many things that are much more in favor of the permit holder than most other states first attempts. The guys that drafted this law did their homework. I would prefer an AK style law but this is so much better than what we had in MO before, I can't really find too much to complain about in this law.

[Dashunde]

My only complaint with our new law is... it is not yet enacted!

[rock jock]

How often can you sacrifice principles for convenience before you have no principles left?
I don't see it that way. I see it as the price I pay for living in a country with representative govt. and a population of sheep (mostly). I am not willing to compromise on my convictions, but I am on my opinions. My CHL falls under the latter.

[oldfart]

While we're talking philosophy and reality, we shouldn't forget about eventuality.

I've watched this country go from a relatively free society to what can only be called a "soft" police state. We have gone from a point where I used to carry my rifle to school on the bus to a time where kids are being suspended from school for drawing pictures of guns. It will get worse.

Any simple study of past governments or civilizations will show examples of how governments devolve from freedom to tyranny. Don't be fooled by a few CCW laws around the country, our government-- our civilization-- is well on the road to tyranny and there are no turnarounds short of violent revolution.

While you're reading about those other governments, read also about what the first act of a conquering army has always been when it marches into a country. From the ancient Samarians to the more recent Nazis, they disarmed the newly conquered people. In Europe, when the Nazi army entered a town or country, they went to the seat of government and confiscated the lists of gunowners, making the disarmament a lot easier and more complete.

Did those gunowners forsee the lists being used in that manner? Not likely. They were just doing what the law required of them so that they could legally own a gun. Were there other gunowners who didn't show up on those lists? Of course, but they were 'outlaws'. They had been keeping guns without the knowledge of their local government. When the time came to fight back against the Nazi occupiers, who was armed, the good citizens who had applied for and been given licenses or the outlaws who flaunted the law and thus risked their positions and freedom?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't need to know who is or isn't carrying. When the day comes (hopefully long after I'm gone) that some government official starts going down the list of CCW holders to pick up their guns, those not on the list will be the heros. Don't think that they'll be satisfied with just the guns you have listed either. In this country especially, gunowners are known for owning more than one piece. If you have one, they'll make life insufferable until they have them all.

There is only one way...

[cpileri]

Dear THR-ers,
"there are no turnarounds short of violent revolution"

I must warn you that that kind of talk is now forbidden by the government. Not on paper, but it is de facto forbidden in that you can now be perceived to be a threat to the nation- a terrorist, picked up (if you aren't murdered resisting arrest), held indefinitely, and maybe given a trial.
But don't get your hopes up.
And admitting you carry illegally: WHOA! I cannot believe my luck. You guys are dropping a whole pay-raise worth of arrests right in my lap. Thanks! In this time of restructuring from DoT to DHS, we are all concerned about our jobs being cut. This is just the excuse I and my comrades need to ruff up literally ANYONE we choose on the suspicion of being carrying an illegal weapon!
This is also EXACTLY what our socialist masters (oops. Did I say...er...write that out loud. Silly me.) in congress need to be able to pass laws, which I am exempt from of course, that 'protect the children's right to be free of fear that someone around them is secretly armed with a cop/baby-killing-armor-piercing-hollowpoint-explosive-can-take-down-the-airplane-your-mommy-is-on-at-2-miles-away-untraceable-50 bmg-streetsweeping-military-style-semi-automatic-assault-pocket-Saturday-night-special' and get EVERY SINGLE GUN out of the hands of private citizens! Finally.
Just fair warning,
Agent Schmuckatelli, BATFe

[rock jock]

I've watched this country go from a relatively free society to what can only be called a "soft" police state.
Really? Well, I've got news for you. In the "good old days", at least in Texas and several dozen other states, it was completely illegal to carry a concealed handgun, unless you were a good buddy (read "contributor") to the local sheriff or politicos. Now, if you got caught, the LEO might be a good guy and give you a wink and a nod and send you on your way. OTOH, he might not and you might end up with a criminal record and some big legal fees. Point is, whether or not you got hauled through the grinder was entirely up to the discretion of LE and the local DA. Now, in this "soft" police state, I send in some paperwork, pay what equates to $35/year, and get a little card that keeps me out of jail, entirely outside the discretion of the dreaded big brother "police state". I don't have to worry about getting thrown in jail if a strong wind picks up my shirt and a blissninnie freaks out at the sight of a gun. If I am forced to use my gun in self-defense, I don't have to worry about being in more trouble than the POS that I shot. I can carry one or more of whatever handgun I want, whenever I want, and with very few exceptions, wherever I want. If that is a move for the worse, I hate to see what a move for the better would be.

[ChickenHawk]

Personally, I think rock jock just nailed it. I agree completely.

Cheers,
ChickenHawk

[TallPine]

Agent Schmuckatelli:

You understand, of course, that this is all just a purely academic discussion.

:neener:

[oldfart]

Rock Jock, I'm not going to flame you or belittle you in any way. I don't mean to suggest that you're at all ignorant, but I don't think you know what freedom is-- or was! I think you are a product of our modern society and you just don't know what I'm talking about.

I remember a time when carrying a concealed gun wasn't a big thing unless (and until) you used it to commit a crime. I remember a time (only 40 years ago) when I walked into a supermarket in Thousand Oaks, California with a pistol on my belt and bought a bottle of pop. I remember a time when I stored a Winchester Model 70 rifle in my locker on the Naval Station at Adak, Alaska. I remember a time when a county dog catcher pulled a .45 on my dad and got his teeth knocked out and his gun tossed in the creek. Later, two deputies came by to talk to dad and they didn't even write him a ticket.

Today, the state wants us to get a permit to carry, I doubt I could even get across the parking lot of that market in California with a gun on my belt, the U.S. Navy takes a dim view of any of it's men even owning private arms and my dad would be cut down by a SWAT team before he got out of the house.

Sure, there are some advantages to the world we now live in, but anything that tends to make the government bigger, more efficient or more intrusive is just bad! Before Texas passed their CCW law the only thing keeping you from carrying was plain, throat-gripping, pants-wetting FEAR; fear of government! I don't know what Webster says, but in my book, fear of government defines tyranny!

Over the years, your frog has been boiled. That's not your fault, you had no idea it was happening because you had no point of reference to compare to. I doubt there is any single person or entity that is planning the downfall of America, but that downfall is coming, and it's coming over the bodies of a lot of boiled frogs and the very few of us who jumped out of the pot when we could.

Folks, this train is on a downhill grade, the brakes are gone and there's a sharp turn at the bottom of the hill. Enjoy the ride while you can. Keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils' and writing to those noblemen we elected to represent us. Not only is the system broken, but so are the tools we relied upon to fix it. Whether we succumb to Socialism or Islam, we will succumb. Anybody who can read history and believe otherwise is seriously overdosed on Soma.

[rock jock]

Rock Jock, I'm not going to flame you or belittle you in any way. I don't mean to suggest that you're at all ignorant, but I don't think you know what freedom is-- or was! I think you are a product of our modern society and you just don't know what I'm talking about.

I remember a time when carrying a concealed gun wasn't a big thing unless (and until) you used it to commit a crime. I remember a time (only 40 years ago) when I walked into a supermarket in Thousand Oaks, California with a pistol on my belt and bought a bottle of pop. I remember a time when I stored a Winchester Model 70 rifle in my locker on the Naval Station at Adak, Alaska. I remember a time when a county dog catcher pulled a .45 on my dad and got his teeth knocked out and his gun tossed in the creek. Later, two deputies came by to talk to dad and they didn't even write him a ticket.
OF, are you saying that carrying concealed wasn't illegal then, or that people just didn't care? If it was the former, you were relying on the good graces of the local LE, and still subject to their discretion as to whether or not they would enforce that particular law. The only frame of reference I have is Texas, and (1) I have no doubt that that was true even here, (2) it was still illegal, and (3) that is not my idea of freedom.

[tyme]

We should not be afraid of the law, since we are sovereign and we create law through our political will. Fear is the only competition to our morally justified right to be armed.
I can carry one or more of whatever handgun I want, whenever I want, and with very few exceptions, wherever I want.
This does a good number of people no good at all. You can't carry any place that has a bar. You can't exercise your RKBA while you exercise your right to vote. You can't carry at secondary schools or colleges. You can't carry if someone puts up a 30.06 sign even if it's a public place or a public establishment. In short, you, I, and the Dalai Lama are surfs in TX.

[oldfart]

Rock Jock, you're right-- it was illegal then too, but no one cared. Sure, we were relying on the local sheriff to look the other way, but if he hadn't he'd have been voted out at the next election. Of course, that was before politics had become an end unto itself and electing an official was still a choice between good men instead of choosing the lesser of two evils.

