Great Fun while open carrying

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrankDrebin said:
...when someone insists on carrying openly just because there's no law that says they can't when they could easily get a permit to carry concealed,
Click to expand...
Perhaps Fishorman doesn't want to beg permission from the state to exercise a constitutional right, just to make the sheep *feel* more comfortable.
I start to infer that they're more concerned with forcing an opportunity to show off their knowledge of their rights than they are with responsible gun carry.
Click to expand...

There are two types of people in the world, Frank.

Those who seek to control others -and- Those who don't

Which are you?
 
There are two types of people in the world, Frank.

Those who seek to control others -and- Those who don't

Which are you?
Click to expand...

I'm the kind who calls a spade a spade. And someone who insists on carrying openly when they could easily carry concealed legally is not a responsible gun carrier. Also, where did you get your philosophy on people? A little oversimplified don't you think? Like I said, or implied before, if someone who I don't know, and who may have virtually NO training insists on taking de facto control of MY safety and the safety of my family by causing a potential confrontation to take place because he insists on proudly advertising to the world that he's armed with a pistol, I have no problem taking control of his safety and letting the hold-up man know that he'd better take control of the situation by disarming the unknown variable. Pistols carried on the person are for stopping the aggressive actions of other people by shooting them. They're not meant to be political statements, and I question the judgement of anyone who would carry a pistol in that capacity.
 
For some people, requesting government permission to exercise a fundamental right is not acceptable.

I don't license my dog for the same reason.
 
For some people, requesting government permission to exercise a fundamental right is not acceptable.

I don't license my dog for the same reason.
Click to expand...

And some people let their children die when a blood transfusion would save their lives, and other seemingly "reasonable" people go along with forbidding government intervention in this situation on the grounds that a kid's life isn't worth as much as the parents' right to be free from governmental intrusion. I won't comment any further on this topic, as my position is pretty clear. If you want to wear a gun openly as a fashion accessory or political statement, or pick your personal physician based not on his medical expertise, but rather on whether or not he allows you to wear a gun in his office, and have no problem with people who have no training whatsoever being able to do the same, knock yourself out.
 
Fashion statements? That's amusing. I have yet to meet anyone in an open carry state that sees wearing a sidearm as a "fashion statement" - nor a political statement for that matter.

It is a matter of ideology and culture, and the fact that it is a codified right. This of course tends to divide people of differing ideology and culture, and thus it might be seen by those of a differring ideology and culture as a "political statement".
 
...have no problem with people who have no training whatsoever being able to do the same, knock yourself out.

As I recall, the State of Washington has had no training requirement for coming up on a century for their CCW permit system, and their rate of bad shoots is no higher than many other states with extensive training requirements.

Also, I recall that John Lott found that the higher the training requirement, the lower the anti-crime benefit of a concealed carry permit system.
 
FrankDrebin said:
I have no problem taking control of his safety and letting the hold-up man know that he'd better take control of the situation by disarming the unknown variable.
Click to expand...
Well...

It's interesting that you'd rather help the hold-up man disarm or possibly kill an innocent man, than allow said innocent man to intercede and possibly save your life.

"Unknown variables" use firearms two million times a year for self defense.

FrankDrebin said:
If you want to wear a gun openly as a fashion accessory or political statement, or pick your personal physician based not on his medical expertise, but rather on whether or not he allows you to wear a gun in his office, and have no problem with people who have no training whatsoever being able to do the same, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

It's also interesting that you have a problem with allowing people who have no formal training to carry firearms. While I believe that frequent training is a good thing, I don't remember the exact wording of the training requirement that's stated in the Second Amendment. Could you refresh my memory?
 
Powderman said what I was going to say, although alot more polite then if I were to have written it. If I were sent to a "man with a gun call," whether or not California was an "open carry" state (it isn't), I would have my rifle out. You WOULD be proned out, by not just me, but by about 4-5 cops, all armed with rifles. You WOULD be handcuffed, you WOULD be searched for any further weapons.

