Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yet another Open Carry thread...

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    But DAL, I'm not intimidated by an aircraft carrier in the hands of responsible US Military personnel, as long as I'm not doing anything wrong.. I'm not intimidated when I'm driving my motorcycle on a highway full of 18 wheelers and SUVs as long as people are driving responsibly. Open carry is not the same thing as brandishing.
    Huh?

    In the example I posited, a dozen armed gangbangers surrounded a police officer who stopped a suspected drug dealer. You equate those people with the military????

    If unlicensed open carry were legl, you could expect that in California. If Black Panthers entered the State Capitol with shotguns, that would be benign?????

    Before California outlawed open carry, both the examples were not hypothetical; they actually occurred, which is why open carry was outlawed.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by westside popo View Post
      I was checking out cop watch and discovered the subject of this thread is on there. His user name is Maxima.
      Link

      Substitute the "********" with cop watch, with out any spaces in the url.
      Can't view the thread without signing up for an account. I think that's pretty much all you need to know about this a-hole, he has an active account on ********. He probably cares very little about the 2nd Amendment, but a lot about going out of his way to try and get cops in trouble.

      Comment


      • #18
        Although I generally do not 'open carry,' I strongly support the right of others to do so.
        Unfortunately though, trolls like this guy make gun owners look like idiots to a lot of people who don't really know much about guns or gun laws. You'd think somebody like him would want to be proactive about educating firearm ignorant people about guns, laws, etc. but apparently not...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by InspctrClouseau View Post
          Unfortunately though, trolls like this guy make gun owners look like idiots to a lot of people who don't really know much about guns or gun laws. You'd think somebody like him would want to be proactive about educating firearm ignorant people about guns, laws, etc. but apparently not...
          Why? Carrying a gun does not mean that you have any concern for others, or that you are intelligent and think about the long-term consequences of your actions.
          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DAL View Post
            Why? Carrying a gun does not mean that you have any concern for others, or that you are intelligent and think about the long-term consequences of your actions.
            You seem to have to have missed the point...
            When a LEO does something stupid, it makes all of us look bad. It's unfortunate, but it's true. When someone like this idiot who is all for 'open carry' does something stupid like this, it makes all of the other people who 'open carry' or hell, carry perioid, look like tools. While I really couldn't care less what some random strangers think about me or my right to own and carry a firearm, most of these people do vote. Their votes can eventually lead to unfavorable firearms laws, at least in my opinion.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by InspctrClouseau View Post
              You seem to have to have missed the point...
              When a LEO does something stupid, it makes all of us look bad. It's unfortunate, but it's true. When someone like this idiot who is all for 'open carry' does something stupid like this, it makes the all of the other people who 'open carry' or hell, carry perioid, look like tools. While I really couldn't care less what some random strangers think about me or my right to own and carry a firearm, most of these people do vote. Their votes can eventually lead to unfavorable firearms laws, at least in my opinion.
              I got your point. Although everything you say is correct, you miss my point: Law-enforcement officers are a group of screened individuals who are concerned about how their actions affect other law-enforcement officers, and also their own jobs. People who openly carry weapons generally are not screened and may be indifferent to how their actions affect others. And I doubt that they think much about long-term consequences. My expectation is that in states where only those with a CCW permit are allowed to carry openly, those who do so will be more circumspect out of fear of losing their permits.
              Last edited by DAL; 03-25-2011, 02:12 PM.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DAL View Post
                I got your point. Although everything you say is correct, you miss my point: Law-enforcement officers are a group of screened individuals who are concerned about how their actions affect other law-enforcement officers, and also their own jobs. People who openly carry weapons generally are not screened and may be indifferent to how their actions affect others. And I doubt that they think much about long-term consequences. My expectation is that in states where only those with a CCW permit are allowed to carry openly, those who do so will be more circumspect out of fear of losing their permits.
                I understand what you're saying. All that I was trying to say in the first place was that the guy in the article/video is a fool, and that his actions are a contributing factor to the fear and/or unacceptance of many in the general public in regards to the carrying of firearms by citizens.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Going back to the OP, this isn't really a case about openly carrying a firearm. The guy was not arrested for carrying a firearm. True, that was what initiated the contact, but he was actually arrested for an outstanding traffic warrant. That part would not have changed whether he identified himself or not. According to the news article (which or may not be correct), he was disarmed and escorted out of the building because he "refused to identify himself and refused to cooperate with the police officer." Okay, I have no problem with that. Even at that point, he might have been released were it not for the outstanding warrant. The fact that he made the disparaging remarks about law enforcement does show him up as a jackass but it really has nothing to do with the case or with whether one should/should not openly carry firearms.

