Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57

Thread: Do you want to win or lose your OC fight?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North of Seattlle, South of Canada, Washington, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Did I get your attention? I certainly hope so because what I am about to express as OPINION and FACT is what some of you need to hear, with both ears and your brain open.

    You are winningAND losing your OC fight. Call it anything else but it is a fight to carry in a manner not commonly accepted in this area (right or wrong). Think of your cause as being like a missionary. You are going into a wildernessof sorts with the intention of excercising your maker given rights and intending to inform the sheep about it. Hopefully you can convert a couple to your thoughts and excercising of your rights. Some of you have positive, open and friendly encounters with citizens and cops alike. Some of you seem to want to fight, to makea mark for yourself and turn off others to your right.

    YOU, and you alone have to present the positive image. Everyone has a camera these days. What do you think will appear on YouTube when you are confronted by someone? Will the video of a mild mannered OC person responding to a question or challenge make it or will the irate and poorly mouthed OC person make it?

    Some comments and attitude here have caused me to shake my head. Some simple legislation and a constitutional amendment or language change can and will strip your right to carry away. Who presents the image we want to project? If you look at the video of the good folks in Virginia, there is a positive example for you. Look at some threads here. Think getting snotty with someone who challenges or confronts you will make it better?

    Open Carry is a movement that is gaining attention andstrength. But it is a movement that can easily be universally looked upon as bad when the one or few jackasses who get stupid in the field and paint everyone with a dark paintbrush.

    Many of you know me as a pro-gun cop who supports OC. Sometimes OC needs to bereasonable and prudent. Yes folks, there are times NOT to OC. But you are winning NO fans in my side of the house with hostile or belligerant attitudes. Yes indeed, there are some in my profession who are hostile to you. They are ill informed or plain stupid when it comes to guns, rights and what your maker has given you. And yes, get involved with recording interactions. But these bacon bits will become more resistant to your rights and indeed, champion the elimination of them because someone decided to be a *******. Some will move on to become Chiefs and Sheriffs.They will remember and they will press for changes to the laws. Be vigorous in your defense of your maker given rights! But fight in the state house, city or county council chambers or even the courts. Recognize when it becomes necessary to detour to gain even more advantage for your cause.

    Now, I recognize that some here have had negative interactions with cops over the years and feel it appropriate to paint everyone in my career field as bad, stupid, evil whatever. But I would caution you to not let yourselves sink tothat level. You who OC carry the high ground in your belief. But it is up to you to be the positive role models for OC in a world where guns are viewed as evil (unless watching an action flick). Who do you think a fence riding soccer mom will view as more positive: the polite and appropriately dressed OC person or the agitated and upset cop, store manager or other hostile citizen?

    Carry on and I'll see you on the streets.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    I definitely agree with the spirit of your post. I am working on becoming an LEO myself and I feel that sometimes hasty generalizations are made about all those who serve based on isolated experiences.

    At the same time though, one man's "polite but unmoving defense of his rights" equals another man's "hostile and belligerent attitude." Remember, there is no such thing as an impartial observer -- doesn't matter how polite and friendly you are, some soccer moms will always vilify you for exercising your rights.

    All the OCers I have met personally are always on their best behavior while carrying and I salute them for it!

    Good post!

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    This is one of the reasons I champion rights, rather than just gun rights.

    If subject cop gets goofy over a lawfully carried gun, he'll get goofy over anything to which he objects. I'll take long odds that the cop who will violate the 4th Amendment over a gun will violate it over anything else he doesn't like, including your hair and clothes, if he thinks he's got half a chance to get away with it.

    By the way, I'm convinced we need to change from gun rights to defense rights. As in the human right to self-defense. He who controls the terminology controls the argument, as the saying goes.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the excellent post, Morris. You are a breath of fresh air.

    We muststrive to meet each personwe encounter in an atmosphere of openness, receptiveness, and respect. However, I tend to mirror the attitude of each person I meet. If my initial friendly overturesare met with hostility and disrespect, try as I might, I tend to respond in kind. That is a personal failing of mine. Fortunately, those situations are rare.

