Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Probably mentioned before, but??

  1. #1
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Probably mentioned before, but??

    Does this make sense, or am I being naive? Would it be a good idea to discuss with Police Departments that open carriers would be willing for, say, a year, to show ID when an LEO approaches due to a MWAG call as long as the OC'er and the LEO agree to both see the caller and explain that open carry is legal? The LEO would have to say that the OC'er did not have to show ID, but did so because of this one year program. The OC'er would have to say that he/she agreed to this program for a year in order to educate the general public that may not be aware of the law. Both would discuss the "problem" with callers saying they feel uncomfortable when seeing a firearm. LEO could not say anything derogatory about OC'ers and the OC'er could not say anything derogatory about LEO's.

  2. #2
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193

    Re: Probably mentioned before, but??

    This sounds like a bad idea. Cooperation with Leo's demands is OK if you want to but where does this go from there? Giving up all your 4a rights for a year? Why should we have to give in to inform that its legal to OC in most places. This is an issue of giving emergency response operators proper training on what does and doesn't require a cop when it comes to mwag calls. How com cops don't come rushing when someone calls 911 because mcdonalds screwed up their order? Because no laws were broken. Same thing when I'm carrying a firearm. Unless you think that the cops should respond to calls that a fast food joint screwed up their order and should demand the id of all the employees responsible.

    Giving away rights for any reason is always a bad idea.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Why not agree to a public strip search at the same time?

    You're being Naive.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The OP is not a Klingon. The proposal? Not to bright.

  5. #5
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by fjpro2a View Post
    Does this make sense, or am I being naive? Would it be a good idea to discuss with Police Departments that open carriers would be willing for, say, a year, to show ID when an LEO approaches due to a MWAG call as long as the OC'er and the LEO agree to both see the caller and explain that open carry is legal? The LEO would have to say that the OC'er did not have to show ID, but did so because of this one year program. The OC'er would have to say that he/she agreed to this program for a year in order to educate the general public that may not be aware of the law. Both would discuss the "problem" with callers saying they feel uncomfortable when seeing a firearm. LEO could not say anything derogatory about OC'ers and the OC'er could not say anything derogatory about LEO's.
    FJ I believe your heart is in the right place, but I feel like if this problem of MWAG calls is admitted by the LEO to the point that they would agree to some kind of "one year program", then they recognize the problem is not with us. The problem is with LEO and their interaction with people who call MWAG.

    The better answer is for LEO to have a one year program to teach them OC is NOT evidence of criminal action and people calling MWAG need to be educated to that end.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by fjpro2a View Post
    Does this make sense, or am I being naive? Would it be a good idea to discuss with Police Departments that open carriers would be willing for, say, a year, to show ID when an LEO approaches due to a MWAG call as long as the OC'er and the LEO agree to both see the caller and explain that open carry is legal? The LEO would have to say that the OC'er did not have to show ID, but did so because of this one year program. The OC'er would have to say that he/she agreed to this program for a year in order to educate the general public that may not be aware of the law. Both would discuss the "problem" with callers saying they feel uncomfortable when seeing a firearm. LEO could not say anything derogatory about OC'ers and the OC'er could not say anything derogatory about LEO's.
    WHO would make this agreement? I'm certainly not going to allow other OCers to make any such agreement on my behalf. Nor am I going to give up 1st Amendment rights (to say what I believe) or make the determination of whether what I or a police officer says is "derogatory".

    You may have the germ of two good ideas here (mutual respect and education), but not a solid proposal, IMO.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    This is a better idea that may only cost the price of postage. Mail a letter to the dispatch centers and all police departments with jurisdiction where you plan to travel. Send it certified mail, probably address to the chief of the department or head of training, whatever. Inform then of all applicable laws and the way you have interpreted them. Have case law or attorney general opinion? Include that too.

    Mention in your letter how immunity usually is only given if the officer does not believe he is breaking the law, as this is true. Inform them of all laws that they may try to use against you. If you do not meet the requirements for DC just for OCing, tell them so.

    Include in your letter that they should inform a concerned caller that, unless you are breaking some other law, it is not illegal to carry a firearm in a proper holster.

    Since it is certified mail, they know you have proof that it was received by the department.

    They will run it through their legal department and it will take a while to trickle down to patrol. It may never get too far, but now you have a better legal ground of one of these departments intrudes on your rights.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Not a good idea, i guess

    To all who responded, your comments have made me realize that my suggestion wasn't too good. All 7 responses were negative, while not one was in favor of it. Therefore, I would like to propose that the length of time for this idea be reduced from one year to just 6 months. Just kidding!!!! Look guys and gals. I come up with an idea (good or bad,) and I like to post it. My belief is that the good ideas take hold and the bad ones die. After reading your responses, my position on this issue has changed. It honestly seemed to have some merit at the time, but that has gone. Don't dissuade people from posting ideas, though. Maybe, just maybe a good idea will surface that can substantially help the Open Carry movement. Thanks.

  9. #9
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193

    Re: Probably mentioned before, but??

    Quote Originally Posted by fjpro2a View Post
    To all who responded, your comments have made me realize that my suggestion wasn't too good. All 7 responses were negative, while not one was in favor of it. Therefore, I would like to propose that the length of time for this idea be reduced from one year to just 6 months. Just kidding!!!! Look guys and gals. I come up with an idea (good or bad,) and I like to post it. My belief is that the good ideas take hold and the bad ones die. After reading your responses, my position on this issue has changed. It honestly seemed to have some merit at the time, but that has gone. Don't dissuade people from posting ideas, though. Maybe, just maybe a good idea will surface that can substantially help the Open Carry movement. Thanks.
    Don't take it personally. None of these are attacks against you and don't hesitate to post ideas in the future. We are not just pro 2a here. We are pro bill of rights.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  10. #10
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by CCinMaine View Post
    Don't take it personally. None of these are attacks against you and don't hesitate to post ideas in the future. We are not just pro 2a here. We are pro bill of rights.
    Fixed it for you. Your point still stands though. Anyone can state their opinion, just be prepared to hear (read) the opinion of others.

    OP, you were trying to suggest a way the world a better place for self defense rights. For that you get respect. Most of us just don't see trading any rights for any other. All rights are equally important, we just hold our 2A closer because we usually think that is the way to keep the others.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193

    Re: Probably mentioned before, but??

    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Fixed it for you. Your point still stands though. Anyone can state their opinion, just be prepared to hear (read) the opinion of others.

    OP, you were trying to suggest a way the world a better place for self defense rights. For that you get respect. Most of us just don't see trading any rights for any other. All rights are equally important, we just hold our 2A closer because we usually think that is the way to keep the others.
    Thanks.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •