Open Carry encounter at the Police Station

[usmcmustang]

That's called ad hominem and in a formal debate you would then lose.

I don't doubt that you are indeed dyed in the wool.

What I don't think you grasp is how civilizations must work together.

It's obvious... you like "rules." The more "rules" the better the civilization... oh, really? What I "grasp" is my engraved, ivory handled 1911.

Oh, and by the way... I went to college too... so did a lot of people. However, what I have "learned" about "how civilizations must work," certainly wasn't as a result of my college daze.

And as far as "debate?" I had and have no desire to debate... only to depart my "wisdom." Take it or leave it. Thank you... thank you very much.

 

[Merlin]

So back to the issue of courtrooms and police stations. That issue now seems to be in dispute between you and I at the moment.

So the next question becomes then how do you resolve disputes civilly?

The ancient Greeks and ancient Romans decided that you must use democracy in that case, and that the majority should rule.

And in NV, the majority has ruled that it is lawful to carry in a police station. Did you miss that? IT IS LAWFUL TO OPEN CARRY IN A POLICE STATION IN NEVADA. The statute backs it up by stating that CONCEALED CARRY is NOT LAWFUL in a public building (NRS 202.3673). The exclusion of open carry in the statute makes it lawful to OC in a public building. This has been backed up by another video from TEAM NV (tm) where an individual was trespassed from the property of the DMV. The police were called, the individual made his case to the cop, cited the laws, and the cop confirmed that he was right. The DMV in Nevada is no longer a problem, and their signage has been corrected to properly forbid CC, not all firearms. So, with that established, a police station is a public building in NV. It doesn't matter who the property owner is, as soon as the police lease it, it is a public building. As soon as the police occupy it and call it theirs, it is a public building. The government (the people) cannot own private property. It just doesn't exist. The two concepts are incompatible. Get this part.

With that said, since it is COMPLETELY LAWFUL to enter a public building with an OC firearm, being denied access to the building, or being trespassed from it is a violation of your civil liberties. It's that simple. Having video of being denied access helps for the court case.

If you get the key message here, that OC is lawful in a public building, and that a police station IS A PUBLIC building, there really isn't anything else to dispute. You can talk about the philosopical stuff all day, but this is the actual reality of it. For the purposes of access to a public building, an OC firearm is equivalent to wearing blue jeans. You cannot be denied access for wearing it, and as long as you don't take it off and start waving it around at people, there is no problem.

And just in case anything is unclear, assume that every statement made above ends with "...in Nevada". I know and understand that other states are different. Some better, many worse.

As for philosophical stuff, it's as simple as your interpretation of "shall not be infringed". I interpret it literally. Is 202.3673 infringing, you bet. Whether CC or OC, there should be no restrictions on possession of firearms (Constitutional Carry). But we are getting there. Baby steps.

 

[FallonJeeper]

Shoobee,

If only the bad guys knew how civilizations worked and... participated in a civilized manner.

I wish we lived in a society where we didn’t have to maintain the ability to defend ourselves. Police officers are more reactive than preventive. They are not there to protect you. If they were, there would be no murder, rape, robbery…

I carry every day, whenever and wherever legally permitted. I do so for personal protection. I’m not paranoid. Ask me what I’m afraid of… absolutely nothing. ;o) Because I cannot predict when the next crime will occur, I carry.

I carry concealed and openly, legally. My preferred carry method is OC. OC has been proven to be a deterrent to crime. The “you become a target” argument however has not been proven to be reliable.

I respect your choice in method of carry. Please respect ours.

I seriously doubt you will convert anybody, on this forum, to choose concealed carry as a primary method

 

[wrightme]

Interesting philosophical question, Mustang. You want to know if societies should ever disarm anyone anywhere?

I know of at least one place for sure.

If you come to my house and eat dinner at my table, you can come to the front door wearing your gun, but you will leave it by the door on the inside when you come in. If you want to eat. In the Old West, they had similar decorum.

Now, if I am called to go to a judge's courtroom, I can see a similar analogy. Maybe you cannot. But I can.

And if I go to the police's house, their sanctum sanctorum, the police station, I can also see a similar analogy. But again maybe you cannot.

Philosophy is not such an easy thing. Some are good at it, while others are not.

I think you have it wrong. You are conflating YOUR chosen mores and projecting them at others as if they were the only answer, and then claiming that if you don't agree with your view, then the other must not be good at philosophy.

Frankly, other than insulting to others, it is wrong to 'force' your view onto others by claiming they aren't thinking correctly if they don't agree with you.


Going into your home is optional. In many cases, going into public buildings such as courtrooms and police stations, isn't optional. Your analogies fall apart before application.

 

[wrightme]

That's called ad hominem and in a formal debate you would then lose.

I don't doubt that you are indeed dyed in the wool.

What I don't think you grasp is how civilizations must work together.

You began that, thus you lose.

 

[OC-moto450r]

2A

 

[NAVYBLUE]

ok so I went back and read the whole thread, and it makes my head hurt Thank God for people like Dave, Tim and Tigerlilly that actually get **** done.

Amen brother !!!!!

NAVYBLUE


Don't mess with old men(me). We are too old to fight. We are just going to shoot you(BGs).

 

[mp06011999]

Well frankly, there was no info along with it, no laws, no ordinances, no cites what so ever. so of course i fall back to our laws because thats what I'm familiar with. if you want people to know about your laws and what you want done, inform them. because if you don't, no one will.

LoneEchoWolf, M-Taliesin & Every1 else:

Aren't we all wanting the same thing?

Unless the video changed from when you saw it, it does state that it's Las Vegas at the very beginning and the NV. laws, like Co., are readily accessible on-line. And, those laws all show that these guys were completely within their Nation's & State's Constitutional and legal rights. They did absolutely nothing illegal. BUT, the cops sure did.

I'm not writing to argue, not at all. I don't see an argument here. After all, don't we all want the same thing?

Initially, I too thought that such antics of shoving your rights in the cops' faces was a bit extreme and something I didn't agree with. BUT, seeing and thinking about all the injustices served up by the criminals with badges has changed that perspective.

Have we become so accustomed to authority doing whatever they want because, after all, "might is right", that we fail to recognize the REAL criminals in this video? All are people. All are apparently NV, US citizens. All doing what they think is best. The difference: only one party is acting within the laws...and it isn't the lawmen. Why is that okay? I have to believe that we all want the same thing - JUSTICE FOR ALL. No?

Pushing the Bill Of Rights into the faces of the tyrants is sometimes needed; make that "apparently" needed. Extremist are often the only ones that can truly get anything done....or at least start a movement. Like I said, I too recently believed that it was a bit much to so blatantly exercise your rights in such a manner. Then I remembered, Tyrants don't respond to subtlety. You often have to fight fire with fire....unfortunately.

See if this other incident in Las Vegas doesn't change your mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeHzlt-YvXk&feature=player_embedded (may have to cut & paste)

If you cannot trust the men, which took an oath to enforce the law, to follow the law, then there is no law.

You do not have to agree with "what" they did, but you must, as a 2A supporter, respect their legal rights to do so. No?
And honestly, I am not at all at odds with you on this. I'm just trying to shine a different light on it. It may not be your cup of tea, but there was nothing illegal about it...and worse yet, lots of illegal about the cops' actions. That should be the real focus and that needs to stop.

 

[jdholmes]

Well you are definitely getting better at philosphy, Mustang.

At least you and I agree on "your home your rules."

The way philosophy works is that you list out every minute aspect of any given issue.

Then you must agree on what is valid and what is invalid among the elements.

If there is a dispute, then you debate. Someone else who is impartial and equally trained in philosophy needs to be the judge though.

So for any debate you need not only the two parties, but also an impartial judge.

Ultimately by a complex route of deduction and induction you normally either arrive at a proven conclusion or else you must defer to uncertainty.

Anyway, that's how it works. They teach college classes on it.

So back to the issue of courtrooms and police stations. That issue now seems to be in dispute between you and I at the moment.

So the next question becomes then how do you resolve disputes civilly?

The ancient Greeks and ancient Romans decided that you must use democracy in that case, and that the majority should rule.

Of course there are inherent weaknesses to democracy, for as Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) said, if you have every other idiot on your side, that is a majority anywhere.

Anyway, that's how our democracies and our republics make laws. It starts with majority rule. Then by majority rule give or take a little gerrymandering they send their legislators to the assemblies and senates.

For the record, the assemblymen and senators in California are really mucked up. You guys are a lot better off in Nevada with yours. So I think you should listen to yours, rather than making up philosophies of your own, which are unsound.

Unsound.

Thanks for the lesson in Philosophy 101...I am sure we all feel so much smarter since you came along.

Your reasoning is ridiculous and foolish and real philosophers would likely want to punch you in the face.

In all your yammering on and trying to sound smooth and educated you have said absolutely nothing...typical flunky that took a semester long philosophy class and now thinks he's a genius and can solve all the worlds problems.

Get back under the bridge, troll.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Here is what you need: Video eye wear
http://www.shopatron.com/products/p...t_number=50013/352.0.1.1.79821.0.0.0.0?pp=12&

I got a set of those a year and a half ago... good picture decent sound, but did not always turn on when I tried to activate them, I started streaming on my phone, kinda shakey, thats why the metro vid looked commercial, Tiger Lily worked her butt off (thats a lot o' work jk) because I had the phone all over. (talk with my hands) the watch interests me because it is strapped on.