BluesBear
member
As evidenced by the ACLU.
Armed Biker at the Carnival!!!
- Thread starter Joe Demko
- Start date
- Status
As evidenced by the ACLU.
cracked butt
Member
What is the cop's job? To carry a gun or to uphold the law?
Sounds like he was doing one, but not the other.
I'll concede that the biker may have been looking for attention, ,but what is the point of a law allowing open carry if law enforcement is going to harass citizens lawfully carrying at every corner?
Sounds like he was doing one, but not the other.
I'll concede that the biker may have been looking for attention, ,but what is the point of a law allowing open carry if law enforcement is going to harass citizens lawfully carrying at every corner?
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Bluesbear, sir, you're going to want to calm down.
And just so we're clear, nobody, anywhere, ever, has a "right to feel" any God-blessed thing at all! Ever. None. A right to a feeling could never be enforced. People, even people at a carnival, do not have a right not to be afraid. They have an obligation to themselves to understand what is and is not a valid reason for fear. A peaceful person who doesn't look like them and goes armed is not a valid reason to be afraid.
Does an agoraphobic person have a right not to be afraid, too.
Next, it may irritate you, but the question of why a policeman with a gun on his hip feels justified in telling a citizen (Even a citizen with a valid permit!) not to wear a gun on his hip should be allowed to carry his gun is a valid one. A policeman is not an Optiman. Yes, carrying gun is part of his job. So, often, is driving an interceptor with "cop brakes, cop suspension, and a cop engine." Does that mean the local sherriff has the right to forbid me to put a warmed-over 383 in my wife's Camaro? After all, I probably don't need the power, and if I think I do need it, he can always detail a deputy to drive me somewhere.
Finally, all the arguments about "situational awareness" and "identifiying bad guys" went out the window when the guy told the sherriff about his permit. A person with a concealed carry permit is literally a card-carrying member of a select group of law-abiding citizens. If the sherriff had really thought the guy was a threat, he'd have checked the permit. He didn't care.
Y'know, my son picked on a younger boy today. Before the end of the day, the victim screwed up his courage, walked up to my son, and popped him in the nose. I hope my son learned the lesson in that.
Bullies get hurt. Sometimes they even lose elections.
And just so we're clear, nobody, anywhere, ever, has a "right to feel" any God-blessed thing at all! Ever. None. A right to a feeling could never be enforced. People, even people at a carnival, do not have a right not to be afraid. They have an obligation to themselves to understand what is and is not a valid reason for fear. A peaceful person who doesn't look like them and goes armed is not a valid reason to be afraid.
Does an agoraphobic person have a right not to be afraid, too.
Next, it may irritate you, but the question of why a policeman with a gun on his hip feels justified in telling a citizen (Even a citizen with a valid permit!) not to wear a gun on his hip should be allowed to carry his gun is a valid one. A policeman is not an Optiman. Yes, carrying gun is part of his job. So, often, is driving an interceptor with "cop brakes, cop suspension, and a cop engine." Does that mean the local sherriff has the right to forbid me to put a warmed-over 383 in my wife's Camaro? After all, I probably don't need the power, and if I think I do need it, he can always detail a deputy to drive me somewhere.
Finally, all the arguments about "situational awareness" and "identifiying bad guys" went out the window when the guy told the sherriff about his permit. A person with a concealed carry permit is literally a card-carrying member of a select group of law-abiding citizens. If the sherriff had really thought the guy was a threat, he'd have checked the permit. He didn't care.
Y'know, my son picked on a younger boy today. Before the end of the day, the victim screwed up his courage, walked up to my son, and popped him in the nose. I hope my son learned the lesson in that.
Bullies get hurt. Sometimes they even lose elections.
BluesBear
member
An abnormal fear of public places is caused by internal stimuli not external, such as in this case. In fact it could be argued that agoraphobia, as with most phobias, is an unreasonable reaction to normal everyday occurances. The mere fact that it doesn't happen to "normal, everyday" people is what makes it an anomaly. I think any fear in this instance could be considered "normal" due to it's propensity to affect so many people.
No but there might be an ordinance requiring you to swap the Chevy tranny for a Mopar.
Yep, Sean Penn and Diane Feinstein are members of a select group all right.
Don't forget that inalienable rights are accompanied by inescapable responsibilities.
12-34hom
Member
Optical conclusion?
Rock Jocks solution to this incident, looks to be a solution that all could have lived with... maybe??
12-34hom.
Rock Jocks solution to this incident, looks to be a solution that all could have lived with... maybe??
12-34hom.
BluesBear
member
12-34hom,
I whole-heartedly agree that rock jock had a good handle on it. That would have been a great way to handle it, IF the fellow had been amicable.
Unfortunately, even though we know the words used in the exchange, we don't know the tone of voice used.
I whole-heartedly agree that rock jock had a good handle on it. That would have been a great way to handle it, IF the fellow had been amicable.
Unfortunately, even though we know the words used in the exchange, we don't know the tone of voice used.
Keith
Member
Let's change the parameters.
It's 1955 in a small town in Mississippi and a black man (unarmed) walks into a traditionally white town fair.
The cop stops him and the same conversation ensues, ie: He doesn't care if the black man has the "right" to walk down the street because exercising his rights will make the other people "uncomfortable" or even "frightened".
Anybody want to defend that cops position?
Keith
It's 1955 in a small town in Mississippi and a black man (unarmed) walks into a traditionally white town fair.
The cop stops him and the same conversation ensues, ie: He doesn't care if the black man has the "right" to walk down the street because exercising his rights will make the other people "uncomfortable" or even "frightened".
Anybody want to defend that cops position?
Keith
71Commander
Member
Keith
IMHO I don't think your comparison is going to work out here.
In the 1955 scenario, the lone (black) man would be fearful for his life from the masses. In the real life scenario the masses, being from a small town, would be fearful of their lives from the mean ole' biker, thug, drug addict, hoodlum type person.
IMHO I don't think your comparison is going to work out here.
In the 1955 scenario, the lone (black) man would be fearful for his life from the masses. In the real life scenario the masses, being from a small town, would be fearful of their lives from the mean ole' biker, thug, drug addict, hoodlum type person.
Keith
Member
It doesn't matter. For our purposes we'll just assume the man is particularly brave or foolhardy.
The important thing is whether the cop is right for putting the "feelings" of others over the civil rights of the man in question.
Keith
The important thing is whether the cop is right for putting the "feelings" of others over the civil rights of the man in question.
Keith
71Commander
Member
It's a tough one. I don't know.
For the greated good just doesn't cut it. So I would say that the man's civil rights should be upheld, and any disturbances resulting from his presence should be dealt with as they arrise.
For the greated good just doesn't cut it. So I would say that the man's civil rights should be upheld, and any disturbances resulting from his presence should be dealt with as they arrise.
hd1.
Member
On the street, the cop is always "right". If the incident winds up in front of a judge, the cop may be found to be "not right". You have to decide if its worth your time and effort to fight. There are times to walk away, and times to "draw the line". You sometimes get to choose.
How manny of you would / do carry without a shirt and with a vest and a shoulder holster? COME ON!!! I wouldn't do it even if I wasn't as "chubby" as I am now. And I am pretty clean cut. I live in Pa. and have never heard of "open" carry unless hunting. I am sure that if I had the same clothing and weapon set up that I would be questioned by some authority. His form of carry seems inappropriate to me. I have a ccw and carry dicreetly. I am not an attention seeker or a sudo-intimidater. This guy was wrong. If he had a ccw the weapon should have been conceiled and the sherif should have checked it and avoided the rest of the bullcrap. It is not about the way that the guy was dressed. And another thing what is with the Anti- cop crap here???? I don't like the way that the sherif handled the whole deal but ifeel a sense of anti-LEO's here am I right?
grampster
Member
Boy it's fun coming in on the tail end of a good discussion. You get a chance to see the problem bit off, roiled up, chawed on, and spat out. After reading everything as a firm believer in the BOR, a firearm enthusiast, duly licensed to CCW, former LEO, lover of carnivals and Harley Davidsons (I had one years ago, mention getting one again, get "that look" from wife, go back to doing what I was before inviting "that look") and being old enough to know that clothes do not make the man, here's my .02 cents.
Blues Bear pretty much hit the nail on the head despite all the variations on just about every theme. The whole episode is about common sense, period. At the end of the day, the sheriff was exercising the bluff bravado that the badge gives one, from time to time. Probably for the benefit of the two small time leo's. Don't make him a threat to the constitution, just a dumb, self serving move on his part. Have seen it happen in the job mor than once. He might have even regreted it later, who knows. No common sense. The biker was pushing the envelope by flaunting his "colors" and his right to carry openly at a carnival. Probably hoping to attract a "carny chick" with his macho. No common sense. The two small town officers were flustered with a situation that was strange and unusual for them, so they do what leo's do, sometimes, start to get pro active. Common sense again.
If there was one redeeming feature, it was the biker. He chose to not accelerate a dopey confrontation. Actually sounded, if the story was being related properly, that he was a little embarrassed at being confronted as he, after rather weakly expressed his "right to carry" and that he had CCW, he got on his hawg and left Dodge peacefully. He was probably an insurance guy with a phony beard and was afraid he'd get locked up and his wife would kick his butt because she would know he was at the carnival to pick up the "carny chick" at the cigarette toss stand.
grampster
Blues Bear pretty much hit the nail on the head despite all the variations on just about every theme. The whole episode is about common sense, period. At the end of the day, the sheriff was exercising the bluff bravado that the badge gives one, from time to time. Probably for the benefit of the two small time leo's. Don't make him a threat to the constitution, just a dumb, self serving move on his part. Have seen it happen in the job mor than once. He might have even regreted it later, who knows. No common sense. The biker was pushing the envelope by flaunting his "colors" and his right to carry openly at a carnival. Probably hoping to attract a "carny chick" with his macho. No common sense. The two small town officers were flustered with a situation that was strange and unusual for them, so they do what leo's do, sometimes, start to get pro active. Common sense again.
If there was one redeeming feature, it was the biker. He chose to not accelerate a dopey confrontation. Actually sounded, if the story was being related properly, that he was a little embarrassed at being confronted as he, after rather weakly expressed his "right to carry" and that he had CCW, he got on his hawg and left Dodge peacefully. He was probably an insurance guy with a phony beard and was afraid he'd get locked up and his wife would kick his butt because she would know he was at the carnival to pick up the "carny chick" at the cigarette toss stand.
grampsterhd1.
Member
I believe that the majority of posters here have nothing but respect and admiration for the LEOs who up-hold the law.
However, there is a climate of "anti- infringement" here. In this particular case, the perceived "infringer" happens to be an Officer of the Law. In some respects, that make the "infringement" all the worse. The term "abuse of power" comes to mind.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
I really can't believe so many folks have missed such a major point. The sheriff did this guy a real favor. My bet is there were probably a half dozen good citizens ready to kill him on the spot if that LEO hadn't intervened. Forget infringement and forget abuse of power, that is for armchair lawyers, we're talking about a guy who comes to town with "shoot me" tattooed on his forehead.
If this little town was anything remotely like the small towns I've been in all throughout the South, impolite+open carry+stranger=dead. (Or substitute weird for impolite and the equation adds up the same.) Penalty for some touchy citizen who happens to be at the carnival with their kid and "afraid for my life"=not even a slap on the wrist.
If this little town was anything remotely like the small towns I've been in all throughout the South, impolite+open carry+stranger=dead. (Or substitute weird for impolite and the equation adds up the same.) Penalty for some touchy citizen who happens to be at the carnival with their kid and "afraid for my life"=not even a slap on the wrist.
Sergeant Bob
Member
It's kind of humerous, really. So many people always talk about Constitutional rights, RKBA, slam the NRA for compromising, talk about taking a few with them if they come for their guns, say Molon Labe! Molon Labe!, got the T-shirts and hats. Yet, when someone else chooses to exercise those same Constitutional and legal rights (when it might frighten a few blissninnies), then he's a kook or a nutjob, just trying to stir up trouble, and cheer for the ones violating his rights. Then they vote for Arnold Schwarzzenwhatever. (figure of speech)
jimpeel
Member
MeekandMild
Seems the sheriff was wrong about those "little kids or their mommies" being what he should be fearful of. By your account, an actual, imminent, and immediate threat existed at that event.
That fear is exacerbated by your apparent eye-witness accounts of the perpetrators of any violence against this man fearing no punishment for their actions; because none would be meted out under the "good-ol'-boy" code of conduct.
Maybe you should go bandage that foot you just shot.
So you are saying that this man actually did have to be armed to protect himself from those in the crowd who were also armed and itching to shoot the first guy who showed up with "shoot me" tattooed on his forehead.
Seems the sheriff was wrong about those "little kids or their mommies" being what he should be fearful of. By your account, an actual, imminent, and immediate threat existed at that event.
That fear is exacerbated by your apparent eye-witness accounts of the perpetrators of any violence against this man fearing no punishment for their actions; because none would be meted out under the "good-ol'-boy" code of conduct.
Maybe you should go bandage that foot you just shot.
Intune
Member
Hahaha, so it has come down to weight, hair length, tats, mode of transportation & town of origin as to whether or not one can follow the law. Or was that law written for slim, short-haired people who are homy's? Inch by inch, sheep.
So there was no "reason" for him to open carry but if he was carrying concealed and a "madman" took out the popo's & the "biker" saved the day amongst those women & children, all would be copasetic? What if one of the local policemen went off on his lover, the bearded lady, shot her and began mowing down all in the vicinity? Would it be ok for Mr. open carry biker to put a bullet in his head or should he become a victim? Do YOU know when or where the next murder will take place? I don’t care if he was a 450lb tat covered, long haired sumo wrestler, a “furiner.†“Carry on Mr. law-abiding citizen." Any of you that have a problem with the man carrying out his right, we may just be on different sides one day. Best of luck to ya. WAS HE BREAKING THE LAW? Bah!
So there was no "reason" for him to open carry but if he was carrying concealed and a "madman" took out the popo's & the "biker" saved the day amongst those women & children, all would be copasetic? What if one of the local policemen went off on his lover, the bearded lady, shot her and began mowing down all in the vicinity? Would it be ok for Mr. open carry biker to put a bullet in his head or should he become a victim? Do YOU know when or where the next murder will take place? I don’t care if he was a 450lb tat covered, long haired sumo wrestler, a “furiner.†“Carry on Mr. law-abiding citizen." Any of you that have a problem with the man carrying out his right, we may just be on different sides one day. Best of luck to ya. WAS HE BREAKING THE LAW? Bah!This is interesting.
First of all the sheriff should spend a little time on the other side of the bars. He used his badge to intimidate someone from exercising a Right, or in this case a quasi-Right or privilege.
Pa. requires a permit to carry, openly or concealed. That's an infringement of a Right in & of itself. It's submitting to conditions, paying a fee & waiting for approval to exercise a Right. I see no difference between applying for a permit to carry, concealed or openly & applying for a permit to join a religious group, or speak freely in a public place.
It is disturbing that some people, some gun owners rather, seem to have no qualms about trading in their Rights for a privilege license. Hell, some even look at it with pride, like they're members of some elite club. I'd think it was pretty shameful myself if I had to pay for someone's permission to exercise a Right.
