Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: police checks

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    a friend of mine said he was against open carry ( he is an officer ). he said that it would consume so much time as each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license..any comments..how would that work in the law enforcement field...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    In Kentucky it's no big deal. I haven't been bothered yet.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Depends on the state...
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    Of course he's against OC. It makes his job more difficult because he feels the need to interrogate everyone he sees with a gun. I wonder if he would still be against it if suddenly the right of police to OC was stripped.


    I have never had an issue OCing. I have never been approached by state or local police, or by national park rangers. Then again, I live in Virginia where my rights are respected.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/39095.html
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    t33j wrote:
    Of course he's against OC. It makes his job more difficult because he feels the need to interrogate everyone he sees with a gun. I wonder if he would still be against it if suddenly the right of police to OC was stripped.


    I have never had an issue OCing. I have never been approached by state or local police, or by national park rangers. Then again, I live in Virginia.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/39095.html
    Police have no right to OC or to carry any firearm. What they have is privilege and authority, which has been given to them by us. They carry at our pleasure, not theirs. Governments, and their agencies, have no rights. They have power and authority which comes from We the People.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    gbrown wrote:
    a friend of mine said he was against open carry ( he is an officer ). he said that it would consume so much time as each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license..any comments..how would that work in the law enforcement field...
    If he is working in a jurisdiction where OC is legal, he is, most likely, under NO legal obligation to stop EVERY person he sees OCing. As far as I know, in states where OC is legal, there is no statutory requirement for an LEO to perform a 'Terry Stop" every time they see an OCer, and in fact, there is a mountain of Case Law that has ruled that such stops are unwarranted, un-Constitutional, and unnecessary for the purpose of "maintaining civil peace and officer safety".

    So in fact, if more people OC'd, it shouldn't make his job ANY more difficult at all--any more than more people installing refrigerators (which would require them to purchase and transport coils of copper tubing), or planting a large garden and using a modern tractor (which would require them to purchase and transport fertilizer and diesel fuel).

    Just because an otherwise legal, innocuous activity is performed in the presence of an officer and just because that same activity, on rare occasions, is performed during the commission of a crime, does NOT make that activity a reasonable determinant to assume a crime HAS been committed. Your friends logic is seriously flawed, and his understanding of the dynamics of RAS and Probable Cause are dangerously incorrect.

    Does he stop every single car he sees coming out of the parking lot of a restaurant that serves alcohol, to give the driver a breathalizer and do a field sobriety check?

    Does he stop every person on a bicycle with a backpack and do a full search of their possessions to make sure they aren't actually a drug courier?

    Does he stop every person coming out of a bank in the winter who is wearing a scarf around their neck, just to make sure they aren't a bank robber?

    Does he search the home and property of everyone who is coming out of a hardware store with a coil of copper tubing, to make sure they are not running moonshine?

    Does he stop every truck pulling out of a farm-supply store with a few bags of fertilizer just to make sure they aren't plotting to blow up some building in a domestic terrorist plot"?

    Of course not--on ALL the above. Just because someone is performing an perfectly legal activity that occasionally occurs during the commission of a crime, does NOT give probable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed...

    Nest time this topic comes up with this "friend" of yours, ask him if he has ever personally, or can document any other officer in his department as having EVER apprehended a felon or wanted person as the result of a stop prompted by the sighting of a properly-holstered OC incident. I would bt dollars to donuts that the answer is, after EXTENSIVE research, a resounding NO. And such an answer SHOULD prove to your friend that such stops of OCers are simply useless, as they have a proven track record of ZERO results, and ONLY serve to harass and intimidate the people who are performing a legal activity.

    OC is legal in MANY jurisdictions. OC, on it's face, is NOT probably cause for a stop, for a search, or for seizing a firearm. This has been established in MANY court cases, and is backed up by mountains of case law.

    If LEO's think they MUST stop everyone they see who is OCing to check "just to make sure they weren't a felon or something", then they need to do the same for people who go to restaurants that serve alcohol, or people who buy copper tubing or fertilizer, or people who ride bicycles. You see, there is this little thing called the "US Constitution" and it has a little section called the "Bill of Rights", which has an article that guarantees that ALL citizens shall be afforded "equal protection under the law".

    Selective enforcement of a law, or using "color of law" to harass people JUST because you don't agree with their otherwise COMPLETELY LEGAL activities is AGAINST THE LAW. In some cases, such harassment by LEO's may be a Federal Civil Rights violation which is a FELONY. Such Federal Civil Rights "color of law" violations also remove any claim to immunity for an LEO against individual prosecution, meaning he will be tried as an INDIVIDUAL, not as the agent of a government agency.

    Once police start to realize that they can be held PERSONALLY responsible for violating our civil rights--in a FEDERAL court--and that such violations remove prosecutorial immunity from them, they might start to treat OCers as the law-abiding citizens we are. When LEA's start to understand that encouraging their officers to overstep their legal bounds (JUST to prove the point that they don't like OC) can be a MASSIVE liability for the officers as individuals and for their agencies as a whole, then maybe the attitudes of these agencies will change. But unfortunately its going to take a LOT of "test cases". Luckily, we've had most such cases go our way recently, resulting in substantial payouts to the citizens who were offended, and these awards speak volumes to other agencies, saying "you may be writing a BIG check to someone if you don't follow the law".

    I am lucky to live in a state and county where the majority of the LEO's (and their attending LEA's) are VERY pro-gun, and overwhelmingly pro-OC. LEO's im my area tend to actually KNOW and RESPECT the laws of the land, and are generally polite, courteous, and service-oriented. I have had many good experiences with LEOs in my area--asking for directions, inquiring about motor vehicle laws, etc.

    But every time I "cross the moat" to visit my stepdaughters in MD, I can literally feel the yoke of oppression tightening around my neck. I wouldn't DARE to ask a cop in MD for driving directions, or about some trivial MVA law, or even for help with a flat tire. The adversarial attitude of these supposed "public servants" in MD is palpable, and as a law abiding citizen who has had a lifetime of favorable relationships with LEO's (and has many friends and relatives who have "worn the badge") I find the policies, procedures, and demeanor of MD LEA's to be one of the USA's great national embarrassments.

    This growing attitude of "us vs. Them" among LEAs is a disturbing trend, and the assumption that EVERY person a cop encounters is "guilty until the courts allow their innocence to be declared" is truly frightening, and treading frightfully close to Treasonous in light of the history of our Nations historical policies of jurisprudence and Executive powers.

    I would suggest that politely suggest to your "friend" that he read up on Case Law regarding Terry Stops, RAS, and Probably Cause. His current attitude, if allowed to go unchecked, is eventually going to result in costing him and his department a LOT of money...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  7. #7
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Police have no right to OC or to carry any firearm. What they have is privilege and authority, which has been given to them by us. They carry at our pleasure, not theirs. Governments, and their agencies, have no rights. They have power and authority which comes from We the People.
    Thanks for keeping me straight.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    I like what I have heard or read some very great points of view to my question..that's why this forum is so good. if only one view was acted upon there would certainly be a lot of anger. Although to stop some one from a bank or store or some other activity would of course be time consuming..guns or firearms are always on the front lines of disparity and plus and minus to thier use in society..I liked the statement that we the people have of course given leo the right to carry and the authority to use (with common sense and training ) with care and not reckless abandoned...I believe that those of us the are and want to oc is a god send to the violence in this country. the leo need help, they are all the time being downsized and just the view of oc can and does deter some from otherwise terminal actions..thank you all very much for the great input, I will advise my friend of some of these answers..he is a good man and just wants to do the right thing and is caught up in this just as we are...we are all on the same side...and we should all pull for that final step.....to protect.......

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    t33j wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Police have no right to OC or to carry any firearm. What they have is privilege and authority, which has been given to them by us. They carry at our pleasure, not theirs. Governments, and their agencies, have no rights. They have power and authority which comes from We the People.
    Thanks for keeping me straight.
    I should have added "when acting in their capacity of law enforcement officers". Obviously, when not in uniform/off duty, they enjoy the same rights as do we.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    gbrown wrote:
    a friend of mine said he was against open carry ( he is an officer ). he said that it would consume so much time as each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license..any comments..how would that work in the law enforcement field...
    If he is working in a jurisdiction where OC is legal, he is, most likely, under NO legal obligation to stop EVERY person he sees OCing. As far as I know, in states where OC is legal, there is no statutory requirement for an LEO to perform a 'Terry Stop" every time they see an OCer, and in fact, there is a mountain of Case Law that has ruled that such stops are unwarranted, un-Constitutional, and unnecessary for the purpose of "maintaining civil peace and officer safety".

    So in fact, if more people OC'd, it shouldn't make his job ANY more difficult at all--any more than more people installing refrigerators (which would require them to purchase and transport coils of copper tubing), or planting a large garden and using a modern tractor (which would require them to purchase and transport fertilizer and diesel fuel).

    Just because an otherwise legal, innocuous activity is performed in the presence of an officer and just because that same activity, on rare occasions, is performed during the commission of a crime, does NOT make that activity a reasonable determinant to assume a crime HAS been committed. Your friends logic is seriously flawed, and his understanding of the dynamics of RAS and Probable Cause are dangerously incorrect.

    Does he stop every single car he sees coming out of the parking lot of a restaurant that serves alcohol, to give the driver a breathalizer and do a field sobriety check?

    Does he stop every person on a bicycle with a backpack and do a full search of their possessions to make sure they aren't actually a drug courier?

    Does he stop every person coming out of a bank in the winter who is wearing a scarf around their neck, just to make sure they aren't a bank robber?

    Does he search the home and property of everyone who is coming out of a hardware store with a coil of copper tubing, to make sure they are not running moonshine?

    Does he stop every truck pulling out of a farm-supply store with a few bags of fertilizer just to make sure they aren't plotting to blow up some building in a domestic terrorist plot"?

    Of course not--on ALL the above. Just because someone is performing an perfectly legal activity that occasionally occurs during the commission of a crime, does NOT give probable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed...

    Nest time this topic comes up with this "friend" of yours, ask him if he has ever personally, or can document any other officer in his department as having EVER apprehended a felon or wanted person as the result of a stop prompted by the sighting of a properly-holstered OC incident. I would bt dollars to donuts that the answer is, after EXTENSIVE research, a resounding NO. And such an answer SHOULD prove to your friend that such stops of OCers are simply useless, as they have a proven track record of ZERO results, and ONLY serve to harass and intimidate the people who are performing a legal activity.

    OC is legal in MANY jurisdictions. OC, on it's face, is NOT probably cause for a stop, for a search, or for seizing a firearm. This has been established in MANY court cases, and is backed up by mountains of case law.

    If LEO's think they MUST stop everyone they see who is OCing to check "just to make sure they weren't a felon or something", then they need to do the same for people who go to restaurants that serve alcohol, or people who buy copper tubing or fertilizer, or people who ride bicycles. You see, there is this little thing called the "US Constitution" and it has a little section called the "Bill of Rights", which has an article that guarantees that ALL citizens shall be afforded "equal protection under the law".

    Selective enforcement of a law, or using "color of law" to harass people JUST because you don't agree with their otherwise COMPLETELY LEGAL activities is AGAINST THE LAW. In some cases, such harassment by LEO's may be a Federal Civil Rights violation which is a FELONY. Such Federal Civil Rights "color of law" violations also remove any claim to immunity for an LEO against individual prosecution, meaning he will be tried as an INDIVIDUAL, not as the agent of a government agency.

    Once police start to realize that they can be held PERSONALLY responsible for violating our civil rights--in a FEDERAL court--and that such violations remove prosecutorial immunity from them, they might start to treat OCers as the law-abiding citizens we are. When LEA's start to understand that encouraging their officers to overstep their legal bounds (JUST to prove the point that they don't like OC) can be a MASSIVE liability for the officers as individuals and for their agencies as a whole, then maybe the attitudes of these agencies will change. But unfortunately its going to take a LOT of "test cases". Luckily, we've had most such cases go our way recently, resulting in substantial payouts to the citizens who were offended, and these awards speak volumes to other agencies, saying "you may be writing a BIG check to someone if you don't follow the law".

    I am lucky to live in a state and county where the majority of the LEO's (and their attending LEA's) are VERY pro-gun, and overwhelmingly pro-OC. LEO's im my area tend to actually KNOW and RESPECT the laws of the land, and are generally polite, courteous, and service-oriented. I have had many good experiences with LEOs in my area--asking for directions, inquiring about motor vehicle laws, etc.

    But every time I "cross the moat" to visit my stepdaughters in MD, I can literally feel the yoke of oppression tightening around my neck. I wouldn't DARE to ask a cop in MD for driving directions, or about some trivial MVA law, or even for help with a flat tire. The adversarial attitude of these supposed "public servants" in MD is palpable, and as a law abiding citizen who has had a lifetime of favorable relationships with LEO's (and has many friends and relatives who have "worn the badge") I find the policies, procedures, and demeanor of MD LEA's to be one of the USA's great national embarrassments.

    This growing attitude of "us vs. Them" among LEAs is a disturbing trend, and the assumption that EVERY person a cop encounters is "guilty until the courts allow their innocence to be declared" is truly frightening, and treading frightfully close to Treasonous in light of the history of our Nations historical policies of jurisprudence and Executive powers.

    I would suggest that politely suggest to your "friend" that he read up on Case Law regarding Terry Stops, RAS, and Probably Cause. His current attitude, if allowed to go unchecked, is eventually going to result in costing him and his department a LOT of money...

    Here here. Well done, Dreamer.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , Montana, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post


    Wouldn’t that eventually fall under the category of police harassment if the LEO’s are stopping every OC’er to check their papers like the Gestapo?

  12. #12
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    the only ones who should be alarmed by open carry is the criminal element.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    I think if the leo start stoping oc folkss it would be on orders form higher up most likely a state law would have to be passed before it would happen..Most leo most likely don' want to anyway too much time and would be unproductive not to mention aggravating..

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    gbrown wrote:
    a friend of mine said he was against open carry ( he is an officer ). he said that it would consume so much time as each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license..any comments..how would that work in the law enforcement field...
    Most states requre no license so police seizure of open carriers absent reasonable suspicion of crime would be actionable by way of civil law suit.

    Even in states with license requirments, its arguable (see Prouse case)that reasonable suspicion of crime or not having a license would be required to effect seizure - of course, police are free to talk to people and "ask" to see licenses etc.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    t33j wrote:
    Of course he's against OC. It makes his job more difficult because he feels the need to interrogate everyone he sees with a gun. I wonder if he would still be against it if suddenly the right of police to OC was stripped.


    I have never had an issue OCing. I have never been approached by state or local police, or by national park rangers. Then again, I live in Virginia.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/39095.html
    Police have no right to OC or to carry any firearm. What they have is privilege and authority, which has been given to them by us. They carry at our pleasure, not theirs. Governments, and their agencies, have no rights. They have power and authority which comes from We the People.
    a policeman doesn't loose his rights just because he is on duty. He has a right to carry whether he is a police man or private citizen. Please cite the statute that strips him of his right to carry because he is a police officer.

  16. #16
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384

    Post imported post

    6L6GC wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    t33j wrote:
    Of course he's against OC. It makes his job more difficult because he feels the need to interrogate everyone he sees with a gun. I wonder if he would still be against it if suddenly the right of police to OC was stripped.


    I have never had an issue OCing. I have never been approached by state or local police, or by national park rangers. Then again, I live in Virginia.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/39095.html
    Police have no right to OC or to carry any firearm. What they have is privilege and authority, which has been given to them by us. They carry at our pleasure, not theirs. Governments, and their agencies, have no rights. They have power and authority which comes from We the People.
    a policeman doesn't loose his rights just because he is on duty.Â* He has a right to carry whether he is a police man or private citizen.Â* Please cite the statute that strips him of his right to carry because he is a police officer.
    I'd imagine it'd be the same one that disallows government employees from carrying while on the job.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  17. #17
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    6L6GC wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    t33j wrote:
    Of course he's against OC. It makes his job more difficult because he feels the need to interrogate everyone he sees with a gun. I wonder if he would still be against it if suddenly the right of police to OC was stripped.


    I have never had an issue OCing. I have never been approached by state or local police, or by national park rangers. Then again, I live in Virginia.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/39095.html
    Police have no right to OC or to carry any firearm. What they have is privilege and authority, which has been given to them by us. They carry at our pleasure, not theirs. Governments, and their agencies, have no rights. They have power and authority which comes from We the People.
    a policeman doesn't loose his rights just because he is on duty. He has a right to carry whether he is a police man or private citizen. Please cite the statute that strips him of his right to carry because he is a police officer.
    I should reiterate when serving in the capacity of their jobs/duties. Their privilege to carry a firearm is just that because they are agents of the government, which belongs to us and to which we assign the power and authority to serve our needs and perform at our pleasure. My point is that and nothing else. We own the government and everything under it. It is WE who are the supreme sovereign in this nation, not the government. As for a cite.. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  18. #18
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Gentlemen;

    The whole point of my response regarding LEO's and rights and privileges is deeper than it might appear. For too long, we Americans have gotten away from behaving, speaking, and believing that it is We who are in charge. That it is We who are the supreme sovereign. That it is We for whom our public servants work. That it is We who own it all. Not the government nor any of its agencies, departments, bureaus, or anything of the sort. They exist for our use and needs and serve at our pleasure.

    We all need to start thinking like this, talking like this, and writing in this context because We need to get other Americans to realize that it is We the People.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Basic wrote:

    Wouldn’t that eventually fall under the category of police harassment if the LEO’s are stopping every OC’er to check their papers like the Gestapo?
    That LEO had better stay away from our Open Carry Dine-Outs, then. He'd be running so many checks he'd run out of batteries for his radio! :shock:



    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  20. #20
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    Post imported post

    gbrown wrote:
    each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license
    As pointed out above, most states don't require a license to possess or carry a handgun.

    Also as pointed out above, in order to make an official Terry stop, an officer must have
    reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Otherwise the citizen is entirely within
    her rights to bid the officer good day & walk away.

    And if your friend had been keeping up on developments in his professional field, he would
    know that in 2006 the FBI said that criminals don't open carry & don't use holsters. (See
    citation below.That studyalso (shockingly) said that criminals ignore laws.)

    So according to the FBI, someone with a handgun in a holster is extremely likely to be a
    law-abiding citizen and extremely UNlikely to be a criminal. If your friend wants to catch
    criminals, he should spend his energy elsewhere.




    Violent encounters: a study of felonious assaults on our nation’s law enforcement
    officers;
    Pinizzotto,Davis,Miller. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice: Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division: Office of Justice
    Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance,2006.

    Brief at:
    http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home...html?serial=62

    Pass it along to your friend; it's useful information aside from the bits about open carry.


    -
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    While one may be legally entitled to walk away from a LEO, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

    Personally, if a LEO asks me for my gun, I'll ask him if he is asking me or requiring me to hand it over. If he is asking, I'll make my decision based on whether I think he is just being overly cautious or being a jerk. If he is requiring, he gets the gun. I'll work things out later--likely to the detriment of the LEO.

    In 1776, I might have reacted differently, but I don't see us as being there.

    Yet.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    While one may be legally entitled to walk away from a LEO, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

    Personally, if a LEO asks me for my gun, I'll ask him if he is asking me or requiring me to hand it over. If he is asking, I'll make my decision based on whether I think he is just being overly cautious or being a jerk. If he is requiring, he gets the gun. I'll work things out later--likely to the detriment of the LEO.

    In 1776, I might have reacted differently, but I don't see us as being there.

    Yet.
    We have never left 1776. Or at least we should not have left 1776. By that I mean the spirit of what it means to be an American. I fear that yes.. we HAVE left 1776 and have inched too close to 1984.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    By 1776, I am referring to being under tyrannical rule and feeling the need to throw off that yoke. One tends to react differently in such circumstances. We may be moving that way at alarming speed, but we aren't quite there yet.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915

    Post imported post

    gbrown wrote:
    a friend of mine said he was against open carry ( he is an officer ). he said that it would consume so much time as each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license..any comments..how would that work in the law enforcement field...
    HAVE TO check? Sorry, I missed that. Where is he commanded by law to check each and every time he encounters someone performing what is at face value a perfectly legal activity?
    People drive without their licenses every day, is he required by law to stop everyone he sees operating a motor vehicle on public roads to ensure that they are in possession of a valid driver's license?


  25. #25
    Regular Member KYKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post


    gbrown wrote:
    a friend of mine said he was against open carry ( he is an officer ). he said that it would consume so much time as each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license..any comments..how would that work in the law enforcement field...

    It is his choice to stop someone legally carrying. So any time wasted is his and done so at his own discretion. He is chose to waste both yours and his time. Not you. OC does not mean you are out to waste a LEO's time.

    IF for some reason aLEO fears some one who is OC. My question is why have you have that fear instilled in you? What have you done? If it is a bad guy you have put away in the past. I doubt they are gonna be OC to let you know. So that is not a legitimate answer. That being said.

    Where I live in Owensboro Ky. Crime is not super bad but it is growing a bit. Some of our guys have the time to waste. I know a few of them.(just kidding guys)Most of our LEO's are pretty good guys and work hard. We have a huge meth prob here and they stay busy.


    Kentucky Open Carry Group
    http://opencarry.niceboards.org/

    We all speak of liberty and freedom like we are the only ones that know the truth and the right path. But if we expect everyone to accept and follow our path and to accept our truth and want to force it upon them then that is no longer liberty or freedom. It is slavery. I believe in liberty for all. Regardless of their political views, religion, race, sex, etc.

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
  •