A friend and I had legally carried firearms confiscated tonight

[brownie0486]

Oh ya, I get it, you telling me no one drinks in these establishments while armed?

Don't think so. So the point was?

The point is lead and barleycorn or moonshine [ from that area of the country ] have never mixed well. Strange law that allows such activities to even potentially occur given the long history of trouble when both are introduced into a scenario.

cropcirclewalker: Is it not my business and right to be concerned for mine and others well being and safety in the presence of firearms in public? You certainly would not take another citizens rights away from him or have him become complacent where POTENTIAL presents itself? You would not be saying that you don't care what "their" rights are and only are concerned for your own are you?

Brownie

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

cropcirclewalker: Is it not my business and right to be concerned for mine and others well being and safety in the presence of firearms in public? You certainly would not take another citizens rights away from him or have him become complacent where POTENTIAL presents itself? You would not be saying that you don't care what "their" rights are and only are concerned for your own are you?

Brownie

No one has the right never to be irrationally frightened by the legal conduct of others. If they did, we would all have to stay home for fear of frightening some mental case out there.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. 0486, if what you just said

is that the police should come down in favor of the incited person's right to be paranoid over my right to be free then you have just proven my point.

 

[Cacique500]

Oh ya, I get it, you telling me no one drinks in these establishments while armed?

Don't think so. So the point was?

I'm telling you *I* don't drink when carrying. That was my point.

The point is lead and barleycorn or moonshine [ from that area of the country ] have never mixed well. Strange law that allows such activities to even potentially occur given the long history of trouble when both are introduced into a scenario.

I agree they don't mix. And following your logic, nobody should be driving a car to these establishments as cars and alcohol don't mix either. Because we know everybody will drink themselves blind and drive home and kill somebody.

 

[Diggler]

Geez, this thread is like Lazarus...

Just let it die. This has gone on for several pages before being resurrected and nothing new's being said.

 

[JPL]

Diggler,

If that horse is dead, why is it bleeding?

 

[Diggler]

Ever hear about how some people could squeeze blood from a stone?

 

[sendec]

That's rich-

Gutless cops would rather deal with a gunslinger before a soccermom, oh the humanity....

Somebodies issues are showing.....

 

[fjolnirsson]

could arrest you for inciting the public by your actions.

yep.
Once upon a time, gays and lesbians couldn't openly display affection for the same reason.
I understand where you're coming from. However, people in this country have a tendency to gain rights and priveleges by making noise and being open, not by hiding.

As far as not carrying in an establishment which serves alcohol, does this mean I shouldn't carry if I'm going out for pizza? Just because a place serves beer, doesn't mean I have to drink it.

Oh ya, I get it, you telling me no one drinks in these establishments while armed?

Oh ya, I get it, you're telling me none of these ccw holders go off the deep end and commit crimes while armed?
See, it works either way. Both arguements are pointless with regard to the discussion at hand.
So, per Virginia law, I have to carry openly in an establishment which serves alcohol. You seem to dislike the idea of firearms in such an establishment. (I may be wrong). By this train of thought, if I take my wife to a restaurant for a nice dinner(a place which typically serves wine, etc), I should leave my pistol in the car or at home, and risk assault or worse merely because I desire a nice meal out?

Myself, I would much rather carry concealed, for many reasons. I do not buy into the arguments against it. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. If it's legal, it's legal. I sometimes walk my dog in the neighborhood. She weighs 120lbs. I have never been stopped and hassled due to someones fear of large dogs walked openly. But according to the reasoning of some here, I should expect it.
It doesn't wash, guys.
All due respect. Don't buy into the mindset pushed by Feinstein, Sarah and the million(minus 198,000) mommies. When we fear the reaction of police to legal activities, when we fail to exercise our rights due to that fear, when we censor our activities to avoid undue attention from authority, we are living in a police state.

 

[JPL]

Somehow I find the concept that one can be successfully charged and prosecuted for "inciting the public" while conducting an activity that is by statute legal to be a real stretch.

 

[Waitone]

Somehow I find the concept that one can be successfully charged and prosecuted for "inciting the public" while conducting an activity that is by statute legal to be a real stretch.

Read and attempt to rationally understand North Carolina's open carry law.

