Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10th Circuit court rules on Open carry.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Maddogg123 View Post
    What an ignorant statement. I believe that it's an officer's duty to ensure that someone who is carrying a weapon can do so legally.
    what an ignorant statment, its up to police officers to uphold the constitution also, which prevents Unresonabel search and seziure and allows bearing firearms.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by westside popo View Post
      That is not the only law we have to deal with situations as you stated. It is not unusual, in my experience, to see people standing in or around our sally port waiting on someone to get out of jail or to give a subject money etc for bail. If any of us see any one standing or sitting out side a simple " may I help you?" is enough to learn their intentions. Now if one of them were openly carrying a pistol I would at least ask to see a CCW license. If they did not have a legit reason for being there then yes they could possibly be charged with the law.
      A subject carrying a rifle and 2 pistols, walking past bars at 0100 hours on Saturday, in Atlanta could not be charged with loitering and prowling. But he could be charged with other violations of the laws. While you do have "alarm" it is not unresonable for people to be in that place and at that time. Because you will have poeple leaving and or entering the bars. Now if it was in Smallville, GA at 0100 hours on Monday then you may have a case of loitering and prowling.
      In GA someone walkign around with a gun is not enough to demand to see a Georgia Firearms License.
      And law abiding citizens arent supposed to be out at 0100, is that what you are saying?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Maddogg123 View Post
        What an ignorant statement. I believe that it's an officer's duty to ensure that someone who is carrying a weapon can do so legally.
        Really?? Your state has such a law?

        In PA, open carry is 100% legal, and the mere fact that a person is OC'ing by itself is not enough to stop and check the person to see if they are legal.

        Can you stop a motorist just to see if they have a driver's license or are otherwise legal to be driving?
        Steve

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by KY Blue 72 View Post
          Whether a permit is required or not, it is still legal in 42 states. If you feel that the individual open carrying is threatening feel free to stop them. That doesnt bother me one bit.
          If a permit is required, I don't have to believe the person is "threatening" in order to stop and validate that he has a permit. No RS needed at all since carrying a firearm without one is illegal in my state.
          I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

          Comment


          • #35
            A lot people who open carry are anti law enforcement and are looking for a reason to complain.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by SgtScott31 View Post
              If a permit is required, I don't have to believe the person is "threatening" in order to stop and validate that he has a permit. No RS needed at all since carrying a firearm without one is illegal in my state.
              It's been ruled in Georgia that carrying a firearm is not enough to stop someone and demand to see a firearms license

              Comment


              • #37
                This is why individual states and municipalities should get the heck out of the firearm regulating business. One set of rules across all 50 based on the 2nd Ammendment I say.
                "You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall... I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by yellowreef View Post
                  This is why individual states and municipalities should get the heck out of the firearm regulating business. One set of rules across all 50 based on the 2nd Ammendment I say.
                  Soo...yay for state's rights..except for this?

                  California would be in an uproar if their gun laws were changed to reflect the majority of the USA.
                  summer - winter - work

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JLee View Post
                    Soo...yay for state's rights..except for this?

                    California would be in an uproar if their gun laws were changed to reflect the majority of the USA.
                    Most states' gun laws probably are more liberal than the Second Amendment requires (assuming, of course, that the Second Amendment applies to the states, which remains to be decided). It is quite possible that a national law could constitutionally resemble the laws in California, Illinois or New York City -- not that I think that any such law would ever make it through Congress.
                    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DAL View Post
                      Most states' gun laws probably are more liberal than the Second Amendment requires (assuming, of course, that the Second Amendment applies to the states, which remains to be decided). It is quite possible that a national law could constitutionally resemble the laws in California, Illinois or New York City -- not that I think that any such law would ever make it through Congress.
                      regretfully and gratefully that is profoundly your opinion but i beleive that 4-5 judges of SOCTUS will disagree with you fundamentally. basically 2nd is yours and mine gun permit. period.lawfully.whatever or however you want to grease it, your gears grinds. the consitutional law is right there with a specific comma right before " the right of people to bear arms SHALL not be infringed." my point that i dont understand some of you people just cannot accept this fact.and it's already decided by our founding fathers.
                      break censorship chains

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Maddogg123 View Post
                        What an ignorant statement. I believe that it's an officer's duty to ensure that someone who is carrying a weapon can do so legally.
                        okay, let's say i want to stop you and ask for papers cause i think you dont look right upstairs...
                        break censorship chains

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by pfchell View Post
                          regretfully and gratefully that is profoundly your opinion but i beleive that 4-5 judges of SOCTUS will disagree with you fundamentally. basically 2nd is yours and mine gun permit. period.lawfully.whatever or however you want to grease it, your gears grinds. the consitutional law is right there with a specific comma right before " the right of people to bear arms SHALL not be infringed." my point that i dont understand some of you people just cannot accept this fact.and it's already decided by our founding fathers.
                          Well, pfchell, you are not qualified to render an opinion on legal issues. You either have not read the Court's opinion in Heller carefully or do not understand it. Yes, it is now established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, which I always believed was the proper construction. That does not end the matter, however.

                          When it was adopted, the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. That is conceded by the NRA. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment apply to the states is undecided. The decisions are in conflict on this point. Old Supreme Court decisions state that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. See http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=12549

                          Heller, a 5 - 4 decision, dealt with the right to possess a handgun for self-defense in the home, and held that a complete ban was unreasonable. Part III of the Court's opinion expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to limitations and regulation, and declines to specify the permissible limits of such regulation. So, if the Court holds that the Second Amendment applies to the states, we will eventually learn what the permissible parameters of regulation are. Given the slim majority, I expect that the scope of permissible regulation will be broad, and probably broader than I would like.

                          I doubt that you have any basis for your views as to what the Supreme Court will ultimately hold on these issues.
                          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by coolhead64 View Post
                            It's been ruled in Georgia that carrying a firearm is not enough to stop someone and demand to see a firearms license
                            This ruling cites a US Supreme Court case:

                            "the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment)"

                            Does anybody know what this case was about ?

                            Bill
                            Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by willbird View Post
                              This ruling cites a US Supreme Court case:

                              "the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment)"

                              Does anybody know what this case was about ?

                              Bill
                              Yes. It holds that an uncorroborated tip from an anonymous informant, without any indication of suspicious behavior, that a man was carrying a gun was not a sufficient basis for a Terry stop-and-frisk.
                              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by DAL View Post
                                Yes. It holds that an uncorroborated tip from an anonymous informant, without any indication of suspicious behavior, that a man was carrying a gun was not a sufficient basis for a Terry stop-and-frisk.
                                Hmm so how does that compare to some nutbag with a cell phone making a man with a gun call ??

                                Bill
                                Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4806 users online. 288 members and 4518 guests.

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

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X