Detained on the strip

imported post

Your story floored me. I had no idea the Gestapo is operating in the State of Nevada. Are you sure they didn't make you click your heels and salute before they let you go? Sounds like there needs to be some massive OC get-togethers on the strip in the near future. I wanna see what these jack-boots do with several dozen armed citizens walking down the sidewalk. I would definitely drive out for that one. I'll be the guy with the red triangle armband.

imported post

I think that's a great idea. To those who volunteered to video tape, this would be a much better way to properly "utilize" you. If we could get 5-10 armed citizens walking down the strip, 2 or 3 cameras would be able to capture it.

Next week is a bad idea. It's July 4 weekend and the strip is PACKED. The following weekend sounds good though.

How about tentatively we say Saturday July 11? I'd like to do it early evening or later to get the heat to die down some.

I'd love to get a picture at the Las Vegas sign with the group facing the camera strong side. Tropicana Hotel has ample surface parking along E Reno and it is approximately a 1.1 mile walk to the sign. I'll go drive down there and see what pedestrian access is like, it might be limited now that the sign has its own parking lot.

Another choice is parking at the Harley Davidson Cafe or Fashion Show Mall and choosing an alternate route/destination. I'm obviously trying to avoid the casinos (Tropicana excepted due to its surface parking in very close proximity to Las Vegas Blvd).

North of Sahara there are lots of residential neighborhoods with on-street parking but far fewer tourist-type destinations.

There's always downtown too. Park at the Neonopolis garage on 4th (pay) and stroll down Fremont St. It's pretty safe now as far east at 8th St, where "Fremont East" begins, in front of El Cortez, and then of course west all the way to Main St. Though under the canopy, I would estimate we're more likely to encounter security rather than police (at least at first).

Anyone have any preferences? As you probably know, I'm open to any of them.

imported post

Re: Fremont St, anyone have any knowledge on whether this is "private property" or other weird rules might apply?

Also, I just remembered July 10-12 is the Campaign for Liberty regional conference here at Bally's....Congressman Ron Paul and others like that...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/event/2009vegas.php

The Friday night (8-10pm) "Freedom Celebration" is free to the public at the Bally's Event Center. From their email:

Our Friday night Freedom Celebration on July 10 is free and open to the public! Take advantage of this opportunity to bring along family and friends who may have never heard our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity. Friday night's speakers include Mark Skousen, editor of "Forecasts & Strategies" and producer of FreedomFest, Mises Institute Senior Fellow and C4L contributor Tom Woods, and Congressman Paul.

Click to expand...

It is a casino, but they're hosting this event.....might be a good event to try to get to OCing so we have a story to share with them if we're denied entry, and if we're not denied entry, to show that responsible gun owners know how to behave inside casinos

imported post

Tim they are crucifying you on the Nevada shooters board. I just do not understand how some folks do not see the violation of rights. It does not matter to me if some one is "looking" for trouble or not. The Bill of Rights still applies.

imported post

Steve, thanks for the heads up. I went over and defended myself. We'll see how it goes.

imported post

It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC.

Click to expand...

Thats because many are cops, gun trainers, etc that believe OCing defeats the purpose of having a CCW and eliminates your "tactical advantage".

Which makes sense, but.....OCing is more political than anything else

We had a get togethor at Chilis last night and about 1/2 of us were OCing. Probably 10-15 people.

imported post

bobernet wrote:

Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune.

I know for a fact that this sort of stuff is not Metro "policy" any more than driving 100mph+ with no lights and sirens in town is "policy."

Getting the attention of the local brass on this issue will likely lead to some changes.

Good luck, Tim. Let us know what we can do to help.

And for everyone else, a minor word of encouragement - there are good Metro cops out there who believe largely as we do, and are working to educate and change perceptions from within.

Bob

Click to expand...

VERY well said Bob.
But I would add that the best way to get the attention of the brass might be that giant lawsuit.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Re: Fremont St, anyone have any knowledge on whether this is "private property" or other weird rules might apply?

Also, I just remembered July 10-12 is the Campaign for Liberty regional conference here at Bally's....Congressman Ron Paul and others like that...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/event/2009vegas.php

The Friday night (8-10pm) "Freedom Celebration" is free to the public at the Bally's Event Center. From their email:

Our Friday night Freedom Celebration on July 10 is free and open to the public! Take advantage of this opportunity to bring along family and friends who may have never heard our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity. Friday night's speakers include Mark Skousen, editor of "Forecasts & Strategies" and producer of FreedomFest, Mises Institute Senior Fellow and C4L contributor Tom Woods, and Congressman Paul.

Click to expand...

It is a casino, but they're hosting this event.....might be a good event to try to get to OCing so we have a story to share with them if we're denied entry, and if we're not denied entry, to show that responsible gun owners know how to behave inside casinos

Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, Tim.. (sorry no cite )
Jan Laverty had Fremont declared a state park or something so she could use the police to empty the streets right after midnight on NYE when she was mayor a little way back when.

With the whole "experience" down there I would guess that there is some sneaky reason/N.R.S. they can use to detain/drive you off for OC'ing there.
I could be mistaken.. but my gut tells me this is so. (sad, I remember Helldorado days when I was a kid.. live sixguns on damn near every hip out in front of the Miint and Horseshoe... course I also remember crusing BOTH directions, the "U" turn in the Union Plaza driveway.. on Fremont on saturday nights too.)

And for what it's worth.. I am over the hump in NYE these days, and in a wheelchair, or I would surely come and carry with you on the strip ANYTIME to help stop this blatent abuse of opinion... er I mean authority.

Stick to your guns, Man. You are in the right.
(This incident made me very ashamed of my hometown LEO's. btw.. at least of some of them)

imported post

Quote"Sgt Miller continued his lecture and stated that he will stop everyone with a firearm, as that is "enough" reasonable suspicion for him to detain any citizen he so chooses. He said I have to prove I'm not a felon, since a felon in possession of a firearm is a crime. I replied that since this was not Nazi Germany, citizens need not produce their papers to prove they're "legal"."



If they had stopped and asked all the spanish fellas at the Home Depot for papers they would be in a world of shit right now. This is no different.

imported post

bobernet wrote:

Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune.

I know for a fact that this sort of stuff is not Metro "policy" any more than driving 100mph+ with no lights and sirens in town is "policy."

Getting the attention of the local brass on this issue will likely lead to some changes.

Good luck, Tim. Let us know what we can do to help.

And for everyone else, a minor word of encouragement - there are good Metro cops out there who believe largely as we do, and are working to educate and change perceptions from within.

Bob

Click to expand...

Agree 100% on this. There are good cops there. It's not fair to make a blanket assumption. I can understand why they stop someone open carrying. They don't know the person from Adam, but it's the way the stop is conducted that's important. This time, it doesn't look like it was legal.

imported post

calmp9 wrote:

I can understand why they stop someone open carrying. They don't know the person from Adam, but it's the way the stop is conducted that's important. This time, it doesn't look like it was legal.

Click to expand...

So then it is ok for them to come and knock on your door and find out who you are and what you are doing and what you have in your house?

imported post

I too live in Las Vegas. I read this post a few hours ago, and it's been bothering me ever since. I finally felt I had to respond.

I don't doubt that Tim is right on the technical legal issues he raises in his post. However, there are lots of instances where I don't want our Metro officers to feel totally constrained by legal technicalities. Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first.

It appears obvious to me that Tim was making every effort to test the technical legal limits of his right to carry. That's OK, but it obviously and predictably resulted in more trouble than necessary. I always carry my photo ID (NV drivers license), my Nevada CFP, and the Blue Card for the gun I'm carrying. I am more than happy to immediately produce those for inspection on request. I will produce them for an officer, and I will produce them for anyone else who expresses a concern about the presence of my firearm. I want people to know who I am and that I am, in fact, one of the good guys. That's because I'm all too aware that there are lots of bad guys out there, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them. It would have been nice if God had issued us white hats and black hats like the director of an old western movie. But He didn't. So, officers and folks in general have a right to be cautious and fearful when they see me with a weapon. The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.

It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.

imported post

Back on topic....

This is in no way intended as an impeachment of your actions...you did what you thought best for your own personal circumstances. You didn't want to go to jail that night and did what you felt you must to avoid that happening.

HOWEVER...IMHO...

One should be fully prepared to stand by their position in their lawful activity, even to the point of being arrested and transported to the klink, else those individuals who are Jabbut-inclined will only be emboldened by those who capitulate to their intimidation tactics.

You have apparently come to this same conclusion based upon your stated intent to no longer carry ID when not driving. I applaud you, sir. I have deliberately carried 'sterile' from my very first day. In my pocket I carry only some cash and a BORSE.

Also, bear in mind that in HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. where..

Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS held that :

Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.

Click to expand...

Think about that for a moment....according to SCOTUS, absent "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (think: Terry v. Ohio) YOU ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR NAME. Another SCOTUS quote:

Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.

Click to expand...

If you get them to admit that you have not broken any laws that they are aware of, then Terry is NOT satisfied, and the identify statute cited in Hiible becomes moot. The protections of the Fourth MUST be satisfied by a VALID 'Terry' stop (read: reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed) for the Nevada statute to be lawfully enforceable.

Further, their attempt obtain ID to 'determine if you were a felon in possession of a firearm' is a blatant violation of the fifth . Yet another SCOTUS quote from Hiible:

Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445.

Click to expand...

If you were, in fact a felon, their attempts to compel you to disclose your name/ID is a direct violation of the fifth as it would open you up to criminal charges. (See 18 USC, sec 241)

Remember.....with the law on your side, the further they take you down the yellow brick road, the more solid your case against them becomes.

(All quotes are from HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., and emphasis mine)

imported post

VegasGeorge wrote:

I too live in Las Vegas. I read this post a few hours ago, and it's been bothering me ever since. I finally felt I had to respond.

I don't doubt that Tim is right on the technical legal issues he raises in his post. However, there are lots of instances where I don't want our Metro officers to feel totally constrained by legal technicalities. Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first.

It appears obvious to me that Tim was making every effort to test the technical legal limits of his right to carry. That's OK, but it obviously and predictably resulted in more trouble than necessary. I always carry my photo ID (NV drivers license), my Nevada CFP, and the Blue Card for the gun I'm carrying. I am more than happy to immediately produce those for inspection on request. I will produce them for an officer, and I will produce them for anyone else who expresses a concern about the presence of my firearm. I want people to know who I am and that I am, in fact, one of the good guys. That's because I'm all too aware that there are lots of bad guys out there, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them. It would have been nice if God had issued us white hats and black hats like the director of an old western movie. But He didn't. So, officers and folks in general have a right to be cautious and fearful when they see me with a weapon. The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.

It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.

Click to expand...

How did Tim fail to act reasonably? Under the circumstances, there should have been no contact with LE at all. He was conducting lawful activity. Absent illegal acts, he should have been free to move. Instead, he was unlawfully detained.

imported post

VegasGeorge wrote:

SNIP The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.

It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.

Click to expand...

I wrote this post in another thread.

I've made this next point repeatedly across time. Its all too obvious in the reported encounters. You, as a police officer,have to be almost deliberately overlooking it. Or perhaps you yourself have gotten so used to skirting it that you don't even recognize it when it is right in front of you.

It is not the 2nd Amendment that is being violated during illegal detentions over OC'd guns. It is the 4th Amendment that is being violated.

The police are already supposed to know the 4th Amendment case law.

It is not "change" that is being demanded.It is adherence to the existing state of the law that is being demanded.

Now, here is a handy little quote from Terry vs Ohio.[suP]1[/suP] The US Supreme Court, when writing Terry,thought it worthy to quote it from an earlier court opinion.They must have considered it rather important, eh? Why else would they include it, of all the possible quotes, or even the option of not quoting it and writing their own version diluting this one?

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.

No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint or interference. Unless by clearAND unquestionable authority of law.

I'd say that is a pretty significant statement, showing up as it doesright in the very court opinion that started this era's case law on detentions.

When police start recognizing the damned seriousness of a detention, maybe we'll see fewer illegal detentions. Maybe even legal ones that are at the time questionablebefore a court later decides otherwise,writing a new set of circumstances into the case law.

The seriousness of an illegal detention is not measured by how much can be recovered in a civil suit, or how much a police officer can get in trouble in his personnel file. It is measured against the principle embodied in that quote and others like it.

Just because the courts cannot control illegal detentions except through theExclusionary Rule does not mean an illegal detention is not damned serious.

It is a bit of a red-herring, a mis-direction to explain away an illegal detention over OC by saying, "the officer didn't know" or "the police just need to learn that OC is legal" or even "we want respect for our 2A rights".

Police do not need to know that OC is legal. All the police officer needsto know, in light of that quote and other 4A case law, is that he does not know it is illegal. Remember the part about "clear and unquestionable authority of law."

Unless the police officer knows to a dead moral certainty thatOC is illegal, he has no business doing anything other than a consensual contact. If he is not sure it is illegal, he has no "clear and unquestionable authority of law." If he cannot say to himself, "I have read the statute that makes OC illegal," he has no businessdoing anything other than calling his boss or a magistrate to find out, or making a consensual contact.

Being unsure,being indignant,beingoutraged are none "clear and unquestionable authority of law."

Also, many of the encounters and/or illegal detentions reported on this forum include commentary from the copillustrating their antipathy to OC.Antipathy is not "clear and unquestionable authority of law."

I have read of too many illegal detentionson this forum. I have been harassedtwice myself (includes one 4A violation, one attempted 4A violation, and one 5A violation--an ID document demand.) I have read or seen videos of too many violations of other people that didnot involve OC.

I have read of illegal detentions in the court opinions where the conviction was overturned. If the conviction was overturned because the detention was illegal from inception, the cop hardly had "clear andunquestionable" authority of law.

I have read or heard of too many instances of the Blue Wall of Silence, which wouldbarely need to exist if it were not hiding violations oroutright crime.

I have a first hand reportfrom peopleI considercredibleof an entire shift of police lying to protect 2-4 members of that shift. I found this astounding. The cops lied not because they were afraidfor their own personnel files. They liedsoley to protect their pals. An entire shift!! Not one cop told the truth!! Not one. And, the chain of command ignored obvious inconsistencies in the internal affairs report, forwardingthose inconsistencies inthe department's written public response to the complaint.

What is being demanded is not recognition of 2A. What is being demanded is adherence to 4A.

Why a demand? Why the strenousnessand zealousness? A combination ofseveral factors:

An illegal detention is a damned serious matter. Even a legal detention is a serious matter, and deserves an appropriate level of attention toits legal justifications from an LEO.

I am convinced that it is not uncommon forLEOs to violate 4A.

I have read on this forum offour police departments that did not change their ways with the "nice" approach.

I have read on this forum a memo from a group of retired chiefs, etcwho were telling the recipient LE departments that OC was legal. In that memo they used language such as "[no matter how indignant you feel]" and "[no matter how much you disagree with it]" OC is legal. Damning choice of words. That they estimated they had to say that in order to get their point receivedsays volumes about what they think is the real state of affairs in LE regarding the 4A.

The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence tells me police are more loyal to themselves than the people they are supposed to be serving. And have a lower ethic than is acceptable. Also, I'll just mention the word "testi-lying". And ask how frequent lying on the witness stand must be for a word like that to come into common understanding in police circles.

Police have the power of the State behind them. That is a lot of power.

Less, shall we say, stringent efforts have not worked to clean up police on the 4A, as observable by the current state of things. Obviously police can't or won't clean themselves up on it.

Thus, I am going toadvocate the maximum level of feasible and not illegal efforttointimidate 4A-violating police into at least outwardly respecting the 4A.

If we onlyinsist onrespect for 2A by police, we miss themuch broader picture on 4A.

No apologies. No Mr. Nice Guy with a cop who misuses hisposition in violation of the 4A.

And based on that Supreme Court quote above, a reprimand in a personnel file is nothing compared to the seriousness of an illegal detention. A little money out of the city's coffers and/or the cop's pocket is nothing compared to repeated violations of the principle in that quote above. Remember, I am talking allillegal detentionshere. Not just 4A violations connected to OC.

We are not talking about getting 2A accepted by police.Those who do miss the mark. It is adherence to the existing law, 4A law, law that is supposed to be already well understood and recognized by police, that I demand. Whether it involves guns or not.


1. Its the first quote the court indents in Section I.

[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html[/url]




Thetechnicalities of which VegasGeorge spoke are actually called rights.And the courts have refined them to the n[suP]th[/suP] degree with regard to police and guns. Meaning the courts have had a long look at the subject over time, giving lots of consideration to the limits of police authority regarding guns. Trust me when I say the court almost always sides with officer safety. There is no need to give away more to the police. The courts have already taken care of it.

In that the police have plenty of authority when it comes to guns. I am not going to lose any sleep over demanding they observe what is left of our 4A rights duringa police encounter.

It is about the 4th Amendment, not the 2nd. The OCer has no special responsibility beyond complying with the law. The police don't need to know that OC is legal in order to stay inbounds of the 4th Amendment.

I'm betting, based on the police behavior reported that this was not the first time these cops violated someone's 4A rights. I really doubt they said to themselves, "Oh, here is a guy with a gun. Today, for the first time in my career, I am going to violate someone's 4A rights."

imported post

Bravo, Tim. And bravo, Citizen. Tim, I hope that I will be able to handle the situation as well as you if I get stopped for OCng. Let me know if contributions to the defence fund is needed.

imported post

VegasGeorge wrote:

I don't doubt that Tim is right on the technical legal issues he raises in his post. However, there are lots of instances where I don't want our Metro officers to feel totally constrained by legal technicalities.

Click to expand...

Umm, legal "technicalities?" They are called LAW enforcement officers for a reason. Not "Opinion Enforcement Officers" or "Keep George Safe Officers."

Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first.

Click to expand...

No, actually that's not their job. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled on more than one occasion that the police are not obligated to provide any service to you at any time. They are not responsible for your safety, even if they have the ability to provide it.

Cops catch bad guys after the fact. People are responsible to protect themselves. No one else is obliged (or even capable) of doing it for them.

It appears obvious to me that Tim was making every effort to test the technical legal limits of his right to carry.

Click to expand...

Tim already knows the "legal limits of his right to carry." That's why we have public laws and not secret laws. Everyone is free to read and understand them.

Tim was exercising that intrinsic right in a way that appears to be unpopular with some in the law enforcement community (and apparently also the Las Vegas gun community if the Nevada Shooters group is a representative sample).

That's OK, but it obviously and predictably resulted in more trouble than necessary.

Click to expand...

The same sort of trouble that was caused when those pesky blacks thought they could drink from white drinking fountains, sit in the front of the bus, or send their kids to "white" schools.

The same sort of trouble that those uppity women caused thinking they had a right to vote.

The same sort of trouble those dirty jews caused when they didn't think they should wear stars on their clothes, or produce their "papers" on demand.

I think that a lesson in American civics, common law, and civil rights might be in order. Rights are not only rights when they're popular, convenient, or palatable to the government.

I always carry my photo ID (NV drivers license), my Nevada CFP, and the Blue Card for the gun I'm carrying. I am more than happy to immediately produce those for inspection on request. I will produce them for an officer, and I will produce them for anyone else who expresses a concern about the presence of my firearm. I want people to know who I am and that I am, in fact, one of the good guys.

Click to expand...

The fact that you choose to waive your rights does not obligate others to follow you in lockstep or "face the consequences."

By your logic, police shouldn't need warrants, as any "good guys" should just let them search through their home, computer, safe deposit box, wife's underwear drawer, or body cavities, if they've nothing to hide.

That's because I'm all too aware that there are lots of bad guys out there, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them.

Click to expand...

Well, you see, here in America, the way to not be mistaken for a bad guy is to not be a bad guy. We have this whole system based on a presumption of innocence. It means that the government doesn't get to violate your rights, detain you, incarcerate you, or otherwise bother you unless they have a level of proof commensurate with the actions taken.

In the case of a "Terry" stop, that's Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. In the case of arrest/detention, that's Probable Cause. In the case of inprisonment, that's Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt as adjudicate by a Jury of Your Peers.

See how those Founding Fathers really thought through the stuff you seem to think is a brand new concept?

It would have been nice if God had issued us white hats and black hats like the director of an old western movie. But He didn't. So, officers and folks in general have a right to be cautious and fearful when they see me with a weapon.

Click to expand...

You bet they have a right to be cautious or even fearful. They have a right to any emotion they want to experience. They don't have a right to violate the civil rights and legal protections of their fellow citizens. If they had chosen to follow and observe Tim, fine. They didn't. They illegally detained him. They illegally searched him. They illegally questioned him. They illegally seized his property.

The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.

Click to expand...

Being different does not carry the obligations you seem to ascribe. If I am not violating your rights or those of others, I'm under no obligation to "prove" that I'm "OK" in someone else's eyes. I can wear the clothes I want, hairstyle I want, jewelry or tattoos I want. Congregate with the people I want. Hold the opinions (and speak them) I want, and I don't owe you - Las vegas Metro Police Deapartment - or anyone else an accounting for that. I am accountable to my God, and those friends and family to whom I choose to be accountable.

It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think Tim was far too cooperative given the circumstances. I would have been much hotter under the collar, but maybe that's just my Irish-Italian temper. I don't take it lightly when government bureaucrats feel they can trample all over my rights whenever it suits them.

To sum up, your whole post can be summed up as:

"You have to go along, to get along."

While that might be great advice for those wanting to fit in to a social situation. It is incredible bad advice when it comes to government employees who are whittling away your rights day by day, year by year.

Bob

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

It doesn't make sense to me or a lot of others here.

Click to expand...

I think about it this way....Anti-OC means anti-2A. If right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to all forms of carry, then the support for that "right" is quite limited.

In other words, they support 2A, but only as it applies to them. Although I have a 2A right to carry openly, since they do not OC, it doesn't matter whether 2A allows OC or not, and I should not be permitted to carry openly because it puts at risk their right to CC.

I liken it to the 15th (black people can vote) and 19th (women can vote) amendments. As I am neither black nor female, neither apply to me. Following their logic, since neither apply to me, I do not need to support them. In the spirit of freedom and free rights for all, that simply makes no sense, and I obviously support these rights as I do all human civil rights.

imported post

Tim, you're absolutely amazing, I envy your courage and conviction. We don't have those sort of troubles up north, Clark County seems like another state, frankly, it sounds a lot like California.

I can't wait to see how this goes, if you take it all the way with the right counsel, you're going to mop the floor with these officers actions that will solidify hands-off policies and an end one and for all to these illegal civil rights violations.

"Give me your blue card!" seems to be Clark County's version of Nazi Germany's "Papieren Bitte!"

(worth the click)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsO1KwF64Ow