 

[brownie0486]

cropcirclewalker:

Police don't come down in favor of anyone objectively, they enforce statutes. The courts come down in ones favor or disfavor, thats their mandate, not the cops.

JPL: You can legally be armed openly and create/cause someone else to fear your actions [ not the act of carrying in and of itself, but some other action while carrying correct ? ]. It's not a blanket statement but you would have to agree there are times when one carryng a firearm could also, by his actions, be putting others in fear for their safety.

And it still goes back to the responsibilty of the police to respond to complaints from the citizenry relative your actions in public, determine if there has been a violation of statute of some kind and then either leave without charges filed or hook someone up.

fjolnirsson: I have no problem with carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol as long as you are not drinking while carrying, the two actions do not mix and are a recipe for eventual trouble somewhere along the line which will involve a firearm, which the media will pounce on aggresively.

In the state I'm in, it's illegal to carry concealed in a bar, a restaurant is not considered a bar here. We have ccw permits, no open carry here. I think the law keeps people from drinking while armed, a good thing in my estimation.

You don't need to fear the reactions of the police, they are only responding to a citizens concern for whatever reason, and there's the point I'll make again. Sheeple will cause you to have to interact with the responding police officers more often than necessary when you carry openly in an urban setting. Whether that is the way it should be, whether you like it or not, whether it is justified or not is of little consequence. The fact remains you stand the chance of being questioned by responding officers.

I have better things to do than be detained and questioned about who I am, where I'm from, what I'm doing, etc., hence, carrying concealed works for me, no one is the wiser, no one is calling the police on me as their fears are heightened by seeing one with a firearm, etc, etc.

sendec: I submit the cops who deal with an armed citizenry over the soccer mom are not gutless [ as you so eloquently described them ]. If they were gutless they would deal with the soccer mom, less chance of having to deal with a firearm don't cha know?

Cacique500: Glad to hear you don't drink while packing. Others of course do, so allowing a firearm to be possessed where alcohol [ a bar, not restaurant ] is served seems a little bit risky in the overall picture to me. Inviting disasters is never a good thing.

As to driving to or from a bar and drinking in between, we have laws on the books about that behaviour already. We see how drinkers who operate MV's after the fact fair on the roads everyday don't we? And you don't have to drink yourself blind to be impaired and cause accidents of varying degrees of injury while operating a MV on public ways as you suggest.

If you allow the public to see you armed, it's a fact you will likely cause another distress by that act. Learn to live with it, don't get your panties in a bunch when officers are summoned by them for reasons that may be reasonable to them and not yourself. You know you, they don't. Keep that in mind.

Brownie

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And it still goes back to the responsibilty of the police to respond to complaints from the citizenry relative your actions in public, determine if there has been a violation of statute of some kind and then either leave without charges filed or hook someone up.

Brownie, when a cop gets such a complaint they need to be trained to deal with it in exactly the same way they would deal with the following complaint: "Yes, hello, is this the police? There is a man standing at the bus stop, waiting for a bus, and he's carrying a briefcase. Yes, you heard me right, a briefcase. Now someone needs to come down here and deal with this before it gets out of hand." Now, I ask you, Brownie, how would you (assuming you are a dispatcher) handle this call? How would you, as a cop, handle this situation if a dispatcher sent you on this call? In the latter case, wouldn't you first approach the person who called and try to find out if she is aware that carrying a briefcase on a bus is a legal activity? Find out if she is off her rocker? Find out if there was something particular about the briefcase that made her concerned, before you bother a citizen who has been reported to be engaging in a perfectly legal activity? Or would you first approach the citizen with the briefcase with a command and control attitude and posture, and start asking questions about why he's carrying a briefcase on the bus? Does he have explosives in the briefcase? Where is he going with that briefcase? How would you handle this call, officer?

 

[brownie0486]

The Real Hawkeye:

Bad example in my opinion as the briefcase is not considered a deadly weapon readily capable of all that goes with the "weapon" and not some other inanimate object not classified as such by statute or society.

Response to calls about guns, knives, other lethal weapons will certainly be different than than call responses for a briefcase carrier [ if that is the only complaint about possession in public ]. Not many people have been killed with a briefcase, nor is there a prior history of briefcases being readily capable of killing people. They are not seen as a weapon, are not restricted, etc, etc.

Police do have the obligation/responsibility to respond if dispatched. Some will use better judgement than others, subject to human frailty like all of us who carries the baggage of personal prejudices. Fact of life and we will have to deal with it.

Lets replace the briefcase with an openly carried firearm on his belt, waiting for the bus. Call comes in that a man is carrying a gun on his belt, the caller is concerned about this [ and is unaware that open carry is lawful in that jurisdiction ].

The dispatcher, knowing that open carry is permitted would likely ask the caller what he is/was doing while waiting for the bus that prompted the call. If the caller said he has a gun with no other extenuating circumstances or actions other than the posession of the firearm, the dispatcher would likely inform the caller that the open carry of firearms is lawful and he is not breaking the law simply by his possessing it in public. End of call, no dispatch to the scene.

Take the same scenario, caller says but the open carrier is arguing with another patron of the bus at the stop and she is in fear something will happen. Dispatcher will send a cruiser to investigate, maybe two cruisers dependant on their particular setup on the dept and their policies and procedures.

In both scenarios, the open carrier has not done anything wrong. In the first instance, there is no potential overt danger to society as a whole and the bus passengers specifically.

In the second scenario, there could be a chargeable offense when the officers arrive [ maybe intimidating another person by arguing with another while showing they are armed ], or maybe the officers get there, the two parties are no longer having a heated discussion and all seems tranquil so they leave.

When I worked in the capacity of LE on the streets, I approached any call possibly involving a weapon as one of grave potential danger. I want to err on the side of caution here, not be brainfading and not paying attention to the smallest details. My awareness will be heightened when responding.

You may not be doing anything wrong, yet I was called to the scene and have an obligation to determine the facts relevant to the original call. I'll make a determination based on a field inquiry and your answers to the complaint that was received at the station. Thats the job, I'll be polite, but cautious, I don't know you. Others may not approach you in that manner when arriving and may just have an attitude to begin with for whatever reason.

All the more reason to carry hidden from view if lawful to do so, it alleviates all these what if's.

Brownie

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Hawkeye, there you have it

the people (police included) have been so conditioned to get all "Incited" when they see a common citizen lawfully carrying a shootin' iron.

They would not be calling in the police if the citizen was carrying a chain saw or a coil of chain, but yes, the evil gun!

We have been further conditioned to somehow believe that it's different when the carrying guy is wearing a blue suit with a badge or even a simple tee shirt that says "BRINKS"

No, no criminal is going to open carry. Only law abiding, informed, citizens with the strength of character and firmly rooted beliefs about his liberty.

Somehow, the sheeple (as Mr. Brownie called them) need to be un-conditioned. We don't have the problem down here in the woods where it's legal, but if I lived in the big city, I might give up golf and take up open carrying in public.

Maybe a good constructive hobby. Like golf, rules that help you improve your game.

1) When talking to a sheeple or police, keep your hands on your head.
2) Smile and don't look them in the eye.
2a) Whistle a happy tune.
3) Don't make any sudden moves.
4) Amateurs are permitted to wear a Brinks shirt and handcuff a briefcase to their weak side arm.
5) Only serious, innoculated semi-pros allowed to "Mexican Carry".

 

[Shovelhead]

All that sounds well & good, except in REAL life, (like the example that started this discussion), the dispatcher either FAILED to inform the shrieking Soccer-Mom that open carry IS legal in the state of Virginia, or possibly sensing that no officer would be sent the shrieker might have "exaggerated" the circumstances to ensure a higher priority, and caused several of Fairfax's finest to be dispatched to "investigate".

Ed

 

[brownie0486]

cropcirclewalker stated:"the people (police included) have been so conditioned to get all "Incited" when they see a common citizen lawfully carrying a shootin' iron."

Yes, thats correct, but it is not a recent history thing, as Wyatt Earp had citizens turning in their guns at the city limit to the marshal and not carrying in within the city limits back in the 1800's, remember? Seems there has always been people who would rather not see "shootin irons" strapped to waists in public. It's not a current events issue. It's history, learn to deal with it if you carry openly, as has been reiterated numerous times here.

