spacemanspiff
Senior Member
be sure to let us know how that works out, mountainclimber. 
CCW DISARM
- Thread starter makarova
- Start date
- Status
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
This thread needs to be a lot more civil. No more profanity and show each other basic respect and courtesy or it's lights out. Frankly, I'm tempted to close it now. I can't imagine what needs to be said on the topic of the thread that hasn't been said in eight pages.
The Real Hawkeye
member
That's too much arbitrary authority for a nation of liberty to tolerate. You should be required to have probable cause that a crime was committed, or is about to be committed, and I am not, obviously, talking about a traffic law violation which is punishable by a fine of some kind. You know better. You are playing with words, and it's just getting silly. You and I both know that a CCW license holder is not likely to shoot you over a speeding ticket, or anything else for that matter. Yes, it is possible, but it is also just as possible that a CCW license holder will open fire at you when he sees you on the street, i.e., it is so unlikely as not to be worth considering. The fact, which you apparently find so distasteful, is that CCW license holders, barring probable cause to the contrary, have been deemed by their State's worthy of trust with a firearm on their persons. You should be required to join them in that trust, or lose your badge. It's as simple as that. We cannot have CCW license holders being routinely treated like desperate criminals by hot-dogs with badges.
evan price
Member
Hawkeye:
Why do you feel that if the LEO requests you unload your weapon, that's completely OK, but if they ask to remove it from your person, that's not OK? Just because someone else is handling your precious weapon, that's your objection? By your arguments, simply requesting you to render your gun useless (unloaded) should be just as much an infringement on your personal rights as asking to disarm you.
Why do you feel that if the LEO requests you unload your weapon, that's completely OK, but if they ask to remove it from your person, that's not OK? Just because someone else is handling your precious weapon, that's your objection? By your arguments, simply requesting you to render your gun useless (unloaded) should be just as much an infringement on your personal rights as asking to disarm you.
cropcirclewalker
member
Yo, Mr. Price, Crop here:
When I was arrested and unlawfully detained at the airport in the Loo for committing a lawful act (open carry in MO, which is not a crime) they took my firearm (leos call them weapons) and took it apart and put the pieces in a box and returned it to me.
All the way home back to the safety of the Ozarks, I wondered if they had done anything to it to render it useless or dangerous, like removing the firing pin.
Hey, call me paranoid, but I chambered a round, tied it into my spare tire that I used to "first fire" any milsurp rifle that I may have bought back when I had a FFL, got behind cover and squeezed off a round just to see if it would explode.
Since I am poor it was economically unfeasable for me to take the piece to a gunsmith to examine to see that it had not been rendered unsafe.
I get real nervous when strangers mess with my firearm when I am not watching them. I would have watched them if I could, but they had me chained to a bench in an unsprinklered holding cell.
In conclusion,,,,,,,,,It's NOT OK.
When I was arrested and unlawfully detained at the airport in the Loo for committing a lawful act (open carry in MO, which is not a crime) they took my firearm (leos call them weapons) and took it apart and put the pieces in a box and returned it to me.
All the way home back to the safety of the Ozarks, I wondered if they had done anything to it to render it useless or dangerous, like removing the firing pin.
Hey, call me paranoid, but I chambered a round, tied it into my spare tire that I used to "first fire" any milsurp rifle that I may have bought back when I had a FFL, got behind cover and squeezed off a round just to see if it would explode.
Since I am poor it was economically unfeasable for me to take the piece to a gunsmith to examine to see that it had not been rendered unsafe.
I get real nervous when strangers mess with my firearm when I am not watching them. I would have watched them if I could, but they had me chained to a bench in an unsprinklered holding cell.
In conclusion,,,,,,,,,It's NOT OK.
The Real Hawkeye
member
I don't discount your position at all. I just said that I felt ok with it at the time, in that context. I wasn't totally, disarmed, though, as I had a gun and a full mag. It would only take a second to reinsert it and work the slide if it turned out that these guys didn't look kosher as they got closer. There were trees all around. I felt I could afford to give them the benefit of the doubt, i.e., that they were real cops, and as I said, I think it entirely unlikely that cops are going to be murderers. I wish they had the same regard for me, but unfortunately they don't.
To sum up, I see your point. If they ordered me to do it, then I would have felt my rights were violated, unless they had probable cause on me. Fact is they asked me to, and I consented. I had no problem with it because they were cops, and were polite, and I had a sense that I was not in danger. I don't distrust cops, generally speaking.
