Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Weapon Carry Not a Right

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    OK boys and girls,,,http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b1_1251954307 ,,,,,Cop tels Protester with OC of handgun "its not a right,its a priviledge".
    Dont know why it will not work,,,it does on 1919a4.com opentalk section or "Counter Protest/Detained by Police".....on liveleak.

  2. #2
    Regular Member lprgcFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    245

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    az, ,
    Posts
    685

    Post imported post

    wow that would really piss me off if a cop just grabbed me like that and put me against a car

  4. #4
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    It's a RIGHT in Ohio, so says the Ohio Supreme Court.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    thompsongunner06 wrote:
    OK boys and girls,,,http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b1_1251954307 ,,,,,Cop tels Protester with OC of handgun "its not a right,its a priviledge".
    Dont know why it will not work,,,it does on 1919a4.com opentalk section or "Counter Protest/Detained by Police".....on liveleak.
    They said the same gibberish with driving, and some morons still think that driving is a "privilege."



  6. #6
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Driving is a privledge...not a right.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    They said the same gibberish with driving, and some morons still think that driving is a "privilege."
    An excerpt from Wisconsin case law, stare decisis embodied in the 'annotations' of Wisconsin Statue Chapter 343 'OPERATORS’ LICENSES', ss 343.05

    A person has a privilege, but not a right, to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway. To exercise that privilege, the person must satisfy the licensing requirements of the state. County of Fond du Lac v. Kevin C. Derksen, 2002 WI App 160, 256 Wis. 2d 490, 647 N.W.2d 922, 01−2870.
    http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinions/01/pdf/01-2870.pdf

    APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Fond du Lac County: DALE L. ENGLISH, Judge. Affirmed.

    Before Nettesheim, P.J., Anderson and Snyder, JJ.

    ¶1 NETTESHEIM, P.J. In this case, we put to rest the notion held by some that a person has an absolute and unfettered right, free of government regulation, to operate a motor vehicle on the roadways of this state. Rather, this so-called “right” is, in fact, a privilege that is subject to reasonable regulation by the legislature or other political subdivisions of the state.

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

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinions/01/pdf/01-2870.pdf

    APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Fond du Lac County: DALE L. ENGLISH, Judge. Affirmed.

    Before Nettesheim, P.J., Anderson and Snyder, JJ.

    ¶1 NETTESHEIM, P.J. In this case, we put to rest the notion held by some that a person has an absolute and unfettered right, free of government regulation, to own and bear firearms on the roadways of this state. Rather, this so-called “right” is, in fact, a privilege that is subject to reasonable regulation by the legislature or other political subdivisions of the state.
    Fixed it for you.

    A conclusion line is an uncompelling argument. Courts and statutes are hardly the repositories of the essences of rights.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    ¶8 There is a compelling basis for differentiating the right to travel from the means of travel. The automobile of today, with engineering emphasis on power and speed, can be a crippling and potentially lethal weapon in the hands of an irresponsible driver. See Steeno, 85 Wis. 2d at 671. Licensing helps to assure safe drivers and also provide a good record-keeping system for identifying irresponsible drivers. Derksen offers isolated quotes from older cases from other jurisdictions that facially support some of his arguments. But we are not bound by those cases. Instead, we are bound by our supreme court and, in a constitutional sense, by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997). We refuse to follow and decline to discuss the ancient cases from other jurisdictions cited by Derksen.
    I am a touring bicyclist of long 50,000+ miles experience and I am informed of the intricacies of the Right to travel and the hazards of the automobile.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    ¶8 There is a compelling basis for differentiating the right to travel from the means of travel. The automobile of today, with engineering emphasis on power and speed, can be a crippling and potentially lethal weapon in the hands of an irresponsible driver. See Steeno, 85 Wis. 2d at 671. Licensing helps to assure safe drivers and also provide a good record-keeping system for identifying irresponsible drivers. Derksen offers isolated quotes from older cases from other jurisdictions that facially support some of his arguments. But we are not bound by those cases. Instead, we are bound by our supreme court and, in a constitutional sense, by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997). We refuse to follow and decline to discuss the ancient cases from other jurisdictions cited by Derksen.
    I am a touring bicyclist of long 50,000+ miles experience and I am informed of the intricacies of the Right to travel and the hazards of the automobile.
    why don't you just tell us that you believe in the 'living' constitution then?

  11. #11
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    In Indiana, open carry is licensed... by the fact carry must be licensed, one could conclude open carry is a privilege in the state.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    In Indiana, open carry is licensed... by the fact carry must be licensed, one could conclude open carry is a privilege in the state.
    You are correct, unfortunately. The state of Indiana, as well as other states view the carrying of a firearm a privledge, not a right.

    Nationwide though...its starting to get better.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  13. #13
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Exactly.

    I read the title and description on the forum at first, thinking "huh?". Then I read the description in the linked video and saw the city was in Indiana.

    People are getting their britches in a bunch over a licensed state.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  14. #14
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Sheesh.

