Open carrying Police Chief in Uniform Told to Leave Gun Outside Ikea

[Apachedriver]

There are many government perks and considerations, though whether the fact that a bank can't foreclose on a service member's house using the same rules they would follow for her non-.mil neighbor's (and that is just one example amongst many mostly state and local rules) is a "special right" could be debated.

Okay, this shows that my initial thought was correct regarding your understanding of how various rules, regulations, and laws apply to military members. It also brings up an apparent unfamiliarity with why they apply the way they do in various circumstances.

Many of the rules, regulations, and laws you refer to exist for the protection of service members (financial, legal, etc) in specific circumstances due to the hazards of deployments, NG and Reserves especially. Even then, there are many times when the courts must be involved to provide/decide on resolution. Others exist to allow service members the tools to do their jobs. A soldier walking the street is bound by the same Federal, State, and local laws as any other citizen unless he is acting in an official capacity.

It appears there is a good probability that the rest of what you perceive to be "special rights" for military members is simply appreciation from fellow citizens and businesses, none of which corrupts or interferes with military duties. The potential can only exist when soldiers start to patrol and exercise police powers. That is a whole other situation and it isn't commonplace in CONUS.

 

[Ed Ames]

Did you read the link? No, of course not, or you wouldn't have posted again.

I went over that long ago when I bought my auto knives.

Did you read the whole law, not just the part you quoted? No, of course not, or you wouldn't have posted in the first place.

I have read the law, and various state laws. The difference between us is that I understand what I have read.

This is getting silly.

Hint: Read section 1244 this time.
...

You mean the section I have quoted from several times so far? Including in the very post you are replying to? Yes, this is silly.

You don't understand what the law says, nor what I have said.

Let's try this again: Can I go to California and legally buy a Benchmade 5000? Yes or no.
Can a LEO in California legally buy a Benchmade 5000? Yes or no?
Can an army cook, on active duty, legally carry a Benchmade 5000 in Puerto Rico? Yes or no.
Can a McDonalds cook, on active duty, legally carry a Benchmade 5000 in Puerto Rico? Yes or no.

If you understand the laws you can answer those questions easily, and you will find the answers consistent with everything I have been saying in this thread.

If you can't answer them correctly...well that is probably a barrier to further communication.

 

[Ed Ames]

Okay, this shows that my initial thought was correct regarding your understanding of how various rules, regulations, and laws apply to military members. It also brings up an apparent unfamiliarity with why they apply the way they do in various circumstances.

Many of the rules, regulations, and laws you refer to exist for the protection of service members (financial, legal, etc) in specific circumstances due to the hazards of deployments, NG and Reserves especially. Even then, there are many times when the courts must be involved to provide/decide on resolution.

It isn't a lack of familiarity. The reality is that many people face challenges of that sort due to their career choices. Many people find themselves in different countries, or with sudden demands placed on them. The difference is that when I am called to spend 6 months in another country, supporting two households, dealing with everything remotely, I don't get special protections.

Others exist to allow service members the tools to do their jobs. A soldier walking the street is bound by the same Federal, State, and local laws as any other citizen unless he is acting in an official capacity.

And this is another area of understanding but disagreement. Of course they are so people can do their jobs. The difference is that when I do exactly the same job I am not allowed the same tools. That is, to me, proof that the restrictions are flawed. If restrictions are only sustainable because of carve-outs for "special" users, I say the restrictions are bad...and the carve-out itself is bad because it creates a double standard, which is something humans are very sensitive to and almost universally perceive as injustice.

It appears there is a good probability that the rest of what you perceive to be "special rights" for military members is simply appreciation from fellow citizens and businesses, none of which corrupts or interferes with military duties. The potential can only exist when soldiers start to patrol and exercise police powers. That is a whole other situation and it isn't commonplace in CONUS.

It may appear to you, and I can't control how you perceive it, but your perceptions so far have been wrong. You have missed my core premises in saying what I said, and assumed that I haven't thought about the subject...probably because that is more comfortable than accepting that I understand the rules and disagree with them.

Many people can't handle the idea of honest disagreement and assume anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand. You appear to be doing exactly that. Am I wrong?

 

[tuna]

My dream is to open my own gunstore. I plan on posting it "No Open Carry". Since OC is "legal" in Mass, but is known to be asking for trouble by the police it is considered not smart. Therefore, my sign will only really apply to those above the law - the police.

Without a warrant, you're not welcome with your guns. You can make up your own laws outside my store - inside my store, you'll follow the same "unwritten laws" as the rest of us peasants, or you're trespassing.

 

[zxcvbob]

My dream is to open my own gunstore. I plan on posting it "No Open Carry". Since OC is "legal" in Mass, but is known to be asking for trouble by the police it is considered not smart. Therefore, my sign will only really apply to those above the law - the police.

Without a warrant, you're not welcome with your guns. You can make up your own laws outside my store - inside my store, you'll follow the same "unwritten laws" as the rest of us peasants, or you're trespassing.

"Nice gun store you here, Mr Tuna. Be a shame if it burnt down..."

Either that, or they will plant drugs or child pornography in your office and then find it due to an anonymous tip.

 

[Apachedriver]

It isn't a lack of familiarity. The reality is that many people face challenges of that sort due to their career choices. Many people find themselves in different countries, or with sudden demands placed on them. The difference is that when I am called to spend 6 months in another country, supporting two households, dealing with everything remotely, I don't get special protections.



And this is another area of understanding but disagreement. Of course they are so people can do their jobs. The difference is that when I do exactly the same job I am not allowed the same tools. That is, to me, proof that the restrictions are flawed. If restrictions are only sustainable because of carve-outs for "special" users, I say the restrictions are bad...and the carve-out itself is bad because it creates a double standard, which is something humans are very sensitive to and almost universally perceive as injustice.



It may appear to you, and I can't control how you perceive it, but your perceptions so far have been wrong. You have missed my core premises in saying what I said, and assumed that I haven't thought about the subject...probably because that is more comfortable than accepting that I understand the rules and disagree with them.

Many people can't handle the idea of honest disagreement and assume anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand. You appear to be doing exactly that. Am I wrong?

Actually, I can handle honest disagreement just fine. That's why I thought this discussion was worth having in the first place. If I wanted to be "more comfortable", I wouldn't have taken the time to discuss the topic with you.

My initial perception was that you had some valid points. Then the military comments came up and I perceived that you didn't have all of the facts. It wasn't that you hadn't "thought about the subject". Since then, my perception is now that your discussion has become more about negating the differences/demands between requirements for official military/civil service duties(specifically those jobs that protect the rest of the population) and other careers/jobs. I choose not to go deeper into that comment/discussion.

On the basis of unofficial capacity vs average citizen, I believe we should all be subject to the same rules barring extenuating circumstances for either one.

For now, I bow out. We've come to an impasse due to perceptions of each other instead of due to honest discussion.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Ed Ames]

Actually, I can handle honest disagreement just fine. That's why I thought this discussion was worth having in the first place. If I wanted to be "more comfortable", I wouldn't have taken the time to discuss the topic with you.

My initial perception was that you had some valid points. Then the military comments came up and I perceived that you didn't have all of the facts. It wasn't that you hadn't "thought about the subject". Since then, my perception is now that your discussion has become more about negating the differences/demands between requirements for official military/civil service duties(specifically those jobs that protect the rest of the population) and other careers/jobs. I choose not to go deeper into that comment/discussion.

On the basis of unofficial capacity vs average citizen, I believe we should all be subject to the same rules barring extenuating circumstances for either one.

For now, I bow out. We've come to an impasse due to perceptions of each other instead of due to honest discussion.

Thanks for your time.

Fair enough.

I am not interested in "negating differences" but I will use that as an example of why I think "necessary specific accommodation" in law is bad policy.

To you, the fact that foreclosure law is different for active duty military (and many similar differences) is a necessary accommodation to a special circumstance of military service. To me, I see it as a reasonable accommodation to people who are compelled by circumstances to be far from home...a condition which is not exclusive to active duty military personnel. I think it is fair to give that concession to everyone in those circumstances. This doesn't negate differences in any sense, it recognizes legitimate problems and addresses them uniformly.

I think it is bad policy to give the concession only to some of the people in that circumstance. Why should a security contractor guarding an embassy half way around the world be treated differently than the marines who also guard that same embassy? Aren't both serving the public good, even if one is a private sector employee?

Why is it bad policy? Because it creates a perception of injustice and unequal treatment, which leads to ill will and a breakdown in social cohesion. It is bad society. It is also bad because it adds complexity to the rules, raising the likelihood that they will be applied incorrect. Soldiers will be treated as civilians at times due to oversights.

I am not trying to take anything away from you. Just the opposite actually.

 

[Robert]

We have 5 pages of pretty much the same thing with a fair amount of off topic banter about this or that policy. Let's call then one done.