OC gun grab?

imported post

So I was talking toan oldbuddy of mine, he's aLEO and says he doesn't like any kind of "Civie" carry. He says it's only a matter of time before someone grabs an owners firearm while they're unloading/encasing the firearm and that's going to lead to more guns on the street. I responded with "Well,that's why we need to get rid of the car carry/GFSZ resrictions" He responds with, "No sir, we have those provisions in place to prevent gun violence,And car carry restrictionis for officer safety, if we allowed it,we'd have to assume everyone is armed at all times" :banghead:<-----That statement made me laugh, I mean im no LEO, but isn't that standard procedurefor approaching a vehicle/suspect?And under that logic,how would this change anything if we all could carry ccw & in our vehicles? Also, I realize I kind of got off pacehere guys, but mostly thiswas a "Blowing off some steam" thread. End Rant...



-Landose-

imported post

really??? i think the chances of somebody stealing your firearm while they are in a small gun case and bolted to the floor of your apartment are much higher than somebody coming up behind you while getting in your car and taking your firearm.

just my opinion though.

imported post

how many cops have had their guns grabbed here in Wisconsin? just a matter of time before LEO's guns start showing up on the street being used for violent crime.. well... everywhere except GFSZ's obviously.

I believe it is standard procedure for them to always be aware, hence why when they approach, it is slowly, and tight to the vehicle getting their eyes on your hands as soon as possible.



When i lived in MI, if you were carrying and were pulled over, they required you to disclose that you had a firearm... i have mixed feelings on this, mainly because officers handle it differently. some dont have a problem, take a look at your permit and DL give you your warning and/or ticket and no problem.

Others feel they have something to prove, want to disarm you (someone gave them that right for their "safety") which is awkward with a gun on your hip, or SOB.. you dont want to reach for it and get shot, so you tell them where it is. they are grabbing a weapon that they may not be familiar with, possibly sweeping you, take it back, run the #'s and give you your gun back with all the bullets in aplastic baggy... so you get a bunch of unnecessary handling of a firearm...

i guess, im kind of against that then, but i didnt have a problem for LEO's that realized its not a big deal, and the guy you have to worry about isnt going to be presenting you with a permit and DL, AND tell you he has his gun on him.

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

So I was talking toan oldbuddy of mine, he's aLEO and says he doesn't like any kind of "Civie" carry. He says it's only a matter of time before someone grabs an owners firearm while they're unloading/encasing the firearm and that's going to lead to more guns on the street. I responded with "Well,that's why we need to get rid of the car carry/GFSZ resrictions" He responds with, "No sir, we have those provisions in place to prevent gun violence,And car carry restrictionis for officer safety, if we allowed it,we'd have to assume everyone is armed at all times" :banghead:<-----That statement made me laugh, I mean im no LEO, but isn't that standard procedurefor approaching a vehicle/suspect?And under that logic,how would this change anything if we all could carry ccw & in our vehicles?

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. Until there is a flood of officers having their loaded weapons grabbed from them, they are pulling this excuse out of their sphincters. Just another excuse to maintain a culture of creating victims..... Look at it as job security...:?

No law will stop a violent felon from carrying. If he is any kind of cop, he already assumes that someone may be carrying when he pulls a car over.

imported post

In my own personal opinion, he is either an ignorant blowhard or just a plain old foolhardy, bullheaded red neck. He's not being realistic. He's a law officer, he should already be thinking the occupant of any vehicle has a weapon. With the possible exception of elderly. Is he taking his chosen profession seriously?

With a thought process like his, he may end up a fatality the 10 O'clock news. Unfortunately. You be the judge. Either way, until he can back up what he said with hard facts he and others like him must be rebutted at every turn.

Tell a falsehood long enough and it will ring true to those who are ignorant, foolish or lazy and don't know the difference. Fear mongering has been made into an art form by politicians and power brokers the world over.

We are the ones who have the power to stop it dead in it's tracks. Treading lightly will only end in you being looked upon as weak and ineffectual. The longer we allow comments like this to stand the stronger they get.

We must stand tall, know what we are talking about, be able to back it up with facts and speak with a confidence found in numbers. Numbers of members of a like minded group backing us all up.

Just like what happened recently with Woodman's and others where our numbers swayed opinion to the positive for us and the 2A.

This LEO is fear mongering and disingenuous to those in his profession who vastly outnumber the likes of him, holding the opposite opinion.

