Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Who's side are you on???

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    I recently heard of "open carriers" when an officer safety bulletin was issued by our police department. I had heard of it in the years past but really did not pay that much attention to it.My firstreactionfirstwas "wow, this is kinda cool" and I'm more for it than against it, especiallywith the current political climate (AKA: Those dirty bum elected officials)but then I started reading what you guys are up to. What's with this us against them attitude? Why are you TRYING to provoke law enforcement the majority of which are happy to back your play????What's with the attorney following you around? It seems to me that maybe you guys are a little wacked out? I hope I am wrong becauseI think I would rather have you guys backingme than some flamingliberal!



    Also what's with the making fun of the deputies who have to respond to your calls. I noticed one of your members was mentioning that the officers need diapers. Let me tell you it is not fun going to gun calls when you have no idea what the mental state is of the person you are going to contact. SO again with the narrow-minded response of the poster with the "girl scout" remark I ask myself again are you guys for us or against us?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the forum, Chet, good to have you here.

    You ask what's up with the 'us vs them attitude' that some in the CA area have. This is due, in part, to the attitude of the officers responding to the calls, and have amongst themselves regarding OC, as well as departmental policies and the like. Here are some links you might find helpful in seeing the other side of the story, so to speak:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36516.html OC'er who was arrested due to carrying an unloaded firearm on private property too close to a school, then successfully prosecuted, despite the law having a clear private property exemption and the private property being posted as private. I'm still puzzled how that happened, but I've been following the case for some time, and it did. Look around, plenty of info around on it.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36147.html Sunnyvale DPS emails and such, discussing OC and how to, more or less, hassle law abiding citizens. Personally I think they're being quite overzelous in their duties regarding this, but I've really no idea how bored they get on duty. Must be really quiet up there, I guess.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36583.html Sheriff's office, much like most in this state, refuses to issue a CCW. While CA is a 'may issue' state, in practice it's more like a 'ha ha forget it' issue state. Kind of difficult to be armed for the good cause of self defense, when you can't get a permit (despite the rather impeccable creditials in that particular case, especially), can't OC loaded, have to hope and pray you don't get within 1000' of a school by accident (challanging in some of these school-dense parts of town, eh?).

    The list goes on and on. Look around, I'm sure you'll see plenty more. It's not that people want to hate on the cops, more like the people would just like to be left alone to mind their own business and go about their lives. Yet (some/most?) police here in CA seem to enjoy making it as difficult for them as they can, including spending a fair amount of time outside of the encounter trying to find different ways to trip them up in the future.

    I've been living in a state for years where loaded open carry without a permit was perfectly legal, and CCWs were 'shall issue' where if you apply you get it, providing you're not prohibited from owning a gun, more or less. Blood in the streets from wild west shootouts? Nope. Large groups of cops screeching in with helicopters because someone is armed? Nope. Heck, most folks don't even raise an eyebrow. Ready for the big shocker? No stupid 10 round capacity on magazines either.

    Oh, I almost forgot to mention. Echecks are not mandatory, they're optional...yet many officers seem to go out of their way to do them. Why? How about leaving the person alone unless there's reasonable cause to suspect them of committing a crime.


    Anyhow, hope that provided you with a little bit of insight into how the ongoing frustration turned into a bit of 'us vs them'. Again, welcome to the forum, enjoy your stay.

    Edit: apparently I didn't cover as many of your questions as I'd have liked. In order now.

    Most folks aren't trying to provoke law enforcement, most folks just want to go about their regular lives without being bothered. Sometimes a group gets together from the forum for an activity/outing, such as coffee. Nothing wrong or baiting about that, so far as I can see. If it is bait, then wouldn't it be easy to avoid...by either not bothering them, or if called out, just doing a courteous echeck then clearing the call and going back to work?

    The attorney 'following' wasn't hired as an attorney to follow, but rather, is a member of the forum who happened to be attended the event as such (maybe more than one event? Not entirely sure on that, but I'm familiar with what you're talking about). People have jobs, and there's a pretty good spectrum of people on this forum from all walks of life. Can't expect him to quit being an attorney just because he'd like to attend an OC event, can you?

    I don't think that (most) folks on here are 'whacked out'. Try checking some of the states with less annoying laws, and I'm sure you'll see what I'm talking about. I'll take a moment to give Idaho a bump for that one, it's a great state, with minimal hassles and a great OC environment.

    Whew. That was a bit much...

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Let me turn that around a little. Why are you believing the propaganda your department has spoon fed you?

    Nobody here wants a police "confrontation" but there are some who will not run from one initiated by police enforcing silly and in some cases unconstitutional laws such as the 12031 "e" violation of standard "Terry vOhio" 4th A. jurisprudence since it requires the unwarranted searchof property absent RAS or PC just to look for criminal activity of a loaded violation.

    Keep in mind OC is banned in only 6 states and in Ca is generally limited to unloaded OC in cities.

    You are most welcome here butput the flame suit on and may you be thankful for what you are about to receive from some quarters.

    Stick around, Sir,I assure you it will be fun and educational!

  4. #4
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    Chet wrote:
    I recently heard of "open carriers" when an officer safety bulletin was issued by our police department. I had heard of it in the years past but really did not pay that much attention to it.My firstreactionfirstwas "wow, this is kinda cool" and I'm more for it than against it, especiallywith the current political climate (AKA: Those dirty bum elected officials)but then I started reading what you guys are up to. What's with this us against them attitude? Why are you TRYING to provoke law enforcement the majority of which are happy to back your play????What's with the attorney following you around? It seems to me that maybe you guys are a little wacked out? I hope I am wrong becauseI think I would rather have you guys backingme than some flamingliberal!



    Also what's with the making fun of the deputies who have to respond to your calls. I noticed one of your members was mentioning that the officers need diapers. Let me tell you it is not fun going to gun calls when you have no idea what the mental state is of the person you are going to contact. SO again with the narrow-minded response of the poster with the "girl scout" remark I ask myself again are you guys for us or against us?
    Q F T !

    whos side are YOU on?

    recomended reading.....the constitution!......california state law!.....OCDO!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    ôIf ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.ö

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Chet wrote:
    I recently heard of "open carriers" when an officer safety bulletin was issued by our police department. I had heard of it in the years past but really did not pay that much attention to it.My firstreactionfirstwas "wow, this is kinda cool" and I'm more for it than against it, especiallywith the current political climate (AKA: Those dirty bum elected officials)but then I started reading what you guys are up to. What's with this us against them attitude? Why are you TRYING to provoke law enforcement the majority of which are happy to back your play????What's with the attorney following you around? It seems to me that maybe you guys are a little wacked out? I hope I am wrong becauseI think I would rather have you guys backingme than some flamingliberal!



    Also what's with the making fun of the deputies who have to respond to your calls. I noticed one of your members was mentioning that the officers need diapers. Let me tell you it is not fun going to gun calls when you have no idea what the mental state is of the person you are going to contact. SO again with the narrow-minded response of the poster with the "girl scout" remark I ask myself again are you guys for us or against us?
    We have had LEOs attempt to entrap us into violating a number of state and local laws, PC 171(b) was one off the top of my head. Also when some of us have called ahead, we have been threatened with anything from 4A violations to homicide, which can only be taken as an attempt to dissuade having holstered guns in public at all.

    We didn't start the cold civil war against law-abiding gun owners. We are the law-abiding gun owners.

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Hello Chet, welcome to the forums. I'm on the side of the Constitution and every LEO who supports and defends it as they have sworn to do. I am not on the side of the LEO who blindly upholds blatantly unconstitutional penal codes and nanny state laws.

    Unloaded open carry is disgusting, and comes from ugly, race-based laws of which e-checks are part of. I despise UOC and e-checks. And LEO's who feel they need to conduct them lose my respect (just in case your training didn't cover it...e-checks aren't required). I am secure in my person and property and nobody is allowed to violate those rights unless there is a clear, articulable, reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot.

    Your profession is no longer one of peace keeping, but in modern times has become one of agents of the State. A State that is bent on robbing me and my loved ones of our liberties, our soveriegnty, and our property. In going about your daily duties are you upholding the Constitution? Or penal codes? How many e-checks have you conducted? Are you in favor of true gun rights, that is LOC? Or is that just for LEO's? Who's side are you on?


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the forum. Judging by your post, I'm guessing your a LEO or a closely related job. Forgive me if I'm incorrect in this assumption, but some of the things you've read are propaganda spread mainly among LE. (Of course you shouldn't feel compelled to identify as a LEO or not. There's very good reasons to keep that on the DL - e.g. reprisal from a anti-gun supervisor in your department, etc.)

    I hope you have thick skin, and I hope you stick around. We need a few more guys like Cato, and the only way that can happen is if you have an open mind, and as Cato said, a fire-proof suit. Keep in mind most of us have explained everything a couple hundred times, so please excuse us if we come across as harsh or impatient.

    First, some of your assumption about us generally are wrong. To my knowledge the only attorney present at any meetup was one time and he was an unpaid PARTICIPANT in the meetup. Also, despite numerous incidences of rights violations and excessive use of force, how many of us have actually FILED law suits? Despite the BS you will read in numerous memos, we're not for-profit (if we are we fail hardcore).

    Second, don't take what one or two people say here as representative of a collective sentiment. Now, I just happen to agree with the sentiments, but I prefer to articulate it in more specific terms. I understand and appreciate that people calling in can be poor communicators, and often dispatch messages are incomplete, inaccurate, or simply misunderstood (despite our technology radios still get lots of static in the filed). It speaks very poorly for the department when a ranking officer plainly states that it's OK to be so $#!t scared of doing the job you were hired for that brandishing, AWD, or worse is acceptable. Rather than solve the internal communication issues, the department is telling me and you to give up even more rights than we've already had taken from us by force.

    As for cops needing a diaper... I think every cop knew the job going in, including the risks. We pay cops to put our safety and rights above their own. IMO if you can't do the job without endangering innocent people, then maybe you need a new line of work.

    As for the "us versus them" thing... I'd love to see that go away. However the powers that be are working against us. Just look at the collection of internal memos trying to convince you "we" are out to sue, provoke, and/or test "them". I carried for a year before being contacted by officers (though on a couple occasions they chose not to contact me but investigated from a distance - the way police work should be done, when possible). "They" used excessive force, violated many of my rights (and their oaths), and then falsified their report to cover their asses. Am I that unlucky that I got 5 out of 5 crooked cops on my call? I think so, but maybe you can see how this looks to some like a wide-spread and systematic abuse of power.

    I really hope you stick around. We not only need more people on "our" side, but we also need more people on "their" side to counter-act the propaganda.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the forum. Next month it will be the 40th anniv. of my graduation from the police academy. I spent 28 years in law enforcement and sometimes it's an embarrasment torealize that I was in the same profession as the ones here in CA that will violate a citizen's rights without blinking an eye. For the most part, the problem isn't the individual officer, he's doing what his Sgt., Watch Commander or Chief has told him to do.

    Remember what rolls down hill? If the department and city gets involved in a lawsuit for rights violations, unlawful arrest or detention, battery, etc.and has to payout $$$ in a court decision, guess who it all gets rolled down on? The officer who made the original contact.

    Hopefully more LEOs will see the light and realize what they swore to uphold.

  9. #9
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Diapers?

    We'll there are immature individuals here as well as elsewhere. This is a public forum and we get all types. There is however an attempt to self police the forum generally.



    artwork by Oleg Volk:

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    i used to feel the same way you do, OP. when i first started reading the forums here i thought to myself "why dont you people just try working with the leo, instead of taking on an us vs them attitude." then LEO made contact with me. no matter how polite i was, or how much i informed them of the laws they were about to or were in the process of violating, they continued. my impression is that when you (civlian)tell an officer that they are doing something against the law, they feel that you are telling them how to do their job, and since you are not wearing a blue costume, or a badge, you have no right to do so. one cop actually told me that it was OK for him to go into "blank" business because he was wearing a uniform and a badge. while thats true, it is also true that its OK for me to be there because i am a law abiding gun owner. i know some people who are or were in law enforcement, everyone of them has told me that you get an ego at about a year that makes you feel a little above most civilians.

    the "us vs them" comes from "us" being violated by "them" at almost every encounter.

    if everytime you and i met in the street, i nut checked you, you might also take on this attitude vs me.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    Chet, welcome to the forum. I hope you learn a lot here.
    I have called the San Jose police department and talked to a few LEO's that patrol the area where I live and have asked about UOC'ing, the laws concerning UOC and how they would react to a person UOC'ing. The LEO on the phone told me if I get caught carrying a unconcealed, unloaded gun I can expect to be detained and have my weapon checked and if I have any ammo on me I will be arrested! I tried to explained to him that according to the PC it is not illegal to carry an unconcealed, unloaded weapon in a belt holster and have a loaded magazine in another holster. He told me that, that was my interpretation of the Law and I am free to interpret the Law as I want to, but in San Jose I will be arrested if I get caught with a gun and ammo on me. I've heard pretty much the same thing form other officers that I've talked to, plus I've been asked why I would want to carry a gun anyway if I don't plan on doing anything illegal with it. Well I want to carry my gun for the same reason that LEO's do, for self defense and because it's my constitutional right!

    I can understand that if an LEO gets sent on a MWAG call that he might be worried, scared or unsure. But don't treat Law abiding people like criminals, put them in handcuffs, force them to show I.D. and hassle them! Approach them, see how they react, asked to perform a 12031(e) check if you feel the need to and if every thing checks out, let them go. Don't preach to them, don't hassle them, don't detain them, don't do any thing but wish them a nice day! An LEO took an oath to uphold the Law, all Law, so please do your best to uphold the Law and make sure that my rights are not trampled on and I will do my best to obey the Law and support the LEO's where ever I can.

    Johnny




  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Johnny Koonce wrote:
    An LEO took an oath to uphold the Law, all Law, so please do your best to uphold the Law and make sure that my rights are not trampled on and I will do my best to obey the Law and support the LEO's where ever I can.
    And seeing as how the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, all laws to the contrary be damned, your oath precludes enforcement of all gun laws written to harm law-abiding gun owners in CA - they are infringements, and the 2A "shall not be infringed."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote
    And seeing as how the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, all laws to the contrary be damned, your oath precludes enforcement of all gun laws written to harm law-abiding gun owners in CA - they are infringements, and the 2A "shall not be infringed."
    I agree!

  14. #14
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Johnny, I seriously hope no LEOs took an oath to uphold the law. I know for a fact they swear to uphold the constitution, though. Laws are regularly made (and enforced) in spite of the constitution.

    Why do you think Oathkeepers has gained so much attention?

    Johnny Koonce wrote:
    An LEO took an oath to uphold the Law, all Law, so please do your best to uphold the Law and make sure that my rights are not trampled on and I will do my best to obey the Law and support the LEO's where ever I can.

    ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* Johnny
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    I went to Ask Geeves "Do Police Officers Take An Oath?" This is what I found in reply:
    Police Officers take an oath to uphold the laws, and bi-laws of the Constitution of the United States which is to include State statutes, and local ordinances without bias. It is not unlike the oath that the President of the United States might take. Actually, they take the oath when they graduate from the police academy not when they are hired, per se.

    This is what I based my comment on, the constitution of the U.S. is the supreme Law.
    Sorry if i wasn't clear about that.

    Johnny

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Come on Chet, don't be a one post wonder. Read up on Open Carry and let us know what you think.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    I'm on the side of the Consitution that our country was founded on.

    How about you?
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    Chet wrote:
    I recently heard of "open carriers" when an officer safety bulletin was issued by our police department. I had heard of it in the years past but really did not pay that much attention to it.My firstreactionfirstwas "wow, this is kinda cool" and I'm more for it than against it, especiallywith the current political climate (AKA: Those dirty bum elected officials)but then I started reading what you guys are up to. What's with this us against them attitude? Why are you TRYING to provoke law enforcement the majority of which are happy to back your play????What's with the attorney following you around? It seems to me that maybe you guys are a little wacked out? I hope I am wrong becauseI think I would rather have you guys backingme than some flamingliberal!



    Also what's with the making fun of the deputies who have to respond to your calls. I noticed one of your members was mentioning that the officers need diapers. Let me tell you it is not fun going to gun calls when you have no idea what the mental state is of the person you are going to contact. SO again with the narrow-minded response of the poster with the "girl scout" remark I ask myself again are you guys for us or against us?
    Wow, lots of anger, here!

    Chet, please understand that if there are comments here which anger you, perhaps it's because of less understanding officers than yourself have crossed local, state, and federal laws with respect to the lawful carry (concealed or open) carry of firearms.

    I've never had any problem with the police with respect to firearms, despite having been stopped 11 times in five states!

    I did have issues with 4 officers who grossly inflated the speed I was travelling to pad their county's coffers, but that's a different story.

    So far as firearms go, no issues.

    But I've been lucky. Some here haven't been so lucky.

    If you're happy to "back our play," fine. However, please realized we'd much have you know, understand, and fully back the federal, state, and local firearms laws, in that order. We're law-abiding citizens! If we carry firearms, we do so legally. Please understand that and join us in adhering to all governing laws.

    Also, please understand that a lawful exercise of both Constitutional rights to bear arms and local, state, and federal rights for self-defense should never be misconstrued as a "provocation." A provocation towards police is something done to cross the line of legality to see what is done. We don't do that. If any member of the various peace/police forces find themselves "provoked" by lawful open carry, there's a disconnect between the citizen's understanding of the laws and the peace/police force's understanding of the law.

    One of the major tasks of this forum is to ensure both the peace/police forces and the citizens are on the same sheet of music! Aka, the law, which governs us all. Not PD policy, which has been misleading in the past, nor gun-nut rants, which have also been misleading, but simply, the law. Again, it governs us all.

    I apologize for the other posters diaper and girl-scout comments. As a retired veteran from active duty, I can assure you I've been in several combat situations wherein I've heard others either crapped their pants or required depends. I did not, but I allude this to my training, which began at the hands of my father and uncle at age 9 (hence my username), and a tradition I followed through with my son this past Christmas visit!

    Again, having been in many do-or-die situations, I would simply say, always be prepared, but always remain calm. It's usually the well-prepared, well-trained, yet calm person who wins a firefight.

    As for firefights, let's adopt a zero friendly fire policy! We certainly don't shoot at you! So please don't shoot at us. To help us in not presenting as the enemy, please let us know and/or develop any widely-recognized mutual procedures to help ensure we're easily recognizable as "friendlies" in any contentious situation.

    As a former active duty member, I fully understand the importance of uniforms. However, I also recognize that many members of modern police departments are not uniformed (plainclothesmen). Surely you have procedures in place to differentiate friend from foe during a firefight.

    I understand the adoption of a "lawful carry recognition system" would simply give criminals access to a chink in your armor! However, progress must be made along this front so as to both reduce the conflict between law-abiding citizens and those who are sworn to protect them, as well as to ensure cross-talk between these forces remains high.

    Currently, it is not. Put simply, most conflicts are over within seconds or minutes, while most LE responses take considerably longer.

    Therefore, I would encourage all LE folks to view us not as some sort of adversary, but simply as first-responders, as your allies. We're your eyes on the ground, your point men, the folks who first encounter an unlawful and potentially harmful situation to self, others, and property.

    We're the ones who call you! Hopefully, you can get here in time! If not, we're prepared to defend ourselves and the lives of others as necessary until you do arrive. Sometimes the situation presents no opportunity to wait and we must take immediate action in accordance with local, state, and federal law to protect self, others, life, limb and property.

    To put it simply, Chet, so long as you and your fellow officers are following the actual law, we're all on the same team. It would be nice if we could work together to ensure an improved hostile/friendly differentiation. I think that's one of the major points of contention on these forums, and one which needs to be addressed.

    As for the rest of my fellow O/C Carriers, what say you? Did I nail the relevant issues? If not, please speak up!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    since9 wrote:
    Wow, lots of anger, here!

    Chet, please understand that if there are comments here which anger you, perhaps it's because of less understanding officers than yourself have crossed local, state, and federal laws with respect to the lawful carry (concealed or open) carry of firearms.

    I've never had any problem with the police with respect to firearms, despite having been stopped 11 times in five states!

    I did have issues with 4 officers who grossly inflated the speed I was travelling to pad their county's coffers, but that's a different story.

    So far as firearms go, no issues.

    But I've been lucky. Some here haven't been so lucky.

    If you're happy to "back our play," fine. However, please realized we'd much have you know, understand, and fully back the federal, state, and local firearms laws, in that order. We're law-abiding citizens! If we carry firearms, we do so legally. Please understand that and join us in adhering to all governing laws.

    Also, please understand that a lawful exercise of both Constitutional rights to bear arms and local, state, and federal rights for self-defense should never be misconstrued as a "provocation." A provocation towards police is something done to cross the line of legality to see what is done. We don't do that. If any member of the various peace/police forces find themselves "provoked" by lawful open carry, there's a disconnect between the citizen's understanding of the laws and the peace/police force's understanding of the law.

    One of the major tasks of this forum is to ensure both the peace/police forces and the citizens are on the same sheet of music! Aka, the law, which governs us all. Not PD policy, which has been misleading in the past, nor gun-nut rants, which have also been misleading, but simply, the law. Again, it governs us all.

    I apologize for the other posters diaper and girl-scout comments. As a retired veteran from active duty, I can assure you I've been in several combat situations wherein I've heard others either crapped their pants or required depends. I did not, but I allude this to my training, which began at the hands of my father and uncle at age 9 (hence my username), and a tradition I followed through with my son this past Christmas visit!

    Again, having been in many do-or-die situations, I would simply say, always be prepared, but always remain calm. It's usually the well-prepared, well-trained, yet calm person who wins a firefight.

    As for firefights, let's adopt a zero friendly fire policy! We certainly don't shoot at you! So please don't shoot at us. To help us in not presenting as the enemy, please let us know and/or develop any widely-recognized mutual procedures to help ensure we're easily recognizable as "friendlies" in any contentious situation.

    As a former active duty member, I fully understand the importance of uniforms. However, I also recognize that many members of modern police departments are not uniformed (plainclothesmen). Surely you have procedures in place to differentiate friend from foe during a firefight.

    I understand the adoption of a "lawful carry recognition system" would simply give criminals access to a chink in your armor! However, progress must be made along this front so as to both reduce the conflict between law-abiding citizens and those who are sworn to protect them, as well as to ensure cross-talk between these forces remains high.

    Currently, it is not. Put simply, most conflicts are over within seconds or minutes, while most LE responses take considerably longer.

    Therefore, I would encourage all LE folks to view us not as some sort of adversary, but simply as first-responders, as your allies. We're your eyes on the ground, your point men, the folks who first encounter an unlawful and potentially harmful situation to self, others, and property.

    We're the ones who call you! Hopefully, you can get here in time! If not, we're prepared to defend ourselves and the lives of others as necessary until you do arrive. Sometimes the situation presents no opportunity to wait and we must take immediate action in accordance with local, state, and federal law to protect self, others, life, limb and property.

    To put it simply, Chet, so long as you and your fellow officers are following the actual law, we're all on the same team. It would be nice if we could work together to ensure an improved hostile/friendly differentiation. I think that's one of the major points of contention on these forums, and one which needs to be addressed.

    As for the rest of my fellow O/C Carriers, what say you? Did I nail the relevant issues? If not, please speak up!
    Nailed it 100%!!

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Chet wrote:
    I recently heard of "open carriers" when an officer safety bulletin was issued by our police department.┬* I had heard of it in the years past but really did not pay that much attention to it.┬*┬*My first┬*reaction┬*first┬*was "wow, this is kinda cool" and I'm more for it than against it, especially┬*with the current political climate (AKA: Those dirty bum elected officials)┬*but then I started reading what you guys are up to.┬*┬* What's with this us against them attitude?┬* Why are you TRYING to provoke law enforcement the majority of which are┬* happy to back your play????┬*What's with the attorney following you around?┬* It seems to me that maybe you guys are a little wacked out?┬* I hope I am wrong because┬*I think I would rather have you guys backing┬*me than some flaming┬*liberal!┬*

    ┬*

    Also what's with the making fun of the deputies who have to respond to your calls.┬* I noticed one of your members was mentioning that the officers need diapers.┬* Let me tell you it is not fun going to gun calls when you have no idea what the mental state is of the person you are going to contact.┬* SO again with the narrow-minded response of the poster with the "girl scout" remark I ask myself again are you guys for us or against us?┬*┬*
    Very few open carriers, that do it as an exercise of their rights - out of perceived necessity -or as education for the public and law enforcement, are AGAINST law enforcement. Most are not TRYING to provoke confrontations.

    The confrontations are initiated more by police and the general public. The attitude that someone is carrying a gun just to provoke police is not entirely true because police make the choice to escalate a situation of someone that has not committed a crime into an encounter. Not necessarily a good or bad encounter, but the officer chooses to investigate an individual or group that is obviously not committing a crime.

    As to making fun of officers, this rarely happens and is perhaps to make everyone laugh or to lighten the whole situation; but when people are being detained (unjustly, such as when a whole squad of officers and a helicopter in Los Angeles recently illegally detained a bunch of OCer's that did absolutely nothing wrong (as evidenced by the officers' own admissions and observations especially when then came on scene and the fact that no one was cited, charged, or arrested). One can only help but stifle their nervousness (that even the bravest persons will experience) and to humorously point out an observation, such as some officers not knowing how to operate, check, and clear certain model firearms and especially officers (even after being educated by internal department memos) continue to either be ignorant of or knowingly abuse a person's rights and go beyond the scope that the law provides.

