Question about getting drawn on by police

TOF said:

Question for notmeofficer:

I served honorably in the US Navy and have documentation to prove it. I have never been charged much less found guilty of a crime be it misdemeanor or felony. I am a natural born US Citizen.

While in the US Navy, I never held much less fired a revolver or pistol. My rifle ecperience in the Navy was absolute minimum. I carried a rifle without ammo while in boot camp and fired a few rounds on a single day.


As a post military service citizen, I have owned several handguns and fired tens of thousand rounds over a period of 50 years without causing harm to anyone. I have also carried them openly during those 50 years.


My question is: Which experience do you believe qualifies me for a permit to carry a gun either concealed or open (your choice).

1. Military
2. Civilian

Click to expand...

Neither "qualifies" you in my opinion...no more than they would if I was a retired LEO... Your experiences are both supportive of demonstrating proficiency to handle a firearm. Qualification comes from a reasonable certification process (and in my opinion a ccw class is a reasonable process) coupled with appropriate licensing by the governing body where you live... in my case the Sheriff.. who has the ability to conduct a criminal background check, fingerprint application, and printed application (and has the ability to be held legally/civilly responsible for the confidentiality of this information).

BTW... When peace officers retire they are not automatically granted CCW privileges. They have to apply for them and consent to very restrictive procedures, more so than a non LEO (substance abuse,mental illness or disease, unnecessary purview or non cooperation with law enforcement, any crime other than a non serious traffic offense),, and if they want to national carry comply with HR218..

The need for open carry cannot, generally, be demonstrated as valid to me. I think it is a reasonable assumption that most Americans don't want armed citizens walking around obviously displaying firearms. While you open carry proponents might not think so I believe most people in a relatively peaceful and free society would find openly armed citizens intimidating. Freedom doesnt mean free in all things.. there are limits to human behavior for the peace of our society.. which is why we have laws.. laws are controls on everyone for a commonality of acceptable behavior... want to change them legally.. rock on.

notme

I will be happy to discourse with those who are polite on here... and to the few who demonstrate ignorance or intolerance of differing viewpoints... have a nice day....

notmeofficer said:

Neither "qualifies" you in my opinion...no more than they would if I was a retired LEO... Your experiences are both supportive of demonstrating proficiency to handle a firearm. Qualification comes from a reasonable certification process (and in my opinion a ccw class is a reasonable process) coupled with appropriate licensing by the governing body where you live... in my case the Sheriff.. who has the ability to conduct a criminal background check, fingerprint application, and printed application (and has the ability to be held legally/civilly responsible for the confidentiality of this information).

BTW... When peace officers retire they are not automatically granted CCW privileges. They have to apply for them and consent to very restrictive procedures, more so than a non LEO (substance abuse,mental illness or disease, unnecessary purview or non cooperation with law enforcement, any crime other than a non serious traffic offense),, and if they want to national carry comply with HR218..

The need for open carry cannot, generally, be demonstrated as valid to me. I think it is a reasonable assumption that most Americans don't want armed citizens walking around obviously displaying firearms. While you open carry proponents might not think so I believe most people in a relatively peaceful and free society would find openly armed citizens intimidating. Freedom doesnt mean free in all things.. there are limits to human behavior for the peace of our society.. which is why we have laws.. laws are controls on everyone for a commonality of acceptable behavior... want to change them legally.. rock on.

notme

I will be happy to discourse with those who are polite on here... and to the few who demonstrate ignorance or intolerance of differing viewpoints... have a nice day....

Click to expand...

Your statement could be used in a racist argument I think. Blacks in the old days intimidated white to the point where they were not allowed in certain parts of cities or certain restrooms etc. It was just better to keep them away from "Civilized" society. Now fast forward 100 years and you don't think twice when seeing an African American. Over time people will see that armed people make all aspects of your daily life safer from would-be criminals. One person at a time. I think the younger generation in particular are more willing to accept this. As some of the old more "set in their ways" types die off it will become more the norm.

Hej "notmeofficer": I am a little perplexed by what you have stated your reaction would be to someone that is open carrying where you were not expecting such? (legal, but not expected, let's say in town in a bank. I am assuming where you would expect such would be as in an obvious hunting situation, not in town)

My question is: if it is legal to open carry (as it is here in WA, I am sorry, I do not know present LA laws), why would you expect a dangerous individual to carry openly? and..

In all your encounters with an armed individual, those who were open carrying, those which were in a place you would not expect someone to open carry, but were not threatening anyone with that firearm, (if any) how many of them were responsible civilians? (%) and how many were felons that should not have a weapon? (%)

It would be my considered opinion that the answer to the above is 100%/0%. A felon does not want (especially) you, or anyone else, to know what he is up to, or that he may be armed.

If my assumtion is correct, and you have never seen a felon open carry, why would you react to someone open carrying in the manner you discribe? I would think a polite civil encounter would would be the most needed. You can ask for my identification without putting a gun in my face. I would then show you both, my concealed permit, and my drivers license, even though I do not need a permit to carry open.

Myself, I open carry almost exclusively, in town or out of town, mostly because my prefered carry is a large 6" Colt revolver in a hunting holster. I would take considerable exception (that means, my lawyer would visit your boss, and if things could not come to a satisfactory conclusion, the visit would continue in civil court) if I was treated in the manner you spoke of.

I have several friends that are LEO's, and retired LEOs (including one that is a retired LA Sheriff deputy) and I have never heard any of them acting or talking like that. Is that what they are teaching in Police academy these days???? (yes, I am old enough to be on SS)

eye95 said:

This board is essentially private property. If you have a problem with the rules here (I find them far more reasonable than most sites), rationality dictates that you exercise your Liberty and start your own site with your own rules.

And, you can do it for free!

Of course, it requires effort.

BTW, thanks, John and Mike, for your efforts. I don't always agree 100% with the way you do things (that is just the nature of individuality), but you run this site better than any other message board I have ever posted on.

Click to expand...

great idea



www.gunsforeveryone.com/forum

a place where people are free to be themselves

My comments embedded in blue.

notmeofficer said:

Neither "qualifies" you in my opinion...no more than they would if I was a retired LEO... Your experiences are both supportive of demonstrating proficiency to handle a firearm. Qualification comes from a reasonable certification process (and in my opinion a ccw class is a reasonable process) coupled with appropriate licensing by the governing body where you live... in my case the Sheriff.. who has the ability to conduct a criminal background check, fingerprint application, and printed application (and has the ability to be held legally/civilly responsible for the confidentiality of this information).

You would have the government determine when and if an otherwise legal person should be allowed to have the means to defend themselves. Posting to a non-specific state forum, you ignore that OC w/o a permit is legal in a number of states and there is no preponderance of evidence that permits are needed. Confidentiality of permits is NOT uniformly protected.

BTW... When peace officers retire they are not automatically granted CCW privileges. They have to apply for them and consent to very restrictive procedures, more so than a non LEO (substance abuse,mental illness or disease, unnecessary purview or non cooperation with law enforcement, any crime other than a non serious traffic offense),, and if they want to national carry comply with HR218..

Please explain these "very restrictive procedures" - I am quite familiar with the LEOSA requirements - and how this relates to the average person's RKBA and defend themselves.

The need for open carry cannot, generally, be demonstrated as valid to me. I think it is a reasonable assumption that most Americans don't want armed citizens walking around obviously displaying firearms. While you open carry proponents might not think so I believe most people in a relatively peaceful and free society would find openly armed citizens intimidating. Freedom doesnt mean free in all things.. there are limits to human behavior for the peace of our society.. which is why we have laws.. laws are controls on everyone for a commonality of acceptable behavior... want to change them legally.. rock on.

No it is not a "reasonable assumption" and it is a red herring to say what people want - it is what they are coming to understand and accept. There is no "obviously displaying" anymore than we obviously display out footwear. Words are important and signal a bias when one is present.

I will be happy to discourse with those who are polite on here... and to the few who demonstrate ignorance or intolerance of differing viewpoints... have a nice day....

Click to expand...

You come to our forum and deem to set the ground rules for what is polite and suggest that those members who do not nicely ponder your viewpoint are demonstrating ignorance and intolerance? You choose verbiage that is provocative and misleading and, yes sir, I am intolerant of the presumption that feeling strongly about this matter is based in ignorance. BTW - I don't see that I am one of the few, but of the many that believe that.

This forum is very obviously dedicated to open carry and it is an rapidly growing movement - that bothers some people which apparently includes you. It would be my sincere recommendation that if you desire to learn more about us that you do so by quietly reading/listening to the myriad statements of people that have been there and done that as posted herein, including the thinking of some extremely knowledgeable minds. It is presumptuous to suppose that we are so poorly founded that you would convince us of the validity of your tenants simply by inserting, "Because I feel it is so."

This goes far beyond your feelings and straw arguments - it goes to the core of our principles, our freedoms, as a nation.

You have a nice day also.

bomber said:

great idea

www.gunsforeveryone.com/forum

a place where people are free to be themselves

Click to expand...

Bye. I wish you well.

McX said:

i had heard once something to the effect that if a cop, acting independantly- and ignorantly, violates your rights, the state immediately 'cancells' his authority, and he becomes nothing more than an armed attacker. something they should teach them cops in police school.

Click to expand...

While that is correct in some states, unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, it is not true in all states by black letter law. Some feel that case law has made it true in all states. At this time I would not bet my freedom or my life on that opinion.

OldCurlyWolf said:

While that is correct in some states, unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, it is not true in all states by black letter law. Some feel that case law has made it true in all states. At this time I would not bet my freedom or my life on that opinion.

Click to expand...

Although there has been SCOTUS decisions that you have the right to resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking the officers life.

Not that I am suggesting this as a first choice of resisting bad cops (unless you have fear for your own life), but that if cops were taught this maybe some might be a little less heavy handed when dealing with the public.

notmeofficer said:

I would have additional legal cause but carrying a firearm is unusual city behavior and most judges will back a stop if for nothing more a weapons check. notme

Click to expand...

By this it sounds like you would 'fabricate' an additional legal charge to support your violation of 2A and 4A rights, because you are AFRAID of an old gentleman walking his dog while OC-ing. Or maybe your feelings of inadequacy are inordinately high?

Why not stop and inspect every 2000 lb metal vehicle which passes you on the highway because it COULD blow a tire and run you over during a traffic stop. You're standing there while large metal missiles are whizzing by you yet you're not frightened. Yet a peaceful person walking down the street OC-ing needs to be stopped. And then you typically fool with his gun and create your OWN hazard. Not too swift, but you get to 'win'. That's what it's all about - be honest.

Badger Johnson said:

. Not too swift, but you get to 'win'. That's what it's all about - be honest.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately THIS is what it is about with most cops that I have dealt with. Gone are the days of the honest LEO. I went to college in Florida. I actually got to hang-out with most of th incoming LEOs for Central Florida. I can honestly say that almost ALL of them were in it for a power trip, "Sad But True". (good song)

Ill be happy to leave this board to the internet lawyers.... especially to those outside California who cite state or local laws.. or even appellate cases non applicable to my actions

It has been an interesting look at how some people perceive their constitutional rights.. as it has been in my statements being excoriated for effect...

If for nothing more this has been a good exercise in intelligence for better officer survival... better understanding of the perceptions of a small aspect of our society,, and how I will continually be aware of threats or concerns to the public safety.. I will take this information back to my department and disseminate it at briefings.. and I will forward what I learned on here to the department where I live for the officer safety briefing that piqued my interest in coming here in the first place, I was interested in the comment about this being a private board.. (arent they all?) .. the internet is a wonderful investigative tool.. nothing is private anymore... nothing

I would respectfully suggest your efforts be better spent hiring lobbyists and lawyers, voting in politicians sympathetic to your cause, instead of risking arrest for state law violations, being potentially the target of detention, and trying to bait a police officer into some action..

In my jurisdiction you will get detained.. questioned.. checked... expose yourself to arrest.. have your weapon potentially confiscated.. what happens elsewhere is not my concern.. I operate under the laws of my county.. my state.. and the constitution and its codification .. and since my county is highly restrictive in gun carry (as opposed to the county I originally spoke about in my posts) that enforcement stature will continue to be my focus... irregardless of how I feel personally (as a lifetime nra member). As a well trained police officer "fabrication" is NEVER an option... there are so many laws we live under its very hard not to break one... solid probable cause for a detention is a low bar to have to overcome...

Calling police officers corrupt or stupid and painting the profession with a broad brush.. well.. it doesnt deserve comment I guess... but if it makes some of you feel more empowered... go for it.. this does not affect me. I live in the day to day application of laws to the absolute best of my ability... they change constantly and I do my best to have an up to date legal review of them.. my department requires this.. my desire to be knowledgeable as a professional.. and as a public servant demands it...

For those of you that want to push the issue.. come on down.. take your potential detention and/or arrest to the 9th circuit court and get the law changed... I wholeheartedly promote good civic duty as a part of living in a free society... and getting laws changed is the ultimate civic duty.. military or public safety service excepted of course...

Ill be lurking.. comment to your hearts content. I find it interesting that the forum rules of decorum seem to be unimportant when a person does not agree with the "group"... that tells me perhaps some people's arguments are weak and ungrounded in fact.

Thank you to the moderators for the opportunity to participate.

notme

Ya know, we got a cop on ALOC who takes a similar attitude.

Hire lawyers and lobbyists. Fight it out in court and in the legislature, not on the streets.

BRAVO SIERRA!

The law is generally already on our side. We are trying to change the things that need changing, but nothing needs to be done by way of changing the law to stop YOU from breaking it in the ironic name of law enforcement! We should not have to go to court to prove that we did nothing wrong. We should not have to go to court to seek to be made whole because YOU violated our rights.

We should be able to exercise our right without unlawful intrusion. When that unlawful intrusion happens, we should be able to civilly explain it to the errant officer without his stubbornness causing him to shift into authoritarian mode.

Lawyers are used to remedy mistakes by cops on the street. Lobbyists are used to remedy laws that step on our rights. Civil rhetoric is used to prevent the violation of rights on the streets--and will work with officers who are open to reason and who don't go all Haigish with every citizen they stop.

I, for one, will shed no tears if you follow through on your first sentence.

Amusing, another LEO who thinks he has power over people even when they are not breaking the law. He might need to spend some time looking up some of the long time officers of this board and learn from their attitude and how to properly be a cop without trampling rights.

He don't like being called dumb but then says we are "baiting" cops, who is dumb the fisherman or the fish? Don't take the bait!!!! And leave 2A supporters alone. Not meant as a personal attack just an observation of the hypocrisy of his thinking.

Is there a chicken smiley? No?

Why not stay and logically debate the issues? Playing field too level?

As a well trained police officer "fabrication" is NEVER an option... there are so many laws we live under its very hard not to break one... solid probable cause for a detention is a low bar to have to overcome...

Calling police officers corrupt or stupid and painting the profession with a broad brush

Click to expand...

Hmm, thanks for proving you are as corrupt as the 'law' or your interpretation allows.

Badger Johnson said:

Is there a chicken smiley? No?

Why not stay and logically debate the issues? Playing field too level?


Hmm, thanks for proving you are as corrupt as the 'law' or your interpretation allows.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that too many LEO and non LEO really believe this drivel, and that don't even see the hypocrisy in their statements.

there are so many laws we live under its very hard not to break one... solid probable cause for a detention is a low bar to have to overcome...

Click to expand...

Sad but true... I think it is an unfortunate state of affairs when we live under such a complicated set of laws that obedience to them, or even understanding of them, is nearly impossible.

notmeofficer said:

In my jurisdiction you will get detained.. questioned.. checked... expose yourself to arrest.. have your weapon potentially confiscated.. what happens elsewhere is not my concern.. I operate under the laws of my county.. my state.. and the constitution and its codification .. and since my county is highly restrictive in gun carry (as opposed to the county I originally spoke about in my posts) that enforcement stature will continue to be my focus... irregardless of how I feel personally (as a lifetime nra member).

Click to expand...

Just something to think about... if you think the law is unconstitutional, then even if an act is prohibited by statute or code, it is not illegal, because the statute or code itself is invalid. Therefore, you shouldn't feel compelled to enforce it just because your county thinks it is above the law and can create unconstitutional ordinances.

I know your job is just to bring people before the court and the court is supposed to determine whether they were within the law, but if you enforce a law that you don't agree with, you can't deny that you aren't at least partially responsible for hurting these people for whom you agree did no wrong.

Even if these people are found innocent in court, whether at the first trial or after years of appeal, the said parties are still injured from the prosecution and arrest.

The ultimate blame lies with the lawmakers and those who elected them, but as an enforcer you do, at least sometimes, have the power to save someone from the unjust consequences of their actions.

Any statute or code which declares it illegal for you to not enforce an unconstitutional rule is itself unconstitutional and therefore not the law.

Yes, but it isn't about doing what's right, or serving the community, or any such.

It's about exercising authoritah.

Everything else it just talk. And the proof is in the pudding.

If I am wrong, why do so many police in CA conduct (e) checks?

QED.

marshaul said:

Yes, but it isn't about doing what's right, or serving the community, or any such.

It's about exercising authoritah.

Everything else it just talk. And the proof is in the pudding.

If I am wrong, why do so many police in CA conduct (e) checks?

QED.

Click to expand...

Oh, I suspect it is more than just authoritay. I'm not saying that authoritay isn't the reason for some cops. I'm saying other cops will have other reasons.

Just guess personal motives. One that easily comes to mind is fishing expeditions--hoping to find somebody carrying illegally so the cop can improve his stats for the month. Little different than cops traffic stopping a car for a burned out brake light.

Citizen said:

Oh, I suspect it is more than just authoritay. I'm not saying that authoritay isn't the reason for some cops. I'm saying other cops will have other reasons.

Just guess personal motives. One that easily comes to mind is fishing expeditions--hoping to find somebody carrying illegally so the cop can improve his stats for the month. Little different than cops traffic stopping a car for a burned out brake light.

Click to expand...

Ah, but these are ends to which the exercise of authority is a means.



And they still have nothing to do with what's right, or serving the community, or any such.

marshaul said:

SNIP...they still have nothing to do with what's right, or serving the community, or any such.

Click to expand...

But! But! Weren't you listening to our black-robed betters?

They tell us that checking licenses and registrations is so important to society that even a roadblock checking them is practically a direct benevolence from God. How dare you question, nay, mock! the learned decisions of these distinguished public servants?!

[mmmmph] [choke]