ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
A 3rd one, and I still can't see crap, YES!
A 3rd one, and I still can't see crap, YES!
-
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.
Difference between a rifle and pistol and how to prove it to cops who arrest you for open carrying ?
- Thread starter kwikrnu
- Start date
WWMD
Banned
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
kwikrnu wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
Jonathon Sometimes
Regular Member
imported post
Wow. This seems to be the hot topic now, I was just looking at the last page shown, which was 5, and by the time I finished that, page 6 wasin full swing! Well, I knew it would continue happening. Every once in a while, someone in the Open Carry movement pushes boundries. I remember first reading about Mark Edward's new bike and license plate (which was awesome!), then the guys OC'ing at the Obama protests. IMO also awesome, when some people were starting to say "Maybe too far.." Now the AK pistol guy in Tenn. You don't know how many times I've wanted to pull that single point sling on my AK across me and go for a long motorcycle ride. To me, long gun and sidearm OC at the same time being normal is the ultimate goal. The arms mainly used in the 18th century, and those most able to defend liberty, are long arms. I understand that this guy's AK is a pistol, but he is "stirring the pot" as it were, and probably more people in Tenn. and around the country know more about OC in general thanks to him. Same with people getting arrested and winning in their neck of the woods, and the Tea Party OC'ers. For my two cents however, the only two things I see questionable about the whole thing are.. CUT OR PAINT that dang orange tip off your gun! It's a gun, be PROUD of it. And camo is the quintessential stereotype of all gun owners, perhaps a different set of clothes would go a long way to having the full support of the OC community. But other than that, I see no problem with what you're doing! Not only that, but THANK YOU for raising awareness of OC and the good fight, ...in your own provocative way. Be safe, and keep your head about you, always.
Wow. This seems to be the hot topic now, I was just looking at the last page shown, which was 5, and by the time I finished that, page 6 wasin full swing! Well, I knew it would continue happening. Every once in a while, someone in the Open Carry movement pushes boundries. I remember first reading about Mark Edward's new bike and license plate (which was awesome!), then the guys OC'ing at the Obama protests. IMO also awesome, when some people were starting to say "Maybe too far.." Now the AK pistol guy in Tenn. You don't know how many times I've wanted to pull that single point sling on my AK across me and go for a long motorcycle ride. To me, long gun and sidearm OC at the same time being normal is the ultimate goal. The arms mainly used in the 18th century, and those most able to defend liberty, are long arms. I understand that this guy's AK is a pistol, but he is "stirring the pot" as it were, and probably more people in Tenn. and around the country know more about OC in general thanks to him. Same with people getting arrested and winning in their neck of the woods, and the Tea Party OC'ers. For my two cents however, the only two things I see questionable about the whole thing are.. CUT OR PAINT that dang orange tip off your gun! It's a gun, be PROUD of it. And camo is the quintessential stereotype of all gun owners, perhaps a different set of clothes would go a long way to having the full support of the OC community. But other than that, I see no problem with what you're doing! Not only that, but THANK YOU for raising awareness of OC and the good fight, ...in your own provocative way. Be safe, and keep your head about you, always.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
opencarry.com does not condone a orange tip on the end of the weapon - I agree.
opencarry.com specifies that a AK does not fall into the realm of "normal firearm", as if opencarry.com were the new proponent of what is "normal" or not. - I disagree completely.
Some of you may be very happy to see me say it, but I don't think this organization or site is for me. It is clear via statements such as - :
"Had they seen a person wearing a normal handgun in a proper holster on a walk, they probably would have just said ‘hello.’”"
that opencarry.com is biased as to the make, model, or type of firearm that an individual chooses to carry.
By stipulating what you feel is appropriate, you are lending credability to the ideology that "not all firearms are indeed qualified *arms*". This is not the way the 2nd Amendment was meant to be interpreted, and making statements that this guys firearm is somehow "abnormal" or "shocking", feeds the very anti's who would take your sidearm away from you in a second if they could.
I will be watching, and possibly contributing, but will not at any point offer funds in support of any operation that occurs in opencarry.com's name.
Cheers!
opencarry.com does not condone a orange tip on the end of the weapon - I agree.
opencarry.com specifies that a AK does not fall into the realm of "normal firearm", as if opencarry.com were the new proponent of what is "normal" or not. - I disagree completely.
Some of you may be very happy to see me say it, but I don't think this organization or site is for me. It is clear via statements such as - :
"Had they seen a person wearing a normal handgun in a proper holster on a walk, they probably would have just said ‘hello.’”"
that opencarry.com is biased as to the make, model, or type of firearm that an individual chooses to carry.
By stipulating what you feel is appropriate, you are lending credability to the ideology that "not all firearms are indeed qualified *arms*". This is not the way the 2nd Amendment was meant to be interpreted, and making statements that this guys firearm is somehow "abnormal" or "shocking", feeds the very anti's who would take your sidearm away from you in a second if they could.
I will be watching, and possibly contributing, but will not at any point offer funds in support of any operation that occurs in opencarry.com's name.
Cheers!
XD Owner
Regular Member
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
You could print this news story, laminate it, and carry it with you.
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gunman-vows-continue-carrying-ak-47-parks
You could also hire a lawyer to accompany you on your outings and speak on your behalf.
Yes, I'm being a bit of a smart ass, but I will bet that area police in the area now know a lot more about AK-47 style pistols than they did a month ago.
Here in Israel, no one cares when they see this. (Hard to tell, but that is a man with a M-4 SBR in a bookstore. A spare mag isattached to the mag inserted in the magazine well.
kwikrnu wrote:
You could print this news story, laminate it, and carry it with you.
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gunman-vows-continue-carrying-ak-47-parks
You could also hire a lawyer to accompany you on your outings and speak on your behalf.
Yes, I'm being a bit of a smart ass, but I will bet that area police in the area now know a lot more about AK-47 style pistols than they did a month ago.
Here in Israel, no one cares when they see this. (Hard to tell, but that is a man with a M-4 SBR in a bookstore. A spare mag isattached to the mag inserted in the magazine well.
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
XD Owner wrote:
One thing I have learned from this is that I probably couldn't carry enough proof around with me. They're not going to look at a sales receipt or printed out website ad from the person they detained to determine if a weapon may be carried or not. They wouldn't listen when I told the that Tennessee defines a rifle as a firearm with a stock. They wouldn't listen when I told them in other part definitions that Tennessee defines a handgun as having less than a 12" barrel. Hell, they wouldn't listen to me when I told them they needed to charge me with possesion of a SBR if they thought my pistol was a rifle,which is a class E felony in Tennessee.
In my case I just had to stand there or sit cuffed in the back of a car while they decide what to do. I'm generally a nice a guy and certainly never yelled or spoke in an aggressive voice to the cops. I was not quiet because I knew the detention was illegal, but if I had any doubts I wouldn't have spoken a word. I repeatedly told them the error of their ways. I didn't sign an arrest citation and told them to take me to jail instead. I did not allow them to see my DL because I was not in my car at the time of the detention and my DL was not on my person. I think I was prepared. I have a 2" notebook completely filled with all of the Tennessee gun laws and every recent AG opinion I have been able to find concerning guns. I have some case law in there as well.
XD Owner wrote:
One thing I have learned from this is that I probably couldn't carry enough proof around with me. They're not going to look at a sales receipt or printed out website ad from the person they detained to determine if a weapon may be carried or not. They wouldn't listen when I told the that Tennessee defines a rifle as a firearm with a stock. They wouldn't listen when I told them in other part definitions that Tennessee defines a handgun as having less than a 12" barrel. Hell, they wouldn't listen to me when I told them they needed to charge me with possesion of a SBR if they thought my pistol was a rifle,which is a class E felony in Tennessee.
In my case I just had to stand there or sit cuffed in the back of a car while they decide what to do. I'm generally a nice a guy and certainly never yelled or spoke in an aggressive voice to the cops. I was not quiet because I knew the detention was illegal, but if I had any doubts I wouldn't have spoken a word. I repeatedly told them the error of their ways. I didn't sign an arrest citation and told them to take me to jail instead. I did not allow them to see my DL because I was not in my car at the time of the detention and my DL was not on my person. I think I was prepared. I have a 2" notebook completely filled with all of the Tennessee gun laws and every recent AG opinion I have been able to find concerning guns. I have some case law in there as well.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
So here is the questions that opencarry.org supporters and members should be able to answer regarding this case, as to avoid activities that may be deemed as "acceptably intercepted" by law enforcement. Please answer the questions, so that I may really, truly, understand the full intent behind this sites translation of the open carry movement.
#1. What firearms are acceptable ("normal") to open carry? Please provide a detailed firearmslist, that opencarry.org approves of, for open carry purposes.
#2. What carry positions, are deemed as "appropriate" by opencarry.org members? Please specify exact body positioning.
#3. In light of supporting the Consitution, and embracing the 2nd Amendment, what arms "should" be "legally available" to open carry? Please provide a list.
#4. What actions would opencarry.org members feel provoke a warranted alarm by the general public? What generallocations?
#5. What firearms, deemed legal for carry, should open carry movement supporters carry, in order to "make the open carry movement look good"? Please provide an approved list.
#6.As an individual member of this online community, do you find yourself morally obligated, to only carry firearms that do not come across as, "aggressive", or aredemonized by common culture as being dangerous? (ex. Someone notices you have a Desert Eagle pistol, popularized on many TV shows)
This sure would assist people in NOT coming to this forum for help with their open carry questions and situations, if they do not see eye to eye with the site founder, or the general opencarry.org mission.
Thanks!
So here is the questions that opencarry.org supporters and members should be able to answer regarding this case, as to avoid activities that may be deemed as "acceptably intercepted" by law enforcement. Please answer the questions, so that I may really, truly, understand the full intent behind this sites translation of the open carry movement.
#1. What firearms are acceptable ("normal") to open carry? Please provide a detailed firearmslist, that opencarry.org approves of, for open carry purposes.
#2. What carry positions, are deemed as "appropriate" by opencarry.org members? Please specify exact body positioning.
#3. In light of supporting the Consitution, and embracing the 2nd Amendment, what arms "should" be "legally available" to open carry? Please provide a list.
#4. What actions would opencarry.org members feel provoke a warranted alarm by the general public? What generallocations?
#5. What firearms, deemed legal for carry, should open carry movement supporters carry, in order to "make the open carry movement look good"? Please provide an approved list.
#6.As an individual member of this online community, do you find yourself morally obligated, to only carry firearms that do not come across as, "aggressive", or aredemonized by common culture as being dangerous? (ex. Someone notices you have a Desert Eagle pistol, popularized on many TV shows)
This sure would assist people in NOT coming to this forum for help with their open carry questions and situations, if they do not see eye to eye with the site founder, or the general opencarry.org mission.
Thanks!
Thoreau
Regular Member
imported post
Dreamer wrote:
There are those who don't think that ANY gun is'appropriate'. Who cares what other people think?
I can't see myself ever open carrying something like that around town, or even int he wilderness on hikes (although I do have some hikes coming up that are WAY too close to drug/people smuggling routes...) but a gun is a gun is a gun. If the OP can pull it off, my hat off to him.
Dreamer wrote:
There are those who don't think that ANY gun is'appropriate'. Who cares what other people think?
I can't see myself ever open carrying something like that around town, or even int he wilderness on hikes (although I do have some hikes coming up that are WAY too close to drug/people smuggling routes...) but a gun is a gun is a gun. If the OP can pull it off, my hat off to him.
Thoreau
Regular Member
imported post
Task Force 16 wrote:
Task Force 16 wrote:
I just have to ask... who the hell, here among us, is even AIMING at 'LEO body armor' often enough for that to EVER be a concern???
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
I found the audio for the first part of my walk. It includes when I exited my car stating the date up to and including the encounter with the first ranger (at around 28 minutes into it). He clearly asks for and I show him my HCP, handgun carry permit. I clearly explain the firearm is a handgun and the reason why it is a handgun. Heacknowleges thattechnically it is a handgun. I speak with someone who passed by and he lets me go. So, after this information why am I held again a short time later buy a second ranger who had spoken with the first?
audio
I didn't listen to all of the audio, but clearly no one is screaming or anything. I don't think I said anything to anyone as I walked the lake trail.
I found the audio for the first part of my walk. It includes when I exited my car stating the date up to and including the encounter with the first ranger (at around 28 minutes into it). He clearly asks for and I show him my HCP, handgun carry permit. I clearly explain the firearm is a handgun and the reason why it is a handgun. Heacknowleges thattechnically it is a handgun. I speak with someone who passed by and he lets me go. So, after this information why am I held again a short time later buy a second ranger who had spoken with the first?
audio
I didn't listen to all of the audio, but clearly no one is screaming or anything. I don't think I said anything to anyone as I walked the lake trail.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
What is missing from this discussion is a recognition of certain facts about firearms, and the nature of discussions on this forum. Also missing is an assessment of the context of what actually happened here.
The reason there are different types, calibers (gauges), and carry styles is because each has a specific design intent. In some cases the design intent makes a firearm almost useless for any purpose beyond solving the specific problem the designer had in mind. That does not mean that these purposes do not overlap or that people cannot apply a firearm to a purpose for which it was not designed. What it does mean is that people have choices to make based on their specific intended use of a firearm, and the needs imposed by their daily lives.
Most people who carry do so for self defense. In order for that to work for them they make a number of choices and tradeoffs. There is little disagreement that a long gun can be the best means of defense in a lot of situations. Shotguns are also the perfect choice at times. But most people have to trade off the requirements of having their hands free, the weight they carry and other details, against the likelihood or probability of needing a firearm and the practicality of carrying it all day.
Because the decision for most people must take into consideration lots of factors beyond just what type of firearm would be best for stopping an aggressor, people tend to choose a handgun for daily carry. This is a practical decision that every person that carries a firearm must make make for themsaelves. Moreovre the decision is unique to the person making the decision. In this case the OP selected a "tweener" that for the uninitiated would not appear to be a handgun.
So now we have a few table pounders demanding to know why anyone here has the right to question the OPs decision concerning what he will carry. I have looked carefully back over this thread and I have not found anyone that does not agree that the OP has the right to carry whatever he chooses. But it is certainly within bounds for people on this forum to ask questions relating to the OPs decision process in selecting this particular weapon. It does have advantages over conventional handguns, but it also suffers from significant deficiencies relative to the context in which it is carried.
This kind of discussion is one of the most common types of Q&A on this forum. In almost every thread you will find someone asking why someone chose a particular weapons over all others, and you will also find a lot of advise from people to carry something different. This thread is no different.
These discussions do NOT make people anti, and they certainly do not make them less supportive of OC or firearms carry in general. It makes them rational and reasoning people. While we do disagree a lot, there are fundamental principles that have brought all of us to this forum.
The OP came here and raised his issue. Nobody forced him to do that.
He asks "How can I prove my carry weapon is a handgun?" This question is completely foreign to most people who carry, so people need to know a little more and they ask questions to gain context. One of the most basic of those is "Why would you need to prove it is a handgun?" As the details unfold more questions occur to people. This is only natural. One of those questions is "What is your purpose in selecting that particular weapon?" Knowing the motivation behind the selection fills in the context of the discussion. Some here seem afraid to discuss this in the full context of the situation and cry foul that people raise these questions. They are wrong.
The Op came to us in the guise of a person who had innocently been stopped during the course of his normal activities simply for carrying a firearm. The first post makes no mention of OC activism, or attempts to push back unreasonable laws. In fact here is the entire text -
So people asked some questions about his purpose and carry choice. As more information has come to the discussion, more questions have been raised. But it is that last question related to his purpose in selecting this weapon, that has raised ire in some people. In my view that ire is unwarranted. It is not a proclamation of lack of support for the OP, it is not a sign of an Anti-rights mindset or even a veiled endorsement of the actions of the police as some claim. Especially in light of all of the facts of the case.
The OP admits to painting the muzzle of the weapon orange. For what purpose would someone do that considering the generally accepted meaning of orange muzzles? You cannot advance the cause of OC if you are carrying a TOY weapon where it is legal to carry a firearm, or you disguise your weapon as a toy to deceive people. Under Virginia law 18.2-308 a weapon is considered concealed if it is plainly visible but disguised so as to appear to an observer to be something other than a weapon. The exact wording is as follows -
"For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature."
While I have not searched Tennessee law, I suspect that there is a similar provision. So technically this weapon MAY have actually be concealed not OC. But in any case, this brings into serious doubt the true nature of this story, and on those grounds it is reasonable for people to take the view that while the OP certainly has the right to carry what he chooses, what are his motives in doing so and in coming here. If his desire was to push the limits of OC, then why did he place an orange cap on the weapon. If his motive was to simply prepare for a self defense situation, then why would you feel the need to make the weapon look like a toy?
There is no question that almost everyone from the owners of this website to the newest member supports this person RTKABA. Most support his right to carry whatever he chooses to carry, I certainly do. However what concerns a lot of us, myself included, is the totality of the situation, or the context. This was not about self defense, or expanding OC, it was about intentionally provoking the police. While people on this forum do that all the time, we do it honestly, and without the specific intent of provocation. You will not find any orange muzzles when people on this forum OC.
There is a right way and a wrong way to move the OC ball down field. In my view this was the wrong way. That fact has nothing to do with the specific weapon involved. It has everything to do with honesty and context. The OC movement is not about deceit and trickery. It is about honestly, openly and proudly exercising our individual rights. That is NOT what happened here.
Regards
What is missing from this discussion is a recognition of certain facts about firearms, and the nature of discussions on this forum. Also missing is an assessment of the context of what actually happened here.
The reason there are different types, calibers (gauges), and carry styles is because each has a specific design intent. In some cases the design intent makes a firearm almost useless for any purpose beyond solving the specific problem the designer had in mind. That does not mean that these purposes do not overlap or that people cannot apply a firearm to a purpose for which it was not designed. What it does mean is that people have choices to make based on their specific intended use of a firearm, and the needs imposed by their daily lives.
Most people who carry do so for self defense. In order for that to work for them they make a number of choices and tradeoffs. There is little disagreement that a long gun can be the best means of defense in a lot of situations. Shotguns are also the perfect choice at times. But most people have to trade off the requirements of having their hands free, the weight they carry and other details, against the likelihood or probability of needing a firearm and the practicality of carrying it all day.
Because the decision for most people must take into consideration lots of factors beyond just what type of firearm would be best for stopping an aggressor, people tend to choose a handgun for daily carry. This is a practical decision that every person that carries a firearm must make make for themsaelves. Moreovre the decision is unique to the person making the decision. In this case the OP selected a "tweener" that for the uninitiated would not appear to be a handgun.
So now we have a few table pounders demanding to know why anyone here has the right to question the OPs decision concerning what he will carry. I have looked carefully back over this thread and I have not found anyone that does not agree that the OP has the right to carry whatever he chooses. But it is certainly within bounds for people on this forum to ask questions relating to the OPs decision process in selecting this particular weapon. It does have advantages over conventional handguns, but it also suffers from significant deficiencies relative to the context in which it is carried.
This kind of discussion is one of the most common types of Q&A on this forum. In almost every thread you will find someone asking why someone chose a particular weapons over all others, and you will also find a lot of advise from people to carry something different. This thread is no different.
These discussions do NOT make people anti, and they certainly do not make them less supportive of OC or firearms carry in general. It makes them rational and reasoning people. While we do disagree a lot, there are fundamental principles that have brought all of us to this forum.
The OP came here and raised his issue. Nobody forced him to do that.
He asks "How can I prove my carry weapon is a handgun?" This question is completely foreign to most people who carry, so people need to know a little more and they ask questions to gain context. One of the most basic of those is "Why would you need to prove it is a handgun?" As the details unfold more questions occur to people. This is only natural. One of those questions is "What is your purpose in selecting that particular weapon?" Knowing the motivation behind the selection fills in the context of the discussion. Some here seem afraid to discuss this in the full context of the situation and cry foul that people raise these questions. They are wrong.
The Op came to us in the guise of a person who had innocently been stopped during the course of his normal activities simply for carrying a firearm. The first post makes no mention of OC activism, or attempts to push back unreasonable laws. In fact here is the entire text -
So people asked some questions about his purpose and carry choice. As more information has come to the discussion, more questions have been raised. But it is that last question related to his purpose in selecting this weapon, that has raised ire in some people. In my view that ire is unwarranted. It is not a proclamation of lack of support for the OP, it is not a sign of an Anti-rights mindset or even a veiled endorsement of the actions of the police as some claim. Especially in light of all of the facts of the case.
The OP admits to painting the muzzle of the weapon orange. For what purpose would someone do that considering the generally accepted meaning of orange muzzles? You cannot advance the cause of OC if you are carrying a TOY weapon where it is legal to carry a firearm, or you disguise your weapon as a toy to deceive people. Under Virginia law 18.2-308 a weapon is considered concealed if it is plainly visible but disguised so as to appear to an observer to be something other than a weapon. The exact wording is as follows -
"For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature."
While I have not searched Tennessee law, I suspect that there is a similar provision. So technically this weapon MAY have actually be concealed not OC. But in any case, this brings into serious doubt the true nature of this story, and on those grounds it is reasonable for people to take the view that while the OP certainly has the right to carry what he chooses, what are his motives in doing so and in coming here. If his desire was to push the limits of OC, then why did he place an orange cap on the weapon. If his motive was to simply prepare for a self defense situation, then why would you feel the need to make the weapon look like a toy?
There is no question that almost everyone from the owners of this website to the newest member supports this person RTKABA. Most support his right to carry whatever he chooses to carry, I certainly do. However what concerns a lot of us, myself included, is the totality of the situation, or the context. This was not about self defense, or expanding OC, it was about intentionally provoking the police. While people on this forum do that all the time, we do it honestly, and without the specific intent of provocation. You will not find any orange muzzles when people on this forum OC.
There is a right way and a wrong way to move the OC ball down field. In my view this was the wrong way. That fact has nothing to do with the specific weapon involved. It has everything to do with honesty and context. The OC movement is not about deceit and trickery. It is about honestly, openly and proudly exercising our individual rights. That is NOT what happened here.
Regards
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
slowfiveoh wrote:
But, yes, most certainly some of its members are. Some of them are probably racist and sexist, too. It takes all kinds, no?
slowfiveoh wrote:
I don't believe opencarry.org is biased against such things, at least I ahven't heard any such official announcement.
But, yes, most certainly some of its members are. Some of them are probably racist and sexist, too. It takes all kinds, no?
tekshogun
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Wow, this thread has gone insane. Keep it civil people.
slowfiveoh wrote:
Honestly, any firearm short of rocket launchers perhaps, but technically, our core belief is those too should be allowed. But normal wise? Long barrel, short barrel, and pistols, without restriction.
There are many carry positions I consider appropriate. How about what is inappropriate: In hand as to be ready to fire; weapon gripped but at ready-low, what I call assertive carrying OR weapon in hand at ready-high (aiming). That would be inappropriate unless a threat was present.
Everything should be available. I honestly have a personal problem with automatic weapons being carried in public as well as explosive devices (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc). But if we're just talking about guns, then they are all allowed.
That is a tough question. Different people in public will have different reactions to people simply carrying a visible gun. If someone, even if they don't seem afraid, calls the police and states she is afraid of a man with a gun, then that is their business. People call the police on all kinds of things. They call police on people reading electric and water meters just because they haven't seen them before. Someone in the public will be scared, we can't do anything about that even if you indoctrinate society further to accept guns. And this is the case anywhere! Malls, Walmarts, Target, the sidewalk, the parks, even outside of your own home (on your property). Now if someone carrying a firearm is carrying in such a way as I described above (ready to aim or already aiming) then you'll generate some much deserved public alarm. "What the hell are you getting ready to shoot?"
Heh heh. That's a meaty question. Look, I understand that we should not have to care or worry about what types of guns we are carrying and what we are wearing and how we look... But if you want to push a political agenda, well, there are ways to do that. I don't have a problem with anyone carrying an AK-47 Pistol, or an AR15 K23 Pistol, and wearing camo. I see people all the time dressed like this carrying guns, I live in North Carolina! Other people may have problems with that and I think it will take public education and a major push. Some people know how to carry and shoot their rifle-caliber pistols as well as their normal sidearms. We can't all assume they are bad shots with them and it is not our place to make assumptions.
If someone wants to carry an Armalite or a Barrett .338 Lapua Magnum while shopping, by all means, let them... I'll laugh my butt off (then go make conversation), but hey, you never know, we may have invading terrorists to take out a mile away and it is that carrier's bloody right to carry.
As an individual member of this online community, I have no moral obligation to do anything I don't want to. Even if there were no restrictions on what to carry, I am not going to carry certain weapons, because for me, certain weapons will be impractical. I can carry a sidearm no problem and I can control that sidearm easier that a fully auto-rifle. It doesn't get in the way like a rifle-caliber pistol or rifle slung over my shoulder. It is a matter of preference. I morally should be able to do what I feel is right. And by the way, unfortunately, Desert Eagles get a BAD rap thanks to the movies. Yes, they're huge, they also are great sidearms, worth of being carried as I must point out there are smaller calibers than .50 AE.
I must also add, that these days, certain guns will bring negative attention. Do you law abiding citizens deserve the negative attention? Absolutely not. With in the law and with out intentionally causing harm or intentional fright.... Carry On and Promote Change...
To Hell With Not Being Armed
Wow, this thread has gone insane. Keep it civil people.
slowfiveoh wrote:
Honestly, any firearm short of rocket launchers perhaps, but technically, our core belief is those too should be allowed. But normal wise? Long barrel, short barrel, and pistols, without restriction.
There are many carry positions I consider appropriate. How about what is inappropriate: In hand as to be ready to fire; weapon gripped but at ready-low, what I call assertive carrying OR weapon in hand at ready-high (aiming). That would be inappropriate unless a threat was present.
Everything should be available. I honestly have a personal problem with automatic weapons being carried in public as well as explosive devices (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc). But if we're just talking about guns, then they are all allowed.
That is a tough question. Different people in public will have different reactions to people simply carrying a visible gun. If someone, even if they don't seem afraid, calls the police and states she is afraid of a man with a gun, then that is their business. People call the police on all kinds of things. They call police on people reading electric and water meters just because they haven't seen them before. Someone in the public will be scared, we can't do anything about that even if you indoctrinate society further to accept guns. And this is the case anywhere! Malls, Walmarts, Target, the sidewalk, the parks, even outside of your own home (on your property). Now if someone carrying a firearm is carrying in such a way as I described above (ready to aim or already aiming) then you'll generate some much deserved public alarm. "What the hell are you getting ready to shoot?"
Heh heh. That's a meaty question. Look, I understand that we should not have to care or worry about what types of guns we are carrying and what we are wearing and how we look... But if you want to push a political agenda, well, there are ways to do that. I don't have a problem with anyone carrying an AK-47 Pistol, or an AR15 K23 Pistol, and wearing camo. I see people all the time dressed like this carrying guns, I live in North Carolina! Other people may have problems with that and I think it will take public education and a major push. Some people know how to carry and shoot their rifle-caliber pistols as well as their normal sidearms. We can't all assume they are bad shots with them and it is not our place to make assumptions.
If someone wants to carry an Armalite or a Barrett .338 Lapua Magnum while shopping, by all means, let them... I'll laugh my butt off (then go make conversation), but hey, you never know, we may have invading terrorists to take out a mile away and it is that carrier's bloody right to carry.
As an individual member of this online community, I have no moral obligation to do anything I don't want to. Even if there were no restrictions on what to carry, I am not going to carry certain weapons, because for me, certain weapons will be impractical. I can carry a sidearm no problem and I can control that sidearm easier that a fully auto-rifle. It doesn't get in the way like a rifle-caliber pistol or rifle slung over my shoulder. It is a matter of preference. I morally should be able to do what I feel is right. And by the way, unfortunately, Desert Eagles get a BAD rap thanks to the movies. Yes, they're huge, they also are great sidearms, worth of being carried as I must point out there are smaller calibers than .50 AE.
I must also add, that these days, certain guns will bring negative attention. Do you law abiding citizens deserve the negative attention? Absolutely not. With in the law and with out intentionally causing harm or intentional fright.... Carry On and Promote Change...
To Hell With Not Being Armed
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
As for 'position' or 'placement,' I've often sugested an Open Carry Hat with a Holster right in the middle of the Forehead.
Douche: "Hey, why do you feel like you have to strut around with that on your hip?"
Me: "Because I can't put it on my forehead, and I don't 'feel' like anything..."
See, that would be so much better... If We could all carry our gun on our foreheads, then maybe we wouldn't be 'strutting.'
Remember when OCers were called Unicorns? Nevermind......
As for 'position' or 'placement,' I've often sugested an Open Carry Hat with a Holster right in the middle of the Forehead.
