Gun rights activists square off with Royal Oak over 'No guns' policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I'll tell ya.

I have to drive through "Royal Joke" every time I go to the college. The amount of crime is getting worse, spilling in from other areas. Until the Royal Joke Police Dept proactively protect, instead of reactively take reports of crimes already done, I'll carry. That is only part of what brings this issue to public view. We do have a Constitution in Michigan. This matter has been resolved by Michigan's highest court.

It is worth noting that in the previous 12 years of this same festival being in Pontiac, there was never a firearms ban. Royal Joke, is just that, and so is their PD, and so is their PD's "commandant"...royally anti, royal jokes.

Take some time and read up of the "commandant" trying to pressure a local church preacher in Royal Joke to not allow the citizens to carry in church. He got his back side verbally handed to him by the preacher (my view of Pale Rider) :neener: and now, the good folks of Michigan just female-dog-slapped his posterior again!

Sounds to me like the good folks of Royal Oak need a new police commander.

Geno
 
In fact most of the guys I work with have tattoos, earrings, goatees, long hair, or shaved heads, yet we are all LEOs and are gun loving law abiding citizens. I don't need legislators to take action to keep me feeling "comfortable".
Click to expand...

It is a sad state of affairs if LEO's are allowed to display tats, or have earrings, goatees, etc. There was a time (I suspect many PD's still have standards) when you needed to be clean shaven, short hair, and no jewelery when on duty. Now days some PD's must be allowing unprofessional looking people to represent the force if your comment is accurate. Then again the standards were much higher, both physically and mentally to become a LEO. Now days you see tiny men and women, along with grossly overweight ones pretending to be functional peace officers.

Wow. So if you look like a biker or a black guy, you shouldn't be allowed to open carry. Now I get where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

I do not control the feelings people have in regards to what makes them comfortable or not.
My primary point, having nothing to do with armed citizens which I support, is that some people would not feel comfortable with open carry at an art festival. You and others can bury your head in the sand and assume everyone thinks and feels like you do, and if they don't who cares. But reality is something different.

On a side note, I wonder why some people feel the need to open carry when it is relatively easy to carry concealed. I suspect some here take the attitude that they want it to be in others faces whether they like it or not. With that type of attitude it does more harm than good for the overall cause of law abiding citizens being able to legally carry on their person.
 
On a side note, I wonder why some people feel the need to open carry when it is relatively easy to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

There are several threads full of opinions on both sides of this. Open carry is generally an attitude of re-acclimation of the general populace to firearms. While you will obviously have rabidly anti-gun folks foaming at the mouth at the sight of a firearm in plain view, many of the OCers in these forums have passed on stories of opportunities to talk to curious people about firearms due to OCing.

I suspect some here take the attitude that they want it to be in others faces whether they like it or not.
Click to expand...

That appears not to be the case in general, although I am sure there are bound to be a few people with attitudes like that. You may want to check that your own view isn't grossly colored by your attitude towards OC.
 
There are several threads full of opinions on both sides of this. Open carry is generally an attitude of re-acclimation of the general populace to firearms. While you will obviously have rabidly anti-gun folks foaming at the mouth at the sight of a firearm in plain view, many of the OCers in these forums have passed on stories of opportunities to talk to curious people about firearms due to OCing.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it has to be rabid anti-gunners who object to OC as I know people down here who object even though they generally support gun rights. For instance, you cannot OC in Florida unless you are on your property or your business. So one day I was helping a friend with a garage sale at my place and had my sidearm visible. More than one person made a comment, including my friends family members. I felt it was a deterrent, they felt it was overkill even though they support CC and gun rights in general.

I think the more people flock to large metropolitan areas, the less they are exposed to guns, and the site of a non LEO carrying in public will stand out to them. I would bet that a majority of people in large cities would oppose OC for regular citizens even if they supported CC or gun rights in general. I'd also bet just the opposite is true in more rural areas of the county.


That appears not to be the case in general, although I am sure there are bound to be a few people with attitudes like that. You may want to check that your own view isn't grossly colored by your attitude towards OC.
Click to expand...

Personally I do not have a problem with the concept in general, even though I am not use to it. However I think there should be areas where you should conceal it as well.
That said, my overall point was not to object to OC as it does not bother me for the most part. Instead I am pointing out that "not everyone will feel safer with people OCing" as was claimed by a previous poster.
If you can at least acknowledge that point, it puts you ahead of others who are taking an intractable position on the right to OC, and determining how others will/should feel about it.
 
I only pointed out that rabid antis are the ones who are most likely to be upset about firearms in public. I was trying to also include the fact that even with the firearm enthusiast crowd, there's a split opinion on OC. Public reaction will, of course, vary from negative to positive.

IMO there is legitimate weight to the argument that people only see firearms in a negative light and re-acclimation of people to firearms through OC can lead to positive experiences. I am all for potential that particular benefit of OC. I can also see that if an OCer ever gets in a situation where they are disarmed and the firearm turned on them and/or others, the media and politicians will have a field day with that.

Personally, when I see someone taking their gun for a walk (doesn't happen here in AR since OC is criminalized, but it was legal when I lived in Seattle), I perk up a bit and it reminds me to stay vigilant to my surroundings, if I was slacking at all. I love talking about, owning, and shooting firearms, but that doesn't mean I trust everyone with one (go read range stories if YOU do :rolleyes:). If nothing else, I can assume that I could go strike up a friendly conversation.

Speaking of Seattle, I believe LTNavy on here has had a handful of positive OC experiences down at Pike Place with most people not noticing or caring that he's OCing.
 
Last edited:
O.C.

Touchy subject! It is obvious that even pro- gun citizens are becoming brain- washed. If other's feelings are hurt by legal O.Cying. they should go home and work on their attitude, And that includes Vector!
Cisco
 
The city is going to lose this one. The AG for the State of Michigan just ruled on another such case little more then a week ago and sided with the Pro-Carry group. You would think that they (Anti-gunners) would learn and just give up!
 
Geno said,
Take some time and read up of the "commandant" trying to pressure a local church preacher in Royal Joke to not allow the citizens to carry in church. He got his back side verbally handed to him by the preacher (my view of Pale Rider) and now, the good folks of Michigan just female-dog-slapped his posterior again!
Click to expand...

Link? A LEO telling a preacher how to run his church? Priceless!
 
Touchy subject! It is obvious that even pro- gun citizens are becoming brain- washed. If other's feelings are hurt by legal O.Cying. they should go home and work on their attitude
Click to expand...

I still say you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Granted we should not disarm just because some out there think we should. However to ignore what others in society think is done at all gun owners peril.

How many states out there allow open carry anyway?
 
Vector said:
. . . take a second and in your minds eye picture some unsavory looking person with a .45 on his side walking through the fair knocking back a few . . .
Click to expand...

Funny thing: that's the same argument the anti-gun folks raised. As far as "knocking back a few goes," Michigan has very strict laws on the consumption of alcoholic beverages while carrying a firearm. So do most states. Michigan's law permits a .02 BAC level, which allows roughly one 12-ounce beer in the average man and not even one beer in an average woman. With all the controversy over this issue, does anyone truly think the Royal Oak Police won't have people watching the concessions stands and, if they see an OC'er with a beer, won't challenge them? Anyone with a Michigan CCW stands to lose it (and be arrested) if their BAC is over .02 and the penalties increase as the BAC gets higher, up to a lifetime ban on CCW.

I would imagine the Michigan Open Carry group has stressed that its members and adherents need to be on their best behavior at the Arts, Beats and Eats Festival. Don't drink, don't draw the gun, don't do anything with the gun that could violate Michigan's brandishing law: basically, don't touch the gun.

BTW: I would have loved to have seen Rochelle Riley's face when the city commission voted to allow OC. She was the Detroit Free Press columnist who challenged the city by saying, "Guns? Or us?" I do hope she has alternative arrangements planned for Labor Day weekend.

Vector said:
It is a sad state of affairs if LEO's are allowed to display tats, or have earrings, goatees, etc. There was a time (I suspect many PD's still have standards) when you needed to be clean shaven, short hair, and no jewelery when on duty. Now days some PD's must be allowing unprofessional looking people to represent the force if your comment is accurate. Then again the standards were much higher, both physically and mentally to become a LEO. Now days you see tiny men and women, along with grossly overweight ones pretending to be functional peace officers.
Click to expand...

What's the beef? Yeah, I remember the days when even a mustache was considered a no-no (I had to shave mine off). It wasn't too many years later that there were uniformed patrolmen with hair down to their shoulders. The restrictions didn't make us better cops and their relaxation didn't make the later guys worse cops. Even back then, tattoos were okay as long as they weren't obscene and the uniform covered them. Jewelry, so long as it doesn't give an opponent something to use in an attack, doesn't bother me. It's the style for almost everyone these days and cops are certainly members of that group.

I don't know about Florida, but in Texas the standards for obtaining a peace officer's license are a lot higher than they were 30-some-odd years ago. And I remember not only some fairly hefty cops, but some small-statured ones, as well. That had nothing to do with their ability to function as law enforcement officers.
 
Last edited:
Vector,
You worry too much about society. Be concerned with the law .I know guys and gals that would , perhaps, not be accepted by society. The friends with tats, long hair, beards and braids and ride bikes, as I do, are very good people. I accept them on a personal basis. It is society that has to earn my trust. One can't please everybody.
If you don't know what to think ...ask I will tell you.
Cisco.
 
cambeul41:

Great to still see your name around THR! You know, we live so close, we should meet up at Target Sports in Royal Oak some day for some quality range time. There's also a Chicken Shack there. Owen and I ate there last year after a range session. Life doesn't get much better than range time, and Chicken Shack!

Drop me a PM when you have time. Here is the link. Hopefully it still works. Guess the police commandant fancies himself Marshall Stockburn and his posy of regulators:

Police question actions of gun-toting Royal Oak minister
Associated Press, via the Detroit Free Press, USA
Mar. 25, 2005

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10698/police-question-actions-of-gun-toting-royal-oak-minister

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10697/pass-the-lord-and-pass-the-ammunition

Geno
 
Hot off the press of Royal Joke: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/24797072/detail.html

Resident Finds Intruder In Basement
Police: Resident Tried To Hold Man Down

ROYAL OAK, Mich. -- Royal Oak Police said a resident on the 700 block of N. Rembrandt Street came home to find an intruder hiding in their basement last week.

Police said the resident returned home on Aug. 33 from a walk to find that their house had been broken into. As they were checking the house, the resident found a male intruder hiding in the basement.
The resident struggled with the intruder but was unable to hold him and he fled, police said.

The resident described the intruder as white, around 6 feet tall, 175 to 200 pounds, possibly in his mid-20s with black slicked back hair. He was wearing a green cloth over his face.

He was wearing a three-button light blue polo-type shirt and multicolored pattered shorts.
Click to expand...

Let's see the players and sequence of events:

1) Royal Joke, MI (check)
2) Perp commits a crime (check)
3) Homeowner UNarmed (check)
4) Perp overpowers homeowner & escapes (check)
5) Police arrive after the fact (check)
6) Police take a reactive report (check)
7) Everyone thanks God no guns were involved (check)
8) Oh yeah, and this happened on "Aug. 33". Hello?!

Am I missing something?!

Geno
 
I don't know about Florida, but in Texas the standards for obtaining a peace officer's license are a lot higher than they were 30-some-odd years ago. And I remember not only some fairly hefty cops, but some small-statured ones, as well.
Click to expand...

Define "a lot higher" as I find it hard to believe.
With mandatory affirmative action alone you can get plenty of under qualfied people because the standards are lowered both mentally and physically. There was a time you had to be a certain size to even be considered a police or fire candidate.

That had nothing to do with their ability to function as law enforcement officers.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. While most police work is not Starsky & Hutch, you need to be able to physically handle yourself. Having tiny women (and as a result tiny men also) trying to run down and subdue a fleeing suspect, or them getting disarmed are but two examples.
Additionally their need to draw their sidearm because they "feel threatened" is a statistic I doubt is even recorded. It goes on more often than you might imagine, and it is justified when just the opposite should be the case. At games where fans become unruly you see the big LEO' jumping into the fray to break it up while the tiny women stand back and watch. Yet they are getting the same pay but not able to handle the physically demanding work. And before you say you know of Officer Jane Doe who can kick most guys rears, there might be a rare exception, but most of that perception is generally contrived Hollywood crap that filters into the publics psyche.

The bottom line is the standards have been lowered whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.
 
Declarative statements are usually accompanied by source links in these parts.
Click to expand...

I generally subscribe to that philosophy, however something that is not politically correct rarely has a scientific study to prove it. Even if a study is attempted against all odds, the criticism that follows makes it even less likely in the future. Think of the Bell Curve for example.

All I can say is that if you were to look at what affirmative action has done in lowering the standards(whether you agree with social engineering and the end resulting diversity or not) it should be obvious to all but the most liberal minded person.

We are way off the topic at this point, but I'll be happy to discuss this issue in a related thread if you or someone else cares to start one up.
 
Clance - you forget that these antis have OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) which doesn't let them think rationally. The result of this mental disorder is their dogmatic diatribe of incorrect information that they claim is fact. Until they get the treatment they require, there is no hope for their being logical.
 
Vector said:
Define "a lot higher" as I find it hard to believe.
With mandatory affirmative action alone you can get plenty of under qualfied people because the standards are lowered both mentally and physically. There was a time you had to be a certain size to even be considered a police or fire candidate.

I totally disagree. While most police work is not Starsky & Hutch, you need to be able to physically handle yourself. Having tiny women (and as a result tiny men also) trying to run down and subdue a fleeing suspect, or them getting disarmed are but two examples.
Additionally their need to draw their sidearm because they "feel threatened" is a statistic I doubt is even recorded. It goes on more often than you might imagine, and it is justified when just the opposite should be the case. At games where fans become unruly you see the big LEO' jumping into the fray to break it up while the tiny women stand back and watch. Yet they are getting the same pay but not able to handle the physically demanding work. And before you say you know of Officer Jane Doe who can kick most guys rears, there might be a rare exception, but most of that perception is generally contrived Hollywood crap that filters into the publics psyche.

The bottom line is the standards have been lowered whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.
Click to expand...

It's not that I am unwilling to acknowledge it; it's that it's not true. For one thing, cops today have to know more and be able to do more than they did back in the good ol' days.

Have you actually been to any law enforcement websites to look at the qualifications to be a peace officer? For that matter, what the heck makes you think cops of old were some kind of uniformed version of the Hulk? IIRC, the minimum height for a man was 5' 6" with weight "proportionate to height" back in 1970. This was in Central Texas.

Policewomen have been around a long time, though their assignments as solo patrol officers are comparatively recent. I have yet to see any "Shrinking Violets" in uniform. From what I've seen, they are as serious about the job as the men. They may not have the same upper body strength as a man, but they have the tools and training to allow them to take down an attacker.

As far as pulling your sidearm goes, even back then, cops who were too eager with their guns soon found themselves either on probation or looking for another job. I don't know if it's recorded as a statistic, but drawing your gun at all, even if it wasn't fired, was good for a chat with the supervisor and perhaps a written report for the higher-ups to review.
 
Texas Bill,

It is clear you and I do not see eye to eye on whether standards have been lowered to allow anyone of a particular race or gender. Call it a consent decree, affirmative action, or whatever other name they call it. Physical standards have been lowered to allow women on, and exam standards were lowered to allow minorities on. I will give you a couple of examples that I am personally familiar with.
The first involves hiring discrimination in standards not being met in the fire department. All applicants must be able to swim and meet a minimum standard of proficiency. It is pass or fail, period. However with affirmative action "trying to achieve goals"(read mandated numbers based on race), any black applicant who failed the swimming portion was still hired and allowed up to a year to take swimming lessons paid for by the city. So if you were a white applicant who was perfect in every other aspect(read excellent test scores, already state certified as a paramedic) but could not swim or failed the minimum requirements, you were sent packing. I have no problem with that as long as it applies to everyone. However substandard black applicants(read poor test scores and no skill sets already in place) were allowed to bypass this portion of the requirements and then afforded special treatment all at tax payers expense. As an FYI, it is pretty important to be able to swim in Florida if you are in the EMS. Other physical standards were lowered or eliminated if women could not pass them. For instance a charged hose drag a certain distance, chopping down a door with an axe within a prescribed period of time, pompier ladder(hook ladder) requirement, firemans carry with full equipment and rescue dummie, etc.
The other example will blow more peoples minds because it relates to firearms. The police department was so desperate to hire women they lowered every physical standard imaginable, as well as the stress psychological exams. But the ultimate example of taking any woman at any cost was at the range. The firearms instructor/range master for the department was forced to pass women left and right despite not showing proficiency. The most outrageous example was a tiny woman whos hands were so small she could not reach the trigger of a lady S&W. The range master called his supervisor and explained the problem. He said he knew he was suppose to pass all the women regardless of proficiency, but he had to draw the line with this particular candidate because of the aforementioned. Believe it or not he was told to pass her and to have her hold the grip in one hand and pull the trigger with the finger of the other hand.

So desperate was the department to hire minorities they even overlooked past criminal backgrounds as well.
Ever hear of the Miami River Cops? If so then you already have an idea of how affirmative action lowered the standards.

I could go on and on giving examples of higher injury rates and WC claims % wise for women(that were kept hush hush), minority washout rates, etc., but hopefully you get the idea. If you want to discuss this further, start a thread about the lack of proficiency of LEO's at the range, or something similar and I will be happy to continue. As you might be able to tell, I vehemently object to all the ills of affirmative action in the ES fields.

