Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I saw this video yesterday. While what was happening may not have been entirely legal, I really thought the the guy filming was just being a huge ****. He could have diffused that situation in so many other ways. The cop was just trying to address a concern and I don't feel like he ever really did anything majorly wrong.

If you are going to open carry like that I think you should expect to draw excess attention and have to jump through a few hoops every now and then when people freak out. It is almost the same thing as people who dress in an extreme way or or have an insane amount of piercings/visible tatoos and then bitch that they are treated differently. There are consequences for every action you take, he wasn't going to get arrested, they were just trying to keep the peace.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

sheep post.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

bah

TheScaryOne

iTrader: (3)

That's kind of what I thought. My friend can get a little extreme with the conspiracy theories sometimes, that's why I figured I'd ask.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I'll straighten all this out when I get home later.

RussellT94

iTrader: (3)

While I don't think open carry is the best idea, if the state allows it, how do you justify stopping someone who is not in the act of committing nor suspected of committing a crime? Do you personally approve of stops and ID checks in the name of the "greater good?"

Would you personally consent to a search of your person, vehicle, or residence because a random person called the police and said they thought they saw you doing something illegal?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Not once did I say he had to comply. He handled the situation like a big ******* and wondered why he got **** for it. That is my point.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

The "VA is taking your guns" **** started out in a pass-it-around Facebook picture linked to an article a week or two ago.



Basically, if the VA, through an enormously long process determines that you are not competent to handle your own personal affairs and you become somebody's "ward", you may not own guns. This process has a lot of voluntary parts to it, and is only ever really used if somebody is so fucked up that are a serious danger to themselves. In other words, it's a good thing, and it's a very difficult thing to do without the persons cooperation.

The VA will not come get your guns, they'll simply put your mental incompetency information into a database that feeds NICS and inform you that you may not own firearms. You will then be denied NICS checks and be in violation of the Brady Act and a few other federal law if you possess guns. So you either give them away or sell them... but the VA would not come to your house and confiscate them. I'm pretty sure the law has been like this for decades.

OPEN CARRY:
Laws concerning open carry and their subjective utilization by police is a political tool. Police chiefs are apppointed. If you are the police chief in a town with an anti-gun mayor and anti-gun DA, you will instruct your officers to lay the smack on any open-carrier in order to discourage it. It has nothing to do with police safety or "rights"... it's simply a political decision. No, it doesn't make any sense, but neither does the rest of the anti-gun movement.

Sheriff's on the other hand are elected positions, and while technically politicians themselves, tend to be a bit more on the side of the "people", especially in rural areas. There are exceptions of course.
Here's one:

However, without exception, there is no cop in the country that hasn't had very specific "what to do with an open carrier" training as determined by their police chief. Saying something like "the cops don't know the law" is beyond retard... of course they know the law. The fact that you're being harrassed has nothing to do with them knowing what you're doing is perfectly legal... it's what the cop was told do do by his bosses. The visibility that OC has received in the past few years is enormous. The fact that CA recently made it illegal demonstrates how large an "issue" it was in that state.

Personally, I don't OC, but that's because my layered self-defense plan does not involve anybody knowing I'm armed until I choose to let them know... and that point doesn't happen until the very end. I am absolutely 100% behind those who do, but the math for me says CC is a better option.

One of the best things that's happened for OC'ers however is the training of 911 operators and dispatchers. Current doctrine for "man with a gun" calls includes getting information from the caller that the dispatcher can use to pass to an officer who is responding, or not.

"ALL UNITS, respond to the QuickStop on Market Street, suspect reported white male with a gun inside the store"... would mean a Code-3 response from every cop in town, the dude would be drawn on, handcuffed, and probably end up being charged with a crime because some old Betty got scared.

TODAY HOWEVER:
"911, what is your emergency."
"I'm at the 7-11 on Market Street, and there's a man in the store here with a gun."
"Very well, what is the man doing?"
"Um, well, he's waiting for his burrito to come out of the microwave... I'm in the back near the sodas and I'm scared."
"Yes ma'am, and where is the gun?"
"Um... well, it's in his holster."
"I see, and did he ever take it out of the holster or point it at anybody."
"Not that I saw, but I'm telling you he has a gun... OH NO, he's walking up to the cashier."
"And is he paying for his burrito or robbing the place?"
"He paid in cash, and now he's walking to his car... where are the police, he's going to get away."
"Thanks for calling ma'am."

...and that's how it happens more and more.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

if you have to be an ******* to make sure your rights aren't violated, then so be it.

boo ******* hoo.

I dont think he did anything *******, the cop was acting unlawfully to get him to violate his rights. The cop didnt need to see his ID, and he wasn't obligated to show it. The cop didn't need to know his name, and he wasn't obligated to give it. The cop didn't need to stop him, the cop didnt even really have a right to take the gun from him, and he surely shouldnt have pointed a loaded weapon at a law abiding citizen. the cop was harassing him the citizen stated his rights and the law; in no way was he acting like an *******. his supervisor showed up and low-and-behold, he was able to leave right then and there.

If he was anythign but white, this would have been called racial profiling and rev. al sharpton would have pissed himself.

Let's say he was like: Okay officer, here's my ID, no worries, bro. The officier runs his license and finds in 2003 he was pulled over for speeding 65 in a 55. Now the can of worms has been opened...Once you give them an in, they'll take it and run with it.

It's not very possible to say anything that will help you in this situation other stating your rights and not answering question, only hurt you further. Remember, you have the RIGTH to remain silent, you have a choice to incriminate yourself or allow yourself to get arrested for something else silly and unrelated to any suspicion of a crime. Cops dont give a **** if you're a good person or not, it's their job to get you to incriminate yourself and to arrest you. Their job is not to serve and protect.

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

Incorrect, Sir. The job of Police is to Punish and Enslave.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

then how would I be incorrect if I said their job is NOT to serve and protect, if their job is TO punish and ensalve?

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

That was supposed to read "Correct, Sir" not "Incorrect."

I grew up in Overland Park and sadly still live here. Can recall my childhood the OPPD Police cars used to read "To Protect and Serve... Now you can't even identify they're goddamn police cars.

I need more coffee.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

But seriously, think about how police works.

They need to prove they are doing their job in order to be accountable. So they write tickets; no tickets, no proof at the end of the day they did police work. Therefore, it's a police officer's job to write tickets and "enforce" laws.

Simple stuff.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

now this is how a stop should go:



i like what he says at 4:27-4:40.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

even this wasn't so bad:

petrolmed

iTrader: (8)

I like how the 1st video concluded but I still get a little peeved and weirded out when officers take the firearm away. They know they can't technically but they do anyway.

Same guy, and even better:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I can understand that an officer would want to check an AR to see if it's automatic, gives them a reasonable excuse at least. In that second video, his comments on YT still suggests he believes that was illegal.

But yeah, I wouldn't want to give up my firearm if it's 100% legal to own/carry them. That's like an officier asking to test drive your car, if he just happens to be walking by and is into gay little cars just to see if it can potentially go faster than the speed limit.

petrolmed

iTrader: (8)

This is true. Then there's at least a suspicion to follow up instead of strong-arming into their business. I would think they could do a soft check by viewing the fire selector or something but IDK.

I really liked the officer in the second vid. He was very amiable and allowed them and informed them of the OPTION to as they please, all while letting them know his motives which were strictly dependent on their cooperation if they chose to go along with it. Need more officers like him who aren't infringing on rights.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

he still wrote down their names...

petrolmed

iTrader: (8)

If you give them an inch...

So are you going to consider buying a firearm of any sort Brain? I'd be surprised if the thought didn't cross your mind with all the active research and investigation you seem to be doing.