My 23-Feb-2010 Detainment. Great Conversation.

greg36ff · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

chewy352 wrote:

Greg if you don't mind me asking? What area do you work out of? We are willing to listin to and discuss OC with LE and actually encourage it in order to bridge the gap. What is your stance on the OC issue?

This is gonna sound like a huge cop out (no pun intended) but I do not want to discuss what I do or where I work out of. I mean no disrespect to your question, but I have been reading this board for quite a while and just recently started posting. I see what happens when people are labeled as a LEO.

Their opinions are immediately labeled as "LEO comments" and are either discounted or the posters are stereotyped as only having one (LEO) agenda.

My opinion are my opinions, not the opinions of law enforcement in general or whatever Dept. I do or do not work for.

Also, as is often pointed out here, this is a PUBLIC forum and whatever is posted here is DISCOVERABLE and can be used at a later disciplinary hearing or in court.

Here in this forum, I am just me.

Having said that, I don't really like open carry. I see numerous tactical issues with weapon retention, lack of stealth and a serious lag time in responding to a threat. Train all you want, two seconds is a LONG time under stress. Just as an example, If you are under direct attack, you do not have the option to defend (grab, punch or push) with one hand and draw with the other.

I am much more in favor of a shall issue CCW. I think that there should be some minimum standards met to obtain the CCW, but if you are a law abiding citizen, it should be yours.

I would guess that the whole “standards” issue could be another huge topic of discussion.

Iknow that this does not fully answer your question,but I hope it helps you see whereIam coming from.

bigtoe416 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

Having said that, I don't really like open carry. I see numerous tactical issues with weapon retention, lack of stealth and a serious lag time in responding to a threat. Train all you want, two seconds is a LONG time under stress. Just as an example, If you are under direct attack, you do not have the option to defend (grab, punch or push) with one hand and draw with the other.

I am much more in favor of a shall issue CCW. I think that there should be some minimum standards met to obtain the CCW, but if you are a law abiding citizen, it should be yours.

Surely you mean you don't really like unloaded open carry. Nobody does. But we'll have loaded carry soon enough...in some form.

From a theoretical standpoint, I'd agree that there should be minimum standards. From a practical standpoint, requiring standards to exercise the ability to carry a way to defend oneself is unwise. Time and time again we see slippery slopes being extended to limit our rights. Terry becomes 12031(e). May issue becomes no issue. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed; a right is non-negotiable.

greg36ff · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

greg36ff wrote:

Having said that, I don't really like open carry. I see numerous tactical issues with weapon retention, lack of stealth and a serious lag time in responding to a threat. Train all you want, two seconds is a LONG time under stress. Just as an example, If you are under direct attack, you do not have the option to defend (grab, punch or push) with one hand and draw with the other.

I am much more in favor of a shall issue CCW. I think that there should be some minimum standards met to obtain the CCW, but if you are a law abiding citizen, it should be yours.

Click to expand...

Surely you mean you don't really like unloaded open carry. Nobody does. But we'll have loaded carry soon enough...in some form.

From a theoretical standpoint, I'd agree that there should be minimum standards. From a practical standpoint, requiring standards to exercise the ability to carry a way to defend oneself is unwise. Time and time again we see slippery slopes being extended to limit our rights. Terry becomes 12031(e). May issue becomes no issue. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed; a right is non-negotiable.

You are correct, I did mean UOC, although I would still favor concealed carry over LOC.

As far as standards,I still think we need something, if nothing more than a background check or something.

I think that people need to think the "no standards" through a little bit. No standards means just that, no standards.

Any criminal without a felony conviction, illegal aliens with no stake in this country or no verifiable identification, un-registered gang members, the list is endless.

The balance should be tipped way in the balalance of the applicant, but there needs to be something.

Loose or no standards are probably fine in a rual or semi rual county, buy how about south central LA?

coolusername2007 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

You are correct, I did mean UOC, although I would still favor concealed carry over LOC.

As far as standards,I still think we need something, if nothing more than a background check or something.

I think that people need to think the "no standards" through a little bit. No standards means just that, no standards.

Any criminal without a felony conviction, illegal aliens with no stake in this country or no verifiable identification, un-registered gang members, the list is endless.

The balance should be tipped way in the balalance of the applicant, but there needs to be something.

Loose or no standards are probably fine in a rual or semi rual county, buy how about south central LA?

Isn't the required background check to purchase the weapon enough?

As far as proficiency testing goes, I'm on the fence. Again, the criminals don't need proficiency training. This isn't an attempt to lower the bar, just an attempt to level the field for the sake ofthe law-abiding citizen. Nobody wants a bystander to get shot during an attack situation, so I suspect the law-abiding citizen will seek out training on their own because by nature they are responsible.

MudCamper · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

You are correct, I did mean UOC, although I would still favor concealed carry over LOC.

If you haven't read this yet, it's a pretty compelling argument in favor of OC:

The Open Carry Argument

I'm not saying OC is the only way to go. I think there are times and places for both OC and CC.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

Welcome aboard Greg36ff!!!! Hope you have a thicker skin some other LEO's that have posted. And I welcome your opinions just don't be offended when most of us here on an Open Carry site would disagree with your anti-open carry opinions.

A reminder for us here, lets not jump down Greg's throat for showing a different viewpoint. Hopefully with respectful debate and reasoning he can be shown the good side of open carry and that most of what he fears is unsubstantiated.

We have several pro open carry officers(ex too) that post in Washington and yes sometimes we disagree about certain procedures and laws. But if we all agreed on everything what a boring place this would be and what a boring world.

Greg36ff the point of this site is to work toward full loaded open carry everywhere even in California, but since that is not allowed in many parts of your state and it is practically impossible for most to get a permit to conceal. Folks are going to UOC, they are not breaking any laws, they are not stretching any laws and few here would condone them if they did. Yet the continual harassment by certain departments is nothing more than coercion in my opinion to discourage an activity that the state and local municipalities don't approve of.

There is nothing mandatory about an e-check. Officers can very well use their discretion to see that an individual is not engaged in any wrong doing. But not only are many officers/departments engaging in e-checks they are going way beyond the scope of what is required and violating a persons 4th amendment rights in insisting on I.D., running serial numbers, detaining longer than necessary.

Why don't you help us and bring this up at your next precinct meeting and suggest to your commanding officer that they set an example in the state of California on how officers should engage lawful gun carriers, this would do a lot for your departments image not only with O.C.ers but with the public in general.

greg36ff · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

greg36ff wrote:

You are correct, I did mean UOC, although I would still favor concealed carry over LOC.

As far as standards,I still think we need something, if nothing more than a background check or something.

I think that people need to think the "no standards" through a little bit. No standards means just that, no standards.

Any criminal without a felony conviction, illegal aliens with no stake in this country or no verifiable identification, un-registered gang members, the list is endless.

The balance should be tipped way in the balalance of the applicant, but there needs to be something.

Loose or no standards are probably fine in a rual or semi rual county, buy how about south central LA?

Click to expand...

Isn't the required background check to purchase the weapon enough?

As far as proficiency testing goes, I'm on the fence. Again, the criminals don't need proficiency training. This isn't an attempt to lower the bar, just an attempt to level the field for the sake ofthe law-abiding citizen. Nobody wants a bystander to get shot during an attack situation, so I suspect the law-abiding citizen will seek out training on their own because by nature they are responsible.

I think that a background check is fine to purchase a weapon; the bar should be slightly higher for carry the weapon in public. As far as training goes, you have way more faith in human nature than I do.

I read somewhere that we are the most obese nation on earth. We ALL know that we will live longer and better with a good diet and proper exercise, but we still (me included) sit on our tushes (don't wanna get banned) and do as little as possible.

A carrot is a fine incentive, but most of us (me included) need a bit of the stick.

Gundude · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

A reminder for us here, lets not jump down Greg's throat for showing a different viewpoint. Hopefully with respectful debate and reasoning he can be shown the good side of open carry and that most of what he fears is unsubstantiated.

Engage "behave myself" mode

EXECUTE!

(TREKIE)

greg36ff · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Welcome aboard Greg36ff!!!! Hope you have a thicker skin some other LEO's that have posted. And I welcome your opinions just don't be offended when most of us here on an Open Carry site would disagree with your anti-open carry opinions.

A reminder for us here, lets not jump down Greg's throat for showing a different viewpoint. Hopefully with respectful debate and reasoning he can be shown the good side of open carry and that most of what he fears is unsubstantiated.

We have several pro open carry officers(ex too) that post in Washington and yes sometimes we disagree about certain procedures and laws. But if we all agreed on everything what a boring place this would be and what a boring world.

Greg36ff the point of this site is to work toward full loaded open carry everywhere even in California, but since that is not allowed in many parts of your state and it is practically impossible for most to get a permit to conceal. Folks are going to UOC, they are not breaking any laws, they are not stretching any laws and few here would condone them if they did. Yet the continual harassment by certain departments is nothing more than coercion in my opinion to discourage an activity that the state and local municipalities don't approve of.

There is nothing mandatory about an e-check. Officers can very well use their discretion to see that an individual is not engaged in any wrong doing. But not only are many officers/departments engaging in e-checks they are going way beyond the scope of what is required and violating a persons 4th amendment rights in insisting on I.D., running serial numbers, detaining longer than necessary.

Why don't you help us and bring this up at your next precinct meeting and suggest to your commanding officer that they set an example in the state of California on how officers should engage lawful gun carriers, this would do a lot for your departments image not only with O.C.ers but with the public in general.

Thank you for the welcome. I do not always have the time to post, but I try to read daily. I have a pretty thick skin, so I should be ok, although Pullinshoot really gets on my nerves sometimes

. I actually saw him smile once though, so I guess there is hope.

As far as LEO interaction, I think we have come along way. Just as recently as a year or two ago, any OC'r would probably be confronted with a full felony stop. In just this short amount of time we have come far. Are we where we want to be? No, but progress is being made. Some officers even just walk on by. That would be unthinkable a short time ago.

I don't really like UOC from a practical standpoint, I have no real moral or legal issues with it, but that is just my opinion. I would really prefer LOC to UOC, but I still would prefer a fair and easy CCW process.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

I don't really like UOC from a practical standpoint, I have no real moral or legal issues with it, but that is just my opinion. I would really prefer LOC to UOC, but I still would prefer a fair and easy CCW process.

Yep I prefer OC but never discriminate how someone wants to carry. UOC is fairly ridiculous on a tactical (I don't like to use that word, for gun carry) reasons but still is better than nothing at all.

You are right there are great strides in many departments, a few like San Mateo have made it abundantly clear they don't want these strides. Glad your department seems to be more informed or willing to comply with the law.

chewy352 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

Wow gundude I didn't know you had that mode lol

Greg your statement about having no restrictions on CCW has a huge flaw in it. Criminals, Illegals, crazy people already CC. So what does it matter if there are no hoops to jump through.

BTW I respect your choice to be Joe citizen on this site. After all you can't be LEO all the time. I think a normal person would go crazy. However if there are any general LE questions it would be nice if you could chime in. From here on out though I will not refer to you as a LEO so that you can remain incognito

greg36ff · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

Gundude wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

A reminder for us here, lets not jump down Greg's throat for showing a different viewpoint. Hopefully with respectful debate and reasoning he can be shown the good side of open carry and that most of what he fears is unsubstantiated.

Click to expand...

Engage "behave myself" mode

EXECUTE!

(TREKIE)

Live long and prosper! Live a little longer with a fully charged phaser in your hand!.....

Chief Montgomery Scott, somewhere in space on a planet with green women2475AD....

greg36ff · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

chewy352 wrote:

Wow gundude I didn't know you had that mode lol

Greg your statement about having no restrictions on CCW has a huge flaw in it. Criminals, Illegals, crazy people already CC. So what does it matter if there are no hoops to jump through.

BTW I respect your choice to be Joe citizen on this site. After all you can't be LEO all the time. I think a normal person would go crazy. However if there are any general LE questions it would be nice if you could chime in. From here on out though I will not refer to you as a LEO so that you can remain incognito

I see your point, but ifBill the gangster is hanging on the corner with a loaded Glock tucked into his belt, I don't like that and I don't think that most of us do either. I Oregon, you take a couple hour class and you go through a simple background check. The class is like a traffic ticket class. You can do it anywhere and get it from any certified instructor. A buddy of mine had the guy come to his house and do a group class. It was $30.00 each. I don't think that that is too much to ask.

You can refer to me as a LEO if you want, I just will not confirm or deny it for my own reasons.

Q) What do Fireman and cops have in comon?

A) They both want to be Fireman!

Darn, I hate that joke, but it's funny. People like Fireman.

Thank you for making me feel welcome!

chewy352 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

LOL I like cops as long as they treat me with respect and don't violate my rights. And no Officer safety is not a good reason to violate rights.

As far as bill the gangster is concerned LEOs can't differentiate between Bill the gangster and a law abiding citizen? This isn't the 20s and 30s anymore. Bad guys don't dress up. Sorry just watched public enemy's.

I have a CCW in WA. All I had to do there is pay $50, fingerprint, and background check. It less than a week I had my CCW. I actually am with you on the Background check but that is all they should do. You can't tax a right.

bad_ace · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

Q) What do Fireman and cops have in comon?

A) They both want to be Fireman!

Darn, I hate that joke, but it's funny. People like Fireman.

Thank you for making me feel welcome!

I think the reason we a like Firemen is that we never hear then shouting "Stop resisting!" while tazing an old lady

To echo Chewy, I'll refrain from referring to you as a LEO in hopes that you can still be involved in a meaningful way in other threads. I've naturally done this for the other LEO members here. I also acknowledge you've gone out on a limb somewhat to post here. Thank you.

N6ATF · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

Background check=guilty until proven innocent, and a perfect way to get on a database for future confiscation

The actually guilty would never apply, just carry anyway.

Background checks serve only to hurt the law-abiding by draining our time, money, and present and future 4A rights.

Rugerp345 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

Me: ... I rather be able to load it in 2 seconds than be standing there with my xxxx in my hand if something goes down.......

ROFLMAO. I gotta remember that one.

I'm on the East Coast. Just curious, in Cali you can OC unloaded but if you have a CCW you can CC loaded?

coolusername2007 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

I think that a background check is fine to purchase a weapon; the bar should be slightly higher for carry the weapon in public. As far as training goes, you have way more faith in human nature than I do.

I read somewhere that we are the most obese nation on earth. We ALL know that we will live longer and better with a good diet and proper exercise, but we still (me included) sit on our tushes (don't wanna get banned) and do as little as possible.

A carrot is a fine incentive, but most of us (me included) need a bit of the stick.

I don't think secondary background checks are necessary just to carry. If you can legally purchase, you should be able to carry. Either you pass or you don't. I see no justification to make it any more difficult for the law-abiding.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of training...regularly. But again, its an unalienable right. Do I require training to carry my pocket-knife? Cars are way more dangerous, and many times more folks die in accidents than gun accidents. Let's get better driver training first.

As for the obese, this nationisoverweight because of public policy. We all grew up beingendlessly taught the food pyramid...well it made us all fat. Turns out the food pyramid the government and public schools pushed all our lives is upside down.

coolusername2007 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

chewy352 wrote:

Wow gundude I didn't know you had that mode lol

Greg your statement about having no restrictions on CCW has a huge flaw in it. Criminals, Illegals, crazy people already CC. So what does it matter if there are no hoops to jump through.

BTW I respect your choice to be Joe citizen on this site. After all you can't be LEO all the time. I think a normal person would go crazy. However if there are any general LE questions it would be nice if you could chime in. From here on out though I will not refer to you as a LEO so that you can remain incognito

Click to expand...

I see your point, but ifBill the gangster is hanging on the corner with a loaded Glock tucked into his belt, I don't like that and I don't think that most of us do either. I Oregon, you take a couple hour class and you go through a simple background check. The class is like a traffic ticket class. You can do it anywhere and get it from any certified instructor. A buddy of mine had the guy come to his house and do a group class. It was $30.00 each. I don't think that that is too much to ask.

Again, its already illegal for Bill the gangster to walk around with a loaded gun. I don't see how that translates to more background checks and required training for the law-abiding. And a couple hour class in your home is nothing more than a waste of time. Hell,the 10-hour hunter safety class, while I did learn a couple ofthings, overall it was a monumentalwaste of time.

How does the Oregon carry background check differ from the purchase background check?

CA_Libertarian · Jan 26, 2010

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

...I have been reading this board for quite a while and just recently started posting. I see what happens when people are labeled as a LEO.

Their opinions are immediately labeled as "LEO comments" and are either discounted or the posters are stereotyped as only having one (LEO) agenda...

Total LEO comments!

[/humor]

Seriously, though... one LEO is a founding force of the CA UOC movement, and is lately the subject of much criticism for his stance on the stand-down issue... and not once have I heard anybody bring up his occupation in a derogatory manner.

Even so, I respect your right to keep your private life private. While it may give the rest of us some insight to understand your background, it's not vital to discussing/debating anything on this board.

While I know some here may not agree... I say the more cops we get on this board, the better. LEOs are one of our target audiences, and this forum is class room. Unfortunately, many of us need to develop some teaching skills (or STFU, IMO, but everybody is entitled to make an ass of themselves by being bigoted).

Finally, just wanted to add my "welcome" to the mix. Always glad to get new opinions and world views on the forum. Maybe we can learn something from each other.

My 23-Feb-2010 Detainment. Great Conversation.

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher