Open Carry on Officer dot com - St George vs Alamagordo

imported post

I recently joined officer.com, partly in response to straightshooter's coming here and posting his own opinions with us. They may not have been widely accepted here, but he was true to his moniker in that he simply let us know what he thought, straight up.

I was surprised to see a post about Open Carry in the S.F. Bay Area had just been posted this morning, here: Open Carry in SF Bay Area.

So, I gave them my 43 cents by posting a review of St. George vs Alamagordo, which specifically addresses, at the Federal Court level, the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement officers to stop, detain, search and seize, or arrest anyone simply on the basis of an individual's MWAG status.

The first responders were knee-jerk slams. Later responders mixed things up a bit better, with a few coming to my defense.

It makes for an interesting read into the varied hearts and minds of LEOs who're opposed to OC, and why. Interestingly, most seemed to support concealed carry, which strikes me as sort of an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. If I were an LEO, I wouldn't be worrying too much about those who were OC. It's the illegal concealers that would have me worried.

imported post

Don't forget topoint outthe posters who tacitly or expressly approve or recommend police act without legal authority.

This quote from Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford,quoted laterin Terry vs Ohio pretty much sums it up:

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.

If I recall, the case you mention even quotes Union Pacific Rail Co.

imported post

Every time I visit the blue uniformedauthoritarians over at o.com, I can taste vomit in my mouth. Is it just me?

imported post

I looked at that thread, and was about halfway through composing a VERY well-documented and footnoted response to several of the more ridiculous posts made against OC, and then I decided against it.

Some of these folks understand one thing and one thing only--lawsuits. They will eventually get in a situation where their actions become a liability to their Department, their City, and even themselves by acting under Color of Law. And only after they are hit in the wallets--and HARD--will they come around.

You can't argue with folks like that. And attempting to reason with them and quoting facts, citing court rulings, and taking clips from the Constitution only pissed them off.

I'm SOOOO glad I live in a state where the 2A is respected, and the government actually trusts and respects it's citizenry enough to be comfortable with us being armed.

You can tell a LOT about how the self-anointed "ruling class" of a state government feels about it's citizens by their firearms policies.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Don't forget topoint outthe posters who tacitly or expressly approve or recommend police act without legal authority.

This quote from Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford,quoted laterin Terry vs Ohio pretty much sums it up:

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.

If I recall, the case you mention even quotes Union Pacific Rail Co.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I saw that. That wasn't the reason I uploaded the decision to their site, but it's a good enough reason.


Dreamer wrote:

I looked at that thread, and was about halfway through composing a VERY well-documented and footnoted response to several of the more ridiculous posts made against OC, and then I decided against it.

Some of these folks understand one thing and one thing only--lawsuits. They will eventually get in a situation where their actions become a liability to their Department, their City, and even themselves by acting under Color of Law. And only after they are hit in the wallets--and HARD--will they come around.

You can't argue with folks like that. And attempting to reason with them and quoting facts, citing court rulings, and taking clips from the Constitution only pissed them off.

I'm SOOOO glad I live in a state where the 2A is respected, and the government actually trusts and respects it's citizenry enough to be comfortable with us being armed.

You can tell a LOT about how the self-anointed "ruling class" of a state government feels about it's citizens by their firearms policies.

Click to expand...

I'm glad I live in such a 2A state, as well.

I'm do not agree with you that it's impossible to bring any of them around. In 25 years of message-boarding, I've brought many diehards around - and just as many have brought me around, as well, as my mindset isn't "my way or the highway," but "what are the facts?" On this issue, it's "what's the law?"

Remember, all law enforcement officials are sworn to uphold the law. But there's something like 22 feet of United States Code alone! Most state law is far less than that, but even lawyers don't have time to learn all applicable law, particularly case law, which dwarfs civil law. Even lawyers specialize.

From what I gather, most law enforcement departments do have regular, recurrent legal training, but I also gather much of that is condensed into circulars or other reports, and often diluted even further into department policy, such as Sheriff Ed Flynn's directive to his officers to "take down any man with a gun" in direct contradiction to the DA's letter stating that OC is legal.