                  I agree with InspctrClouseau that those who want the public to accept the presence of firearms will do more harm than good by being uncooperative or confrontational. The fact that this mouthy idiot got arrested just reinforced to everyone who saw it that it's not legal to carry a firearm and they were right to call the police. They don't know that he was arrested for an entirely different charge.

                  Imagine the scenario a little differently: The police officer arrives, asks citizen for his name and why he is carrying. Citizen replies, "I'm John Q. Public and I'm carrying a firearm for any legal purpose including self-defense." Officer asks for identification which citizen provides. Officer runs wants/warrants, finds nothing, returns ID to citizen and goes 10-8. Now the public perception is entirely different. It's not hard to image onlookers asking Mr. Public about the contact and being educated as to the legality of openly carrying firearms. Those people will know it's true because they just saw it happen before their eyes. At least some of them, the next time they see an openly carried firearm will say to people around them, "It's legal to carry that way. I saw it myself. We don't need to call the police unless he does something suspicious." Everybody wins; Mr. Public wins because he made his point to a lot of people, the police win because they don't have to spend time and resources on the call, and the sheeple win because they have received some education about their rights.
                  "Son, you are a walkin' violation of the laws of nature...But we don't enforce them laws."

                  I am just a country boy tryin' to make some sense
                  But I'd like to ask the Congress, I'd like to ask the President
                  "Can ya tell me where all the money went?"
                  We might not be broke but we're badly bent!


                  The Tractors -- "Badly Bent" from the album Owner's Manual

                  "Common sense. So rare, it should be a super power." Exodus 259

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by HeadDoc View Post
                    Going back to the OP, this isn't really a case about openly carrying a firearm. The guy was not arrested for carrying a firearm. True, that was what initiated the contact, but he was actually arrested for an outstanding traffic warrant. That part would not have changed whether he identified himself or not. According to the news article (which or may not be correct), he was disarmed and escorted out of the building because he "refused to identify himself and refused to cooperate with the police officer." Okay, I have no problem with that. Even at that point, he might have been released were it not for the outstanding warrant. The fact that he made the disparaging remarks about law enforcement does show him up as a jackass but it really has nothing to do with the case or with whether one should/should not openly carry firearms.

                    I agree with InspctrClouseau that those who want the public to accept the presence of firearms will do more harm than good by being uncooperative or confrontational. The fact that this mouthy idiot got arrested just reinforced to everyone who saw it that it's not legal to carry a firearm and they were right to call the police. They don't know that he was arrested for an entirely different charge.

                    Imagine the scenario a little differently: The police officer arrives, asks citizen for his name and why he is carrying. Citizen replies, "I'm John Q. Public and I'm carrying a firearm for any legal purpose including self-defense." Officer asks for identification which citizen provides. Officer runs wants/warrants, finds nothing, returns ID to citizen and goes 10-8. Now the public perception is entirely different. It's not hard to image onlookers asking Mr. Public about the contact and being educated as to the legality of openly carrying firearms. Those people will know it's true because they just saw it happen before their eyes. At least some of them, the next time they see an openly carried firearm will say to people around them, "It's legal to carry that way. I saw it myself. We don't need to call the police unless he does something suspicious." Everybody wins; Mr. Public wins because he made his point to a lot of people, the police win because they don't have to spend time and resources on the call, and the sheeple win because they have received some education about their rights.
                    I couldn't have said it better myself.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      WOW that troll (bobneuman) was taken out super quick only two posts!