You'll get no disagreement from me- despite how my post may read(text environments are tricky), I am actually all for government/agents using force when necessary. Please pay close attention to the last two words in that sentence.. when necessary.. not at will or because they can, but when necessary. Force is not limited to violence or physical power. Coersion is a force commonly used by law enforcement to get their desired result(s) and in this case it is 'surrender your weapon because I said so', but it really isn't necessary.
That depends on the law-some laws are simply senseless.
I don't speed simply because I don't want to be bothered by law enforcement. I'm not afraid of being ticketed, I just don't want to be bothered. The less reason for contact the less chances of contact. I suppose that means I'm hiding something?
I don't steal, assault, etc. because it is against my moral grain and the threat of force has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I disagree.To be more specific, those laws are not enforced for law enforcement. Countless times I have seen law enforcement violating traffic laws without consequence and for no reason. I won't be specific because I don't want to turn this into a cop bashing post. However, if you'd like specifics, ask and I have no problem giving example after example..
Why is it legal for law enforcement to lie to its citizens, but against the law for citizens to lie to law enforcement?
I'm sorry that happened to you.
You were absolutely right to give a command to stop. The difference is that the perpetrator demonstrated a wreckless disregard for your safety and the saftey of those around you. Quite a bit different than disarming a peaceful CCW holding simply because it is within legal bounds to do so even though that person has demonstrated that they are being forthcoming and cooporative.
Do not be mistaken, I believe that most 'cops' are there because they want to make a difference..the problem , as I see it, is most 'cops' assume everyone is a badguy and treats everyone as if they *are* a badguy. It's not only unnecessary, but insulting to every upstanding citizen I know.
Sir, I would have done everything within my legal power to protect you if you if I were there.Just like I would for any citizen of the community regardless of their position in the pecking order. It is my responsibility.
I do my part.
That is true! and by law I have the right to remain absolutely silent, amongst other silly little constituational rights. Sir, you're not speaking to a subject, you're speaking to a citizen.
I understand how our legal system operates and I'm telling you that it is not without prejudice. Keep in mind that it is the responsibilty of law enforcement to change the public's perception of law enforcment, not the other way around.
Take care..
The Real Hawkeye said,
Then I suggest that you start petitioning the legislature to change the law, or refuse to be disarmed on 2d Amendment grounds so that you have status in court, and see if you can get a court decision in your favor.
Yes it is getting silly. You sir are the one playing with words. When I pull you over, I have probable cause that a crime was or is being committed or I have reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop.. That is the law. Do you have any idea how many of what you would consider criminal arrests begin with a burned out tail light or a speeder? So why don't you stop saying that the law says what you want it to say and accept the fact that it doesn't and take one of the methods I outlined above and change it.
Where is the 100 percent guarantee?
The probable cause issue is settled. The law is the law. Find me one case from anywhere in the US where the temporary disarming of anyone during a contact with the police was found to be unconstitutional. You must remember the issue in Terry was the frisk, not the seizure. Terry wanted the gun, which was the only way they would convict him on the concealed weapons charge suppressed because McFadden didn't have probable cause to frisk. If I were to pull you out of the car and frisk you without any other indicators that you were involved in criminal activity that would be an illegal search. But if the law requires you to tell me that you are carrying a firearm I haven't frisked you. There has been no illegal search.
The fact that I find so distasteful is that you and several others expect me to accept that your CCW makes you a good guy. I'm sorry you stay out of the hospital and alive by never judging anybody by their credentials or if you know them. You judge them by their appearance, their actions, figity, nervous, the way they talk, how cooperative they are and your gut. I've learned to always go with your gut. The day the state tells me I must automatically let my guard down around anyone, they will have my badge because I'm done with this job. There will be an opening here then, maybe you'd like the job. I'll put in a good word for you.
Read my paragraph above, the part about about all the factors that go into how much extra caution you treat somebody with. Then think about where your attitude in this post puts you.
Now read this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=198378
It's about how people are starting to look into peoples web life because of all the crimes that have been committed by people who seemed perfectly normal (don't ask me by what standard) and then after they committed a crime it was discovered that they gave all kinds of clues away on the internet.
If big brother really is watching like so many claim, do you think there might already be a caution bolo in your computer file? I don't know and I don't care, but someday.....well who knows what the .gov might do. Now if that isn't enough reason for you to not call people names on the internet that's fine, but you've done it here for the last time.
Jeff
Then I suggest that you start petitioning the legislature to change the law, or refuse to be disarmed on 2d Amendment grounds so that you have status in court, and see if you can get a court decision in your favor.