Anyway, another thing I find disturbing is the attempts to justify or even commend the sheriff in this situation. Granted I was not there, as most of us weren't, but judging strictly from the transcript I gotta say the sheriff really needs to find a new line of work.
& the guy's appearance or motives? Irrelevant. doesn't matter what he was trying to accomplish. All that matters is he was not committing any crime. All the discussion revolving around this being an attempt to get attention or some other ulterior motive is simply none of our business. The guy could have been on a dare or he could have wanted to revisit some long lost childhood memory by watching other kids & their parents at the carnival. It simply does not matter.
Was what he did tactful, or polite? Again, none of our friggin' business. What he was doing was legal. Further it was (aside from that whole nonsense about the permit) an exercise of a Right.
Did the biker give gun owners a bad rap by doing that? Nope. Not one bit. What does give gun owners a bad rap is the way we turn on each other over peripheral issues such as the possibility that public opinion was swayed. It's cowardice to do that. Cowardly to condemn a man for simply carrying a firearm with peaceful intent. It is the same logic that says if a person exercises their Rights openly it will cause those Rights to be restricted as it is when a person claims that the women was looking to get raped because her skirt was too short. You simply cannot justify the bad actions of one person or group on the nuetral or good actions of another person or group.
& the sheriff was doing him a favor? How? by drilling in the fact that permits & even Rights are subject to the whim of the head thug in charge?
As to the person who alledged a Right to be free from fear, you sir have a serious misunderstanding of what constitutes a Right. Walk with me for a moment...
A Right is something that is necessary & practicable, among other things. There are many types of Rights; collective, individual, natural or God-given, political, etc... Now we have 3 real big ones: Life, Liberty & Property. From these 3 derive all the rest. Now from Life, Liberty & Property we have the Right of Self Defense. See sometimes in order to keep Life, Liberty & Property ya have to defend them. A natural derivitive of Self Defense is the Right to Arms. See, in order to effectively defend ones' self it helps to have weapons of the same type as those who you're trying to defend yourself from, or at least ones that are efective as you can manage.
Now let us look at fear. It's an emotional state that's object is to warn us of danger. If a Right to be free from fear did exist, wouldn't that be contradictary? Since fear is a natural defense mechanism that all creatures have, wouldn't an attempt to remove that mechanism be unnatural?
& the idea that fear is a Right is further complicated by any attempts I have made to trace this alledged Right back to a source. It doesn't evolve from Life, since fear can help you keep Life. It doesn't evolve from Liberty, since knowing when to run can keep you free, nor does it evolve from Property, since fear can alert you to any attempts at theft.
It would be just as ludicrous to propose that we have a Right to be free from contentment. Or happiness. Or safety. Or love. Or hate. Or anger. Or compassion. Or pity. Or pride.
So I would propose that this so called Right to be free from fear is nothing more than a misunderstanding that comes from either ignorance of the definition of a Right, or malice in that it's deliberately used to justify taking away the Rights of others.
What this biker did was proper, at least until the sheriff attempted to put his boot across his throat, so to speak. Whether we like it or not, no one here or anyplace else in this world has any authority to force a person to behave in a certain manner when that behavior involves the exercise of a Right & threatens no immediete, imminent harm.
Now as far as anti-leo sentiment goes - sure I have some. every gun owner should. This is not because all leo's are bad. In fact I figure the ratio of good to bad is just like the general population, some are really good, some are really bad, with the rest falling somewhere in between.
What we should be upset about is not so much the leo's themselves, but the departments & system that they operate within. The system that lets this sheriff in question do what he did w/o any fear of repercussion.
& personally I'm ticked every time I think of an leo with a 15 or even 11 round mag that just came from the factory while us mere peasants are stuck with ten rounders if we want new.
