Police Detainment for Non-Crimes

[Badger Johnson]

Anyone address having three LEOs WASTING THEIR TIME on this obvious civilian waiting for their friend, while dozens of criminal ply their trade on the streets.

Also, first mistake, IMO, was following the security officer out of the lobby to 'chat'. I'd have said 'no, I'm not chatting with you, go away'.

$.02

 

[marshaul]

...the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable." - Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia

It's this kind of statist crap which is why I can't stand Scalia.

I'd very much like for him to point out to me, complete with originalist analysis, which part of the Constitution empowers government to be the arbiter of whether "homosexual activity" should be considered this month a "right", or not.


He couldn't just point out the flaw with a living Constitution. No, he had to insert an sophistic and facile insinuation that homosexuality isn't to be viewed as "right" until a supermajority of Americans declare it so.

"Originalist" indeed. For shame, hypocrite, for shame!

A true originalist (but no statist) would concede that the Constitution protects unenumerated rights, and those rights are dictated by the principle of self-possession, limited only by the equal sphere of others' rights. Unfortunately, such recognition is alien to the statist (even the "originalist" statist), because it serves to eliminate the majority of government authority and petty-tyrant meddling. Gone are restrictions on medical freedom (and with them drug prohibitions), gone are puritanical assaults on sexual self-determination, gone are the majority of useless weapon laws! Gone are essentially the majority of malum prohibitum offenses.

Needless to say, such a standard of right is unacceptable to the statist, because it is too understandable, too empirically determinate. It leaves little room for the manipulation of emotion, and the twisting of interpretation, to usefully further the authoritarian agenda.

No, there isn't a true originalist on the SCOTUS.

I might believe differently the day a justice applies the Jeffersonian reasoning "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", when overturning some or other insidious, crime-creating malum prohibitum offense.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Take your pick of "large urban areas" that permit/embrace OC.
There might be one or two.

All across Wisconsin.
I live in Milwaukee, and have only had ONE problem, one time where someone asked police if OC is legal & the police overreacted.

Did you think I am in disagreement with you on this? I am not.

My "one or two" referred to the limited number of negative encounters.

***************************
This tread has gone so far OT from the OP that I had to go back and reread it.

 

[slowfiveoh]

...

He couldn't just point out the flaw with a living Constitution. No, he had to insert an sophistic and facile insinuation that homosexuality isn't to be viewed as "right" until a supermajority of Americans declare it so.

"Originalist" indeed. For shame, hypocrite, for shame!
...

I agree. The point of the comment was of course to point out that the claimed "Judges across the nation" that SgtScott was alluding to, was imaginary.

Obviously, homosexuality would be covered not only by the inalineable right to a pursuit of happiness, but also Constitutionally protected by the 9th Amendment.

What makes me shake my head is the repeated insinuation that government would be so empowered as to regulate it in the first place, or outlaw specific natural activities because there is no specific enumeration of a right for a wo/man to "marry" another wo/man.

However, let's not turn this into another one of those social lounge threads.

Point is, you are correct.

The post served its purpose though.

 

[marshaul]

I agree. The point of the comment was of course to point out that the claimed "Judges across the nation" that SgtScott was alluding to, was imaginary.

Obviously, homosexuality would be covered not only by the inalineable right to a pursuit of happiness, but also Constitutionally protected by the 9th Amendment.

What makes me shake my head is the repeated insinuation that government would be so empowered as to regulate it in the first place, or outlaw specific natural activities because there is no specific enumeration of a right for a wo/man to "marry" another wo/man.

However, let's not turn this into another one of those social lounge threads.

Point is, you are correct.

The post served its purpose though.

Indeed, I agreed with your post, and it was a good one.

But I also couldn't resist pointing out the obvious. The SCOTUS is something of a pet peeve of mine.

Anyway, I promise not to make any off-topic posts for at least another... half a page. :lol:

 

[Oh Shoot]

The perception of the general public is immaterial to the discussion.
Even here in WI, ....
Open or concealed carry is my choice, just like it's my choice whether to wear boots or tennis shoes. ...

How do you have choice to conceal carry in WI?

- OS

 

[protias]

How do you have choice to conceal carry in WI?

- OS

On our own private property or business.

 

[DCKilla]

The only reason for the removal of the firearm was for the safety of the LEO, OCer, and surrounding citizens. Since a discharge of the weapon while holstered didn't occure, why was it removed? A loaded and holstered firearm is safer than actively unloading a firearm. It seems that the LEO's main concern was not for the well being of anyone in the establishment.

 

[papa bear]

i would to thank all of you for your well argued points. although my eye may start bleeding from all this reading.
especially thanks sgtscott for provoking these responses. i live close to TN and probably will do business there again and it does help to know what i need to expect there

sgtscott i would like to ask, what would have happened if the firearm had been concealed ( as criminals are apt to do) would he have been in violation of the sign? would he have been in violation of any laws if he was?
how was he in violation of the laws by asking the questions he did?
and really important. after he was disarmed. what would have happened if someone (say a mental patient or a arrant child) had gotten hold of the unsecured firearm, who would be responsible for the incident? i would assume if the owner had tried to secure the firearm he would have been shot
thanks

 

[Oh Shoot]

... i would like to ask, what would have happened if the firearm had been concealed ( as criminals are apt to do) would he have been in violation of the sign? would he have been in violation of any laws if he was? ..

It's a Class B Misdemeanor for a permit holder to carry past a statute compliant sign, (which the one in this thread was not, btw), openly or concealed, punishable by $500 fine only.

If caught, a non-permit holder would not be subject to this fine. Of course he could be charged with illegal possession/carrying and it's conceivable that the fine might even be less, though it could be much more plus jail time at discretion of judge. It's still a misdemeanor, might be class A,B,C, depending, even with multiple previous convictions for same.

- OS

 

[WCrawford]

It's a Class B Misdemeanor for a permit holder to carry past a statute compliant sign, (which the one in this thread was not, btw), openly or concealed, punishable by $500 fine only.

If caught, a non-permit holder would not be subject to this fine. Of course he could be charged with illegal possession/carrying and it's conceivable that the fine might even be less, though it could be much more plus jail time at discretion of judge. It's still a misdemeanor, might be class A,B,C, depending, even with multiple previous convictions for same.

- OS

Don't forget, carrying in a posted location (that posts properly) can also result in the suspension or revocation of the HCP.

Now, the location is finally posted properly, for the building. I'm not sure when they posted the other entrances or changed the sign, but I saw it a couple weeks ago when I dropped off my GF for another appointment. The sign would have been in compliance with the old law as well as the current.

Since I had been trespassed from the building with my firearm, I never entered.

 

[Oh Shoot]

Don't forget, carrying in a posted location (that posts properly) can also result in the suspension or revocation of the HCP....

Thanks, meant to mention that, forgot.

A preexisting statute says that if a certain range of other weapons statutes is violated, that the permit shall be suspended or revoked. This was never mentioned in the legislative discussions when the new posting revision was made, and it slipped by all of us, too, until after the fact.

Penalty says "$500 ONLY", yet the other statute says permit will be jerked.

Truth is, we can find still not the first instance of anyone being charged with carrying past a sign, so this paradox has not been addressed with any case law yet.

- OS