Most of what I've read here and on LEO sites is simply department policy which contradicts the law, and deep-seated beliefs which contradict the law. The two common denominators are that the ones who make the worst comments are the ones who are least knowledgeable of the law.

So, if I'm dealing with an LEO, I'm certainly not going to be confrontational about it.

Two cases in point:

1. One LEO said he'd never had a good experience with any civilian who carried a weapon. I said something like, "Well, let's change that! Next time you're here in Colorado, we can have lunch at a good local restaurant - I'll even buy!"

2. Another LEO said all he hears when he asks for reasons why civilians carry is "2A Rights! 2A Rights!" So I said, "Let's ignore the rights issue for a moment," and proceeded to given him reasons (self defense, police response times, etc.). Then I closed with something like, The aforementioned reasons are just that: reasons. They're not rights. The rights issue people keep chanting, however, stem from our Constitution, and they afford us legal authority to carry for the aforementioned reasons.

The issue as I see it is simply changing a mindset. Sometimes that mindset is based on a simple lack of understanding or knowing the law. Sometimes it's based on deep-seated beliefs, and sometimes that's based on experience.

One thing I am observing about many LEO's experience with armed civilians is that before they ever contact an armed civilian, that civilian has usually violated the law. Therefore, the LEO's experience is with a very stratified layer of the general public - those who've broken the law. So of course their perception doesn't reflect the general public at large.

That's not so difficult to understand. I think we'd do better carrying the message for open and other forms of carry if we keep that in mind.

But yes, there are some who are beyond anyone's ability, and those I simply ignore, unless they've made a comment which is easily defensible commensurate with a clear point of law.

imported post

This is the one that gets me.

"I'm just going to add my awesome two cents worth of info. I haven't even been here that long and I'm sick to death on seeing topics like this already. Not every state has open carry and that's how it should be. Society in general does not have the maturity to handle this privilege. We have people who get a hint of road rage, or see a woman with a purse on the street, and instantly run to the gun to rob, shoot, threaten, etc with little to no cause. Do you really think the Government would be so stupid to ALLOW anybody to "openly" carry? Give me a break. Personally, firearms should be limited to military and police like in many countries. Any possession by a civilian should be a zero tolerance felony. Voila, most gun crime is solved due to very strict punishment."

Sounds like he would be right at home In Nazi Germany.

imported post

Reverend45Cal wrote:

This is the one that gets me.

"I'm just going to add my awesome two cents worth of info. I haven't even been here that long and I'm sick to death on seeing topics like this already. Not every state has open carry and that's how it should be. Society in general does not have the maturity to handle this privilege. We have people who get a hint of road rage, or see a woman with a purse on the street, and instantly run to the gun to rob, shoot, threaten, etc with little to no cause. Do you really think the Government would be so stupid to ALLOW anybody to "openly" carry? Give me a break. Personally, firearms should be limited to military and police like in many countries. Any possession by a civilian should be a zero tolerance felony. Voila, most gun crime is solved due to very strict punishment."

Sounds like he would be right at home In Nazi Germany.

Click to expand...

Sounds like he would be right at home in a misanthrope club. At best. Meaning this assumes he is actually telling us his real views.

That sort of nonsense is susceptible to reverse logic. If people are not worth enough to let them protect themselves in the moment of an attack, what is the justification for having police? Police are otherwise just protecting worthless people. No public safety function of police would bejustified.

You can go quite a ways with this inquiry. For example, why have a hostage rescue team? Does the government really expect us to believe that a hostage only becomes valuable enough to protect/save/defend after they became a hostage?

The very existence of police in democratic societiesproves that people are worth enough to allow them to defend themselves in the moment of an attack. And it proves society knows it.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

That sort of nonsense is susceptible to reverse logic. If people are not worth enough to let them protect themselves in the moment of an attack, what is the justification for having police? Police are otherwise just protecting worthless people. No public safety function of police would bejustified.