& cops being disarmed? Definitely. Any leo who is in a place where non-leo's cannot carry should not carry themselves. & in places where non-leo's are restricted as to what they can carry or purchase then the leo's should be restricted to that as well.
The leo's are not a priviliged class & should not be treated as such. they should abide by the same laws us serfs have to abide by.
One last thing: I have noticed CCW permit holders look down their noses at those who carry openly. This is shameful as the pretext for dissapproval is usually that it scares the public & turns some against gun ownership. In actuality what it is appears to be jealousy. Those who carry openly (with some exceptions) usually do so in states where open carry is treated as a Right, not a privilige. No permit, no fees, in short you don't have to pay your dues to get into an elite club. This kind of jealousy (I had too, so why didn't he???) is particularly dangerous, as it clothes itself in righteous indignation & it's nakedness is difficult to see. So I'd ask y'all to reconsier. I know most won't & will get ticked at my saying this, but perhaps someone is intellectually honest enough to see that there's no good reason for looking down on someone who does something you can't or won't, especially when it's a Right we're talking about.
Oh, perhaps one more thing: y'all are in good company. In Colorado Springs, Co. a few months back, the NRA turned its back on a member who peaceably carried his shotgun to a city council meeting. They disavowed him, although not to the extent that some of y'all have this biker, as an irresponsible gun owner for daring to exercise the Right to carry openly that the NRA claims credit for getting in Co. (A pre-emption law recently passed that prohibited city's from banning guns & carry).
That should have made me enough friends to last a while.
First of all the sheriff should spend a little time on the other side of the bars. He used his badge to intimidate someone from exercising a Right, or in this case a quasi-Right or privilege.
Pa. requires a permit to carry, openly or concealed. That's an infringement of a Right in & of itself. It's submitting to conditions, paying a fee & waiting for approval to exercise a Right. I see no difference between applying for a permit to carry, concealed or openly & applying for a permit to join a religious group, or speak freely in a public place.
It is disturbing that some people, some gun owners rather, seem to have no qualms about trading in their Rights for a privilege license. Hell, some even look at it with pride, like they're members of some elite club. I'd think it was pretty shameful myself if I had to pay for someone's permission to exercise a Right.
Anyway, another thing I find disturbing is the attempts to justify or even commend the sheriff in this situation. Granted I was not there, as most of us weren't, but judging strictly from the transcript I gotta say the sheriff really needs to find a new line of work.
& the guy's appearance or motives? Irrelevant. doesn't matter what he was trying to accomplish. All that matters is he was not committing any crime. All the discussion revolving around this being an attempt to get attention or some other ulterior motive is simply none of our business. The guy could have been on a dare or he could have wanted to revisit some long lost childhood memory by watching other kids & their parents at the carnival. It simply does not matter.
Was what he did tactful, or polite? Again, none of our friggin' business. What he was doing was legal. Further it was (aside from that whole nonsense about the permit) an exercise of a Right.
Did the biker give gun owners a bad rap by doing that? Nope. Not one bit. What does give gun owners a bad rap is the way we turn on each other over peripheral issues such as the possibility that public opinion was swayed. It's cowardice to do that. Cowardly to condemn a man for simply carrying a firearm with peaceful intent. It is the same logic that says if a person exercises their Rights openly it will cause those Rights to be restricted as it is when a person claims that the women was looking to get raped because her skirt was too short. You simply cannot justify the bad actions of one person or group on the nuetral or good actions of another person or group.
& the sheriff was doing him a favor? How? by drilling in the fact that permits & even Rights are subject to the whim of the head thug in charge?
As to the person who alledged a Right to be free from fear, you sir have a serious misunderstanding of what constitutes a Right. Walk with me for a moment...
A Right is something that is necessary & practicable, among other things. There are many types of Rights; collective, individual, natural or God-given, political, etc... Now we have 3 real big ones: Life, Liberty & Property. From these 3 derive all the rest. Now from Life, Liberty & Property we have the Right of Self Defense. See sometimes in order to keep Life, Liberty & Property ya have to defend them. A natural derivitive of Self Defense is the Right to Arms. See, in order to effectively defend ones' self it helps to have weapons of the same type as those who you're trying to defend yourself from, or at least ones that are efective as you can manage.
Now let us look at fear. It's an emotional state that's object is to warn us of danger. If a Right to be free from fear did exist, wouldn't that be contradictary? Since fear is a natural defense mechanism that all creatures have, wouldn't an attempt to remove that mechanism be unnatural?
& the idea that fear is a Right is further complicated by any attempts I have made to trace this alledged Right back to a source. It doesn't evolve from Life, since fear can help you keep Life. It doesn't evolve from Liberty, since knowing when to run can keep you free, nor does it evolve from Property, since fear can alert you to any attempts at theft.
It would be just as ludicrous to propose that we have a Right to be free from contentment. Or happiness. Or safety. Or love. Or hate. Or anger. Or compassion. Or pity. Or pride.
So I would propose that this so called Right to be free from fear is nothing more than a misunderstanding that comes from either ignorance of the definition of a Right, or malice in that it's deliberately used to justify taking away the Rights of others.
What this biker did was proper, at least until the sheriff attempted to put his boot across his throat, so to speak. Whether we like it or not, no one here or anyplace else in this world has any authority to force a person to behave in a certain manner when that behavior involves the exercise of a Right & threatens no immediete, imminent harm.
Now as far as anti-leo sentiment goes - sure I have some. every gun owner should. This is not because all leo's are bad. In fact I figure the ratio of good to bad is just like the general population, some are really good, some are really bad, with the rest falling somewhere in between.
What we should be upset about is not so much the leo's themselves, but the departments & system that they operate within. The system that lets this sheriff in question do what he did w/o any fear of repercussion.
& personally I'm ticked every time I think of an leo with a 15 or even 11 round mag that just came from the factory while us mere peasants are stuck with ten rounders if we want new.
& cops being disarmed? Definitely. Any leo who is in a place where non-leo's cannot carry should not carry themselves. & in places where non-leo's are restricted as to what they can carry or purchase then the leo's should be restricted to that as well.
The leo's are not a priviliged class & should not be treated as such. they should abide by the same laws us serfs have to abide by.
One last thing: I have noticed CCW permit holders look down their noses at those who carry openly. This is shameful as the pretext for dissapproval is usually that it scares the public & turns some against gun ownership. In actuality what it is appears to be jealousy. Those who carry openly (with some exceptions) usually do so in states where open carry is treated as a Right, not a privilige. No permit, no fees, in short you don't have to pay your dues to get into an elite club. This kind of jealousy (I had too, so why didn't he???) is particularly dangerous, as it clothes itself in righteous indignation & it's nakedness is difficult to see. So I'd ask y'all to reconsier. I know most won't & will get ticked at my saying this, but perhaps someone is intellectually honest enough to see that there's no good reason for looking down on someone who does something you can't or won't, especially when it's a Right we're talking about.
Oh, perhaps one more thing: y'all are in good company. In Colorado Springs, Co. a few months back, the NRA turned its back on a member who peaceably carried his shotgun to a city council meeting. They disavowed him, although not to the extent that some of y'all have this biker, as an irresponsible gun owner for daring to exercise the Right to carry openly that the NRA claims credit for getting in Co. (A pre-emption law recently passed that prohibited city's from banning guns & carry).
That should have made me enough friends to last a while.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
OK, impolite+stranger+open carry= shoot on sight throughout the South, huh?
Reckon I must have been polite as I travelled all over Georgia with my hippy appearing butt (then) back in the days before CCW...when open carry without permission was still legal here. Never had a problem with the police...was never even asked,"Why you got that gun on you, you long haired freak?" Imagine that. Did have a few folks ask me if I was a cop but none of them fainted when I told them no. None screamed. None called the cops to save them. None reached for the gun under the counter.