That's not saying that we always had good men running for office, but we usually had a choice between good and bad and we knew the difference. Nowadays they're all alike except for the "D" or "R" by their names and that can be interchangeable.

I don't know just where in Texas you live, but as an engineer, it's probably in or near a city. Some weekend, go out in the country and find a small town with some old men sitting around watching the world go by. Ask them what it was really like in the 20's or 30's. Don't just ask about carrying guns. Ask about how people treated each other and why they did so. It was a whole different world then. One that most modern people wouldn't recognize-- one that they (and I) will never see again.

[2dogs]

oldfart

Keep posting!

We need a "Steinbeck" around here.:cool: :)

[Tamara]

And admitting you carry illegally: WHOA! I cannot believe my luck. You guys are dropping a whole pay-raise worth of arrests right in my lap. Thanks! In this time of restructuring from DoT to DHS, we are all concerned about our jobs being cut. This is just the excuse I and my comrades need to ruff up literally ANYONE we choose on the suspicion of being carrying an illegal weapon!

Dear Agent Schmuckatelli,

Please look up the word "jurisdiction"...

Thanks,
T.



Seriously, cpileri, if you are trying to make people think with your fictional federale, you shouldn't have him threatening to arrest folks for state offenses. ;)

[Erik]

He isn't supporting the 2A, folks. He's an anarchist, whose stance just happens to sound as if he does.

[Ian]

Who cares what label he falls under when he supports the underlying principle of freedom?

[Edward429451]

Old fart nailed it. You other guys who would pay to be on the safe side are in denial about the truth, period.

You don't have to pay for the excercise of a right. If you sign the paperwork for your permit, then you are bound by its rules. It's called a contract.

Without beating around the bush and saying something about avoiding dangerous places rather than carrying, how many are willing to give a definite answer to the question, "In an area of known danger, would you carry a concealed weapon even if it were illegal to do so?"

In an area of known danger (Earth), I've been carrying what agent schmuketelli calls illegal for pushing 20 years. I will continue to carry 'legally' as the spirit moves me, even if De Facto law says I can't.

Clear enough?

[Art Eatman]

A couple of years after the Texas CHL law took effect, the Department of Public Safety polled the licensees. It seems that some 80% or more HAD NOT purchased a new pistol for carry purposes.

:D, Art

[Andrew Rothman]

I think oldfart is eloquent and persuasive, but I don't think our frogs have been boiled yet.

And remember, old folks have been decrying the decline of civilization in their time since, well, the start of civilization.

I'm a bit more optimistic.

In the "good old days" of gun freedom he mentioned, blacks couldn't eat at the same lunch counters, drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as whites.

I'd say our society has come a long way.

I think that the gun rights thing is cyclical, and I also think the pendulum is swinging back toward rights, as evidenced by the explosion of shall-issue states. No, it's not perfect, but it IS improving.

[tyme]

Yeah, we've come a long way with respect to civil rights. Civil liberties, on the other hand, have been spotted fleeing the country in droves. And that's not even mentioning the extreme rate of expansion of government since 1937.

I suppose now that whites, blacks, purples, and greens (and women, and the disabled) are all equal, we don't need any of those pesky liberties - speech? What is there to talk about? Firearms? No way, you might shoot a minority. Search and seizure limits? Nope; everyone's equally subject to abuse of the police power in the fight against drugs and, err, well, "terror."

[atek3]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/gillespie/mark.jpg

I'm sure Mr. Gillespie will find many other people in prison who will agree with his viewpoint. One of them will probably make him his girlfriend.

Based on the picture above, I think if he went to jail he might have his own girlfriend :)

atek3

[fjolnirsson]

Atek,
You're a sick man.
How long did it take you to dig up this thread?

[crewchief]

I for one am glad that he dug it up for I will no longer live my life in shame and fear based on some of the views ewpressed here.

[sturmruger]

When I was 18 I worked at a small store here in the Midwest. The state that I was working in did not allow 18 year olds to carry, or even apply for a permit. I had a couple of local drug dealers come into the store wanting to sign up for a product that we sold. They had crappy credit and would need to put down large deposit if they were hoping to be able to use our product. Needless to say they were not at all happy about the deposit and threatened me when I told them I couldn't change anything.


This had me a little worried. My only option to protect myself was to carry a gun illegally. I can tell you no matter what your political beliefs are carrying when you are not supposed to is scary!!! I was more nervous about the cops pulling me over and doing a vehicle search then I was about those stupid punks. In the end I decided they weren't going to try anything and I just kept my gun at work with me. Still in violation of the law, but a very miniscule chance of it ever being found out.

There are times when you have to go outside the laws to protect yourself, but to me the risk of getting caught was just too much. If you want to take the chance of becoming a felon in your home state that is your call. As much as I disagree with the constitutionality of allot of our gun laws I still follow them when possible. I like my life and my gun collection and will not do anything to jeopardize them.

[R.H. Lee]

rock jock said"

, I send in some paperwork, pay what equates to $35/year, and get a little card that keeps me out of jail, entirely outside the discretion of the dreaded big brother "police state". I don't have to worry about getting thrown in jail

Until the agency that "granted" you that favor revokes it. The notion that "the state granteth" is NOT a concept of liberty.

[mercedesrules]

(Matt Payne) In the "good old days" of gun freedom he mentioned, blacks couldn't eat at the same lunch counters, drink from the same water fountains or attend the same schools as whites.
In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less.

MR

[Carlos Cabeza]

I know a lot of folks who simply cannot afford to provide for their families and pay the seemingly exhorbitant fees to also provide them with protection. A co-worker in particular who has five young daughters and a wife that recently became mentally and physically incapacitated through an unfortunate vehicle accident, has all but given up the idea of CCW. He also expressed fears of civil suits and legal fees to defend himself in the court room should the situation arise. This man is a stellar individual and would never entertain the thought of breaking the "law". I feel sorry for his situation. :mad:

[Treylis]

"If a law is unconstitutional, it's null and void from the moment it is passed, and may be broken with impunity, according to law (that's from one SC case or another...). And if a law violates peoples' rights, one has no business enforcing it or obeying it.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
--Marbury vs. Madison

I completely agree with Gillespie.

If I saw or knew someone was carrying concealed illegally, I wouldn't turn them in. People have a right to self-defense, regardless of what the laws may say. Just consider it "pre-emptive jury nullification". ;-)

[Zundfolge]

I was born and raised in Wichita Kansas where I lived from August 1969 to August 2002.

Back in October of 1993 a friend and I where robbed at gunpoint by a "disadvantaged minority youth" in the parking lot of my friend's apartment complex (unrelated side note: years later this apartment complex is the home to the Carr brothers).

Anyway, I told the police officer that was interviewing my friend and I; "Damn, it makes me want to start carrying a gun!". To which this particular member of Wichita's Finest replied "You should!".


I have been carrying concealed for about the last 4 years (y'all do the math ;) ). Frankly I'd have started carrying earlier but I didn't have the disposable income for a handgun.


Thankfully I now live where one can get a permit to carry ... and as for the "illegal carry could make you into Bubba's girlfriend", keep in mind that in KS, concealed carry is only a misdemeanor (and in some areas of the state the local constabulary will look the other way as long as you are one of the "good guys").

[Michigander]

In the Colorado Constitution, concealed weapons are specifically mentioned in a way that (appears to me) reserves the power of determining who may or may not carry concealed weopons to the government of Colorado (state, countie, city, village, township?).

Article II, Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

[RealGun]

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

To me, legal amateur that I am but able to read, that wording allows open carry as a right of a Colorado citizen.

I believe that State Constitutions that are inconsistent with the US Constitution are in violation of the 14th amendment of the COTUS, which has yet to be tested in regard to the 2nd Amendment. In any case, I see this as reserving the State's authority to require and issue CCW licenses and collect a fee for doing so.

Actually Colorado is to be commended in the sense that they do not ignore their own Constitution as many other States do, having no such qualification in their State Constitution. I think Colorado would be ignoring it, if there was a problem with unrestricted open carry. These laws should mean what they say, not what someone wants it to say by whatever logic suits their purpose.

[RealGun]

In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less. - mercedesrules

A bigot would say that. One who was excluded would not likely have that opinion. A legal distinction is made for one's personal dwelling and surrounding property.

A business "open to the public" makes concessions to civil rights, including the right to enter carrying a weapon of self defense.

[Zundfolge]

In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less. - mercedesrules

A bigot would say that.

ANY government control (regardless of how well intentioned) is still LESS freedom.

At this point, who do you think would be harmed more by a business that didn't allow blacks, the local blacks or the business itself?

[RealGun]

At this point, who do you think would be harmed more by a business that didn't allow blacks, the local blacks or the business itself? - Zundfolge

A bigot would ask that question.

ANY government control (regardless of how well intentioned) is still LESS freedom

Where did you learn this mantra? I don't regard it as a truism at all, and I own a business, carry a gun, and have done my homework on government and politics? Are you advocating anarchy?

[Zundfolge]

A bigot would ask that question.
Why are you bating people and trying to cause conflict and flame war by calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot? The generally accepted definition of one who goes online and does what you're doing is troll.

Where did you learn this mantra? I don't regard it as a truism ...
I learned this "mantra" by watching the last few thousand years of history.

Forcing businesses to subscribe to your particular ideals concerning race doesn't make you, me or the black many any more free ... all it does is give government more power to shove other people's beliefs down your, my and the black mans' throats.

The market is much better suited to make these decisions then dictates from the ruling class made at their whim.

[mercedesrules]

Realgun) A bigot would say that.
Fallacy: guilt by association. Just because a bigot might say what I said, doesn't prove it's wrong.
One who was excluded would not likely have that opinion.
Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem. A black person excluded from a restaurant could either agree or disagree with me depending on his philosophy.
A business "open to the public" makes concessions to civil rights, including the right to enter carrying a weapon of self defense.
Clearly false - even now. Many businesses are (rightfully) allowed to exclude gunmen.
I own a business,
Since you brought it up, what if government forced you to either lower or raise your prices by 1000%? What if they forbid you from selling to or serving Mexicans? What if they made you wear a TUTU to work?

The point I'm making, RG, is that when government regulates the economy, it makes the market less free. Period.

MR

[Treylis]

Business owners should be allowed to exclude customers on ANY basis, including race or gender. It's a violation of property rights to have it otherwise.

Government, on the other hand, absolutely should NOT be allowed to make any such discriminatory decisions.

[Mr. Clark]

It's also important to remember that a lot of those lunch counters and restrooms were segregated in the south because by law they had to be. Making black people ride in the back of the bus was not a custom, it was the law. Those laws were enforced by klansmen who had the power of government behind them; some of them were the government (sheriffs, judges, etc.). If government hadn't had the power to regulate such things I doubt there would have been as many segregated services as there were and they would have slowly gone out of business or changed with the growing black population and changing white attitudes.

It is just as much a violation of property rights to keep someone from excluding a certain group as it is to force them to exclude that group. Besides, whoever would do it wouldn’t stay in business long. They would either go broke because everyone (even those not specifically exlcuded) would refuse to spend their money there or they would go broke because their margins are too tight to exclude that many people and still be profitable. Racists are stupid, but they still have to eat.

[Frohickey]

Author makes a good point about principle, and following through with it.
If only there were enough people like him, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. And crime would probably be down as well. Boohoo, we wouldn't need as many cops though. ;)

[longrifleman]

A business "open to the public" makes concessions to civil rights, including the right to enter carrying a weapon of self defense.

The "public accommodation doctrine" you site is the current mainstream opinion certainly, but is also an intentional attack on the whole idea of individual property rights. If a business owner can't control his property he doesn't really own it. The more accurate description of the system we have today is fascism. Private "ownership" but government control. Even if the motives of the people advocating this are good the outcome is still fascism.

There is also the problem of the expansion of control to achieve complete "equality" or whatever the current buzzword is. Since the world will never be a perfect place there will always be some problem for those seeking power to point to and say "See, bad stuff. Give us power and we will save you." And if I choose not to be "saved" I will likely end up with a bullet in the head in a shallow grave.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

Yeah, try that if you get caught with a firearm your betters don't want you to have. I'll start the thread for your legal defense fund. And another one to help your family for the next 20 years.:neener:

Now, back on topic.

Better tried by twelve than carried by six.

[RealGun]

If someone states something that strikes me as nonsense, I will challenge it rather than be guilty of tacit approval. I really don't have any more to offer, because we should not be digressing into a discussion of racial discrimination.

However, if someone can substantiate their claims about property rights of a business "open to the public" and explain who "the public" includes, I would be very interested.

In looking for supporting information, I found this interesting quote:

"The Smart Growth movement shouldn't be deterred, because it has history and common sense on its side. The nation rejected the property rights arguments of southern plantation owners in emancipating slaves during the Civil War. At the turn of the century, industrialists argued that property rights gave them the authority to block new government rules forbidding children to work long hours in their stifling factories.

Southern segregationists in the 1960s cited property rights as the reason they refused to serve blacks at lunch counters. Property rights, in other words, has often represented the very worst impulses in our society. "


Full context (http://tinyurl.com/2uhee)

[Treylis]

Points taken, Mr. Clark. That's why I specifically mentioned that governmental discrimination is verboten.

"The Smart Growth movement shouldn't be deterred, because it has history and common sense on its side. The nation rejected the property rights arguments of southern plantation owners in emancipating slaves during the Civil War. At the turn of the century, industrialists argued that property rights gave them the authority to block new government rules forbidding children to work long hours in their stifling factories.

That's because those southern plantation owners were attempting to claim a "right" to violate the rights of others. There's no such thing. And if you really want to talk about people being "overworked" in that fashion, I highly suggest that you read "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children", by Robert Hessen.

Southern segregationists in the 1960s cited property rights as the reason they refused to serve blacks at lunch counters. Property rights, in other words, has often represented the very worst impulses in our society. "

Property rights are the very foundation of a free society.

[BHPshooter]

I can tell you no matter what your political beliefs are carrying when you are not supposed to is scary!!!

I'll bet! I already paranoid as hell about being pulled over. Nothing seems to scare me as much as being pulled over by the police. :rolleyes:

Wes

[Zundfolge]

If someone states something that strikes me as nonsense, I will challenge it rather than be guilty of tacit approval.
I'm not asking you to blindly agree with me (althought the world would be a better place if everyone did :p ) I'm just asking you to avoid Ad Hominem attacks on those you disagree with by calling us bigots. The Ad Hominem is the tool of the troll ... if you're not a troll then don't use that tactic.

Southern segregationists in the 1960s cited property rights as the reason they refused to serve blacks at lunch counters. Property rights, in other words, has often represented the very worst impulses in our society. "
Yes, and pornographers often cite Free Speech in defense of their filth too ... does that mean we should do away with free speech?

Liberty has often represented the very worst impulses in our society.


I can tell you no matter what your political beliefs are carrying when you are not supposed to is scary!!!
It gets pretty easy once you get used to doing it ... but frankly if it was a Felony in Kansas I wouldn't have done it.

[Mr. Clark]

Treylis: I was just elaborating on the point you made, providing my own version of the why.

RealGun: The character of someone making a claim says nothing about the validity of the claim itself. Because some people who advocate property rights are hypocrites does not mean that the concept of property rights itself is hypocritical (that was one of the points in the linked article). The world is full of people who are only too happy to recognize rights when they apply to themselves but have no idea why the same rights should apply to others (in fact, the site you linked to is full of people with that point of view). It doesn't mean that we should do away with rights.

As has been pointed out, if you don’t have the right to set the conditions under which you are willing to transfer your property to another person, you don’t really own it. If I can make you sell me something under terms you are unwilling to accept, then why am I not allowed to make you work for me under terms you are not willing to accept? The principle is the same - you own your life and the products of it and you alone are allowed to set the conditions of their use.

Making you sell me stuff that you own against your will and making you work for me against your will is the same thing. Advocating one is to undercut the moral position in your opposition to the other. Either you own your life, and by extension what you do with it, or you don’t.

Labor is involved in making anything, or in making the means to acquire something to resell, or in any service that you provide. The service is labor; the product is the end result of your labor. If I can make you sell it to me against your will, I have, in fact, succeeded in making you work for me against your will.

I would rather live with a government that recognized someone’s right not to deal with or serve me, for whatever reason, than live with one that forced him to. If they can force him to do that, what can they force me to do?


[I edited that a bit to make it a liitle more clear, hope it worked.]

[RealGun]

I'm just asking you to avoid Ad Hominem attacks on those you disagree with by calling us bigots. The Ad Hominem is the tool of the troll ... if you're not a troll then don't use that tactic. - Zundfolge

This type of exchange is probably not productive, but let it be noted that I stand by what I posted. If anyone was "attacked", it was I. Crying troll is a great way to duck a question or challenge. So is righteous indignation. It's just a smoke screen. I did not call anyone a bigot. The reader will have to decide if the shoe fit and answer the challenge, and that's why I phrased it carefully. I disagree with your use of the ad hominem term. Your inference is your own responsibility. You are welcome to ask for clarification of intent, keeping in mind that I avoid getting in a stink fight with a skunk and may not respond to something too combative. I make it a point to be civil in my posts.

bigot - a person obstinately or intolerably devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - Webster's Collegiate

I think we all have pretty strong opinions, or we wouldn't be posting.