You can go quite a ways with this inquiry. For example, why have a hostage rescue team? Does the government really expect us to believe that a hostage only becomes valuable enough to protect/save/defend after they became a hostage?

The very existence of police in democratic societiesproves that people are worth enough to allow them to defend themselves in the moment of an attack. And it proves society knows it.

Click to expand...

Good points!

By the way, the thread over there seems to be going well. A few have chipped in with chips on their shoulders, but a lot of apparent LEOs have also chimed with their own two cents, which are supportive of carry in most cases, and supportive of open carry in a couple of cases.

We'll see how things progress!

imported post

buster81 wrote:

Every time I visit the blue uniformedauthoritarians over at o.com, I can taste vomit in my mouth. Is it just me?

Click to expand...

No, I do too.

imported post

Wow! The discussion over there is really taking off big time! I am truly humbled, and honored, by those who've spoken up over there, sanely, and rationally, in support of open carry.

People like Sgt. Slaughter, a man of few words, but whose words pack a wallop. And stainless1911, who's twenty-two point summary simply watered my eyes!

If I've learned anything, it's that standing on one's rights, without reason, merely leads the anti's to try and usurp our rights. Meanwhile, focusing on the reasons, while reflecting that our 2A founders knew them well, hence their inclusion into our Constitutional rights, seems to hold considerably more weight.

For what that's worth - those who've helped out over there, thank you!

For everyone - Carry On!

imported post

I'll admit, it's a little nerve-wracking holding one's own against LEO's with a decade or two of experience. Sort of like playing Chinese checkers against an octopus with the brain of Gary Kasparov...

imported post

I'm glad you are enjoying yourself over there. It's clear that this guy really gets it. Obviously he lives where there is no crime (other than at his house?), and he has a cop travelling with him full time. I alsoenjoyed his mastery of the constitution.






TacoMac
vbmenu_register("postmenu_2189301", true);

Forum Member


Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Suwanee, Georgia
Posts: 13


My two cents:

The right to keep and bare arms was made out of two simple necessities:
1) Hunting for food.
2) Defending your family and the nation.

The biggest reason it was made as a right was for food and defense of the nation. Without that right, there would have been no army. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I just can't see why people feel the need to carry a gun to Kroger. I just can't. I don't need a .357 magnum to go pick up a prescription at CVS. I don't need one to go to my daughters ballet class.

That's why I have the police. If I have a problem, I hit three buttons and the problem is solved. It's just that easy. I don't even have to say anything. Just dial the number. They'll come. They'll probably hear what's going on whether you say anything or not.

I don't like open carry at all. I don't like concealed carry at all. Fact is, we can't even master driving a car without yaking on a cell phone and texting our butts off...so what on earth should we be doing with a gun?

Leave it to the police. That's what I pay them for. If I feel the need to hunt for food other than Kroger, I can buy a rifle and go do that. I have no need of a handgun outside of my own house. Ever.

imported post

Who's the genius who worded the poll over there?

View Poll Results: Do you support or oppose the right to open carry?
Yes/No

Click to expand...

Yes = I "support or oppose..."
No = I do not "support or oppose..."

Huh?

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

Who's the genius who worded the poll over there?

View Poll Results: Do you support or oppose the right to open carry?
Yes/No

Click to expand...

Yes = I "support or oppose..."
No = I do not "support or oppose..."

Huh?

Click to expand...

I suspect he copied the first line (yes) to create the second (no) and forgot to delete the "or oppose" part.

To this day, I honestly do not understand why members here desire the need to interact with that site. It only requires a few minutes of lurking to realize the OC movement is not/will never be recognized and accepted there--but, whatever I guess.

imported post

To this day, I honestly do not understand why members here desire the need to interact with that site. It only requires a few minutes of lurking to realize the OC movement is not/will never be recognized and accepted there--but, whatever I guess.

Click to expand...