"We have been further conditioned to somehow believe that it's different when the carrying guy is wearing a blue suit with a badge or even a simple tee shirt that says "BRINKS""

Who are you referring to when you say "we have been further conditioned"?

It's a normal reaction/observation with the general populace that cops and armed security are and will be armed in public, will be seen armed, and have a perceived need to be armed [ wearing a blue suit with a badge or even a simple tee shirt that says "BRINKS".

Not quite the same mindset has ever really followed for the average citizen who are sheeple and do not understand the nuances or theories as to why one would want to carry in the first place, let alone in public.

"Somehow, the sheeple (as Mr. Brownie called them) need to be un-conditioned. "

Thats going to take a long time in an overpopulated crime ridden urban setting thats out of control like major cities are experiencing in todays society. Not something I'd count on anytime soon if I were you.

And of course we are back to the same old same old. If you are going to stick your right to carry openly in peoples faces who are sheeple and they do not have the expectation of your "need" such a cop or armed security guard would have, you are probably going to be approached by an officer at one time or another based on personal fears from others who make up the citizenry of the community.

"They would not be calling in the police if the citizen was carrying a chain saw".

I wouldn't count on that in the urban jungles of the major cities. I'm pretty sure someone may question the act of carrying a chainsaw around the inner cities when there are no trees to cut down.

Raise peoples suspicions based on your open action in public and you will probably get called on it one day.

"I might give up golf and take up open carrying in public."

Yes, please do, and let us know exactly how it turns out. I'm sure it would generate another thread at least as long as this one after you have been questioned for your actions as well.

Brownie

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Brownie, when you said:

"I might give up golf and take up open carrying in public."

Yes, please do, and let us know exactly how it turns out. I'm sure it would generate another thread at least as long as this one after you have been questioned for your actions as well.

I should reply, "Been there, Done that"

Ask Mr. Sendec if he thinks I should turn on the tape machine.

 

[brownie0486]

cropcirclewalker:

Your perception of LE's has become your reality, unfortunately your signature line betrays those prejudices and so your comments should be taken as subjective in nature where objectivity is warranted by those with an open mind.

You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. Just a fact of life you'll have to get used to.

Perhaps you'll need to walk a mile or two in their shoes before you can realistically understand what their main purpose/function is in society. Then again, your expressed prejudices may still be a barrier you'll not be able to hurdle to see the bigger picture.


Brownie

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Are you the Brownie that's also on the 1911forum? Used to be some kind of spook, or something?

 

[Edward429451]

Still debating I see...

All because you chose to excise your right to open carry to the fullest extent of the law in lieu of carrying it concealed to begin with.

You say that like its a bad thing Brownie. In fact, your hypothetical situation paints us law abiding open carriers with a stupid brush. Who in their right mind would grin at patrons while checking their holster snap? Thats small ego gangsta crap, not lawful citizens.

Emphatically adamantly defiant to officers while armed? Come on. You obviously deal with gangstas so much that you (sub consciously?) paint us with the same stupid brush as you see everyday in criminally minded people. Lets not blanket us in with the criminals, eh? Be fair & impartial.

As Edward429451 stated, if you carry openly in an urban environ, you can expect to incite certain people by your actions. That will probably be followed by a response from the boys in blue [ or grey dependant on your locale ].

Lets not put words in my mouth either. I said you can expect to be hassled. The way you twisted it you make it sound like I said it'd be our fault that someone sheepishly paniced at the sight of a gun. A phobia on their part does not an obligation on my part make. Out of consideration and realization that some people may panic unnecessarily I make it a point to be disinterested in patrons while open carrying. Commen sense and regard for my fellow citizenry.

It's not about showing off to the world. It's not an ego thing. t's not a its my right and all sheeple can go to hell thing. (How small of you to paint us with that brush, sir) It's a necessity, a conveinance and a right protected by statute. It can be a political statement.

Truth be known I only open carry when I feel I have to. Like not wanting to leave the weapon unsecured in the vehicle and its too hot for a jacket. The actions of a reasonable man attempting to do the prudent thing should not be a chargable offense. Let the reporting caller be reassured by the officer or charged with a misdemeanor public alarmist.