    Common sense is not required under the law. It is not an issue.

    Were these cops put in charge of "Good ideas" by their watch commander?

    "It is an open carry state but there are people out here. You're walking around with an exposed firearm." Who is this, Officer Moron?
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    That citizen was detained and harassed. I hope he sues that PD to the fullest extent of the law.


    But he said too much - should have kept it to "As you admit that I'm legally allowed to OC, am I being detained or am I free to go?" Nothing more.

  16. #16
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    paramedic70002 wrote:
    "It is an open carry state but there are people out here. You're walking around with an exposed firearm."
    "So are you, Officer. What's the problem???"
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  17. #17
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    One has to ask, is it RAS just because someone is carrying a weapon, which is a "privy" in Indiana?

    There are no sidewalkblocks afaik.

    Police can't just pull over anyone on the road at their choosing, what where is the RAS for open carrying?

    I suppose to question the First class city statute in PA as well. Does anyone have any case law or would this question be new?
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
    That citizen was detained and harassed. I hope he sues that PD to the fullest extent of the law.


    But he said too much - should have kept it to "As you admit that I'm legally allowed to OC, am I being detained or am I free to go?" Nothing more.
    10-4. You don't try cases on the sidewalk.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    It's a RIGHT in Ohio, so says the Ohio Supreme Court.
    I'll be Dmnae'd if I would have concealed my weapon for them. It is my Right to open carry in Ohio. I would have told them so and left it at that. I don't care if someone is upset by it or not. They< need to get with the program, not me. I know what the law is and so did the Police in this situation. So why conform to what they want, just to make them happy. This is some more, of the strong arm tactics that make me sick. Why do we have to be sheep? They found out, that he knew his rights and still pressed their personal opinions upon him and he gave in. They knew, they didn't have a right to do so but they did it anyway. I am kind of psised, that he caved in.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    Exactly.

    I read the title and description on the forum at first, thinking "huh?". Then I read the description in the linked video and saw the city was in Indiana.

    People are getting their britches in a bunch over a licensed state.
    My problem with this is he did have a license, so it is not up for debate. He was not breaking the law. They stopped him from doing something that is legal in Indiana, just because they didn't like it. What about the rest of the time when he is walking around with his open weapon? I am sure that, there are plenty of people out then also. Does this somehow give them the right to harass him, anytime they feel like it? Maybe I am missing something. The law is the law, wherever you live. I know what State those Police where in, the State of Confusion.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    D_Weezy wrot
    My problem with this is he did have a license, so it is not up for debate. He was not breaking the law. They stopped him from doing something that is legal in Indiana, just because they didn't like it. What about the rest of the time when he is walking around with his open weapon? .
    What about people that don't like or feel comfortable with a black man walking down the street? Would they, and the police, ask him to walk somewhere else???

    I don't f***ing think so.....

  22. #22
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
    D_Weezy wrot
    My problem with this is he did have a license, so it is not up for debate. He was not breaking the law. They stopped him from doing something that is legal in Indiana, just because they didn't like it. What about the rest of the time when he is walking around with his open weapon? .
    What about people that don't like or feel comfortable with a black man walking down the street? Would they, and the police, ask him to walk somewhere else???

    I don't f***ing think so.....
    Think back. It wasn't so long ago that that was the way it was. In that sense we are in the middle of our own rights movement.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    Exactly why I chose that illustration.

  24. #24
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    BAD OCer.

    If you're going out to make a statement, as he said he was, you know the law cold, you press the "Am I being detained" question, and you stick to your RIGHTS.

    If other people are scared, that's their problem. They need to learn to deal with legal activities. How many people were uncomfortable with desergregation?

    I would NOT have offered to conceal to make the police happy.

    I would have not had any ID on me (I'm in Oregon, we don't need a permit for open carry) unless I was in a jurisdiction which required me to have my CHL (very few here and all up near Portland). I have my wife carry my ID when I am out with her OCing. Our law (some states are different) here in Oregon is that we are not required to carry ID, only identify ourselves (name and address). It really pisses off the LEO's I'm sure when you don't have ID but if they have no RAS, I'm not going to give it up. If they articulate a RAS to me that is reasonable (not "you have a gun") I will let ask my wife to give them the ID.

    The thing with her carrying the ID is that, if asked by LE, I can honestly say "I don't have any ID on me".

    Yes, it's being an arse. It's also the LAW. Will I end up arrested? Maybe. And then there will be a lawsuit.....right after the charges are dropped because the DA heard the audio and they say "You have a gun that's all the suspicion we need".

    The time is here my friends.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    The OC proponent buckled and back peddled, The Cops were pushing their personal agendas, the fella should have the officers to show their hand and place him under arrest or detain him, then he'd have a solid foundation to stand on when making an effort to file suit,

    Instead the OCer volenteered to forfeit his rights and the officers didn't take his right away, they just coerced him to give them up.. I bet the OCer has no legal recourse!

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
  •