                      Thanks!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DAL
                        Before California outlawed open carry, both the examples were not hypothetical; they actually occurred, which is why open carry was outlawed.
                        So now only criminals carry.
                        Laws don't stop criminal behaviour, only establish punishments if someone breaks a law & is caught.
                        Intimidation is illegal; why not punish the politically-active minority members for that?

                        HeadDoc, in general I agree with what you've written here, but I have a different perspective on some things.
                        Originally posted by HeadDoc
                        he was disarmed and escorted out of the building because he "refused to identify himself and refused to cooperate with the police officer."
                        Which depending on the state is not illegal.
                        Not cooperating with a lawful order is one thing. Ignoring a request, which does not have the backing of law, is different.
                        In all states I'm aware of, an officer must have RAS of a crime in order to detain someone or compel ID, and in some states the citizen doesn't have to ID her/himself even then.

                        Originally posted by HeadDoc
                        ...do more harm than good by being uncooperative or confrontational.
                        The guy in the news report in post #1 is a good example of a yahoo.
                        BUT... what too many officers call "uncooperative & confrontational" are merely citizens standing on their rights instead of complying with requests from officers.
                        If I walked up to you & demanded to see your driver's license, would you show me?
                        I'm betting not.
                        If I'm doing nothing wrong, there's no reason for you to demand ID from me.

                        Originally posted by HeadDoc
                        The police officer arrives, asks citizen for his name and why he is carrying.
                        Citizen replies, "I'm John Q. Public and I'm carrying a firearm for any legal purpose including self-defense."
                        Officer asks for identification which citizen provides.
                        Officer runs wants/warrants, finds nothing, returns ID to citizen and goes 10-8.
                        Now the public perception is entirely different.
                        ...the police win because they don't have to spend time and resources on the call, and the sheeple win because they have received some education about their rights.
                        If OC is legal, the citizen doesn't have to talk w/ the officer, let alone give a reason for the peaceful exercise of any right, or give ID.
                        Without RAS of a crime, there's no legal reason or ability to detain the person, or do a search (wants & warrants).
                        If OC is legal, it gives no more standing to stop & question someone than would someone walking into a church, or reading a paper, or playing basketball w/ friends, or voting.

                        If the officer were instead to drive by, see that the citizen was doing nothing illegal, & keep going, that would be not a waste of time. No report to write either. Better yet if the calltaker asked the caller to describe the supposed crime they were calling about, & upon hearing that a person has a holstered pistol telling the caller "that's legal". Yes, it's happened.

                        By giving in to the request for ID when the citizen has done nothing illegal, the sheeple learn that OC is suspicious & they'd better call police to check it out. That makes for more work for police, as well as more hassles for OCers, & potential conflict when an OCer insists that her/his rights be respected.
                        Last edited by MKEgal; 06-12-2011, 06:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          one thing that would help solve this problem is if it were not unlawful to conceal with out a permit and also no signs saying they cant have gun in this building that is crap. As a law enforcement Officer I carry everywhere I go and always have even before I was a Leo. That being said my Weapon is hidden inside my waistband. there are several ways to look at the situation I support the right to open carry because it is similar to target hardening. why would you commit the violent crime in the presence of an armed citizen. I conceal because if they decide to commit the crime anyway the first person they will kill is the guy with the gun. if they cant see it I can get the drop on them, and if it were legal for everyday citezens it has been said a million times and it hasnt got any less true an armed society is a polite society. In this case it is obvious this dude is wanting to shake things up and most likley out to sue the police for wrongful arrest when he doesnt comply to identify himself which in the state of Mo. is not a crime in and of itself unless being lawfully detained or arrested or a wttness. The reason I say he did it to cause a stir is if it were me and I were in his shoes I wouldve identified my self without a problem and that he calls himself a police watchdog. what Police watchdog means to me is dirtbag.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by InspctrClouseau View Post
                            I couldn't have said it better myself.
                            he did paint a perfect picture I bet he is one heck of a report writer

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 4742 users online. 295 members and 4447 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X