That needs to be directed at the Govt/Police/Judge etc, not me, because they are doing just that to you/others/me unless I am missing something.
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Nevada Citizen Open Carries in NHP Southern Command
- Thread starter TigerLily
- Start date
That needs to be directed at the Govt/Police/Judge etc, not me, because they are doing just that to you/others/me unless I am missing something.
FallonJeeper
Regular Member
Oh, not directed at you.
It seems some people are thinkers, but have no knowledge of what they are thinking is best for you and me. It's like the phrase "Perception is Reality" Somebody coined it and meant that what people perceive is "their reality", not that perception is actually reality. But now I hear it used in arguments like it has merit.
The people that think we can't control our emotions in court rooms are the same people, if given some to angle to work to, will also think that we can't control ourselves anywhere. That's the beginning of the slippery slope.
There are laws and processes for people who can't control themselves, in public, in courtrooms or even in their own homes. We should be able to do our thing, as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody else’s rights. These "thinkers" keep adding/wanting stricter gun control/laws, when the laws in place, if enforced already do as much as can be done.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
It isn't whether they will allow it or not.
It is whether they can legally prevent it or not.
I see the signs on our local sheriff's and the county offices, and sometimes wonder if I would want to test them. They cite the cc statute, claiming " no firearms allowed pursuant to...."
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
How do they call it justice when the people who can carry are:
- The judge,
- The prosecutor,
- The Baliff,
wrightme
Regular Member
Why do you say that 'people who can carry' are all of those things?
More to the point, what does ANY of that have to do with the topic of this thread?
Last edited:
renoglock22
Regular Member
This does pertain to the thread, it is about carry in places LEO's THINK you should not carry but legally can.
Haven't you seen Minority Report? I don't want someone telling me I can't OC in a court room because I MAY be emotional about a case. Why not arrest me now for a murder I MAY commit because of those emotions.
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
You will have to read into my post a little, I have had a tough week. If you don't understand it, dont worry about it, it really is not of Huge importance.
What was stated was a SCENARIO !!!! for the most part. But, can you carry in a court room-NO! THEY WON'T LET YOU!!! So it doesn't matter does it.
Walk into a court room and explain your rights to the judge and tell him you aren't going to leave until he/she lets you speak/sit in the court room as long as you want. IT won't happen, the bailiff will haul you out and if you resist (as you should if you are following the constitution/standing up for your rights) you will be in jail even for following the constitution as you are telling the judge why you should be allowed to OC in their court room. They just won't hear it and you will loose that argument.
Common since will be the benefactor, live to fight another day as it were.
Go to the White House and OC, or to Congress and OC, can you-NO! Why, THEY WON'T LET YOU!!!
Again, I am 100% for OCing/our rights, but until things can get changed (in the Scenario mentioned), we need to use common since so we (the OC community/Gun people) won't be branded as trouble makers and a deaf ear turned every time we want something changed/talk.
Beating a dead horse IMHO w/the emotion issue, just a lot of hot air of what if.
Real issue is can you OC in a court room-YES, BUT will they let you-NO, so it isn't gonna happen-What do we have behind door #3-a trip to jail, and lots of money spent. Fight the right way to get things accomplished.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
First off it is my experience that most things of importance are accomplished by people who are too stupid to know they can't be done.
Secondly, when rights are trampled by the enforcers and the Judiciary and legislators turn a blind eye, there is nothing left for the common man/woman to do but avail themselves of civil disobedience.
TBG
renoglock22
Regular Member
MLK Jr. was branded a troublemaker and look what he accomplished. The colonists were branded troublemakers by their government and now we are America. Any change that needs to be made will be done by so called "troublemakers". If we sit back and say "Ok, I won't OC in here because you (the judge) are scared of law abiding citizens asserting their rights." then what else will they say no to. Oh you can't carry downtown because it's too close to the courthouse or the police station. Oh you can't carry in this neighborhood or that neighborhood because they are too close to downtown etc. etc.. Where does it end? Things will never get done if everyone is scared of being a "troublemaker"
(I am not trying to pick a fight, I see where you are coming from. Just a friendly debate.)
(I am not trying to pick a fight, I see where you are coming from. Just a friendly debate.)
Oh really?
Maybe OC'ing should be allowed by a murder defendant until he is convicted. Remember he is a man with inalienable rights that need protecting until he is convicted.... If he pulls a gun, then everyone else should be armed, including the victims family in that courtroom, then they should pull theirs also and nobody would not have to worry about what the judge and jury decides......or victim/witness statements....everyone would be dead or recovering in the hospital. Sometimes a little common sense is called for on this forum. In a court setting , is a good example where much more government control than normal is called for, as bad as that sounds. if you or I happen to be there, I really don't want the place being a armed camp of people who think they are getting screwed over and all their money or their liberty is just about to be wrongly taken by some one just a few feet away. The term "sensitive location" keeps coming to mind, even though it may be overused elsewhere.
Maybe OC'ing should be allowed by a murder defendant until he is convicted. Remember he is a man with inalienable rights that need protecting until he is convicted.... If he pulls a gun, then everyone else should be armed, including the victims family in that courtroom, then they should pull theirs also and nobody would not have to worry about what the judge and jury decides......or victim/witness statements....everyone would be dead or recovering in the hospital. Sometimes a little common sense is called for on this forum. In a court setting , is a good example where much more government control than normal is called for, as bad as that sounds. if you or I happen to be there, I really don't want the place being a armed camp of people who think they are getting screwed over and all their money or their liberty is just about to be wrongly taken by some one just a few feet away. The term "sensitive location" keeps coming to mind, even though it may be overused elsewhere.
