Lost or stolen handgun?

tripledipper · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

One handguna month exceptions, CHP holders, and did Mr. DNC sign the militaryone? What others are there?

LEO 229 · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

The original premise of the current off topic discussion is ridiculous. There is NO WAY that any officer can possibly learn ALL the code sections word for word. Even learning a summary of all the laws is an impossible task. While many here contend that this is precisely what should be required of any LEO, it is a ridiculous contention.

Doctors do not know all medical knowledge, lawyers and judges do not know all laws and cases by heart, and the list goes on and on. The fact is that NOBODY in ANY profession knows everything about that profession. Everyone does the best they can to keep current in those areas that relate to the most common things they will encounter. Believe it or not firearms are not one of the most often encountered issues for the average LEO. In most jurisdictions guns would not even make the top ten issues.

All the people here who argue that all LEOs should be required to know ALL laws are simply nuts. Most of these arguments are based on a single minded,myopic view of the universe, focused on the single issue of gun laws and seated in a hatred for police.

Every citizen of this country should know the constitution by heart, but is is obvious a lot of people here have never even read the document. Suppose you had to recite the Constitution and ALL of the amendments from memory before you could vote. That should really reduce the cost of elections because very few could recite even those few basic laws.

The world is larger than guns and gun ownership laws despite the insistence of people here that all LEOs should know all gun laws. There are thousands and thousands of things that a street LEO encounters on a regular basis that are a lot more common than a guys trying to buy two guns in a single month.

Many will joke they were kidding but far too many truly believe this.

How many different specialties are there in the medical field? Does a doctor need to know every area? They do a general study of medicine and then may gravitate towards one area. Eyes, nose, throat or brain surgery or groin-a-cology. I do not expecte a foot doctor to know how to check my ears for hearing loss.

Police work is no different. The street officer does not need to study financial crimes, rape, or homicide. The detective does not need to study sign violations or gun laws. The motor carrier officer studies commerial vehicle codes that nobod else will use.

There is simply too much for one person to be expected to know it all.

Even attorneys, prosecutors, and judges take time to crack the law books open since they too work with laws daily but do not know them all.

Citizen · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

SNIP There is NO WAY that any officer can possibly learn ALL the code sections word for word. Even learning a summary of all the laws is an impossible task.

Good reason to cut down on the number of laws, eh?

But, for some reason, I don't think we'll hear from the poor over-lawed police or their unions about not passing any more laws or cutting back.

Wouldn't that be the Jeffersonian liberal cat's meow? Headline: "Police Unions Unanimous! No new laws! We can't keep up with the ones we've got already."

Note: Cat reference used specifically for Hawkflyer.

Since its a plank in my soap box, or platform as one has called it, I'll take this opportunity to mention something related.

The problem isn't that police can't learn the laws. The problem is that some police act beyond their authority before finding out whetherthereis a law against whatever they are"investigating." If there is no law againstaparticular activity,police have no authority to takenon-consensual action againstthe citizen.Ifa police officer cannot correctly say to himself, "I know to a dead moral certainty that ______ is illegal and the law definitely hasn't changed since the last time I read it," then he has no business takingnon-consensualaction against the citizen until after he checks the law to make sure.

This one step alone woulderase manynegative police-OCer encounters.

And would pretty muchmollify most of the demands that police learn or know all the laws.

Sheriff · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Police work is no different. The street officer does not need to study financial crimes, rape, or homicide.

So true. Cops don't embarrass their agency andend up getting

sued if they stick to the duties they are suppose to be doing. :shock:

disclaimer: No, I am not implying Reno229 has been sued.

LEO 229 · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Police work is no different. The street officer does not need to study financial crimes, rape, or homicide.

Click to expand...

So true. Cops don't embarrass their agency andend up getting

sued if they stick to the duties they are suppose to be doing. :shock:

disclaimer: No, I am not implying Reno229 has been sued.

I cannot fault people for striving to take on new assignments. But they must know their limitations.

But now we are headed off topic where we should be talking about guns and buying more than one at a time. :lol:

Sheriff · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

But now we are headed off topic where we should be talking about guns and buying more than one at a time. :lol:

The entire thread is off topic. Only being able to buy one handgun

per monthin Virginia has nothing to do with open carry. :monkey

darthmord · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

But now we are headed off topic where we should be talking about guns and buying more than one at a time. :lol:

Click to expand...

The entire thread is off topic. Only being able to buy one handgun

per monthin Virginia has nothing to do with open carry. :monkey

It has plenty to do with open carry. If I can only buy one per month, it takes a full year before I can openly carry all 12 firearms at the same time :lol:.

That said, I do not ever openly carry more than one firearm at a time. I only have two hands and I prefer to keep one empty in case I need it for something.

tripledipper · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

There is a guy who works behind the counter at A&P Arms who displays three semi-autos, two which are in the small of his back. I asked him what was wrong with his other hip.

LEO 229 · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

darthmord wrote:

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

But now we are headed off topic where we should be talking about guns and buying more than one at a time. :lol:

Click to expand...

The entire thread is off topic. Only being able to buy one handgun

per monthin Virginia has nothing to do with open carry.

Click to expand...

It has plenty to do with open carry. If I can only buy one per month, it takes a full year before I can openly carry all 12 firearms at the same time :lol:.

That said, I do not ever openly carry more than one firearm at a time. I only have two hands and I prefer to keep one empty in case I need it for something.

Typical Sheriff mentality..... :banghead:

He is consistent. He has a put down or negative comment in every post! He is like a box of cracker jacks. You know there is a prize inside every box and you pretty much know ahead of time that it is going to be worthless! :lol:

This is valuable information and gun related. So it is right on topic.

Sheriff · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Typical Sheriff mentality..... :banghead:

He is consistent. He has a put down or negative comment in every post! He is like a box of cracker jacks. You know there is a prize inside every box and you pretty much know ahead of time that it is going to be worthless! :lol:

This is valuable information and gun related. So it is right on topic.

That does it! I am leaving this site and never coming back! :cuss:

See you in a few days when I realize nobody cares! :lol:

ixtow · Mar 7, 2009

imported post

I wonder, is there a limit on how many guns you can steal per month? I mean, If I want 2... I can buy one and steal another, and that should be fine, right?

LEO 229 · Mar 7, 2009

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I wonder, is there a limit on how many guns you can steal per month? I mean, If I want 2... I can buy one and steal another, and that should be fine, right?

Point taken!!

However, if you are one of the few that are looking to buy here and sell there to make a profit... you have to unload that stolen gun. Not something everyone wants to get involved in.

The whole "one gun a month" is just dumb in that it punished all the people that buy for themselves. But like most situations the whole is punished for the actions of the few.

All it did was get more people to buy one gun a month on behalf of the guy wanting to sell them. So it is still going to happen but now it involves more people.

Sheriff · Mar 7, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

All it did was get more people to buy one gun a month on behalf of the guy wanting to sell them. So it is still going to happen but now it involves more people.

Can you cite any actual cases whatsoever to back up this claim?

LEO 229 · Mar 7, 2009

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

All it did was get more people to buy one gun a month on behalf of the guy wanting to sell them. So it is still going to happen but now it involves more people.

Click to expand...

Can you cite any actual cases whatsoever to back up this claim?

I will counter with" Please cite one case that proves otherwise."

Sheriff, this is a forum. We all say what is on out mind here. Not everything is required to have a cite or identified as an opinion. It is not my fault if you cannot identify when someone is "just saying" versus "this is absolute undisputed fact".

If it makes you happy... For those that are not smart enough to distinguish fact from a casual conversation.. my post above was an opinion. Obviously!!

If I said the government was "screwing us over" with all the new gun laws they make I suspect everyone would be in agreement. No cite required as to "why" since we could all conclude that this is likely to be true.

Hawkflyer · Mar 8, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

...SNIP

Good reason to cut down on the number of laws, eh?
SNIP...

You certainly get no argument from me on that point. Last reliable count i saw was that there were over 22,000 firearms laws in the US. That is just FIREARMS related laws. Just imagine how many laws there must be total. I bet you could fill a libra.... Oh wait ... there are libraries full of law books. Never Mind.

LEO 229 · Mar 8, 2009

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

Good reason to cut down on the number of laws, eh?
SNIP...

Click to expand...

You certainly get no argument from me on that point. Last reliable count i saw was that there were over 22,000 firearms laws in the US. That is just FIREARMS related laws. Just imagine how many laws there must be total. I bet you could fill a libra.... Oh wait ... there are libraries full of law books. Never Mind.

And I think we can all agree that cops do not enact those laws. They are written and pushed forward by others to the state lawmakers.

Are there too many laws on the books now? Hell yes!

We all know that a law written in a book does not stop people from breaking it.

People here complain that cops are stopping people they suspect are breaking the law not knowing that the law does not even exist.

In our society we have a sense of what is right and wrong without even having to know there is a law against it. Sometimes it is morally wrong but not legally wrong. I am not saying that OCing is morally wrong. Just pointing out that some people will see it as some type of violation such as a concealed weapon laws are widely known.

The courts have ruled that you can be stopped for a brief period of time in order for the officer to determine if you are breaking any laws.

This gives the police a little time to check without allowing you to simply walk off. If this was not allowed you could commit a crime in front of the police and escape before they had a chance to check on it. Then they have to go look for you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3843/is_200310/ai_n9241529

While it is not against the law in Virginia to openly carry... many citizens and some officers believe it is. It is from this lack of knowledge, training, experience, and exposure that an officer might stop someone for being armed.

The courts do not expect the police to turn a blind eye on something they find suspicious but cannot determine for sure if a law is being broken. So they are given some altitude to investigate and this may require stopping you.

It is unfortunate but it is likely not due to any malice on the part of the officer who simply did not know. It would be at best.... misfeasance.

Sheriff · Mar 8, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

People here complain that cops are stopping people they suspect are breaking the law not knowing that the law does not even exist.

It never ceases to amaze me why you even waste your time trying to convince people that cops only make "honest mistakes". I don't think you will ever convince one single person that it's no big deal. Some day, believe it or not, you could become a victim of one of these honest mistakes. You'll change your tune real quick if it ever happens to you. You won't downplay ignorance.

There is no excuse for making up laws as they go and falsely arresting people simply because they think something is morally wrong and think it should be against the law. Trust me, ignorance of the law is not a defense for a civilian, and it's also not a defense for cops once sued.

Citizen · Mar 8, 2009

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

People here complain that cops are stopping people they suspect are breaking the law not knowing that the law does not even exist.

Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me why you even waste your time trying to convince people that cops only make "honest mistakes". I don't think you will ever convince one single person that it's no big deal. Some day, believe it or not, you could become a victim of one of these honest mistakes. You'll change your tune real quick if it ever happens to you. You won't downplay ignorance.

There is no excuse for making up laws as they go and falsely arresting people simply because they think something is morally wrong and think it should be against the law. Trust me, ignorance of the law is not a defense for a civilian, and it's also not a defense for cops once sued.

Ahem. Excuse me, Sheriff. Step aside and let me at him. I'll show you how to shoot hisBS posts full of holes.

Basically you just provide the truth.

Citizen · Mar 8, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP People here complain that cops are stopping people they suspect are breaking the law not knowing that the law does not even exist.

In our society we have a sense of what is right and wrong without even having to know there is a law against it. Sometimes it is morally wrong but not legally wrong. I am not saying that OCing is morally wrong. Just pointing out that some people will see it as some type of violation such as a concealed weapon laws are widely known.

The courts have ruled that you can be stopped for a brief period of time in order for the officer to determine if you are breaking any laws.

This gives the police a little time to check without allowing you to simply walk off. If this was not allowed you could commit a crime in front of the police and escape before they had a chance to check on it. Then they have to go look for you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3843/is_200310/ai_n9241529

BS!!!!!!

Cite, please. Cite demanded, actually.

There are reams and reams and reams of case law dealing with RAS, indicia of reliability of tips, inferences drawn from observations, whether observations are to be weighed by what a reasonable person might think or what a police might based on his experience, etc, etc, etc.

The words was/is/will be...a crime appear in one manner or another, in one phrasing or another, repeatedly.

To such an extent that it can be taken as common knowledge on this forum.

Ergo, there must be a specific crime or crimes suspected.

Even the case BSer229 cited doesn't speak to his assertion. The article writer did, but the case didn't. The case is about indicia of reliability--an anonymous tip about erratic driving. Erratic driving would be composed, in this case, of violations of the law, no? Crossing lanes without signalling, following too close, etc? Thus, besides any possibility of driving impaired, the caller allegedviolations. Nevermind that "the public danger" would translate intocrimes--vehicular homicide, manslaughter, property damage, etc.

That the federal court in this casebroadened the scope of unreliable indicia-anonymous tips--is no support for the assertion.The very article 229 cites says itsthe first federal court to rule. Meaning we're years away froma circuitsplit and a Supreme Court ruling.

There is just no way the article 229 cited and linkedsupports his assertion.

Citizen · Mar 8, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP The courts do not expect the police to turn a blind eye on something they find suspicious but cannot determine for sure if a law is being broken. So they are given some altitude to investigate and this may require stopping you.

It is unfortunate but it is likely not due to any malice on the part of the officer who simply did not know. It would be at best.... misfeasance.

From the very article LEO229 cited and linked:

A police officer cannot stop an individual for investigative purposes solely on the basis of an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.'

From Beck vs Ohio, as quoted in Terry vs Ohio:

"good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough." . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police.

From the holding (the legally operative part of a court opinion) of Terry vs Ohio:

We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. (emphasis added).

Terry v Ohio at Cornell Law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

Lost or stolen handgun?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member