Open carry of plastic "firearms"

imported post

Stop it, you're gunna give him a big head.

imported post

cce1302 wrote:

Venator wrote:

You probably don't remove the tag under penalty of law, which doesn't apply to the consumer.

Click to expand...

Beautifulinsult, Venator. May I plagiarize it when appropriate? I don't have a clue who you are, but I bow to your genius.

Click to expand...

I don't think I can stop you from using it, so go ahead.

imported post

dougwg wrote:

Stop it, you're gunna give him a big head.

Click to expand...

Let's be socially polite here, it's a ROBUST head he uses, remember. :dude:

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

that's funny, because i was always under the impression that the honor came with service to ones' country, not in whatever rifle one carried. do you carry a loaded m1? because otherwise, what's the point? it might as well be a toy.

Click to expand...

As veteran (that is fortunate enough to be young and healthy enough to carry whatever I want), I agree completely that these guys have already fufilled the "honor" requirement. If they choose to carry pink water-pistols or nothing at all, They'll get a salute from me.

imported post

Lately, I have been a little bothered by something while reading this forum and perhaps this post is a good place to let the issue be known: people who post here erroniously believe that by "getting permission" or having a copy of "the law" readily available during their arrest that somehow the peace officer will say "Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I'm wrong and have decided not to arrest you". Although it may provide some sense of "peace of mind" and MAY (unlikely) be helpful if brought into court, I personally believe that calling or contacting any authority is a monumental waste of time. Even if they said that it was allowed, and you were subsequently arrested, the chances that this "permission" would get the charges dropped is slim at best. Speaking from personal experience, even with the law printed off, opinions of police chiefs, the Attorney General of Michigan, and any other "authority", law enforcement officers will rarely pay any attention to information that you give them. If a law enforcement officer has made the decision to arrest you, he/she will. And, just by talking to them, once they have decided that you are going to be arrested, if you aren't arrested for what they originally wanted to charge you with, they will find something in talking to you to use as a reason to arrest you. Just ask Chris Fetters how providing information worked out for him in Grand Haven.

I would suggest this website if you want more information on how to deal with these situations:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

imported post

i agree that the police are going to arrest you if they wish. some of us are just willing to take that risk. equipping yourself with knowledge of the law does not protect you from arrest, but it does allow you to know that what you are doing is right, regardless of what the police might say. if they arrest you, they arrest you. it gets sorted out later and hopefully becomes an educational event for all involved.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

Lately, I have been a little bothered by something while reading this forum and perhaps this post is a good place to let the issue be known: people who post here erroniously believe that by "getting permission" or having a copy of "the law" readily available during their arrest that somehow the peace officer will say "Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I'm wrong and have decided not to arrest you". Although it may provide some sense of "peace of mind" and MAY (unlikely) be helpful if brought into court, I personally believe that calling or contacting any authority is a monumental waste of time. Even if they said that it was allowed, and you were subsequently arrested, the chances that this "permission" would get the charges dropped is slim at best. Speaking from personal experience, even with the law printed off, opinions of police chiefs, the Attorney General of Michigan, and any other "authority", law enforcement officers will rarely pay any attention to information that you give them. If a law enforcement officer has made the decision to arrest you, he/she will. And, just by talking to them, once they have decided that you are going to be arrested, if you aren't arrested for what they originally wanted to charge you with, they will find something in talking to you to use as a reason to arrest you. Just ask Chris Fetters how providing information worked out for him in Grand Haven.

I would suggest this website if you want more information on how to deal with these situations:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

Click to expand...

The only people who get "permission" are those who carry concealed with a CPL. Whether we like to admit it or not, the CPL IS a permission slip. Carrying UN-concealed is a right.

Granted, it's a right with certain limitations, imposed by the same people who made carrying concealed a "permitable" act. But I can carry openly, without a permit, if I so desire.

As for Chris Fetters, I think he's doing ok, if you ask me. After all, a bunch of people who don't know him, chipped in to pay for his defense, and since what he was doing was legal, I'd say chances are pretty good he's gonna be on the winning side.

I only hope if I find myself in a similar situation, that I get as much assistance as he has.

imported post

I only hope if I find myself in a similar situation, that I get as much assistance as he has.

Al: I think you can feel safe to bet on that. There are a lot of good people here and I don't think they would "pick and choose" who they wish to support. I know I wouldn't hesitate a bit.

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

I only hope if I find myself in a similar situation, that I get as much assistance as he has.

Al: I think you can feel safe to bet on that. There are a lot of good people here and I don't think they would "pick and choose" who they wish to support. I know I wouldn't hesitate a bit.

Click to expand...

Thank you Warchild.

imported post

I hope that my previous post was not taken to be critical of what anyone is doing to advance us to the point that arrests for oc are a thing of the past, the day in which all of us can exercise our 2nd amendment rights without fear of intimidation or being seen as out of the mainstream. I believe, as I think most individuals here believe also, that society will be a better place because of it. I am very proud of those such as Mr. Fetters who have had to, and will have to, personally endure hardships in order to get us to that point in time. I also am very thankful that the members here are willing and able to support others of us who do experience these hardships. I think this kind of support would have been nearly impossible in the days before the internet existed. However, my point is rather to make it clear to all who are making the choice to OC, or any other firearm-related activity in general, that a piece of paper or other personal communication from the Michigan AG or a police chief is helpful, but is not a guarantee that your right(s) will be respected. In a perfect world, yes, that would be the case.

I acknowledge that yes, I have a CPL so I do see, at least at on some level, the usefulness of having a permission slip from the government. But, since no one knows if I am cc'ing or not and most are therefore unaware that I am exercising my right to carry concealed, I think OC is a little different than OCing; by OCing, I am exercising my right and there is a possibility that I will have to deal with the public and the police because they are aware that I am exercising my rights. Until such time as the police become aware that arrest of an OCer will not be tolerated by the courts and the greater community, always be prepared that there may come a time when we are the ones who are being forcibly arrested because we have chosen to oc. An acknowledgment from the powers that be is, regrettably, I think at least at this point in time, much less than it should be. It is helpful, yes, but not a guarantee to go about our daily lives without the possibility of being harassed and possibly arrested. Yes, I do think that most of us are understand the potential danger and still choose to oc. However, I feel it would be somewhat disingenuous of us that are willing to exercise our right to OC not to make very clear that the possibility of harassment and arrest is very real. So, if circumstances are such that a person here can not say that they are prepared to endure the possibility of being arrested or harassed at any particular point in time, for whatever reason, that it is OK not to OC. One needs to be sure that, at least until such time that punitive behavior on the part of law enforcement and the greater community is much rarer than it currently is, exercising one's right to oc could open oneself to having to endure hardships.

imported post

cupcake wrote:

smellslikemichigan wrote:

that's funny, because i was always under the impression that the honor came with service to ones' country, not in whatever rifle one carried. do you carry a loaded m1? because otherwise, what's the point? it might as well be a toy.

Click to expand...

As veteran (that is fortunate enough to be young and healthy enough to carry whatever I want), I agree completely that these guys have already fufilled the "honor" requirement. If they choose to carry pink water-pistols or nothing at all, They'll get a salute from me.

Click to expand...

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

imported post

DrTodd, I think most of us are aware of the dangers of OC. There is certainly a huge amount of info out there, that shows us, just how much we are risking. People are arrested all the time, just for exercising their 2nd amendment rights. But if we don't go out there, and use this right, it will go away. And I think that is why we have to make the effort to educate the local law enforcement officers who don't know we have the right to carry openly, without a permit.

And just FYI, I should have put some smily faces in my post. I did not mean to come across harshly. It was simply my desire to inform also.

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

do you carry a loaded m1? because otherwise, what's the point? it might as well be a toy.

Click to expand...

Well said. That is why my M-1 is always loaded when we go out for a walk.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

I acknowledge that yes, I have a CPL so I do see, at least at on some level, the usefulness of having a permission slip from the government. But, since no one knows if I am cc'ing or not and most are therefore unaware that I am exercising my right to carry concealed, I think OC is a little different than OCing;

Click to expand...

You Sir, do not have a right to CC, you have permission because you payed a tax for that privilege. Please don't confuse thetwo. I think that any person that OCs knows he runs a risk of an illegal arrest and my hats are off to them, they are true patriots. I have great respect for them. For those that hide their dirty little secrets by CCing not so much. We are either for our rights, all rights, or we are not. As I've said before a person that OCs has more courage than any CCer.

That said, yes CC has it's place, but to be really free, only OCers will lead the way.

imported post

I apologize for extending the discussion a little further than the original post, but I do believe that, in perhaps a much larger sense, what I'm going to say is germane to the original post regarding obtaining permission to carry a plastic gun, with an indicator that it is a not a firearm removed while carrying the plastic toy in a parade. Permission to remove the orange tip is no 100% guarantee that one won't be arrested and/or fined, period. Remember all law functions as it is interpreted.

I too am convinced that CCing does not advance the right to OC. However, it in no way diminishes the right to OC, either. I think that we are just basing our posts upon the way in which we look at what "rights" are. I acknowledge that to CC without a permit, is not a "legal" right. I do believe, though, that to be able to defend oneself, by OCing or CCing, is a "natural" right-a right that exists regardless of how the government or society views how it should or should not be exercised.

If we believe that the government is the final arbiter of which rights we have, we are opening ourselves up to an incremental erosion of freedom to live peacefully and to be able to protect ourselves and others.

My point in all of this is that the choice to excercise a right is exactly that, a choice. However, if one chooses, for whatever reason, to not exercise a right, that this behavior in no way diminishes that particular right. The idea that all rights stem from the powers that be is a philosophy which will hinder our goal of being able to OC without harassment. It is the basis of such LEO statements as "Well, even if it is legal, I've never seen anyone open carrying so hey, it must be wrong" or "By exercising your right to OC, people will be scared" A natural right does not depend on who is President, who sits on the Supreme Court, nor is it based upon popular opinion, nor does it have to be exercised by all to exist.

Also, a citizen can acknowledge a right even if he or she disagrees with the way in which it is exercised; I have the right to start a newspaper if I see fit, but if I don't start a newspaper, I am not saying that the 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) needs to be modified to reflect my choice not to exercise it. Nor, if someone prints something with which I don't agree can I say that that the freedom to print what she or he does should be taken away. Just remember that the idea of rights, either natural or legal, is always predicated upon the notion of "choice", the person can decide to exercise a particular freedom or not.

This post in no way negates what you have done to further the cause, Venator. I applaud you and others who have exercised your right to OC. I believe that you have done much to further the cause. I also would like to clarify that, personally, I don't fear arrest for OCing and believe that society would be better if everyone did. However, I also acknowledge that those who choose not to OC, for whatever reason, are not in any way negating the freedom of those who exercise it.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

I apologize for extending the discussion a little further than the original post, but I do believe that, in perhaps a much larger sense, what I'm going to say is germane to the original post regarding obtaining permission to carry a plastic gun, with an indicator that it is a not a firearm removed while carrying the plastic toy in a parade. Permission to remove the orange tip is no 100% guarantee that one won't be arrested and/or fined, period. Remember all law functions as it is interpreted.

Click to expand...

what you have to remember though, is that carrying real firearms is already sanctioned for these events and no arrests have ever been made. carrying M1s in parades is a national pastime. i guess i didn't make it clear enough that my question was specifically whether modifying the orange tip would be against any state or federal regulations. i've already got enough info now to say with certainty that it is not a crime.

imported post

Venator wrote:

As I've said before a person that OCs has more courage than any CCer.

Click to expand...

that's a completely un-provable universal statement which doesn't take into account any outside factors. you could have a medal of honor recipient who choses to CC for tactical or personal reasons. i challenge you to look into the face of a returning iraq veteran and tell him that because he chooses to CC, you have more courage than him. just food for thought, not trying to instigate anything here...

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

I apologize for extending the discussion a little further than the original post, but I do believe that, in perhaps a much larger sense, what I'm going to say is germane to the original post regarding obtaining permission to carry a plastic gun, with an indicator that it is a not a firearm removed while carrying the plastic toy in a parade. Permission to remove the orange tip is no 100% guarantee that one won't be arrested and/or fined, period. Remember all law functions as it is interpreted.

I too am convinced that CCing does not advance the right to OC. However, it in no way diminishes the right to OC, either. I think that we are just basing our posts upon the way in which we look at what "rights" are. I acknowledge that to CC without a permit, is not a "legal" right. I do believe, though, that to be able to defend oneself, by OCing or CCing, is a "natural" right-a right that exists regardless of how the government or society views how it should or should not be exercised.

If we believe that the government is the final arbiter of which rights we have, we are opening ourselves up to an incremental erosion of freedom to live peacefully and to be able to protect ourselves and others.

My point in all of this is that the choice to excercise a right is exactly that, a choice. However, if one chooses, for whatever reason, to not exercise a right, that this behavior in no way diminishes that particular right. The idea that all rights stem from the powers that be is a philosophy which will hinder our goal of being able to OC without harassment. It is the basis of such LEO statements as "Well, even if it is legal, I've never seen anyone open carrying so hey, it must be wrong" or "By exercising your right to OC, people will be scared" A natural right does not depend on who is President, who sits on the Supreme Court, nor is it based upon popular opinion, nor does it have to be exercised by all to exist.

Also, a citizen can acknowledge a right even if he or she disagrees with the way in which it is exercised; I have the right to start a newspaper if I see fit, but if I don't start a newspaper, I am not saying that the 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) needs to be modified to reflect my choice not to exercise it. Nor, if someone prints something with which I don't agree can I say that that the freedom to print what she or he does should be taken away. Just remember that the idea of rights, either natural or legal, is always predicated upon the notion of "choice", the person can decide to exercise a particular freedom or not.

This post in no way negates what you have done to further the cause, Venator. I applaud you and others who have exercised your right to OC. I believe that you have done much to further the cause. I also would like to clarify that, personally, I don't fear arrest for OCing and believe that society would be better if everyone did. However, I also acknowledge that those who choose not to OC, for whatever reason, are not in any way negating the freedom of those who exercise it.

Click to expand...

But there arenot helping, by hiding the fact they believe in the right.

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

Venator wrote:

As I've said before a person that OCs has more courage than any CCer.

Click to expand...

that's a completely un-provable universal statement which doesn't take into account any outside factors. you could have a medal of honor recipient who choses to CC for tactical or personal reasons. i challenge you to look into the face of a returning iraq veteran and tell him that because he chooses to CC, you have more courage than him. just food for thought, not trying to instigate anything here...

Click to expand...

My point is that it takes more courage to choose to OC than CC. A person that OCs knows he might be arrested yet he chooses to stand up to authority and stand for a basic human right. After all does a medal of honor mean you have courage or that your were just lucky.

imported post

Venator wrote:

smellslikemichigan wrote:

Venator wrote:

As I've said before a person that OCs has more courage than any CCer.

Click to expand...

that's a completely un-provable universal statement which doesn't take into account any outside factors. you could have a medal of honor recipient who choses to CC for tactical or personal reasons. i challenge you to look into the face of a returning iraq veteran and tell him that because he chooses to CC, you have more courage than him. just food for thought, not trying to instigate anything here...

Click to expand...

My point is that it takes more courage to choose to OC than CC. A person that OCs knows he might be arrested yet he chooses to stand up to authority and stand for a basic human right. After all does a medal of honor mean you have courage or that your were just lucky.

Click to expand...

yes, they have courage. most of them are awarded posthumously, that's definitely not lucky. the qualifications for medal of honor include courage, above and beyond. the lucky guys get achievement medals or some other lower ranked medal.