Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Some Code that you should know before you believe what others say.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons
    A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.
    B. When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this Article and reasonably suspects that he is in danger, he may frisk the outer clothing of such person for a dangerous weapon. If the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects the person possesses a dangerous weapon, he may search the person.
    C. If the law enforcement officer finds a dangerous weapon, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.
    D. During detention of an alleged violator of any provision of the motor vehicle laws of this state, an officer may not detain a motorist for a period of time longer than reasonably necessary to complete the investigation of the violation and issuance of a citation for the violation, absent reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. However, nothing herein shall prohibit a peace officer from compelling or instructing the motorist to comply with administrative or other legal requirements of Title 32 or Title 47 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.
    Added by Acts 1968, No. 305, §1. Amended by Acts 1982, No. 686, §1; Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 32, §1; Acts 1997, No. 759, §3, eff. July 10, 1997.


    Is there any way for you to know if a LEO has been called to investigate a "person with a gun"? No.
    And guess what? IF a LEO gets that call he cannot ignore it.
    So, before you act foolish, you should know that the LEO may be acting within the law to demand your name.
    He/she HAS THE RIGHT to stop you and ask you questions if you are in a public place or on private property.

    Most OC encounters with LEOs can be simple, pleasant conversations. If you have a bad attitude or act hostile, it can escalate.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    derf,

    This has been posted many times before, but thanks for showing it again, as there may be some people who need to see it.

    This is the Louisiana code for what's generally known as a "Terry stop," after the legal ruling in Terry v. Ohio. Unfortunately, many LEO are not trained in this simple rule. Before they begin questioning, they should articulate their "resonable suspicion" of the crime they intend to ask questions about.

    In Louisiana, the State Supreme Court has refined this somewhat as concerns open carry with 2 rulings: State v Fluker, and State v Farrand. In State v. Fluker, the Court affirmed that OC was both legal and a state constitutionally protected right (note STATE, not US). In State v. Farrand, the court affirmed that OC in and of itelf was NOT a valid reason for a "Terry stop."

    That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.

    Also, CCRP 215.1 does not require you to show any form of ID. You may simply tell the officer your name and address; and that suffices to fulfill the requirement.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post




    That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.
    I disagree somewhat here. It means that if an officer sees you OCing that in itself is not enough for a stop. But, if there is a report and the officer is investigating, then he can do the stop.
    If there is a call, then the LEO must investigate. If he just glances and sees a guy OCing he has not fulfilled his duty to investigate.

    My point is you don't know if a call has been made or not. So, you shouldn't be hostile and defensive if questioned. There are situations where the Terry stop is legal and warranted.

    This is to contradict other's (s357poc's for example) notion that LEOs who ask questions are civil rights violating nazis that should spend time in jail.





  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.
    As XD said, this is just Louisiana's version of "reasonable articulable suspicion". The cop has to believe the "perp" has just committed or is about to commit a crime, and must be able to articulate the reason he is initiating the stop.

    It means that if an officer sees you OCing that in itself is not enough for a stop. But, if there is a report and the officer is investigating, then he can do the stop.
    An MWAG call is not enough for a stop under this code, because possession of a holstered firearm is in no way indicative that a crime is about to be committed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    HungSquirrel wrote:
    A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.
    As XD said, this is just Louisiana's version of "reasonable articulable suspicion". The cop has to believe the "perp" has just committed or is about to commit a crime, and must be able to articulate the reason he is initiating the stop.

    It means that if an officer sees you OCing that in itself is not enough for a stop. But, if there is a report and the officer is investigating, then he can do the stop.
    An MWAG call is not enough for a stop under this code, because possession of a holstered firearm is in no way indicative that a crime is about to be committed.
    OK, but how can you know that the LEO doesn't reasonably suspect you are about to commit a crime?

    The way the law is written the cop can stop you if.......
    There is no way for you to know if...... or if not...........

    The question then becomes why is there a MWAG call at all?
    Unless it is understood that MWAG implies suspicious MWAG.
    Suspicious MWAG should be investigated.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    SNIP Unless it is understood that MWAG implies suspicious MWAG.
    Suspicious MWAG should be investigated.
    Before the argument really gets going, may I suggest y'all be very specific.

    For example, what is a suspicious MWAG? This phrasing leaves the door open to alternate interpretations. Court cases are clear that hunches and so forth are not sufficient for a Terry Stop. See Terry vs Ohio. Thus, a "suspicious" MWAG, in order to legally justify a non-consensual encounter, must have connected with him also other circumstances that courts already have or would recognize as reasonable justification for a Terry Stop.

    The main point being that, if y'all are specific in your phrasing, you'll avoid a needless argument. If you cite your legal authorities, people will learn stuff, too.
    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.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    SNIP The question then becomes why is there a MWAG call at all?
    This is why dispatchers learn to ask, "What is he doing with the gun? Is it in a holster? How is he acting?" Etc.

    As I understand it, dispatchers in jurisdictions where OC is a little more common already know to ask this.
    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.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons
    A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense
    And this would ever apply to an OC'er, how?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:


    That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.
    I disagree somewhat here.
    Then you really don't get the whole "civil liberties" thing. Carrying a gun. absent more, does not permit the government to ask you a single question.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    derf wrote:


    That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.
    I disagree somewhat here.
    Then you really don't get the whole "civil liberties" thing. Carrying a gun. absent more, does not permit the government to ask you a single question.
    Smoking,

    I appreciate your zeal. But, it takes two to fight. I'm betting that if youcool it, the others will, too. Maybe I'm wrong, but its worth a try.



    Separately, taking your last post literally, the police do not need reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to ask questions consensually. From a legal standpoint, they do not need any justification to ask questions consensually. I am hoping you were just being imprecise. In case not, and for the benefit of others, here is a quote that leads in that direction.

    As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification. US vMendenhall. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...6_0544_ZO.html




    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    derf wrote:
    Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons
    A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense
    And this would ever apply to an OC'er, how?
    Go away. We are trying to have a rational discussion here.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    derf wrote:


    That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.
    I disagree somewhat here.
    Then you really don't get the whole "civil liberties" thing. Carrying a gun. absent more, does not permit the government to ask you a single question.
    Be off! You are not following the discussion.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post


    Separately, taking your last post literally, the police do not need reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to ask questions consensually. From a legal standpoint, they do not need any justification to ask questions consensually. I am hoping you were just being imprecise. In case not, and for the benefit of others, here is a quote that leads in that direction. As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification. US v Mendenhall. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...6_0544_ZO.html
    Can refusing to answer then become RAS to escalate? I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.
    If you refuse to answer, might that be suspicious?


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    Separately, taking your last post literally, the police do not need reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to ask questions consensually. From a legal standpoint, they do not need any justification to ask questions consensually. I am hoping you were just being imprecise. In case not, and for the benefit of others, here is a quote that leads in that direction. As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification. US v Mendenhall. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...6_0544_ZO.html
    Can refusing to answer then become RAS to escalate? I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.
    If you refuse to answer, might that be suspicious?
    Which is why the first response to a non-consensual conversation should be:

    Am I being detained? (or, Am I free to depart?)

    Second question if the response is "yes."

    What crime am I under suspicion of having committed, committing, or about to commit? (or similar question)

    Absent RAS, the first response from LE should be NO.

    If the first LE response is YES, then there should be a "RAS" response to question #2.
    Absent a RAS response to question #2, the first question should be repeated.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post


    Which is why the first response to a non-consensual conversation should be: Am I being detained? (or, Am I free to depart?) Second question if the response is "yes." What crime am I under suspicion of having committed, committing, or about to commit? (or similar question) Absent RAS, the first response from LE should be NO. If the first LE response is YES, then there should be a "RAS" response to question #2. Absent a RAS response to question #2, the first question should be repeated.
    OK, I can understand that. Thanks for the reasonable response.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    Which is why the first response to a non-consensual conversation should be: Am I being detained? (or, Am I free to depart?) Second question if the response is "yes." What crime am I under suspicion of having committed, committing, or about to commit? (or similar question) Absent RAS, the first response from LE should be NO. If the first LE response is YES, then there should be a "RAS" response to question #2. Absent a RAS response to question #2, the first question should be repeated.
    OK, I can understand that. Thanks for the reasonable response.
    Note that in my scenario, NO answers would be given. Such non-answer should not become "RAS" for any continued detainment.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    SNIP
    SNIP Can refusing to answer then become RAS to escalate?
    It seems to me there is a court case that expressly says refusing to answer does not furnish RAS, but darned if I can recall it. If it comes to me, I'll post it and PM you.
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    SNIP I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.
    There are a couple different views on this here on OCDO.

    I am in the school that thinks the smart thing is to comply while verbally, politely refusing consent.

    You really have no way to know whether the LEO has genuine RAS. Remember also, that LEOs are not necessarily going to say, "there was a robbery at Main and 43rd." They are going to ask questions that do not reveal the whole picture to see if you will admit to something. The question is more likely to be something like, "Where did you come from?" Or, "Did you just come past 43rd Street?"

    Also, I know of no law that requires an LEO to tell you his RAS.

    And, I wouldn't trust them not to lie. Google the concept of "permissible deception." If he deliberately feeds you pieces, but not the whole picture, you might guess wrong. Remember, its not whether you think there is RAS during the encounter, its whether a court, later, will think there was RAS.

    But, none of that is the real problem. The real problem is that, in order to judge correctly with a high degree of certainty, you would have to know the myraid circumstances and combinations of circumstances that courts have already ruleddo provide RAS

    More importantly, you would have to know what circumstances or combinations of circumstances any given court might rule amount to RAS. Meaning, will a court rule that the circumstances that led to your detention were sufficient to provide RAS. Basically, in the final analysis, you are trying to guess, with a cop in your face, whether next month the judge will say, "Yep, that was enough to be RAS."

    So, for myself, I don't plan to rely too much on prying his RAS out of him. More precisely, I'll ask, repeatedly, but I won't act on it during the encounter.

    The only thing I'll be doing isfishing to get information for the formal complaint.

    About the only way you can know for sure whether he had RAS is to check for a 911 call, check with store management, review a few court cases maybe. But those are all things done after the encounter as homework preparatory to a formal complaint.

    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.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    derf wrote:
    SNIP I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.
    There are a couple different views on this here on OCDO.

    I am in the school that thinks the smart thing is to comply while verbally, politely refusing consent.

    You really have no way to know whether the LEO has genuine RAS. Remember also, that LEOs are not necessarily going to say, "there was a robbery at Main and 43rd." They are going to ask questions that do not reveal the whole picture to see if you will admit to something. The question is more likely to be something like, "Where did you come from?" Or, "Did you just come past 43rd Street?"

    Also, I know of no law that requires an LEO to tell you his RAS.

    And, I wouldn't trust them not to lie. Google the concept of "permissible deception." If he deliberately feeds you pieces, but not the whole picture, you might guess wrong. Remember, its not whether you think there is RAS during the encounter, its whether a court, later, will think there was RAS.

    But, none of that is the real problem. The real problem is that, in order to judge correctly with a high degree of certainty, you would have to know the myraid circumstances and combinations of circumstances that courts have already ruleddo provide RAS

    More importantly, you would have to know what circumstances or combinations of circumstances any given court might rule amount to RAS. Meaning, will a court rule that the circumstances that led to your detention were sufficient to provide RAS. Basically, in the final analysis, you are trying to guess, with a cop in your face, whether next month the judge will say, "Yep, that was enough to be RAS."

