Optical Serenity
New member
Well that makes sense...Its odd though, as most cops are also bikers.. Dunno.
finally disarmed of my ccw by cop
- Thread starter craigntx
- Start date
- Status
The way I read your post I took it to mean for a CCW. We just didn't have to go through all that for a carry permit here. Ten minutes in and out. Done!
Yes, I've had background checks and fingerprinting for my USAF security clearance. I had a background check for my Curio and Relics license. I was an NRA Personal Protection Instructor for a while. Does this count for a "safety course"?
I'm not sure, but AFIK, whether you have a permit or not doesn't come up in a routine traffic stop in AL. I'll check with some of my LEO friends, though. I could be wrong. And having a CCW has never been mentioned during a new job interview, or "coaching" or in any other capacity.
I've just never went through all the trouble (real or imagined) you seem to have concerning something you don't even possess(a CCW).
That's false reasoning not supported by any evidence. The folks who would do legal drugs and cause traffic accidents are the same people who already do illegal drugs and cause traffic accidents.
As for the "common sense" gun laws being eliminated, the same fact remains. Pretty much all the same people who would buy a gun "legally" at a gun store and commit a crime already get guns illegally and commit crimes. Again, neither logic nor science indicate criminal behaviour would increase just because laws that only restrain the non-criminal are eliminated.
The object is not the actor. Too many people looking for quick fixes confuse the two.
Carebear,
I don't understand what point your trying to make.
Legal medication, and illegal narcotics are two completely different subjects. One is for getting better and healthy, the other is for getting high.
It's simple, most people addicted to drugs spend every waking moment striving to get that next fix. When they run out of money, they go to whatever means necessary to get more money, to buy more drugs. Whether it's mugging someone, or stealing, or going from job to job, doesn't matter. As long as they are able to buy more drugs. That's what causes crime. No it doesn't apply in every instance of someone addicted to drugs. There are people who work along side us every day who may be on one drug or another and don't commit crimes. But they are few and far between and I wouldn't feel safe working with them. Ask any cop and they will tell you for the most part junkies are people who are repeat misdemeanor and felony offenders. Usually involving crimes that are oriented towards getting money to support their habit.
When I posted my last comment you quoted, it was in response to member tyme's posting that cops wouldn't get hurt if gun and drug laws didn't exist. His reasoning suggests that cops won't get hurt if they don't have to enforce laws. That's the same as saying fire fighters won't get hurt if we start to consider burning buildings as 'no big deal'. If we eliminated laws so cops wouldn't get hurt enforcing them, what would the need for cops be then? When the absence of those laws begin to harm the general law abiding public, by criminals running rampant from not having to fear prosecution. What do we eliminate then to keep citizens from getting hurt. It's basically walking backwards in the advancement of civilization.
It's rediculous to think that we will save lives by eliminating laws that protect the safety of our society. Yes some laws are unnecessary but drug laws and most gun laws are not in that category.
Does anyone else understand what i'm saying?
I don't understand what point your trying to make.
The difference is that people who are under the influence of prescribed medications who get into accidents, don't usually tend to wind up being arrested for it. They just wind up paying higher insurance premiums. Although they can be arrested at the discretion of the investigating officer since they made the choice to drive a car, when most all legal medications have warnings on them like "Do not operate heavy machinery or a motor vehicle while taking this drug" and so on. It isn't illegal to be on physician prescribed medication. It is illegal to be under the influence of say cocaine at any time, any place. (At least in the U.S.) The point I was making was that deleting all the laws on the books making drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, and the like illegal, would most assuredly increase crime and accident rates. Everyone who wanted to do those drugs yet didn't from fear of prosecution, would be free to do so any where they chose, which includes behind the wheel of a vehicle. Then you have more and more people getting into accidents, and more and more people spending all the money they can earn, cheat, or steal buying drugs. Therefore increasing the rate of violent robberies, breaking and entering, and so on. Your profile says you are in residential construction. If by chance you employ or work with a backhoe operator, would you feel safe with that man or woman operating that big piece of machinery while under the influence of crack, marijuana, or whatever?
Legal medication, and illegal narcotics are two completely different subjects. One is for getting better and healthy, the other is for getting high.
It's simple, most people addicted to drugs spend every waking moment striving to get that next fix. When they run out of money, they go to whatever means necessary to get more money, to buy more drugs. Whether it's mugging someone, or stealing, or going from job to job, doesn't matter. As long as they are able to buy more drugs. That's what causes crime. No it doesn't apply in every instance of someone addicted to drugs. There are people who work along side us every day who may be on one drug or another and don't commit crimes. But they are few and far between and I wouldn't feel safe working with them. Ask any cop and they will tell you for the most part junkies are people who are repeat misdemeanor and felony offenders. Usually involving crimes that are oriented towards getting money to support their habit.
That doesn't make any sense to me i'm afraid. If someone, who is a criminal, usually obtains guns illegally, why would they try to buy one through legal means? Felons cannot own firearms. If a felon is caught trying to purchase one, either on the street or in a gun store, they go to jail either way. And as for people, who aren't criminals, assuming they want to stay that way, why would they try to obtain guns illegally when they can already get them through legal means? I just don't see the sense in what you are saying.
When I posted my last comment you quoted, it was in response to member tyme's posting that cops wouldn't get hurt if gun and drug laws didn't exist. His reasoning suggests that cops won't get hurt if they don't have to enforce laws. That's the same as saying fire fighters won't get hurt if we start to consider burning buildings as 'no big deal'. If we eliminated laws so cops wouldn't get hurt enforcing them, what would the need for cops be then? When the absence of those laws begin to harm the general law abiding public, by criminals running rampant from not having to fear prosecution. What do we eliminate then to keep citizens from getting hurt. It's basically walking backwards in the advancement of civilization.
It's rediculous to think that we will save lives by eliminating laws that protect the safety of our society. Yes some laws are unnecessary but drug laws and most gun laws are not in that category.
Does anyone else understand what i'm saying?
I am pointing out that people use illegal recreational drugs NOW and drive and cause accidents. There is no documented evidence that any more people would take legalized recreational (dope, heroin, speed etc) drugs and then drive and then cause accidents (or commit any other active crimes). The legality of recreational pharmaceuticals is apparently irrelevent to usage numbers. Therefore legalization would have no ill effect, crash or crimewise.
If they DID drive under the intoxicating effect of legalized rec. pharms, current laws regulating the ACTION, (DWI, vehicular homicide, etc) are more than adequate to deal with the problem. Proscribing the object (recreational pharms) is irrelevent to controlling the action (crime of any stripe) and may in fact be counter-productive from an enforcement resource and effort standpoint.
The same stands true for guns. I don't give a rat's-a who owns a weapon, felon or otherwise. I care greatly if they use that weapon criminally. But we have laws to punish the action (crime committed with a gun) already. Laws on objects (possession of the gun) are irrelevent.
Studies show criminals have access to guns through illegal sources already, "reasonable" laws have shown no effect in preventing them access. If a violent criminal wants a gun, the laws we have don't stop them. Therefore, logically, eliminating those laws would not, in any way, increase the availability of guns to them nor would it increase the number of crimes committed. As other studies show, most violent crime is committed by a small number of repeat offenders, allowing non-violent felons access to guns therefore also wouldn't increase violent crime rates.
By decreasing the number of laws that have no proven positive effect (possession of drugs and guns) we limit the number of paper, non-violent criminals and reduce the reasons for cops to interact with those paper criminals who may turn violent if they feel they are going to do serious time for petty reasons. In the Trooper Coates incident he was doing his job to interdict the transport of dope. If dope possession wasn't illegal he could have just screened the guy for DWI (which the guy apparently wasn't) and let him go. No dead Trooper Coates. Instead, he kept interviewing to get search permission and eventually the guy reacted to avoid the search and arrest. It was the useless laws on possession that led to Trooper Coates (and many other officer's and innocents) needless deaths while trying to enforce laws that are merely cosmetic.
If they DID drive under the intoxicating effect of legalized rec. pharms, current laws regulating the ACTION, (DWI, vehicular homicide, etc) are more than adequate to deal with the problem. Proscribing the object (recreational pharms) is irrelevent to controlling the action (crime of any stripe) and may in fact be counter-productive from an enforcement resource and effort standpoint.
The same stands true for guns. I don't give a rat's-a who owns a weapon, felon or otherwise. I care greatly if they use that weapon criminally. But we have laws to punish the action (crime committed with a gun) already. Laws on objects (possession of the gun) are irrelevent.
Studies show criminals have access to guns through illegal sources already, "reasonable" laws have shown no effect in preventing them access. If a violent criminal wants a gun, the laws we have don't stop them. Therefore, logically, eliminating those laws would not, in any way, increase the availability of guns to them nor would it increase the number of crimes committed. As other studies show, most violent crime is committed by a small number of repeat offenders, allowing non-violent felons access to guns therefore also wouldn't increase violent crime rates.
By decreasing the number of laws that have no proven positive effect (possession of drugs and guns) we limit the number of paper, non-violent criminals and reduce the reasons for cops to interact with those paper criminals who may turn violent if they feel they are going to do serious time for petty reasons. In the Trooper Coates incident he was doing his job to interdict the transport of dope. If dope possession wasn't illegal he could have just screened the guy for DWI (which the guy apparently wasn't) and let him go. No dead Trooper Coates. Instead, he kept interviewing to get search permission and eventually the guy reacted to avoid the search and arrest. It was the useless laws on possession that led to Trooper Coates (and many other officer's and innocents) needless deaths while trying to enforce laws that are merely cosmetic.
Last edited:
I agree that criminals will always be able to obtain guns no matter how many gun control laws are on the books. If it is gun control laws, not laws prohibiting felons from possessing guns, that you are talking about, then we are in agreement on the gun issue. I think that the laws making it illegal for felons to possess guns are necessary. That way if they are caught with them, they can be but back in prison for much longer amounts of time. The less criminals on the street, the better. Regulating ways that felons get them is a waste of time.
But in the trooper Coates incident, if dope wasn't illegal, and he just screened the guy for dui and let him go, what was to stop blackburn from getting high behind the wheel of his rig, losing control because he was high, and smashing into a van full of kids, or your car, or my car.
If people are irresponsible enough to get high and drive only on the occasions when they don't think they'll get caught. If they don't have to worry about getting caught, then they will be even more irresponsible about getting behind the wheel while under the influence. It's all about deterence. Here in New Mexico, we have a horrendous dui problem. And even though we are cracking down harder and harder on first offenders, the number of offenders doesn't seem to be falling much. But it is going down, albeit slowly. But if it wasn't illegal to drink and drive, then people who normally go out to bars and though they want to drive home, choose not to simply because they might get pulled over, wouldn't have to worry about it since it wouldn't be illegal. They wouldn't think that they might loose control and hit and kill someone, they would think that it's cool since it isn't illegal. 50 years ago I might have agreed with you since the level of social and public responsibility was higher then than it is now. Even if it wasn't illegal to do something, back then people were more concerned about hurting other people rather than it being ok to do it. Nowadays even if someone isn't a violent addict and just a recreational user, they are more likely to make irresponsible decisions simply because it might not be illegal for them to do so.
It's like the saying, "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it to?" 50 years ago, the response might have been, "Of course not." Now it's more likely to be, "Hell yeah!".
And gun laws and psycho truck drivers aside, I am more worried about some dumb pissant kid getting toked up on a joint, not being in full control of his faculties, and plowing into me in the middle of an intersection. If that dumb kid gets pulled over and arrested for being high and thus preventing the possibility of him plowing into me in the future, i'm all for it. That's what cops do, serve and protect. It's about getting the dangers to society off the streets befoe they have a chance to hurt people.
A felon is a felon because he has been convicted of a serious crime and therefore demonstrated he has not the social, nor the moral responsibilities to be allowed in public for whatever his sentence. Since I believe only socially and morally responsible people deserve to own firearms, any law that prohibits or keeps guns out of their hands, i'm all for it. And I reiterate, their hands, not my hands in the off chance that limiting everybody might limit the few ones who need to be limited.
