Open Carrying in the Bay Area

[marshaul]

imported post

So, when did anybody say anything about firefighters?

I wasn't aware that firefighters stopped people early in the morning in "bad neighborhoods", looking for contraband combustibles.

And, for the record, I don't "hate cops". I am extremely displeased about the direction I see law enforcement going in this country, as are (I would guess) the majority of Americans. I also do have rather pro-freedom ideas about the direction we ought to be heading in, but I digress...

No, I don't "hate cops". What I do dislike is the attitude that our society needs armed men to illegally stop, without even the arbitrary standard of "RAS", anyone who walks the street in an arbitrarily-defined "bad neighborhood" at an arbitrary time, like for example 4 A.M., in order to "prevent crime".

Such behavior is fundamentally at odds with the legal foundations of liberty upon which the American society was established.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

It is a perfect example of someone living a life defined only by the latest court ruling.

Yep, only one court ruling. In the history of the U.S.

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

It's clear government doesn't want to protect anyone (through the aforementioned cases, laws, and 22,000 infringements on the 2A), so if you are working for the government and feel duty, committment, integrity, or honor compells you to do so, up to and including violating the 4A and reams of case law, then you should quit. Immediately.

 

[greg36ff]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

So, when did anybody say anything about firefighters?

I wasn't aware that firefighters stopped people early in the morning in "bad neighborhoods", looking for contraband combustibles.

And, for the record, I don't "hate cops". I am extremely displeased about the direction I see law enforcement going in this country, as are (I would guess) the majority of Americans. I also do have rather pro-freedom ideas about the direction we ought to be heading in, but I digress...

No, I don't "hate cops". What I do dislike is the attitude that our society needs armed men to illegally stop, without even the arbitrary standard of "RAS", anyone who walks the street in an arbitrarily-defined "bad neighborhood" at an arbitrary time, like for example 4 A.M., in order to "prevent crime".

Such behavior is fundamentally at odds with the legal foundations of liberty upon which the American society was established.

Ok, truce. We are two different people with two different life experiences and opinions......I do respect your point of view and I do feel that SOME of your views have merit....Sorry, not all but that if what makes life interesting. I have no respect for anyone that molds their views to conform to what they really do not believe. I look forward to reading your future posts and I will of course post my views.....

Please do not believe that I do not have respect for peoples fundamental rights, I do……

 

[greg36ff]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

greg36ff wrote:

It is a perfect example of someone living a life defined only by the latest court ruling.

Yep, only one court ruling. In the history of the U.S.

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

It's clear government doesn't want to protect anyone (through the aforementioned cases, laws, and 22,000 infringements on the 2A), so if you are working for the government and feel duty, committment, integrity, or honor compells you to do so, up to and including violating the 4A and reams of case law, then you should quit. Immediately.

I do not work for the government, so the world is safe.....I just feel that case law and court decisions have to be balanced with real life and what is going on at the time.......That is why there are SO MANY court rulings (as you have pointed out). Because nothing is as clear cut as it seems to be. Personnel rights must be balanced with public rights. That is a difficult balance to achieve. That is why the court keeps revisiting the subject.

I think that sometimes people loose sight of that......I am sorry if my opinions offend or anger you, but at least it gives you a reason to post right!

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I assure you that I have surprising tolerance for differing opinions, and I'm not personally upset at all by disagreement in the spirit of debate. Hell, I love debate, the more spirited (read: heated) the better.

I argue my views vociferously because I hold them passionately, and I know that argumentativeness often comes across as rather angry, but I assure you that I am not.

I merely have an affinity for strong language. I do try to temper it, but it's an ongoing struggle.

For what it's worth, I welcome you to the forum, and urge you to argue your views as much as you would like to. Only through discussion does anyone (myself included) progress. Humans in agreement are idle creatures.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

Sorry, but this is another example of people wanting to have it both ways..........If you own a business in an industrial area that has no open businesses after dark and you have been burglarized a few times; you want to police to stop some guy walking or riding his bike along those darkened streets at 4 am in the morning....as long as that guy is not you right!........

