eye95
Well-known member
Someone came in today and started to grill a certain other retired police officer about the open carry of an AR in a McDonalds. He kept pressing the guy for firm answers whether that would be OK or legal. The retired police officer refused (rightly) to answer the question directly. Instead he correctly (IMO) predicted that the police would be called and would respond. He also gave the person a handout we have made that gives the web references for the relevant sections of the ORC, and told him to look for the answers there.
I post this thread to make the following judgments:
1. The retired police officer handled the situation well. He is not a lawyer. When asked a question of law, he referred the person to the ORC. When asked about what his experience tells him, he honestly replied that the police would be called and would respond. 10/10
2. The person who challenged him clearly had no intention to conduct a legitimate transaction. For whatever reason, he seemed to want to engage the retired police officer in a debate on AR OC. 0/10
3. I hope to Hell it wasn't anyone from OCDO, because I will not allow this to happen again. Anyone challenging my guys on the law will be met by ME. That person will be offered assistance with the business we normally conduct. Any questions of law will be met with the handout.
4. Questions of law will come up during transactions. As part of these transactions, they are normal. We will, in those cases, share our understanding based on our experiences. However, in all cases, a copy of the references to the ORC will be provided. My standard statement is, "But don't take anyone's word for the law, not even mine. I am not a lawyer. Read the law for yourself."
Let me make this perfectly clear: There are places for confrontational advocacy, and there are places where it is inappropriate. I will react to inappropriateness appropriately and with calm resolve.
I really pray that this was not any of you guys. If it was, I hope he has the intestinal fortitude to apologize to me for the position he put me in and, more importantly, to the person trying to help him for the way he was treated.
I post this thread to make the following judgments:
1. The retired police officer handled the situation well. He is not a lawyer. When asked a question of law, he referred the person to the ORC. When asked about what his experience tells him, he honestly replied that the police would be called and would respond. 10/10
2. The person who challenged him clearly had no intention to conduct a legitimate transaction. For whatever reason, he seemed to want to engage the retired police officer in a debate on AR OC. 0/10
3. I hope to Hell it wasn't anyone from OCDO, because I will not allow this to happen again. Anyone challenging my guys on the law will be met by ME. That person will be offered assistance with the business we normally conduct. Any questions of law will be met with the handout.
4. Questions of law will come up during transactions. As part of these transactions, they are normal. We will, in those cases, share our understanding based on our experiences. However, in all cases, a copy of the references to the ORC will be provided. My standard statement is, "But don't take anyone's word for the law, not even mine. I am not a lawyer. Read the law for yourself."
Let me make this perfectly clear: There are places for confrontational advocacy, and there are places where it is inappropriate. I will react to inappropriateness appropriately and with calm resolve.
I really pray that this was not any of you guys. If it was, I hope he has the intestinal fortitude to apologize to me for the position he put me in and, more importantly, to the person trying to help him for the way he was treated.
