As far as carrying in public, yes I feel a pistol is not limiting a person's ability in self defense. By your way of thinking, why stop at a rifle caliber pistol? What about a sawed off shotgun shooting 00 buck? But why stop there, why not a 50 BMG? Surely limiting it to only a pistol for self defense in public is against the constitution. But if they did limit it to 50 BMG would that be fair? What about people such as myself who own NFA items. Should I not be allowed to carry a FA AK or UZI? What about a DD? I'm sure a 40 mm round would be a good deterrent to any offender wouldn't you say?
Yes. By my way of thinking, that is precisely what I am saying.
I believe you have this down pat.
This is going to be hard for you to believe, but frankly, if you wish to own a howitzer, I believe that is your right.
I do likewise believe you should be able to carry an NFA item as well.
Carry, what you wish.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Maybe you feel it's been drawn too close, but someone else might think it should be drawn further than you. So who would be right?
He who finds himself closer to the term "liberty", or the statement, "Shall not be infringed".
This is where your way of thinking fails. You think the way people react to a man with a gun is wrong but they react that way for a reason.
My way of thinking here certainly does not "fail". The "reason" you imply is so simple. It is because instead of the commonality of the firearm in our everyday lives, we are segregated by a line that is mostly drawn by liars, thieves, and would be tyrants.
Remember, the specific purpose for ratification of the 2nd Amendment could very well be specified as, "ensuring equality across the board". When government makes limitations it is not empowered to make, it can cause far more harm than good.
In this case, instead of embracing the lessons our forefathers spent their entire lives studying, our government has made a clear, and divisible line.
All government agents want power.
One of the best ways to ensure power, is to influence the people to hand it over freely.
One way to do this is to use media outlets, or as a legislator, ensure "safety" with your firearms ban.
The outcome may be D.C. or Chicago, but the feeling some people get is all warm and fuzzy inside.
None of this makes it real. None of this absolves it.
The reason people freak out from seeing a gun, as opposed to a dinner fork, a fire extinguisher, or a set of car keys, is all based on this lie.
The reason people freak out over a gun, is typically because people are living a lie.
Just because you don't think it's right doesn't mean it's not the way it is. Sure in a perfect world we can all "cast aside the limitations we drum up from societal norms, and promptly default to that which is most free." But I'm afraid the world doesn't work that way and it never will. That's just the way the world is, nobody said it was fair.
So we should all roll over, play dead, and give up?
The interesting thing about this concept, is it CAN work. It CAN be reached.
It's just people who make statements like yours, won't ever help it get there.
There you go thinking outside of reality. You think its just a fear-laden response mirroring anti sentiment but in actuality its people reacting to a situation in a way that mirrors real life situations. A man walking down the street at night with a gun in his hand isn't a normal situation that you see everyday.
Neither is a man riding down the street on a motorcycle with a 1911 on his hip.
Neither is a man sitting in a theater with his favorite wheelgun strapped to his side.
It is the perfect parallel you either refuse to, or simply cannot see.
I am perfectly fine with a person NOT wanting to carry a firearm. However, it would be nice for people to see that it is indeed a right, and that it is in fact, "the norm".
I don't see a dog urinating on a fire hydrant every day either, but this became socially normal.
You will be gauged by your response. Are you a law abiding gun owner who supports the base meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or someone who wants to freak out and support the antis by screaming about how unusual a given act is because its outside your scope of acceptance?
Reality sir is that people freak out over the mere sight of a firearm, and this perception of blood, death, and murdered nuns will not change until it is DEMONSTRATED to be false.
Rosa, get back to the back of the bus.
No sir. I'm gonna sit right here...
When people see this type of situation with a man walking down the street with a gun in his hand it's on TV and he's taking pot shots at people as they run for cover. In this day and age you never see a man walking with a gun in his hand down a street that isn't up to no good.
WOW!
Wouldn't you like to change that perception?
Leonard has displayed that you CAN in fact perform said act without killing anyone.
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that personal safety is up to the individual anyways? If you are armed as well, and ready to defend you and yours, how much more do you need to do than observe?
The whole act of him creating a confrontational situation is whats unsafe. For some reason you don't see that but I believe you're looking at it as "what should be" instead of "what is". There's a huge difference between the two.
No no no. Stop and back up.
You specified that he played with the firearm as a "toy", and then completely avoided commenting on it in this response. Leonard was VERY safe and purposeful in his carry. In fact, he was more safe than the officer who took the firearm from him, and pointed it at Bell Meade country club for approximately a minute.
Here is "what is".
Bell Meade law specifies the carry in the hand, of the Army or Navy Colt pistol, as the ONLY LAWFUL WAY to carry in Bell Meade.
Tell me I'm wrong, and you're just being silly. Use your carry in the city before as evidence, and you do nothing but clarify you broke the law, and got away with it.
THAT is "
What Is"!
What "
should be" is that you should be able to carry any form of protection you wish in the city of Bell Meade, or the state of Tennessee.
Now this is the cold hard reality, despite any adamance that you carried holstered therefore it must have been ok...
Brace yourself for it...
You have Leonard to thank, for the unlawful, racially derived law, depriving law abiding citizens the right to carry in accordance with Tennessee law, being wiped off the books.
Just the facts.
From the video I watched the officer was pointing the gun at an angle into the median. I've seen the stills of people trying to show other wise but you can plainly see the red line drawn level does not follow the barrel.
The stills are my work.
The stills clearly show it being perfectly horizontal many, many times.
Here are some cold, hard factual photographs:
(Please note the cruisers timestamps for each photo)
The median in question:
Photos showing horizontal handling of the firearm -
Clearly Horizontal:
Clearly Horizontal:
Clearly Horizontal:
See here you are trying to justify what was done in this day and age to a law that was written 100 years ago. You can't compare the two, they were much different times by which people in general viewed guns.
I do not have to try and justify anything.
The law is the law.
Said law is gone due to Leonards efforts. I am sure he would appreciate a simple "Thanks". Now you can go to Bell Meade and be completely legal, without a "back door" to usurp your lawful carry if the officer feels like it.
That's correct. But that doesn't in any way make what he did right in this day and age. People react to situations based on what happens now, not by what happened 100 years ago. I'm sure you can agree that times have changed and people are different than they were 100 years ago.
AH yes. This sounds like a "Living Breathing Constitution" argument.
People are different, but the core of the BoR is the same. This means the 2nd Amendment too.
You can't change something without challenging it. Sometimes the easiest way to do so is to simply wade out there.
You educate people in a way that makes them want to hear what you have to say. Not scare them into thinking your way is right. You can't force someone to change their way of thinking or scare them into it.
Like carrying loaded firearms in proximity to other people on a daily basis?
Eventually, the lies die down. Eventually, peoples eyes begin to open.
This is merely "OpenCarry.org's" limitation, to adhere to the "properly holstered *normal* handgun" bit. To be blunt, CC advocates were adamant that open carriers were idiots who were going to end up targets for criminals, or worse (to them anyways), getting their precious permission slips revoked.
Since then there has been a slowly forming bond of unity. You think the NRA would have touched this in 2003?
Not on your life bud.
It take some brave dudes going out there and doing it to garner support. Being the martyrs. Being the targets of irrational flock bleating.
Hey man. Leonard has carried in a park, and it has turned out safe. He has carried with a pistol in the hand, in Bell Meade, according to law, just as they would have to do back in the 1800's. Guess what? That was safe too.
Many people feel that gun collectors are nuts anyhow.
A rational thought I am sure. Based on your positioning and world view, it is clearly safer to hide, than to change that image. Yes?
Don't you wish people would embrace, or otherwise not look at your hobby with chagrin?
How do you feel dressing down in camo and walking through a park with a gun that looks like one people only see on TV when the news is showing footage if Afghanistan is in any way showing them we aren't nuts?
Sure it is. Just like an open carrier getting police response wherein said officers prepare for a firefight by drawing their AR's and ripping said OC'er away from a news report of all things.
Look man. I wear a TON of camo. Love it.
I am also an AR guy, through and through.
I'm not going to live my life based on what you, or anybody else thinks. If I want to cruise through the Olympics up here for example, in Camo, with my AR slung, welp. That's what I'm well within my rights to do.
If you have watched one too many movies, that is truly not my problem.
You infer by the presence of the firearm, that a person would be well within their rights to compensation based on an emotive reaction. Therein lies the inference.
Carrying a gun in the hand walking through town is not a normalized activity, that's why we are having this discussion now. Like I said before, you're trying to justify what someone did by a law that was socially accepted 100 years ago, not today.
The social acceptance change, does not change the reality. The social acceptance change likewise does not validate unlawful carry of a firearm in Bell Meade.
Like the accusations directed towards kwik in regard to Brentwood, you have admitted to breaking the law repeatedly, and for years.
For this, kwik must pay.
But you. You must not.
Correct?
I'm not sure if you're married and have children but if you do, how comfortable would you feel if you just dropped your child off at school and when you were leaving you saw a man walking toward your child wearing a trench coat, ski mask with an AK pistol in his hand?
Pretty disturbed actually.
Most gun owners I know of, and especially CC and OC'ers, are well aware that the Federal GFSZ is still in full effect. Therefore this guy is likely a criminal.
What's worse is, me being the law abiding sport I am, I am now disarmed, and there is clearly a criminal proceeding towards the school.
I agree though. The GFSZ should be repealed.
I'm sure it wouldn't bother you in the least and would drive off feeling your child is safe and secure because the gentleman did nothing wrong since a trench coat and ski mask are not illegal and he is obviously a good citizen for caring enough about his safety that he would carry the proper firearm for protection. Am I right?
Why would I leave my child in the presence of an armed criminal?
I'd be ready to meatshield since I am again, unarmed, due to federal regulations.
The fact is people are a product of their environment and seeing a man dressed to look like a thug carrying a gun people associate with terrorists only cause alarm and fear. It doesn't show them how safe they are, it leads them to believe we need stricter gun laws to keep things like that from happening.
Better tell this to the OC guys. They have been presenting their "scary guns" on the hips for years now. It's interesting.
Did you know that people still regularly "run up" to said OC'ers to tell them how uncomfortable or scared they are of their guns?
Did you know that the police commonly are called for open carriers doing the ultimate dirty deed, and sipping a cup of latte? (You bad, bad people you)
Did you know that their efforts have caused illegitimate responses to be quelled a bit?
Did you know that the carry of the firearms on their hips has caused more open acceptance on that proscribed method of carry?
Wait wait wait!
This is all because in your world, the open carriers are "just fine", right? You do not believe carrying a gun around on the hip, some of them quite big, is any big deal?
Maybe you could spend some more time talking to the CC derelicts who still think OC is going to ruin "their rights".
Like having a permission slip to hide your liberty has ever been an appropriate description of a "Right".
Might as well talk about how hunting is a "right".
I call it being justified. If a person would have walked up on me in the dark with a gun in his hand I could only assume he means trouble because normal law abiding citizens would not do such a thing.
What would lead you to believe this?
What if all you could see was the protruding end of the firearm through the holster or other retention device as he walked up holding it in his hand because it snapped or broke off of his belt?
Would you shoot him?
Your logic demands that you would.
Reality may not be so kind to your logic.
What about a airsoft player who scraped the orange off the end of their pistol/AEG?
This is actually QUITE common to see at night. An airsoft player darting out of a bush or over a wall with a pretty realistic pistol in their hand.
You say "shoot".
I say, "Was he brandishing?".
Huge difference bud.
It's part of being aware of your surroundings. Maybe where you live people walk up to you in the dark with a gun all the time and mean no harm but where I'm from walking up on a man in the dark with a gun in your hand will get you shot.
Sounds like you live in drunkard alley.
There are other observations you can use to gauge intent. Mere presence of a firearm in the hand does not equate to immediate danger. Threat assessment must be invoked.
Is the individual brandishing? No.
Is his gait normal? Yup.
Have you observed him for a period of time? Yup.
Does he have a reflective vest on in accordance with local law? Yup.
Perceived potential threat safe. Observe if still uneasy.
Who is to say it's wrong? The man on the ground with a gun in his hand and a massive chest wound? No he's not saying much, the report will be one sided and told by the man who was in fear for his life in what would appear to anyone to be a justified shooting.
In your scenario it isn't too hard to shoot an OC'er for example, then take his firearm out, give it a quick wipe, and stick it firmly in his/her hand.
Same terrible tragedy. Same lack of integrity.
Hope you have fun trying to sleep at night.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but there is only one side to the story being told. So I feel if a law abiding citizen doesn't want to be shot dead, don't carry a gun in an intimidating fashion in the dark on a public street.
So long as you can live with your story, then whatever right?
Just respond to everything with "BANG".
Shoot first and answer questions later right?
Any good tactician will deploy any and all means possible to diffuse a situation. Most honest people can't live with uncertainty. If its a crook, then he is gonna lie anyways.
C'est la vie.
He was not shot because he was trying to fabricate a confrontation but in the safest way he thought he could. Just because he wasn't shot this time doesn't mean he couldn't get shot the next time.
Man, you really like to think about shooting people first...
Can you post links to prove this?
http://cbs5.com/local/police.shoot.unarmed.2.1810445.html (No gun present. Who knows what was said.)
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-...ficers-narcotics-activity-officer-holly-joshi (Same)
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/05/police_shoot_man_outside_belve.html
http://www.copblock.org/601/rookie-miami-police-officer-killed-man-in-cold-blood/
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/when-police-shoot-unarmed-man-oscar-grant-verdict-Mehserle
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/15/dc.capitol.shooting/index.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2009/06/police-kill-man-in-mistake.html
Let me know if you need more.
See this is where you fail again. Accurate fire isn't the only way to kill or harm someone. A blind man with a semi auto AK pistol pulling the trigger repeatedly in a room full of people can kill many innocents without aiming could he not?
Please try to pay attention to the conversation. Your comment here proved exactly what I was saying.
A blind man with a G20 pulling the trigger rapidly in a room full of people can kill many innocents without aiming, could he not?
This is where you are wrong again. A well placed shot by a person aware of their surroundings has less of a chance of collateral damage than someone firing off rounds out of an unwieldy weapon.
The first shot of any firearm is typically "well placed" if executed properly, by somebody with experience firing under life threatening duress.
You just tried to equate surroundings to outcome of specific weapon type. This is a tactical failure.
A person aware of their surroundings has less of a chance of collateral damage with ANY firearm.
Why use a sniper rifle when you could use an UZI? Because it does matter what weapon is used for a given situation. Sure a surgeon could use a chainsaw to remove a tumor but a scalpel would be a better choice.
So your assessment is one should not protect themselves with a scalpel if they dont have an UZI?
You like extremes, no middle ground. You're to the far right what the Brady Bunch is to the far left. You think it's all black in white but it's not. That's why a lot of your thinking is flawed.
Ah yes. Character denigration when you run out of meaningful conversation points. Immediately assign me to a specific group.
Oh by the way.
I am not repub.
Thanks for the assumption though.
Again an unwieldy weapon is more dangerous, not less. Kinda like a gang banger with a MAC 10. Sure he's probably not gonna hit what he's aiming at but the 6 people who were standing around the intended target are dead or wounded. Again your point was flawed.
I would say that a well aimed weapon is more deadly, not less.
Also, it's a good thing Leonard is not a gang banger.
I wonder if his Army marksmanship training may have any bearing on his ability to engage a target. For having "over 24" AK variations, you sure have a minimal amount of faith in them from the common ranges in which personal protection by firearm occurs.
Your argument is sadly the one flawed sir.
You are assuming that more death and destruction will be caused by an "irrational psychopath" hell bent on killing people with an AK, than same said psychopath with a Glock 20 and a couple of magazines.
This is an enormous fail.
So. VT massacre was done mostly with 9mm.
More people died there than soldiers in my unit who had probably 10's of thousands of rounds (7.62x39) fired at them.
The LA bank robberies we performed almost exclusively by the barrel of an AK.
3 Dead.
Yeah I guess my point is "false".
Can you show proof of this or did you read that on the Brady website?
You're kidding right? The Bradys would never post that kind of stuff. They WANT you to believe that ONLY officers are qualified to handle firearms.
Geez if you are going to make errant accusations at least know your facts :/
I doubt Leonard would. I remember seeing a post awhile back of him saying he didn't need the practice. Maybe it was on ARFcom, I can't remember exactly. I've never met a person yet who didn't need to train to be able to better handle a gun or an adverse situation. You can't plan for everything, that's the point of training as best you can.
Well.
When you join the Army you get a LOT of range time. I mean a TON.
Maybe he is confident that his skills have not degraded?
So by your way of thinking any and all calibers are perfectly fine for every situation? I thought I had read in one of your posts that you have a military background? If that's the case you should know that certain calibers and bullet types are better for certain situations. If not then maybe you should double check your training and question your trainer as to why you weren't trained properly. You can clear a room with a bazooka but I wouldn't recommend it.
I do indeed have military training. I was the battalion trainer for:
--MK19 Mod 3 (Primary)
--M16A2 (Primary)
--M203 (Primary)
--M249 (Secondary)
I have qualified expert on all listed platforms and lead training sessions and debriefs (AAR's).
The best way to put your comment, would be to say:
"You should know that all calibers are lethal. Some just have better range or kinetic transfer".
Never seen a man not fall from a .50 round within 100m.
Seen 9mm go through a man and a solid wall, hitting someone behind.
Seen 00 not penetrate a door.
Witnessed .45 rounds hit someone from 30 feet and they kept coming.
Getting the point yet?
Proving a point and being lucky are two different things. Even a blind pig finds and acorn every now and then.
DO Acorns usually ask, "Is that airsoft or real?". Never heard one say this before...
Hell. I've never heard one speak.
That didn't ease the ranger into a conversation, that made him wonder why a grown man would have a real gun painted to look like a toy. Something wasn't right which led to Leonard spread eagle on the grown after being told to lay the weapon down.
...several minutes down the trail after being totally compliant and polite to the ranger.
Oh did I mention he handed him his HCP for review?
What an obviously psychopathic monstrosity yes?
I love these new compliant models of criminal that are polite and kind and non-threatening to LEO's and civilians.
A responsible citizen wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with if they carried correctly.
..correctly? Oh...OHHHH
You mean what YOU believe is "correctly" gotcha!
You're right, law abiding open carriers carrying "properly holstered normal handguns in every day life" never have that happen to them...
St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety
A win in New Mexico. Guy was carrying openly at the movies, lawful in NM. Someone calls the cops and they came and disarmed him.
And:
The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place”, also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.
The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.
The officers can be sued for violating someone’s civil rights.
Posted in
Guns on September 17th, 2009 by SayUncle
They PHYSICALLY came in and removed him from his chair, for the record.
This never happens though when carried in the manner you proscribe.
LOL...
You made the claim that the guy who called was IN FACT somebody Leonard knew, despite no proof.
Burden of proof is on you as the claimant bud. Not me.
Now. Do you have any information? That would be the sweetest proof all of these anti-kwik guys ever saw.
So people can generally afford a pistol but not a holster? Now you're just reaching.
I am?
You do know most pistols don't come with holsters right?
You do know most holsters are pretty useless without a pistol, right?
You need to reassess your tactical frame of mind. Simply shooting somebody for holding a pistol is not rational.
And you being armed too doesn't matter because your gun is holstered. A man with a gun in his hand would have you dead to rights before you could draw.
Yeah likely true.
I could also be picked off by a sniper with a blowdart gun from a neighborhood rosebush, and I'd never know.
Yes Yes. All people are equal if they're in the holster.
Except not at all.
I gotcha though.
Gun in hand, pointed straight down = kill a man.
Good call bud.
You mean like stating that somebody was in fact Leonards accomplice, and then citing no proof whatsoever?
Hey can you reach the window from here?
Your arms are significantly longer than mine. Must be all that "reaching".