Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

[hunto]

So parents feel better, OK that make sense

Finally.

 

[dpeticca]

Indeed Br Boyer. Don't disagree that there are convicted felons (non violent) that have been unfairly kept from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Deanimator]

So I'm supposed to explain why the majority of parents do NOT want guns around schools?

I don't know that they DO. I certainly wouldn't take your word for it.

I wonder if the "majority of parents" think that children shouldn't have Tylenol, butterknives, peanut butter, or pictures of SOLDIERS holding guns either.

Perhaps you believe that the "majority" of parents approve of unauthorized video surveillance of their children via webcams on school provided laptops. Who knows, maybe they even support distribution of nude images of their children in that way.

If you're going to cite public school policies as an example of anything except moral and intellectual rot, you might as well stop wasting your time now, or perhaps have this conversation with Valerie Jarrett.

 

[hunto]

I don't know that they DO. I certainly wouldn't take your word for it.

me- "It's ___________."
D- "Not really. It's _______ _________."

 

[Deanimator]

Finally.

Some parents "felt better" when George Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door.

 

[brboyer]

So let's be clear here, you ARE in favor of felons owning handguns?
That's weak on crime.
Liberal.

This will be my last reply to you, I do not feel anything useful will come from continued discussion with you.

I am in favor of all free men/women owning and carrying firearms without restriction.

 

[Deanimator]

Like when you said "No one should ever talk to police ever?"

Got a quote of that?

I didn't think so.

How could I "promptly notify" police that I both have an Ohio CHL and am in possession of my firearm, refuse consent to a search or TELL them that I refuse to speak further without benefit of counsel, WITHOUT talking to them?

Again, obtuseness isn't the same thing as cleverness.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

After reading everyhing in context, I apologize brboyer.

In my haste to add my anectdotes, I scanned comments, and definitely lept before looking. I have coffee now, I'm better. I'll definitely be going back and reading the entire thread now to better see all positions.

Again I'm sorry to all for any confusion I may have added to this serious, and needed topic.

 

[hunto]

Got a quote of that?

I didn't think so.

You have numerous posts advocating the policy of "never talk to the police."

 

[dpeticca]

"You have numerous posts advocating the policy of "never talk to the police."

Hunto, it's healthy to be skeptical of the police. I get BrBoyer's constitutional arguments. I think its a matter of how to apply them as a practical matter makes for the difficult conversation.

I am going for another cup of coffee myself

 

[brboyer]

After reading everyhing in context, I apologize brboyer.

In my haste to add my anectdotes, I scanned comments, and definitely lept before looking. I have coffee now, I'm better. I'll definitely be going back and reading the entire thread now to better see all positions.

Again I'm sorry to all for any confusion I may have added to this serious, and needed topic.

Man, you got to quit partying so hard on Saturday nights!

 

[Deanimator]

You have numerous posts advocating the policy of "never talk to the police."

In other words, you DON'T have a quote.

 

[hunto]

Hunto, it's healthy to be skeptical of the police.

Oh I agree, but Deanimator rides around with recording equipment hoping to catch one making a mistake. A wee bit extreme imho.

 

[Deanimator]

Oh I agree, but Deanimator rides around with recording equipment hoping to catch one making a mistake. A wee bit extreme imho.

Lying in a report to justify a false arrest or other crime is no more of a "mistake" than throwing a gun down a sewer after you've used it to rob a liquor store.

Two high profile criminal assaults by police came to light this week SOLELY because they were recorded on video.

I see so many audio (and video) examples of police misconduct toward gun owners that they no longer surprise me at all. Neither am I any longer surprised by the exercises in "creative writing" engaged in by police, which are usually ONLY disprovable by electronic evidence. Gun owners in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, to name just three increasingly carry voice and or video recorders to make sure that no "fables" get written to justify crimes by police.

When a cop violates somebody's rights, it's not a "mistake". It's a CHOICE, just like the CHOICE of someone to shoot a cop during a traffic stop.

Choices have consequences. Just ask the officers who USED TO belong to the now disbanded St. George, Missouri PD.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You have numerous posts advocating the policy of "never talk to the police."

So do I, but a little common sense in reading is helpful. It's silly to take things like that too literally.

It translates to "Under most circumstances when the interaction involves you directly don't volunteer information to the police unless you are legally compelled to do so". I don't know why that upsets people, and I don't know why people want to twist that around to it sounds like we are saying don't reply with "Hello" if someone with a badge says Hello to you. If you witness a crime you certainly give as much information as you can. Trying to twist it around to something else is dishonest.

I had that done to me in another thread. I said "Don't talk to cops" and then I said "I talked to a cop once" and people were "AH HAH! You are trapped in your conflicting posts!". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The only reason to try to make that argument is when you don't have any other argument.

That's clearly not what the intent is. It has nothing to do with being polite or never ever speaking to anyone with a badge, it's simply what is recommended by lawyers, and cops too by the way. If the interaction involves you DIRECTLY, don't volunteer info.

What I am really having trouble with is why something that simple makes people so angry.

 

[Sam1911]

This is getting close to a lock. No more insults and nit-picky tit-for-tat one-liners.

This is an important topic but if we're to the point of circling the drain we can shut it down to save decorum.

In other words, develop your arguments completely and speak respectfully to each other.

 

[Deanimator]

What I am really having trouble with is why something that simple makes people so angry.

Some people simply demand absolute deference to authority, whether that authority is legitimate in its actions or not.

Some people tie this deference to the identities of the parties. If the victim of an illegitimate use of power is of a disfavored racial, religious, ethnic or political group, these people can excuse such abuses, since they consider themselves within a "magic chalk circle" which would NEVER be subject to the same abuses.

Others are actually the wielders of that power and abusers of it. They quite naturally push back against any limitations on their power or meaningful oversight of its use. This includes their relatives and friends. Portraying themselves or their friends/family members as "victims" is merely a pretext to discourage too much attention being directed toward their actions and to demonize the real victims.

 

[Ruggles]

No way this debate ends on a good tone, it will be closed for all the reason post #266 list. Put it out of it's misery now I say!

 

[gearhead]

This will be my last reply to you, I do not feel anything useful will come from continued discussion with you.

I am in favor of all free men/women owning and carrying firearms without restriction.

There was a case presented by my instructor during my CWP class. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the details but the gist of the case was that a felon was put into the Witness Protection Program after providing testimony. The subject was somehow made or located and had an attempt made on his life. The subject requested assistance from the authorities and even asked to be incarcerated for his protection, but the authorities refused. The subject then obtained a weapon for personal defense. Upon discovery he was charged with unlawful possession. The case was decided by the appeals court, which ruled that even a felon had the right to defend himself and the illegal possession charge was thrown out. Obviously, this was an extreme case as the subject had reasonable cause to expect to need to defend himself and the authorities were refusing to provide that defense. Still, it shows that even the courts recognize that there are times when a felon can indeed use a weapon for defense.

 

[ChaoSS]

How is he anti-gun when he owns one?

I'll rephrase. He's anti gun rights.

If this thread has any life left at all, the "troll" comments have to stop NOW.

My apologies. My definition of troll includes people who disagree with the main purpose of the forum. In other words, disagreeing over the type of gun, the caliber of bullets, or brand, does not make one a troll. Disagreeing that we have the RKBA does.

I will refrain however, and would appreciate it if he would also refrain from calling us hippies for believing in our rights.

My rights, my rights, my rights... Scream it all you want, but that officer has every right to go home at night after his shift. he doesn't know you from a hole in the ground and as said, many officers have been killed on the traffic stop. What's a cop killer look like? It's ALWAYS within their best interest to make the situation as safe as they possibly can for themselves. Would YOU want to be in their shoes at come into situations like this all the time?

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that anyone, cops included, have the right to do whatever it takes to go home at the end of the day. It does, however, say that I have the right to keep and bear arms, and it says that I have the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure.



I don't understand those who think that the second amendment has limitations. It wasn't written with limitations, it doesn't have them. Statistically, places are safer when they are filled with armed people. I don't know why people think that schools are somehow different, why people think that our kids are safer now that we took guns and gun education out of the schools.

As for felons, if they can't be trusted to own a gun they can't be trusted to be out of jail. It's that simple.

 

[Ruggles]

With all due respect to ChaoSS your views are fairly unrealistic when placed in the context of the real world. The 2nd A of course has limitations, we might all differ on what they are but they are indeed there, have been longer than either of us have been alive. To try and approach any debate involving the 2nd A from the viewpoint that it has no limitations is an inaccurate base to build a position upon and thus will ultimately collapse the debate itself.

 

[wishin]

The only thing I take issue with is his decision to put your handgun in the trunk of the car. I know he felt he was looking out for his own safety, but this was a bit much given the fact that you were legal and straight forward about the whole thing.

 

[PandaBearBG]

Okay fellas I see where some of my statements may have been a bit too vague or unclear. When I said good guys and bad guys and thugs and gangsters I think I was too vague. When I say good guys, I mean responsible gun owners who abide by local gun laws and keep and use their firearms in appropriate and correct legal ways according to rules of common sense and rightful self defense. When I say bad guys I mean people who use their guns in dangerous, irresponsible, aggressive, unlawful and in a violent manner. I've had guns flashed at me during traffic, pulled on me 3 times at work and one of those 3 times we disarmed the girl who had it, cops came was legal, permit and all.
My earlier post in this thread was because of several conversations I have had with some of my friends who are patrol officers and marshals out here in Nevada. Nevada has become a bit dangerous lately. Because of it's proximity to Cali and LA which has the 3 strike rule alot of felons move out here when they hit 2 strikes to avoid the mandatory incarceration, which is what my LEO friend told me when I asked him about the crime in the news. Also this being such a transient city, on average 3000 move out and 6000 move in every year, there is not really a solid strong community in the city, many people stay for 3-6 years and move on so alot of neighborhoods are strangers. A combination of the above results in alot of officer wariness around here. In the North part of the city which is pretty rough and has alot of immigrant and migrant population an officer got shot point blank in the face during a routine traffic stop. So by numbers and stats vs. the thousands of non-incident traffic stops that's ok, but IMHO that's a pretty dangerous gamble for law enforcement. Alot of those LEO murders mention earlier are not traffic related stops,and a majority of them seem to be off-duty or retired and have to do with personal family matters, so I don't see where that applies.

Most all of my friends own firearms and we all go out to shoot together with family and girlfriends and wives together, I help my friends find the information they need when I convince them to buy their first gun, I am not anti-gun or anti-gun rights. I love guns and own many, I love to shoot them, talk about them, their history, construction, maintenance, I love everything about them. But this state is different from other places I lived in most people here are strangers even if you live on the same block, new people every few months are moving in and moving out. It's not like other city's where you see the same people every day, every year. There are literally thousands of new faces coming and going everyday and locals don't trust strangers, period. Nevada is wild west state, hunting isn't big here, gun ownership is high and that is a good thing, but there are alot of childish idiots and dangerous delinquents from Cali who stay here which results in quite a bit more than average shootings. So my strong feelings on the subject is based on my experiences here in the state I reside, and if I want to comply with an officer's procedures and believe them to be justified, well I believe it's the right thing to do.

By the way if you disagree with me that is ok, it's only my opinion and my thoughts on the OP and my personal opinion. Point out what you will that you don't like or that you don't agree with, don't label me a troll.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The 2nd A of course has limitations, we might all differ on what they are but they are indeed there, have been longer than either of us have been alive. To try and approach any debate involving the 2nd A from the viewpoint that it has no limitations is an inaccurate base to build a position upon and thus will ultimately collapse the debate itself.

Other than the NFA in 1934 the Second Amendment had basically no restrictions until 1968.

Airline passengers were not even searched or run through metal detectors until 1972.

I will submit that guns have not been and still aren't the problem here. It wasn't that long ago we didn't pay any attention to their regulation at all to any real extent.

Something else has changed, and it's not the use of guns in crime, or gun regulations. It's not crazy to suggest that the Second Amendment should have no restrictions because it wasn't that long ago that it didn't.

But societies expectations, fears, and tolerance have changed to the point where people actually believe that all of these laws do something, even though the crime rate is the same now as it was before any of these laws were put in place.

Guns are not the problem, and restricting gun rights hasn't fixed anything. So why is it crazy to suggest that, since it's true?

 

[brboyer]

Okay fellas I see where some of my statements may have been a bit too vague or unclear. When I said good guys and bad guys and thugs and gangsters I think I was too vague. When I say good guys, I mean responsible gun owners who abide by local gun laws and keep and use their firearms in appropriate and correct legal ways according to rules of common sense and rightful self defense. When I say bad guys I mean people who use their guns in dangerous, irresponsible, aggressive, unlawful and in a violent manner. I've had guns flashed at me during traffic, pulled on me 3 times at work and one of those 3 times we disarmed the girl who had it, cops came was legal, permit and all.
My earlier post in this thread was because of several conversations I have had with some of my friends who are patrol officers and marshals out here in Nevada. Nevada has become a bit dangerous lately. Because of it's proximity to Cali and LA which has the 3 strike rule alot of felons move out here when they hit 2 strikes to avoid the mandatory incarceration, which is what my LEO friend told me when I asked him about the crime in the news. Also this being such a transient city, on average 3000 move out and 6000 move in every year, there is not really a solid strong community in the city, many people stay for 3-6 years and move on so alot of neighborhoods are strangers. A combination of the above results in alot of officer wariness around here. In the North part of the city which is pretty rough and has alot of immigrant and migrant population an officer got shot point blank in the face during a routine traffic stop. So by numbers and stats vs. the thousands of non-incident traffic stops that's ok, but IMHO that's a pretty dangerous gamble for law enforcement. Alot of those LEO murders mention earlier are not traffic related stops,and a majority of them seem to be off-duty or retired and have to do with personal family matters, so I don't see where that applies.

Most all of my friends own firearms and we all go out to shoot together with family and girlfriends and wives together, I help my friends find the information they need when I convince them to buy their first gun, I am not anti-gun or anti-gun rights. I love guns and own many, I love to shoot them, talk about them, their history, construction, maintenance, I love everything about them. But this state is different from other places I lived in most people here are strangers even if you live on the same block, new people every few months are moving in and moving out. It's not like other city's where you see the same people every day, every year. There are literally thousands of new faces coming and going everyday and locals don't trust strangers, period. Nevada is wild west state, hunting isn't big here, gun ownership is high and that is a good thing, but there are alot of childish idiots and dangerous delinquents from Cali who stay here which results in quite a bit more than average shootings. So my strong feelings on the subject is based on my experiences here in the state I reside, and if I want to comply with an officer's procedures and believe them to be justified, well I believe it's the right thing to do.

By the way if you disagree with me that is ok, it's only my opinion and my thoughts on the OP and my personal opinion. Point out what you will that you don't like or that you don't agree with, don't label me a troll.

This is why it's critically important that we use facts and not emotion when dealing with these topics.

. . . results in quite a bit more than average shootings.

Actually, the FBI Uniform Crime Report data for the last 10 years shows a pretty consistent state by state average of 2.6 to 3.1 assaults per hundred officers where the assault resulted in injury to the officer.