Seems as if no one was "alarmed or affronted."
Guess Georgians-both law enforcement and private citizen- don't get their underwear quite as roiled up as folks in Pennsylvania and Kentucky seem to.
Now I did have an officer stomp up to my vehicle at a roadblock once, commenting about hippy expletive this and long haired expletive that with every step. When he got to window and saw the 1911 .38 Super Auto lying on the seat in open view...he said,"May I see your license, sir?" I handed it to him. He handed it back. We headed out of each other's lives
BTW...in the days before CCW, open view on the seat was the only legal means to carry a handgun in a car in Georgia.
Reckon I must have been polite as I travelled all over Georgia with my hippy appearing butt (then) back in the days before CCW...when open carry without permission was still legal here. Never had a problem with the police...was never even asked,"Why you got that gun on you, you long haired freak?" Imagine that. Did have a few folks ask me if I was a cop but none of them fainted when I told them no. None screamed. None called the cops to save them. None reached for the gun under the counter.
Seems as if no one was "alarmed or affronted."
Guess Georgians-both law enforcement and private citizen- don't get their underwear quite as roiled up as folks in Pennsylvania and Kentucky seem to.
Now I did have an officer stomp up to my vehicle at a roadblock once, commenting about hippy expletive this and long haired expletive that with every step. When he got to window and saw the 1911 .38 Super Auto lying on the seat in open view...he said,"May I see your license, sir?" I handed it to him. He handed it back. We headed out of each other's lives
BTW...in the days before CCW, open view on the seat was the only legal means to carry a handgun in a car in Georgia.
71Commander
Member
Meekand Mild
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please define weird ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please define weird ?
Molon Labe
Member
Golgo-13: No one in your department (including the sheriff) had a right to infringe upon this man’s right to keep and bear arms. Period. It was also wrong IMO to even question why he was wearing an gun.
Damn elitists. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Damn elitists. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16804&highlight=gang+AND+illegal
I'm sensing some hypocrisy here by a few posters, based on prior comments about profiling.
I'm sensing some hypocrisy here by a few posters, based on prior comments about profiling.
Last edited:
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
How can you flaunt a right?
Open carry is open carry. Period.
It don't matter what he was wearing.
I've ridden for years and most bikers have better attitudes and will help you more than some yuppie sissy boy.
If they feel threatened, that's their personal insecurity. They need a good dose of backbone and not some ego maniac cop thinking its his responsibility to take care of the 'little people".
But it seems that some rights are only available to someone who shops at brooks brothers.
Give me a friggin break!
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Maybe coming to a party among strangers with an attitude and a chip on his shoulder? Maybe the word 'unkempt' stands out? Weird is a matter of what does somebody do to make the LEO's 'weird stranger' radar go off? I wasn't there so I didn't see what really happened, only heard the thirdhand story, obviously slanted to emphasize the RKBA aspects.
I've been in biker bars, rode, rode with bikers, rode amongst bikers, (never been a club member though), seen a lot of casual conversations on the streets between obviously armed bikers and obviously friendly LEOs. Sorry guys, the RKBA slant on this story doesn't add up.
I really wonder the rest of the story, if perhaps the guy was talking to the voices as he rolled into town. The impression I get reading between the lines was maybe not Stephen King's "Trashcan Man" but someone whose elevator didn't quite make it to the top floor.
Jimpeel, quite frankly, I think that the LEO involved did a primo job of protecting this little man from things which rapidly could have gotten out of control had they not been there. You forget that the unsaid reason for having laws to punish criminals is to take the prerogative of punishment out of the hands of the crowd. (Remind me sometime to tell you the story of the lynch mob I saw outside of Sao Paulo Brasil in 1971. Drunk driver made the mistake of hitting another car and hurting the passengers.)
Probably so.
- Status