- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
imported post
ixtow wrote:
Having said that, there are a few points I would like to make about this particular topic.
1) Pittsburgh is subject to Pennsylvania's firearms preemption law. They have tried to tap-dance around this by making the operative clause in the ordinance "if they appear to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal." As Mike pointed out, if you disrupt police crowd dispersal activities WITHOUT a gun, you are subject to arrest, so the ordinance is largely symbolic. In order to have standing to challenge this ordinance, you have to be arrested for possessing one of the prohibited firearms AND appearing to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal. In other words, you have to commit an actual crime which none of us would ever do.
2) Mike and I have said it before but it bears repeating here. The rule when given an order by a law enforcement officer is to comply while documenting the misconduct for future legal action (via video or audio recorder, witnesses, and getting the officer's contact info). Arguing legal or constitutional issues on the scene with an officer who is misinformed or acting in bad faith will accomplish nothing other than an arrest that you will have to pay thousands to redress. While these types of cases, when carried through to a proper end, can do a great job of educating law enforcement and paving the way for future open carriers, do not set yourself up to be a test case that you are not prepared emotionally or financially to see all the way through.
3) I am still wondering why the G20 is the target of such animosity. You should remember that those who normally protest things like the G20 are not the best company while open carrying.
4) Scoped rifles? WTF? We want to normalize the open carry of firearms in normal life. How about a properly holstered handgun?
5) Before anyone accuses me otherwise, I absolutely believe in the right to open carry rifles and I believe in the right to do so anywhere that a person may legally be. However, there are logistic and political issues to doing so and I have to ask if this is a good next step in promoting open carry? I don't think so. We have made huge inroads in just a few years and the process of "normalizing" the sight of friends and neighbors going about their business while safely and legally open carrying is progressing nicely. We should be cognizant of this when these types of issues arise.
Just some thoughts I wanted to share.
John
ixtow wrote:
Mike and I tend to look at these things from a legal perspective (although one would be wise to remember that Mike has graduated and I am only at the beginning of my second year).I fail to understand the point of this? Mike nailed it, but it could be elaborated upon.
If the cops ask me to disperse, and I have a gun, am I automatically breaking a law? If their request is bogus and unlawful?
It looks like a way to target people who know their rights, and make sure only the willing sheeple will ever peaceably assemble.
Having said that, there are a few points I would like to make about this particular topic.
1) Pittsburgh is subject to Pennsylvania's firearms preemption law. They have tried to tap-dance around this by making the operative clause in the ordinance "if they appear to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal." As Mike pointed out, if you disrupt police crowd dispersal activities WITHOUT a gun, you are subject to arrest, so the ordinance is largely symbolic. In order to have standing to challenge this ordinance, you have to be arrested for possessing one of the prohibited firearms AND appearing to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal. In other words, you have to commit an actual crime which none of us would ever do.
2) Mike and I have said it before but it bears repeating here. The rule when given an order by a law enforcement officer is to comply while documenting the misconduct for future legal action (via video or audio recorder, witnesses, and getting the officer's contact info). Arguing legal or constitutional issues on the scene with an officer who is misinformed or acting in bad faith will accomplish nothing other than an arrest that you will have to pay thousands to redress. While these types of cases, when carried through to a proper end, can do a great job of educating law enforcement and paving the way for future open carriers, do not set yourself up to be a test case that you are not prepared emotionally or financially to see all the way through.
3) I am still wondering why the G20 is the target of such animosity. You should remember that those who normally protest things like the G20 are not the best company while open carrying.
4) Scoped rifles? WTF? We want to normalize the open carry of firearms in normal life. How about a properly holstered handgun?
5) Before anyone accuses me otherwise, I absolutely believe in the right to open carry rifles and I believe in the right to do so anywhere that a person may legally be. However, there are logistic and political issues to doing so and I have to ask if this is a good next step in promoting open carry? I don't think so. We have made huge inroads in just a few years and the process of "normalizing" the sight of friends and neighbors going about their business while safely and legally open carrying is progressing nicely. We should be cognizant of this when these types of issues arise.
Just some thoughts I wanted to share.
John