    So, for myself, I don't plan to rely too much on prying his RAS out of him. More precisely, I'll ask, repeatedly, but I won't act on it during the encounter.

    The only thing I'll be doing isfishing to get information for the formal complaint.

    About the only way you can know for sure whether he had RAS is to check for a 911 call, check with store management, review a few court cases maybe. But those are all things done after the encounter as homework preparatory to a formal complaint.
    While I think viewing every encounter with LEO as a potential formal complaint is a little pessimistic, I do agree with your overall message of the fact that the cards are stacked against you at the scene and after the incident is the time to take action.

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

    Post imported post

    nolacopusmc wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    derf wrote:
    SNIP I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.
    SNIP There are a couple different views on this here on OCDO...
    While I think viewing every encounter with LEO as a potential formal complaint is a little pessimistic, I do agree with your overall message of the fact that the cards are stacked against you at the scene and after the incident is the time to take action.
    I understand.

    Just to clarify and ensure we are talking about the same thing, I'm not here referring to the casual hello from a cop across the coffee counter at 7-Eleven. I am talking about a detention wherein the OCer is asking about RAS.

    Also, and perhaps more importantly, something is left out of the above discussion:

    Citizen's standard procedure for a police encounterinitiated by police is to say three things at inception:

    1. Officer, no offense, I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter.
    2. I do not consent to any searches or seizures.
    3. I will not answer questions without an attorney.
    If the LEO does not immediately disconnect, I then know, based on the very first statement, that I am being detained. Having refused consent to the encounter itself, if the officer asks even one question over top of my refused consent, it is a detention.

    Thus, if I am fishing for RAS later in the encounter, I have already been detained.

    Afterward, its just a matter of verifying the legality or illegality of the detention.

    Do realize that if the officer is completely professional and in-bounds of 4A case law, he has little to worry about.Its the unprofessional police officer I'll be purposing to correct. And any others who hear about it.

    About the only way Iwould be legally detained over my OCd gun is if someone made a false report to 911.

    But, to be honest, I kinda doubt the police officer will escape unscathed from even a legal detention.I have read so many reports of police demanding ID in a nation where they have no authority to demand an ID document1, I'm guessing that even a legal detention will result in a formal complaint. Especially since I mainly live, work, and travel in jurisdictions that do not have even a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance. Basically, police seem to have gotten so used to being able to get away with making such ID document demand without authority, them seem to have completely forgotten they don't have the authority.



    1. There is no law requiring citizens to carry ID. The US Supreme Ct. has ruled in effect that police may demandsomeone identify themselves (which is different than a demand to"lemme see some ID") only if two sets of circumstances exist:

    • there is a stop-and-identify statute (or presumably ordinance)
    • the officer has RAS
    Brown vs Texas, Kolendar vs Lawson, Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Distric Ct. Here is a link to Hiibel

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

    BIG NOTE. All you new guys, don't extend the rationale discussed in this footnote to anything except foot encounters where you have not been arrested yet. I am not a lawyer. And I am not trying to cover all circumstances--driving a car, entering a secure building, after arrest, etc., etc., etc.

    Also, I have paraphrased what the court said.

    And. Very important. Police have reported on this forum that if you refuse toshow ID when being cited, they will treat it as evidence you plan to skip the court date and arrest you.
    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
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    Thanks, guys. This is good stuff. We have a cop who gives CC classes and another guy having a rational discussion on OC rights, situations, and scenarios.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    Thanks, guys. This is good stuff. We have a cop who gives CC classes and another guy having a rational discussion on OC rights, situations, and scenarios.
    I know that might surprise you some, derf, as you've only been here a short time; but there really is a lot of that (or similar) discussion all over this board. You'd also be surprised to find that a great many OCers have been instrumental in opening rights for all gun owners in various parts of the country. (See Wisconsin or the Hot Topics category for a South Milwaulkee anti-gun ordinance that was defeated this weeklargely due to OCDO members and one surprisingly open politician).

