dougwg
Regular Member
imported post
Stop it, you're gunna give him a big head.
Stop it, you're gunna give him a big head.
Venator wrote:Beautifulinsult, Venator. May I plagiarize it when appropriate? I don't have a clue who you are, but I bow to your genius.You probably don't remove the tag under penalty of law, which doesn't apply to the consumer.
Let's be socially polite here, it's a ROBUST head he uses, remember. :dude:Stop it, you're gunna give him a big head.
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.
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.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
Thank you Warchild.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.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.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.
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.
Well said. That is why my M-1 is always loaded when we go out for a walk.do you carry a loaded m1? because otherwise, what's the point? it might as well be a toy.
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;
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.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.
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...
As I've said before a person that OCs has more courage than any CCer.
But there arenot helping, by hiding the fact they believe in the right.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.
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.Venator wrote: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...
As I've said before a person that OCs has more courage than any CCer.
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.smellslikemichigan wrote: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.Venator wrote: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...
As I've said before a person that OCs has more courage than any CCer.