But in the trooper Coates incident, if dope wasn't illegal, and he just screened the guy for dui and let him go, what was to stop blackburn from getting high behind the wheel of his rig, losing control because he was high, and smashing into a van full of kids, or your car, or my car.
If people are irresponsible enough to get high and drive only on the occasions when they don't think they'll get caught. If they don't have to worry about getting caught, then they will be even more irresponsible about getting behind the wheel while under the influence. It's all about deterence. Here in New Mexico, we have a horrendous dui problem. And even though we are cracking down harder and harder on first offenders, the number of offenders doesn't seem to be falling much. But it is going down, albeit slowly. But if it wasn't illegal to drink and drive, then people who normally go out to bars and though they want to drive home, choose not to simply because they might get pulled over, wouldn't have to worry about it since it wouldn't be illegal. They wouldn't think that they might loose control and hit and kill someone, they would think that it's cool since it isn't illegal. 50 years ago I might have agreed with you since the level of social and public responsibility was higher then than it is now. Even if it wasn't illegal to do something, back then people were more concerned about hurting other people rather than it being ok to do it. Nowadays even if someone isn't a violent addict and just a recreational user, they are more likely to make irresponsible decisions simply because it might not be illegal for them to do so.
It's like the saying, "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it to?" 50 years ago, the response might have been, "Of course not." Now it's more likely to be, "Hell yeah!".
And gun laws and psycho truck drivers aside, I am more worried about some dumb pissant kid getting toked up on a joint, not being in full control of his faculties, and plowing into me in the middle of an intersection. If that dumb kid gets pulled over and arrested for being high and thus preventing the possibility of him plowing into me in the future, i'm all for it. That's what cops do, serve and protect. It's about getting the dangers to society off the streets befoe they have a chance to hurt people.
A felon is a felon because he has been convicted of a serious crime and therefore demonstrated he has not the social, nor the moral responsibilities to be allowed in public for whatever his sentence. Since I believe only socially and morally responsible people deserve to own firearms, any law that prohibits or keeps guns out of their hands, i'm all for it. And I reiterate, their hands, not my hands in the off chance that limiting everybody might limit the few ones who need to be limited.
I never said somebody should walk on "driving under the influence" of anything, merely that possessing a kazillion ounces of heroin in their house or car doesn't hurt anyone until they take it and commit a real crime. If they can't stay in their own lane, they are a real risk to other drivers and need to be off the street, even if it is because they are applying makeup or talking on the phone. The reason for the driving infraction is meaningless. Of course, someone who is high has physical issues the cell phone driver doesn't (provided they put the phone down) so I'd probably use a bit of discretion and let lipstick lady go with a warning, physically impaired guy is done for the day and gets to meet a judge.
What prevented the other 50 drivers who drove past the stop from getting high while they were driving? Certainly no law. They didn't get high because they aren't the kind of people who do that. The people who ARE the kind of people who do that, do it in spite of the law. Thus the law itself is meaningless and ineffective. All we can ever do is punish people who actually commit the crime that actively harms someone else. If Blackburn was safe to drive...
(DUI on pot would have been an arrestable offense, if Trooper Coates thought Blackburn was guilty he could have popped him in the first few minutes and then made a legal search incident to arrest to then find the pot. Since he didn't nail Blackburn while performing the minutes long interview (which could have triggered a field sobriety) the evidence actually points to Blackburn being legally safe to drive)
...and the possession and transport of dope hadn't been illegal, he would have been let go and continued, as far as we know, safely to his destination. I don't have access to his records but I didn't hear he had ever been convicted of DUI's prior so, as far as we know, he is an excellent driver and perfectly safe behind the wheel.
To turn your example around, if they aren't driving in an unsafe manner(swerving, speeding, no headlights, pick your traffic code violation) what do we care what's in their system? Until they actually do something objectively wrong, they might as well be tired or "legally" distracted. We shouldn't arbitrarily pick a number that is not scientifically applicable across the board to each individual in an attempt to maybe, somehow (without documentable proof) prevent some possible accident maybe. This is America, innocent til proven guilty, which kinda implies you have to actively (not potentially) interfere with the rights of others before the massive power of the state should become involved.
I believe (and believe there is scientific back-up for that belief) that it was more the public information campaigns and societal disapproval that have weeded out the "made an atypical, first time, bad choice to drive" types and that the real horrific incidents are the serial, multiple loser drunk drivers who keep doing it even after their licenses have been pulled. Which is why we have plateaued on DUI related injuries.
Even if harsh DUI 1st time laws were responsible, if we have plateaued, more laws are thus patently not the answer. We scared out the little fish and are left with the ones who don't care about laws. And unless we want police state bs like random roadblocks, the only way to catch folks without imposing on the rest of us is still to get reasonable suspicion by active driving infractions and do sobriety testing from there.
As far as felons go, I think if you look at the majority of what are considered "felonies" today (especially including drug felony possession charges) you'll find fewer and fewer proportionately are VIOLENT felonies, which are the only ones I care about because they are the only ones that directly hurt people. Most felony crimes anymore are mala prohibita, not mala in se. I could care less if a non-violent pot grower has a gun, not any more than I care that anyone on this board has one. Even someone convicted of one violent felony who serves their time should get their weapon rights back. After all, if we can't trust them with weapons after they pay their debt, we shouldn't let them back into society in the first place.
What prevented the other 50 drivers who drove past the stop from getting high while they were driving? Certainly no law. They didn't get high because they aren't the kind of people who do that. The people who ARE the kind of people who do that, do it in spite of the law. Thus the law itself is meaningless and ineffective. All we can ever do is punish people who actually commit the crime that actively harms someone else. If Blackburn was safe to drive...
(DUI on pot would have been an arrestable offense, if Trooper Coates thought Blackburn was guilty he could have popped him in the first few minutes and then made a legal search incident to arrest to then find the pot. Since he didn't nail Blackburn while performing the minutes long interview (which could have triggered a field sobriety) the evidence actually points to Blackburn being legally safe to drive)
...and the possession and transport of dope hadn't been illegal, he would have been let go and continued, as far as we know, safely to his destination. I don't have access to his records but I didn't hear he had ever been convicted of DUI's prior so, as far as we know, he is an excellent driver and perfectly safe behind the wheel.
To turn your example around, if they aren't driving in an unsafe manner(swerving, speeding, no headlights, pick your traffic code violation) what do we care what's in their system? Until they actually do something objectively wrong, they might as well be tired or "legally" distracted. We shouldn't arbitrarily pick a number that is not scientifically applicable across the board to each individual in an attempt to maybe, somehow (without documentable proof) prevent some possible accident maybe. This is America, innocent til proven guilty, which kinda implies you have to actively (not potentially) interfere with the rights of others before the massive power of the state should become involved.
I believe (and believe there is scientific back-up for that belief) that it was more the public information campaigns and societal disapproval that have weeded out the "made an atypical, first time, bad choice to drive" types and that the real horrific incidents are the serial, multiple loser drunk drivers who keep doing it even after their licenses have been pulled. Which is why we have plateaued on DUI related injuries.
Even if harsh DUI 1st time laws were responsible, if we have plateaued, more laws are thus patently not the answer. We scared out the little fish and are left with the ones who don't care about laws. And unless we want police state bs like random roadblocks, the only way to catch folks without imposing on the rest of us is still to get reasonable suspicion by active driving infractions and do sobriety testing from there.
As far as felons go, I think if you look at the majority of what are considered "felonies" today (especially including drug felony possession charges) you'll find fewer and fewer proportionately are VIOLENT felonies, which are the only ones I care about because they are the only ones that directly hurt people. Most felony crimes anymore are mala prohibita, not mala in se. I could care less if a non-violent pot grower has a gun, not any more than I care that anyone on this board has one. Even someone convicted of one violent felony who serves their time should get their weapon rights back. After all, if we can't trust them with weapons after they pay their debt, we shouldn't let them back into society in the first place.
#18indycolts
Moderator
wow, alaska warps peoples minds. 
btw, i'm kidding.
btw, i'm kidding.Well what else would they be doing with a kazillion ounces of heroin but taking it and commiting crimes. You can only do two things with drugs, use them or sell them. And though a crackhead shooting up in his house doesn't directly hurt anyone except himself, any more than personal use amounts are usually sold. Usually to anyone who has the cash to buy it, regardless of age. And some kid shooting up in his room, though not directly hurting anyone either, just isn't a good thing in any respect.
Crime comes from people who are so addicted to drugs that it has destroyed their will to be productive towards anything else. Drugs destroy their bodies and their minds until they can't hold down jobs, or make rational thoughts other than "next fix, next fix, next fix". And since they can't hold down jobs they resort to crime for money. And in crime there is always two parts, the criminal and the victim. In order for a crime to happen, someone has to get hurt in some way. Addicts don't just sit at home toking all day. They have to go out and buy more drugs. Usually having to drive to do it. And they need money, but can't get hired cause they usually look like crap. So they hold up some mom on the street who was only going to the grocery store to feed her kids. Now the addict has money to go get more drugs, and the mom can't feed her kids now. But if the cops catch the addict, the law allows them to punish the addict in a way that hopefully won't allow them to hurt anyone else. It doesn't always work out in the optimistic way but it at least does something. I understand when you say that addicts who just stay home and get high aren't hurting anyone, but drugs have negative effects on the body and mind. Unless they have an unlimited supply of money to get drugs, or an unlimited amount of free drugs, they are going to have to get money to support their habit somehow.
Yes punishing people who actually commit crimes makes sense, i'm not arguing that. And people will commit crimes in spite of any law saying what is right and wrong, that is what criminals are and do. But the law isn't meaningless and ineffective. The law is there to punish those who get caught and convicted. When a dui offender goes to jail for 10 years cause he caused an accident and killed someone, I would like to think that when he gets out, dui would be the last thing he would ever want to even risk coming close to doing again. If you just think, "Screw enforcing laws cause noone is listening anyway.", then noone gets punished and it just keeps getting worse. The law ensures there are consequences for people's actions. The law itself can't prevent people from making choices, it just makes them think, "is it worth it" before they do it, in most cases.
As far as interfering with someone else's rights before the power of the state becomes involved. Well not all laws involve interfering with other's rights. (i.e. hunting laws, tax laws, etc.) And I don't know of any case when the state simply tried to prosecute someone just for the hell of it. You commit a crime, you get caught, you go to trial. That's how it works, i'm not arguing anything to the contrary.
And roadblocks and checkpoints are simply ways to help the cops come into contact with the problem individuals before they have the chance to hurt someone. Yeah it may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but if it saves a life then it's worth the 20 seconds it takes for the cop to talk to me and send me on my way. It's hardly a nazi state type situation of "documents please."
No if you are irresponsible enough and evil enough to use guns to kill or hurt without regard to who you hurt or why then you don't deserve a second chance. But of course I believe in the punishment fitting the crime. If it were up to me, murder would carry an immediate mandatory death penalty with it. Which is where the bleeding hearts have done their part to screw this country. (Also not for this discussion).
Crime comes from people who are so addicted to drugs that it has destroyed their will to be productive towards anything else. Drugs destroy their bodies and their minds until they can't hold down jobs, or make rational thoughts other than "next fix, next fix, next fix". And since they can't hold down jobs they resort to crime for money. And in crime there is always two parts, the criminal and the victim. In order for a crime to happen, someone has to get hurt in some way. Addicts don't just sit at home toking all day. They have to go out and buy more drugs. Usually having to drive to do it. And they need money, but can't get hired cause they usually look like crap. So they hold up some mom on the street who was only going to the grocery store to feed her kids. Now the addict has money to go get more drugs, and the mom can't feed her kids now. But if the cops catch the addict, the law allows them to punish the addict in a way that hopefully won't allow them to hurt anyone else. It doesn't always work out in the optimistic way but it at least does something. I understand when you say that addicts who just stay home and get high aren't hurting anyone, but drugs have negative effects on the body and mind. Unless they have an unlimited supply of money to get drugs, or an unlimited amount of free drugs, they are going to have to get money to support their habit somehow.