Last edited:
Vegassteve
Regular Member
That entire scenario could be played out in many locations not just a court house. And well it just doesnt happen, the streets are not running with blood. The website you wanted to post this on has the name brady in it. Please go post with your pals on that forum.
wrightme
Regular Member
A few items.
If there is no legal authority to bar an action, it is a good thing to challenge it. Otherwise, it becomes a de-facto authority, similar to 'give me your identification.' It isn't about whether they CAN demand it, it is about whether they have statutory support for that demand.
It is VERY important to have such ersatz authority challenged, because the longer it is unchallenged, it becomes virtually the same as if it were written that way, because EVERYONE begins to believe it IS that way. As example, the recent flail about Elissa Cadish illustrates that as those person who 'believe' something move into power, as a judge, such ersatz authorities can become unchallengeable fact.
If there is a 'need' to ban firearms from some location, the correct method is that statute would be written to accomplish the ban, not an edict declared by someone of power.
[common sense]
If there is no legal authority to bar an action, it is a good thing to challenge it. Otherwise, it becomes a de-facto authority, similar to 'give me your identification.' It isn't about whether they CAN demand it, it is about whether they have statutory support for that demand.
It is VERY important to have such ersatz authority challenged, because the longer it is unchallenged, it becomes virtually the same as if it were written that way, because EVERYONE begins to believe it IS that way. As example, the recent flail about Elissa Cadish illustrates that as those person who 'believe' something move into power, as a judge, such ersatz authorities can become unchallengeable fact.
If there is a 'need' to ban firearms from some location, the correct method is that statute would be written to accomplish the ban, not an edict declared by someone of power.
[common sense]
Last edited:
The Big Guy
Regular Member
You are absolutely correct. Let me give you an example from real life. Senator Heller sent me a letter from a government lawyer explaining the government’s position with regard to the filing of, and payment of, personal income tax. I don't have the letter in my hand but this is what it boils down to. No, there is no statute that says one must file and pay tax on personal income. However, there are 2 kinds of law. There is factual law where congress passes it, the president signs it, and it is published in the federal register. There is another type of law, perceived (my words) law. This is a law because the general public believes it to be law, and judges believe it to be law, therefore it IS law and is enforceable. Have you picked yourself off the floor yet?
This is exactly what we are talking about here, Perceived law. People assume that it is law that you can't carry into the Courthouse and the enforcers, prosecutors and judges enforce it AS law with NO statutory authority. The longer this goes the more entrenched it becomes and the harder the fight to correct it. Remember the old saying "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".
This is a prime example of where civil disobedience is called for.
TBG
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
Over a year ago I tried to open carry in the Washoe Sheriff's office. The Washoe Sheriff's office would not allow it, and gave me the option of being arrested or leaving my gun in my car. The law does not matter to the prosecutor either. The prosecutor's office has told me I cannot carry in the Washoe Sheriff's office, law be damned. They told me my only recourse was to sue. They are not the slightest bit interested in prosecuting police who violate the law, as they do not eat their own.
If taken to court, by criminal prosecution or civil rights lawsuit, the risks and costs to the defendant of a criminal prosecution or the costs to the plaintiff of a civil rights suit are tremendous.
While I'd like to see a court tell them they are wrong, unfortunately it seems unlikely any individual will be held to answer for the abuses of the government, and the agencies themselves will merely be scolded and the individuals in the agencies will continue to ignore the law. If the police ignore the written law, who will make them obey court orders?
I don't think the people who are currently managing the police and the prosecutor's office take their jobs seriously and they need a rude awakening and need to be voted out of office if holding an elected position, or a person needs to be elected to fire them if holding an unelected position. Unfortunately, gun carriers being a minority, it is hard to persuade the majority that these officials are behaving badly.
If taken to court, by criminal prosecution or civil rights lawsuit, the risks and costs to the defendant of a criminal prosecution or the costs to the plaintiff of a civil rights suit are tremendous.
While I'd like to see a court tell them they are wrong, unfortunately it seems unlikely any individual will be held to answer for the abuses of the government, and the agencies themselves will merely be scolded and the individuals in the agencies will continue to ignore the law. If the police ignore the written law, who will make them obey court orders?
I don't think the people who are currently managing the police and the prosecutor's office take their jobs seriously and they need a rude awakening and need to be voted out of office if holding an elected position, or a person needs to be elected to fire them if holding an unelected position. Unfortunately, gun carriers being a minority, it is hard to persuade the majority that these officials are behaving badly.
Last edited:
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Except that just doesn't happen. You are doing what the Bradyites do by taking an illogical idea to its most extreme and graphic conclusion.
In Idaho, it is perfectly legal to OC without a permit into a courthouse (or into a jail, for that matter - I have never done it but it isn't statutorily prohibited). Never once has the crazed scenario your describe above taken place.
Last edited:
usmcmustang
Regular Member
And if arrested, what Nevada/County/City statute would you be prosecuted under? If there is NO law/ordinance/code prohibiting your conduct, just what would be your crime?
b0neZ
Regular Member
Disorderly Conduct seems to be a good catch-all. And once they seize (legally or not) your weapon, good luck getting it back.
wrightme
Regular Member
Yep. Engaging in hyperbole.
But, in reality, what he describes may be accurate. If those responsible for arresting and charging have told him they will, and he desires to challenge it, he will be in need of deep pockets to defend against an unjust charge, no matter what charge that happens to be.
Last edited:
The Big Guy
Regular Member
And don't forget the catch all "OBSTRUCTION".