Why Police Open Carry?

Your - possessive
You're - You are

There - Adverb: In, at, or to that place or position
Their - possessive
They're - They are



That is all.

Rich7553 said:

You should have seen the look of disbelief on the face of a Fort Myers PD officer who questioned the legality of OC'ing while fishing when I told him that both he and I were authorized to OC under the same statute. It was almost as good as when I proved it to him. Priceless!!!
A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition.

Click to expand...

LOL! Good for you, & for him for actually being willing to learn.
So if someone is aware enough to carry fishing equipment in the car & know of a place they could reasonably be coming from or going to, they could OC everywhere, right?

BTW, if OC is the privilege granted by statute, then why isn't cc the right... with no gov't interference, no tax, no permit, no registration, etc.? One of them has to be free & not under gov't control.

MKEgal said:

BTW, if OC is the privilege granted by statute, then why isn't cc the right... with no gov't interference, no tax, no permit, no registration, etc.? One of them has to be free & not under gov't control.

Click to expand...

That's basically my argument: We shouldn't have to screw around with the unreliable legislature. The state by it's own constitution may regulate the manner of bearing arms, not ban both methods. They could ban one or the other, or require a license for one or the other, or restrict places, but that's it. They've done all that plus banning both except for allowing you to buy the privilege of a CWFL and carry concealed.

Schlitz said:

Your - possessive
You're - You are

There - Adverb: In, at, or to that place or position
Their - possessive
They're - They are

That is all.

Click to expand...

This.

~*'Phoenix'*~ said:

That's basically my argument: We shouldn't have to screw around with the unreliable legislature. The state by it's own constitution may regulate the manner of bearing arms, not ban both methods. They could ban one or the other, or require a license for one or the other, or restrict places, but that's it. They've done all that plus banning both except for allowing you to buy the privilege of a CWFL and carry concealed.

Click to expand...

I don't think it has ever been challenged, but it should be. Current law is obviously unconstitutional. If I win the lottery.....

It is impossible to have a right and not have a right at the same time and in the same relationship. They could say that I have to carry in a holster and that is about it. If it said the state may regulate the manner of bearing arms and said nothing about a right to bear before that, then the legitimacy of current law would be tenable.

77zach said:

I don't think it has ever been challenged, but it should be. Current law is obviously unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Sounds like Sean and Co. are actually planning a suit. Didn't give me any details, it's not fully formed or filed yet, but we are planning on taking it to the courts.

~*'Phoenix'*~ said:

Sounds like Sean and Co. are actually planning a suit. Didn't give me any details, it's not fully formed or filed yet, but we are planning on taking it to the courts.

Click to expand...

:banana:

Where's that garter belt? I've got a dollar...

~*'Phoenix'*~ said:

Sounds like Sean and Co. are actually planning a suit. Didn't give me any details, it's not fully formed or filed yet, but we are planning on taking it to the courts.

Click to expand...

Details will not be forthcoming. I know you guys are chomping at the bit for information, but anything we release would fall into the hands of the opposition, i.e. the Brady Campaign. We hope you understand. We lost a battle with SB 234, but the war has just begun.

Rich7553 said:

Details will not be forthcoming. I know you guys are chomping at the bit for information, but anything we release would fall into the hands of the opposition, i.e. the Brady Campaign. We hope you understand. We lost a battle with SB 234, but the war has just begun.

Click to expand...

Sweet. It's good to have a backup plan because as slow as the government courts are, if Fl doesn't get an OC bill in front of a friendly governor, we'll all be dead before it happens. The literary jujitsu the FL courts would employ to rule against it would be one for the history books. Up there with telling that farmer growing wheat in his backyard affected interstate commerce. Especially after the Fl supreme court gave all white people constitutional carry in 1941. Go on supremes, admit it, we're all slaves now.. the black codes apply to all.

On the other hand, any victory would likely put Fl in the curious position of having constitutional concealed carry with an OC ban, lol.

Who decides what/who will argue for the state if such a suit ever came to fruition? Can an OC friendly administration, like Scott's, tell the attorney general to take a fall?

ixtow said:

I signed up with big dreams and a belief that there was good in the world and I was going to be part of it. When I found myself in a den of snakes, and that I signed up to be one of them, I was crushed. And for the reasons I cited when leaving (they asked me in an 'exit interview'), well, I've told that story... Their wrath continues to this day.

I didn't think evil of that magnitude existed in the US of A. But it does, and it wears a badge and uniform in Circus County.

Anyways, my point was that if someone wanted to 'be part of the solution,' they shouldn't be intimidated by the material. Anyone can do it. It's the unwritten part you have to watch out for...

Click to expand...

Hope this isn't the case with CT...because I'm getting ready to sign up over here.
I changed my mind last minute the first time they were accepting students.
But, I am all go now.I can't help it I'm an "Army Brat" .

I'm currently an Armed Security Officer, but all my LE friends
claim it's more fun over on their end.

I think all Permit Holders should stick together and respect each other regardless of Stature.
I hope you continue to follow your dreams!!

It's the unwritten part you have to watch out for...

Click to expand...

Yup!

10x said:

A right earned?

Click to expand...

Hard to follow, as he's deleted his posts. Cops have 'earned' nothing. They work a job that requires carrying a gun--just like Brink's truck drivers, nothing more. They carry for that reason, not that they have anymore 'right' than the rest of us, excepting in Slave States where the subjects have no rights and the thug police make sure they know it.

Fits said:

First off, certain rights are guaranteed at birth and cannot be "earned". 25 years in the Corps earned me nothing aside from a decent pension and health benefits. Nowhere does the Constitution say that law enforcement personnel have a different right than the average citizenry and that document supersedes everything else. Sort of the reason it was created to begin with.

When I grew up in Manhattan, the police were forced, under the uniform rules of the time, to carry their service revolvers under winter cover garments from October to April. Saw more than one poor soul flounder to retrieve the thing, and under enough pressure the NYPD at long last changed these ludicrous stipulations, just as all other ludicrous stipulations that prevent all men of good will from exercising a Constitutional right should also be changed.

Click to expand...

25 years in the Corps earned you the respect of fellow veterans. There is no 'higher' respect. Semper fi!