`
 
Personally the more I read your posts the more offended I become. You want to use you own narrow minded prejudices to prescribe how the rest of us observe our rights. You have brought in mode of dress, race, sex, and every other bigoted opinion of yours to justify your points and personally I find it disgusting. NONE of your prejudiced points have any merit to be brought into this conversation nor should they be tolerated on a forum like this. Thank God this forum has an ignore function so I'll never have to read another one of you posts again. Hopefully all the substandard black people and weak women, people with tattoos, fat people, bikers, or anyone else you are offended by will do the same.
 
Last edited:
I can't comment on what they did in Florida because I wasn't in Florida back then to make a comparison. My only baseline is Texas. I do know during some periods, certain departments did lower their standards (check for pulse, etc.) simply because their rep was so bad, they couldn't recruit anyone qualified. However, the State of Texas revamped its entire certification program and set standards that must be met. Period. Individual departments are allowed to add to or increase the standards, but they cant discount them. You're no longer simply issued a commission card by the hiring agency, you also must have a Peace Officer License issued by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Ethics. The only waiver is for a newly elected sheriff or constable and that's just because Texas law does not require you to be already certified as a peace officer to run for those offices. But even they must complete the entire TCLEOSE in order to remain in office.

Yes, even in Texas, we still get run-ins with the EEOC. However, that's almost entirely over advancement. And even there, the plaintiffs still have to pass the existing test. They don't give them a separate exam or grade on a curve. Pass is pass; fail is fail. It doesn't matter whether you're white, black, brown or green.

I will admit there are people out there running around with a shiny badge they have no business wearing. However, based on my own observation over the years, that was just as true in the days of yore, when some people's rose-colored glasses say cops were all big, beefy men. With proper corrective lenses, we would see that wasn't true even back then.

Incidentally, before you discount small-statured folks, it might interest you to know that Jelly Bryce, the legendary Oklahoma City detective and FBI agent, was 5'7" and weighed 151 pounds, according to his FBI records. Over his entire career with the FBI, he never weighed more than 174.
 
state law prohibits CCW in MI where alcohol is served. i assume this arts festival will have some libations.

this same controversy occurred in westland MI when the DA's office threatened to lock up anyone OCing at the fireworks show, where alcohol is indeed served.

it's state law, and considering lots of folks act like imbeciles when intoxicated, prohibiting carry at these locations is probably the safest bet, unfortunately.

i'm not anti carry of course, but i really don't care if i can't pack heat at an arts festival, regardless of whether alcohol is served. if you don't like it, don't attend. problem solved, move on with life.

i've noticed the hardcore OC proponents on michigan gun owners forum are nothing short of obnoxious whiners. hmm, i wonder if they'd change their stance if they were caught in the crossfire of two drunken ccw's shooting at eachother.....
 
Last edited:
Personally the more I read your posts the more offended I become. You want to use you own narrow minded prejudices to prescribe how the rest of us observe our rights. You have brought in mode of dress, race, sex, and every other bigoted opinion of yours to justify your points and personally I find it disgusting. NONE of your prejudiced points have any merit to be brought into this conversation nor should they be tolerated on a forum like this. Thank God this forum has an ignore function so I'll never have to read another one of you posts again. Hopefully all the substandard black people and weak women, people with tattoos, fat people, bikers, or anyone else you are offended by will do the same.
Click to expand...

Funny how those who dislike others points of view hope for censorship as you alluded to regarding this forum. However you have managed to misstate my positions and exaggerate my view. For starters, I made it clear that others (not necessarily myself) would object to unsavory looking people with open carry regardless of what some pro OCers might personally think. I used several hypothetical examples of biker types or black panther members. I imagine some might feel uncomfortable with (_______) fill in the blank looking people.
As to my personal likes and dislikes involving dress codes, professional looking vs. unprofessional appearance, etc. is just that, my own personal point of view. If you do not like it you can go and pound sand. I might not care for your preferences, but I would never suggest you do not have the right to express yourself.
As to the subject of affirmative action and it allowing substandard people on the PD's or EMS, that is true of all races and genders. Remember when the standards are lowered, it allows many others of any race or sex to then get on as well. Special exceptions are still made based on race and sex as I've pointed out in the examples. You might not like the fact I am not politically correct and point such things out, but reality is reality whether you stick your head in the sand or not.

As to the overall theme of this thread, I do not object to OC or CC for law abiding American citizens. That said, to assume "everyone", including 2nd amendment supporters will "feel safer" because people are OCing at this festival is inaccurate. Don't let your own pro OC view cloud your common sense or judgment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top