• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Just for the record

Justice402

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

it removes the tranquility for the criminal element.
 

UtahRSO

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
146
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

Punishment to fit the crime is appropriate. But I'm not at all sure the threat of future punishment is on the mind of some BG in the process of robbing a place. I doubt they expect to get caught.

But I do think the sight of someone prepared for self-defense (think OC) is immediate enough to persuade the BG to rethink the situation.
 

Justice402

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

UtahRSO wrote:
Punishment to fit the crime is appropriate. But I'm not at all sure the threat of future punishment is on the mind of some BG in the process of robbing a place. I doubt they expect to get caught.

But I do think the sight of someone prepared for self-defense (think OC) is immediate enough to persuade the BG to rethink the situation.
You're right, they don't think that they will get caught. But and this is a big but, if the law was created on the federal level where the states could not plea bargin, where the law would state a mandatory 20 year sentence with no negotiation for a reduced sentence, with no ridiculous requirement that you must serve 85% of your sentence. You're sentenced to 20 years and you will not be released before that 20 years, then after afew foolish "would be" robbers disregards this law and commits the crime and is sentenced. The word will get out on a national level and you would see a huge reduction in crimes with a gun. Some will say the jails are overcrowded now. I say too bad, sleep on top of each other then. You should have thought about that before committing the crime. As far as the "punishment to fit the crime" I think 20 years fits and this is why. It is easy for a jury to judge some criminal trash using mitigating circumstances such as, it was his first crime, no one was hurt or he came from a good family that contributes to the community. After hearing all that suddenly it seems he is the victim. But look at the real victim. You walk into a store by yourself or with a loved one. This piece of crap walks in and not only wants you to give him what "you" worked for but points a gun at you. You literally see your life in front of your eyes. You truly believe it is your time to die, or your loved one is going to die. Why did this happen to you? Simply because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and again you truly feel like your going to die. Try to imagine what that really must feel like. Yet the courts look at that issue very lightly simply because there was no actual physical injury. Physically there was injury. To your brain. You will be affected for life. So punishment to fit the crime? I believe it fits.
 

Justice402

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

Thats the whole problem. Once you commit a crime with a gun the law should state that you have just given up your rights. There is too much concern over "criminals rights" and that's why this country is now in the position we are in. Why is it that if a woman has been active sexually and even has performed prostitution and has been arrested but pled to a lesser charge, lets say disorderly conduct so she does not have a "conviction" for prostitution but if she is raped all of her past is brought into the courtroom regarding her sexual activity. Yet, when someone is arrested for robbery more than once but pleads to lets say assault and now he is before the courts for another robbery charge his past robbery records could not be used in court because it may influence the jury. Why is that? Where was the womans rights? Be careful what you wish for? Reducing rights should only apply to criminals, not to the lawful people. Do you honestly feel that if I put a gun to your head and threaten to blow your brains out that I should have any rights? Using this kind of logic then once someone "serves their time" in jail for being a pedophile why must they register under Megan's Law when they are released from jail? They served their time, right? Thats not a violation of their rights if they served their time? No, it is not because the "law" was past to protect "lawful people". So under the same guidelines laws can be past to protect the public and truly punish the criminal.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy. The accuser doesn't have a right to feel good at trial, the accused does have a right to a fair trial.
 

eyesopened

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
731
Location
NOVA, Virginia, USA
imported post

Justice402 wrote:
I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.
While I appreciate the support, I don't know if I'd follow the advice given when confronted by police. I personally will not be touching or even reaching for my pistol while officers have theirs trained at me. What's to say that one of the LEOs may take my actions as a threat? I'd rather "assume the position" and have the LEOs secure me, then my pistol themselves.
 

Justice402

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

CarryOpen wrote:
What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy.



No, I have not commited a crime. Look at my first post. I am a police officer. I protect people like you and have been doing it for over twenty years. I'm sick and tired of the bleeding heart liberals that want to make sure a criminals rights are so protected but don't have the guts to speak out on victims rights. Look at the local news today. A California girl is missing and they just brought in a person for questioning. This person is a sexual offender. Need I say more? Why was he ever released? Because his jail term was "punishment to fit the crime"? He should have never been released. My heart goes out to the family in California and to their daughter Chelsea. I hope she returns home safely.
 

Justice402

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

eyesopened wrote:
Justice402 wrote:
I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.
While I appreciate the support, I don't know if I'd follow the advice given when confronted by police. I personally will not be touching or even reaching for my pistol while officers have theirs trained at me. What's to say that one of the LEOs may take my actions as a threat? I'd rather "assume the position" and have the LEOs secure me, then my pistol themselves.
An honest mistake is completely different from someone shoving a gun against your head and demanding money from you. The law should allow for such circumstances.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

Justice402 wrote:
CarryOpen wrote:
What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy.



No, I have not commited a crime. Look at my first post. I am a police officer. I protect people like you and have been doing it for over twenty years. I sick and tired of the bleeding heart liberals that want to make sure a criminals rights are so protected but don't have the guts to speak out on victims rights. Look at the local news today. A california girl is missing and they just brought in a person for questioning. This person is a sexual offender. Need I say more? Why was he ever released? Because his jail term was "punishment to fit the crime"? He should have never been released. My heart goes out to the family in California and to their daughter Chelsea. I hope she returns home safely.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what part of my post you were responding to.
 

Justice402

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

Justice402 wrote:
CarryOpen wrote:
What Doug is getting at, and I agree with him, is that if you make a provision to take away people's rights, then it will get used on innocent people. So, for example, in my state it is a felony to carry a firearm onto educational property. OK, I don't agree with the law, but I obey it, or at least I try to. Here's the problem, any property owned by an educational institution is "educational property" under North Carolina law.

So, out west there's a Wal-Mart that sits on property owned by a university. If one were to unknowingly walk onto that property with an otherwise lawfully carried firearm, they would be subject to loss of rights and a mandatory 20 year sentence under that sort of system.

My example above is one of an honest mistake that could get you into trouble. Now take it a step further and consider those who wish to actively hurt you and dismantle your rights. The easiest way for them to do it is to simply make more things felonies. This becomes a two-pronged attack - you are either going to become a felon and lose your gun rights, or you're not going to exercise them because of the complexity of law.

As far as your female example, the woman was not on trial and her rights were not in jeopardy. If you were being accused of raping a woman, I bet you would want your defense smearing her name to save your butt too. If you don't allow crucial information into a trial, or do allow information that is irrelevant but could make a jury see a person negatively then you are putting a person's rights in jeopardy.



No, I have not commited a crime. Look at my first post. I am a police officer. I protect people like you and have been doing it for over twenty years. I sick and tired of the bleeding heart liberals that want to make sure a criminals rights are so protected but don't have the guts to speak out on victims rights. Look at the local news today. A california girl is missing and they just brought in a person for questioning. This person is a sexual offender. Need I say more? Why was he ever released? Because his jail term was "punishment to fit the crime"? He should have never been released. My heart goes out to the family in California and to their daughter Chelsea. I hope she returns home safely.
What you had saidwhat you would do is absolutely correct. I was referring to a police officer arriving on a scene and you had your weapon out possibly holding the suspect for the police. When they arrive and see you pointing the gun at someone else they may mistake you as the suspect. But as you said if your weapon was holstered do exactly as you had indicated.
 

NY2AZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
75
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
imported post

Justice402 wrote:
eyesopened wrote:
Justice402 wrote:
I just want to set the record straight for some anti-gun people. I found this website after reading an article about individuals openly carrying guns in Starbucks. The comment was made that carrying a gun in a Starbucks removes tranquility. How? The people should feel safer should some brain surgeon decide to walk in and hold up the store and or patrons. They may think twice and actually go rob one of the stores where they know the merchant does not allow open gun carrying. Their chances of pulling off the robbery is much better in an "anti-gun" business. For the record I am a police officer of over twenty years and I support what you and your members believe in. Some in my profession might argue that if we were sent to a business on a "shots fired call" we may shoot an innocent gun owner believing they are the suspect. This is possible and this is why all of you need to understand as well that should you find yourself in a situation such as this, please immediately cooperate with the police place your weapon down in an unthreatening manner (don't have the weapon pointing at the police officer as you put it down) because he will not know the good from the bad until everyone is secured and all weapons are secured. Remember when the police arrive on the scene, their focus will be the gun in your hand. They will not be focused on your "in open view" holster on your hip. I do support your beliefs and feel the problem isn't the honest gun owner but the liberal law makers and judges that let defendants that have used a gun for criminal purposes off the hook too easy. When someone uses a gun for criminal purposes there should be a minimum sentence of twenty years, thats right twenty years even if it were their first offense. They would think twice if such a law would exist.
While I appreciate the support, I don't know if I'd follow the advice given when confronted by police.  I personally will not be touching or even reaching for my pistol while officers have theirs trained at me.  What's to say that one of the LEOs may take my actions as a threat?  I'd rather "assume the position" and have the LEOs secure me, then my pistol themselves.
An honest mistake is completely different from someone shoving a gun against your head and demanding money from you. The law should allow for such circumstances.

I completely agree with what your saying there. However, I unfortunately have little faith in our judicial systems and their ability to discern between the two.
 

Justice402

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
imported post

Master Doug Huffman I have to ask... for whatever reason who had stated I must have committed a crime. Why would I be taking a stand and stating prison terms should be harsher if I've committed crimes? That makes no sense to me at all. The only thing I could think of is that I hit a nerve with you possibly because you or someone close to you has committed a crime. Am I right? By the way, your "PHD" language may impress some on here but it doesn't impress me. In my years of dealing with people I've learned that people who try to distinguish themselves as some scholar usually, not always, but usually don't have an ounce of common sense.
 

CarryOpen

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
379
Location
, ,
imported post

Pretty much everyone has committed a crime at some point. Maybe they didn't even know it was a crime. Ignorance of the law is not a defense right, so by the logic you've put in this thread, someone knowingly or unknowingly committing a crime is automatically giving up their rights. Look again at my post above - there is a person on this forum who unknowingly carried a firearm onto education property. He committed a felony with a firearm and, according to you, he has now given up his rights for eternity.

What if the legislature then passes a new law - it's a felony to carry a loaded firearm on public highways. OK, no big deal you say, I'll just unload when I'm on the road. Well, three years later, they amend the definitions section of said law to define "public highway" to include private businesses whose addresses are listed as a highway. Now, not having kept up with the statutes in the last two or three months, you do the same thing you've always done, open carry over at the local AM-PM or what have you. Since you didn't know the law had changed, you "voluntarily" gave up your rights by committing a crime, even though you've done nothing ethically or morally different than two months earlier when the statute allowed it.
 
Top