After all was said and done, if you could legally possess the weapon, understand I have no idea if your a convicted felon, a nut, or someone else who should not be in possession of a firearm (a nut seems more likely, since most places in this country, read MOST, don't allow open carry; those that do, I'm sure its not highly encouraged, as it went out in the early 1900's), I still wouldn't hand the firearm back to you. I would politely walk you back to your car and place it in the trunk of your car. Either that, or you could make arrangements to get said firearm from the property/evidence room the next day.

Never ceases to amaze me how people just like to push the limits, "just because they can."
 
Perhaps the saddest reflection on current society is that a ''man with a gun'' call can be so over-blown by the caller. There will be of course cases where a gun is seen and called in for good reason ..... the person has seen maybe threatening behavior.

OTOH ..... a caller who gives the same impression of ''shock/horror'', simply because they have seen an open carry piece, sitting safely in holster, and worn by an average guy, is what gets this out of all proportion.

The mere fact that these days the observers (too many) assume threat or danger .... when there is none (do they even look and stop to THINK, and assess?) - they make the totally false assumption that the gun is about to create mayhem!. This is where we have gotten to ... and as a result, the cops respond as if all calls are serious - guess they have to.

Seems we are in many cases and places just too far down that slippery slope. :(
 
If you want to wear a gun openly as a fashion accessory or political statement, or pick your personal physician based not on his medical expertise, but rather on whether or not he allows you to wear a gun in his office, and have no problem with people who have no training whatsoever being able to do the same, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but was that meant to be a sentence? :confused:
 
Powderman
Note well that the conditions for carrying a loaded pistol within a vehicle state that you must have the pistol on your person, AND have a valid CCW.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with your note that if you have a loaded pistol in your vehicle that you must have it on your person.

(2) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (a) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (b) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (c) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
Click to expand...
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.41.050&fuseaction=section

Yes, you need to have your license to carry, but you have choices on the second part of the RCW. Read the (a), (b), and (c) as options you have in addition to the license.

As a CPL holder with a loaded handgun in my vehicle, I can have it in the glovebox, under the seat, in the visor, or anywhere in the vehicle I feel I want to stash it as long as I have my license on me or it is locked in the vehicle if I am away from the vehicle.

RCW 9.41.050 is saying that it is legal for me to have it on me, not that I MUST have it on me.
 
Phil,

If you had been among the Manchester police officers and had pulled that kind of action, you would be on the wrong end of the most devastating lawsuit that I, the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, Gun Owners of America, KeepAndBearArms.com, Gun Owners of New Hampshire, and any number of other organizations could muster.

I would have postponed our adoption and spent the tens of thousands of dollars I have accumulated for that purpose on the single goal of destroying your career and those of anyone else remotely involved with it.

Open carry by non-prohibited adults in New Hampshire is flatly legal. Unless you have a reasonable suspicion (remember that from the academy?) that I fell into a "prohibited person" category, you have no legal authority to detain me, let alone "prone me out" with "rifles."

See Florida v. J.L., among others, and get an education on the principles on articulable suspicion and probable cause that you obviously slept through in the academy.

Even Officer McFadden, of Terry v. Ohio fame, walked up to the suspects after observing them for 10-15 minutes and identified himself as a police officer before detaining or arresting them.
 
NineX19 - you're mistaken

A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (a) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (b) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (c) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

This means that it is not permitted to have a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the following conditions apply:

A. the person has a license to carry concealed, AND
B. the pistol is on the licensee's person, AND
C. the licensee is in the vehicle at all times the pistol is.

OR

A. the licensee is away from the vehicle, AND
B. the pistol is locked within the vehicle, AND
C. the pistol is concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
 
Phil306
If I were sent to a "man with a gun call," whether or not California was an "open carry" state (it isn't), I would have my rifle out. You WOULD be proned out, by not just me, but by about 4-5 cops, all armed with rifles. You WOULD be handcuffed, you WOULD be searched for any further weapons.
Click to expand...

After all was said and done, if you could legally possess the weapon, understand I have no idea if your a convicted felon, a nut, or someone else who should not be in possession of a firearm (a nut seems more likely, since most places in this country, read MOST, don't allow open carry; those that do, I'm sure its not highly encouraged, as it went out in the early 1900's), I still wouldn't hand the firearm back to you. I would politely walk you back to your car and place it in the trunk of your car. Either that, or you could make arrangements to get said firearm from the property/evidence room the next day.
Click to expand...