Yes punishing people who actually commit crimes makes sense, i'm not arguing that. And people will commit crimes in spite of any law saying what is right and wrong, that is what criminals are and do. But the law isn't meaningless and ineffective. The law is there to punish those who get caught and convicted. When a dui offender goes to jail for 10 years cause he caused an accident and killed someone, I would like to think that when he gets out, dui would be the last thing he would ever want to even risk coming close to doing again. If you just think, "Screw enforcing laws cause noone is listening anyway.", then noone gets punished and it just keeps getting worse. The law ensures there are consequences for people's actions. The law itself can't prevent people from making choices, it just makes them think, "is it worth it" before they do it, in most cases.
Well cops can't just pull people over at random anyway. They have to have probable cause. swerving, speeding, stuff like that gives them that probable cause. If it's just that they're tired or distracted, ok give them the ticket, send them on their way. No problem. But if in the course of the stop, the cop notices something and winds up finding a kidnap victim in the trunk and thus saving said victim, well then the law, that enabled the cop to stop the car in the first place, has saved another life.
As far as interfering with someone else's rights before the power of the state becomes involved. Well not all laws involve interfering with other's rights. (i.e. hunting laws, tax laws, etc.) And I don't know of any case when the state simply tried to prosecute someone just for the hell of it. You commit a crime, you get caught, you go to trial. That's how it works, i'm not arguing anything to the contrary.
Well the serial, multiple losers had to start somewhere. If the law had been more strict when they started, they would have been off the street before they had a chance to form a "done it, got caught, did the night in lockup, got out, so what" attitude towards the law.
And roadblocks and checkpoints are simply ways to help the cops come into contact with the problem individuals before they have the chance to hurt someone. Yeah it may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but if it saves a life then it's worth the 20 seconds it takes for the cop to talk to me and send me on my way. It's hardly a nazi state type situation of "documents please."
Yes more laws are not the answer, enforcing the laws on the books already in stricter ways would solve many problems. But we will always have small fish because new generations are always growing up and making mistakes of their own and making choices of their own. If strict examples from strict laws help them make more responsible choices, then the law works. (It also comes down to parenting and leadership but that isn't for this discussion).
What about stalkers, what about identity theft. Those aren't necessarily violent but they directly hurt people. I know if I had a stalker, even if they never got violent, I wouldn't want them to have a firearm since they are obviously not right in the head. And identity theft is a very devastating crime since it can ruin someone's life for years on end. Now if someone has that little disregard for the well being of others, how would allowing them to purchase firearms help anyone. That's kind of a grey area but still.
So a stupid mistake of armed robbery of a gas station at the age of 18 merits life in prison? If a gang member was to shoot someone but doesn't kill them, gets caught and goes to prison, you know the first thing he is going to do when he gets out is try to finish the job. And though he probably won't have a problem getting a gun on the street, if a gun store instead was where he got the gun and then finished the job. The store would probably be vulnerable to massive civil suits from the victim's family. That's part of the reason why felons can't legally buy guns, so gun store owners don't get sued for providing weapons to known violent criminals.
No if you are irresponsible enough and evil enough to use guns to kill or hurt without regard to who you hurt or why then you don't deserve a second chance. But of course I believe in the punishment fitting the crime. If it were up to me, murder would carry an immediate mandatory death penalty with it. Which is where the bleeding hearts have done their part to screw this country. (Also not for this discussion).
I tell ya, what a bunch of whiney, immature little brats we've got here!!
"WAHHHH!!!! I got stopped by a really bad cop today!!! He didn't say "Please" OR "Thankyou"!!
"WAHHHHH!!! I'm being FORCED to take a gun class AND be fingerprinted!!!
JUST LIKE A CRIMINAL!!!!"
"WAHHH!!!Why can't they just give me the permit with out getting identification from me???!!!!"
"WAHHH!!! They changed the law, OVERNIGHT, without asking ME if it was OK!
Now I'm a FELON!!!!"
"WWWAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! There are laws that make it impossible to do ANYTHING I want, ANYTIME I want!!!
WWWWWAAAAHHHHHH!!!
WWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!
WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Well boys and girls, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, there are laws!
Without laws, there is ANARCHY!(look it up!)
You will not like all laws, but you are required to abide by them.
You can, however, refuse to follow ANY law that you deem unjust.
By doing so you will be putting yourself in jeopardy of being fined/arrested/imprisoned/shot/ killed etc, or any possible permutation of the aforementioned results of law breaking.
If you wish, you can try, by various legal/political means, to get any law you don't like, reversed/abolished/altered etc.
Another option is to pack your crap and move somewhere where the laws are more to your liking.
If you elect to stay, however, it is incumbant upon you to abide by said laws.
SOOOOOOOO..........Shut up! Grow up! And quit WHINING!!!!!!!!!
(I can never figure out why those that bitch and moan the most about how things are in this country NEVER leave it!!!!
I wonder why?
"WAHHHH!!!! I got stopped by a really bad cop today!!! He didn't say "Please" OR "Thankyou"!!
"WAHHHHH!!! I'm being FORCED to take a gun class AND be fingerprinted!!!
JUST LIKE A CRIMINAL!!!!
" "WAHHH!!!Why can't they just give me the permit with out getting identification from me???!!!!"
"WAHHH!!! They changed the law, OVERNIGHT, without asking ME if it was OK!
Now I'm a FELON!!!!
""WWWAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! There are laws that make it impossible to do ANYTHING I want, ANYTIME I want!!!
WWWWWAAAAHHHHHH!!!
WWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!
WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Well boys and girls, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, there are laws!
Without laws, there is ANARCHY!(look it up!)
You will not like all laws, but you are required to abide by them.
You can, however, refuse to follow ANY law that you deem unjust.
By doing so you will be putting yourself in jeopardy of being fined/arrested/imprisoned/shot/ killed etc, or any possible permutation of the aforementioned results of law breaking.