    Yes, Citizen, I agree that we should be "Rights Activists" in general, not simply 2A rightists. I am a Libertarian at heart, and all rights are important to me. This movement, and this forum, are just one small square in the entire patchwork quilt of civil rights that need to be exercised and protected.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Morris, good and true words, thanks. I started OC'ing in VA doing the VCDL meetings and OC'ing with the likes of folks like Citizen, NakedShoplifter, Tess, Tomahawk, Longwatch, Mike, Hawkflyer, VAOpenCarry to drop a few names...lol. Great folks and not an instigator in the bunch - all very professional.Most of us were at the park with the Fairfax PD and the helo and I can tell you that being right will win you the battle, but being polite will win you the people.

    We did 3 months in Reno and OC there is so common it's a non-event. Here in Spokane, I haven't had a lot of chance, but so far so good. No CC here and no car OC so it's a PITA for now.

    I'm looking forward to both spreading the "Virginia" flavor of OC around the rest of the country and finally returning back to the right side of the country to settle down.


    "Bacon bits" - LMAO!!! That's beautiful!

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:

    By the way, I'm convinced we need to change from gun rights to defense rights. As in the human right to self-defense. He who controls the terminology controls the argument, as the saying goes.
    I disagree. The constitution says the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mention self defense and although thatis a worthyuse of a fire armitis not the only one.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    irfner wrote:
    Citizen wrote:

    By the way, I'm convinced we need to change from gun rights to defense rights. As in the human right to self-defense. He who controls the terminology controls the argument, as the saying goes.
    I disagree. The constitution says the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mention self defense and although thatis a worthyuse of a fire armitis not the only one.
    But the Heller ruling was very clear that the 2nd protected the right of a person to keep and bear arms inside his home for self defense.

    Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but just wanted to interject a twist.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Well, I see Citizen's point, and would counter thatthe anti's twisted logic will say that if it's about "defense rights" there are manyways OTHER than a firearm by which you can defend yourself.Our logical responsewouldnaturally be that in order for defense to be effective it must be equal or greater to the force presented.

    Guns + Criminal + Motive> Unarmed Victim, Reasoning tactics, surrender, etc.

    however:

    Guns +Armed Citizen + Knowledge/Determination (Guts) > Guns + Criminal + Motive

    And that is where we will lose the battle! How? It's got nothing to do with logic or factsbecause as we know the anti-gun movement isn't trying to change OUR minds, but the minds of those who just don't know otherwise or bytaking advantage of those who have been recently victimized. They push their agenda bycausing fear through emotional control of the unknowing, not logic. 80 million gun owners is a lot, but the battle is for the other 220 million non-gun owners!

    Knowledge is power! Knowledge conquers fear! How many of you didn't know you could legally OC where you live? How many of you then were afraid to OC even knowing it was legal? You came here seeking information - KNOWLEDGE - and finally gave it a try and guess what? You were empowered and it felt GREAT!

    We have to findways to give that same empowerment even to those who do not wishto carry a gun and to those that don't care either way, but will respect your right to do so if you wish!We continue our noble causethrough empowering people withknowledge! The anti'scontinue their movement through emotional fear and disinformation. That is what makes them dishonorable and an actual threat to America. Arguing is an emotional response with a misinformed anti or abadge heavy LEO and will not empower anyone. You actually lose your power towin them over in doing so. You can disarm them not with a condescending tone or beligerence, but with confidence that comes with knowledge, determination and a pleasant attitide and even a smile!

    We give knowledge. They give fear. No American should ever walk in fear on the streets of our own nation so our battle must be to preserve what was so bravely fought for 232 years ago and it has only just begun! This battle is fought not on the streets, not in the police stations, not in the courts or in the legislatures. Those will all follow but it must be first fought in the homes and hearts of every American!

    Perhaps a great place to start is with one of the largest lobbies in the nation, the very people that NEED the equalizing defense of a fiream perhaps more than most: the AARP!