More LEOs would speak up if their being vocal on the subject would not impact their ability to earn a living. Pressure is being applied in subtle ways and not so subtle ways by political forces in Madison as well as highly placed superiors in their respective departments.

The carry law for vehicles, asinine as it is, was imposed by fear mongers from Madison in the first place. Laws only restrict the lawful. Criminals carry in their vehicles all the time. More these days than before.

A bad guy does not even have to admit he has a gun on his person because of the Fifth Amendment.

When enough of us who are law abiding, respectful, careful citizens get tired of being shafted by misconceived, restrictive, ignorant laws that no criminal will abide by anyway, maybe then some change will happen.

There are no common sense laws needed. They are already on the books. Just prosecute the dang criminals.

It will not happen if we do not challenge ignorant propaganda spewed by uninformed and opinionated folk like your buddy. Ignorance is bliss, does he want to look like a cop or be one?

This LEO, is not holding to his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Further, His politics are obvious.

Fascism has many layers and the start is oppressing law-abiding citizens.

Continue to stand for this kind of crappola, and you will on get more of the same.

By the way, my comments are in no way to be construed to disparage LEOs in general nor do I mean to disparage this fellow specifically. My comments are strickly aimed at his comments and my deductions are based on what you the poster have provided to us second hand.

imported post

Well he's entitled to his opinion. But gun grabs from civilians seem to be exceedingly rare-- many times more rare than cops getting their guns snatched away.

The whole transfer your gun from case to holster and back procedures takes only a few seconds, and why would one even try it if you had questionable people nearby? If you have a quality holster and a few gun retention techniques in your arsenal, it seems like quite a low risk. Trying to grab someone's gun is certainly a very dangerous activity, and criminals aren't generally looking for a challenge, they want to take the easy and safest route. If they want guns they can break into unoccupied houses to get them. Trying to take one away from a person who will undoubtedly fight for their life is a desperate move.

That said, I do see lots of OCers with holsters that are really not well-suited for open carry outside of a gun range or recreational use.** :uhoh:

I agree, Landose. Only a very poorly trained LEO would ever make the assumption that another person is unarmed. Also I think the origin of the vehicle carry statute with the DNR clearly shows that it wasn't designed with officer safety as its primary objective. It is more of an anti-poaching law.

** Let me put it this way. In my opinion if you're carrying a gun openly, it ought to be in a holster of the sort the police carry their guns in openly. Such holsters are designed to resist gun grabs due to their strength and retention mechanisms. We don't see cops trusting inexpensive cloth holsters, do we? There's a good reason for that.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Well he's entitled to his opinion. But gun grabs from civilians seem to be exceedingly rare-- many times more rare than cops getting their guns snatched away.

The whole transfer your gun from case to holster and back procedures takes only a few seconds, and why would one even try it if you had questionable people nearby? If you have a quality holster and a few gun retention techniques in your arsenal, it seems like quite a low risk. Trying to grab someone's gun is certainly a very dangerous activity, and criminals aren't generally looking for a challenge, they want to take the easy and safest route. If they want guns they can break into unoccupied houses to get them. Trying to take one away from a person who will undoubtedly fight for their life is a desperate move.

That said, I do see lots of OCers with holsters that are really not well-suited for open carry outside of a gun range or recreational use. :uhoh:

I agree, Landose. Only a very poorly trained LEO would ever make the assumption that another person is unarmed. Also I think the origin of the vehicle carry statute with the DNR clearly shows that it wasn't designed with officer safety as its primary objective. It is more of an anti-poaching law.

Click to expand...

I agree, a thumb break or Serpa style holster is really essential carry gear.

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

So I was talking toan oldbuddy of mine, he's aLEO and says he doesn't like any kind of "Civie" carry. He says it's only a matter of time before someone grabs an owners firearm while they're unloading/encasing the firearm and that's going to lead to more guns on the street. I responded with "Well,that's why we need to get rid of the car carry/GFSZ resrictions" He responds with, "No sir, we have those provisions in place to prevent gun violence,And car carry restrictionis for officer safety, if we allowed it,we'd have to assume everyone is armed at all times" :banghead:<-----That statement made me laugh, I mean im no LEO, but isn't that standard procedurefor approaching a vehicle/suspect?And under that logic,how would this change anything if we all could carry ccw & in our vehicles? Also, I realize I kind of got off pacehere guys, but mostly thiswas a "Blowing off some steam" thread. End Rant...



-Landose-

Click to expand...

If he'd ever seen the show about the Alaska State Troopers he would see that everyone can carry up there, uncased and in a vehicle without worry. He'd also know that with "all the big scary guns in civvies hands" are not their focus or biggest issues. Those issues still seem to be drugs, booze and illegal moose killing.

Just one more uniformed uniform.

imported post

Y'know sometimes it gets frustrating when you try to talk sense into some people, especially anti's. I wish they would all just open thier eyes, and quit hiding behind their imaginary curtain of "officer saftey" and "Gun control".

imported post

It amazes me how people and agencies will twist a statute from it's original intent to fit with their personal agendas. For example this LEO implies that the vehicle carry law is in place to provide for officer safety. Even the Wisconsin Supreme Court implied in State v. Cole that the vehicle transport restriction was in place for the interest of public safety. Statute 167.31 was enacted for the express purpose of restricting the taking of game animals from in or on a vehicle. A simple reading of the statute will confirm that claim. Statute 167.31 (2)(b) (c) and (d) all point to the restriction of shooting game animals from in or on a vehicle or from on or near a roadway. There are exceptions to the regulation of vehicle carry in statute 167.31 but I find no indication that the intent of 167.31 is to provide for law enforcement an/or public safety. It is a DNR regulation that has been warped out of context.If the intent of 167.31is to protect law enforcement and the public then it would be a restriction contained in Chapter 939 of state law, Crimes - General provisions. My opinion.

imported post

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Penis envy?" Well the truth of the matter is that most "LEO" have "Pistol Envy!" Fact is most Police officers in this state believe they are in a class of their own. They don't even consider Corrections Officers to be LEO's.

Why? Because we don't give out petty speeding tickets and we don't drive around in an overpriced squad car. Not to mention that if we walked around with a gun strapped to our hip while performing our job it would burst the egotistical bubble of Law enforcement.

Funny thing is, I have the same college degree as most LEO's and probably have furthered my education more then most LEO's as well.

I qualify with fire arms every year. I place individuals in handcuffs more times in one year then any LEO will most likely do in their entire career.

They claim the Corrections officers have no statutory powers of arrest, yet CO's enforce state code within the institutions. In fact from a previous AG's opinion corrections officers even have all authorities and arresting powers of a Peace Officer when pursuing an escaping or escaped inmate. Even to the point of using deadly force, whether it be on an escaping inmate or an inmate attempting to endanger the life and safety of another person (inmate or officer). But we are not LEO.

Hmm it all sounds like just a big ego trip to me.

What it all boils down to is this, ... They don't want anyone taking away their glory as being the only ones to walk around with a gun on their hip. Nothing more.

They could careless if you have the right to protect yourself or not. If it takes away from their glory then they are against it.

Now I know that some of you will say I am cop bashing. That is not the case. I am simply stating the truth as it relates to most police officers (Not all of them) and many here are afraid to just come out and say the truth. Not Me! If the truth hurts then so be it.

That is exactly why if you go to any of the LEO forums where they (LEO's) voice their opinions on any form of carry you will find it very difficult to be able to respond to their comments. All that matters to them is that their opinions are what is heard and accepted, period.

imported post

JG you might be correct for some LEOs but I think, more than a matter of pride, it is a matter of fear. What are law enforcement officers taught to do? To take and maintain control of the situation. I'm sure corrections officers are taught the same thing.

What enables LEOs to take and maintain control? That's right, superior firepower. When you take away the superior firepower an LEO is basically the same as any other person. With all due apologies to the reputation of Samuel Colt, having a gun does not make you the equal of other men, it makes you the superior-- in at least one narrow sense-- of other (unarmed) men. LEOs or anyone with a firearm, must view another armed individual as an equal or at least potentially equal.* Right there you have lessened, at least psychologically, the ability to take and maintain control of certain situations. Hence the fear.

We have to convince LEOs-- just like much of the public at large-- that armed law-abiding citizens are not to be feared.

I know LEOs who dislike the idea of armed citizens and I know some who really like the idea. One in particular told me once that he would feel better knowing that there's the possibility of someone else with a gun might be nearby should he ever get into a bad situation. Other LEOs might tell him that his "feeling better" is unfounded because of the low probability that an armed citizen will be around when he needs one. My response: It is no more unfounded than their fear that armed law-abiding citizens are a threat to their safety, because that too is a low probability.


* Obviously a mediocre shooter is not the equal of a very capable shooter, although superior ability is not any sort of guarantee-- example, James "Wild Bill" Hickok.

imported post

Landose,

Next time you talk with your friend, ask him if that has ever happened (and make him prove it) to a "civilian" in the entire United States.

imported post

protias wrote:

Landose,

Next time you talk with your friend, ask him if that has ever happened (and make him prove it) to a "civilian" in the entire United States.

Click to expand...

Oh I asked him, apperantly it's "common knowledge" that this happends on a daily basis to both officers and civilians, and that we (Civies)are not "Qualified" to deal with a gun grab situation, therefore,shouldn't be armed in the 1st place.:banghead:


On a related note (and these never get old) here's how far "qualifications" get you nowadays:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDfNV9bJoSg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui2c2NqR0gc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOVku86WfVg&NR=1

imported post

It's true those never get old. Especially when you hear comments like the OP, makes them that much funnier.

imported post

WTF? If it happened on a daily basis, why it is not in the news?

imported post

In year 2009 124 law enforcement officers were killed while on duty from all causes. 48 were killed by gunfire. 76 killed by other causes, I presume most vehicle related. How many officers are there in the U.S.? How many traffic stops are made annually in the U.S.? What would the number of traffic stops per officer killed by gunfire be? I don't know if I can count that high. Publically only the gunfire deaths are prostituted.

Why are so many cops pushed to near panic when there is even a mention of anyone but them being armed? It seems to me some get so paranoid they nearly turn into sniveling wretches thatalmost pee their pants whenever the tought of civilians carrying firearms is mentioned. The answer is probably easy. Many spend nearly all of thier duty hours dealing with the lowest level of society, about 10% of the population. Soon a mind set takes over that convinces them that all of society is dangerous. They don't take time to realize that 90% of the people are law abiding and mean them no harm. They think everybody is out to kill them. When they leave for work in the morning their thoughtis that someone might shoot them and they won't come home at night. The reality is that there is 158% greater chance that they will get killed in a crash than by gunfire.

I don't mean to imply that all cops think the way I said. There are some, such as those on this forum, that support our cause, but many do feel as I wrote. Apparently the one landose talked to is one of them.The comments I made are not unfounded nor are they only my personal opinion. The first time I heard those words were from my brother who spent 25 yearsas a city cop, a county deputy and a city detective. He said that he had to work hard reminding himself that the good guys outnumber the bad guys 9 to 1.

imported post

i would think the introduction of the retaining holster pretty much ended that angle of grab. so if there is vunerability while uncasing, casing, then how about doing away with that? it must be a new idea i just thought of huh?

imported post

Lammie wrote:

In year 2009 124 law enforcement officers were killed while on duty from all causes. 48 were killed by gunfire. 76 killed by other causes, I presume most vehicle related. How many officers are there in the U.S.? How many traffic stops are made annually in the U.S.? What would the number of traffic stops per officer killed by gunfire be? I don't know if I can count that high. Publically only the gunfire deaths are prostituted.

Why are so many cops pushed to near panic when there is even a mention of anyone but them being armed? It seems to me some get so paranoid they nearly turn into sniveling wretches thatalmost pee their pants whenever the tought of civilians carrying firearms is mentioned. The answer is probably easy. Many spend nearly all of thier duty hours dealing with the lowest level of society, about 10% of the population. Soon a mind set takes over that convinces them that all of society is dangerous. They don't take time to realize that 90% of the people are law abiding and mean them no harm. They think everybody is out to kill them. When they leave for work in the morning their thoughtis that someone might shoot them and they won't come home at night. The reality is that there is 158% greater chance that they will get killed in a crash than by gunfire.

I don't mean to imply that all cops think the way I said. There are some, such as those on this forum, that support our cause, but many do feel as I wrote. Apparently the one landose talked to is one of them.The comments I made are not unfounded nor are they only my personal opinion. The first time I heard those words were from my brother who spent 25 yearsas a city cop, a county deputy and a city detective. He said that he had to work hard reminding himself that the good guys outnumber the bad guys 9 to 1.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail right on the head there, If more LE could think like your bro does, I think we'd be better off.

imported post

Did you ask him why, in North Carolina we have open carry and open car carry, and we don't have officers mowed down in the streets?

Every time there is an officer shot during a traffic stop it is by some felon or someone who ILLEGALLY has a gun.


Officers killed in the line of duty as a result of gunfire (non-accidental) 2009:

North Carolina: 284
Michigan: 301


Considering that the population of NC is 9.2 million and the population of MI is 10 million, the deaths per capital come out to almost EXACTLY the same, .00003%

If your friends ideology was correct, then MI should be a WAY SAFER place for cops, but the data doesn't reflect that.