Concealed part not edited; and that's how it should be.

j4l said:

Within, reason,sure. But to go creating mountains out of non-existent (yet) molehills is just getting a bit ahead of ourselves, is all.

For our part, let's consider a few things.

Put yourself in the shoes of the local cop:

Not including any potentially violent dangers out there, consider how many genuine idiots, an LEO must see/deal with/interact with on his shift.
Many of these idiots-we all see them every day-have a hard time simply pointing a car down the road, and getting somewhere without killing themselves or everyone around them.

Now, factor in the Village Idiot who now also legally posseses a loaded, openly-carried sidearm...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Ya, If Im that officer, Im going to be a little bit concerned about that clown walking around with a loaded firearm...legally or otherwise. As such, I'd probably be inclinded to look into whether or not he's legally doing so, and if he seems to be able to handle himself while doing so...Not too unreasonable, I dont think...

Now, factor in what an officer must think when the Village Idiot immediately goes into some defensive rant, when approached, and starts spouting off about "because I can" and "police state this/police state that..." etc...
Can one not reasonably see what kind of rep this may begin to form in an already-cynical-minded LEO, as well as less-than-pro-gun witnesses?

Click to expand...

Ah, I see who you are now.

If Big Brother doesn't give you a permit, you're too dumb to own a gun.

Never mind the analogy you made with cars, which people get permits for by going through a competency tet and spending lots and lots and lots of money. And still can't point it down the road without killing themselves and everyone else. OMG, literally, there IS blood in the streets! Look the next time you pass an accident scene, there really is!

The kind of people you're talking about generally don't know the law, and don't own guns because they think it's illegal, like their TV told them.

They're afraid to own guns, they're afraid to carry guns. They 'know' that they'll go to jail just for talking about guns.

They don't even want to own a gun in the first place. And those who do it to be thug, definitely HIDE that gun because they still believe they aren't suppose to have it just because it exists! Thugs don't get permits, so....

The Permit does what in this scenario?

I understand the point you think you're making, but it's not logical. Think it through beyond the point you're trying to make.

For the same reason I 'overthink' the what ifs of the OC law passing, not passing, being altered, how cops might respond IF it passes, etc.... If you think further than your agenda, you might figure you that your agenda is based on a load of bull you never bothered to question.

It is very frustrating to be the kind of person who can change his believe system in a moment's notice, when faced with evidence proving a need for it. Few people are capable of that. Most think I'm insane because I can do it before I finish a sentence. It makes relating to a world full of people who can't do that very difficult.

I'm not insulting you. What you suggest amounts to justifying 'papers please.' We both know that's not acceptable, so why are you agreeing with it?

It is irrational to think a Bad Guy(tm) would OC at all, ever. Therefore, it is even more irrational to think that Permits for OC will make any difference in Bad Guys carrying. It's an attempt to prove a negative. I don't have a permit anymore, and my pants have not begun to sag. Nor did they sag before I got the permit, or when I was 12 years old. The Permit proves nothing, because the traits that would disqualify exist prior to the permit or the gun, or even knowing about either.

Ho they dress may or may not be stereotypical of criminals. The very same clothing habits can be partaken of people who are not criminal.

It is no different from presuming all Cops are scum just because the lowest human beings I've ever known were all Cops. There are plenty of lowlifes WITHOUT badges, too.

A Rhombus is not a Square, but a Square is a Rhombus.

Converse proofs are a lie, stop falling for it. Or worse, knowingly spreading it...

Plenty of States don't require any permit for OC, and not one of those places has yet to document a problem. These 'fears' are not fears at all, just unfounded excuses to regulate and control.

Bad guys have carried openly in California, that is why O.C is restricted there

"It is irrational to think a Bad Guy(tm) would OC at all, ever"

Get ready to change your mind. Open carry was legal in California until members of the Black Panther Party found out that it was legal to carry openly. They started carrying loaded shotguns around, and even took over the State Capitol during a protest while open carrying. This unnerverd a lot of polititians, including Ronald Reagan. The State then promptly passed its very restrictive open carry law.

