Washington LEO Encounter
- Thread starter NavyLCDR
- Start date
Deserteagle
New member
Wow, another thread about open carry versus concealed carry.
Let me point out that those "40%" of Americans who favor gun control are largely basing their opinions off the common misconception that only cops and criminals have guns. When an ordinary citizen open carries, it proves them wrong. Open carry also fights the misconception that guns are private, dangerous things that need to be hidden, or banned for that matter.
We could go on all day but its pointless. Carry how you like, but dont be one of those 40% who try to limit our options for carrying. I used to be against open carry, but I realized it was an unreasonable opinion. So now I am waiting until I get the money for a nice retention holster so I can open carry when I see fit and exercise my 2nd amendment right. Not taunt. Exercise.
Let me point out that those "40%" of Americans who favor gun control are largely basing their opinions off the common misconception that only cops and criminals have guns. When an ordinary citizen open carries, it proves them wrong. Open carry also fights the misconception that guns are private, dangerous things that need to be hidden, or banned for that matter.
We could go on all day but its pointless. Carry how you like, but dont be one of those 40% who try to limit our options for carrying. I used to be against open carry, but I realized it was an unreasonable opinion. So now I am waiting until I get the money for a nice retention holster so I can open carry when I see fit and exercise my 2nd amendment right. Not taunt. Exercise.
So let me make sure I understand this. I should not wear my gun in the most effective manner to prevent a criminal attack against myself or my family because it might upset the 40% MINORITY enough that they will become politically active enough to pass more gun control laws?
Well, lets see, Washington Cease Fire is "For the past 28 years, Washington CeaseFire has been the only statewide organization dedicated to reducing gun violence. The organization was formed in 1983 by citizens who had been directly affected by gun violence. From a small group meeting in private homes, it has grown to an organization with more than 5,000 members across the state. Washington CeaseFire is now one of the most respected gun safety organizations in the nation and continues to work to reduce gun violence in communities throughout Washington state."
In 28 years the anti-gun group in Washington has grown to 5,000 members. Wow. Let's see, as of January 1, 2011 there were 276,612 active Washington Concealed Pistol Licenses. Hmmm.... 5,000 compared to 276,612...I wonder how many hunting licenses there are in addition to the CPLs?
So, why is it again that we have to hide our guns from the anti-gunners? The problem is that we have come to believe their propaganda that they are the majority. They aren't. And with every year that goes by that the government promises to protect people from unemployment and crime, and fails miserably, the number of people who realize that they must take action to protect themselves grows. Yet a lot of the "pro-gun" crowd insists that we must live our lives in fear - not of the criminals - but of the anti-gun minority. So, instead of standing up for what is right, instead of standing up for our rights and exercising them, we begin to live our lives feeling that we must accept second class citizenship and hide our guns away with our permission slips in our pockets that we paid the government for, because if we do otherwise, surely the anti-gunners will strip even that away from us, right? It is exactly because of thinking like that that we lose our rights.
In my day-to-day life in Washington state, less than 1% of the people I come into contact with have a visible or verbal negative reaction to the gun on my belt. 99% of the people that I and my family watch have no reaction at all, or they will show some visible or verbal sign of approval. Of the less than 1% that have negative reactions - 4 out of 5 of those are concealed carry only, "pro-gun" people who get their panties in a bunch and tell me I should cover up my gun like it is something evil.
My daughter loves to say, "There is no need to hide your gun. You aren't a criminal. Criminals need to hide their guns."
California is a country to it's own. Hopefully the open carry ban will bolster the 2nd Amendment lawsuits against that corrupt and tyrannical government. The last lawsuit (Peruda I think was his name) was lost because the Federal court ruled that unlicensed unloaded open carry was enough to fulfill the right to keep and bear arms. So, since that last option is now gone, hopefully the lawsuits can be re-addressed and won.
The anti-gun minority attempted to ban guns in public parks and rec centers in Seattle. The result?
Judge: Seattle gun ban is illegal - seattlepi.com
"Judge: Seattle gun ban is illegal"
Ya know. I didn't mean to get drawn into this OC/CC argument.
The real point I was trying to make if you look back was that the OP said he wanted to keep his privacy.
My argument was that you can't crave privacy and OC at the same time.
I can't figure out how this became an OC/Cc argument again. I already stated I don't care about that argument.
KK
The real point I was trying to make if you look back was that the OP said he wanted to keep his privacy.
My argument was that you can't crave privacy and OC at the same time.
I can't figure out how this became an OC/Cc argument again. I already stated I don't care about that argument.
KK
Amen brother, amen. The Fourth amendment as well as the Fifth (for that matter all the bill of rights) were ment to protect ALL of us from big government, not just the bad guys in a 'cops and robbers' tv show. There is nothing immoral or shady about exercising your Constutional rights, not just the second amendment but all of them. Innocent people have been treated badly or sent to jail for 'cooperating' with police. Cops love it when people get 'diarrea of the mouth'. The police are not God, though some (not all)act that way. If I am not required to notify or breaking the law it is none of the cops damn business if I am carrying, where I have been or where I am headed. YOUR RIGHTS, USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!
I'll bet you have never openly carried throughout the day doing your normal everyday business, have you?
That is not an option here in SC unless hunting or fishing. There are places I may if I could but there are other places I wouldn't dare. For that reason, I probably would only CC even if OC was an option. I work on the road and not in a shop. If I were in my shop, I just may OC. On my turf, my rules.
Once again, I have no problem with someone OC'ing. This thread got skewed somewhere along the way and became an OC vs CC. I really have no dog in that fight.
As I said, it was just the paradox of wanting privacy while OC'ing. I just don't see how you can expect to do both in this world. Yes, Rosa Parks was somewhat of a relevant analogy but just barely.
I helped preserve your right to do what you want, for the most part, for 20 years of my life. I don't begrudge you that either.
You keep trying to make this about OC'ing and I keep trying to fall into that trap.
When Rosa Parks did what she did, her privacy went to hell whether she wanted it to or not.
Is that a better analogy of what my point is?
KK
Warbirds
New member
Lets see you justify your statement that OCing as the "most effective manner to prevent a criminal attack" with real proof. I love the stories you and others throw up. "I went somewhere and some minorities (insert race here) didn't do something". "But I KNOW they would have if I wasn't OCing". I love it. It's drivel.
How many of these would have members in Washington?
Link Removed
All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.
AARP
AFL-CIO
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Civil Liberties Union
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Medical Women`s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Association
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Trauma Society
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Counseling Association
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for World Health
American Ethical Union
American Nurses Association
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Firearms Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Jewish Committee
American Trauma Society
American Psychological Association
American Jewish Congress
American Public Health Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Black Mental Health Alliance
B`nai B`rith
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Children`s Defense Fund
Church of the Brethren
Coalition for Peace Action
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
College Democrats of America
Committee for the Study of Handgun Misuse & World Peace
Common Cause
Congress of National Black Churches, Inc.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Consumer Federation of America
Council of the Great City Schools
Council of Chief State School Officers
Dehere Foundation
Disarm Educational Fund
Environmental Action Foundation
Episcopal Church-Washington Office
Florence and John Shumann Foundation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Federation of Women`s Clubs
George Gund Fun
Gray Panthers
H.M. Strong Foundation
Hadassah
Harris Foundation
Hechinger Foundation
Interfaith Neighbors
Int`l Ladies` Garment Workers` Union
Int`l Association of Educators for World Peace
Jewish Labor Committee
Joyce Foundation
Lauder Foundation
Lawrence Foundation
League of Women Voters of the United States*
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Manhattan Project II
Mennonite Central Committee-Washington Office
National Safe Kids Campaign
National Association of Police Organizations
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Black Nurses` Association
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Network for Youth
National Assembly of National Voluntary Health & Social Welfare Organizations
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Counties*
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers
National Education Association
National Association of Elementary School Principals*
National Association of Public Hospitals
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Children`s Hospitals and Related Institutions
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council of La Raza
National Center to Rehabilitate Violent Youth
National Commission for Economic Conversion & Disarmament
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Negro Women
National Association of Community Health Centers
National People`s Action
National Education Association*
National League of Cities
National Council on Family Relations
National Council of Jewish Women
National Organization for Women
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Peace Foundation
National Urban League, Inc.
National Parent, Teachers Association*
National Urban Coalition
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Organization on Disability
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Ortenberg Foundation
Peace Action
People for the American Way
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Police Foundation
Project on Demilitarization and Democracy
Public Citizen
SaferWorld
Society of Critical Care Medicine
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
The Council of the Great City Schools
The Synergetic Society
20/20 Vision
U.S. Catholic Conference, Dept. of Social Development
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United States Catholic Conference
United Methodist Church, General Board & Church Society
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society*
United States Conference of Mayors
War and Peace Foundation
Women Strike for Peace
Women`s National Democratic Club
Women`s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Women`s Int`l League for Peace and Freedom
World Spiritual Assembly, Inc.
YWCA of the U.S.A.
You love to call people out but provide little proof yourself.
And you still didn't have an answer for what happened in California.
Deserteagle
New member
I dont understand where you got this information. Where are your sources to back up your claim that people who see an open carrier are motivated to bring about additional gun control? Are you suggesting that after people see guns, they say to themselves "Ah yes, that reminds me. I should start collecting signatures to ban guns"?
Also, many democrats actually like guns. If all democrats hated guns, that "40%" who favor gun control would actually be much higher.
In regards to the "taunting", your verb does not apply to an open carrier, even with the most loosely abstracted definition of taunting. Having a gun in a holster while grocery shopping does not express criticism or disapproval to somebody in an insulting or mocking manner.
If we follow your logic, then people walking down the street wearing crocs are taunting us non-croc owners. People driving motorcycles would be taunting us who drive cars, etc.
BuddhaKat
The Big Happy Fat Kat
I make it a practice to let the cop know I have a weapon first thing. The way I see it, cops have to operate with an abundance of caution. Their job is dangerous and sometimes fatal. Declaring my gun on the onset of our encounter has some benefit for both of us. For the cop, he gets to maintain control and decide how he wants to proceed. (So far, once I declared my weapon, the two cops I've been stopped by only asked where it was.) It also benefits me because cops tend to get a bit testy when they discover a gun they didn't know about. Right or wrong, I don't have anything to fear from a LEO and I don't have any reservations about letting them know I'm carrying. Here in Reno, I've yet to meet a cop that had a problem with a law abiding citizen carrying a gun. Though it hasn't worked so far, I'm still holding out that being a good guy with a gun will score me some points when the cop's deciding whether to give me a ticket or a warning.
S&W645
NRA Life Member
Want to explain to me how they find out from your DL? The DL and the CWorF license are not tied together. Two different agencies even.
Interesting. You say you have no problem with someone OC'ing and yet you use phrases like "taunting" the anti-gun crowd, "in your face", "shock into submission" and "Dodge City". I find it interesting that 9 times out of 10 when someone uses phrases like those to describe open carry it is coming from a person who is from a state like New York, Texas, Oklahoma or South Carolina who have never open carried a day in their life, yet they are experts on open carrying and how bad it is.
Wow, such a challenge!
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf
Page 12:
Link Removed
Gun Owner Saves Lives In The Richmond VA Golden Market Shooting
Anybody with a minimal amount of common sense and/or intelligence should be able to see that a criminal has absolutely no reason to attack Joe Citizen who they can see is armed and ready to defend themselves with deadly force. Given that less than 1% of Joe Citizens visibly carry firearms, all the criminal has to do is wait two minutes for the guy with the gun to move on and the next victim to come along who does not appear to be carrying a gun and attack them for the exact same possible gains, without the danger of getting shot at.
Or, in the convenience store or Waffle House, again, just wait two minutes for that one guy with a gun to leave, or go down the block to the next convenience store where there isn't a guy with a gun and rob that one for exactly the same gains.
Deterrence is causing the potential enemy to know that the potential consequences of an attack far outweigh the potential gains of the attack, thus causing them to not attack at all or move on to a target that appears to have less consequences. If you keep your defensive ability a secret, there is know way for the potential attacker to know of the potential consequences, and thus the deterrent value of your defenses becomes zero. Then it becomes a matter of hoping that you can deploy your defenses quickly and strongly enough against an attacker who has already gained the advantage by attacking first.
It makes no sense for the criminal to attack the 1% of the population that they can see can defend themselves with deadly force, when 99% of the population is not visibly armed.
What happened in California is that a corrupt and tyrannical government was prodded to further restrict the rights of self-defense of it's citizens. Only when there are enough restrictions of rights of the citizen will the Supreme Court overrule the state government's actions. Proof: Heller and McDonald. California had not yet infringed upon the citizen's rights enough for the Supreme Court to feel the need to overrule them. Now we are one step closer to that happening.
And I love this idea that somehow the citizen should not exercise their rights for fear of the government taking those rights away. Sure, you have the right to do X. But don't do X. Because as soon as you do X the government will take away your right to do X. Is it really better to live in fear of what a government MIGHT do rather than forcing the government to actually play their hand so that it can be dealt with?
And I love this idea that somehow the citizen should not exercise their rights for fear of the government taking those rights away. Sure, you have the right to do X. But don't do X. Because as soon as you do X the government will take away your right to do X. Is it really better to live in fear of what a government MIGHT do rather than forcing the government to actually play their hand so that it can be dealt with?
CathyInBlue
Tool Maker
I honestly don't understand the piling on of NavyLCDR. I've read this whole thread in the last hour, including watching all of the linked to videos and reading the linked to stories. NavyLCDR has yet to say an inconsistent thing or anything I disagree with.
It is not remotely inconsistent to insist on privacy and yet OC. OCing is no more privacy invasion-worthy by the only real issue at hand, police officers (this is the LEO Encounter section, right? *goes and checks* Yes, it is.) then walking about with your cellphone out. Navy used the phrase Reasonable Articulable Suspicion in his posts. That should have been a clue about the privacy to which he refers. The 4th Amendment guarantees us our privacy... against who? The authorities, that's who.
The kind of privacy Keykutter, et al. are attempting to read into the situation is the kind that clothing can protect. While walking down the road with a .45 strapped in a thigh holster fully clothed, you're no more worthy of being stopped and questioned about who you are, why are you armed, what is your business in this area than you are worthy of being so grilled while walking down the road with a .45 strapped in a thigh holster buck-ass naked... provided you're in a place with no puritanical public nudity laws... or while walking down the road fully clothed with a .45 in an IWB holster under your shirt. All three situations are directly analogous to one another. The only difference being the unusualness of the sight, but Keykutter et al. want to elevate that last scenario precisely because of its lack of visual unusualness.
Most of the proletariat aren't used to seeing a firearm on a hip without a badge on the chest. This is true. It's also irrelevant. Most people are also not used to the sight of a naked person in public. This is also true, and just as irrelevant. Many people would want such an unusual person confronted about their unusualness. This is a perfectly human reaction. The question is not whether a member of the general public would or would not be justified in confronting someone unusual in their midsts. That's not the kind of privacy Navy was talking about. The question is whether a member of the reigning judicio-political authority has the authority to confront someone who is merely unusual in their midsts, while committing no crime. If I'm walking down the road in a clown costume in a place that doesn't ban clown costumes, I'm just as leave-the-hell-alone-worthy as if I were walking down the road with my .45 in a thigh holster in a place that doesn't ban side arms. Again, this is vis-a-vis the authorities, not the general public. Wrong kind of privacy.
It is not remotely inconsistent to insist on privacy and yet OC. OCing is no more privacy invasion-worthy by the only real issue at hand, police officers (this is the LEO Encounter section, right? *goes and checks* Yes, it is.) then walking about with your cellphone out. Navy used the phrase Reasonable Articulable Suspicion in his posts. That should have been a clue about the privacy to which he refers. The 4th Amendment guarantees us our privacy... against who? The authorities, that's who.
The kind of privacy Keykutter, et al. are attempting to read into the situation is the kind that clothing can protect. While walking down the road with a .45 strapped in a thigh holster fully clothed, you're no more worthy of being stopped and questioned about who you are, why are you armed, what is your business in this area than you are worthy of being so grilled while walking down the road with a .45 strapped in a thigh holster buck-ass naked... provided you're in a place with no puritanical public nudity laws... or while walking down the road fully clothed with a .45 in an IWB holster under your shirt. All three situations are directly analogous to one another. The only difference being the unusualness of the sight, but Keykutter et al. want to elevate that last scenario precisely because of its lack of visual unusualness.
Most of the proletariat aren't used to seeing a firearm on a hip without a badge on the chest. This is true. It's also irrelevant. Most people are also not used to the sight of a naked person in public. This is also true, and just as irrelevant. Many people would want such an unusual person confronted about their unusualness. This is a perfectly human reaction. The question is not whether a member of the general public would or would not be justified in confronting someone unusual in their midsts. That's not the kind of privacy Navy was talking about. The question is whether a member of the reigning judicio-political authority has the authority to confront someone who is merely unusual in their midsts, while committing no crime. If I'm walking down the road in a clown costume in a place that doesn't ban clown costumes, I'm just as leave-the-hell-alone-worthy as if I were walking down the road with my .45 in a thigh holster in a place that doesn't ban side arms. Again, this is vis-a-vis the authorities, not the general public. Wrong kind of privacy.
You guys keep mixing up 'what is' with 'what should be'.
To each his own, er, her own.
The 'what is' in life is where perception is achieved.
Wanting to be invisible and being invisible crashes to reality when you pass a mirror.
Just because someone doesn't want to be the spokesperson for what oughta be, doesn't make it wrong.
And yes, clothing does provide ME with the privacy I desire, like it or not!
KK
To each his own, er, her own.
The 'what is' in life is where perception is achieved.
Wanting to be invisible and being invisible crashes to reality when you pass a mirror.
Just because someone doesn't want to be the spokesperson for what oughta be, doesn't make it wrong.
And yes, clothing does provide ME with the privacy I desire, like it or not!
KK
tuts40
New member
I worked 911 dispatch for a time and the same is similar here in my neck of the woods, the LEO will often know of any CCW status before he even walks back up to your car if not before he first does so.