Yes it is getting silly. You sir are the one playing with words. When I pull you over, I have probable cause that a crime was or is being committed or I have reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop.. That is the law. Do you have any idea how many of what you would consider criminal arrests begin with a burned out tail light or a speeder? So why don't you stop saying that the law says what you want it to say and accept the fact that it doesn't and take one of the methods I outlined above and change it.
Where is the 100 percent guarantee?
The probable cause issue is settled. The law is the law. Find me one case from anywhere in the US where the temporary disarming of anyone during a contact with the police was found to be unconstitutional. You must remember the issue in Terry was the frisk, not the seizure. Terry wanted the gun, which was the only way they would convict him on the concealed weapons charge suppressed because McFadden didn't have probable cause to frisk. If I were to pull you out of the car and frisk you without any other indicators that you were involved in criminal activity that would be an illegal search. But if the law requires you to tell me that you are carrying a firearm I haven't frisked you. There has been no illegal search.
The fact that I find so distasteful is that you and several others expect me to accept that your CCW makes you a good guy. I'm sorry you stay out of the hospital and alive by never judging anybody by their credentials or if you know them. You judge them by their appearance, their actions, figity, nervous, the way they talk, how cooperative they are and your gut. I've learned to always go with your gut. The day the state tells me I must automatically let my guard down around anyone, they will have my badge because I'm done with this job. There will be an opening here then, maybe you'd like the job. I'll put in a good word for you.
Read my paragraph above, the part about about all the factors that go into how much extra caution you treat somebody with. Then think about where your attitude in this post puts you.
Now read this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=198378
It's about how people are starting to look into peoples web life because of all the crimes that have been committed by people who seemed perfectly normal (don't ask me by what standard) and then after they committed a crime it was discovered that they gave all kinds of clues away on the internet.
If big brother really is watching like so many claim, do you think there might already be a caution bolo in your computer file? I don't know and I don't care, but someday.....well who knows what the .gov might do. Now if that isn't enough reason for you to not call people names on the internet that's fine, but you've done it here for the last time.
Jeff
sacp81170a
Member
Which drives all of us nuts. Senseless laws promote disrespect for the law. Laws that are selectively enforced promote disrespect for the law, witness the spectacle of illegal aliens parading openly on national TV.
Absolutely, and I have had that happen. The guy wasn't uncooperative, he obeyed my verbal commands, but he didn't say a word during the whole stop. Strange, but perfectly legal. I am a citizen also, sir. I try to approach my fellow citizens with that in mind, but I also want to go home at the end of the shift. Not an easy thing to do sometimes...
Ahh, there's the tricky part. The continuum of force (used to gain compliance, not for fun) that we use includes the following, not necessarily in this order:
1. The uniform and a marked unit. (This is the first level of force, and is always present. That's why we go after people who try to dress like and act like cops so hard. People comply because they see the badge, the uniform, and the lights and assume you have authority.)
2. Positioning. (I will assume a position that gives me the advantage. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's a big part of what keeps me safe on the job. That means I keep you in your vehicle, approach from your blind spot, etc. Some might not include this in the force continuum, but I do. I apply this level of force at all times until I'm sure of who I'm dealing with.)
3. Verbal commands. (I usually try to make requests rather than give outright orders. If those requests aren't complied with, they become commands very quickly.)
4. Soft hands. (This means I might lay hands on you, which would otherwise constitute assault. I may do it to gain your compliance if you don't respond to any of the above.)
5. Handcuffs. (I may cuff you for both our safety if the tactical situation dictates. This includes single officer stops on multiple occupants in a vehicle, etc. I *will* maintain the advantage.)
6. OC.
7. Hard hands. (Fists, kicks.)
8. Taser.
9. Baton.
10. Firearm.
Note that these levels don't have to be followed to the letter but may be applied as the situation dictates. Who dictates the level of force? You, the citizen, does. Also note that as long as I'm on duty and in uniform, I'm applying some level of force to everyone I come in contact with. When I'm not on duty, I comply with the guys who are in uniform, just like you do. Too many off duty officers have been killed because they forgot this.
Applying force when necessary, at the level dictated by the citizens, is what the job of being a police officer IS. It's our job to make sure the level of force applied fits the circumstances or we can lose our jobs, be prosecuted, or get injured or killed if we use the wrong amount of force. Sounds like a cakewalk, right?
I object to officers using too much force as strongly as you do, it's just that "too much" can be a very subjective thing. That's why I like the video cameras in the patrol cars. We actually had an officer accused of cursing and abusing a motorist. On the tape, it was the motorist who was cursing and abusing the officer, who reacted in a very calm and professional manner. Video is our best friend.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Is it calling names to suggest that you are being absurd? You are. If you have a good reason for believing that the person in question is potentially violent, you are more than within your rights to demand he surrender his weapon. That means that you are allowed to use your experience as a cop to make that determination, so long as it is not arbitrary. Arbitrary means, for example, "Something about this guy." Reasoned means, for example, "He seems agitated."
My "attitude," in this context, stems from what I perceive to be a flagrant disregard on your part for the rights of citizens. My general attitude towards policemen as individuals is that they are on my side. We are discussing broad issues of civics here on the Internet, not whether Officer Joe down the street is a bad guy because he's a cop. My next door neighbor's a cop. He helped me move a freezer into my house a few weeks ago, and he has a bad back. He's the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet, and has invited me to watch him participate in shooting events, and I extended him an open invitation to the private range I belong to. I don't judge any individual cop based on my broad objections to what I perceive to be violations of rights in over all policy.
Yes, I saw that movie too, with the Department of Future Crimes. You don't intimidate me, sir. I will advocate for the principles of liberty and the rule of law on the Internet, and anywhere else, regardless of who's reading my posts and taking notes. You have reached a new low, sir.
You will have to refresh my memory. Who did I call a name, and what was the name? I only ask, because it is just not in my argumentative style to "call names," and I don't recall doing it. You're not, certainly, referring to the hotdog with a badge reference. If you are, a hotdog with a badge, I thought I made quite clear, refers to a cop who flamboyantly does things that put people in danger or violate their rights as an outgrowth of their sense of superiority to the general public. I did not call anyone on this forum one of those. I used it as a general descriptor of how I think cops in general ought not behave when coming into contact with the public. I think that was clear from the post. Were you thinking of something else, perhaps?
Last edited:
swacje41
Member
If you have to wait until there is a good reason, it is often too late. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the safety of the community and the officer outweigh any minor inconvenience one might have due to temporary and short-term detentions and interventions. It is far too easy to go from "good honest law-abiding citizen" to attacking the officer, and it happens regularly.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Really? What percentage of CCW license holders goes nuts and starts shooting cops? Higher or lower than the public at large? If the same or less than the public at large, you would, in order to be logically consistent, have to frisk everyone you pass in the street and disarm anyone carrying a handgun, license of no, because they are too likely, according to you, to go crazy and start shooting cops.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Now why does that sound so familiar? Hmmm. Let me think. Something to do with ... OH YES, that's what the Red Coats said on their way to Lexington and Concord. But, didn't we fight a whole war to be rid of that kind of thinking?
proud2deviate
Member
Oh criminitly, I thought this one had died, already. As they say in the comics, "Here we go again!"
Je parle fluent BS too, but I think your particul dialect is motivated by knee-jerk reaction and perhaps thirst for personal gain. One step at a time, shall we?
Would you care to back up this statment with data from a reliable, confirmable source?
Once again, I respectfully request a reliable reference to these cout rulings. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'd like to examine them at my leisure and discover exactly how far my rights have eroded.
Not that it really matters. Whatever the courts have ruled, it will never change the fact that these "inconveniences" of which you speak are blatent violations of one or more inalienable natural rights and/or civil liberties.
A third and final time, I'd like a reliable source of information to back up this statement. I for one have not witnessed, in any capacity, personally or otherwise, any evidence of of these regular occurences of violence commited against officers by good honest law-abiding citizens, much less CCW holders. (at least you got the "citizen" part right.)
(I'll get through eventually.)
swacje41 said:
Je parle fluent BS too, but I think your particul dialect is motivated by knee-jerk reaction and perhaps thirst for personal gain. One step at a time, shall we?
Would you care to back up this statment with data from a reliable, confirmable source?
Once again, I respectfully request a reliable reference to these cout rulings. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'd like to examine them at my leisure and discover exactly how far my rights have eroded.
Not that it really matters. Whatever the courts have ruled, it will never change the fact that these "inconveniences" of which you speak are blatent violations of one or more inalienable natural rights and/or civil liberties.
A third and final time, I'd like a reliable source of information to back up this statement. I for one have not witnessed, in any capacity, personally or otherwise, any evidence of of these regular occurences of violence commited against officers by good honest law-abiding citizens, much less CCW holders. (at least you got the "citizen" part right.)
:banghead: Kopf :banghead: Durch :banghead: Die:banghead: Wand:banghead:
(I'll get through eventually.)
Ok 168 posts and there has been no movement on either side. I don't think either side has anything to say on the matter that hasn't already been said.
We're done with this one.
Jeff
We're done with this one.
Jeff
- Status
