my spelling is very bad, i grew up with the crutch that is spell check everywhere and for that i am sorry. on topic, i have a great ammount of respect for anyone who protects and serves i just wish that they could better articulate their demands and occasionally obeyed the law. the gun issue has so many cultural implications, just the other day i asked my college friends what they would do if they were in a store and saw someone else wearing a gun and the overwhelming response was "freak out". as gun owners we need to, through our responsibility and good judgemnet, change the harts and minds of our fellow citizens and for gods sake, vote!
Ordered to ground at gunpoint for open carrying by cleveland heights ohio police
- Thread starter freedom_fighter777
- Start date
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Just got back from summer trip, AZ, NM, CA home to Texas, while in Sedona, did open carry as well as NM, no problem had coffee with sheriff in AZ sitting out doors, he ask if he could share a table do to crowding no problem, also no problem from fact I was carrying on hip, during stop in CA the fact that I had an empty holster on my belt caused two State officers to ask if I had a gun again no problem it was in car and in compliance with CA law. Officer did mention should not wear holster to avoid panic, I explained I had just driven into the state and would remove the scary holster on arrival in Santa Monica as we were driving straight through after morning coffee. On return trip stopped by Border Patrol at checkpoint, dog hit on rent car, no problem again and officer only ask that I sit the gun on seat of car while dog checked (this I did), second officer ask if he could unload weapon, and I granted him permission again no problem, stopped a third time in Texas officer ask me to hand him weapon, after explanation on how to safe a single action colt 45 without shooting us or himself ( he waved gun over wife and I and himself) we proceeded with no problem, the CA stop officers were more concerned with empty holster than the two stops in Texas and no problem at all with AZ. It is just going to be a function of knowledge and information that will keep the 2nd amendment alive, my personal opinion is the 2nd amendment protects the rest of the amendments. God Bless America
Oldgrunt
Well-known member
Ordered to ground.....
Reading Nightmare 45's comments indicated to me that common courtesy was used in his dealings with law enforclement personnel. He apparently was not confrontational and there was no need for him to be so. The law enforcement personnel did their job, he reciprocated in a manner appropriate for the situation and all was well. Couldn't ask for things to have been better. To me, this is a classic example of how things should have worked. Kudos to you, Nightmare 45.
Reading Nightmare 45's comments indicated to me that common courtesy was used in his dealings with law enforclement personnel. He apparently was not confrontational and there was no need for him to be so. The law enforcement personnel did their job, he reciprocated in a manner appropriate for the situation and all was well. Couldn't ask for things to have been better. To me, this is a classic example of how things should have worked. Kudos to you, Nightmare 45.
Treo
Bullet Proof
If all this guy did was go out and provoke a confrontation I don't see the point. What was actually accomplished ? How did this encounter further RKBA?
Do you really think that cop is going to stop harrassing open carriers because of this?
And as always he's talking entirely too much to the cops.
Are you detaining me officer, or am I free to go?
Cop: You are being detained.
I have nothing to say w/ out speaking to a lawyer
PS I wan't to know what happened after the audio cut
Do you really think that cop is going to stop harrassing open carriers because of this?
And as always he's talking entirely too much to the cops.
Are you detaining me officer, or am I free to go?
Cop: You are being detained.
I have nothing to say w/ out speaking to a lawyer
PS I wan't to know what happened after the audio cut
cabrera
New member
The case was settled for an undisclosed amount provided they institute an educational policy training their law enforcement officials on Ohio Firearm laws. I'm sure the "victim" donated the proceeds of this lawsuit to an organization that would continue to fight for our 2nd amendment rights...because it wasn't just for the money.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/10216-federal-lawsuit-against-cleveland-heights-police-filed.html
maybejim
Maybejim
The man could have been a psycho? Gee, I've seen lot's of folks who could have been psycho's. Should the police be allowed to stop and search them, to make sure they aren't carrying a dangerous weapon? I think you need to give some serious thought to what abilities you want to grant to the police. I don't want a police state. It won't make me or you safer.
Oldgrunt
Well-known member
maybejim,
You seem to have missed a line or two in the original post. This guy WAS carrying a weapon. He (the cop)didn't search him to see if he had a weapon. It was in plain sight. I am sensing that this thread is starting to paint law enforcement as evil people. I am sorry but I don't see them that way. You can find a horse's rear end in any profession, police included, but they have a job to do. The are bitched at for doing their job and bitched at for not doing their job. It is all in how one perceives their action and how it pertains to them individually. I would be curious to know if there are any law enforcement personnel who are reading or who have read any of the comments of this thread and would care to comment on it from their perspective. Maybe they could enlighten us. Anyone care to try?:smile:
You seem to have missed a line or two in the original post. This guy WAS carrying a weapon. He (the cop)didn't search him to see if he had a weapon. It was in plain sight. I am sensing that this thread is starting to paint law enforcement as evil people. I am sorry but I don't see them that way. You can find a horse's rear end in any profession, police included, but they have a job to do. The are bitched at for doing their job and bitched at for not doing their job. It is all in how one perceives their action and how it pertains to them individually. I would be curious to know if there are any law enforcement personnel who are reading or who have read any of the comments of this thread and would care to comment on it from their perspective. Maybe they could enlighten us. Anyone care to try?:smile:
maybejim
Maybejim
I know the guy was carrying a weapon. It was not against the law. The cop took it on his own to assume that he was a bad guy even though he had not observed anything illegal. He acted as an ass. Now there are many reasonable good cops. There are also a bunch who are not. Either we have a right to carry or we don't have a Constitution. I wouldn't carry Openly but as long as it is legal, I will defend it.
cabrera
New member
Yes, you are correct, it is not against the law but it may have been suspect. A few thing on the tape could give me reason to suspect:
- The Police were responding to a call about a man walking around with a gun.
- The cop asked the individual where was he coming from & where was he going?
Since we don't know the contents of the actual call to the Police we can't definitively say but, because the cop asks him where is going, & where did he come from? it appears the 911 call could have said "there is a guy with a gun walking back & forth" to me that would be suspicious. I would not like it if someone kept walking by my house over & over armed. It looks like he's either stalking or casing the joint.
That said, the female officer in the tape shows her ABSOLUTE ignorance of the law as written. She tells the person "You can't openly carry" The more she spoke the more stupid she sounded. In her early appearance she comes off like Ru Paul with her high & mighty empowered woman attitude (oh no you di'int) Guess she watched to many episodes of Good Times as a kid.
She needed to be sent back to the Police Academy for retraining.
The cops were responding to a call, if the dispatcher had dismissed the caller by saying "sorry ma'am it's not illegal" and the gun owner turns out to be a stalker who kills a resident on that block, people would be in an uproar. It's just like when someone calls because the music is too loud...the cops have to investigate, especially in an area where it is uncommon to open carry.
maybejim
Maybejim
I would not like it if someone kept walking by my house over & over armed. It looks like he's either stalking or casing the joint.
Nor would I with or without a gun, but I don't think this was in a residential area. If the cop wants to investigate "suspicious activity" then perhaps he has a right but that has nothing to do with legal carrying of a gun.
That said, the female officer in the tape shows her ABSOLUTE ignorance of the law as written. She tells the person "You can't openly carry" The more she spoke the more stupid she sounded. In her early appearance she comes off like Ru Paul with her high & mighty empowered woman attitude (oh no you di'int)
Indeed.
if the dispatcher had dismissed the caller by saying "sorry ma'am it's not illegal" and the gun owner turns out to be a stalker who kills a resident on that block, people would be in an uproar.
Which is exactly why where "open carry" is legal it should be practiced. Ignorance and stupidity of the people needs be addressed.
It's just like when someone calls because the music is too loud...the cops have to investigate,
Too loud music (during certain hours) is illegal. There is a big difference.
Actually, maybejim, I agree with the original statement. It is just like when someone calls because the music is too loud.
1. Someone calls because the music is too loud OR there is a man with a gun.
2. Cops show up:
They drive by, roll down their window, hear no music, investigation complete. No evidence of loud music, no evidence of a crime being committed, cops go their merry way.
OR
They drive by, they see a person lawfully carrying a firearm in a holster, see no evidence of a crime being committed, investigation complete. No evidence of a crime, cops go their merry way.
maybejim
Maybejim
Can't disagree with that. Reasonable and sane. Of course if enough people actually utilized their rights the sheeple would stop having hysterics because someone is carrying a gun or walking down the street.
Amen to that! There is an open carrier in Seattle that lives in a bad part of town. Some of the stores he frequents, such as the Safeway, like him going there because they feel safer with him there. We had an open carry BBQ at his apartment complex, our third there, we had 70 people there, about 40% open carrying. That apartment complex manager was showing a couple of prospective residents around, I wonder what they thought when she showed them the recreation area and there were 40-45 people toting guns on their belts! She made a point to say to the organizer that she really liked it when we had our get togethers there because anyone was welcome to come in and partake of our food and she knew a bunch of the residents really liked that.
Why?
After reading to the end of the topic I am left with only 2 questions.
#1 Why is it people have no problem with a person having a gun at their side if they are wearing a uniform?
Police and the armed guards that pick up cash from stores Brinks and Loomis are the names of the 2 I see here in Washington state.
#2 Why are people afraid of other people that open carry? The only reason I can come up with is that that they are missing the uniform which for some reason makes people feel ok about them being armed.
If you have a CCW and people know you have a gun without you telling them then you are not CC correctly.
As far as why OC because it lets everyone know that you have a gun just like the police whose gun is on display for all to see. It lets anyone know that you have a gun. I am not a bad guy but I believe that all BG's would not try to rob a store with police in it. 1 because they are armed and 2 because they can radio for more police to show. Same goes for seeing a civi with a gun holstered on their hip. If you CC you have to react to the situation whereas if you OC the bad guy has to react to the fact that you can put up a fight and most will wait till you are gone to carry out their plan. While the CC is still shopping and gets caught in the situation where bad guy is robbing the store since the threat of the OCer is gone.
So on goes the debate of OC or CC
I have done both but prefer CC because I don't want to be in a situation like freedom_fighter777 and you never know how the LEO is going to behave.
After reading to the end of the topic I am left with only 2 questions.
#1 Why is it people have no problem with a person having a gun at their side if they are wearing a uniform?
Police and the armed guards that pick up cash from stores Brinks and Loomis are the names of the 2 I see here in Washington state.
#2 Why are people afraid of other people that open carry? The only reason I can come up with is that that they are missing the uniform which for some reason makes people feel ok about them being armed.
If you have a CCW and people know you have a gun without you telling them then you are not CC correctly.
As far as why OC because it lets everyone know that you have a gun just like the police whose gun is on display for all to see. It lets anyone know that you have a gun. I am not a bad guy but I believe that all BG's would not try to rob a store with police in it. 1 because they are armed and 2 because they can radio for more police to show. Same goes for seeing a civi with a gun holstered on their hip. If you CC you have to react to the situation whereas if you OC the bad guy has to react to the fact that you can put up a fight and most will wait till you are gone to carry out their plan. While the CC is still shopping and gets caught in the situation where bad guy is robbing the store since the threat of the OCer is gone.
So on goes the debate of OC or CC
I have done both but prefer CC because I don't want to be in a situation like freedom_fighter777 and you never know how the LEO is going to behave.
cabrera
New member
IMO the answer is simple FEAR. Today people are afraid of everything. It's difficult to tell the BG from the GG!
We've had to deal with Shootings like Columbine, where in the past kids use to settle their differences with fists. It has nothing to do with the issue, it is just the perception of a threat.
Most people are afraid of everything...INCLUDING being afraid to protect themselves. Would we be better off banning all guns? Probably yes, but unfortunately banning all guns would only result in only the BG having them!
I am glad that you realize that if guns were banned that the criminals would still have them. And I by keeping my gun would become a criminal.
If you look at the school shooting you will see that the only thing to stop the actions of the person is another person with a gun or rifle and that person is usually a LEO. If people can get over their fear of guns and realize that it is the person who is using the gun that decides if it will be used for good or bad actions.
As for the fear is what making people freak out they need to be told to clam down and wait to see if the person with a gun is going to be a threat to them before freaking out. As I am not naive enough to believe that just because the person is wearing a uniform means that they are a good guy and can be trusted. People all have a limit to how much they can take before snapping.Unfortunately there is no way of telling that the person has reached that level until it is to late.
cabrera
New member
i have to say. oc is simply nuts. i know it is your right, but it is insane to do so.
What is the point of oc? To just exercise your rights?
Why do people want to go and shove it in their face that you can exercise your rights.
What is the point? To work some more support for the anti gun people? that is all that it's doing.
I am very pro gun, but when i see someone oc, i am immediately drawn to them. why? because it is unusual. Then people wonder why the oc and they get a weird feeling about the person doing it. It is just human nature. Getting a CCW is the easiest thing in the world in OC states. Why not just get a CCW?
The only problem would be for those who have dui or domestic complaints, not to mention criminal records.
What is the point of oc? To just exercise your rights?
Why do people want to go and shove it in their face that you can exercise your rights.
What is the point? To work some more support for the anti gun people? that is all that it's doing.
I am very pro gun, but when i see someone oc, i am immediately drawn to them. why? because it is unusual. Then people wonder why the oc and they get a weird feeling about the person doing it. It is just human nature. Getting a CCW is the easiest thing in the world in OC states. Why not just get a CCW?
The only problem would be for those who have dui or domestic complaints, not to mention criminal records.
I was going to draft a smart-a$$ answer that sounded just as ridiculous, but I don't think I will sink to that level.
Nope.
deterrence
A noun
1 deterrence
the act or process of discouraging actions or preventing occurrences by instilling fear or doubt or anxiety
Open carry is the visible show of the ability to repel a criminal attack by the use of deadly force, if necessary. It causes the criminal to be instilled with fear, doubt, or anxiety about choosing the open carrier as a target, therefore causing them to move on or wait a couple minutes for an unarmed target to appear (which just might be you, the concealed carrier.) I would rather deter the crime from happening to me in the first place than to defend myself after the criminal act has begun.
I don't want to shove anything in anyone's face and I don't. You would have to be only three feet tall for my gun to be in your face. I carry my gun in a tight fitting holster on my belt. 99% of the people never even notice it.
Concealed carry, and such a negative reaction to open carry such as you exhibit, does more to support the anti-gun people than open carry does. 1. It condones the idea that the gun itself is evil and should be hidden away. 2. Concealed carry does nothing to promote the positive image of an ordinary American doing ordinary things that ordinary people do, except for the fact that ordinary American cares enough about themselves and their families to have the means available to protect them from violent crime.
You disguise it very well. Nobody would ever guess that you are very pro gun when you are so willing to bash someone simply because they choose to wear their shirt tucked in behind their gun instead of hiding their gun.
How do you propose to change that attitude if the only image the public gets of guns is what is presented to them by the anti-gun groups and the anti-gun media? They are never going to feel any different about guns if we don't show them decent, law abiding Americans carrying guns. Concealed carry does nothing to change their attitudes. In fact, like I state earlier, it reinforces the idea that guns are evil and need to be hidden away.
Believe it or not there are some people who do not like the idea of having to pay the government for the government's permission in order to exercise the right to self protection.
And this proves a point. It sounds like you think it is OK for a state to prohibit more people than the Federal government already does from carrying a firearm. How is that consistent with being "very pro gun?" My feeling is that if the government feels a person is unsafe to carry a firearm in public because they have committed a criminal act, than the government should not allow that person to walk around in public at all. A gun is only a tool. A person is either a criminal or not. If they are too dangerous to carry a gun, then they should be too dangerous to be walking around freely in public.
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.