The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: 2HOW on March 28, 2009, 01:59:42 PM
-
Disarming the Public
Posted by Dave in Vegas on Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:00:00 AM
from keepandbeararms.com
Recently, I read some comments on KABA.com about reports concerning people who were legally carrying a concealed firearm being stopped by the police and disarmed during the encounter.
Other than to say I oppose the practice of disarming a citizen during a traffic stop I’m not discussing that aspect of this issue.
What I am going to discuss are the inherent dangers of the practice.
First, I called my local police department to ask what their position is concerning encounters involving legally armed people. Remember that when stopped, if you have a concealed carry permit and you are armed, you must inform the police officer of same.
I was told that it is their policy, a procedure taught in the academy, is to require the permit holder to surrender the firearm; the officer will unload the firearm and the permit holder is allowed to place the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle.
After the encounter, the permit holder may then drive to another location “down the street to a parking lot” and retrieve the firearm from the trunk.
I find a couple of serious problems with this procedure.
My first concern is excessive handling of a firearm is inherently dangerous. The concept of carrying a loaded, concealed firearm is this: once placed in a holster it really shouldn’t be removed unless you are planning to use the gun or are disarming at the end of the day. I don’t even like the idea that the firearm may have to be removed periodically during the day but there are instances when it must be done.
Next, many people are a bit nervous when stopped by the police. After all, the cops stopped you because you committed a traffic violation (otherwise you wouldn’t have been stopped, correct?) and you are probably going to receive a traffic citation, which is going to result in a fine and increased insurance rate.
So, now a police officer is going to request a possibly nervous person to hand over his loaded firearm. This is an accident just waiting to happen.
Further, I don't like the idea of handing someone a loaded firearm. This goes against firearm safety rules. Now when I go to the gun show at Cashman there are cops inside the door who check guns being brought into the building. When I check mine I carefully raise my shirttail, carefully remove the already unloaded firearm from the holster, carefully lock the slide back and then hand it the officers. They've never commented on this procedure.
Another scenario is that the officer will remove the firearm from the holster himself. This is even worse. The officer is at an awkward angle in relation to the firearm, he is removing an unfamiliar firearm from an unfamiliar holster.
Further, from an officer safety standpoint, the officer is in extremely close and dangerous proximity to the person he is disarming. I don’t have any idea how often this may occur but the concept is frightening.
In my opinion the best policy is to ascertain if the CCW holder is armed; find out where the gun is; tell the CCW holder to leave it there and don’t reach for it then proceed with the ticket.
Consider this: The permit holder is obviously a law-abiding individual. That is apparent due to the fact that he has already undergone a background check was issued the permit to carry a concealed firearm. Doesn’t it seem unlikely that the permit holder will take this opportunity to use the firearm illegally by shooting a cop?
At this point the officer is in possession of another person’s firearm.
I now have more concerns. It has been my experience that far too many police officers simply are not familiar with all the types of firearms available.
As an example this story was told to my academy class: A police officer was arresting a subject and during a search found a High Standard derringer concealed on the subject. The officer removed said firearm and placed the derringer in his waistband. The High Standard derringer does not have a trigger guard, however, it generally has a stiff trigger, meaning that you really have to pull the trigger hard and you really want to fire it before it will discharge.
This was not the case in this instance. As the officer was placing the derringer in his waist band, pushing the trigger against his duty belt, the gun discharged. The officer was wounded and lost a body part as a result.
Contrary to popular belief cops are not firearms experts.
The police officer now has possession of your firearm and he is going to attempt to unload it and then return it to you.
In the case of a 1911 style firearm, this is the process: Ensure that the safety is engaged; extract the magazine by depressing the magazine release button and remove the magazine from the magazine well of the firearm; with the magazine in one had or in a pocket, disengage the safety and retract the slide thereby ejecting a live round from the chamber, lock the slide back in the open position while attempting not to drop the live round. All of this should be done without pointing it at anyone. We are also assuming that the officer leaves the slide in the locked back position. We aren’t even considering that he didn’t release the slide into the in-battery position and lowering the hammer, which in itself is easy to do if you are an experienced firearms handler, but a dangerous thing to do.