[Firethorn]

I support the 'right' for the property owner to discriminate by whatever means they wish to.

I support the 'right' for people to say whatever they want. Including the KKK, Black Panthers, and other such types

I also say that I will refuse to support those who engage in such activities. In today's societies, any business refusing to serve to minorities will tend to end up out of business. I'm sure some 'old boys clubs' will survive, but all they did was drive those underground.

I support people's rights, everybodies. Even people who I don't agree with, even people who's idea's I detest. Why? Because if I wait, where will they be when the government comes for me...

[RealGun]

Interesting stuff, Mr. Clark. Thanks. I guess the question would be what the principles of law really are and whether they are properly applied. I am not an anarchist, so some purist arguments that sharply differ from reality will not appeal to me at all. That doesn't mean I think I am right. I just don't tilt with windmills. I have much for which to be thankful. I don't hate the American system, but I do have my complaints and concerns.

Carrying a gun certainly made me more sensitive, but subscribing to THR does not mean I am willing to be radical about it. I am a right of center Republican, not a libertarian in any absolute sense. Since I own a business, capitalist all the way, pragmatism appeals to me, but I appreciate the voice of conscience from the purists.

[Zundfolge]

This type of exchange is probably not productive,
I agree thats why this will be my last post on the subject.

but let it be noted that I stand by what I posted. If anyone was "attacked", it was I. Crying troll is a great way to duck a question or challenge. So is righteous indignation. It's just a smoke screen. I did not call anyone a bigot.
Point 1: You responded to something I and another person said with "A bigot would say that" ... if thats not calling someone a bigot I don't know what is.

Point 2: I never called you a troll directly ... I mearly pointed out that the way you where throwing the term "bigot" around was much like the way a "troll" would.

In addition, Crying bigot is indeed a good way to duck a question or challenge, and using an insult (I doubt you meant "bigot" to be a positve discriptive term) is indeed an Ad Hominem.

Aside from pointing out that what you where doing looked like trolling, I also met each of your points with an argument.

[longrifleman]

anarchy
1) The complete absence of government and law.

I don't think you will find many anarchists here. I also don't understand the continual confusion between anarchy and libertarian-classical liberal-paleoconservative (three names for very similar philosophies) that keeps coming up. It seems that any call for a smaller govt that respects individual rights is immediately labeled anarchy.

RealGun, when reading your exchange with Mr. Clark the question that immediately came to mind was how many infringements of your right to property will be too much to be tolerated? Your observation that some have to be tolerated for pragmatic reasons is understandable but I think dangerous. <insert slippery slope argument>

The reason "purist arguments" are made is in an attempt to change reality from a semi-socialist/fascist world to a world of true freedom for everyone.
(Some govt oversight will be necessary for this so please don't think anarchist.)

Mr. Clark, excellent explanation. Much better than what I had composed in my head. You saved my arthritic old fingers a lot of typing. Thank you.

[fjolnirsson]

It seems that any call for a smaller govt that respects individual rights is immediately labeled anarchy.

I've noticed that, too. And I just can't wrap my brain around that typeof thinking, no matter how I try.

[Tom Servo]

Well, guys, if it were not invasive, I would start a poll to see which THR members would carry and which would not in a case where concealed carry was illegal but there was a definite danger...

Who would be sheep and who would be wolves?
I'd be a very quiet and sly fox, I suppose. I love this country (and I've seen what it's like elsewhere) and I believe what sets us apart from the rest is the rule of law. I have the utmost respect for the law as authority *in the abstract.*

That said, there are some stupid laws out there, and some that are just so poorly-thought through that they're dangerous. That doesn't mean I'm going to do prison time and lose even more rights in the act of protesting them, though.

So, if my home-state were to criminalize concealed carry tomorrow and I had to go into a dangerous situation, would I carry? Probably, yes. My foremost right is the right to live. Would I flaunt it? Heck no, and I'd do my best to avoid anything that would arouse suspicion from the authorities.

[Esky]

This thread has been very instructive to me.

I'm in the People's Republic of California. This is a "may" issue state. In San Diego County, where I live, the only way anyone gets (in theory, anyway) a CCW is to have real reason(s) for needing one.

In practice it's like this. Unless the Mafia has posted your name in a hit-notice in the newspaper, and you have a few archbishops to write nice letters for you to the Chief of Police supporting your application, and you've contributed large amounts to the Police Benevolent Fund, you are NOT going to get a permit, at least in SD County. Even if all the above is true, you still may not be granted a CCW, if the police don't like your looks, or attitude, or the way you part your hair. (I bet that Hispanics and black people would have an even harder time getting one, but I can't prove it.)

So here I definitely have to "ask permission" to carry, and I'm unlikely to get it. Is this a violation of the 2A? I believe it is. The Calif Constitution does not have any provision for RKBA, and I'm sure you all know how popular (not!) gun rights are here, so it's pretty unlikely that we'll ever get any such provision either.

The question for me, then, is whether I'm willing to break the law in order to (as our lovely <hack/spit/cough> Senator DiFi has said) to feel safe.

Well, I am. And I have. And when I do, I DO feel safe.

The only thing I've got going for me is that IF I am stopped, searched, and my weapon is found, that it's only a misdemeanor offense as long as my gun is registered. If I'm caught with an UNregistered firearm, then zip go my "rights" to possess any weapons at all, and if really unlucky I could even end up as Bubba's toyboy.

So my compromise solution is to make sure that whenever I do carry, it's always with a registered gun. (Hasty disclaimer: this is not to say that I have unregistered guns, why of COURSE I don't, so there's no need to dig up my back yard, especially in the corner near... oh never mind.)

As to the many other directions this thread has gone off in--

I'm in perfect agreement with oldfart.

I left the USA for Australia back in 1973. Didn't return until last year, so that gives me the perspective on the USA that maybe Rip Van Winkle would have had... and it's still a shock to me, even though I've been back since last July.

And like oldfart, I remember how things were different then. When I was in high school (Taft) I saw Chuck Connors come in (remember The Rifleman?) to a hardware store in Woodland Hills, where I lived. He bought some ammo, and I wondered if it was for his lever action rifle... could've asked him, but I was way too shy back then. They sold pistols, rifles, ammo, along with the fishing gear and other stuff, no questions asked. At least no questions were asked if you were old enough, which I wasn't, and I knew that it would do me no good to ask.

Still, to come back to now in Fortress Kalifornia, where it is VERY un-PC to have a gun (unless you are a cop, a criminal or a Senator like DiFi)... well, it's just hard to get over. And now I'm a federally licensed (C&R) collector, but Kalifornia law still stops me from even collecting, let alone shooting, what a lot of you take for granted.

Lots of room for improvement here... but I am heartened by the increasing number of states with more sense than California, where crime has decreased as CCW laws are passed. At least in some parts of the USA, the Constitution seems to be in better shape than it is here.

One thought to finish on: if there were to be another terrorist attack here (and may this be only a conjecture, not reality, I pray!) then people just might begin to realize that each one of us, we ourselves, are the defenders of our country. I wasn't in the States when the riots were happening in LA, but I do remember reading that some of those living & having businesses in the affected area were defending themselves (and their property) with "assault" rifles. They were the ones whose homes and businesses weren't burnt out, whose wives and girlfriends weren't assaulted.

Now, of course, Kali has its own laws against those eevil black rifles, and so those shopowners can't do it again... but I wouldn't be surprised if maybe they'd hidden just a couple of guns away somewhere, just in case. I hope they did, they may need them again.

Esky

[Drjones]

I wasn't in the States when the riots were happening in LA, but I do remember reading that some of those living & having businesses in the affected area were defending themselves (and their property) with "assault" rifles. They were the ones whose homes and businesses weren't burnt out, whose wives and girlfriends weren't assaulted.


Maybe we should call them "assault prevention rifles" since they do seem to be quite effective at persuading people that attempting to assault you would not be very good for their general health and lead levels in their body.

:)

[Drjones]

And excellent post, Esky!

:)

[artherd]

Esky- excellent post!

I wasn't in the States when the riots were happening in LA, but I do remember reading that some of those living & having businesses in the affected area were defending themselves (and their property) with "assault" rifles. They were the ones whose homes and businesses weren't burnt out, whose wives and girlfriends weren't assaulted.

The cops were too afraid to go in.

Those guys with AKs standing on teh roofs of their shops were LARGELY responsible for the riots ENDING!

"eee man, let's go over heeeere and snatch us a woman or a VCR!"
"Yh, there's a dude with a goddamn rifle standing on the roof... Let's try the OTHER block."
"Yeesh, there's another dude with a goddamn rifle. Let's just go home instead."




One of those 'assualt prevention rifles' prevented a rattlesnake from biting me today.

And yes, I have carried concealed illegally. I consider a possible NON-RKBA losing misdomenor to HUGELY outweigh the greater possability of MY DEATH BY ASSAULT.


For anybody reading this, I will state that the SOL has expired, so don't bother.

Would I do it again? Daily? Three guesses.

[Tamara]

In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less. - mercedesrules

A bigot would say that.

...and the bigot would be proving that even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn.

Property belongs to the person who controls it. If you don't control it, it ain't your property except in the most abstract sense. If it can be legally taken from you without your consent, it ain't yours, be it a right or a dollar or an acre or your life.

[seeker_two]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of private businesses, forcing them to accept blacks, or anyone else, is not more liberty; it is less. - mercedesrules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A bigot would say that.

True freedom is when a business has as much right to not do business w/ people that they don't want to do business with....


...as I have the right not to do business w/ that business for having that policy. :p


As for the "illegal" carry, I plead the Fifth (if that one's still in force) for past events. But I will say that being polite to police officers during traffic stops tends NOT to lead to "probable cause" searches. Not speeding at all works even better...;)

[Double Naught Spy]

[Tamara]

What a typical bit of "If I don't like the law, then I don't feel I have to obey it" sentiment.

I take it that you will comply with any and all gun control legislation passed? Or might there be somewhere you'd draw a line. If so, why is your line better than his?

Out of curiousity, who is this man harming by packing heat without a permission slip? Point me to a victim, so that I may better understand the crime.

[tyme]

I think racial integration laws ended up doing a lot of good, and I'm not sure whether the same benefits would have resulted from leaving the social dynamics of commerce unregulated. There is, however, a great quote by Rehnquist about what has become the modern far-right point of view.

"Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, it [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. It is as barren of accomplishment in what it gives to the Negro as in what it takes from the proprietor. The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter."
- William H. Renquist (b. 1924-10-01), June 15, 1964, quoted in Turning Right by David Savage, p. 32

[longrifleman]

What a typical bit of "If I don't like the law, then I don't feel I have to obey it" sentiment. Moron.

Ultimately each of us have to decide what laws we will obey or disobey. I am always troubled by the attitude that allows other people to do your thinking for you. If the law mandated you spit on every midget you met would you do it? After all, it IS the law. A silly example? Sure. It wouldn't be too hard to find real examples of laws that are of questionable morality. Or just plain stupid. Laws prohibiting bayonet lugs and flash hiders come to mind. Do you obey these laws because it is morally right to do so or because of fear?

Double Naught Spy;

Why SHOULD immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?

[atek3]

hahah, supporting property rights makes me a bigot...wow thats a new one. I knew supporting "states right" was a one way ticket to 'bigot-central'. Thank you for filling me in RealGun

atek3

[Wildalaska]

Why SHOULD immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?

In the eye of the beholder I guess....

Me, I guess Ill let the North American Man Boy Love Association decide what laws they want to obey, offer each member a psotion as a Scoutmaster too......

Your morality, my morality, their morality, right?

WildconundrumAlaska

[2nd Amendment]

Why is it someone always has to take the extreme position? And no, that's not a dig at you specifically, Wild. It's just that your effort at point is one I see often and it's not meaningful. You've gone from a discussion of a personal choice which frankly affects nobody but the person making the choice to a "life philosophy" involving perversion and the underage. There is no question of "his morality, your morality", etc. There can be common ground on some things and still be room for disagreement, and resistance.

Also, unless you can honestly and publicly take the stance that you do not agree some "laws" are absurd and best honored in their breach AND that you have never personally ignored something you viewed as such, your argument falls apart on yet another front.

As for myself, yeah, I have carried "illegally". If necessary I will again. That doesn't negate my ability to take a stand against various other illegal activity, especially when that activity actually has a victim.

[Wildalaska]

You miss the analogy...

The issue is...who decides?

WildmeoryouorallofusAlaska

[2nd Amendment]

No, I didn't miss it. I'm saying you can't make an analogy like that. You've taken a "crime" that has no vicitim and compared it to a crime of the most heinous nature where the victims are not only real but often the least capable of defending themselves in any fashion. I understand what you are driving at, but it doesn't work as phrased. In looking for your analogy you went to far to the extreme.

Compare victimless crimes and you'd have a much more solid footing. As is, society(the "who") has much more right to decide in one case than the other. True?

But to address your intent, on some things each of us has to decide. And when the question is a crime that harms no one I don't see a fundamental problem with it. It's not a societal question, nor any of "society's"(government's) business.

Just my .03

[Wildalaska]

Woaaah there Pilgrim...

Im talking about the existence of law qua law...if you take the position that each person decide for himself or herslef what is "moral" or "right", then you cannot object to such unobjectionable (to some) antics as NAMBLA would advocate...

And sorry dragging victimology into it is meaningless..I can drag into to this discussion a bunch of "experts" who would be willing to say that even an eight year old can consent to sexual activity...so where is the harm then...wanna draw psychological lines?? Ya got 15 year olds on this Board....bet many would not object to some of them having a gun..OK hows about sex with Uncle Joe..not OK?

Gee, I can even remeber a thread wherein it was mentioned that some poor schnook who had a fling with an underage girl is forever barred from owning a gun...what outrage!!!!

Anyway THATS the point....a society as a whole makes VALUE judgements embodied in the criminal law....ya dont like it fine...fight it...in a lawful way

But to advocate just breaking a law becasue you think its silly or wrong or violates your rights is NOT a victimless crime...becasue it is a flouting of moral and legal judgements made by society as a whole in order to best promote the general welfare of us all...

And no, I dont equate, in terms of CRIMINAL responsibility, a person that surreptitiously carries a gun, unlawfully, but without criminal intent to a perv who has sexual relations with minors....

Yet I do equate them both in terms of MORAL irresponsibility to society as a whole....

Yep its an extrme example...but the point remains...everyones value judgements are different..its society as a whole who sorts them out


WildandadogwalkerpoppedagrizontheeastsideofAnhoragewitha44todayAlaska

[tyme]

Even if you subscribe to the libertarian concept that victimless crimes are not crimes, who decides what's victimless? If you know you're getting the better end of a deal, is it your moral obligation to inform the other person they should't be paying so much? Should it be illegal not to? There will always be victims unless society devolves to Communism. Victims of stupidty, of fate, whatever. They're still victims, and other people often have a corresponding advantage due to the victim's stupidity/fate/luck/whatever.

WA, there are plenty of maybe-victimless crimes without . From TX law...
- Bigamy; step-parent/step-child, even if there's no blood relationship, it's consensual, and both are over 18; homosexual relations
- Ban on private gambling (soon to be repealed because gambling generates tax revenue.)
- Weapon laws (...)
And some obvious others that I can't seem to verify at the moment as being crimes in TX... drugs, prostitution...

Besides "victimless" crimes, whatever those are, there are crimes that exceed the scope of the governing body's jurisdiction, but that would be okay if an identical law were passed by the proper level of government. Pick just about any federal law in the past 60 years passed on the authority of the interstate commerce clause. Some of the laws have had good effects, but that doesn't make them Constitutional.

There are laws that are invalid because they exceed the scope of a level of government (if the fed.gov passed a law punishing criminal assault, for instance, since that power is reserved to the states). There are laws that are invalid because they violate rights reserved to the people. And there are laws that are invalid for both reasons. It's pretty hard for anyone to argue that it's immoral not to obey such federal laws, but WildSocratesAlaska, you're doing as well as could be expected.

(Oh, there's a third reason, namely that a law wasn't passed properly but became law anyway... like CA's new .50 cal ban, courtesy of ghost voting in the CA assembly :barf: )

(WA) And no, I dont equate, in terms of CRIMINAL responsibility, a person that surreptitiously carries a gun, unlawfully, but without criminal intent to a perv who has sexual relations with minors...
Can we PLEASE stop spreading this pernicious falsehood? Age of consent is not 18 in Alaska, it's 16. And it's less than 18 in the vast majority of states, not to mention countries. Even in places where it is 18, there are typically exceptions for two people who are underage and within x years of each other. Sex is not an adult privilege of citizenship which no minor can responsibly engage in. Stop suggesting that it is.

It may not be socially acceptable for you or me or whoever to have a relationship with a 16-year-old, but in many places it's not illegal (though it would be in TX), and it's a stretch to say that someone who's 18 is a perv if he dates a 16-year-old.

