Friend got harassed by the police for OC

[KP89]

I live in the US, and it is a common line of thinking in the US as well...........

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

varifleman? yhe case you reference dosn't work in reference to this situation. hence my choice of the word imagine

 

[dalepres]

Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.

What about the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights? Could they require licenses as well? And I am not asking if they do or should. Do you think it is constitutional to require a license to not get searched without a warrant? Or to be able to protest against the government? Is this licensing clause you propose on the Constitution specific and unique to the 2nd Amendment or would you have it apply to all of them? If not all of them, what is it about the 2nd Amendment that you believe separates it from the rest of the Constitution?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"I live in the US, and it is a common line of thinking in the US as well..........."

really? what part

 

[kcshooter]

KCS, I don't care what people say the norm is, it's still NOT normal to have the cops called on your for OC in VA. It just doesn't happen all that often for how many people do it. You may not know this being halfway across the country, but that's how it is here. I'm saying that the attitude that it should be ok for a cop to investigate a gun owner/carrier following the law needs to change or we're in serious trouble. Cops need to respond to crimes, not harass people that aren't doing anything wrong.

I see. In my area, OC will often have a police response. I know people who have had it happen. Actually, I think everyone I know who OC's has had a cop question them at some point in time. Right or wrong, this is the reality of the situation. Maybe geographic differences are the true cause of the difference in feelings here.

So you are suggesting that the police should enforce laws or uphold the Constitution based on expected reaction from the local TV station?

Emphasis is mine, I don't have a "should" in this discussion. Again, I said many times I have no stake in this race. What I said is this is how it will happen, and if you think the police won't alter S.O.P. to align with public response, you're not paying very close attention. Replace "should" with "do" and I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[KP89]

No right is absolute and that includes the 2nd, whats best for society will always take precedent(as much as I have a feeling some here will argue over).

So instead of the two sides ramming heads(people advocating gun bans / people advocating no gun laws at all) I support taking the middle ground as it is usually best.

 

[dalepres]

I live in the US, and it is a common line of thinking in the US as well

You're right; it is a common line of thinking. You can find others who think the same thing at http://www.bradycampaign.org.

 

[dalepres]

No right is absolute and that includes the 2nd, whats best for society will always take precedent

Well, I'm sure we should move this to APS. Until then, let me point out that the purpose of the Constitution is to ensure just the opposite of what you say. Your idea reeks of "majority rule" but the Constitution specifically protects us from that. And if you're not suggesting majority rule who is it that you suppose should decide "what's best for society"?

 

[KP89]

You're right; it is a common line of thinking. You can find others who think the same thing at http://www.bradycampaign.org.

Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vilify her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.

Many people get so entrenched in their position that they never look at things from the other prospective.

 

[JesseL]

I would agree that a change in policy would be in order IF but it is not the norm at all any where in this country. And again holstered or in hand whats the diffrence if some one feels threatened enough to call 911 it must be investigated again for liability reasons. Besides in you example of OC and the norm, folks likely would not call for just seeing a gun

Open carry may not exactly be the norm around here but it's certainly not uncommon. I hardly ever go a week anymore without seeing someone else open carrying. The local police chief's comment on the legality of open carry was "The carrying of unconcealed firearms is lawful conduct. No further comment", so there seems to be a pretty clear understanding with the local law enforcement. I've never heard of police here responding to a call about a anyone with a holstered gun.

I understand that in many places there are all sorts of political, legal, and social roadblocks to open carry, but I like to point out that my hometown is one absolute exception to all that nonsense. Please don't assume that the kind of silliness you tolerate is universal.

 

[bnkrazy]

KP98, what's best for the individual should always take precedence. No one individual should ever be subject to society's whims.

This country was set up as a Constitutional Republic to combat Democracy and by extension, your exact line of thinking. People that believe as you do give me less hope for the future.

I'm sorry, what I meant to write was...don't feed the troll.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

StevieRay I have read this 3 times and I dont understand what your saying(I am tired)but I will say this.
Folks its not my rules it is my responsibility for the job I do right now.

Eric, I'm not trying to be difficult, really. And I realize you're just following rules not of your making. As far as holstered or in hand, what's the difference? that sort of shocked me because you don't pull your gun unless you're planning to use it, CC or OC. It makes a big difference to me and I figured it would to cops as well. Seems as though even if you have to send a unit, an answer from the caller of "Well it's in a holster on his hip" or "It looks like a gun under his shirt" would be assigned a pretty low priority. That's why I think, especially in, as I said, shall issue + OC states such as mine, I think the dispatchers should ask.

Get some sleep.

 

[bnkrazy]

Regarding OC in VA, this past Friday I was standing in line checking out at FoodLion. I was OCing and a Richmond City officer was in line ahead of me. He noticed, nodded, and finished checking out.

That's the way all interactions should be when dealing with an obvious case of a law abiding citizen exercising a right.

 

[Sniper X]

First off the whole "Man with a gun" thing is BS. Thats a bad excuse cop number one made to try to give you a hard time. If it were a man with a gun call, there would be more information for the responding officer to make him not think the call was about you. Or, at least he would not have started a lecture. Secondly, when someone sees a person carry open they should know by now it is either a law abiding citizen excersizing their rights, or a undercover cop or detective. I have been open carrying for about thirty years and NEVER been in the prediciment where some weirdo calls the cops for a "man with a gun" whic is stupid.

I have had two cops ask me to cover it up though....both BEFORE CCW was adopted here in NM.

 

[KP89]

KP98, what's best for the individual should always take precedence. No one individual should ever be subject to society's whims.

So what happens when what is best for you, is damaging to another group of people?

People talk about their personal rights allot but never look at the rights of anyone else or how what they are doing - effects those around them.

It is important to understand something and that is, what you do does not only affect you.

 

[JesseL]

KP89, there's a corollary to what you're saying. Why should the personal rights of the many be infringed because of the indiscretions of the few?

And remember, merely having a holstered defensive sidearm doesn't effect anyone else (unless they choose to be effected by it). My sidearm doesn't need to be the concern of anyone else, no more than the color of my skin or my underpants.

 

[SomeKid]

Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vileness her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.

Italics mine. Proved to me what kind of new troll, ah poster we have. Anyone who automatically equates guns to violence has drank too much Kool-Aid. Guns are tools, nothing more. It is the anti-gunners who believe guns are the root of all violence.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vileness her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.

I take it you mean vilipend. But I certainly can't figure out why. She strives to remove guns and remove violence from guns through laws. Anybody that has a measurable IQ knows that laws affect only the law-abiding.

 

[KP89]

KP89, there's a corollary to what you're saying. Why should the personal rights of the many be infringed because of the indiscretions of the few?

It comes down to a compromise where both parties hopefully can agree. It also fairly dependent on what exactly the issue is as our current social standards obviously have sway.

Unfortunately you must make your laws based upon the lowest common denominator.

I could argue that it is unfair that I cannot walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a fully functional M16, the thing is even if I would use it responsibly - the potential damage it could do when used in a inappropriate manner is of far greater magnitude then that of any gain in allowing me to purchase one in such manner.

It is unfair to the majority of the people, to have to suffer the cost of that gun being used inappropriately if it could be prevented by me giving up something relatively minor.

 

[bnkrazy]

It is important to understand something and that is, what you do does not only affect you.

You're right, individual rights don't extend to the point of interfering with someone else. There's an excellent 1st Amendment example: yelling fire in a theater. My 1A rights do not allow me to endanger others.

Please explain how my carrying a gun affects others. I'm not affecting or endangering anyone by carrying a gun for self protection, unless as JesseL mentioned, they choose to be affected.

And, if you truly believe that the removal of firearms will do anything to thwart violent crimes, you're unbelievably naive.

In any case this is off optic for the thread.

 

[VARifleman]

CS...

varifleman? yhe case you reference dosn't work in reference to this situation. hence my choice of the word imagine

It is case law on the issue that actually was being discussed, and that is what is the liability if the police aren't dispatched.

KP89...it always seems like when you first start finding out about gun laws that these laws, and perhaps more are effective at stopping crime. But...then you learn more, and it just isn't the case. I hope you stick around and learn, because it may seem like licensing stuff is good over having it unrestricted, but it just isn't the case. The gun laws hurt our society by helping criminals, and helping an out of control government. They hamper technology, which hurts us when we fight in wars. They lock up good people while bad people walk around with impunity.

 

[KP89]

I take it you mean vilipend. But I certainly can't figure out why. She strives to remove guns and remove violence from guns through laws. Anybody that has a measurable IQ knows that laws affect only the law-abiding.

Sorry I meant vilify,

If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

She is simply guided to believe that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is very likely they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.

I certainly don't have a problem with the background check system she implemented, felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.

 

[Eric F]

that sort of shocked me because you don't pull your gun unless you're planning to use it, CC or OC. It makes a big difference to me and I figured it would to cops as well. Seems as though even if you have to send a unit, an answer from the caller of "Well it's in a holster on his hip" or "It looks like a gun under his shirt" would be assigned a pretty low priority.

Ah I see now, I wish it did work this way but it does not.

This thread has many good and valid points in almost all directions. Makes me think a bunch about all aspects of OC laws the way it is the way it should be.............then you cant make every one happy all the time.

 

[bnkrazy]

If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

Ah, but that's the thing, it won't. Bad guys will always have guns.

She is simply guided to believe that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is very likely they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.

Gun control does not control the criminal, only the law abiding. Knowing that, I don't care if she has good intentions. She's still going after the wrong group of people. Make penalties stiffer, mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with a firearm, etc. There are many better options than restricting the good guys.

I certainly don't have a problem with the background check system she implemented, felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.

IMHO, if they aren't ready to be trusted with a gun they aren't "rehabilitated" and shouldn't be released.

 

[JesseL]

It comes down to a compromise where both parties hopefully can agree. It also fairly dependent on what exactly the issue is as our current social standards obviously have sway.

Compromise sounds nice; but when you compromise with evil you still get evil.

Now I understand that you may not think Sarah Bray's goals are evil, but it is to me an inescapable conclusion. The only arguments that favor gun control come down to either willful ignorance of its effectiveness or make it a part of a larger plan to pacify and control people against their will. I don't think Mrs. Brady is particularly stupid, so that narrows it down some...

I could argue that it is unfair that I cannot walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a fully functional M16, the thing is even if I would use it responsibly - the potential damage it could do when used in a inappropriate manner is of far greater magnitude then that of any gain in allowing me to purchase one in such manner.

It is unfair to the majority of the people, to have to suffer the cost of that gun being used inappropriately if it could be prevented by me giving up something relatively minor.

How much damage do you really think an M-16 could do compared with aimed fire from an AR-15?

How many minor rights are you willing to abdicate in the pursuit of safety? There's a popular quote attributed to Ben Franklin that applies remarkably well here.