Douche: "Hey, why do you feel like you have to strut around with that on your hip?"
Me: "Because I can't put it on my forehead, and I don't 'feel' like anything..."
See, that would be so much better... If We could all carry our gun on our foreheads, then maybe we wouldn't be 'strutting.'
Remember when OCers were called Unicorns? Nevermind......
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I do like Question #5 the best. No matter how many times and ways it is posed, OC Type Biased speakers never manage to answer it with anything more than inflammatory rhetoric and emotional pleas for the children.... At most, they site the prejudice and ignorance of others as the very reason why no effort to educate should be made..... "People are stupid and scared, so we should make sure that never changes." It makes my head hurt to hear such circular stupidity from people who just a few sentences before made so much sense.
I'd like to see the list, too. Instead of a list of guns that are acceptable, how about just a list of the ones that have to sit at the back of the bus?
Hate is hate, don't try to categorize one form as being better or different than another.
I do like Question #5 the best. No matter how many times and ways it is posed, OC Type Biased speakers never manage to answer it with anything more than inflammatory rhetoric and emotional pleas for the children.... At most, they site the prejudice and ignorance of others as the very reason why no effort to educate should be made..... "People are stupid and scared, so we should make sure that never changes." It makes my head hurt to hear such circular stupidity from people who just a few sentences before made so much sense.
I'd like to see the list, too. Instead of a list of guns that are acceptable, how about just a list of the ones that have to sit at the back of the bus?
Hate is hate, don't try to categorize one form as being better or different than another.
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
So I've dregged the pages and I'll pile on my two cents. It's pretty simple really.
If you behave in a manner that is abnormal, don't be surprised if people pay attention until that behavior is considered normal.
When you get down to it, that's the root of your problem. The LEOs in your area are seeing something unusual, that they most likely have never seen before. They are probably asking themselves, is it a rifle, is it a handgun, and how do I tell. You yourself state this - How do you prove it's not a rifle?
Why look any further than that?
One last point. No guns have orange tips - except toys, and yours. Perhaps stores in your area sell replicas of AK's with orange tips. From the LEO response you report though, I am thinking not. So I'd be interested in hearing why you thought that was a good idea.
So I've dregged the pages and I'll pile on my two cents. It's pretty simple really.
If you behave in a manner that is abnormal, don't be surprised if people pay attention until that behavior is considered normal.
When you get down to it, that's the root of your problem. The LEOs in your area are seeing something unusual, that they most likely have never seen before. They are probably asking themselves, is it a rifle, is it a handgun, and how do I tell. You yourself state this - How do you prove it's not a rifle?
Why look any further than that?
One last point. No guns have orange tips - except toys, and yours. Perhaps stores in your area sell replicas of AK's with orange tips. From the LEO response you report though, I am thinking not. So I'd be interested in hearing why you thought that was a good idea.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
bohdi wrote:
You have a point n the 'unusual' perspective, but you skip the 'probable cause.' What reason do they have to believe that it IS a rifle, beyond their own ignorance?
I can see how an officer might say "hmm, I should go talk to that guy..." But a 2.5 hour detainment by 9 officers using their brute force to back their cluelessness as an excuse?
It's out of bounds. In 2.5 hours, any dispatcher could have used google to sort it. But instead, they choose to be asshats. This information isn't hard to find, and a quick call to any ATF branch office could have sorted it in short order.
bohdi wrote:
Why does anyone think that OCing any gun of any kind would be a good idea?
You have a point n the 'unusual' perspective, but you skip the 'probable cause.' What reason do they have to believe that it IS a rifle, beyond their own ignorance?
I can see how an officer might say "hmm, I should go talk to that guy..." But a 2.5 hour detainment by 9 officers using their brute force to back their cluelessness as an excuse?
It's out of bounds. In 2.5 hours, any dispatcher could have used google to sort it. But instead, they choose to be asshats. This information isn't hard to find, and a quick call to any ATF branch office could have sorted it in short order.
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
You give lots of credit to the dispatcher ixtow. Given the time it takes to sort calls like this out,one might take pause to consider all the variables in the incident.
1. Without knowing how far away the first ranger/leo was, it's hard to say they could determine the weapon in question was a pistol.
2. It's already been proven that LEOs aren't required to know every law in their state, given the number of laws for each state each LEO would have to be a genius with 100% retention and recollection.
3. If the ranger/leo thought the OP was illegally carrying a weapon based on initial observation at a distance, I think most people would agree it's acceptable to investigate further - to at least get a better visual recognition.
4. If the ranger/leo encounters something foriegn/unknown, it is not illogical for them to call for backup, if for nothing more than to cover their own butts. For as much grief as we give LEO's for stopping folks, I think in this case given what has been provided thus far, is logical and prudent response. Just because one is in law enforcement, does not make one an expert in all firearms.
5. It's not the dispatchers job to know the law is it? It is their job to be the middle man and communicate. Correct me if I am wrong.
6. How do you know part of the problem wasn't communications related trying to get in touch with the county/local lawyer to figure out what the regulation was and what the definition of apistol/rifle is, and to make sure they had it right? Do you know what the state of technology is for that area and if there are communications dead spots?
7. Takes time to look over and verify a weapon is to specification right?
I am not saying it took too long or too short. All I am saying is that given the unknowns, it is impossible to make that judgement at this point and in my personal opinion, it probably wasn't "too long".
It would be interestingt to see a FIOA write up from the OP on here so that we could arm chair quarter back this to death. The fact remains though, the LEOs thought it was a rifle, investigated due to that fact, tried to eliminate all possibilities to cover their butts, and then released him. They didn't beat him physically, they didn't put him in cuffs. They stopped to check everything was in order because it was unusual.
He should follow up with a letter to the county attorney, chief of police, and lead park ranger. He should as them to conduct training so the officers are aware this type of handgun exists so that he isn't stopped again. That is what he should do.
When we had a contingent of officers out at Burke Lake Park, they brought the cavilary, and came twice.The folks didn't whine about that it took too long. We whined about the response, but given the circumstances, I can't really blame the LEOs. 15+ people is unsual in a park...when the park regs are three years old.
You give lots of credit to the dispatcher ixtow. Given the time it takes to sort calls like this out,one might take pause to consider all the variables in the incident.
1. Without knowing how far away the first ranger/leo was, it's hard to say they could determine the weapon in question was a pistol.
2. It's already been proven that LEOs aren't required to know every law in their state, given the number of laws for each state each LEO would have to be a genius with 100% retention and recollection.
3. If the ranger/leo thought the OP was illegally carrying a weapon based on initial observation at a distance, I think most people would agree it's acceptable to investigate further - to at least get a better visual recognition.
4. If the ranger/leo encounters something foriegn/unknown, it is not illogical for them to call for backup, if for nothing more than to cover their own butts. For as much grief as we give LEO's for stopping folks, I think in this case given what has been provided thus far, is logical and prudent response. Just because one is in law enforcement, does not make one an expert in all firearms.
5. It's not the dispatchers job to know the law is it? It is their job to be the middle man and communicate. Correct me if I am wrong.
6. How do you know part of the problem wasn't communications related trying to get in touch with the county/local lawyer to figure out what the regulation was and what the definition of apistol/rifle is, and to make sure they had it right? Do you know what the state of technology is for that area and if there are communications dead spots?
7. Takes time to look over and verify a weapon is to specification right?
I am not saying it took too long or too short. All I am saying is that given the unknowns, it is impossible to make that judgement at this point and in my personal opinion, it probably wasn't "too long".
It would be interestingt to see a FIOA write up from the OP on here so that we could arm chair quarter back this to death. The fact remains though, the LEOs thought it was a rifle, investigated due to that fact, tried to eliminate all possibilities to cover their butts, and then released him. They didn't beat him physically, they didn't put him in cuffs. They stopped to check everything was in order because it was unusual.
He should follow up with a letter to the county attorney, chief of police, and lead park ranger. He should as them to conduct training so the officers are aware this type of handgun exists so that he isn't stopped again. That is what he should do.
When we had a contingent of officers out at Burke Lake Park, they brought the cavilary, and came twice.The folks didn't whine about that it took too long. We whined about the response, but given the circumstances, I can't really blame the LEOs. 15+ people is unsual in a park...when the park regs are three years old.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
bohdi wrote:
I can't prove that my shoe isn't made of C4. I can't prove that my shampoo isn't really a liquid explosive.... Shall I be held indefinitely simply because the cops can't either?
I'm not disagreeing with the entire circumstance, merely the support for detainment without cause.
Ignorance is no excuse.
bohdi wrote:
I understand this, but where does it say that cops get to grab anyone they want and hold them indefinitely while they determine the difference between their asses and a hole in the ground?
I can't prove that my shoe isn't made of C4. I can't prove that my shampoo isn't really a liquid explosive.... Shall I be held indefinitely simply because the cops can't either?
I'm not disagreeing with the entire circumstance, merely the support for detainment without cause.
Ignorance is no excuse.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
You guys need to research this a little off site. His story is a little different on Officer.com. Over there he states that he requested to see a supervisor. He was advised that it would take a while to get one on scene, and HE opted to wait. In fact it did take a while just as he had been told. So a significant part of the delay was at his own request. I have to agree with Bohdi that there is a lot going on here we do not know about yet. Do a google search on Kwikrnu for yourself and see what comes up. You might see all of this in a different light.
Regards
You guys need to research this a little off site. His story is a little different on Officer.com. Over there he states that he requested to see a supervisor. He was advised that it would take a while to get one on scene, and HE opted to wait. In fact it did take a while just as he had been told. So a significant part of the delay was at his own request. I have to agree with Bohdi that there is a lot going on here we do not know about yet. Do a google search on Kwikrnu for yourself and see what comes up. You might see all of this in a different light.
Regards