-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
If OC was so objectionable, why was FSA the only LEA present at committees?
- Thread starter Rich7553
- Start date
77zach
Regular Member
Rich, earlier today I spoke to an LEO then later went to the gym to pick up my brother and spoke to three LEOs. All of them were disappointed OC did not pass. I know these cops from when I used to work out. They weren't as disappointed as I was because they hadn't even heard of the bill's fate. But they all would prefer to know who is armed and had no problem with it at all. MCSO ad Ocala PD.
But look at the laws of other states. EVEN IF you have a permit in some gold star states, you MUST OC or at least tell law enforcement you are armed if carrying concealed, upon official contact. I don't agree with that law, but I understand it. The FSA is illogical. Personally, I think they want to remain special "only ones".
Perhaps the FHP has more level heads. They come in contact with drivers. Drivers who don't need a permit to carry in the glovebox. The first thing they ask if you tell them you are armed is "ok, where is it?" Makes their lives a little easier if it's sitting on the dashboard. The more I think about it, the more I think the FSA has dishonest people in their legislative affairs section.
Last edited:
Which is pretty much my read of the cops on the street as well. That's why I was so flabbergasted at all the "what if we get hassled" crapola on here when the bill was still just a fantasy. It's why I kept telling folks not to worry about, stop with the recording the cops nonsense, and not to go out looking to provoke them on it, if it passed. Why make enemies who dont yet exist?
Lot of guys I grew up with are all cops now with the JSO, FHP and some went on to become Feds-and since have worked with a lot of local LEO's in various activities in recent years. Almost all of whom I speak to/spoke to on this were either very much in favor of it-or had no real opinion one way or the other-(they've got theirs,so to speak).
So the whole FSA aspect of this never made any sense to me at all.
Why are the grunts mostly just fine with it,but the brass are so strongly opposed?
Bit fishy, to me, no?
Factor in that lobby from the prosecuting atty's association- the one from my area was previously the Gun crimes head. Might kinda/sorta understand her opposition,tainted though it is by the fact that most of the gun crimes she prosecuted were carried out by gangsta-wannabes in the crack/drug areas-ON EACH OTHER. :banghead: :banghead:
On the one hand that bias can be understood. On the other-of ALL people to know that none of these crimes were being carried out by permitted CC citizens..and you have to wonder what kind of rocket-scientist is she? ..............or, where's the influence convincing her to lobby so hard in opposition...?
Lot of guys I grew up with are all cops now with the JSO, FHP and some went on to become Feds-and since have worked with a lot of local LEO's in various activities in recent years. Almost all of whom I speak to/spoke to on this were either very much in favor of it-or had no real opinion one way or the other-(they've got theirs,so to speak).
So the whole FSA aspect of this never made any sense to me at all.
Why are the grunts mostly just fine with it,but the brass are so strongly opposed?
Bit fishy, to me, no?
Factor in that lobby from the prosecuting atty's association- the one from my area was previously the Gun crimes head. Might kinda/sorta understand her opposition,tainted though it is by the fact that most of the gun crimes she prosecuted were carried out by gangsta-wannabes in the crack/drug areas-ON EACH OTHER. :banghead: :banghead:
On the one hand that bias can be understood. On the other-of ALL people to know that none of these crimes were being carried out by permitted CC citizens..and you have to wonder what kind of rocket-scientist is she? ..............or, where's the influence convincing her to lobby so hard in opposition...?
ADulay
Regular Member
77zach
Regular Member
Do you know the answer?
No, I can only speculate. But as I understand it, the lobbyist for the prosecuting attorney's association was not sanctioned by that organization. I guess that means that they had no "official" position. Again, don't know this for sure, but I fail to see any reason for them to be involved at all.
So on the next go-around, it would be an advantage to have some support from the street cops and the FHP, rather than silence.
Apathy amongst gun owners on the subject of Open Carry is a killer for our cause!
Some are turned off by the stories of people carrying rifles and shotguns into libraries to make a point. Other are turned off by videos of open carriers driving around town actively looking for police officers to approach while they have people pulled over in hope of eliciting an improper police response. Some even buy into the silly "first to be shot", "someone will take your gun", "surprise advantage! I have a gun!", "guns scare the sheepole" rhetoric of the gun banners.
Regardless, we as the most visible gun owners, need to act as ambassadors for gun rights and our cause to normalize carry.
This guy did it right:
[video=youtube;Z-vUYeJXSrA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA[/video]
He just walked to the auto parts store and recorded the results when his rights were violated. He didn't go chasing the police around. Still, some supposedly pro-gun people blame him for causing the police to overreact. It is ridiculous but that is the attitude we have to rise above and refute by our unimpugnable actions.
Civil rights leaders in the 50's and 60's didn't go chasing police around or acting outrageously to provoke a police response in an attempt to further their cause. They rode the bus or boycotted the bus, they sat down at a lunch counter, they attended schools and colleges. Passive resistance and a large base of support won their rights.
We don't have the numbers necessary to march on Washington. We're not the tea party, we don't have enough voters in our ranks to force the issue unless we gain the support of all gun owners. As a movement, we have to be smarter in our methodology.
P.S. FSA, Florida Police Chiefs Association, and the Florida University Police Chiefs all came out to oppose open carry and campus carry. FSA was just most vocal but at the end of the day, they are not the ones who really got the bill killed.
Our real problem was the Florida Retail Federation and aggressive behind the scenes lobbying from Publix.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
Publix denies it. OC is not a problem in Alabama and Georgia, it makes no sense.
77zach
Regular Member
So basically, time to move to Alabama if you want to open carry within the next 5 years, LOL.
Kingfish
Regular Member
Because that is all it took. No point in expending anymore political capital than necessary. I am sure if knew they could not kill it, they would have escalated.
1st off, this here is way off-topic for the post, but ok here we are.
This clip-I have to disagree- on a couple of points.
1) its audio -only. End of story.That right there kills most of whatever this yahoo was trying to demonstrate or prove.
One cannot tell, by the audio alone, what visual indicators this clown was giving to the LEO or others. Posture,body language, overall appearances etc.
We have only his word that he was being a perfectly normal, reasonable yahoo on the street. However polite or otherwise his own voice-(it is assumed)it may have been.
Based solely on this-we cannot determine-for fact-a damned thing.
Either he was being unlawfully hassled by an ignoramus yahoo cop, or he may well have been standing there looking like a complete lunatic and giving that officer a great deal of anxiety. Dont know either way.
We also dont know if prior to this recording beginning, if this clown did anything to deliberately provoke any of this or not.Zero Zip.
2) 2-party consent. Penn is a 2-party consent state. The recording itself is entirely illegal. If one of the atty's in that state, or the PD's themselves, ever get around to realizing that, or deciding to prosecute that-as they fully can under their state's laws, clowns like this can end up with more than just gun/tresspass/conduct charges.
Do this on or near a Federal property or facility, and you've just added some TITLE 18 violations. Big NO-GO.
Consent does not mean "i eventually get around to informing the other party im recording". Consent means=other party agrees.Without that consent-illegal. private convo or not.
End of story.
So, why break/violate one law while trying to raise attention on behalf of, or seeking to gain, another? Bit self-destructive,no? How can we, as legitimate, law-abiding, pro-gun citizens go on and on about our rights, and wanting this or that law in our favor, if we go around breaking other laws?
Protest? Fine, we have that right in this country. Demonstrations also. Organize one, follow proceedures for properly, and lawfully, doing so.
Keep in mind also these boneheads in D.C. and DHS we have now. Boneheads who are quick to label returning veterans as "potential terrorists" and would no doubt use activities like this and others to further slam the Pro-2a folks out here. To further give folks the impression of "gun nuts".
It's self-destructive, and undermines the causes, I think.
Especially when folks in states who already have the right to carry are doing this when we are trying to even get that right at all.
You guys post about wanting stats of crime (or lack of) and other effects of other states with OC,to use as arguments in favor of our getting it. But these kinds of things also provide the other side with things to show folks like Boggy and company things to oppose us with.
Check the PAA website- legislative actions section. They very specifically boast about having helped get the bill watered down. It's also listed in various calandars and the like for planning actions and lobbying efforts. They may not have been -in the face-about it, but they were certainly working hard behind the scenes.
re: 1)
StogieC said:
Mr. Fiorino's actions were not unimpugnable. He did not comply with the officer's demand that he get on the ground. That however did not justify the officer's verbal abuse and threats nor excuse his enforcement of a law that does not exist.
Reed more here: http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-16/news/29548742_1_firearms-license-youtube-clips-gun-rights
re: 2)
I don't know PA law on recording. Some states that have 2-party laws also have case law that says that an LEO has no expectation of privacy in a public venue. But again, I don't know PA law.
Kingfish
Regular Member
Like I said, I think he did it right!
But, unimpugnable is a high standard. The problem is that we have gun owners who claim to support RKBA who think that Mr. Fiorino was out of line because they have become predisposed to believe that open carriers go out looking to cause a confrontation.
Like this guy:
[video=youtube;1SHHW8DwYBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SHHW8DwYBs[/video]
He was actually video taping his own girlfriend's traffic stop but that is not how the video comes across at the beginning.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
Assuming we even get the ears of the Fl legislature again on OC, the fence sitters are going to look at the videos online and think we're all insane. It's unfair, and our pols aren't all that bright and don't value liberty, but they're going to think we want to get in peoples' faces. I guess we need to have huge OC fishing events that are totally uneventful.
"12 states forbid the recording of conversations without the consent of all parties. They are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. "
http://www.wingfieldaudio.com/surreptitious-recording.html
Pennsylvania: Pa. Stat. Ann. Tit 21 Section 351 (Purdon 1955)
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm
Read,Learn,Weep.
The End -on that topic.
Last edited:
KeepShootin
Regular Member
I never understand why some people think this way. The enemies already exist! If I go down the street, OCing, LEOs shouldn't even look twice. If they are "provoked" by OCers, that's their own problem, and that's why we need recorders. The whole idea of OCers going out and recording police, should just be laughed at by them. If the LEOs decide to make a scene, that's on them.
77zach
Regular Member
If an LEO gets upset at OC or recording it makes you wonder why they wanted the badge in the first place. Actually, I know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hkcZilKChI