[R.H. Lee]

First, IANAL, so forgive the cut and paste comparison of two legal principles-malum inse vs. malum prohibita.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong in itself; it is an act that is illegal from the nature of theact, i.e. it is inherently evil without any fact of its being noticed or punished; such crimes as larceny, rape and murder areconsidered malum in se. This concept was used to develop the various common-law crimes. This term is to be distinguishedfrom Malum prohibitum or wrongs that are prohibited, i.e.it is not inherently immoral or hurtful, but only wrong by statute, such as parkingviolations.
http://www.objectssearch.com/pedia/get.jsp?page=/wiki/Malum_in_se

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong because prohibited") is aLatin phrase used in law to refer to crimes made so by statute, as opposed to crimes based on English common law and obvious violations ofsociety's standards which are defined as malum in se. An offense that ismalum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards: an example is the lawagainst insider trading, where the simple act of sharing information is clearly not wrong in itself, but only because of itscontext in a larger framework of regulated trading.

The distinction between these two cases is discussed in Washington v. Anderson [1] :

"Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories -- malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction betweenmalum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v.Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905)... Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they aretypically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create thedanger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'""

http://www.objectssearch.com/pedia/get.jsp?page=/wiki/Malum_prohibitum


All laws are not created equal. There is a huge difference between violations of law prohibiting murder, rape and pedophilia (which involve coercion and depredation of an individual (malum in se) and violating laws prohibiting carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, or being in possession of a controlled substance, for example. The latter would be considered "public welfare offenses", (malum prohibitum) are illegal only because they are prohibited by law and not inherently evil.

[pinblaster]

It seems to me that if you feel you have a real need to carry a firearm to preserve your life , any law restricting you from carrying a firearm would be a moot point .

[Double Naught Spy]

longrifleman said, "Why SHOULD immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?"

People with this sentiment scare the hell out of me, especially when I don't know them and know what they think is stupid and what they think is immoral.

You know, there are idiots out there who think wealth redistribution is moral and that folks who accumulate wealth and don't give it away are acting in an immoral manner and so they justify burglary and robbery on "moral" grounds to justify the immoral acts of the more wealthy and because they feels the laws are stupid and ask questions like, "Why should immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?"

Hell, why stop with pissant little guns? Why not just go with "F**K the law: Illegal carry of explosives"? I could really use some grenades, claymores (not for carry, but they would need to be carried to where they are needed), and a few shoulder-fired missiles as well. You know, the 2nd Amendment and all that, the right to keep and bear arms and the explosives I am interested in having would be considered arms. By citing the 2nd Amendment, I can justify the moral legality of keeping said arms as penned by our Founding Fathers, thereby attaing the self-deceiving perspective that I have attained the moral high ground justification for something obviously not currently recognized as legal in our society.

Why should illegal and immoral laws be obeyed? Simple, because people like me, that you don't know, think they should have explosive arms. Of course, I don't own any and can't even remember actually ever having seen any up close in real life, but there are people out there who think they should own explosives, but don't obey the law and those people scare me because they think they have a morally justified perspective for not obeying stupid laws. Some even believe it is a God-given right. Onward Christian Soldier and all that...

[artherd]

Hell, why stop with pissant little guns? Why not just go with "F**K the law: Illegal carry of explosives"? I could really use some grenades, claymores (not for carry, but they would need to be carried to where they are needed), and a few shoulder-fired missiles as well. You know, the 2nd Amendment and all that, the right to keep and bear arms and the explosives I am interested in having would be considered arms. By citing the 2nd Amendment, I can justify the moral legality of keeping said arms as penned by our Founding Fathers, thereby attaing the self-deceiving perspective that I have attained the moral high ground justification for something obviously not currently recognized as legal in our society.



You mean explosives aren't legal?! Sheiiate! I better return all these cases of Tannerite post-haste!


<rolls eyes>

[Hawkmoon]

The trouble is that the police may search you (for “officer safety” reasons) whenever they feel like it. Perfectly “legal;” no probable cause needed.

The police may NOT search you (for "officer safety" or any other reason) whenevr they feel like it. The rules for a Terry stop don't require probable cause, but they DO require at least a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been comitted or is about to be committed, and that the person stopped is a perpetrator or potential perpetrator.

If I am walking down the sidewalk on Main Street at noon on a Tuesday, minding my own business and not bothering anybody, the police may NOT stop me or search me just because they feel like it. (At least, not legally.)

[tyme]

Sure, some cops who are total morons have had evidence from terry stops thrown out because they couldn't support their terry stops with reasonable suspicion.

The standard requires merely an articulable reason for the search. You will never be able to find alternate police witnesses to testify against your arresting officer, saying that what you were doing, your hairstyle, etc. did not constitute reasonable suspicion. They weren't present during the terry stop. The arresting officer was.

Any half-sentient police officer can convince a judge that there was reasonable suspicion to search you. You looked out of place, you were fidgeting, you smelled of drugs or hoppes #9, whatever. The cop doesn't have to be right. He just has to say at the time he believed A, B, and C, and any evidence from the Terry stop and search will be ruled admissible.

It's not so much that the standard for Terry stops is fundamentally unfair. The problem is that it requires no reliable, independent evidence. If a cop thinks you're worth searching, he can make up a valid reason for a terry stop, and the only person who will know it's a lie is that one officer.

Without judicial oversight, the 4th amendment is dead.

[MaceWindu]

It's not so much that the standard for Terry stops is fundamentally unfair. The problem is that it requires no reliable, independent evidence. If a cop thinks you're worth searching, he can make up a valid reason for a terry stop, and the only person who will know it's a lie is that one officer.


...and that is why so many people DO NOT TRUST THE POLICE.....and this is why there are SO MANY COP BASHERS in so many forums....I am not saying that I am one, but I DO understand why people they feel that way.

When we live in a place where the police have this kind of power, where he can state you were..."out of place"..or.."acting strange"...then it becomes a POLICE STATE.

Just my $.02

MaceWindu

[Powderman]

The trouble is that the police may search you (for “officer safety” reasons) whenever they feel like it. Perfectly “legal;” no probable cause needed.

Negative.

What you are loosely describing here is part and parcel of a "Terry" Stop. (See Terry v. Ohio).

The officer must be able to prove "reasonable suspicion", which is a standard of proof greater than a "hunch", but slightly less than probable cause.

If the officer can articulate through their observations, and based on their training and experience, that your actions are consistent with those of people planning criminal activity, the officer can:

1. Contact you.
2. Identify themselves as a police officer.
3. Ask about your activities.
4. Frisk you for objects that are concerns for officer safety--as in, weapons.

A frisk is NOT a full blown search, and should not be as intrusive as a full blown search.

The actual term for this is "investigative detention".

So, what's the bottom line?

Don't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, or quack like a duck, and you won't be treated as a duck.

[tyme]

Powerderman,

The officer's "proof" of reasonable suspicion is nothing more than his word. No independent evidence is necessary.

A cop thinks someone might be carrying drugs, i.e. has an unarticulable hunch. He does a Terry stop and finds a gun and no cwl/chl. When the cop goes to court, guess what? The testimony is that there was a bulge on the suspect's waistline and that the suspect had suspicious mannerisms. The problem is, anyone can have a bulge at the waistline if a shirt/jacket shifts and creates one, and anyone can be classified as "suspicious": walking too fast, walking too slow, not staring at the ground while walking, etc.

As for frisking, the two things that can be found during frisks are drugs and weapons. Since neither should be illegal, Terry stops are unconstitutional. Terry stops may have originally been designed to find weapons, but in practice they are searches for anything. Drugs, weapons, angry love letters that could indicate domestic violence, whatever.

If a criminal isn't worried about being arrested for carrying a gun and/or drugs, do you think the criminal would attack a police officer who strolls up and starts asking questions?

The combination of gun/drug laws and Terry stop&search caselaw results in more risk to officers, not less. Getting rid of either gun/drug laws or Terry stop&search would eliminate that additional risk. The other alternative is to allow safety searches but disallow any evidence discovered, since the search is supposed to be for officer safety and not evidence collection. The latter requires a warrant or probable cause.

[Powderman]

I must disagree--but only a little.

I have seen cops use Terry stops as fishing expeditions. However, I have also seen what happens when the results of the search get to court. I do not know your background or expertise--heck, you may be another cop or even an attorney--but bear with me.

You can't "frisk a bindle". This means that you can not seize, on a Terry stop, anything which is NOT a weapon--unless you can state emphatically that you KNEW it was contraband.

Example:

You call a person over. You demand to know what they're doing, and then tell them to assume the position. You pat them down, and you feel a mushy, oblong object. A-ha! you say, because you think based on your experience that the object is a bag of weed.

"What's in your pocket?"

"What am I being held for?"

"I said, what's in your pocket?"

"None of your business. You have no reason to search me, you have no reason to detain me."

"Ah-ha! A wiseguy. Trot out the ID, fella."

"I don't think so. You have no reason to hold me, and I will not show you my ID. Screw off, pig!"

You throw your hands into the pocket, and pull out a bag of weed. BINGO!

You arrest for VUCSA, Possession with intent to distribute, and Obstruction of a Police Officer.

Good bust, eh?

So, when you get to court, why does the judge throw is all out, set the man free, and why did your captain give you a look that could have melted iron, and told you to see him in his office ASAP?

It's called the "exclusionary rule". See Mapp v. Ohio.

The person was NOT detained for any type of illegal activity--or even the articulable suspicion of illegal activity. And yes, judges and defense attorneys love to ask these questions. Thus, everything you turned up in the "search" gets thrown out.

Now, since you have NO reason to have stopped the guy, you have detained the person unlawfully. Clear violations of the intent of the Fourth Amendment.

Can you say "Unlawful Imprisonment?"

If you want to have a good read, and learn more about the exclusionary rule, check out Mapp v. Ohio. Read about the antics of the Keystone Kops involved, and the Gestapo tactics used. I'll bet you will have your jaw hitting the floor by the end of the first few paragraphs.

[Gordon Fink]

The fact is that we live in a country where the police may stop you for driving five miles per hour over the speed limit on an empty street, having a burned-out taillight, or being in the wrong part of town. If you look clean-cut and don’t resemble the criminal type the cops are usually looking for, then maybe you’ll just be sent on your way.…

~G. Fink

[longrifleman]

longrifleman said, "Why SHOULD immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?"

00 Spy, I'm sorry, but your answer doesn't seem like much of an answer. Not so long ago it was illegal to harbor or assist run-away slaves. Should that law have been obeyed?

RileyMc's explanation of malum in se vs. malum probihitum is always a good place to start with this debate.

If were are talking scary attitudes the one that scares ME is the blind obedience to a law just because it is THE LAW. My reading of history tells me that that is the road to the gulag and mass graves. When (when, not if)evil people take over the making of the law what can we do to stop abuses if we all blindly follow without thinking?

Ultimately, we are all responsible for our choices whatever the law says.


I'm personally not too scary an individual. Mostly when people see me they just point their fingers and laugh.


I've also decided to take at least a week off from cop bashing.:neener:

[gryphon]

All I have to say is that if the Founding Fathers were here to see what we have let "the government" do to us, they'd have leg cramps from all the ass kicking.

[Bill St. Clair]

The person was NOT detained for any type of illegal activity--or even the articulable suspicion of illegal activity. And yes, judges and defense attorneys love to ask these questions. Thus, everything you turned up in the "search" gets thrown out.

Now, since you have NO reason to have stopped the guy, you have detained the person unlawfully. Clear violations of the intent of the Fourth Amendment.

Can you say "Unlawful Imprisonment?"
I'm glad to hear that the courts still work this way in at least some places. However, the arrested guy still had to spend a night in jail plus court time and likely money out of pocket for bail before he was released for this unlawful arrest. And for a "law", IMNSHO, with no Constitutional authority to exist.

Yes, I can say "Unlawful Imprisonment." Can you say "Kidnapping?" I consider that to be the proper indictment for an illegal arrest. Kidnapping is a capital offense...
If you want to have a good read, and learn more about the exclusionary rule, check out Mapp v. Ohio. Read about the antics of the Keystone Kops involved, and the Gestapo tactics used. I'll bet you will have your jaw hitting the floor by the end of the first few paragraphs.
I found lots of web sites about it. Looks like the Supreme Court eventually did the right thing. I didn't find anything about the aftermath, however. How many of the cops in question are still rotting in a jail cell? How many millions of dollars in damages did Ms. Mapp get from the state of Ohio for her trouble? How much of it came directly from the pockets of the offending officers?

[tyme]

Powderman, the exclusionary rule is irrelevant, because LEOs can conduct Terry stop&frisks for just about any reason at all. Even if you pay a good lawyer or you represent yourself and really know what you're doing, chances of getting a court to invalidate a terry frisk are remote.

From your example:
So, when you get to court, why does the judge throw is all out, set the man free, and why did your captain give you a look that could have melted iron, and told you to see him in his office ASAP?
Which is not what often happens. In the officer's experience as a cop, the suspect's bulge, mode of dress, etc. all led the LEO to believe that the bulge was a gun.

Suddenly, all the charges stick.

The only difference is what the officer remembers. If a cop says a bulge looked like a gun and there was a knife or even just some drugs instead, the search isn't questioned.

[Powderman]

Tyme, no flame intended--but I believe that you have a somewhat pessimistic attitude toward law enforcement. I'm not saying that you are a bad person--not at all. If I met you face to face, we'd probably be good shooting buddies, if not outright friends.

But, I must differ with you on some points--and yet, agree with others.

Yes, I will say that the court is more likely to side with the law enforcement officer--simply because of the "implied" integrity of the officer. And, that's where I have to differ with what I believe your opinion is.

You see, all of the cops I know--myself included--take our integrity WAY too seriously for that to ever come into question. I literally cannot count the times that I have bypassed what I KNEW was illegal activity--but could not articulate in a court of law.

Or, the times I drove right past crack dealers. Why? Standing on a corner in a group is NOT against the law. I have NO reasonable suspicion that they are breaking the law.

Even if I arrested the person before, I STILL would have no reasonable suspicion to frisk--or even to begin a Terry stop. And, you might ask, what is the threshold for a Terry stop?

It is when a reasonable person would believe that they are no longer free to leave.

How, you might ask, do I know that they're engaged in crime? I patrol a crime infested area--plus, I spent the first 18 years of my life in the inner city of Chicago. I know what drug dealers, prostitutes, rummies, drunks and thugs look like, and how they act.

But, can I articulate that? Can I prove that they are about to commit a crime--or maybe have committed a crime? At that point, no.

All I can do is to park the unit. Some of these folks know me by sight, and they know that it is somewhat of a chess game. I stop the car, and I talk to them. They know I don't have diddley.

They also know that as long as I am there, they will not do any business.

So, in a sense, there is some sense of enforcement. But, more importantly, I am following the letter of the law--I am not infringing on anyone's rights, under color of law. And, until a crime is committed, or I have PC that one is about to be committed or in progress, I will NOT violate the civil rights of any person, of any color, age, sex, orientation, or what have you.

To me, and the cops I hang out with and patrol with, there is no grey area. No acceptable exceptions. There is only black and white.

To me, if you enforce the law--but do not follow the letter of the law--you are no better than the people you arrest.

Again, no flame--but the vast majority of cops will NOT violate the civil rights of the people they contact. It's nothing personal--it's part of the job.

[dustind]

Good post Powderman. Edited To clarify: I agree with your stance on rights and the law being black and white.

FWIW I am of the opinion that anyone has the right to carry a weapon assuming it is for self defense, regardless of any laws.

[tyme]

But, can I articulate that? Can I prove that they are about to commit a crime--or maybe have committed a crime? At that point, no.
I've already ranted about PC and RS enough in other threads, but the above quoted passage dangerously misconstrues Reasonable Suspicion. Even if you know the difference (and it's obvious in the rest of the comments that you do), a comment like the one above confuses other people who may not completely understand it. It's not really your fault; the standards for RS and PC are poor descriptions of two levels of suspicion, and it's not your fault that they're so difficult to distinguish.

You're aware of MVPel's situation, right? That was not an isolated instance of a bad beat cop. It was a detective and several other cops, plus a dispatcher who thought nothing of sending the aforementioned cast of cops descending upon a law-abiding citizen based on a crackpot report that didn't allege any crime.

You can walk like a person, talk like a person, and behave like a person. Someone may still call 911 to report you. An assortment of cops may then arrive, steal your property, take you into custody on suspicion of being a duck, and release you after a lecture about how you should try harder to act like a human.

I don't take any offense at your comments, and I hope you don't take offense at mine. Just do a search for posts by sendec, liliysdad, feddc, or any of the other resident LEOs who don't support your philosophy about Terry stops at all. Their departments and peers don't seem to care, which leeds me to believe they're the same. Furthermore, unless you've changed jobs since you posted in another thread, you don't work in an urban police department. It was a thread about some people hanging out on the hood of a car, and being questioned by police. Sendec suggested that any cops unable to create reasonable suspicion out of any given situation shouldn't have a job. He's an admitted LEO.

Even if bad cops in cities were exceedingly rare, which unfortunately they are not, one bad cop is all I need to ruin my day. Every time I think about why I need a chl in order to carry a firearm, the answer is that there are bad cops who may search me without cause. If all cops were like you, I would have carried when I lived in San Francisco.

[Powderman]

Could not get to the thread--but, you're probably mentioning the fact that I am a Tribal cop. You are correct...

however, my jurisdiction includes about 1/4 of the City of Tacoma, WA, all of the City of Fife, WA, part of Milton and Edgewood, WA, out into Puget Sound (clams and fishing areas), back to the city limits of Puyallup, and some other areas. We are cross-commissioned by the City of Tacoma and Pierce County Sheriff's Dept. to enforce RCW, our Tribal Code, Tacoma's Uniform Court Docket and Pierce County Statutes.

On a normal patrol night, the only trees I see are made of concrete and steel.

[Sistema1927]

My state (New Mexico) just instituted CCW this year. During my CCW class, one of the instructors stated: "I have been carrying concealed, legally and illegally, for fifteen years."

I wasn't the only one in the class who was chuckling about this, except, in my case, it was closer to 25 years.

[sendec]

Tyme,

You have an uncanny knack for taking things completely out of context. Any attempt at a discussion is fruitless. I'll tell you what I've told others: go to school. Any cop who cannot tell the difference between lawful and unlawful activity should be out of a job. Any cop who observes illegal activity and cannot articulate probable cause should be out of a job.

"Admitted LEO" - what will you admit to? Thrill me with your knowledge. Impress me with the breadth of your experience. Astound me with your education and training. What bar are you a member of? How long have you been a cop? Where did you do your graduate study? Er, how many times have you been arrested? Your knowledge has to come from somewhere, or did it just emit from a sphincter?

By all means you are entitled to your opinion. People used to be of the opinion that the world was flat, too,

:rolleyes:

[Don Gwinn]

Sendec, Powderman was doing an admirable job of discussing the topic in polite and courteous fashion until that last post of yours. You might think about whether you want to undo that for the sake of insulting people.

The moment this thread goes (more) personal, I'm going to pull the plug and decide what to do with the individual offenders from there.

[sendec]

Huh?

What does what Powderman had to say have to do with what Tyme had to say?

"I don't take any offense at your comments, and I hope you don't take offense at mine. Just do a search for posts by sendec, liliysdad, feddc, or any of the other resident LEOs who don't support your philosophy about Terry stops at all. Their departments and peers don't seem to care, which leeds me to believe they're the same. Furthermore, unless you've changed jobs since you posted in another thread, you don't work in an urban police department. It was a thread about some people hanging out on the hood of a car, and being questioned by police. Sendec suggested that any cops unable to create reasonable suspicion out of any given situation shouldn't have a job. He's an admitted LEO."

Well, I take offense to this, and I'm the bad guy? Who is insulting whom here? I want him to support his assertion and state his qualifications. I want some evidence or facts. If he has free reign to cast aspersions just say so. Is this a level playing field or what? All in all, worthy of Alan Dershowitz.

[Powderman]

Even if bad cops in cities were exceedingly rare, which unfortunately they are not, one bad cop is all I need to ruin my day. Every time I think about why I need a chl in order to carry a firearm, the answer is that there are bad cops who may search me without cause. If all cops were like you, I would have carried when I lived in San Francisco.

And, therein lies the rub. Do you exercise the right--yes, the God-given, inalienable RIGHT of self defense? Or do you take your chances with being found out?

That's a serious catch-22. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

There is one thing in your favor, though. That is, that most cops will NOT hassle a citizen for no cause.

I am, however, familiar with the type you mention.

Once, I was in a two man car with another department (also Tribal, long since closed by the Tribal Council--but that's another thread). We saw a guy that had been in trouble with the law before. The other officer, who was driving, stopped the car.

"There's trouble, there." he said. "He needs a good rousting, he's overdue."

Problem was, this guy was doing my FTO.

He said, "Go on, let's see how you handle this guy."

I got out of the car, and approached the pedestrian, who had turned around and was watching me with a jaundiced eye. I started out with, "What's up? Haven't seen you in a while." He replied, "Well, I guess that I'm staying out of trouble."

We talked for a minute or so, with him visibly relaxing as time passed. Finally, he said, "Can I go now?" I replied, "Dude, you could have walked as soon as you saw me. You didn't even have to talk to me, I was just saying hello."

He gave a visible start at that. "What do you mean? You're a cop."

I replied with this: "Listen, guy, you do NOT have to stop just because I'm a cop. You have that right. If you don't want to talk to a cop, just tell them that. They had better leave you alone--unless they tell you that you are not free to leave. Then, you need to talk to them."

"But, what if I haven't done anything?" he asked. I said, "Do what the officers tell you. If you haven't done anything wrong--remember everything that goes on. Don't say a word--demand an attorney immediately. Make a mental note of everything that happens from the time you're stopped, until the time you are released. Then, call your attorney, and the Tribal Council."

He looked at me. "You're different. You're not out to make a name for yourself. You're a good guy."

I said, "I try to be. I'll see you later."

I caught hell from my FTO for not "rousting" the guy.

I also talked to the Sergeant about it. I was told not to worry, and that I did the right thing.

Ironically (or perhaps not) this same guy was fired later on for excessive use of force.

Yes, I swore an oath when I put on the badge.

I also swore an oath long before that, for the first time in 1977.

Both of them say, at some point or the other, "I, _________, do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States...

That includes the Amendments, too. :)

[tyme]

I wouldn't want to take your comments out of context, so I'll include here your entire first reply to 7.62mm's scenario. These are all quotes from another thread that I think has been vanished due to personal attacks.
(sevenpoint62mm) Last year I was sitting with my friends in the parking lot of an apartment where one of said friends lives. We were sitting on the hood of his car drinking sodas and cracking peanuts, talking about old times. This is about 2 am on a Saturday night (err Sunday morning) and its a fairly high crime area (Pleasant Grove for you Dallas folks). Anyway we're all late 20s but not the type you'd think are up to no good.

So along comes Johnny Law cruising the parking lot for car thefts and the like. We think nothing of it as they pass but strangely they turn around and come back. The cop in the passanger side hops out and she walks towards us
(sendec) Your lawyer'll love ya- Cha-ching!!! One PX x.25 billable hours, you just spent between 50 and $125, for which an honest lawyer would tell you: Dont screw with the cops - Hers is bigger than yours

You dont have a leg to stand, er, hood to sit on. Any cop who could'nt articulate reasonable suspicion in that scenario needs to be re-assigned to Emissions Enforcement.

I have fond memories of balmy summer nights in the projects, cruising thru the alleys while garbage bounced off the lightbar, the dulcent sound of gunfire echoing off the rubble, a suburban kid nervously trying to figure out how he can explain his dad's Saab getting stolen by a crackwhore, who you happen to know is really a dude because you've arrested him or her or it 3 times, this month......Yes, those were the days
I'm interested in the 2nd paragraph. If you can form reasonable suspicion there, why isn't there reasonable suspicion in the case of a well-dressed person walking in a suburban neighborhood at 2pm? Too late for lunch, too well dressed, odd mode of travel, etc. 2AM? Too late, too well dressed, odd mode of travel, etc.
(Powderman) sevenpoint62, the officers who stopped you did not have any reason to do so, based on what you have said. Of course, they might have still been in the "something to prove" stage. Still, they did NOT have a reason to stop you.

The statements by you and Powderman neatly bypass whether it was a Terry stop or not (which I doubt it was). Powderman said it couldn't legally have been one; you said it could have been.

All I meant by "admitted cop" is that you've stated you're a cop and nobody has reason to think you're not.

My qualifications? I have none. I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop. I'm a young techie who has gained an interest in politics through being roasted over a grill labelled, "From Washington, D.C. with Love."

[sendec]

"My qualifications? I have none. I'm neither a lawyer nor a cop."

Nuff said. You have firmly established your credibility.

[cropcirclewalker]

Don't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, or quack like a duck, and you won't be treated as a duck. So, I am just a dumb a$$ed citizen, but it appears to me that soon

the duck

will become a protected class.

:p

Aflack.

[cropcirclewalker]

I was a newbie and probably doing wrong by taking on the apologists for the police state. Now I see that big tyme posters like you are also getting jumped on too by them.

Yes, I was an innocent citizen who got hassled by the police state. Like you, I have no credentials. I am just an ordinary citizen and, yes, I was hazarded by the system. Mr. Sendec has excoriated me on occasion for relating the episode. He says I have an "Issue"

I have no record. I am not a gang banger. I am not a druggie. I am a common, ordinary citizen, a VN veteran who was jumped on by the "police state" who, because of the war on terror, (amongst other reasons) I armed myself in order to be assistance to the "civil authority".

When one is to talk about "Credibility", Mr. Sendec's is exceeded by (amongst others) zero.