Same thing with a residential area.......You look out at 4 am towards your truck that has been burglarized a few times and you see some guy standing next to it....You call the cops, you expect them to at least talk to the guy.......Well, that’s great if it’s your truck, but gosh forbid if you are the guy standing there......

I'm not saying that there is an excuse to violate someone’s rights, I am just saying that things are not as clear cut as the seem and reality sometimes must be balanced with the strict interpretation of the law....

This is where "reasonable suspicion" comes in. It's not illegal to carry a gas can, a short length of hose, and a screwdriver while walking/riding down a public street... and it shouldn't be!

But if an officer reasonably suspects you're up to no good, he CAN investigate potentially criminal activity! In Terry v Ohio the SCOTUS allowed for investigation on "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is afoot. And even if the cop just has a "hunch" the person is up to no good, they can approach and talk to the person. And even if the person refuses to engage in such voluntary contact, the officer can watch/follow the person from a distance until they're satisfied no criminal activity is afoot.

My point is that officers have plenty of tools/methods to investigate suspicious activity without violating anybody's constitutional rights.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

greg36ff wrote:

...In the real world, or in my "fantasy world" there are such things as duty, commitment and honor that often transend narrow court rulings.

I wish more officers had a better sense of commitment, duty, and honor. Especially the latter.

I'll agree that most are committed. My experience has been that most officers truly do care about public safety and stopping crime. Unfortunately, some also are committed to harassing people they disagree with.

Honor is the one I think most people are lacking (and not just cops, but the entire population). I've seen and heard enough in my life to know that cops are just like the rest of us: human. The simple fact is that some of the less "good" people make it into the LE profession, and then do dishonorable things.

However, the fact that they're "just human" doesn't exempt them from a higher standard. LEOs are entrusted with a great deal of power, and IMO should be of above-average moral character. (I don't know how to test for this, and it's possible it's impossible to screen out all the bad apples...)

Speaking of duty and honor... what about the US Constitution and the oath every officer swears?

The first thing mentioned in the CA Oath of Office is the US Constitution... think our forefathers thought it was important for LEOs to respect/defend/obey it?

"I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...

 

[greg36ff]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

greg36ff wrote:

Sorry, but this is another example of people wanting to have it both ways..........If you own a business in an industrial area that has no open businesses after dark and you have been burglarized a few times; you want to police to stop some guy walking or riding his bike along those darkened streets at 4 am in the morning....as long as that guy is not you right!........

Same thing with a residential area.......You look out at 4 am towards your truck that has been burglarized a few times and you see some guy standing next to it....You call the cops, you expect them to at least talk to the guy.......Well, that’s great if it’s your truck, but gosh forbid if you are the guy standing there......

I'm not saying that there is an excuse to violate someone’s rights, I am just saying that things are not as clear cut as the seem and reality sometimes must be balanced with the strict interpretation of the law....

This is where "reasonable suspicion" comes in. It's not illegal to carry a gas can, a short length of hose, and a screwdriver while walking/riding down a public street... and it shouldn't be!

But if an officer reasonably suspects you're up to no good, he CAN investigate potentially criminal activity! In Terry v Ohio the SCOTUS allowed for investigation on "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is afoot. And even if the cop just has a "hunch" the person is up to no good, they can approach and talk to the person. And even if the person refuses to engage in such voluntary contact, the officer can watch/follow the person from a distance until they're satisfied no criminal activity is afoot.

My point is that officers have plenty of tools/methods to investigate suspicious activity without violating anybody's constitutional rights.

Well said. I would only add that circumstances can change everything and often time’s people make judgments without knowing all the circumstances.

Your example of "It's not illegal to carry a gas can, a short length of hose, and a screwdriver while walking/riding down a public street... and it shouldn't be" is spot on. However just a small change in the facts can change everything.

This same guy walking in the area of a gas station at noon will not be looked at the same way as this guy walking in the area of a U Haul lot at 4 AM in the morning.

Often time’s people hear "I was just walking down the street with a gas can and the police stopped and they hassled me“.

You’re leaving something out there Skippy!!!!....

I would never advocate violating someone right's, after all they are my rights too. I would just like people to see the big picture and that not everything is as simple as it seems.