What gives you the right to presume guilt until proven innocent? If open carry is clearly allowed in the law and the person in question did nothing to violate any law except cause someone to make a 911 call because they were not comfortable with open carry, why the brutal force to start without finding out information? Why would he be a nut for doing nothing but what the law allows him to do? What rights allow you to keep a person from his firearm for not violating any law?

This would equate to immediatly hooking up someones car to a tow truck and impounding a persons legally owned and licensed car overnight because someone was called 911 and was offended by the pea-soup green paint job.

I guess we should expect no other mindset from a California P.O.
 
mvpel

Why then is there the redundency of 1) the pistol is on the licensee's person and 2) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there.

If the pistol is on the licensee's person, then of course the licensee will be in the vehicle at all times. If not then the latter part of the law would apply
or (c) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
Click to expand...
.

If the law allows the weapon to be locked and out of view in the vehicle if the licensee is not in the vehicle (notice it does not say if anyone else, licensed or not, is allowed to be in the vehicle), then why would it not allow the licensee to have the weapon in the vehicle just not on his person?

Would a licensee who carries in her purse or briefcase need to take it out and tuck it in her waistband to "conform to the law"?

By these statements, I am not saying that these are wise choices. They are just for the sake of clarification of the law.
 
Last edited:
Powderman said what I was going to say, although alot more polite then if I were to have written it. If I were sent to a "man with a gun call," whether or not California was an "open carry" state (it isn't), I would have my rifle out. You WOULD be proned out, by not just me, but by about 4-5 cops, all armed with rifles. You WOULD be handcuffed, you WOULD be searched for any further weapons.

After all was said and done, if you could legally possess the weapon, understand I have no idea if your a convicted felon, a nut, or someone else who should not be in possession of a firearm (a nut seems more likely, since most places in this country, read MOST, don't allow open carry; those that do, I'm sure its not highly encouraged, as it went out in the early 1900's), I still wouldn't hand the firearm back to you. I would politely walk you back to your car and place it in the trunk of your car. Either that, or you could make arrangements to get said firearm from the property/evidence room the next day.

This would be wonderful. I would then immediately contact my attorneys, the NRA, etc and spend ludicrous sums of money suing you and your department as well as harrassing you in the media and online. I would drag it out for years, refile new charges periodically and generally make it clear that it is your responsibility to have a legitimate reason before you physically assault the people you work for and to do otherwise is simply too high profile, tiring and expensive.

Never ceases to amaze me how people just like to push the limits, "just because they can."

Never ceases to amaze me how some define "pushing the limits" to cover their own laziness or personal biases. Fortunately there are ways to make this sort of behavior incredibly expensive.

EDIT: I note too late that mvpel already made this obvious and certainly successful method of retribution plain to any JBT's that may be present.
 
Funny they do not seem to have this problem in Vermont. Come to think of it, I never recall such a thing in Alaska either. Something different between these peace officers? Or rather it is their administrators. That would seem to be the problem - not Fishorman wearing a pistol within the law.
 
Selling Wolf Tickets

I think this pretty much sums it up in a nutshell: Your rights end where my safety begins. If your feelings are hurt, or if you are physically hurt when the police take your openly carried pacifier away from you, file a criminal complaint and/or sue them. That's what criminal or civil court is for. Let me know how you make out. Until the local prosecutor gets a conviction against a cop for assaulting you (assuming he even thinks your case has enough merit to fill out a warrant request) because he doesn't trust someone with a gun on a "man with a gun" call, or until you collect a check with a bunch of zeros on it because some cop hurts your feelings when confronts you after getting a call from a bank teller about a man with a gun, it's all just hot air and typical threats that we deal with every single day.
 
Well, so far in my case, the Manchester IAD is looking into my complaint, and the Governor, when I spoke with him last week, was planning to sic the Attorney General on them. I'll be sure to let you know how it all falls out, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top