Open carry is barely accepted on sites which espouse open carry. What makes you guys think that open carry would ever be accepted on a site full of cops?

imported post

buster81 wrote:

I'm glad you are enjoying yourself over there. It's clear that this guy really gets it. Obviously he lives where there is no crime (other than at his house?), and he has a cop travelling with him full time. I alsoenjoyed his mastery of the constitution.

Click to expand...

Probably lots of crime where he is and he's just got his eyes closed so tightly that he can't see it's a matter of time until he's the birthday boy.

On the other hand, I live where there actually is almost no crime. I live in the county seat and we've not had a jury trial for ANYTHING for over 10 years. (They try the rustlers and horse thieves at the state level. <grin> And not too many of those anymore.)

The only judge here rides circuit... he's got a car, not a horse, but that's the major difference.

The reason? Most of us here are armed and willing to use them. We know that our right to defend ourselves and our community predate the constitution by a million years. Our sheriff was tickled pink to see me OC, and nobody in town but the occasional tourist even bothers to look most of the time. Those who ask about the gun are handed my card, but so far it's always been friendly.

So, the "LEO" perception of OC or carrying in general is a lot the location of the cop.

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

To this day, I honestly do not understand why members here desire the need to interact with that site. It only requires a few minutes of lurking to realize the OC movement is not/will never be recognized and accepted there--but, whatever I guess.

Click to expand...

Really? Have you seen the poll results so far? We're winning! 57% to 43%! Not only that, but a day or two ago, one of the LEOs on the site looked at who was answering Yes, and nearly all of them were LEOs!

When I first spotted the thread, it was 2:1 against. Something around 12 Yes, 25 No.

This is why I frequent potentially hostile forums - because if one keeps a cool head, answers the questions and responds to the pertinant points, it makes a difference. One will probably not sway the rhetoric-laden hardliners, butthose who take the time to think about what's being said...

Inface, severalLEOs haveposted that afterreading through the threadand considering the points, they have switched theirvote from "No" to "Yes."

Naturally, just as dogmatic rhetoric against open carry doesn't work on those of us who are for open carry, dogmatic rhetoric for open carry doesn't work on those who are against open carrry.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

To this day, I honestly do not understand why members here desire the need to interact with that site. It only requires a few minutes of lurking to realize the OC movement is not/will never be recognized and accepted there--but, whatever I guess.

Click to expand...

Open carry is barely accepted on sites which espouse open carry. What makes you guys think that open carry would ever be accepted on a site full of cops?

Click to expand...

Because it is being accepted on a site full of cops. Dude! Did you even look at the site, or did you just make a snap judgement full of holes?

Here:



Sheesh! Don't be so skeptical! (or at least visit the dang site before you make snap judgements)

imported post

I like that question poll question, "Do you support or oppose the right to open carry?"

Open carry is the only way to exercise the right. Concealed carry is a privilege granted by the state.

Essentially, the poll question is asking if the LEO supports RKBA.

I wonder if that word "right" in the question is what is making the difference.

imported post

since9 wrote:

Really? Have you seen the poll results so far? We're winning! 57% to 43%! Not only that, but a day or two ago, one of the LEOs on the site looked at who was answering Yes, and nearly all of them were LEOs!

When I first spotted the thread, it was 2:1 against. Something around 12 Yes, 25 No.

This is why I frequent potentially hostile forums - because if one keeps a cool head, answers the questions and responds to the pertinant points, it makes a difference. One will probably not sway the rhetoric-laden hardliners, butthose who take the time to think about what's being said...

Inface, severalLEOs haveposted that afterreading through the threadand considering the points, they have switched theirvote from "No" to "Yes."

Naturally, just as dogmatic rhetoric against open carry doesn't work on those of us who are for open carry, dogmatic rhetoric for open carry doesn't work on those who are against open carrry.

Click to expand...

I haven't looked recently, but I did late Thursday night or early Friday morning. It didn't look pretty then (comments) and I didn't expect it to be any better now.

I've lurked over there for about four years now and the questions pertaining open carry have been brought upnumerous times and for the most part, OC has never been well received....Well, until now I guess.