    One case close to home happens to be the Bass Pro Shop policy being changed recently in Denham Springs. As I recall it, someone in one forum got a letter from Cabella's describing their corporate office's gun carry policy and posted it here. Another member presented it to a manager in Denham who passed it up his chain of command, resulting in a policy change to match that of Cabella's (and Walmart's as well, BTW), meaning that carry in whatever manner was legal in any given store's state would be allowed.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    Thanks, guys. This is good stuff. We have a cop who gives CC classes and another guy having a rational discussion on OC rights, situations, and scenarios.
    FTR, I have no problem speaking intelligently and maturely when all parties are doing the same. In other threads on this board, other make personal attacks and completely irrelevant posts, so for my own ***** and giggles, i fire back.

    Just to put it out there one more time, I actually speak to open Carry in every one of my classes. i advise all students that it is their right. I give them my opinion that it is not a sound tactical decision in many, not all, but many situations.

    Yesterday, i tought a private class for a couple in Slidell. The wife was getting a LA CHP, but the husband could not because of a previous record. I made sure to point out some suggestions for how OC could work for him.

    We are going to do some weapon retention training for her for CHP and him for OC.

    I have no problem with OC or our right to do so. I wish everyone did it and it was as accepted in our society as driving a car. However, unlike some, I am real and operate in the real world. It soimply, at this time, is not worth the potential problems to do it wihen other, and more viable options in my opinion exists.

    That said, like some I do not consider myself a freedom fighter for OC or theat I am ordained to force mty klnowledge down people's throats. People seek me out for training.

    The issue many have on here is not at all with OC. It is the delivery method of people like MEM, Smoking357, and others. It flat out sucks, as evidented by personal account of someone who had a first person interactoion with MEM's Constitutional Knowledge Task FOrce.

    They act like everyone who cannot recite the constitution by heart is a fascist or un-American, Even though unlike them, many of us have actuially done something other than collect a check like fight for our country and put our lives on the line.

    None of them have the intestinal fortitude to do that. They rather take the money of hard working taxpayers to pay for their extravagent bikes and personalized plates and then flaunt it in the face of those who pay for all while saying. "I am doing this to protect your rights."

    OC is great.

    MEM and his MEMONITES are a detrement to gun owners everywhere.

    My opinion.



  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    nolacopusmc wrote:
    They act like everyone who cannot recite the constitution by heart is a fascist or un-American, Even though unlike them, many of us have actuially done something other than collect a check like fight for our country and put our lives on the line.

    None of them have the intestinal fortitude to do that. They rather take the money of hard working taxpayers to pay for their extravagent bikes and personalized plates and then flaunt it in the face of those who pay for all while saying. "I am doing this to protect your rights."
    Those "hard-working taxpayers" wouldn't have to work so hard to pay taxes if the government didn't have so many employees and wasn't trampling people's rights and paying out settlements.

    Mark has done more for my freedom than just about anyone I can think of. The guy in Wisconsin who won the open carry case is also a great freedom fighter.



  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    259

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    nolacopusmc wrote:
    They act like everyone who cannot recite the constitution by heart is a fascist or un-American, Even though unlike them, many of us have actuially done something other than collect a check like fight for our country and put our lives on the line.

    None of them have the intestinal fortitude to do that. They rather take the money of hard working taxpayers to pay for their extravagent bikes and personalized plates and then flaunt it in the face of those who pay for all while saying. "I am doing this to protect your rights."
    Those "hard-working taxpayers" wouldn't have to work so hard to pay taxes if the government didn't have so many employees and wasn't trampling people's rights and paying out settlements.

    Mark has done more for my freedom than just about anyone I can think of. The guy in Wisconsin who won the open carry case is also a great freedom fighter.

    Thank you sir for a first rate example of the blubbery that I was referring to.

    Are you saying that Mark Christ is more of a Patriot than any American Military man fightingh overseas today?


    Yes or no question. bet you can't answer it.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •