I'm sorry but I'm not buying this. The guy missed a court date, how can he not know that?
Not looking to stifle anyone's livelihood - some areas have ordinances requiring that door-to-door solicitors have a permit. My county is one of those that does.
Unfortunately, some door-to-door workers are involved with securing and selling info about you for other than the claimed purpose - what electronics you have, when you are home, is there a storage shed or valuables outside, etc.
My personal POV is that if I have not invited you, you are not welcome.
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Not looking to stifle anyone's livelihood - some areas have ordinances requiring that door-to-door solicitors have a permit. My county is one of those that does.
Unfortunately, some door-to-door workers are involved with securing and selling info about you for other than the claimed purpose - what electronics you have, when you are home, is there a storage shed or valuables outside, etc.
My personal POV is that if I have not invited you, you are not welcome.
This: "First LEO Contact! Refused ID successfully!"
So it looks like you drove this thread right into the ditch. Maybe you could try again and express yourself on point. It seems like a worthy account of and important event. It's a good narrative and something that folks can use. If someone can contend with Deputies exceeding their authority like this maybe it would help others while OPEN CARRYING. Or I could be mistaken.
Giving one's opinion/reaction to salient points referring to property rights and security is in no way improper. I do not know that the deputy exceeded his authority as I only have seen one side and as such is basically allegorical - an interesting story, but I did have some personal and legal points that I felt were worth mentioning.
It could be that a less challenging delivery would be better received and more in keeping with the rules. This thread was located in the Social Lounge because it is not specific to OC.
Anything else that I might clarify?
Based upon the fact that the OP mentioned his activity of going door-to-door as an integral part of his story (and the likely reason that the cops were called, while adding a dig for those who don't like such solicitors), combined with the fact that other posters had reacted to that part of his post, Grape's post is quite on topic (and informative).
Your post, on the other hand, as well as mine, is off-topic.
I love irony, but will move on anyway.
The topic of the OP is clear in the title. The thread was diverted beginning with post #4 but humorously if perhaps with sarcasm. Mr. Grape's post, the next one, was all business and did not address the topic of the title which is the subject of the narrative. I think this is a loss for OCer's struggling to learn how to articulate their rights and the law to the authorities. The topic of the thread was changed to complaints about solicitors and property rights.
The OP was misleading as to Open or Concealed carry, as this had nothing to do with either, and the postings were about what he originally posted. The reason he was stopped by the Sheriff Deputies was on a complaint from one or more of the home owners, and being that they were going on private property and trying to interact with Home Owners, there was a good reason for him to be asked for ID. Apparently the Deputy decided not to spend the time, especially since he had one of the employees in custody, and probably got a good amount of information from the employee. That's my take on the matter.
The irony... resisting privacy intrusion by a gov't agent, while defending his own intrusion into the privacy of citizens in their homes.OP said:used knowledge and tactics to resist privacy invasion that I learned from THIS FORUM.
The topic of the OP is clear in the title. The thread was diverted beginning with post #4 but humorously if perhaps with sarcasm. Mr. Grape's post, the next one, was all business and did not address the topic of the title which is the subject of the narrative. I think this is a loss for OCer's struggling to learn how to articulate their rights and the law to the authorities. The topic of the thread was changed to complaints about solicitors and property rights.
Giving one's opinion/reaction to salient points referring to property rights and security is in no way improper. I do not know that the deputy exceeded his authority as I only have seen one side and as such is basically allegorical - an interesting story, but I did have some personal and legal points that I felt were worth mentioning.
It could be that a less challenging delivery would be better received and more in keeping with the rules. This thread was located in the Social Lounge because it is not specific to OC.
Anything else that I might clarify?
I inspect most threads in Rules of Engagement, Open Carry Brigade, and Alabama sub-forums. This is a daunting task. However, it is made doable by my having identified posters whose posts are not worth reading and dumping them on the ignore heap. This creates a usually enjoyable and informative reading experience, sometimes punctuated by new posters who should be on the list but haven't been identified yet.
I would like to thank you (and your ironically off-topic rants about off-topic posts) for helping me to expand that list. Goodbye.
An opinion as to whether a reply is OT or not may be given at anytime by anyone. There is even a procedure for reporting same. The decision lies with the Moderators as does the question when a point is being belabored.
So "officially" no rule violation has occurred regarding On Topic postings. The continued argument about same is more offensive than the question in this case. Let that be the end of it.
+1ooghost1oo - - well done.