    Some police that knowingly violate the law (which includes violating rights) do so because they feel they have to "do something" about these people "that think this is the wild wild west" or they feel as though the public is there's and they should be the only one with visible guns (or guns period). That is wrong, just plain wrong.

    Put yourself in the shoes of the law-abiding citizen. Officers, carry your gun openly, without your badge visible, something I think you can legally do as you are still a citizen of this Great Republic. Walk down the street and see how it feels.

    We shouldn't have to have a badge to have the right defend our lives with deadly force.

    To Hell With Not Being Armed

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    "Therefore, I would encourage all LE folks to view us not as some sort of adversary, but simply as first-responders, as your allies. We're your eyes on the ground, your point men, the folks who first encounter an unlawful and potentially harmful situation to self, others, and property.

    We're the ones who call you! Hopefully, you can get here in time! If not, we're prepared to defend ourselves and the lives of others as necessary until you do arrive. Sometimes the situation presents no opportunity to wait and we must take immediate action in accordance with local, state, and federal law to protect self, others, life, limb and property".


    Ah yes, the noble "truth behind the cause"...except when your people are interviewedand break the facade with this all-too-real revelation..."When I have this on, I'm respected...". Sand-kicked in the face,lunch money taken goofs. When have any of you been an asset to LE or the communityyou disrupt with your actions?

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    seetobelieve wrote:
    When have any of you been an asset to LE or the community┬*you disrupt with your actions?┬*┬*┬*┬*
    Ah the statist in you shows his head. The scenario given was hypothetical, meant to show an alternative reality were LE trusted those they police.

    Remember that news interviews edited days after and trimmed for time and effect can take peoples words out of contexts.

    Disrupting the community!? Please, I open carry every day and the only disruption I've received is when a cops notices I'm carrying. The "community" could care less. It's a statist that believes his safety and welfare should take a backseat to the "Community".

    Also keep in mind we have a large portion of Open Carriers that have "been an asset", whether in the police force for decades or the armed services. Please don't generalize us.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    seetobelieve wrote:
    When have any of you been an asset to LE or the communityyou disrupt with your actions?
    Every time a someone sees one of the holstered firearms, and is deterred from committing a crime.

    LE is disrupted by the actions of OCers because they choose to be. I've lived in Idaho the past several years, where loaded OC is legal (without a permit even, oh the humanity!!! lol), and OC'd every day. Care to know how many police I disrupted? Zero. I'll even throw in the community disruption as well...zero. Wait wait, there's more to the horror...I also disrupted...wait, nope there's no more to it, nobody was really bothered at all. I had a few folks ask me questions about it from time to time, but other than that, not a thing. They weren't 'disrupted' either, just curious. Generally left with a smile on their faces.

    It's a matter of perspective. If you choose to react as 'OMG A CITIZEN OBEYING THE LAW :what:' then you can overreact all day long. Try training a dispatcher to ask pertinant questions 'yes sir/ma'am, I understand the individual has a clearly visible holstered firearm, which is legal. Are they committing a crime?' and suddenly you'll start noticing MWAG calls regarding OCers not resulting in PD getting dispatched. Where did I get this novel idea? I'll share that little secret with you too...from the way police dispatchers handle it in other states. Funny how getting dispatchers proper training results in less hassle for the field officers, Sgts, Lts, and Captains, don't you think? Seriously, we're not the people deciding to send out the helicopter and large groups of officers at great taxpayer expense, to do...um...nothing.

    Honestly, I'd love to know why police keep insisting on dispatching themselves to calls of 'Person obeying the law'. Next thing you know, they'll be showing up with guns drawn and a helicopter overhead for someone flying a kite in a park, or walking down the sidewalk, or even enjoying a picnic!

    Note: I love these one-hit-wonders. I don't care if it's the same person with a new SN every time, or different people who don't log in twice. It's still getting some decent discussion of the issues out there for people to google up. Thanks for helping us spread the word!

  24. #24
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    one post wonders...

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    one post wonders...
    They can't take the heat and get out of the kitchen.

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
  •