The responding officer will be looking for a reason to charge (me) you, a raised voice, a demanding statement, etc., so I speak in soft even tones, cooperate, movements to a minimum. That's all you can do at that point. Then watch and listen for the officer to make a mistake and overstep his bounds which can be pursued later to his detriment.

WADR.

 

[brownie0486]

Edward429451: It's not a bad thing, in fact I stated that I support the right for you to do so.

Speaking from the experience on the depts, even lawfully concealed carriers here are sometimes yahoos and have their permits yanked. I know of two officers that that has happened to personally, both involved alcohol as well.

We responded to various calls of a man brandishing a gun and threatening people, and at times just plain brain faders who were carrying. There are always those citizens who will be boneheads in my opinion at some time while carrying. Unless the citizens are not prone to such disorder in other areas, I can only surmise the officers there get there fair share of people making others nervous as well.

From those experiences, some LE responding may not have the best judgement to always maintain an objective view when they role up. Emphatically defiant when they role up? I've seen that, I'm betting other officers have there as well. I wouldn't expect you or other posters who are responsible ad know what you are doing and how to defuse if something occurs, yet there will be those who are not so bright as well at times.

A lot depends on the officers demeanor in general, obviously some are anti gun and if one fo those types arrrives on a complaint I'm sure rights would be pushed to the limits at times. I'm sure you know from previous posts I'm no longer a badge carrier, and have always supported the RKBA of everyone.
Carry myself almost everyday, feel the same way as others here.

If I had the choice of open carry and could still conceal, I would prefer to conceal. Thats just my nature and I feel it is prudent to not let others know unnecessarily I'm armed. I hear others, whether they are being facitious or serious, I'm not sure stating they would go test the system on purpose, I think that reasoning for open carrying leaves a lot to be desired personally.

There could be many reasons to want to carry openly but the antagonistic attitude toward complacentness for the noncarriers if they don't like it from some here, though expressed in words here and may not occur on the streets when it happens, is also something that could lead one day to problems.

No more or less, if you do carry openly, and you give good reasons [ not leaving the gun unattended in the car, etc ] you may get hasstled at some time. If one does not expect to be possibly detained at some point and questioned while open carrying, it may be unrealistic.

The cops are not perfect, neither are the rest of the people who carry a gun. That alone should be an indication that something could transpire thats unpleasant for everyone.

The Real Hawkeye: At one time I was fortunate to have been trained by and to have worked with people in that profession, then retired. It's on the bio at the website, why?

Brownie

 

[Shovelhead]

Brownie,
I wonder how many of these 911 calls/responses occur because the masses mistakenly call sight of a weapon "Brandishing"?

Ed

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The Real Hawkeye: At one time I was fortunate to have been trained by and to have worked with people in that profession, then retired. It's on the bio at the website, why?

Because, if you are the same Brownie, you and I used to agree with each other (against the popular tide) on the Tactical and Self Defense section of 1911forum. I guess we agree on tactics but disagree on politics. Remember the one about standing your ground and drawing your weapon vs running for cover?

 

[brownie0486]

Yes, I remember that thread. We were quite unpopular with the majority consensus. It happens.

Everyone has to make their own decisions, as a non-leo now, I'm in the same boat as all those in that category. I get paranoid about officers potential actions/reactions at times, thats why I choose to keep the low profile and use discretion when it's available to me. I know full well how easy it is to run afoul with the LE's at times from both sides.

I'd rather be obscure in public, with whats going on in this country now after 9-11 and everyones senses being heightened and encouraged by the locals to report suspicious behaviour, I believe it is prudent for me to do so fully realizing each has to make their own decisions however.

The less contact I have with LE now, the better I like it. I was actually profiled at the train station and questioned a few weeks ago while passing through the terminal. Two officers approached me and stated they were doing random field inquiries and they'd like to aks me some questions.

They proceeded to ask some pertinent questions and then revisited them [ must be part of their homeland training ] later to look for discrepencies. I laughed and one of them asked me what was so funny. I told him I taught interview and interrogation techniques to LE's and insurance adjusters 25 years ago and they were bringing back old memories not visited in years by their tactics.

They wished me a safe trip and I boogied to the train. Could have shown them the creds, but as stated above, the less LE knows about me unless they have to [ push comes to shove ] the better I like it.

Stay sharp, catch you on the 1911.

Brownie