imported post
Likewise, dogs maim and kill people all the time. In fact, I would say dogs maim and kill people a whole lot more than law abiding citizens open carrying kill people.
Realize that you are largely preaching to the choir and I'm playing devils advocate, but comparing a man with a gun to a man with a dog will never be taken seriously. I know more people are bit by dogs etc but the fact remains that you dont need a permit to have a dog and more people are alarmed by a person with a gun than by a person with a dog.
No, they really shouldn't. Just like if I am alarmed by a dog on a leash that has broken no laws and has done nothing wrong, I should expect the police to take my call seriously either. They can come down and do a quick and passive investigation, but they certainly should be hassling anyone because of my irrational fear.
All I'm saying is they should respond & check things out. By passive I guess you mean they shouldn even ask to see your permit. I gather from what I hear here that they cannot request to see your permit. I see nothing unreasonable about asking to see it, especially since lacking one you are committing a felony.
That is not my position, that is the law's position. Do you feel the police have the right to pull you over when driving your car and ask to see a license at any point? Do they have the right to ask for ID when you are walking down the street doing nothing wrong? Neither is true, nor should it be.
The police can certainly pull you over at will, I guess you never saw a DWI roadblock or spot check. When they do a DWI check they run your license drunk or sober. If they see you with a gun & dont know you I'd expect them to ask to see your permit.
And they have no right to request it unless I am the subject of a criminal investigation. It is called 'probable cause'. Same thing applies to a car.
I think I covered that.
No, that really is not the idea.
So what is the idea of a permit/license then if not to provide proof that you are permitted/licensed for whatever it is we are talking about? Its pretty stupid to issue a permit for something if its forbidden for LE to request seeing it.
Nor do we have anything to prove here. You keep saying we are so different, but whether we require a permit or not, the law is still on our side.
The law can be changed pretty easy, why provide reasons to change a law we like?
There is a huge difference between a state that respects a citizens civil rights and one that requires a permit for every nuance of excercising that right.
in NH, VT, places like that everyone can carry openly so theres no reason to ask for a permit. In CT its an entirely different scenerio, if you are correct about them not being able to request to see a permit and people push it just because they can we will be fighting back legislation to change that.
Responding and 'checking it out' mean two different things here. Observing the person is not the same as hassling them for their permit and interrogating them. The officer has not observed any unlawful behavior so he has no right to request your permit or detain you.
If an officer responds to a report of a person driving like an idiot, when they get there they will first check out the drivers license etc if the person is still there. Why should it be different for a guy carrying a gun?
Why the big deal about showing your permit anyway?
If you want to see OC accepted in CT I'd venture to say that cooperation & a non combative attitude might help. Every time a person calls a cop because of OC & the cop responds, checks a permit & lets the permit holder go we win because they learn its legal & we arent bad. If every time it happens we argue & create a bigger scene we dont look so good.
That is broken logic. It is legal. That is all there is.
No its not, its cold hard truth & refusing to deal with it will come back to bite us.
If you want the citizens of CT to accept OC you need to change the stigma associated with it. What you refuse to admit is you dont have a right to OC in CT. You dont need permits for rights. To most people the OC thing is viewed as a loophole in CT. A loophole I'd rather not see closed but one that will be easy to get closed once more people become aware of it.
You need a license to drive a car, but I cannot call the police when I see you driving and have them check your license unless you are doing something wrong. You have to understand this simple portion of the law before arguing further.
Yes you can, if you report someone breaking a law with a car they will come & check your license among other things. They cannot know if I'm doing something wrong until they investigate, by checking my license, or in this case checking my permit.
They come because someone reports someone doing something wrong, once on scene they determine the truth.
If you are right then nobody really needs a permit because they cannot check it.
Approximately as much as someone open carrying commits a crime.
Agreed, open carriers arent likely to be criminals.
I sure am, you just don't understand the apples.
Sure I do, theres no similarity between a dog & a gun & talking about what dog owners do doesn't matter. Everybody can walk a dog, very few of us can carry a gun. If we ever get the state to respect our civil rights & OC stops requireing a permit so everyone can do it then dogs & guns might be comprable.
That only requires observation, not a direct confrontation. I won't even get into the irony that you are comparing unlawful activity to lawful activity and saying I am not comparing apples to apples...
Not exactly, since a gun requires a permit its the ONLY one above that requires a confrontation. What unlawful activity was I compareing to lawful? Its not against the law to have a bat, knife or broken bottle.
I think the dangerous 'guilty until proven innocent' train of thought you and other people follow is at the heart of the matter. The feeling of a need to arrest is the logical conclusion of this mindset.
Thats funny. You obviously dont know me. If you have a permit you went right along with guilty until proven innocent but now want to reneg on that & refuse to show your permit? The feeling of a need for arrest comes from ignorance of the law, nothing more or nothing less.
I'm as far from "guilty before innocent" as you can get. I dont think we should even have permits period. But, since we are treated as guilty before innocent every time we buy a gun & every time we get a permit I dont see how we can cry about letting the authorities look at our permits.
Yes, that is kind of the idea of the police.
I agree to a large degree, but they are responding to a reported crime. The only way its not a crime to carry is with a permit & the only way they can tell you have a permit is if you cooperate. Its another subject but we have let them get involved in crime prevention as well as crime solving because most people arent inclined to police themselves.
Well, I agree we should do away with permits, but not for the same reason.
Whats your reason then?
Nobody should be assuming some is guilty of a crime and needs to prove their innocence.
Agreed, but you surrender your presumption of innocence anytime you get a permit/license for anything. The time to make the stand you are talking about is before getting a permit not after.
Its simply illogical to say "ok, I'll submit myself to your scrutiny to get a permit, but I'ts an infringement of my assumption of innocence if I ever have to show it to LE"
Then you are not paying attention. There have been plenty of issues in those states. Ohio and Virginia come to mind with recent questionable police actions against OCers.
On the contrary, I pay alot of attention, I just dont simply buy the story line that best suits my desires. I deal in reality. While there may be open carry issues in real OC states they are not permit related. They are ignorance related. I just got back from a weekend in NH. I OC almost all the time up there. Nobody has but if I ever do get hassled it wont be permit related at all because you dont need one.
CT is entirely different and I dont see showing my permit as a big deal.
I have one & I got it to show I'm legal if need be. I dont carry open here much so I'v never had to but if I ever get hassled & someone calls the law I'll be happy to show them my permit.
No, it would be the right thing to do. Again, innocent until proven guilty is how the rest of us chose to run this country. Not the other way around.
Nice fantasy world, but we live in reality.
To take your position seriously the police should never respond to any calls because responding is assuming someone is commiting a crime. Innocent until proven guilty reffers to court, nothing more. The police dont deal in guilt or innocence, they dont convict you, they serve the public & enforce the law. Since the law says that some 90% of CT residents cannot carry a gun, whats unreasonable about them checking it out when someone is carrying one?
Now you are comparing apples to oranges. That is a criminal investigation.
Its a crime to break into a house, unless its yours.
Its a crime to carry a gun, unless you have a permit.
How is it not assuming guilt to check out the guy climbing in the window, but it is assuming guilt to check out the guy carrying a gun?
Apples & apples.
They can try, but the MWAG would be within their rights (and well advised) to not give any identification without a criminal investigation.
I dissagree. I guess you think its better to get arrested and cause an investigation, but personally I'd rather just show him my permit, go about my business & prevent any criminal investigation.
I guess it just boggles my mind that people would carry openly in a state that requires a permit & then get uppity if asked to see it. It goes beyond just wanting to carry more comfortably or acessably & would be best served by pushing for unrestricted OC.
I do agree with most of your idea's if not your points. It would seem IMO to do the cause much more justice to be seen as cooperating with LE when they are being reasonable instead of combating them. When they go to far, as in Goldberg & many other instances they deserve everything they get. But asking a law abiding person who is OCing in public to see their permit seems, to me anyway, quite reasonable.
But enough of this crap, I didn't respond to start an arguement.
I'll send a questionaire in to Norwalk once its all settled. Itd be best I think if it were standardized so we can see how the different chiefs stack up.