If you wish, you can try, by various legal/political means, to get any law you don't like, reversed/abolished/altered etc.
Another option is to pack your crap and move somewhere where the laws are more to your liking.
If you elect to stay, however, it is incumbant upon you to abide by said laws.
SOOOOOOOO..........Shut up! Grow up! And quit WHINING!!!!!!!!!
(I can never figure out why those that bitch and moan the most about how things are in this country NEVER leave it!!!!
I wonder why?
XavierBreath
New member
That's fine, come to any conclusion you like. I did not post the link to control your mind, but to perhaps give you insight into why law enforcement would be concerned about your concealed weapon. Your points are very valid, as is LEO trepidation at a traffic stop. Oh, by the way, I'm often labeled a cop basher here, so please don't label me a cop apologist, OK?
I still have not recieved an answer to my question, and I feel it is very pertinent here. Did the officer check the chamber of the weapon prior to shoving it into Craig's pocket, or did he pull a moron move and pop out the magazine and assume the pistol was unloaded? At least one enquiring mind wants to know. Whether he cleared the chamber determines whether he is qualified to handle the weapon. Did he clear the chamber? A badge does not qualify an officer to handle an unknown weapon, although it often gives him the authority.
The fact the officer ran up to within feet of a moving motorcycle speaks volumes for the officer's concern for public safety. Does his weapon handling skills do the same? Did he check the chamber before shoving the pistol into your pocket Craig?
I_gunsmith
Inactive
this is a very confusing thread!
I carry all the time and the only time I got stopped I simply handed my ccw
with my license to the L.E.O....I got a smile & had a nice conversation about how much better AZ is for us gun owners then CA!
I carry all the time and the only time I got stopped I simply handed my ccw
with my license to the L.E.O....I got a smile & had a nice conversation about how much better AZ is for us gun owners then CA!
Glock 31,
That's what legalization would solve. I am not a drug user nor do I think it is a "good thing". I do however believe that we cannot make society absolutely "safe" and should therefore minimize the intrusions into our freedom. In order to be free we have to acceopt personal risk. if a law cannot be documented to actually cut down on crimes (which possession laws cannot) they shouldn't exist just to make us feel better. I can't believe you are backing roadblocks, which do constitute an "arrest" (your freedom of movement is curtailed by LE) without the vaguest hint of PC or even suspicion. The fact that statists wrongly decided it is "Constitutional" was poor legal reasoning (ever read the decision?) and stands the Constitution on its head.
Most violent crimes involving large amounts of drugs are between dealers, either fighting over territory for distribution, robbing each other of product and/or money, or settling perceived business ripoffs against each other. Just like ending the Prohibition on alcohol, legalizing drugs and providing them through licensed stores will make the profit motivation for illegal sales vanish. Bootlegging and moonshining, as well as wars between distribution gangs, were big deals in the 20's. Almost immediately after Volkstead was repealed they for all practical purposes disappeared. There was little street crime involving coke and opiates when they were legal, only the "war on drugs" created the problem.
As far as junkies go, they get violent when they look for money to steal for their next fix or when they get brain damaged by using cheaper drug substitutes such as meth and crack because comparatively less harmful and less processed organic drugs like coke classic and opiates have gotten more expensive. Legalization would provide pure regular supplies of "good" drugs at cheaper prices at licensed stores much as alcohol is sold. Then all the resources we now waste on useless attempts at interdiction can be used for more treatment (we are already providing treatment, legalization would just provide more assets) and a massive public information campaign such as is used against the misuse of legal alcohol and tobacco. Again, opiates, cocaine and pot were widely legally available in this country for decades, the junky crimes were at a nuisance level until they were criminalized for moral (and racial), not practical, reasons.
If people want to ruin their lives or neglect their kids, again, we have ways and laws on the books already to deal with that. Neglect laws, and taking kids away to foster homes, don't need drug possession to work, we take kids from sober neglectors and abusers every day. In fact, if the use wasn't illegal (ie Mom thinks "if I ask for help I go to jail") we might be able to intervene in these junkies lives sooner and help save the family.
If people want to sit in their basements and drink, smoke or shoot up themselves to death, not my problem. As long as they do it quietly that is their choice. In a free society it is their right to sit down and die without govt. interference.
There are a lot of people out there who would use harder recreational drugs, much like people use pot, just for fun and would continue to hold down jobs. just like folks who do a little drinking but don't DUI or commit drunken crimes.
Again you keep implying I'm saying DUI shouldn't be illegal, I'm explicitely not. You also seem to believe that DUI and violent crime would increase after legalization, again, there is no evidence for that and all the studies point the other way.
As far as gun possession goes, you twisted my statement. I'm saying we should trust the kid who made the mistake at 18 with a gun when he gets out. Once he does his time, he in theory is safe to be back in society. If at the time he was convicted we thought he was too dangerous to ever have a gun again, why in the world would we let him out into a society where we KNOW he can get another one illegally should he choose? Let him buy one and get on with his now non-criminal life.
The problem with all these possession laws is, again, they don't DO anything positive. The real crimes are already covered by exisiting criminal law (and have been for decades) all these laws have done is increase government intrusion into every facet of our lives without a PROVABLE corresponding increase in safety (which might provide at least provide some justification, if ours was a society built around safety and not freedom).
I'm not gonna convince you, you aren't going to convince me. But there's nothing personal here. I like that. Do stay safe out there while doing your job.
That's what legalization would solve. I am not a drug user nor do I think it is a "good thing". I do however believe that we cannot make society absolutely "safe" and should therefore minimize the intrusions into our freedom. In order to be free we have to acceopt personal risk. if a law cannot be documented to actually cut down on crimes (which possession laws cannot) they shouldn't exist just to make us feel better. I can't believe you are backing roadblocks, which do constitute an "arrest" (your freedom of movement is curtailed by LE) without the vaguest hint of PC or even suspicion. The fact that statists wrongly decided it is "Constitutional" was poor legal reasoning (ever read the decision?) and stands the Constitution on its head.
Most violent crimes involving large amounts of drugs are between dealers, either fighting over territory for distribution, robbing each other of product and/or money, or settling perceived business ripoffs against each other. Just like ending the Prohibition on alcohol, legalizing drugs and providing them through licensed stores will make the profit motivation for illegal sales vanish. Bootlegging and moonshining, as well as wars between distribution gangs, were big deals in the 20's. Almost immediately after Volkstead was repealed they for all practical purposes disappeared. There was little street crime involving coke and opiates when they were legal, only the "war on drugs" created the problem.
As far as junkies go, they get violent when they look for money to steal for their next fix or when they get brain damaged by using cheaper drug substitutes such as meth and crack because comparatively less harmful and less processed organic drugs like coke classic and opiates have gotten more expensive. Legalization would provide pure regular supplies of "good" drugs at cheaper prices at licensed stores much as alcohol is sold. Then all the resources we now waste on useless attempts at interdiction can be used for more treatment (we are already providing treatment, legalization would just provide more assets) and a massive public information campaign such as is used against the misuse of legal alcohol and tobacco. Again, opiates, cocaine and pot were widely legally available in this country for decades, the junky crimes were at a nuisance level until they were criminalized for moral (and racial), not practical, reasons.
If people want to ruin their lives or neglect their kids, again, we have ways and laws on the books already to deal with that. Neglect laws, and taking kids away to foster homes, don't need drug possession to work, we take kids from sober neglectors and abusers every day. In fact, if the use wasn't illegal (ie Mom thinks "if I ask for help I go to jail") we might be able to intervene in these junkies lives sooner and help save the family.
If people want to sit in their basements and drink, smoke or shoot up themselves to death, not my problem. As long as they do it quietly that is their choice. In a free society it is their right to sit down and die without govt. interference.
There are a lot of people out there who would use harder recreational drugs, much like people use pot, just for fun and would continue to hold down jobs. just like folks who do a little drinking but don't DUI or commit drunken crimes.
Again you keep implying I'm saying DUI shouldn't be illegal, I'm explicitely not. You also seem to believe that DUI and violent crime would increase after legalization, again, there is no evidence for that and all the studies point the other way.
As far as gun possession goes, you twisted my statement. I'm saying we should trust the kid who made the mistake at 18 with a gun when he gets out. Once he does his time, he in theory is safe to be back in society. If at the time he was convicted we thought he was too dangerous to ever have a gun again, why in the world would we let him out into a society where we KNOW he can get another one illegally should he choose? Let him buy one and get on with his now non-criminal life.
The problem with all these possession laws is, again, they don't DO anything positive. The real crimes are already covered by exisiting criminal law (and have been for decades) all these laws have done is increase government intrusion into every facet of our lives without a PROVABLE corresponding increase in safety (which might provide at least provide some justification, if ours was a society built around safety and not freedom).
I'm not gonna convince you, you aren't going to convince me. But there's nothing personal here. I like that. Do stay safe out there while doing your job.
Just for the record i'm not a cop, yet. But thanks anyway.
Well, I don't know how else to put it other than what i've already said in my previous posts.
Drug use doesn't just stay on a plateaued level. It's like that little sinfull deed most everyone does at one point or another in the privacy of their bedroom. The same fantasy doesn't get the same result after a while. (Man this is pushing it
). It gets old and something new is required. Same with drugs. The same amount doesn't induce the same high as the last one. More is needed. And the more they use, the more they destroy their bodies and minds till they don't know left from right, up from down,...and right from wrong. But I guess we can agree to disagree. And of course nothing personal. A good intelligent debate is what this site is all about. Mostly,... probably.
Healthy bodies lead to healthy lives. Stay safe out there, everyone.
theevilbob
Inactive
craigntexas,
Did this happen in TX?I am not surprised.
Seems the further west you go,,the more the cops hate civilians carrying guns.Restrictions in the west on firearms are getting more restrictive and mirroring gun laws in the northeast.
Did this happen in TX?I am not surprised.
Seems the further west you go,,the more the cops hate civilians carrying guns.Restrictions in the west on firearms are getting more restrictive and mirroring gun laws in the northeast.
craigntx
you should always tell the police officer if you have a ccw. Picture this, (it comes over the police radio to be on a lookout for a motorcycle involved in a burglary, hit and run, drive by or anything else along the line. the officer pulls you over because you are not obeying laws, (helmet, signal, or whatever) officer had the before mentioned in his head also. The officer decides to search you. At this point you have to tell him or things could get ugly real quick. So you tell him, now your probably going to get the full treatment. Everything will be searched throughly and your bike as well. Short background check, verification that the permit is legal ect.) this makes you feel violated and embarrased, Your scenario is very acceptable. Officers have to be careful and do appreciate when you let them know. I am a correctional officer but we go through some of the same routines with visitors and such. It's better they know before they search then when doing the search.
you should always tell the police officer if you have a ccw. Picture this, (it comes over the police radio to be on a lookout for a motorcycle involved in a burglary, hit and run, drive by or anything else along the line. the officer pulls you over because you are not obeying laws, (helmet, signal, or whatever) officer had the before mentioned in his head also. The officer decides to search you. At this point you have to tell him or things could get ugly real quick. So you tell him, now your probably going to get the full treatment. Everything will be searched throughly and your bike as well. Short background check, verification that the permit is legal ect.) this makes you feel violated and embarrased, Your scenario is very acceptable. Officers have to be careful and do appreciate when you let them know. I am a correctional officer but we go through some of the same routines with visitors and such. It's better they know before they search then when doing the search.
Last edited:
theevilbob
Inactive
Why open yourself up to a bunch of BS questions from the cop that have no bearing on his investigation of your speeding.Let him ask all the questions he wants to.Give him short polite answers and when he ask the questions about are there any guns in the car,,simply hand him your CCW and don't utter a word.
IF he ask,,do you have any guns on you right now.Answer back,Officer I have a CCW permit,,,of course I have one on me.
If he wants to up the bar and have you step out of the vehicle so be it.Just remember anything he says and does past this point better be within the confines of the law and his departments policy.If not,,then he is the one in trouble.
IF he ask,,do you have any guns on you right now.Answer back,Officer I have a CCW permit,,,of course I have one on me.
If he wants to up the bar and have you step out of the vehicle so be it.Just remember anything he says and does past this point better be within the confines of the law and his departments policy.If not,,then he is the one in trouble.
If it is not required by law I would think twice to volunteer one's status, or anything else for that matter. In Colorado it is NOT required by law to disclose carry status. A previous poster stated it was explicitely in Colorado's CCW law that you must accept being disarmed. Well, it is NOT explicitely in Colorado's CCW law that you accept being disarmed, HOWEVER, it does not need to be as the courts across the country have consistently said an officer may secure (disarm) an individual 'for the officer's safety' when there is reasonable suspicion to make a stop of any kind. I stress REASONABLE SUSPICION which is not to say a cop can legally disarm me if while we casually chat about the weather in line at the drug store and he somehow finds out I have a concealed weapons permit and wants to disarm me because he does not like being around armed people. That would just be too bad for him, legally anyway. Of course cops can disarm anyone they have reasonable suspicion to believe may have committed a crime.
As for volunteering things the law does not require - many folks have found themselves with criminal convictions for that. Maybe the cop spotted you in the first place to pull you over and give you the ticket for a violation because you were lost and had pulled into a parking lot to allow yourself to turn around and then you crossed a double yellow line on the way out. You volunteer to the cop you are carrying a gun. Ooopsy, turns out that was a parking lot for a community church that has a daycare center in it. Hey, you did not know that because it looked like any other building but the law happens to not care. Enjoy your felony conviction and all the joys that go with it because you could not keep your yapper shut. The point is if you are not required to state it then don't. There are many scenarios where you could be carrying illegally and not even know it no matter how hard you try to otherwise.
"It puts the cop at ease" = BS! I am sure some are put at ease while others do not care while others get severely paranoid about it. Same as any other person. Do you volunteer to the cop OTHER irrelevant facts to 'put him at ease'? Do you chat it up that "I got a knife but it is legal...."? Do you tell the cop not to worry about catching tuberculosis because you do not have tuberculosis? Does he need to know about that case of athlete's foot you just cannot shake but are pretty sure he cannot catch it, as a courtesy? The whole notion of needing to volunteer that you have a gun is playing right into the irrational anti-gun people's mentality. It is not a big deal to be a citizen carrying a gun. Stop letting them get away with this mentality that somehow a gun is tantamount to having a bomb. It is not a big deal and it is not worth mentioning unless it is required by law that you tell your status or the officer asks. Do you tell the cop you chat with in line at the drug store that "I have a driver's license you know."
It is totally unreasonable and outrageous for a cop to run my license, find out I have a permit and then proceed to come at me gun drawn and search me because I have a permit to carry a gun and did not disclose that to him (where I live in Colorado disclosure is not required by law), assuming he did not ask either in which case I would tell the truth. I have been asked if I was carrying a weapon and I replied "No" as at that moment I was not carrying in spite of having a permit to do so. I was not going to volunteer anything like that I had a permit but was not carrying today. The cop ran my license and gave me a warning for the moving violation and that was that. It is totally irrational and asinine to suggest that if he found out I had a carry permit he all of a sudden would have been justified to draw on me merely for having a permit. He can use whatever reasonable means he finds necessary but I fail to see how the mere presence of a person being licensed to carry meets some special justification that takes things up a notch. What if it is a state where they register guns? Is it reasonable that someone be yanked out of their car at gunpoint merely because when the cop ran their license he found that they also owned a gun (and might be carrying).
As for volunteering things the law does not require - many folks have found themselves with criminal convictions for that. Maybe the cop spotted you in the first place to pull you over and give you the ticket for a violation because you were lost and had pulled into a parking lot to allow yourself to turn around and then you crossed a double yellow line on the way out. You volunteer to the cop you are carrying a gun. Ooopsy, turns out that was a parking lot for a community church that has a daycare center in it. Hey, you did not know that because it looked like any other building but the law happens to not care. Enjoy your felony conviction and all the joys that go with it because you could not keep your yapper shut. The point is if you are not required to state it then don't. There are many scenarios where you could be carrying illegally and not even know it no matter how hard you try to otherwise.
"It puts the cop at ease" = BS! I am sure some are put at ease while others do not care while others get severely paranoid about it. Same as any other person. Do you volunteer to the cop OTHER irrelevant facts to 'put him at ease'? Do you chat it up that "I got a knife but it is legal...."? Do you tell the cop not to worry about catching tuberculosis because you do not have tuberculosis? Does he need to know about that case of athlete's foot you just cannot shake but are pretty sure he cannot catch it, as a courtesy? The whole notion of needing to volunteer that you have a gun is playing right into the irrational anti-gun people's mentality. It is not a big deal to be a citizen carrying a gun. Stop letting them get away with this mentality that somehow a gun is tantamount to having a bomb. It is not a big deal and it is not worth mentioning unless it is required by law that you tell your status or the officer asks. Do you tell the cop you chat with in line at the drug store that "I have a driver's license you know."
It is totally unreasonable and outrageous for a cop to run my license, find out I have a permit and then proceed to come at me gun drawn and search me because I have a permit to carry a gun and did not disclose that to him (where I live in Colorado disclosure is not required by law), assuming he did not ask either in which case I would tell the truth. I have been asked if I was carrying a weapon and I replied "No" as at that moment I was not carrying in spite of having a permit to do so. I was not going to volunteer anything like that I had a permit but was not carrying today. The cop ran my license and gave me a warning for the moving violation and that was that. It is totally irrational and asinine to suggest that if he found out I had a carry permit he all of a sudden would have been justified to draw on me merely for having a permit. He can use whatever reasonable means he finds necessary but I fail to see how the mere presence of a person being licensed to carry meets some special justification that takes things up a notch. What if it is a state where they register guns? Is it reasonable that someone be yanked out of their car at gunpoint merely because when the cop ran their license he found that they also owned a gun (and might be carrying).
- Status