Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: heard on another forum

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    heard on another forum

    Open Carry question for LEO's.

    The general consensus is if there is something going on impound the gun or arrest for concealed carry if it's concealed at all....such as in a holster.

    Never have I come in contact with someone who uses the terms of "Open Carry". They don't know what it means, they just do it. Those are the people who risk getting their gun impounded and/or get arrested.

    Some do feel that open carry only allows carrying in your hand.

    Mostly my contact with open carry is a thug running away from me.

    Plus, OC is a crime in Ct

    http://forum.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=294593

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    I looked at that thread and what I saw was a majority of very well reasoned responses. One person pointed to a lack of training and some ignorance within his department but I find his discussion to be kind of refreshing that he is willing to talk about that and able see it for what it is.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Odd...
    Some officers seem to think that people should ONLY carry concealed and not even let your clothing be disturbed by a protruding hand grip, lest the sheep begin bleating.
    Others seem to think that being "... at all concealed, such as in a holster..." warrants official intervention.


    Consensus ... does not seem to be a strong point.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    The general consensus is...
    A couple of definitions regarding firearms are in order:

    Concealed Carry: carrying a firearm in a manner in which even careful observation will not reveal the presence of a firearm

    Open Carry: carrying a firearm in a manner in which a casual observer would discern the presence of it as a firearm

    Brandishing: holding a firearm in a threatening or menacing manner

    And now we'll apply these to the phrases mentioned in your post:

    ...arrest for concealed carry if it's concealed at all....such as in a holster.
    Eek is right, as a side holster isn't concealed at all, unless it's entirely covered by a jacket.

    Some do feel that open carry only allows carrying in your hand.
    That's brandishing, not open carry.

    Mostly my contact with open carry is a thug running away from me.
    That's brandishing, not open carry.

    Plus, OC is a crime in Ct
    CT requires a permit for OC, so it's a crime only if one doesn't have the required permit. See here for more.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I didn't read through all of this, but just on the first page I saw a couple of individuals make a few glaring errors in one very important and significant thing. They made statements to the effect that LEO's have the right, or are granted the right by government, to openly carry or just carry, firearms. Well this is simply not true for several reasons.

    Firstly police officers, when on duty and acting within the capacity of their jobs, do NOT have the right to carry a firearm. They have the privilege to exercise a certain amount of power and it is WE who give them the authority to do so and to carry arms. Notice, this is when they are on duty and acting within their capacity.

    Another individual said that government gives police the right to carry arms. This is also not true. Government cannot issue rights. Those come from We the People since it is we who own the government and all which falls under its umbrella.

    To some folks this may sound like splitting hairs but that is not the case at all. These concepts are very basic and fundamental to a free people and when we hear others make the kinds of statements mentioned above, it is more proof how far we have strayed from the Original Intent of the Founders; that of a government established by, and submissive to 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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I think the term "authority" is more precise than either "privilege" or "right". Police officers have the authority to carry an OCed weapon under circumstances where it would otherwise not be allowed for an ordinary citizen. They have been "authorized" to do so.

    Authorizing implies that the act is being allowed pursuant to execution of official duties but is not just being allowed, it is also being expected or mandated, thus necessitating the authority.

    "Privilege" or "right" imply a level of choice on the actor that "authority" does not.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I think the term "authority" is more precise than either "privilege" or "right". Police officers have the authority to carry an OCed weapon under circumstances where it would otherwise not be allowed for an ordinary citizen. They have been "authorized" to do so.

    Authorizing implies that the act is being allowed pursuant to execution of official duties but is not just being allowed, it is also being expected or mandated, thus necessitating the authority.

    "Privilege" or "right" imply a level of choice on the actor that "authority" does not.
    Yep, I mentioned authority but your explanation goes further. The point I was attempting to make is that we as a people have assumed concepts, and therefore verbiage, that implies we believe that police officers, government officials, and elected representatives have rights to do that which they do in carrying out their assigned tasks when in fact they have no such thing at all. They have the power and authority to do these things and that power and authority comes from us.

    By virtue of the fact that Americans use language that would indicate otherwise is proof of those in power having perverted some of the most basic concepts of American government and its establishment and ownership by 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!

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Yep, I mentioned authority but your explanation goes further. The point I was attempting to make is that we as a people have assumed concepts, and therefore verbiage, that implies we believe that police officers, government officials, and elected representatives have rights to do that which they do in carrying out their assigned tasks when in fact they have no such thing at all. They have the power and authority to do these things and that power and authority comes from us.

    By virtue of the fact that Americans use language that would indicate otherwise is proof of those in power having perverted some of the most basic concepts of American government and its establishment and ownership by We the People.
    You're right. The way folks phrase things make government officials and LEOs take on an aura of "supercitizen," a class above the rest. Communism may have tried to eliminate classes, but actually created such "supercitizens." Only a system that views all, official and non-official alike, as equal under the law, truly eliminates class distinction. LEOs, politicians, petty bureaucrats, and such have no more rights than the ordinary citizen does. Many assert that they do, and that is a problem.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Odd...
    Some officers seem to think that people should ONLY carry concealed and not even let your clothing be disturbed by a protruding hand grip, lest the sheep begin bleating.
    Others seem to think that being "... at all concealed, such as in a holster..." warrants official intervention.


    Consensus ... does not seem to be a strong point.
    There are fifty states with fifty sets of rules. We generally do not come in contact with people except by intervention, with the exception of casual observance so the ratio of good things happening with guns as opposed to bad is way out balance. My personal opinion is that if it's concealed and you make me aware you have one when I encounter you for whatever reason, you're obviously no threat to me. I feel the same way about Open Carry, if you meant me harm it wouldn't be holstered where I can see it. I would prefer OC because it makes the good guys stand out, it's the ones you don't know about that will get you hurt!
    PS..I am a super citizen but not because I was a cop!
    Last edited by shotcop; 12-12-2010 at 11:22 AM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Authorizing implies that the act is being allowed pursuant to execution of official duties but is not just being allowed, it is also being expected or mandated, thus necessitating the authority.
    Hmm...

    Were you aware our Second Amendment was never considered a prohibition against keeping and/or bearing arms except in certain circumstances, but rather, a prohibition against any governmental act restricting our right to keep and bear arms?

    "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should at tempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1803).

    Bottom line, the right to keep and bear arms is supreme. Unfortunately, it's been glossed over, twisted, distorted, subverted, and otherwise mangled any way a (fortunately) few courts have seen fit to fit their personal, non-Constitutional Agendas.

    Fortunately, our very own Library of Congress, with which I'm intimately familiar, having spent portions of two early 1980's summers there perusing the writings of our Founding Fathers, remains intact, and I'm quite certain utterly beyond reproach of any court, givin the fact that 99.999% of those volumes are now online and spread throughout the world.

    Any federal or Supreme Court Justice who attempted to interject personal bias over the exceptionally well-documented legal origens of our country, from the Founders themselves, to the earliest Judges, to the philisophical constructs from which arose the origens of our country...

    ...they'd have an extremely difficult time removing themselves from the resulting quagmire into which they'd find themselves embroiled.

    I thank God our Founders saw fit to establish the Library of Congress, which has provided an historical record from which no "re-writer of history" can escape, regardless of either political affiliation or level of entrenchment in our government.

    Put simply: You're on the stand, Jack, and if your words don't match recorded history, our eyebrows will raise, superceded by our doubts as to your integrity, and swiftly followed by measures to remove you from office, regardless of how high an office you may hold.

    Public trust is everything.

    ETA, I tried to give him a heads up on this thread, but eye95 is no longer taking messages. Well, give and take is the name of the game, and if someone refuses to play according to the loose, but widely-held rules of the game, then the game goes on.
    Last edited by since9; 12-14-2010 at 02:11 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I disagree. Without the 2A, Congress could easily justify draconian regulations on the ownership and carrying of arms. Heck, they do quite a bit of that anyway. The only reason they have been held in check at all is the presence of the 2A. Those founders who demanded the BoR were wise. They knew that they could not rely on the ideal of natural rights that so controlled their efforts at governance also restraining future generations. Instead they committed to paper reminders as to what was "hands off."

    How we got here from what I said has me puzzled. My post was regarding authority being given to individuals to execute the duties of their offices, and distinguishing those authorities from rights and privileges.

  12. #12
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    If Madison and party had not included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, we would still have had the right to keep and bear arms at that time.

    There is proof and precedence of this in the text of the Ninth Amendment. However, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that as generations become further removed from those who formed the country, so to do certain rights. In the second half of the 20th century, the truth of the Ninth Amendment would have been lost to those who would seek to disarm us. Therefore the inclusion of the Second Amendment, the truths of which were considered as normal as breathing at its drafting, has been a Godsend and the only thing that keeps the evil tentacles of every growing government from reaching into our homes to rob us of the most basic and important of our 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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •