Police Detainment for Non-Crimes

[slowfiveoh]

It's so funny how you believe that your interpretation of the Constitution is the only interpretation and that everyone else is wrong, including the justices across the country in the federal appellate courts and SCOTUS. Maybe I'm not holding to the Oath that you believe I should be holding to. Needless to say it's not your laws that I'm enforcing.

Wrong. It is the laws of the people that you do indeed enforce. I am one of those "people". The law is not always correct in terms of constitutionality.

If you choose to let the courts sort it out, then fine, be a blind patsy.
If you choose to not enforce those laws that are unconstitutional, then go ahead there too.

One path involves fortitude, the other, cowardice.

The real question is, what will you do when Constitutional carry is eventually reached?

Read above. Your opinion that Tennessee's Constitution is "infringing." The courts have consistently held that it doesn't.

Wrong, the courts have "consistently held that it doesn't", in a pre-Heller, Pre-McDonald world.

I can tell you are a bleeding heart liberal with the belief that the Constitution is a "living document". This is rather convenient in law enforcement when you swear an oath to a Constitution that you feel is open to a myriad of interpretations.

I could sit here and lecture you on the finer dissertations of our founders, and their clear comments supporting the idea that the Constitution is not a "one-size-fits-all document, but just as you state erroneously that it is "not the 1800's", you will revert back to the same ignorance in reference to the Constitution. That it is "old and outdated".

Have you even read the facts presented in the Heller & McDonald cases? Neither had anything remotely to do with CCWs/HCPs. They involved cities that tried to ban handguns outright or place strict regulations as to even owning a handgun. The ruling in those cases did not get anywhere close to implying that any gun regulation was unconstitutional. Any city/state that attempts to ban handguns outright or attempts to not allow them in the home are going to have similar results. I did not have an issue with the Heller/McDonald decision at all. It's amusing to me that you and many others interpret those decisions to mean that all regulation is going out the window. If you would like to make a small wager on that one be my guest.

Wager away buddy.

There are cases apparently you are not even aware of that are challenging the same concepts we are addressing in this conversation. Fairly soon, the limitations upon infringement will be slowly eaten away by liberty and true justice.

Were you even remotely capable of sticking your head above the Tennessee water level, you would see what I am saying is patently true.

And you can continue to believe that you don't paint yourself as a target as the first one who gets the bullet from the perp who is intending to commit a robbery/burglary.

This has already been proven through various examples to be completely devoid of logic.

Unless it's a meth-head or someone with a serious mental issue, the presence of a firearm is certainly going to throw an enormous wrench into their tactical assessment of the target or their goals. If there is any sanity whatsoever in the perpetrators mind, they then must confront the issue before engaging in any criminal activity whatsoever.

The question no longer becomes whether somebody may be armed, but becomes a fact, that someone actually is.

This creates an actual deterrent.

A society in which carriers elect to carry concealed does nothing to contribute to deterrence of crime. A preponderance before engaging in criminal activity that someone might have a Walther stuck up their skirt, leaves a overwhelming percentage of a chance, that somebody is not armed. Open Carry does not give criminals this luxury.

They have to make a choice. A choice which now most certainly involves a high degree of mortality.

Believe it or not, there are folks bad enough out there to confront armed LEOs. You think they're going to turn away because they see a firearm on you?

You act like LEO is some elite commando unit that we should all be scared of with your "believe it or not, there are people who blazee blah armed LEO's".

Most LEO's receive less tactical training than many open carriers. Hell, many open carriers are prior service military, or LEO themselves. Some with special operations experience, or over 20 years in combined roles.

Just as "crazy" as it is that someone may "directly confront a police officer", it is just as crazy that you somehow have this distorted view that the same activity does not happen to ordinary citizens. That is utterly amazing to me, how you keep spouting this "Oh we're police officers, and we're targeted" crap.

You will be the first one taken out and your firearm will be added to whatever collection he has.

Ah, more perpetuation that there is a hoard of bad guys out there who collect open carried firearms.

Now imagine the same scenario wherein the perpetrator walks in and sees 4-5 people open carrying.

How about 15.

20?

Oops, situations changed now.

Unless I get taken out first, at least I've got the element of surprise because he didn't know someone in the area was armed.

Reach for that BUG stuffed up your underwear and you would be the first person, if I were a criminal, that I would drop. No questions. No mythical fantasies. End of story. End of your life.

However, were I to scope the place out, and see your Glock 22 hanging off your hip, now the presence of real threat has become a chess-piece in my decision making process. I must make a decision, and the truth is, that there is probably a less congested, less armed target, down the road.

When ambushed the assailant has a few things to focus on, but maintaining order amidst the chaos is infinitely more important than stuffing the bag.

Action is always faster than reaction. You won't ever know because you decide to let everyone know you're armed.

Action as you paint it, occurs in the absence of situational awareness. You are truly only addressing the scenario of an ambush.

In an ambush, an assailant has already gained the upper hand, and your actions could cost lives, including your own. Once an assailant or perpetrator has committed to his activities, the only thing that will save you from an ambush, is if you had managed to be in a hidden, or unobserved spot. This is basic Ambush 101.

Fumbling with your BUG or concealed carry rig, while under direct observation, is not heroic. It is suicide. Unless there is direct threat of risk to life (As in the perpetrator has already shot someone and appears to not be stopping), you may wish to risk blowing concealment and engage in direct or indirect confrontation.

This is one of many reasons why preaching "Tee Hee my gun is hidden", is about the stupidest thing an instructor can do. The more visible the carry method, and the more normalized it becomes, the better for society in general.

Read my first answer. I uphold the State and Federal's interpretation of the Second Amendment, not Slow Five Oh's. Give me a break.

Oh ok!

So what is your interpretation of "...shall not be infringed"?

I am interested in hearing this. This should be interesting.

When those signs have been posted for years and interpreted as such, then ummm yea, I do expect them to understand what it means. Like I said, it's just easier to barge in anyway and see what happens because it sets such a good example of responsible carry.

In your opinion, a "good example of responsible carry" is to hide it under fabric like you're some kind of flannel ninja.

It's truly amazing that somebody can have a firearm outside the 1mm of fabric, and really just be doing their business like normal everyday human beings. Right?

I mean that's completely impossible per you, where they must be "flaunting it".

"Concealed Carry" means,..guess what? Concealed Carry.

Oh, so it's not the HCPers choice to carry concealed? They're getting beat to death by the class instructors and big bad policeman to carry concealed..riigghhhtt. They can't make a decision for themselves on how they want to carry. They get it spoonfed. Whatever boss. It seems to me you're the one that has the toad mucus on your tongue.

See, another case of you being lost in your own rectum.

It is a well known fact that Carry Permit classes explicitly teach "Concealed means concealed". We have had members GO TO THESE CLASSES, and document what occurred. In most cases, it varies from "Open carry is ok, but don't do it, it isn't worth the hassle!", to "Once you get your concealed carry permit, you MUST carry concealed!", the latter in a state where OC is legal even without a permit.

Ignore these facts that you can easily take 2 seconds out of your day to search for on the forum (Business addresses and instructors name included in some cases) at your own peril. Again, it just makes you look extremely uninformed.

God forbid someone has a different opinion on how they want to carry than you.

Oh not at all!

Carry it in your lunchbox. Carry it in your pocket. Carry it mexican style if ya like (I'm not a fan of that type of carry, but hey, whatever). Carry your Remington .30-06 in the cross chest slung position. Just carry.

Really though, God forbid somebody want to open carry instead of concealed. Who is really imposing limitations on carry here?

Not me.

Substantiated by many? I didn't realize you were friends with so many that has gone through TN's HCP classes.

I am indeed! Got an email from one such gentleman yesterday in fact!

Maybe the Instructor gives them his opinion on each type of carry and tells him that he prefers concealed carry.

The instructors opinion is fine, and if somebody bases what they say off of that, then fine for them too.

It is not as you imply however, and the course typically teaches "Do not open carry", or "Concealed means concealed".

I would venture to say that it was stated in these classes, specifically taught in Nashville and the larger cities that LE contact was possible because open carry isn't common in these areas and police may be called. It's not the dept's fault that citizens call on someone with a weapon. Obviously if the permit is valid, holder is sent on their way.

After being stopped and harassed for what in many other states (The majority of other states in fact), is a perfectly normal, inalienable right. Kind of hard to call it a "right" when one must present " Ihr papier bitte?".

In other states, for example, so long as the Open Carrier is not doing anything menacing, or brandishing, you can't even stop them. Aww, you mean LEO has to have RAS or PC to stop them?

Yup, unfortunately for you, it's true.

Wow four states, how wrong I was....and btw, why the he** would you carry a weapon openly without any ammo in it? I guess that takes your whole "quick draw & fire" argument out as far as CA is concerned.

Proving every minute that you are completely clueless about what is going on.

#1. It's far more than 4 states. You didn't even bother to read the map provided for you by another user. God I guess it's better to simply remain ignorant.

#2. Again, were you clued in in the least, you would know that concealed carry permits are the only way to LOC carry in California. The caveat is that until recently, not a single Sheriff was issuing permits in the state for anybody but their own private buddies, or family. Therefore, UOC was the only option, with magazines ready on the same belt.

I agree it is not optimal, but it's better than being told "No" by your local LEO bureaucrat on the basis of "being able to protect my family and myself", not being a "Good reason" for issuance.

Second answer I already posted. McDonald/Heller were decisions regarding firearm prohibition, not states that regulate firearm carry through permits.

In order to repeal the permit process, you have to establish the fundamental legalities and legal concepts surrounding the inalienable right. It's concept has to be defined.

Heller - Step #1
McDonald - Step #2

Permits will be going the way of the Dodo eventually.

Heck even the NRA wanted the ruling to address gun-regulation in general and even went as far to say that they expect a bulk of their lawsuits to get tossed when attempting to use those decisions to rid regulation in general.

Not every freedom loving constitutionalist thinks that the NRA is the creme' de la creme'
of gun rights everywhere. Other organizations have been taking the fight (and successfully to boot) to varying judicial districts around the country, many which seem to be on the verge of victory.

One comes to mind that assures open carry as legal without a permit anywhere in the country.

Then again, you would be privy to this were you inclined to actually look beyond your own limited sources of information.

Ah I see. Man you got an answer for everything don't you? Maybe, and just maybe it's because the judges in the majority of those cases granted summary judgment or a directed verdict in favor of the state because the plaintiff brought a suit that didn't hold any weight at all.

...or maybe it's because as originally stated, John and Jane Q. Citizen cannot float the legal fees necessary to make sure they aren't trampled upon by LEO's only little cute private collection of department paid for attorneys.

I see you think you have some sort of point to bring here, but lack the fundamental integrity necessary to admit how completely stupid your "They would have addressed it eons ago brah!" comment was.

Sorry, I didn't make an oath to your Constitution. Only the one that these stupid state and federal justices have decided on how it should be read (insert sarcasm here).

Yeah mine says "...shall not be infringed." in it.

Yours clearly says something else.

Coming from you I will take my chances. You're very set in your ways, which is fine, but don't sit here and attempt to lecture me on upholding an oath and the Constitution only how you feel it should be interpreted.

You need to take some history courses, specifically U.S. History, as well as some criminal justice courses.

Read the works, or speeches of the framers, then get back to me with your completely ignorant outlook.

The Second Amendment continues to be one of the most controversial subjects in today's society. The folks I'm going to follow (by law) are the ones that set the decisions from D.C. (and my state). If you're not ok with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

So you uphold the laws that call for enforcement irregardless of said laws constitutionality.

What an easy road.

Obviously since you guys are coming out of the woodwork to the TN forum with the onslaught of posts, I've struck a nerve somewhere. I'm kind of flattered.

p.s. "irregardless" is not a word.

Coming out of the woodwork?

Um, I have been posting in this section for over 1 year now.


Regarding the word "irregardless", are you seriously stupid? It is a recognized nonstandard that has been used in a variety of speeches. It is slang, and therefore a "nonstandard" word.

Keep digging pal. Keep digging.

 

[Claytron]

Ah yes, but the preponderance of evidence is that it does.

Sure if you are willing to take a criminals word as evidence.

 

[Grapeshot]

Sure if you are willing to take a criminals word as evidence.

No sir,not automatically, not w/o confirming.

Neither are these men nor what the represent in any way criminal - Misters John Lott and David Mustard, David Codrea and Dave Workman, David Kopel and Larry Pratt & Guy Smith to name a few.

Then there are a couple of organizations like these that contribute and share information regularly and routinely:
http://www.rkba-2a.com/basefile/rkba-orgs.php

And studies like this one, to give you an example.:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

There are lots more in each category, if you do a little research.
Gun Facts is a good place to start to point people in the right direction - version 5.1 is now available.

" Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment ............. documented and cited facts" http://www.gunfacts.info/

Did I mention that our General Assembly has a great archive library and that the state has a top research library?
Library of Virginia Public Library Workshops. For Localities & State Agencies ... Federal Depository Library.

Revising my opening statement: Yes I do - when it is confirmed as accurate.

 

[SgtScott31]

Wager away buddy.

There are cases apparently you are not even aware of that are challenging the same concepts we are addressing in this conversation. Fairly soon, the limitations upon infringement will be slowly eaten away by liberty and true justice.

Were you even remotely capable of sticking your head above the Tennessee water level, you would see what I am saying is patently true.

For the sake of ending the revolving door, I'm going to discontinue this pi**ing contest, as we are not going to see eye to eye on a majority of things when it comes to firearm laws and carry.

As far as your "cases," please cite one state or federal case where a court has ruled where requirement of a permit to carry (open or concealed) was found unconstitutional and I will be glad to apologize.

I will bet a wager with you in the form of a "OC forum apology" where any state or federal court cites McDonald to render permit-issuance unconstitutional.

That is utterly amazing to me, how you keep spouting this "Oh we're police officers, and we're targeted" crap.

Tell me one other career occupation where the #1 cause of death on the job is gunfire.

Wrong. It is the laws of the people that you do indeed enforce. I am one of those "people". The law is not always correct in terms of constitutionality.

If you choose to let the courts sort it out, then fine, be a blind patsy.
If you choose to not enforce those laws that are unconstitutional, then go ahead there too.

One path involves fortitude, the other, cowardice.

The real question is, what will you do when Constitutional carry is eventually reached?

I will enforce whatever laws are passed by those we elect to represent the people aka "us" in the legislative and judicial branches of government. The laws have been well set for years when it comes to the carrying of arms in my state. If they change I will enforce any new law with a smile, but until then...

In most cases, it varies from "Open carry is ok, but don't do it, it isn't worth the hassle!", to "Once you get your concealed carry permit, you MUST carry concealed!", the latter in a state where OC is legal even without a permit.

That's not the way it's expressed in the classes I've sat in on where an actual LEO is the Instructor. And he teaches a large bulk of them in the Nashville area (very reasonable price for those seeking to take the course).

Oh ok!

So what is your interpretation of "...shall not be infringed"?

I am interested in hearing this. This should be interesting.

Well let's see..in TN you can have guns in your home, in your business, in your vehicle during lawful activities (transport, sale, hunting, etc) without any type of regulation. When it comes to open/concealed carry you reqiure a background check, 8 hr class, and a fee. I honestly don't see the huge issue of "infringement" that you do. I think it's reasonable regulation.

Yes I know, the above statement probably caused you to fall of your rocker, but that's the way I feel about the issue. This opinion is not because of my job title either.

You need to take some history courses, specifically U.S. History, as well as some criminal justice courses.

Read the works, or speeches of the framers, then get back to me with your completely ignorant outlook.

I'm not much into history classes, although I do have a bachelor's in criminal justice, a master's degree, and currently in my first year of law school (finishing up Constitutional Criminal law in two weeks). That's not to imply that I'm a Constitutional scholar one bit, but considering I deal with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments on a pretty regular basis, I would say I have a better grasp of it than most. Just because I interpret the Constitution similar to how most courts have with regards to the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean I'm "ignorant" as you like to put it. It just means that I see it different than you do. I've upeld my oath quite well according to the current laws on the local, state and federal level, and believe it or not, become a pretty well-respected member of my agency and the LE community. If you believe that enforcing the laws as they are now makes LEOs "patsies," it really doesn't hurt my feelings. I've been called far worse by those I've taken to jail. Your passion in the subject is admirable, but just a different point of view than mine. Maybe we should leave it at that since we've gotten quite a bit of topic from the thread.

 

[slowfiveoh]

For the sake of ending the revolving door, I'm going to discontinue this pi**ing contest, as we are not going to see eye to eye on a majority of things when it comes to firearm laws and carry.

It's easy to dismiss the argument, especially when you have to submit to grammatical correction to gain any sort of "edge", in said conversation.

Rather trivial and childish.

As far as your "cases," please cite one state or federal case where a court has ruled where requirement of a permit to carry (open or concealed) was found unconstitutional and I will be glad to apologize.

Reread what I said. I never implied there was one. I said that there are currently cases addressing that very topic.

I will bet a wager with you in the form of a "OC forum apology" where any state or federal court cites McDonald to render permit-issuance unconstitutional.

A cite to McDonald or Heller will not be necessary, other than to substantiate some key factors about our inalienable right, which, "...shall not be infringed".

Tell me one other career occupation where the #1 cause of death on the job is gunfire.

Sure.

US Army infrantryman.
US Marine
US Special Forces Operatives


Nobody forced you to be a LEO. You made that decision yourself.

What you are also not addressing, quite conveniently, is the comment I made wherein normal, every day citizens are killed by violent means every year, yet for some reason you think you, and your LEO cohorts alone, are entitled to equitable self-defense, yet John and Jane Q. Citizen aren't.

It is so pressing in your role as an officer that the tactical advantages of having the firearm on your hip be observed, yet here you sit, preaching the concealed ninja-myth.

You haven't even once attempted to comment on my tactical acuteness, because you realize that, uh-oh, I am right.

When you realize that as an officer, you are not the only person allowed to wear a firearm on your hip, you lose your sense of entitlement and power. The line is thinned, and it makes you uncomfortable that citizens would take it upon themselves, to be responsible for their own well being, and the well being of those around them.

Every comment you have made casts an allusion to some idea that LEO is seriously competently trained, creating a status separation between your role as an officer, and the average citizen base. You elevate yourself above them, and that is unacceptable.

I will enforce whatever laws are passed by those we elect to represent the people aka "us" in the legislative and judicial branches of government. The laws have been well set for years when it comes to the carrying of arms in my state. If they change I will enforce any new law with a smile, but until then...

Does your wife tell you how to put your socks on, and what compounds to shine your badge with too?

Our Constitution has been usurped by the very government its impositions and limitations apply against. Were you more of an individual, analytical thinker, capable of any sort of research, you would realize that at a minimum, even if you did not agree with the obviousness of the 2nd Amendment and its brief, rather descriptive, unmistakable meaning, there are clear violations occurring in other provisions. Specifically in powers not delegated to the federal government, for starters.

The simple fact is, you are a submissive sheep, obedient to your masters, irregardless their folly.

That's not the way it's expressed in the classes I've sat in on where an actual LEO is the Instructor. And he teaches a large bulk of them in the Nashville area (very reasonable price for those seeking to take the course).

So Nashville is the only area in Tennessee that it has been taught?

Of course the classes you have sat in you have no problem with how it is "expressed". You agree with the flawed ideology and suppression of a natural human right.

Again, from multiple individuals, we have all heard otherwise. I am sorry, but you just don't carry much weight in this regard.

Well let's see..in TN you can have guns in your home, in your business, in your vehicle during lawful activities (transport, sale, hunting, etc) without any type of regulation.

Oh wow you limited the right into key areas in where it may be exercised.

Oh wait, that's not a "right", that is a "regulated activity".

When it comes to open/concealed carry you reqiure a background check, 8 hr class, and a fee. I honestly don't see the huge issue of "infringement" that you do. I think it's reasonable regulation.

"...shall not be infringed."

Please translate that in some logical manner using the English language, to where it makes sense that I should have to pay anyone to exercise a civil right.

I'd love to see you actually do that.

Of course, I just got back from the DHS myself after renewing my speech and religion permit.

Yes I know, the above statement probably caused you to fall of your rocker, but that's the way I feel about the issue. This opinion is not because of my job title either.

It made no sense whatsoever.

You literally just tried to say "Oh you can speak in your home, and practice religion in the church but nowhere else without a permit. I think it's reasonable to charge a fee and require a permit or a mandatory training class on how to exercise free speech and when and where its appropriate.".

It's hilarious.

I'm not much into history classes, although I do have a bachelor's in criminal justice, a master's degree, and currently in my first year of law school (finishing up Constitutional Criminal law in two weeks).

Did any of these courses include say, reading from the Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention of 1788?

How about from the Philadelphia Convention?

I am curious if they even teach this rather important period and sequence of events in current Constitutional Criminal Law.

It is hard to springboard off of late transcriptions of what have been assumed to be "valid interpretations of transient law" when you don't even know why, or for what purpose the amendments in question were ratified for.

Crap law is practiced all over this country, and frankly, nowhere more so than by LEA and their DA cohorts.

Check the Virginia thread for a shining, glaring example of this.

That's not to imply that I'm a Constitutional scholar one bit, but considering I deal with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments on a pretty regular basis, I would say I have a better grasp of it than most. Just because I interpret the Constitution similar to how most courts have with regards to the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean I'm "ignorant" as you like to put it.

You do not interpret the second as I do because you are missing a key part of fundamental reading that is necessary to gain perspective on Constitutional Amendments.

Where you to sit and study the works of the framers, you would gain necessary perspective on what the intended design of the Constitution and its Amendments were.

It just means that I see it different than you do. I've upeld my oath quite well according to the current laws on the local, state and federal level, and believe it or not, become a pretty well-respected member of my agency and the LE community. If you believe that enforcing the laws as they are now makes LEOs "patsies," it really doesn't hurt my feelings.

You are still, as I have been able to repeatedly point out, seriously misinformed. I realize that going to school is a tedious, and time consuming process leaving little leisure time, but it would behoove you to read the works of the framers, and really sit and give the concepts of individual liberty, and it's history throughout the world, a good thought.

I believe any man on this planet has the inalienable right to defend himself with the equitable tools of the time period. In ours, it is undoubtedly the firearm.

I don't believe government has the right to regulate or limit that process. It is a natural, preexisting human right. I also do not put the astoundingly blind amount of faith into "following orders" as you do, particularly from the government itself.

It is never the easy road, as time has taught me. Certainly not as "easy" as blindly following and obeying like a good puppy. I had a 1SG who expected me to act as you did once. I spent weeks mopping floors, but the day IG chucked him out of a cannon, made every push of the mop worth it. It was in fact the personal apology he was ordered to give me, and the unit, before being removed, that was the sweetest.

I've been called far worse by those I've taken to jail. Your passion in the subject is admirable, but just a different point of view than mine. Maybe we should leave it at that since we've gotten quite a bit of topic from the thread.

Really don't care what those who have been locked up by you have decided to call you.

This conversation is explicitly on topic with this threads original point. You came in with some absurd lackadaisical defense on behalf of LEO, and tried to imply that the OP was attempting to be belligerent simply by conducting himself in a legal, friendly, and civil manner.

You have made all sorts of assumptions in this thread. Most of which have made you look really bad.

While I too must commend you on staying, I am disturbed that LEO thinks that the Constitution is a Burger King item, wherein they can do what they like, cause they can "have it their way".

It's insipid stupidity and needs to be stopped.

 

[Claytron]

No sir,not automatically, not w/o confirming.

Neither are these men nor what the represent in any way criminal - Misters John Lott and David Mustard, David Codrea and Dave Workman, David Kopel and Larry Pratt & Guy Smith to name a few.

Then there are a couple of organizations like these that contribute and share information regularly and routinely:
http://www.rkba-2a.com/basefile/rkba-orgs.php

And studies like this one, to give you an example.:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

There are lots more in each category, if you do a little research.
Gun Facts is a good place to start to point people in the right direction - version 5.1 is now available.

" Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment ............. documented and cited facts" http://www.gunfacts.info/

Did I mention that our General Assembly has a great archive library and that the state has a top research library?
Library of Virginia Public Library Workshops. For Localities & State Agencies ... Federal Depository Library.

Revising my opening statement: Yes I do - when it is confirmed as accurate.

"confirmed as accurate" Im sorry, but confirmed by who exactly? You said that the criminals who were going to rob the resturaunt decided to wait until the OCers left. You claim this is a case of open carrying preventing a crime BECAUSE THE CRIMINALS SAID SO.... So i ask again who, besides the criminals, "confirms" this "evidence"?

IF a criminal were claiming that he was about to rob someone BECAUSE they were carrying a pistol you would be huffing and puffing, foaming at the mouth telling me to provide you with ten confirmed, authenticated articles with unwaivering evidence.

But... if its criminals SUPPORTING your cause, you treat their word as "evidence" Huh.

 

[WCrawford]

Tell me one other career occupation where the #1 cause of death on the job is gunfire.

Not even police officer's fall into this category. The #1 cause of death for police officers is traffic accidents, and police are only the 12th most dangerous profession in the US.

Of the 16 deaths per 100,000/year for police officer, 8 are traffic related, 3 are suicide, 1 is drowning, the last 4 are murder (1 stabbing, 2 domestic, and 1 from another criminal). So we could probably surmise that a total of 6 per 100,000 are by guns.

 

[RussP]

Not even police officer's fall into this category. The #1 cause of death for police officers is traffic accidents, and police are only the 12th most dangerous profession in the US.

Of the 16 deaths per 100,000/year for police officer, 8 are traffic related, 3 are suicide, 1 is drowning, the last 4 are murder (1 stabbing, 2 domestic, and 1 from another criminal). So we could probably surmise that a total of 6 per 100,000 are by guns.

For the past five years 2006-2010, there were a total of 793 Line of Duty Deaths.

Automobile accident: 195
Motorcycle accident: 33
Total Vehicle Accidents: 228

Gunfire: 263

2011 Total Line of Duty Deaths: 6
Automobile accident: 1
Gunfire: 3

http://www.odmp.org

 

[SgtScott31]

It's easy to dismiss the argument, especially when you have to submit to grammatical correction to gain any sort of "edge", in said conversation.

Rather trivial and childish.

Take it as you see it. I just thought I would point it out.

US Army infrantryman.
US Marine
US Special Forces Operatives

You are seriously using an analogy comparing soldiers during war time to LEOs? Wow. Anything you can do to support your argument...

Not even police officer's fall into this category. The #1 cause of death for police officers is traffic accidents, and police are only the 12th most dangerous profession in the US

Gunfire & traffic accidents fluctuate between years, but as Russ pointed out gunfire still dominates. I didn't say it was the most dangerous profession.

What you are also not addressing, quite conveniently, is the comment I made wherein normal, every day citizens are killed by violent means every year, yet for some reason you think you, and your LEO cohorts alone, are entitled to equitable self-defense, yet John and Jane Q. Citizen aren't.

Where in any of my posts have I implied that citizens don't have the right to go armed? Again with the ASSumptions to attempt to put me in the negative light. What a surprise. If I have to be put through training, background and psych to carry a firearm, why shouldn't othes be held to some of the standards (i.e. mental ill, felons, etc)?

When you realize that as an officer, you are not the only person allowed to wear a firearm on your hip, you lose your sense of entitlement and power. The line is thinned, and it makes you uncomfortable that citizens would take it upon themselves, to be responsible for their own well being, and the well being of those around them.

If you want to claim I'm being "childish," how about we try to stay away from the insults, because that's what this statement is. To suggest I lose some sort of "power" because other citizens carry and I don't have a gun on my hip, well, is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on here. I don't even carry 24/7 and I'm perfectly fine with it. It's you who tends to think that you can't take 10 steps out the door without your weapon.

Nobody forced you to be a LEO. You made that decision yourself.

Very true and not a doubt in the world about that choice. I sleep good every night knowing the amount of people I helped in a given week. You have the same satisfaction?

"...shall not be infringed."

Your interpretation only of those four words and doesn't conform with about oh, 80% of the courts in this country who have yet to rule that regulated firearm carry is unconstitutional (-20% of the states that don't require a permit). Like it or not you're the minority.

It made no sense whatsoever.

You literally just tried to say "Oh you can speak in your home, and practice religion in the church but nowhere else without a permit. I think it's reasonable to charge a fee and require a permit or a mandatory training class on how to exercise free speech and when and where its appropriate.".

Again, YOUR opinion on the matter. Exercising free speech or practicing religion doesn't place a tool in your hand to kill people. If we're going to throw a weapon in someone's hand, I would like to at least think they're somewhat competent to use it. So you honestly think that no regulation should occur? no background checks, mental ill evaluations or any other situation where the person is an obvious threat to society? Courts disagree with you and I'm glad.

Did any of these courses include say, reading from the Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention of 1788?

How about from the Philadelphia Convention?

I am curious if they even teach this rather important period and sequence of events in current Constitutional Criminal Law.

It is hard to springboard off of late transcriptions of what have been assumed to be "valid interpretations of transient law" when you don't even know why, or for what purpose the amendments in question were ratified for.

I bet that many of the justices that sit on the federal courts (including SCOTUS) making these decisions on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment don't delve into the historical aspect of it as much as you do, but funny thing is, they disagree with you on quite a bit of it. I guess since they're not historical masters of the document they're wrong as well. Sorry, but it doesn't matter if you moved a mile from Independence Hall and studied the document 7 days a week in the glass case, the judicial system in this country makes the decision of how it is interpreted and applied to current laws/decisions. Disagree with them? fine, but insulting everyone else that doesn't agree with your views is well...

Certainly not as "easy" as blindly following and obeying like a good puppy.

I don't agree with every law on the books and I am quite discretionary when it comes to enforcement of them. My decisions to agree with the courts and their decisions regarding firearms comes from a multitude of things. I had similar beliefs long before law enforcement. To imply I'm sort of drone just because I wear blue is ludicrous.

Here's something to make it simple.

I don't agree with your (or Crawford's) beliefs regarding totally unregulated firearm carry. I don't agree with a lot of your viewpoints. You can keep the insults coming, but I'm not going to give you the pleasure of responding. To the next thread...

 

[suntzu]

Ok, so I'm late to the party--been away for a while. I have been to TGO--they LOVE nice compliant people who worship the police. I refuse to use that forum, because they do not like anyone who has the attitude that the police work FOR the people and not the other way around.

 

[suntzu]

Whether the officer believed a crime was occurring or not, by law he can disarm a permit holder. He was called to the location and was following up on the call. If you went through the TN HCP class, it should have been mentioned.

TCA 39-17-1351(f) reads in part "Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer REASONABLY believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. " (Emphasis mine)

Now sir, what constitutes a REASONABLE BELIEF? Most, if not all seem to be of the opinion that a reasonable belief is that you have a holstered handgun--but that is not what the law says--it states "WHEN the officer REASONABLY believes.....

So let's not split hairs here--define the term "reasonable"--does a reasonable belief exist when a person is merely shopping or minding their own business? A holstered handgun is not a threat to anyone--it is the one in the hand that worries me...which is why I would never call the police on anyone who was OC'ing and minding their own business...ever.

 

[suntzu]

If it meant "concealed" weapons only as you keep implying in the literal context, then why were LEOs called? Seems if it was a common practice to openly carry a firearm in that facility, the security/employees would not have thought twice about it.

I've been in Nashville for 35 years. Normally when a store puts up a sign that prohibits weapons, it's basically meant to include ALL weapons, regardless of the way they're carried. It seems a large majority of the population interprets it that way. Hmmf, maybe it's just me. Since carry laws continue to evolve and many new store owners are not experts on how to post a sign when they don't want them in their place of business, maybe you can help them out in that area.

39-17-1359( b) (1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (b)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.


(2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.


(3) (A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

 

[Grapeshot]

"confirmed as accurate" Im sorry, but confirmed by who exactly? You said that the criminals who were going to rob the resturaunt decided to wait until the OCers left. You claim this is a case of open carrying preventing a crime BECAUSE THE CRIMINALS SAID SO.... So i ask again who, besides the criminals, "confirms" this "evidence"?

IF a criminal were claiming that he was about to rob someone BECAUSE they were carrying a pistol you would be huffing and puffing, foaming at the mouth telling me to provide you with ten confirmed, authenticated articles with unwaivering evidence.

But... if its criminals SUPPORTING your cause, you treat their word as "evidence" Huh.

Confirmed: serious reading and comprehension deficiency. Please note I have not even used the word "restaurant" in this thread. I am familiar with the account and did see it repeated here; but I am not upset. I know how hard it is to keep screen/user names straight, especially when the are written with symbols taken from the same alphabetic source that's why I include my avatar (a picture reference) to make it easier.

BTW - I never huff, puff or foam. Perhaps this is a classic case of transference.

Insofar as who supports these contentions as evidence, reread the previous list of authors this time for content. You would seem to be the odd man out. No faulty attribution, no poor mouthing or flip flopping of statements will change that.

You stand pretty much alone on the issue and that is as it should be. Enjoy.

 

[WCrawford]

For the past five years 2006-2010, there were a total of 793 Line of Duty Deaths.

Automobile accident: 195
Motorcycle accident: 33
Total Vehicle Accidents: 228

Gunfire: 263

2011 Total Line of Duty Deaths: 6
Automobile accident: 1
Gunfire: 3

http://www.odmp.org

I think I'll trust the CDC over some lobbying group.

 

[marshaul]

... banned from the more liberal forums for our belief that the 2nd and 4th amendments mean what they are written as...

lol, is that what you call it?

 

[protias]

As far as your "cases," please cite one state or federal case where a court has ruled where requirement of a permit to carry (open or concealed) was found unconstitutional and I will be glad to apologize.

Didn't VT's Supreme Court rule permits unconstitutional, hence why they have Constitutional Carry?

 

[slowfiveoh]

Didn't VT's Supreme Court rule permits unconstitutional, hence why they have Constitutional Carry?

Yes.

"SgtScott" lives in a box.

He has already determined that ascertaining "why" the Constitution was ratified is unnecessary. That way he (and the few judges he agrees with) can keep up the facade of , "It is open to "interpretation", so that it may be manipulated in any manner they see fit.

Hrmm seems like the majority vote in the following cases, seems to be more, and more inline with what I am saying:

Heller (Affirmation of an individual right.)
McDonald (Affirmation that firearms cannot be outlawed outright)
St. John (Affirmation that the presence of a firearm, does not constitute RAS)
...and many more.

All seem to be inevitably pointing to the base deregulation of what has become a severely infringed right. It's weird, you could almost call it an "organized movement".

All of the previous mentioned (and unmentioned) cases correct flaws within the judicial system, and elaborate rather well on the sheer, unfettered stupidity of comments like;

"If it was a unconstitutional, it would have been addressed eons ago!".

A comment made by a Law Enforcement Officer, posting in this very thread. Interesting fact, that. Especially with so many laws being turned over on the basis of unconstitutionality brought about by recent re-recognition of certain inalienable rights.


It is also interesting that LEO deaths are a fractional portion of deaths that occur to the general population nationwide by violent means, yet the argument is constructed, that somehow they are more entitled to personal defense than the citizens they serve.

It is even further interesting that although the environments of specific threats don't change, from law enforcement to civilian, that the particular LEO in this thread feels they are "specifically targeted" by wearing the uniform, and therefore, for some reason, even though the same is true of many civilians by just being themselves, they may not be allowed to open carry with the same tactical, and deterrence benefits of a on-duty police officer.

In other words, and put simply, they lose their feeling of entitlement, authority, and "power".

More importantly though, to LEA and LEO, they lose their position of "necessity" in society.

An armed society is a polite society.
A visibly armed society always reminds you of that fact.

 

[RussP]

I think I'll trust the CDC over some lobbying group.

Feel free to post facts with links contradicting those verified facts I posted.

As far as ODMP.org being a "lobbying group", where do you get that information, or is that just another opinion?

 

[Claytron]

Confirmed: serious reading and comprehension deficiency. Please note I have not even used the word "restaurant" in this thread. I am familiar with the account and did see it repeated here; but I am not upset. I know how hard it is to keep screen/user names straight, especially when the are written with symbols taken from the same alphabetic source that's why I include my avatar (a picture reference) to make it easier.

BTW - I never huff, puff or foam. Perhaps this is a classic case of transference.

Insofar as who supports these contentions as evidence, reread the previous list of authors this time for content. You would seem to be the odd man out. No faulty attribution, no poor mouthing or flip flopping of statements will change that.

You stand pretty much alone on the issue and that is as it should be. Enjoy.

***Im asked to provide a "cite" for having so much as a negative thought towards OC so i cant see how that story would be acceptably described as one where "OC prevented a crime", the proof just isnt there.***

*Ah yes, but the preponderance of evidence is that it does.*

I believe you are, once again, mistaken about what you are saying and, AGAIN, for absolutely no reason you are acting like a jerk about it... and i just have to ask "why"?
In my comment that you responded to i referenced "that story", which was the article about a man casing an eatery and deciding not to because he saw open carriers. You responded TO that comment so i suppose im just ignorant in assuming you were actually referring to the comment in which you responded to? I said just the proof of OC stopping the crime isnt there just because the criminals SAID thats why they stopped. You claimed that it was.

You never said "resturaunt" this is true.... but you did comprehend what article i was referring to, right? Or was it YOUR own reading comprehension that is deficient?


And as far as rereading the comments to see who said what, i suggest you do it yourself as well, and you will see a post by someone named GRAPESHOT saying, and i quote, "Ah yes, but the preponderance of evidence is that it does. ".

I understand your point about about similar names on this forum but it seems that maybe you are the one confusing them? Sometimes when i cant see the screen right i move it closer/farther away from me. Or since you are seemingly an older gentlemen might i suggest a pair of cheap bifocals from a cornerstore? My grandfather uses them they work great for older people.

 

[Oh Shoot]

Didn't VT's Supreme Court rule permits unconstitutional, hence why they have Constitutional Carry?

Yes....

Any reference for that?

AFAIK, VT was just like AK and now AZ, the state legislature simply did away with statutes forbidding open or concealed carry for lawful gun owners (although you must still have a permit in AZ to carry in alcohol serving establishment, and you must do it concealed).

I know of no court challenge in any of the three states that resulted in their current carry law status?

- OS