I am not saying that open carry by bad guys will become common, but some of the smarter ones will figure it out and use it.

At what point did I indicate I agree with a permit? A different issue entirely. It would be fantastic if they would pass this without a need to have one.
But, being realistic, I find it highly unlikely that it will pass without one.
States love their "permits, taxes and licences" for revenue generation. Getting one which already has a permit-based system (CCW for now) to suddenly reverse-course, and give up those funds is not very likely at all-however much any of us may dream of such a thing. Not to mention the loss of funds to the various "schools" that give classes for folks to get their permits, etc. Who will bitch n moan till the stars burn out to prevent that loss.
Much as no one likes them- there are permits, licenses and tax fees for all manner of things, even here in Florida,do you go without/refrain from participating in all such things out of a lack of agreeing with the concepts?

With that in mind, and having resided in states that allow OC, and states that dont let you have a handgun at all, and now in Fl, w/ CCW-, I'll be happy enough just to be able to lawfully OC at all. Best possible sollution? No, but one I'll have but little choice to live, when it comes to that.
And, if such is the case, I'll have no issue presenting said permit to the authorities if demanded.

Are you going to tell me now that you do not drive a car? Dont have insurance, as required in FL, for that car? Or do you actually just make do with our pretense at mass-transit in FL? As you said-such requires a license,does it not? Where then, is the difference?

I have no agenda other than stating that I find it silly to over-dramatize a situation that does not yet exist. Let's find out first, then we can worry about if "The Man" is going to strike us down on sight for it...



Zach, there's bulges under shirts all the time in FL. Folks carry CCW here now....:banghead:
I dont think it has resulted in too many documented cases of cops over-reacting to said bulges...

BUT- for the sake of argument-and if it will make you feel better, ixtow, I can actually cite the one and only LEO encounter I've had regarding OC. This one involved no permit whatsoever, as I was carrying on my own property:

A neighbor passing by, called the cops when she got home, telling them that I was going around sporting a pistol on my hip "like Wyatt Earp"..:banghead: And, for whatever reason, she was concerned by this. Cops showed up at my place, and said "look we got a call..." etc.
I -on my own driveway-greeted the responding officer, with my pistol on my hip. Open for any and all to see. When he arrived- I took it out, cleared the chamber, removed the mag (Slide doesnt lock back on the VZ-50) and offered to hand it to him to inspect if he chose. He declined. I re-loaded it, and returned it to my holster.
No problem with any of this on his part, whatsoever.

I pointed out my recent incident here,and told him flat out-but in a respectful manner-that ever since that incident-and until such time as the suspects in that incident were in custody (they still arent, some 8 months later) that I would be doing so at all times when home.
The officer said "no problem, be careful and have a nice day" and went on his way.

No issue. I took no offense (to the officer) I didnt feel violated, I didnt feel that the mean, old, Facist, Police-State was beating me down. I didnt cry consipiracy, or call for a revolution against "The Man" etc. The entire conversation lasted maybe a minute and a half. No harm, no foul.

My issue was with the woman neighbor who called it in. Why she did so is beyond me, and when I asked her about it later, she had no real answer. The irony here, is that the same woman -and her husband, and her son all OC 24/7 on their own ranch as well. For her part- the Wyatt Earp comment was especially odd- since she carrys a Ruger Redhawk in a tooled-leather western rig. :banghead: :banghead:

ccwinstructor said:

"It is irrational to think a Bad Guy(tm) would OC at all, ever"

Get ready to change your mind. Open carry was legal in California until members of the Black Panther Party found out that it was legal to carry openly. They started carrying loaded shotguns around, and even took over the State Capitol during a protest while open carrying. This unnerverd a lot of polititians, including Ronald Reagan. The State then promptly passed its very restrictive open carry law.

I am not saying that open carry by bad guys will become common, but some of the smarter ones will figure it out and use it.

Click to expand...

With a Permit? You know how Gang Bangers will out 4473s as frequently as CCW Applications... Why should they 'figure out OC' when jamming a glock down their pants is already working and nobody looks at them? Doesn't make sense.

Oh Gosh, it unnerved Ronnie! That makes it all ok!

Did they break any laws when they did that?

Did the politicians rescind the constitution anyway?

Considering how the next 40 years played out, I think we'd have been better off with the Panthers in Office.

j4l said:

No issue. I took no offense (to the officer) I didnt feel violated, I didnt feel that the mean, old, Facist, Police-State was beating me down.

Click to expand...

Nah, you unloaded and handed it to him... No need to beat you down, you'll do it to yourself... If the Brady's say having a Penis is a sign that you want to rape everyone, will you cut it off an hand it over? Being mildly sarcastic...

I don't get the handling of the firearm with the Cop right there. Voluntarily disarming yourself without even being asked... I know the first thing I do when I see a Cop, is whip out my gun and hope he doesn't shoot at me... Yeah, being sarcastic again...

You and I are not on the same page, and likely never will be. Moving on.

Sarcasm may be the lowest form of humor, but I'm not aiming for funny....

The interesting part of the proposed Bill is it's obvious compliance with current Court Rulings.

It isn't Constitutionally enforcible to check for ID/Permit based on nothing but "gun."

So.... How is the Permit in any way enforcible for OC? Without RAS how does anybody know if you have a Permit or not? Just having the gun isn't good enough for a Stop/Search, soooo.....

It's like the AZ law that requires Conceal in Alcohol Serving Establishments.... Unenforcible, because it's concealed.

If Cops obey the law, one could conceivable OC without a Permit, and there is no way to prove RAS/PC for Permit Demand anyway.... Herein lies the stupidity of Permitted OC/Green States. If OC of a Weapon is not RAS/PC, which only an insane person would try to defy, how can the Permit Requirement be enforcible?

It's impotent law. Why make it?

j4l said:

For that matter, do you even RESIDE anywhere in Florida to even have a dog in this hunt? If not, what the .............. are we even talking for?

Click to expand...

I don't reside in Florida but I visit regularly and have friends that live in Florida. Should I be only allowed to post on the GA forum?

We ALL have a "dog in the hunt" where liberty is concerned.

My concern-as far as the other fellow was concerned, was whether he was actually familliar with the FLORIDA bill that is in discussion-(and has not yet been passed in any form),and whether he is aware of how unlikely most of his "concerns" are here.
Most LEO here, that I've spoken with anyway, are very much in favor of this pending bill.
But, a moot point, since we now realize most of his diatribes were merely sarcasm and yanking of chains,so Ill no longer consider them "serious"

j4l said:

My concern-as far as the other fellow was concerned, was whether he was actually familliar with the FLORIDA bill that is in discussion

Click to expand...

Some of us have alot of time on our hands and can comprehend legislative writings quite well. One does not need to live in a state to keep up with what is going on. I actively follow GA, TN, FL, CO as well as others to a lesser extent.

---Moderator General Note---

Posters are NOT restricted by geographic location

Click to expand...

j4l said:

...and whether he is aware of how unlikely most of his "concerns" are here.
Most LEO here, that I've spoken with anyway, are very much in favor of this pending bill.

Click to expand...

You may not be speaking to the same poeple he is. He may be in a different part of the state. There are HUGE differences (as you should know) in say, Escambia and Monroe counties.

People like you have insulted me enough that I took my information down. Several threats in PMs, etc...

I'm considering retiring from the forum altogether. Nothing but hate-mongering elitism.

Freedom in my lifetime is a lost cause. This place, along with the rest of the country, is given over to the Neocon-Socialist coalition...

Push someone and see if they don't push back, then, pretend you didn't just do that.

Who falls for that crap?




--Moderator Note--

This thread has been edited and will be watched.
Address remarks to the subject w/o personal attacks.

ixtow said:

Push someone and see if they don't push back, then, pretend you didn't just do that.

Who falls for that crap?




--Moderator Note--

This thread has been edited and will be watched.
Address remarks to the subject w/o personal attacks.

Click to expand...

A note? Really?

ccwinstructor said:

"It is irrational to think a Bad Guy(tm) would OC at all, ever"

Get ready to change your mind. Open carry was legal in California until members of the Black Panther Party found out that it was legal to carry openly. They started carrying loaded shotguns around, and even took over the State Capitol during a protest while open carrying. This unnerverd a lot of polititians, including Ronald Reagan. The State then promptly passed its very restrictive open carry law.

I am not saying that open carry by bad guys will become common, but some of the smarter ones will figure it out and use it.

Click to expand...

Did The Panthers break a law? If so were they open carryers, or law breakers. There has to be a clear distinction, or it can be used with concealed carriers as well.

The bank robber pulled a gun out from under his shirt.
Now CC'ers are a danger.

The fact that one has to go back 40 years to associate OCing with a crime takes a lot of gas out of your point.

Here is the first version that came up on my search engine, while it validates some of your points, it seems that "they took over the Capital" is more than a strech, and If so, it was wrong that a few of them were only charged with disturbing the peace.
This is a good example of why it is so important to ask, were they open carriers that day or in this case Sh*t disturbers.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG01/barillari/pantherprologue.html

j4l said:

"And we should not have a problem with LEO searching our cars or our persons or showing ID if we are just walking down the street if we have nothing to hide right?"

When have I, and why would I, ever have this happen? Applying as much common-sense as I can muster, I dont go around looking like/behaving like someone that John Q. Law should feel some instinctive need to give me more than a glance...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
But then, as a (reasonably -and disputably) mature adult male in 2011, Im not sporting grills on my teeth, dont have my hat on backwards, or my pants hanging half-off my backside -nor am I tooling around in my beater with bass beats vibrating everything within a 1/2 mile either...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Click to expand...

J41 Allow me to answer your questions:

Not that it has anything to do with probable cause but for argument sake, I am a white cleancut male, 45yrs, no tats, no peircings, trim, (GQ) facial hair, nicely dressed and in an nice vehicle.

On my birthday 2/6 Superbowl Sun. I was driving near my home, and entered a sobriety checkpoint, I was ordered out of the car at Tazerpoint, and arrested immidiatly for DUI. I ask the Officer about the PC, and she told me Red Watery eyes. (before responding please google; "causes for red watery eyes") I refused to answer questions but I complied with getting out of the car, and gave them no lip whatsoever. I just was not consenting and stated I wanted to be free to leave.

I was taken to a feild sobriety testing area where I was searched again, the cuffs were removed, and I was instructed to walk heel to toe etc. I politely refused.

I was taken to an obsevation area to get in line for the breathalyzer/ blood test, they attempted interrogation again and STILL no miranda warning, I refused to answer and requested council again.. I was cuffed and shackled.

The officers had been "huddling alot and talking about me, it Was mentioned by a couple of them the they "did not think I had been drinking" after one of these talks an officer came over and said that they did not believe I had been drinking, (probable cause?) and that they wanted to know if I would take a PBT (preliminary/portable breath test) For THEIR peace of mind. I did consent as I wanted to be free to go. It was soon after that I was written a ticket for obstructing and released.

So here is how it boils down.
You say, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.
I say cops make mistakes and this one mistook allergys for drinking.

You say just do what they say they are not out to get you.

I agree to a point but if they make a mistake, they will be looking to arrest you for anything, just to cover their butt. I watched them search the crap out of my car, run the numbers on not just the gun I was carrying, but all of them I own, (we have registration)

Because of the judgement error I was scrutinized way more then the dudes that were not sober, and then written a ticket because I could have been more cooperative. (if I told them i was not drinking would they have believed me?)

When it came to the (clown test) I refused to take, I look at that as the most important decision I made. If I had lost balance, or missunderstood a direction, I would have given them PC to lock me up, drinking or not.
I learned not to take the (clown test) in 2009 when I was pulled over for a traffic infraction, and the officer noticed my "red watery eyes" (allergys) I did the clown test and failed, but blew a 0.008 (mouthwash) it was 6:00 am and I was going to work.

Here is the definition of probable cause,

Probable cause exhists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a prudent man in believing a crime had been committed and the accused had committed it.

The factare red watery eyes are not PC for arrestas they have commercials on tv all the time with remedys for red watery eyes.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

J41 Allow me to answer your questions:

Not that it has anything to do with probable cause but for argument sake, I am a white cleancut male, 45yrs, no tats, no peircings, trim, (GQ) facial hair, nicely dressed and in an nice vehicle.

On my birthday 2/6 Superbowl Sun. I was driving near my home, and entered a sobriety checkpoint, I was ordered out of the car at Tazerpoint, and arrested immidiatly for DUI. I ask the Officer about the PC, and she told me Red Watery eyes. (before responding please google; "causes for red watery eyes") I refused to answer questions but I complied with getting out of the car, and gave them no lip whatsoever. I just was not consenting and stated I wanted to be free to leave.

I was taken to a feild sobriety testing area where I was searched again, the cuffs were removed, and I was instructed to walk heel to toe etc. I politely refused.

I was taken to an obsevation area to get in line for the breathalyzer/ blood test, they attempted interrogation again and STILL no miranda warning, I refused to answer and requested council again.. I was cuffed and shackled.

The officers had been "huddling alot and talking about me, it Was mentioned by a couple of them the they "did not think I had been drinking" after one of these talks an officer came over and said that they did not believe I had been drinking, (probable cause?) and that they wanted to know if I would take a PBT (preliminary/portable breath test) For THEIR peace of mind. I did consent as I wanted to be free to go. It was soon after that I was written a ticket for obstructing and released.

So here is how it boils down.
You say, if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.
I say cops make mistakes and this one mistook allergys for drinking.

You say just do what they say they are not out to get you.

I agree to a point but if they make a mistake, they will be looking to arrest you for anything, just to cover their butt. I watched them search the crap out of my car, run the numbers on not just the gun I was carrying, but all of them I own, (we have registration)

Because of the judgement error I was scrutinized way more then the dudes that were not sober, and then written a ticket because I could have been more cooperative. (if I told them i was not drinking would they have believed me?)

When it came to the (clown test) I refused to take, I look at that as the most important decision I made. If I had lost balance, or missunderstood a direction, I would have given them PC to lock me up, drinking or not.
I learned not to take the (clown test) in 2009 when I was pulled over for a traffic infraction, and the officer noticed my "red watery eyes" (allergys) I did the clown test and failed, but blew a 0.008 (mouthwash) it was 6:00 am and I was going to work.

Here is the definition of probable cause,

Probable cause exhists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a prudent man in believing a crime had been committed and the accused had committed it.

The factare red watery eyes are not PC for arrestas they have commercials on tv all the time with remedys for red watery eyes.

Click to expand...

Recommend you file a formal complaint against the department and fight the obstruction ticket.

Good advice, I got to file two formal complaints because it was a "joining forces" event, and NHP as well as METRO were involved, I also had backup to my complaint because I obtained the CAD report (computer aided dispatch) And it documents them running the numbers on my firearms with no PC.

As far as the ticket goes, I would not think of rolling over. In fact if it gets dismissed I am going to try to convince the Judge to let me plead no contest as long as I get a trial in district court to hear the constitutionality of the charges, Kinda like a backwards probable cause hearing. That would set precedence for my state.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

Good advice, I got to file two formal complaints because it was a "joining forces" event, and NHP as well as METRO were involved, I also had backup to my complaint because I obtained the CAD report (computer aided dispatch) And it documents them running the numbers on my firearms with no PC.

As far as the ticket goes, I would not think of rolling over. In fact if it gets dismissed I am going to try to convince the Judge to let me plead no contest as long as I get a trial in district court to hear the constitutionality of the charges, Kinda like a backwards probable cause hearing. That would set precedence for my state.

Click to expand...

If you have "dismissed with prejudice" in your system - it is just as good as not guilty, maybe better because you do not have the trouble of the trail and get all the same benefits - basis for further action.