HB 142 Eliminate need when stopped to notify carrying firearm.


BlackBook

New member
You still have to notify if/when asked.

One of the biggest issues is that it is up to the officer to decide if you notified "promptly". It is also up to them to decide if you notified properly. And, if they decide otherwise, you are arrested, jailed, charged with an M1 and loss of license. On top of that, many officers are unclear on the law and hassle people who are *not* required to notify because they are not carrying. We have story after story of people ending up in a bind over this - it is the single most frequent issue that licensees get hassled or arrested over.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry said:
[W]e have story after story where good people get jacked up over it because it is a legal requirement. In one case, according to the dash camera, a young man notified 51 seconds into an encounter with law enforcement, was arrested, jailed, went to trial and had to spend $10,000+ of his own money to fight it and was found not guilty. In another, Officer Harless (search YouTube for that one) completely botched an encounter with a licensee who was attempting to notify, and the list goes on. Mandatory notification, especially where the penalty is an M1 and loss of license, is bad law. Only 10 states require it, and the states without it don't seem to have issues. Also, check the Toledo Law Review from Fall 2012 "Firearm Notification Laws Put Concealed Carriers In Law Enforcement Sights" (44 U. Tol. L. Rev. 179) for an in-depth analysis.

Refrences:

This is not only about driving. This law currently applies any time you are stopped by a cop for a law enforcement purpose, even if walking on the sidewalk. Some cops have misunderstood this law to mean you have to notify when the cop strikes up a casual conversation with you at the grocery store while standing line.

Should this repeal pass, you still have to notify when asked. What this repeal does is remove the amiguity. If the cop wants to know, they ask, and you notify. That's it. If they don't ask because it's not germane to why you were pulled over, and you don't tell because it's not germane to why you were pulled over, no crime occured.
 

You can bet the Ohio FOP will fight this tooth and nail. Possibly the Buckeye Sheriff's Association also. I hope Ohio Republicans have the spine to stand up to them.
 
You can bet the Ohio FOP will fight this tooth and nail. Possibly the Buckeye Sheriff's Association also. I hope Ohio Republicans have the spine to stand up to them.

Here's how I've gone about this and it has always worked:

Encounter LEO for any reason and conversation ensues:
"Officer just so you know, I'm legally armed."

If it's a traffic stop that's the first thing out of my mouth, with the engine turned off, hazard lights on, interior lights on if dark outside, window down and both hands on the wheel with my ID's and stuff in hand.

When not in a vehicle, if LEO or I just exchange "hello" and are moving on, notification is not given.
As quick as a conversation looks to be starting, notification is given, "Officer, so you're aware, I'm legally carrying."

LE typically sees us as "good guys" with guns who would most likely help them out if they were pinned down under fire...of course that can bring up endless hypothetical what-if scenarios that we must evaluate on a case by case basis, but that topic isn't what we're taking about.

So in my experience, if it's more than a "good afternoon" or whatever, I just casually state I'm legally armed, and do so as if it's no big deal because it isn't, and continue with whatever interaction is happening.

May be that there are cops outside my locality that respond differently, but where I live and on the interstate w/Highway Patrolmen, this has worked well for me.

As for the actual law and whether or not I like it, I don't have any problem at all doing as I've stated. LE is doing a job and if I were them it would alleviate any suspicion if someone was up front and matter of fact about it. Would inform me of a variable in my equation of safety for myself and others.

I'd of course prefer not to have to inform, but given the current state of society I also understand if the requirement is to do so & have no problem with it.

Thats my $0.02. :) and probably that's precisely what it's worth!



USAF(Ret)
 
...As quick as a conversation looks to be starting, notification is given, "Officer, so you're aware, I'm legally carrying."

Perhaps the best ad-copy I've ever seen to drive home the point that you should never voluntarily talk to cops.

Or, as Ron White would say, "That time when you know you have right to remain silent, but don't have the ability."
 
Perhaps the best ad-copy I've ever seen to drive home the point that you should never voluntarily talk to cops.

Or, as Ron White would say, "That time when you know you have right to remain silent, but don't have the ability."

Funny and sad simultaneously

I don't break any laws so am not hesitant to speak to a cop in a non-official setting.
Maybe I'm lucky-all the cops in my area are very nice, profesional, willing to help people, etc.
I also happen to be familiar with a lot of them in my township.


At any rate, I'm not sure why I wouldn't allow myself be in a casual conversation with an officer. Perhaps you could explain why you think we should never voluntarily talk to cops?

Not trying to start anything . Would like to hear y you say that.

Thx,
~S


USAF(Ret)
 
Funny and sad simultaneously

I don't break any laws so am not hesitant to speak to a cop in a non-official setting.

A whipped cur doesn't break any laws before he gets whipped by an owner of a mindset to do so either. The beating hurts, and has the potential to injure or kill nonetheless. Maybe the cur was just barking (asserting his dissent and/or disagreement with being chained up) to "earn" the beating, same as talking to someone who possesses the full blessings of government, or at the very least, vastly reduced consequences from government at every level, to claim "fear for his/her life" (when there is irrefutable proof that no reason for fear was present) and injure or kill you when all you did was straighten your legs when he had told you, a known schizophrenic homeless man, to cross them. Since the dry reporter's narrative doesn't begin to adequately describe the brutality that Kelly Thomas died from five days later, security video (with audio from the cops' body-cams synced and overlaid) is provided at that link to fill in the blanks. I dare you to spend the 30-some-odd minutes watching and listening to that event, and then come back and tell everybody how great cops are.

Or in another case of a cop getting much less for downing a scrawny little schizophrenic young man, and then shooting him in the head, whose parents had called to help them calm down, a voluntary manslaughter charge is all that came out of Byron Vassey's putting a bullet in Keith Vidal's brain because, as he was heard to say at the time, "I don't have time for this."

Oh, and cops are never in a "non-official" setting except when in the privacy of their own homes, where they are Link Removed to be abusive to their "loved" ones as any other single grouping of "professionals" amongst the wider human race. The odds of them never being held accountable for domestic violence is probably as immeasurable as the odds of them being held as accountable as us lowly citizens for the same acts of violence/murder out on the streets in their regular duty-hours of patrol and other "official" capacities, which, BTW, they are never fully relieved from as they are on-call 24/7.

Maybe I'm lucky-all the cops in my area are very nice, profesional, willing to help people, etc.

There is a huge difference between being lucky, and being unable or unwilling to see what cops in your area are doing every minute of every day. It is quite literally impossible to be a "good cop" these days, if it was indeed ever possible to begin with. All you have to do is read the Bill of Rights and test the language of that document against what cops are not only allowed to do these days, but are actually telling the truth when they yell in your face that they're, "...just doing my job!" That was the defense in the Cicinelli/Ramos trial for killing Kelly Thomas, and it worked like a charm to get them a hung jury for which the DA that did everything he could think of to get out of prosecuting them in the first place (likely because he knew that "doing their job" was enough of a defense for idiot jurors who can't see past the badge), refused to retry the case, and it will very likely be one version or another of the same defense in the Byron Vessey trial for the killing of Keith Vidal, and even if he gets convicted for voluntary manslaughter, an already-reduced charge compared to that of a lowly citizen, he will likely only get sentenced to two or three years and serve less than half of that just like Johannes Mehserle got for murdering Oscar Grant as he laid on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back just below where he was shot! (I rarely, if ever, use Wikipedia for a source, but that Oscar Grant one is from there, and that's only because 1) there are so few unknown facts about the Oscar Grant killing for Wiki to get wrong, and 2) I don't get the impression that you're likely to be checking my sources, or familiarizing yourself with the facts of any of the cases I'm referencing here, so what's the point in trying to be thorough in finding just the right source?)

I also happen to be familiar with a lot of them in my township.

"Familiar with" and being in a position to say unequivocally that, "...all the cops in my area are very nice, profesional, willing to help people, etc." are not sentences that belong next to each other in quick succession. I'm "familiar with" the cops in my area too, which is precisely why I stick like glue to the axiom(s) I first replied to you with in a more or less joking fashion. I'm familiar with their complaint records, and to the extent possible, I'm familiar with the details of what the public complained about them over and the disposition, if any. I'm also familiar with their salaries, benefit packages, time in service, rates of promotion and the ratio of citizen complaints to those rates of promotion, which gives one a very vivid perspective from which to judge exactly what "just doing their jobs" really means to their commanders. While I don't live "in," but only close to Dothan, AL, just do a quick Link Removed and prepare yourself for a rude awakening of just how unfamiliar you likely are with your own cop-shop and the cops who populate it. And in Dothan, the Chief of Police whose department is being investigated for hundreds of civil rights complaints and who can be seen here pictured alongside the vast majority of his white officers...


....makes right at $42 bucks an hour base pay, with no info that I could find for his benefits, but which even conservatively estimating, would put him up in the $150K to $180K range. You can buy a lot of pointy hats made out of bed-sheets with that kind of dough!

At any rate, I'm not sure why I wouldn't allow myself be in a casual conversation with an officer. Perhaps you could explain why you think we should never voluntarily talk to cops?

Not trying to start anything . Would like to hear y you say that.

Thx

I knew before you posted it that you're not sure why you shouldn't talk to cops. Hopefully I've started to answer that question before I got to it in the post, but if not, either "debunk" what I've written thus far, or ask for more, because believe me, I've only scratched the thinnest of layers of examples off the top of my head with links already bookmarked. There are thousands of examples between newspaper accounts, YouTube (and other sites) videos, court cases and current law that all add up to making the axiom "never voluntarily talk to cops" the smartest single piece of advice one citizen can give another if they care about that citizen protecting his rights and his own safety and security. That is the most concise explanation I can give to your above question, because I do care that you don't relinquish your rights by voluntarily talking to cops who your misguided judgment has not already made you wary of.

Blues
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A whipped cur doesn't break any laws before he gets whipped by an owner of a mindset to do so either. The beating hurts, and has the potential to injure or kill nonetheless. Maybe the cur was just barking (asserting his dissent and/or disagreement with being chained up) to "earn" the beating, same as talking to someone who possesses the full blessings of government, or at the very least, vastly reduced consequences from government at every level, to claim "fear for his/her life" (when there is irrefutable proof that no reason for fear was present) and injure or kill you when all you did was straighten your legs when he had told you, a known schizophrenic homeless man, to cross them. Since the dry reporter's narrative doesn't begin to adequately describe the brutality that Kelly Thomas died from five days later, security video (with audio from the cops' body-cams synced and overlaid) is provided at that link to fill in the blanks. I dare you to spend the 30-some-odd minutes watching and listening to that event, and then come back and tell everybody how great cops are.

Or in another case of a cop getting much less for downing a scrawny little schizophrenic young man, and then shooting him in the head, whose parents had called to help them calm down, a voluntary manslaughter charge is all that came out of Byron Vassey's putting a bullet in Keith Vidal's brain because, as he was heard to say at the time, "I don't have time for this."

Oh, and cops are never in a "non-official" setting except when in the privacy of their own homes, where they are Link Removed to be abusive to their "loved" ones as any other single grouping of "professionals" amongst the wider human race. The odds of them never being held accountable for domestic violence is probably as immeasurable as the odds of them being held as accountable as us lowly citizens for the same acts of violence/murder out on the streets in their regular duty-hours of patrol and other "official" capacities, which, BTW, they are never fully relieved from as they are on-call 24/7.



There is a huge difference between being lucky, and being unable or unwilling to see what cops in your area are doing every minute of every day. It is quite literally impossible to be a "good cop" these days, if it was indeed ever possible to begin with. All you have to do is read the Bill of Rights and test the language of that document against what cops are not only allowed to do these days, but are actually telling the truth when they yell in your face that they're, "...just doing my job!" That was the defense in the Cicinelli/Ramos trial for killing Kelly Thomas, and it worked like a charm to get them a hung jury for which the DA that did everything he could think of to get out of prosecuting them in the first place (likely because he knew that "doing their job" was enough of a defense for idiot jurors who can't see past the badge), refused to retry the case, and it will very likely be one version or another of the same defense in the Byron Vessey trial for the killing of Keith Vidal, and even if he gets convicted for voluntary manslaughter, an already-reduced charge compared to that of a lowly citizen, he will likely only get sentenced to two or three years and serve less than half of that just like Johannes Mehserle got for murdering Oscar Grant as he laid on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back just below where he was shot! (I rarely, if ever, use Wikipedia for a source, but that Oscar Grant one is from there, and that's only because 1) there are so few unknown facts about the Oscar Grant killing for Wiki to get wrong, and 2) I don't get the impression that you're likely to be checking my sources, or familiarizing yourself with the facts of any of the cases I'm referencing here, so what's the point in trying to be thorough in finding just the right source?)



"Familiar with" and being in a position to say unequivocally that, "...all the cops in my area are very nice, profesional, willing to help people, etc." are not sentences that belong next to each other in quick succession. I'm "familiar with" the cops in my area too, which is precisely why I stick like glue to the axiom(s) I first replied to you with in a more or less joking fashion. I'm familiar with their complaint records, and to the extent possible, I'm familiar with the details of what the public complained about them over and the disposition, if any. I'm also familiar with their salaries, benefit packages, time in service, rates of promotion and the ratio of citizen complaints to those rates of promotion, which gives one a very vivid perspective from which to judge exactly what "just doing their jobs" really means to their commanders. While I don't live "in," but only close to Dothan, AL, just do a quick Link Removed and prepare yourself for a rude awakening of just how unfamiliar you likely are with your own cop-shop and the cops who populate it. And in Dothan, the Chief of Police whose department is being investigated for hundreds of civil rights complaints and who can be seen here pictured alongside the vast majority of his white officers...

Link Removed

....makes right at $42 bucks an hour base pay, with no info that I could find for his benefits, but which even conservatively estimating, would put him up in the $150K to $180K range. You can buy a lot of pointy hats made out of bed-sheets with that kind of dough!



I knew before you posted it that you're not sure why you shouldn't talk to cops. Hopefully I've started to answer that question before I got to it in the post, but if not, either "debunk" what I've written thus far, or ask for more, because believe me, I've only scratched the thinnest of layers of examples off the top of my head with links already bookmarked. There are thousands of examples between newspaper accounts, YouTube (and other sites) videos, court cases and current law that all add up to making the axiom "never voluntarily talk to cops" the smartest single piece of advice one citizen can give another if they care about that citizen protecting his rights and his own safety and security. That is the most concise explanation I can give to your above question, because I do care that you don't relinquish your rights by voluntarily talking to cops who your misguided judgment has not already made you wary of.

Blues

Wow dude, you seem to be venting a lot of anger and frustration!


May God grant you peace, and I hope you have a happy Easter.

Blessings,

~S


USAF(Ret)
 
Funny and sad simultaneously

I don't break any laws so am not hesitant to speak to a cop in a non-official setting.
Maybe I'm lucky-all the cops in my area are very nice, profesional, willing to help people, etc.
I also happen to be familiar with a lot of them in my township.


At any rate, I'm not sure why I wouldn't allow myself be in a casual conversation with an officer. Perhaps you could explain why you think we should never voluntarily talk to cops?

Not trying to start anything . Would like to hear y you say that.

Thx,
~S


USAF(Ret)

Duty to notify laws and voluntarily notifying has been discussed in this forum quite a bit. Understand that duty to notify laws apply only to legal carriers, as the criminal has his 5th Amendment right.

Notifying an officer, voluntarily or by law, does provide the officer with the legal opportunity to disarm you for officer safety and to check if you actually are legally carrying, which can only complicate things. Philando Castile got shot and killed for notifying Officer Jeronimo Yanez, because notifying an officer does not put him at ease and Officer Yanez was afraid of his own shadow.

I also advise against having a casual conversation with any LEO that stopped you. You often do not know that you are actually breaking a law until you have told an officer about it and he is arresting you. The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) comes to mind. Also, officers often do not know the current law and you may get arrested for violating a law that doesn't exist anymore.
 
Duty to notify laws and voluntarily notifying has been discussed in this forum quite a bit. Understand that duty to notify laws apply only to legal carriers, as the criminal has his 5th Amendment right.

Notifying an officer, voluntarily or by law, does provide the officer with the legal opportunity to disarm you for officer safety and to check if you actually are legally carrying, which can only complicate things. Philando Castile got shot and killed for notifying Officer Jeronimo Yanez, because notifying an officer does not put him at ease and Officer Yanez was afraid of his own shadow.

I also advise against having a casual conversation with any LEO that stopped you. You often do not know that you are actually breaking a law until you have told an officer about it and he is arresting you. The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) comes to mind. Also, officers often do not know the current law and you may get arrested for violating a law that doesn't exist anymore.

Duly noted, but my style works for me where I live. Am fairly sure our township LEO's all know me, as do several sheriff's deputies, and like I'd said, no problems have occurred.

Here's an example: Car died in the middle of a busy street at lunchtime. Summer heat, was driving my elderly mother.
Responding officer recognized me, helped get my mom into an air conditioned establishment. I am disabled and have some difficulties with heat due to a medicine. Walked back to the squad car, showed military ID & CHL, said I needed a/c too, guy has me sit in the rear, after being told I was armed & didn't close the center window, and started a conversation with me while we waited for the tow truck.
Didn't seem he was concerned with me, and definitely didn't need to be.

Soooo, I don't have any reason to hesitate speaking to, or being legally obligated to inform, OR voluntarily informing.

I s'pose other areas may be very different, but I stick to what I said in the OP in my area:)



USAF(Ret)
 
Wow dude, you seem to be venting a lot of anger and frustration!

You asked, I answered. I provided links and examples to substantiate my position(s). Bofh added reasons that also contribute to my position(s). I showed no anger at all. I was simply straightforward and blunt. Volunteering to talk to cops is no different than volunteering to have the IRS audit your tax returns. Let us know when you do that on the basis that you "don't break any laws." The reason the Fifth Amendment was penned is that its authors and signers well knew that talking to government officials (at any level) is an invitation for it to work its will upon you. That is government's nature. Nature doesn't anger or frustrate me, its most dangerous aspects simply make me wary of it. Government in all its various form is nothing more complicated than brute force. Brute force is never friendly, never interested in what you have to say, and always on the hunt for places and people where it can apply force with impunity. For government, its hunting grounds are target-rich environments because another part of its nature is the inherent ability to brainwash its victims into believing it is benevolent, friendly, and caring, combining to validate in the mass's collective mind its own manufactured myth that there's no reason to fear it. I proved to you, and bofh provided a case which should do the same (Philando Castille), that there is much to fear from those who suffer no consequences when they screw up on the job.

Rather than me being angry or frustrated, it appears from where I'm sitting that you're angry that someone actually answered a question you posed in such a way as to prevent you from rebutting it, because there is no rebuttal to truth. That is to say, I told you the truth and you gave zero reply to it, and instead tried to make me out to possess traits that you couldn't possibly know the truth of. In other words, you got nothin', which was fairly apparent when I said in my previous post, "(I rarely, if ever, use Wikipedia for a source, but that Oscar Grant one is from there, and that's only because 1) there are so few unknown facts about the Oscar Grant killing for Wiki to get wrong, and 2) I don't get the impression that you're likely to be checking my sources, or familiarizing yourself with the facts of any of the cases I'm referencing here, so what's the point in trying to be thorough in finding just the right source?)."

Obviously no point at all, so fare thee well, I'm out.

Oh, wait, one more thing. Look at the pic and correctly identify the following people for extra credit:

Who is,

1) Government
2) The cop (government's enforcer)
3) You (SmiddySW)
4) Me (BluesStringer)

Good luck:

sheepdog-n-farmer-work-together.jpg
 
You asked, I answered. I provided links and examples to substantiate my position(s). Bofh added reasons that also contribute to my position(s). I showed no anger at all. I was simply straightforward and blunt. Volunteering to talk to cops is no different than volunteering to have the IRS audit your tax returns. Let us know when you do that on the basis that you "don't break any laws." The reason the Fifth Amendment was penned is that its authors and signers well knew that talking to government officials (at any level) is an invitation for it to work its will upon you. That is government's nature. Nature doesn't anger or frustrate me, its most dangerous aspects simply make me wary of it. Government in all its various form is nothing more complicated than brute force. Brute force is never friendly, never interested in what you have to say, and always on the hunt for places and people where it can apply force with impunity. For government, its hunting grounds are target-rich environments because another part of its nature is the inherent ability to brainwash its victims into believing it is benevolent, friendly, and caring, combining to validate in the mass's collective mind its own manufactured myth that there's no reason to fear it. I proved to you, and bofh provided a case which should do the same (Philando Castille), that there is much to fear from those who suffer no consequences when they screw up on the job.

Rather than me being angry or frustrated, it appears from where I'm sitting that you're angry that someone actually answered a question you posed in such a way as to prevent you from rebutting it, because there is no rebuttal to truth. That is to say, I told you the truth and you gave zero reply to it, and instead tried to make me out to possess traits that you couldn't possibly know the truth of. In other words, you got nothin', which was fairly apparent when I said in my previous post, "(I rarely, if ever, use Wikipedia for a source, but that Oscar Grant one is from there, and that's only because 1) there are so few unknown facts about the Oscar Grant killing for Wiki to get wrong, and 2) I don't get the impression that you're likely to be checking my sources, or familiarizing yourself with the facts of any of the cases I'm referencing here, so what's the point in trying to be thorough in finding just the right source?)."

Obviously no point at all, so fare thee well, I'm out.

Oh, wait, one more thing. Look at the pic and correctly identify the following people for extra credit:

Who is,

1) Government
2) The cop (government's enforcer)
3) You (SmiddySW)
4) Me (BluesStringer)

Good luck:

sheepdog-n-farmer-work-together.jpg

Ok so here's the rebuttal, but honestly it's not going to matter because obviously we have very different views about LEO's.

* personal experience + having good friends who are career LE, and US Marshal service is that not all cops are looking to get an excuse to jack me up on BS charges

* The examples you listed were pretty excessive in number as if you were trying to drive an "all cops are bad" agenda

* The Klan, rebel flag + cop pic looked as if you'd have me think cops are bigoted towards black people.

* You were indeed blunt, to the point of nauseatingly blunt

* In this post you were rude telling me "You don't have jack"

The issue of notifying was my personal practice & I could care less what anyone thinks of what has worked for me 100% of the time.

As for comparing notifying voluntarily to requesting a tax audit, it presumes My voluntarily notifying cops as I deem prudent is somehow asking them to search me, my car, or even my house to try to find any little thing out of order so they can fine me.

In reality, at least my reality, I'm confident enough in the legality of everything i do related to firearms I would be fine with it if they did search all of that. I keep things upright and legal where it applies to my firearms, and if I did do something wrong I'd deserve to be charged for it so that's fine :)

From the statements you make, it causes me to feel as if you're a person who always thinks "big brother" or "the man" or whomever is out to get you.

If I'm wrong about this stuff please forgive me. My last reply was based on such perceptions, and reinforces my belief that it's rarely possible to have a conversation online that lacks voice tone, volume, or inflection, not to mention body language, all of which could change the entire meaning of words said.




USAF(Ret)
 
Ok so here's the rebuttal, but honestly it's not going to matter because obviously we have very different views about LEO's.

Submission by you to my way of thinking was not the goal in the first place, as you presented in the first post of yours that I replied to whom you submit voluntarily, because as you said, you, "...don't break any laws." That is literally an impossible assertion to substantiate here on a forum, but also to achieve in the real world, as laws have so vastly outpaced human beings' ability to fully comprehend, that neither you nor the cop you're talking to can ever know all the laws. I first tried to just joke about it, but you asked me to explain the basis for my jokes, and then offered nothing in reply to my sincere attempt to answer that request seriously, except of course a wish for a happy Easter, which I sincerely appreciated, but had no desire to discuss in the context of our exchange to that point, and still don't, at least not here in this thread.

Otherwise, this is a *discussion* forum, where it is (or at least should be) taken for granted that people will disagree, so our obvious differences in views (which I freely acknowledge) do matter when in the process of *discussing* them. Neither you or I learn anything about the other if all we do is say "your views don't matter."

* personal experience + having good friends who are career LE, and US Marshal service is that not all cops are looking to get an excuse to jack me up on BS charges

I never said that all cops are out to jack you up. I bristled at the notion that "...all the cops in" your area are pure as the wind-driven snow, paraphrasing of course how you actually stated it, but that's how it came across to me in any case.

Maybe even most cops are "good people" at heart, but like I said in my last reply, it is literally impossible for any of them to be good, constitutionally-compliant cops anywhere in this country anymore. I'd be glad to explain in detail why I say that if you're at all interested, but I gave you a way to figure it for yourself already when I suggested that you test the text of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights against the many modern-day ubiquitous demands upon cops on the street today. Just one easy and quick example would be Terry v. Ohio concerning "reasonable articulable suspicion" and stop-and-frisk tested against the unambiguous text concerning probable cause and search & seizure of the Fourth Amendment.

Bottom line is you don't know which cop you're going to encounter, even among those whom you count as friends - the one who presents as a "good person" or the one who will beat you to death simply because you straightened your legs when he told you to keep them crossed. It is my contention that every cop in America has some of both of those extremes in him/her, just as every human being with a working conscience still has to struggle with good and evil throughout our lifetimes. The difference is, we, as lowly citizens, are held to account many orders of magnitude more often when we lean to the "evil" side than cops are, and so leaning evil is rarely corrected with enough consequence to matter, which makes it an almost irresistible temptation to engage in with impunity for the bulk of a cop's career. Laws that are not enforced equally amongst cops are unjust laws, and cops who cannot be trusted to follow laws on the books that, in a perfect world, should apply equally to them as anybody else, are unjust government agents. Unjust government agents who enforce unjust laws, prove that government is unjust at its root.

* The examples you listed were pretty excessive in number as if you were trying to drive an "all cops are bad" agenda

Three is "excessive?" The only "excessive" numerical issue I can be accused of engaging in is the excessively incomplete number of such incidents I could post to make the points I was attempting to make. I gave exceedingly brief details about Kelly Thomas' and Keith Vidal's murders-by-cop, and left Oscar Grant's murder to be explained by Wikipedia. It is quite clear that your resistance to being exposed to truth backed up with links of real incidences of excessive force being used by cops is itself excessive. It is true that I believe that the system disallows cops being "good" from a constitutional perspective these days, but you'll not trap me into copping to believing something I never said to you or anyone else about all cops being "bad." Never said or thought it, which is precisely why I put the complete opposite thought in my sig-line.

* The Klan, rebel flag + cop pic looked as if you'd have me think cops are bigoted towards black people.

The klan, rebel flag + Chief of Police and at least a wide majority, if not all of his white underlings pic, was exactly what I said it was - an example of modern-day policing that is, at its highest levels of leadership, conducted in not only an unconstitutional manner, but corrupted in the most grotesque ways possible against people who, in Dothan at least, are the least able to afford defending themselves legally.

One might think the story here is that in Dothan, AL, it is a well-established fact that people who make a point of making themselves aware of what's happening in their local government(s), should see all white Dothan cops as bigoted towards black people. What else could that picture possibly say? It was an example of rampant corruption from top to bottom of a modern police department. I didn't say anything to suggest that bigotry is the only type of corruption a cop-shop might be partially or wholly infected by. I'd have you think the truth of the Dothan, AL cop-shop, as-substantiated by any number of the 90,700 links in the search I provided for you when I first mentioned it. That's all it was intended to "have you think."

* You were indeed blunt, to the point of nauseatingly blunt

So we do agree on something! Yeah, agreement doesn't matter to me either.

* In this post you were rude telling me "You don't have jack"

I told you you replied exactly zero in response to anything I said, and that's exactly what you did do.
_shrug__or__dunno__by_crula.gif


In just a couple of call-and-responses, you have established a nasty habit of reading into things I've said and spitting out responses to stuff I've never said, and never would say. Just because the truth hurts, which I don't know why it would in this quote's particular case, as it's clear as a bell that it is the truth, doesn't give you the right to respond to words or thoughts that you clearly make up in your own mind, but nonetheless attribute to me. Kindly stop it.

The issue of notifying was my personal practice & I could care less what anyone thinks of what has worked for me 100% of the time.

Same 100% efficiency for my not voluntarily notifying. So?

As for comparing notifying voluntarily to requesting a tax audit, it presumes My voluntarily notifying cops as I deem prudent is somehow asking them to search me, my car, or even my house to try to find any little thing out of order so they can fine me.

While I wouldn't limit your potential adverse consequences for your own voluntarism in this regard to simply being "fined," that's exactly the implication I intended, and SCOTUS is the governmental body that has established those abstract thoughts as set-in-stone law for the entire country, so "your area" is irrelevant to the status of the law as it currently stands. Heck, since 2013, even silence can be used against you under some circumstances, so just imagine how much more use they stand to have available to them when you start yappin' like government is your friend or some such nonsense?

In reality, at least my reality, I'm confident enough in the legality of everything i do related to firearms I would be fine with it if they did search all of that. I keep things upright and legal where it applies to my firearms, and if I did do something wrong I'd deserve to be charged for it so that's fine :)

As bofh tried to gently (as opposed to "nauseatingly bluntly" I suppose) warn you, your and Philando Castille's "realities" are at wide variance. I'd go a bit further and say that your reality is at diametrically-opposed variance with any actual scrutiny of the provable truth of the matter based only on the juxtaposition of your stated opinions in this quote and the facts surrounding why Philando Castille is dead now, but I'm OK with how bofh framed it just the same.

From the statements you make, it causes me to feel as if you're a person who always thinks "big brother" or "the man" or whomever is out to get you.

I commented on what I see as the nature of government. Whether or not I choose catch-phrases or slogans to describe it as I have is irrelevant to rebutting it effectively, or in this case, at all. My position in this thread should come across much different than how you think I've stated it thus far though. You should recognize that I'm concerned that government is out to get you, and that you aid it in that quest whenever you volunteer to talk to it. Any attorney worth their salt will tell you the same thing. Most "honest" cops will tell you the same thing too. The American Bar Association will tell you the same thing. The ACLU will also. I''m not particularly fond of any of those groups or .orgs, but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and they all use one of their right picks whenever they correctly disseminate that well-intentioned advice. Take it or leave it, but it is intended at the bottom line to benefit your safety and security from an ever-expanding and overreaching government.

If I'm wrong about this stuff please forgive me. My last reply was based on such perceptions, and reinforces my belief that it's rarely possible to have a conversation online that lacks voice tone, volume, or inflection, not to mention body language, all of which could change the entire meaning of words said.

Nope, no forgiveness required, and except for inserting stuff that I never said or thought, you got some stuff right this time.

I realize that this discussion is kind of off-topic to the thread OP, but I think it's important for people to hear both sides of the voluntarily-disclosed-armed-status argument. The "you" to whom I refer above is a generic "you." It's all the you's out there who never gave voluntarily informing much thought. People get shot for innocently pulling out their phone or reaching for their wallet or glove box to get ID and other papers. If it can happen to any of the people we know it's happened to, it can happen to you. Be wary of government. Government is not your friend. This country was founded on the premise that government had always, for time immemorial, been the enemy of the people who founded it - not in the metaphorical sense, but in a quite literal sense. I mean nothing personal towards you, SmiddySW, nor towards individual cops who strive to do as good a job as they can. I only recognize, and have the audacity to say out loud, that you just never know who the "good" ones are, and who the bad ones are.

Blues
 
At any rate, I'm not sure why I wouldn't allow myself be in a casual conversation with an officer. Perhaps you could explain why you think we should never voluntarily talk to cops?
I live in Ohio but I was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago. I don't trust the average cop as far as I can throw Amy Schumer.

I want NOTHING to do with the police, hence I conduct myself in a manner calculated to keep contacts with them to the absolute minimum.
 
I live in Ohio but I was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago. I don't trust the average cop as far as I can throw Amy Schumer.

I want NOTHING to do with the police, hence I conduct myself in a manner calculated to keep contacts with them to the absolute minimum.

Maybe I'm just friendly and a badge doesn't change that. For instance if I see a cop in a local gas station I say hello. I don't get more engaging with many ppl beyond that but a brief greeting is just how I do. If an actual conversation was started by then it'd be right when I said, "Just so you're aware officer, I'm legally armed." Which is exactly what I say if stopped as they approach my open window with my hands on the wheel, licenses in hand.

A badge doesn't make me treat cops any different than anyone else unless it has to do a legality. No i don't ask them when they're buying my coffee and a donut but they're no different than I except when it's their job not to be, especially if I've personally given them cause to do that job with me.
But ok whatever, people don't impress me enough to make me avoid them because of their job until it intersects with my life, and even then they still put their pants on one leg at a time just like me.


USAF(Ret)
 
Maybe I'm just friendly and a badge doesn't change that. For instance if I see a cop in a local gas station I say hello. I don't get more engaging with many ppl beyond that but a brief greeting is just how I do. If an actual conversation was started by then it'd be right when I said, "Just so you're aware officer, I'm legally armed." Which is exactly what I say if stopped as they approach my open window with my hands on the wheel, licenses in hand.

A badge doesn't make me treat cops any different than anyone else unless it has to do a legality. No i don't ask them when they're buying my coffee and a donut but they're no different than I except when it's their job not to be, especially if I've personally given them cause to do that job with me.
But ok whatever, people don't impress me enough to make me avoid them because of their job until it intersects with my life, and even then they still put their pants on one leg at a time just like me.


USAF(Ret)
Hi Smiddy,
Is your post saying that in a casual conversation you would relate to an Officer that you are in fact, carry concealed? Like at Dunkin Donuts? I mean outside of an actual traffic stop in a shall disclose state? Just trying to understand because I tell zero people that I carry except for adults in my immediate family who aren't gun phobic. Thanks.

The Place To Be
 
Maybe I'm just friendly and a badge doesn't change that. For instance if I see a cop in a local gas station I say hello. I don't get more engaging with many ppl beyond that but a brief greeting is just how I do. If an actual conversation was started by then it'd be right when I said, "Just so you're aware officer, I'm legally armed." ....
I'm sorry but that sounds almost like a challenge in that context.

A badge doesn't make me treat cops any different than anyone else unless it has to do a legality....

USAF(Ret)
Do you mean that you tell everyone that you interact with that you're carrying a gun?
 
I'm sorry but that sounds almost like a challenge in that context.


Do you mean that you tell everyone that you interact with that you're carrying a gun?
If I were a LEO and having a conversation with a citizen and they just blurt out that they have a gun on them, I would probably wouldn't be far off base to say that it will escalate the discussion from conversational to confrontational.

Cops don't really want to know or care that you are carrying and just shooting the breeze about the weather would be wiser IMHO. They are hyper sensitive these days as is and keeping the banter at a level where they don't get their Spidey senses tingling is where I would leave it. The less people that know I'm carrying, the better, and LEOs have enough to worry about.

The Place To Be
 
If I were a LEO and having a conversation with a citizen and they just blurt out that they have a gun on them, I would probably wouldn't be far off base to say that it will escalate the discussion from conversational to confrontational.

Cops don't really want to know or care that you are carrying and just shooting the breeze about the weather would be wiser IMHO. They are hyper sensitive these days as is and keeping the banter at a level where they don't get their Spidey senses tingling is where I would leave it. The less people that know I'm carrying, the better, and LEOs have enough to worry about.

The Place To Be

In re: to the last replies here--

No i don't tell everyone I cross I'm carrying. I keep it on a need to know basis. As long as it's concealed and I'm not threatened to the point of needing to draw, they don't need to know.

As for cops and conversation, I've not encountered one that thought my calm, matter of fact disclosure found it alarming. I just say it as it is, that being no big deal. If in a state where it's not required to disclose, then I won't.

I dunno, maybe I need to reevaluate my methods, but I've yet to run into any issues.

I just don't see my disclosure as being any bigger a deal than their sidearm being exposed in public. But is dependent on the situation like everything else.

And I don't just "blurt." No desire to alarm anyone so like I said, if I feel it necessary to disclose I do so in a very matter of fact way as if I am saying "it's nice out today."

It's not like if I walk into a business and see a LEO I immediately run up to them and loudly say, "Hey azzhole, I've got a gun!" Ya know?

As with everything I do, I evaluate and gauge situations based on the variables present. It's important to stay calm all the time while carrying anyway, at least until it's time to unholster...




USAF(Ret)
 
The following is an email sent out by Ohioans for Concealed Carry:

Fellow pro-gun Ohioans,

***WE NEED YOUR CALLS & EMAILS***

As we enter into this Independence Day holiday weekend we should all reflect on the founder's drive to protect our freedoms. Today we have our own battles to fight, and this is your trumpet call to action:

This Wednesday 7/5/2017 there will be a VERY IMPORTANT hearing in the Ohio House Federalism & Interstate Relations Committee at 1pm (Statehouse, Room #115). Two (2) of our high priority pro-gun bills are on the list as having possible votes. Among them is HB142 (repeals active notification requirement for CHL holders when stopped by law enforcement), which OFCC will be scoring as a KEY VOTE for which legislators respect our rights. But all is not sunshine and roses - there is the possibility of an amendment that could water down HB142. It is imperative that HB142 get a fair up-or-down vote with the AS INTRODUCED LANGUAGE. We know full well that this is the #1 issue to our members and we're pulling with you on this critical bill. Here's the list of all the bills to be considered:
HB142 (notification repeal)
HB233 (decriminalizing no-guns signs)
Please CALL & EMAIL your state representatives indicating your support for these bills! Reiterate that HB142's AS INTRODUCED LANGUAGE is what needs to move forward. You can find your state representative by going to the "Member Search" tool at the bottom left of this page and entering your zip code:
The Ohio House of Representatives

If these bill(s) get voted out of committee on Wednesday there is the possibility of a full house floor vote on Thursday 7/6/2017! This would be the last chance for the house to act before the summer recess. Don't let this golden opportunity slip by! Call/email your representative today!!!
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,526
Messages
610,760
Members
74,962
Latest member
troydistro
Back
Top