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    irfner wrote:
    Citizen wrote:

    By the way, I'm convinced we need to change from gun rights to defense rights. As in the human right to self-defense. He who controls the terminology controls the argument, as the saying goes.
    I disagree. The constitution says the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mention self defense and although thatis a worthyuse of a fire armitis not the only one.
    Then you would be wrong. Try reading the Washington State Constitution. It does apply here in this state and gives citizen better support of out rights than the Federal Constitution does.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    To tag onto that:
    ARTICLE 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


  11. #11
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    All the OCers I have met personally are always on their best behavior while carrying and I salute them for it!
    I was thinking along those lines while driving around doing errands today. OC or CC, it makes me very much aware of little things. Driving is the big one for me. Even though the other person has no idea I'm carrying, they get the best from me. No reason to be involved in a driving altercation.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    It's about time someone addressed this issue. I have also had to shake my head at times when I read some of these encounters with LEOs that could have been handled differently by the person that OCed. I also do not agree with the way some LEOs treat people that OC at times, but that is no reason for anyone not to remain polite. ( I know it is hard, I was wrongfully arrested before, and I had to control myself) But we should bite our lip, and keep our emotions in check when dealing with LOE.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Morris wrote:
    Open Carry is a movement that is gaining attention andstrength. But it is a movement that can easily be universally looked upon as bad when the one or few jackasses who get stupid in the field and paint everyone with a dark paintbrush.

    Are you talking about cops or citizens? I don't read too many stories about OCers running around harassing people, handcuffing them, and trying to enforce opinions.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I much appreciate the input and perspective, Morris.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    Morris wrote:
    Open Carry is a movement that is gaining attention andstrength. But it is a movement that can easily be universally looked upon as bad when the one or few jackasses who get stupid in the field and paint everyone with a dark paintbrush.

    Are you talking about cops or citizens? I don't read too many stories about OCers running around harassing people, handcuffing them, and trying to enforce opinions.
    It's about attitude, not actions on the OCers part.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    In my formative days as a cop, I heard a lecture by the chief about how bad police work makes bad caselaw. IN other words, he was saying that by exceeding the scope and intent of what cops should do, eventually a court will rule that the behavior, (and more restrictive behavior) would be outlawed.

    This reminds me of the OC issue, in that I believe that at some time, a court will rule in favor of restricting the ability to open carry, because someone pushed too hard, and OC'd in a place, time or manner that a judge or jury decides is unappropriate.

    As one who has carried openly for 30 years (as a cop in uniform) I would much rather go about my business on a daily basis armed but not advertising such.The arguments have been bantered back and forth on OC v. CC, and the intent of my post is not to renew that argument, just give my opinion. OC has it's place, (like the other day when I hopped on my quad to go rescue a lost hiker in the woods),or even if one tries on a suit jacket at the Bon, but it is my belief that while OC may be a right, CC is a priviledge, and is more suited for the urban lifestyle.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    It's interesting how the opinion enforcement officers are coming out of the woodwork with their message of "don't exercise your rights, or we'll take them away".

    Police chiefs are not the only ones who influence public policy. If enough opinion enforcement officers keep pushing their agenda, OCers can put on their "taxpayer"hats and go to city council meetings to demand reductions in property taxes and bloated head counts in police departments. Maybe a halt to salary increases would also be in order for opinion enforcement officers.

    Combine head count reductions with budget cuts, and a few lawsuits here and there, and then maybe police chiefs might start informing their underlings that their job is to enforce laws and protect civil rights, not enforce opinions.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote
    I don't read too many stories about OCers running around harassing people, handcuffing them, and trying to enforce opinions.
    I think Brent makes a good point. It's LEOs who are out there violating people's rights... often times with a 'good' attitude. What matters is are you following the law or not?

    Despite my above comment, of course I try to dress nicer than average and also act more polite than those around me (which isn't hard, given the way I was raised). This helps our cause like Morris said.

    Morris, thanks for the perspective! Your points are legit and pragmatically true. Please let me offer this pragmatic piece of advice to you in return:
    Work on your fellow LEOs. And work hard, not just to educate them about gun rights (that would be awesome) but on our Constitutional rights... heck just get them to care about the Constitution. The OCer who is an a$$ is extremely rare. The LEO who is an a$$ is all too common. The average OCer has read and cares about the Constituion. The average cop could care less and a few go out of there way to 'burn' it. Let's work on reforming both sides of the aisle, but lets also make a note who's got more poop to scoop.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    44Brent wrote
    I don't read too many stories about OCers running around harassing people, handcuffing them, and trying to enforce opinions.
    I think Brent makes a good point. It's LEOs who are out there violating people's rights... often times with a 'good' attitude. What matters is are you following the law or not?

    Despite my above comment, of course I try to dress nicer than average and also act more polite than those around me (which isn't hard, given the way I was raised). This helps our cause like Morris said.

    Morris, thanks for the perspective! Your points are legit and pragmatically true. Please let me offer this pragmatic piece of advice to you in return:
    Work on your fellow LEOs. And work hard, not just to educate them about gun rights (that would be awesome) but on our Constitutional rights... heck just get them to care about the Constitution. The OCer who is an a$$ is extremely rare. The LEO who is an a$$ is all too common. The average OCer has read and cares about the Constituion. The average cop could care less and a few go out of there way to 'burn' it. Let's work on reforming both sides of the aisle, but lets also make a note who's got more poop to scoop.
    Yeah, I can see it now, the guy gives the cops a total ration of sh!t and then is still stupid enough to come on here and tell the truth about what he actually did.....NOT!

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    irfner wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    By the way, I'm convinced we need to change from gun rights to defense rights. As in the human right to self-defense. He who controls the terminology controls the argument, as the saying goes.
    I disagree. The constitution says the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mention self defense and although thatis a worthyuse of a fire armitis not the only one.
    Not arguing or contradicting; just adding.

    The whole problem with the "collective rights" modelwas that it discounted the value of the individual. It had this as an unspoken premise. As an unspoken premise, itdid not get the examination deserved;the argumentsseemed to center aroundproving a historical individual right, crime deterrence, tradition, etc.

    The simple fact is that it is wholly impossible to claim that the group (the collective) hasvalue while claiming that the individuals who comprise the group do not have value. One cannot claim the group is worth protecting collectively, unless he alsogrants the individuals that comprise the group are worth protecting individually. In short, the group is made up of individuals aggregated.

    This collectivenonsense is the same scam run by socialists and communists--pretend the individual doesn't exist or is reduced in value.

    So, back to guns. The core issue is defense. Self-defense singly. Defense of self and others in, say, a restaurant. Defense of self and others nationally--people working together for defense. (Notice the Pentagon is not in the Department of Rifles; its in the Department of Defense.)

    Focusing on guns skims above the core human rights issue---self-defense. Attack the collectivists' errors/omissions on self-defense and you leave them very little wiggle room to convince others. I think almost anybody cangrasp the right toself-defense.

    (I went for years thinking AR-15's weren't really justified in civilian hands.Put into a defense context, that attitude changed real quick.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    Agree with OP.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    King Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    It would help me if the original poster would give examples of things a person should do, and also examples of things a person should not do. I appreciate the effort put into the original post, but I don't really know exactly what the OP wants people to do or avoid.

    (BTW, I'm new here, been reading the forum off and on for several months.)

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    155gr wrote:
    It would help me if the original poster would give examples of things a person should do, and also examples of things a person should not do. I appreciate the effort put into the original post, but I don't really know exactly what the OP wants people to do or avoid.

    (BTW, I'm new here, been reading the forum off and on for several months.)
    Welcome to OCDO!!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member ghosthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
    Posts
    280

    Post imported post

    That is exactly my thought I liked what Morris said, but would like more detail. When would he not OC? From his perspective andfrom a regular joe perspective.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    It's interesting how the opinion enforcement officers are coming out of the woodwork with their message of "don't exercise your rights, or we'll take them away".

    Police chiefs are not the only ones who influence public policy. If enough opinion enforcement officers keep pushing their agenda, OCers can put on their "taxpayer"hats and go to city council meetings to demand reductions in property taxes and bloated head counts in police departments. Maybe a halt to salary increases would also be in order for opinion enforcement officers.

    Combine head count reductions with budget cuts, and a few lawsuits here and there, and then maybe police chiefs might start informing their underlings that their job is to enforce laws and protect civil rights, not enforce opinions.
    44Brent:

    The fact remains that the meaning of "warrants alarm" has not been conclusively settled here in WA state. Until that occurs, (which may take a while) the interpretation of that phrase is left to the discretion of the LEO. For example, walking down the street OCing is legal, no other variables involved. But, go into a bank that has just been robbed, and does that raise enough suspicion that your OC would warrant alarm? How about a business suit v. scruffy biker clothing? How about one person carrying into a bank, v. three people? At what point will a jury believe that whatever a person was doing reasonably warranted alarm?

    I like the fact that we have OC here in Washington State, although I seldom carry in such a manner. But, if my gun flashes, or I need to take off a coat at some time, it is nice to know I will likely not be arrested for that.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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