This takes ten times longer (or more) to describe than it takes to accomplish. All this is done without a negligent discharge. Whew! No one was injured this time.
Now, according to my local police department the firearm will then be placed in the trunk of the traffic violator’s car (we’re assuming a sedan or coupe).
Business is completed; the grateful, nervous citation recipient is allowed to go on his way. He then pulls into a parking lot of a grocery store, gets out of the car, opens the trunk, reloads his firearm and places it in his holster.
Shoppers now see a man loading a gun in a parking lot and call the cops. Cops respond and surround the car, with firearms drawn and pointed at our poor losing contestant.
Does this sound like a safe thing? In my opinion, based on years of handling firearms, this is an extremely unsafe procedure.
If you think I am mistaken about cop’s firearms handling experience consider the following:
When I attended the police academy I was required to ride along with an experienced officer during my training. It didn’t matter that I had been on patrol for several months prior to attending the academy I still had to experience a ride along as part of the academy curriculum.
Prior to the ride-a-long, the officer ran me for warrants. The printout showed that I owned several firearms. One of the firearms I owned was a Smith & Wesson model 66.
During the ride-a-long the officer asked if I owned all those guns (I only owned thirty-five guns at the time). I stated that I did. The officer then stopped the car (we were in a residential area) and stated that he carried an S&W M-66. He then withdrew the revolver from his holster to show it to me.
Holding the revolver across his lap, he cocked the gun. Then, instead of placing his thumb on the hammer to lower it, he simply pulled the trigger. The impact of the bullet into the door shattered the driver side window.
Oops.
The officer’s left hand was on the steering wheel so the bullet traveled just under his elbow into the door.
Needles to say, the blast startled both of us. Later the officer stated to me that he thought that he had placed his thumb on the hammer prior to squeezing the trigger. I told him that I was watching as he squeezed the trigger and that his thumb was not on the hammer.
This was a case of unnecessarily handling a firearm which resulted in a negligent discharge.
The officer received a day off without pay for having damaged the vehicle. I had to write a report for my academy CO. Everyone had heard about the incident. My classmates razzed me as if I had been the one who negligently discharged a firearm.
The point again is that cops aren’t firearms experts and accidents happen, even with cops.
Accidental and negligent discharges occur often enough that there is a product available that is designed to stop a bullet when a gun is being handled during the unloading process and an unintended discharge occurs.
When I remove my firearm from the holster at the end of the day I place it in another holster for overnight storage. I only unload the gun once a week during the weekend for cleaning and inspection (this does not include range practice). I do not go through the process of unloading every evening and reloading in the morning in order to avoid unnecessary or excessive handling of a loaded firearm.
-
2how
I disagree with dave in vegas on this. I'm not an LEO, but my army training made it very clear that any weapon not held by you or your guys, needed to be visible and secured, lest very bad things happen. I would have no problem handing over my weapon to an LEO during a traffic stop. The one time I did get pulled over while "carrying", for a broken taillight on my boat trailer, I informed the officer that there was a gun in the glove box and asked whether she wanted me to pull out the registration or if I should let her do it. She invited me out of the car, asked me to lift my shirt, and after asking if she had my permission to open the glove box and look inside, got the paper for me. I thought she was both professional and smart. (Bonus points for no ticket!).lHere's an article out of police mag. com to, a fun little website, to show the reason why I disagree with not securing a weapon at a traffick stop.
fightingquaker13
Policemag.com
Shots Fired: Pierce County, Washington 06-25-2006
State Trooper Kelly Kalmbach pulled over a drunk driver and ended up in a pitched gun battle.
November 17, 2008
As a Washington State Trooper, Kelly Kalmbach had been given her fair share of adrenaline jolts courtesy of other drivers. But few had come so close to taking her out as the driver of a white Cadillac that nearly clipped her patrol car around midnight June 25, 2006, on State Route 7 near Spanaway. Through the years the absence of a center median barrier wall along this highway had proven fateful for other Pierce County motorists, so Kalmbach knew it was up to her to stop this guy before he killed someone.
Kalmbach activated her emergency red lights and made a U-turn onto the southbound lanes in pursuit of the Cadillac.
I Have a Gun
The Cadillac drifted across two lanes then quickly turned into a gas station. It stopped abreast of the gasoline pumps, and Kalmbach pulled up behind it. She ran the license plate over her radio but, before she could copy a return, the driver side door of the Cadillac opened and the driver began to step out.
Kalmbach quickly exited her patrol car and yelled for the driver to stop what he was doing and keep his hands in plain view.
The clean-cut driver, later identified as 24-year-old Jack Sonntag, complied. But as Kalmbach moved toward the Cadillac, he suddenly said, "I have a gun."
Kalmbach pulled up short and drew her sidearm.
"Where?"
"It's in my waistband."
Consciously foregoing a request for backup, Kalmbach safely retrieved the firearm—a 9mm Ruger—from Sonntag's waistband. She didn't want to give Sonntag time to embolden himself to do something stupid.
"I have a permit," Sonntag explained, a familiar odor trailing on his breath.
Paperwork found in the Cadillac verified Sonntag's carry permit. Still, vehicle stops are inherently volatile situations—moreso when the detainee has been drinking—and the last variable Kalmbach wanted to add to the mix was a firearm.
Isolating the Ruger in the trunk of her vehicle for the duration of the detention would have been the trooper's preference. But Kalmbach didn't want to run the risk of getting a complaint for seizing a permitted firearm. She decided to secure the pistol inside the passenger compartment area of Sonntag's Cadillac pending the outcome of his field sobriety test.
This decision would prove to be fateful.
Front-Page News
Sonntag pleaded for parking lot amnesty.
"Come on," he asked. "Give me a break. I'm only two blocks from home."
Kalmbach wasn't one for cutting breaks to drunk drivers. Seventeen years as a police dispatcher had predisposed her against such leniency; an additional seven years of working patrol and witnessing the carnage wrought by drunks on the road had only calcified her bias. She asked Sonntag to perform a series of field sobriety tests.
Sonntag's frustrated attempts to successfully perform the tests readily confirmed Kalmbach's suspicions.
To look at Sonntag, one wouldn't be particularly intimidated. Certainly nothing in his lineage would have suggested any potential trouble. The son of a former Tacoma city councilman and nephew of a state auditor, he wasn't on parole or probation. He was polite and respectful to Kalmbach.
What Kalmbach couldn't have predicted was Sonntag's darker side. What he lacked in criminal pedigree, he made up for in swagger. Sonntag took great pride in his ability to carry a firearm and greater pains to display it. He'd made a habit of telling friends and relatives that he would never be taken under arrest.
"And if they try and take me," Sonntag had promised, "it'll be front-page news."
Perhaps he truly believed his own words. Maybe he felt obligated to live up to them. For Sonntag suddenly darted back to the Cadillac.
First Blood
Kalmbach couldn't believe it. All the compliance that Sonntag had displayed had disappeared in a split second. Determined to incapacitate Sonntag with less-lethal force before he could re-enter the vehicle, Kalmbach set off in foot pursuit, yelling "TASER! TASER! TASER!"
Kalmbach closed the gap between herself and the suspect and activated the TASER, but suddenly it was Kalmbach who felt fire coursing through the veins of her left arm.
She never saw the ballistic flash, never heard the distinctive report. But Kalmbach immediately knew one thing: She'd been shot.
How Sonntag could have retrieved the firearm so quickly was beyond Kalmbach's comprehension. She did understand one thing all too well: The situation had suddenly turned into a life or death one, one wherein the suspect had drawn first blood.
Marooned between the two vehicles, Kalmbach discarded her TASER and retreated for the passenger side of her patrol car for cover. As she moved, she drew her H&K .40 caliber sidearm and returned fire. Sonntag was still shooting at her from the open door of his Caddy.
Using her engine block for cover, Kalmbach continued to engage the suspect as she squatted in a modified Weaver stance, her incapacitated left arm hanging down and her right arm fully extended and firing. But the rapid fire of her weapon garnered no visible effect.
Sonntag remained standing inside his driver's door, everything about his body completely immobile save for the finger on the trigger. That was working overtime.
Hoping that she could suppress his fire, Kalmbach squeezed as many rounds at Sonntag's center mass as she could.
I Will Survive
Suddenly, the suspect stopped firing and dropped into the driver's seat. Putting the Cadillac in gear, Sonntag smashed against a pump guard rail as he accelerated in a wide swath and drove past the rear of Kalmbach's patrol car.
That son-of-a-bitch might take off, thought Kalmbach. But he's not going to get far.
And with that, Kalmbach took aim and fired at the suspect's left front tire. The Cadillac sped off down State Route 7.
As intense as it had been sudden, as short as it had been inexplicable, the firefight was over. Now Kalmbach found herself in round two of the fight for her life.
Within the span of a few seconds, some twenty rounds had been exchanged between suspect and officer.
A citizen passerby, Laurie Rowley, who'd witnessed the shootout, tied a tourniquet on the downed trooper's arm. It would prove to be a huge factor in Kalmbach's survival. Another was the trooper's mindset.
Kalmbach thought of her family and her obligation to come out of this for them. She recalled the words that she'd recited so many times in the academy: I will not die. I will not quit. I will survive.
Kalmbach had contemplated the possibility of getting shot on duty and wondered how she'd respond to such an incident. She had anticipated pain, but nothing nearly as intense as what she was experiencing. I will not die. I will survive.
That's Him
Only when another officer arrived on scene did Kalmbach allow herself to be seated on the pavement. She retrieved Sonntag's paperwork from where she'd stashed it behind the magazine pouch of her duty belt and tapped at the identification card.
"That's him," she told her fellow officer. "That's the man who shot me."
Seconds later, the suspect's description was broadcast to officers throughout the area who began to search for Jack Sonntag.
Meanwhile, with three of Kalmbach's hollow-point rounds in his chest and his Cadillac disabled with a flat tire, Sonntag called two friends to ask for a ride.
"I'm really scared," Sonntag begged. "Come and pick me up." The only additional information he volunteered was his location: A church parking lot.
The sight of a white Cadillac with a shredded left front tire parked in an empty church parking lot near midnight caught the eyes of two Pierce County sheriff's deputies, Rich Scanzfer and Scott Mock.
Pulling into the lot to investigate, they spotted a man matching the suspect's description emerging from the bushes. The timeline and distance—less than five miles from the site of the shooting—led one of the deputies to yell, "What's your name?"
"Jack!" came the reply. Sonntag leveled a handgun at them.
Scanzfer and Mock fired, and Sonntag fell. Shortly after midnight, he was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics.
10 Hours of Surgery
Back at Madigan Army Hospital, a fellow officer gently grabbed Kalmbach's shoulder as she was being pulled into the emergency room.
"They got him. He's dead."
Normally, Kalmbach wasn't one to take comfort in the passing of another. But the last thing that she wanted was for this suspect to get the better of another officer, and she couldn't deny the profound sense of relief that washed over her.
But Kalmbach had paid a price, too. Sonntag's rounds had found their mark five times, passing through her left calf, the inside of her right knee, and her right hip. A round in her hip required surgical removal. But the most devastating round had been the first one, which had cut the brachial artery in her left arm.
Some 10 hours of surgery were followed by a slow reemergence into the world of consciousness; lucidity couldn't be claimed until two o'clock the following afternoon. And with it came pain—lots of pain. The combined effects of a morphine drip and pain pills every two hours could do little to abate the sensation of a platoon of red ants feasting on Kalmbach's every nerve. She stared down at the immobilized limb, wondering how something so still could feel like it was bouncing off every wall in the room.
Trooper of the Year
Eventually, the pain tapered off…way off, to the point that her hand had become insensate. As months went by, it became apparent that Kalmbach had suffered extreme nerve damage. Today, her weekly schedule includes an aggressive three-day-a-week physical rehabilitation program. She has dealt successfully with the emotional fallout of the incident, not having so much as a single nightmare.
When she looks back on the shooting, Kalmbach notes what worked out best for her, and what didn't. "I always took my training seriously. I never once went out there like it was 'play day.' I also went to the range as often as three times a month on my own initiative. I may be a gifted athlete, but I'm no marksman. So I made a conscious effort in working to strengthen my weaknesses."
Tactically, she was glad that her training kicked in once the shooting started, and she had the presence of mind to move for cover, as opposed to getting stuck in no man's land. As it turned out, the windshield, passenger door, and the front of the patrol car ended up absorbing four of the suspect's rounds. Absent such protection, Kalmbach doesn't doubt that she would have been struck more times.
Kalmbach has come to appreciate something else: the body's amazing ability to respond to such trauma. Indeed, as the shooting escalated, Kalmbach wasn't even aware that her legs had been shot. The need to respond to the situation completely superseded the momentary debilitating sense of pain.
There's only one thing that she would have done differently.
"I would have secured the firearm, and the hell with any potential complaint," she says.
Kalmbach wants to return to work, but her doctors have not given her any cause for false optimism, and she is learning to live with her impaired nerve endings.
"I've cut myself with gardening shears and didn't know it until I saw blood. I've burned myself, but didn't know until I saw a huge blister later."
Initially reticent to do so, Kalmbach has even agreed to meet with Sonntag's family members. Having lost her own son, she understands the pain the family is going through and feels that it will help bring closure for all involved.
In March, Kalmbach was named North America's Trooper of the Year by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. She was given the Mike Buckingham Award for the courage she displayed in surviving a critical incident, and on May 4, she received the Law Enforcement Medal of Honor.
Kalmbach hasn't had a single negative flashback related to the incident, but she still entertains an occasional thought.
A few more inches, and that guy could have killed me.
Dean Scoville is a patrol supervisor and investigator with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Associate Editor of POLICE.
What Would You Do?
Consider the circumstances that faced Trooper Kelly Kalmbach when she confronted an apparently intoxicated driver possessing a legally carried firearm. Now ask yourself these questions:
″ How would you handle a citizen contact involving firearms? What is your agency's posture on those situations involving permitted firearms?
″ If you had a subject take flight from you—knowing that he would be putting himself within reach of a firearm by doing so—how would you respond?
″ Do you have a survival mantra? What thoughts or prayers would keep you going if you found yourself badly wounded in a firefight?
author: Dean Scoville | posted @ Monday, November 17, 2008 9:42 PM
-
I got stopped for speeding by Ga State trooper. I already had both my driver's and CCW license waiting with both hands on the steering wheel. I handed both to him with my insurance card. He looked at the CCW and asked if I had a weapon in the vehicle. I stated that I did. He asked if it was on my person or in the console (which is legal here). I said it was in the center console, and he leaned in and could see it. He asked if I minded stepping to the rear of the vehicle for both "his safety and mine" and I said that I had no problem with it at all. I made sure my hands stayed visible at all times and made no curious movements. We stood at the back of my truck and casually chatted until he finished the write up. He handed me back my stuff and said to have a nice evening. I noticed that he did wait until I got in my truck and drove off before re-entering his cruiser.
I got stopped once by a municipal cop (a case of mistaken identity). He didn't ask, but I told him I was carrying. He asked me to step out and show him the weapon. I got out and lifted my shirttail and exposed my 1911. He asked me to remove it from the holster slowly and place it on the seat of my truck. I did so, and backed away. He proceeded to pick it up and fondle it. I said that it was loaded (cocked & locked). He looked at me like I was crazy. I repeated that there was a round in the chamber and the safety was engaged. He said, and I quote, "Why do you need to carry a loaded gun?". And I looked at him like he was crazy. He said he didn't have any experience with 'that type' of pistol so he needed to call back-up. He had two more patrol units come to the 'event' which by now looked like a takedown. Fortunately, one of the other units was a good friend of mine and when he pulled up and got out started shaking his head. He told the original officer that I was 'OK' and not the person they were looking for.
One good thing though, I did end up teaching an impromptu class on the 1911 manual of arms to a couple of the officers who were interested, and hopefully educated a few folks.
Just ask Haz about LEO's and citizen's guns........(I know that not all LEO's are that bad, but you'd be surprised).
-
I don't like the idea of them taking it, if they are told up front about it and you produce your ccw permit.
What I really hate is when they say: " For your safety..." which they really mean thiers, which I would be ok with if they said "for My safety"
-
I don't like the idea of them taking it, if they are told up front about it and you produce your ccw permit.
What I really hate is when they say: " For your safety..." which they really mean thiers, which I would be ok with if they said "for My safety"
It is for our saftey to, because if you go to get a cell phone, or a stick of gum or some other stupid unconscious action that you might perform without thinking, it could get your ass shot by an officer that was afraid of being alone in the dark with an armed stranger (read a smart cop). Remember that whole deal in Oakland started with a simple traffic stop. Just because you had a clean record when you got your ccw three years ago, doesn't mean you don't have a warrant out for you today. In MHO, a smart officer will have that weapon secured, and then return it when you come back clean after running you licence. Until then they have every right to to be cautious.
I once got pulled over by a scared rookie who was very obviously power tripping to compensate, and let me tell you I was as scared as he was as a result, and kept my hands VERY visible.
fightingquaker13
-
My only experience occured when I was stopped by a local LEO. I handed him my license & CCW, he looked at the CCW and handed it back to me, with no other comment. Didn't even ask if I was carrying, I was. Went back to his cruiser, did his thing, and sent me on my way.
Brian
-
There are a lot of LEO that I would not trust with a loaded gun, to unload.
They only know the one they have and at that, not that well.
I understand, if there is a question of competence of the civilian - stopped for a very high rate of speed or other erratic behavior.
-
I thought they'd already know (a CCW person) before gettin' outta their car as the CCW runs thru the DMV and would be on their display when the first radio in your plates? I'd only giv'em my regular license. Of course, if they asked for my CCW or if I was carrying I comply and answer honestly!
I'd feel very uncomfortable giving them my gun because I ran a red light...I don't get it. WE (CCW) are good upstanding people, surely they'd know that...why disarm us and create a situation that could go bad?
???
-
Back in my NC days, I spent many years working at a marina with the Marine Division of the Sheriff's Dept. Good bunch of guys.
I was one of the first in line in the early 90's to get mine, and was pulled over for a burned out brake light, and a speeding deal, which was dismissed. (Sometimes its who you know that matters).
Talking with many of the Deputy Sheriff's, its at the officers discretion to "disarm" you, or let it ride so to speak.
If I had long hair, driving my old 72 Camaro, blasting Iron Maiden like I used to, yeah, I'd be out of the vehicle and "disarmed".
Now I'm pushin 40, got short hair, losing it also, wear "plain" clothes, and haven't had a problem.
Last encounter was a license plate bulb out, hands at "10 & 2" on the wheel, already had DL & CCW, INS in hand, and he just wrote a warning, told me to go to Auto Zone and replace the bulb.
Some officers may, based on their impression of you, ask you for the weapon, ask you to get out of the vehicle, or let it ride....
Most know that CCW holders are the "good" guys.
Now if your doing 68 in a school zone at 7:35 in the morning? All bets are off.
-
I thought they'd already know (a CCW person) before gettin' outta their car as the CCW runs thru the DMV and would be on their display when the first radio in your plates? I'd only giv'em my regular license. Of course, if they asked for my CCW or if I was carrying I comply and answer honestly!
I'd feel very uncomfortable giving them my gun because I ran a red light...I don't get it. WE (CCW) are good upstanding people, surely they'd know that...why disarm us and create a situation that could go bad?
???
Two problems hottockin;
1) Here in Fl. and in Tx. where I got my first ccw you are required by law to inform the officer that you are carrying and produce your permit if stopped. Failure to do so can result in the loss of your license. (Unfortunately, not all LEOs are our friends and some would happily write you up to get another amateur/vigilante/militia member off the street)
2) As I said before, you might have been clean when you got the permit, but the cop doesn't know if you have a car full of coke, or Jimmy Hoffas body in the trunk. It pains me to say this as both a libertarian and someone who's spent a lot of time researching the drug war, because I have an almost genetically programmed distrust of agents of the state carrying guns. But, I do understand that an officer who pulls you over for cause won't want an unsecured weapon at their back. I wouldn't either. Putting it in their patrol caar is no big deal. To me its like them asking you to turn off the engine. If you doubt me read the article I posted above.
fightingquaker13
-
I got pulled over for speeding. I'm an OWG (old white guy), it was a nice neighborhood, and I had my groceries in the back seat. I wasn't carrying at the time and didn't have a gun in the car either. As the cop was writing me up I asked if my CCW came up when he ran my plates. He kind of stopped what he was doing and asked if I was armed. I said no (didn't want to even mention the pocket knife). He said he hadn't bother to run my plates but he didn't answer my question either.
A former LEO friend said not to even bother telling them unless they want you to get out of the car. Not advise I would recommend following. The last this I want is to get my ass kicked by the po-lice. http://www.dorks.com/videos/Chris-Rock---How-not-to-get-Beaten-by-the-Police.html (http://www.dorks.com/videos/Chris-Rock---How-not-to-get-Beaten-by-the-Police.html)
-
That was funny. I learned a few things too. :)
-
Thanks Ichiban! Now I have to get the beer off my laptop.............
;D That was very funny.....
-
Watched an episode of "Personal Defense" and Massad Ayoob showed how to hand the officer your driver's license and CCW. I keep mine together to do the same. I'd rather be up front than have some rookie observe my sidearm and freak out. ;)
-
Watched an episode of "Personal Defense" and Massad Ayoob showed how to hand the officer your driver's license and CCW. I keep mine together to do the same. I'd rather be up front than have some rookie observe my sidearm and freak out. ;)
or have a jumpy officer.
-
I shoot alot, I train alot, and with alot of other people. I would trust a very few of them with my firearm. I especialy would not trust anyone taking my firearm out of my inside the waistband holster. I would have no problem taking it out myself and putting it on my seat and going to the back of my or his car. I am not bashing anyone but some of the people I shoot with are poilce officers. As said before not all LEO's are gun guys. Even if you are It's hard too know the operation of every firearm. If you had intent to do the officer harm, why would you tell him you have a gun???? If I was all over the road and ran into a gas pump yes take the gun, but for a blown out taillamp COMEON! Use your head!
-
I shoot alot, I train alot, and with alot of other people. I would trust a very few of them with my firearm. I especialy would not trust anyone taking my firearm out of my inside the waistband holster. I would have no problem taking it out myself and putting it on my seat and going to the back of my or his car. I am not bashing anyone but some of the people I shoot with are poilce officers. As said before not all LEO's are gun guys. Even if you are It's hard too know the operation of every firearm. If you had intent to do the officer harm, why would you tell him you have a gun???? If I was all over the road and ran into a gas pump yes take the gun, but for a blown out taillamp COMEON! Use your head!
The ability to DO THAT is lacking today, that's why we have "zero tolerance " policies and other stupidity.
-
During this whole thing with my accountant ripping me off I had an experience that may be relevent. The scum bag said his house was robbed and called the cops. He told them I probably did it! (remeber he lived in a house I own across the street from my home). When they showed up and he told them the story I happened to walk down the side walk. Three cops stpped me and asked if I was David Brown. I said yes and they asked if they could talk to me.
Knowing what was going on I said sure. One cop was right in front of me, another to my right front (quartering) at about 5 yards and the third was on my right hip at about three yards.
The one in front asked for ID so I handed over my DL and CCW. She said are you armed now? I said Yes, of course I am. No big movment on their part execpt to try to see where 'it' was. The cop on my hip pocket side laughed and she asked whay he was laughing. He said "I can't find it". Then she asked me where and I pointed to my right side and said 'right here'. They asked 'can I see it" I said 'sure and as you asked I am NOT flashing'. They all said yep. I pulled my shirt up and they finally saw it and said ".22?" I said "Nope .380" and they said "Wow. cool!"
Very few questions as it seemed they took me as the good citizen and him as the scumbag. I honestly think my CCW helped.
-
The ability to DO THAT is lacking today, that's why we have "zero tolerance " policies and other stupidity.
Tom, What else is lacking is a think called Common Sense! It was once common, now it seems rare.
-
During this whole thing with my accountant ripping me off I had an experience that may be relevent. The scum bag said his house was robbed and called the cops. He told them I probably did it! (remeber he lived in a house I own across the street from my home). When they showed up and he told them the story I happened to walk down the side walk. Three cops stpped me and asked if I was David Brown. I said yes and they asked if they could talk to me.
Knowing what was going on I said sure. One cop was right in front of me, another to my right front (quartering) at about 5 yards and the third was on my right hip at about three yards.
The one in front asked for ID so I handed over my DL and CCW. She said are you armed now? I said Yes, of course I am. No big movment on their part execpt to try to see where 'it' was. The cop on my hip pocket side laughed and she asked whay he was laughing. He said "I can't find it". Then she asked me where and I pointed to my right side and said 'right here'. They asked 'can I see it" I said 'sure and as you asked I am NOT flashing'. They all said yep. I pulled my shirt up and they finally saw it and said ".22?" I said "Nope .380" and they said "Wow. cool!"
Very few questions as it seemed they took me as the good citizen and him as the scumbag. I honestly think my CCW helped.
Good for you Haz, that's the way it should work. One point for the GOOD GUYS! ;D
-
The last time I got pulled over I handed the cop my CCW along with my DL. Has asked me if I was carrying and when I replied yes he invited me to join him in the front seat of his squad car, where we proceeded to have very pleasant conversation about guns and shooting, and he took the opportunity to admire my sidearm. After our little chat he wished me a nice evening and sent me on my way without a ticket.
Back in the days when I was a LEO, unless the person was someone I knew I ALWAYS took control of their firearm until we finished conducting our business. To quote Clint Eastwood in the film Pink Cadillac, "I have a very firm policy on gun control, if there's a gun around I want to be the one controlling it."
In response to TAB, the officer is being honest when he or she says that they're doing something "for your protection as well as mine." Cops develop a mindset early on that no matter what happens they're going home at the end of the shift. If that means that you have to shot for that to happen, tough shit. Cold and callous, but considering some of the dirtbags these people deal with I find it completely understandable.
One final thought, several posters have mentioned that being a LEO doesn't necessarily mean than an officer is firearms savvy. While this is true, one must also remember that a CCW doesn't guarantee that it's holder is firearms savvy. There are people with CCW's who get them just to be albe to say they have them.
-
"I have a very firm policy on gun control, if there's a gun around I want to be the one controlling it."
tt11758
How did you get control f the persons F/A, when you were a LEO? Did you ask the person too remove it, or did you do it for them?
-
Tom, What else is lacking is a think called Common Sense! It was once common, now it seems rare.
Ain't it the truth :(
-
I've had Game wardens tell me they would yank my Hunting license If I didn't unload my rifle before handing it over, I would Act the same way with a cop, TELLING HIM what I was doing and why.
-
I think its important to note that state laws vary on whether you are obliged to tell a LEO you are armed. My state (MO) does not require it.
The question of whether to notify came up years ago when I took my CCW class. The LEO teaching the class replied (I paraphrase): "If I want to see your gun, I'll ask for it. I didn't pull you over to play show and tell. If your gunis safely in your holster, your console, or your glove compartment, we'll all be safer if it just stays there. Use some common sense. If I ask you to open the glove box, you should tell me there's a gun in there, but otherwise I don't need to know."
Basically, his attitude was that he approached EVERY driver as if they were armed. The passage of the CCW law just meant that there were a few more good guys packing, but he was still a lot more concerned with behavioral and verbal cues to tell him who was dangerous than he was the presence of a CCW. As he pointed out "y'all are the good guys." He also said that if he was concerned about controlling th esituation, he'd rather take the driver back to his car than to be passing loaded guns around.
Interestingly, his attitude towards unnecessary gun handling also applied at the range. He made it clear that when he ordered us to cease fire, he wanted us to set our guns down on the table in front of us instead of holstering or holding our guns. As he pointed out "I've never seen a gun shoot itself, and as long as that gun is sitting on the table and you aren't touching it, its about as dangerous as the stapler on my desk."
Personally, I take a don't ask, don't tell attitude. If I'm pulled over, I get my papers out, turn on the lights, and say yes sir a lot. But the gun stays where it is unless there's some reason to tell the officer about it.
-
In response to TAB, the officer is being honest when he or she says that they're doing something "for your protection as well as mine." Cops develop a mindset early on that no matter what happens they're going home at the end of the shift. If that means that you have to shot for that to happen, tough shit. Cold and callous, but considering some of the dirtbags these people deal with I find it completely understandable.
There is a diffrence between saying for both our safety and just yours. The "i'm going home at any cost" stick is one of the major probs with LEOs .they have lost the "protect and serve" deal for , "i'm better then you are" Its all over the plave, it just shows its ugly head when it comes to guns.
-
I've had Game wardens tell me they would yank my Hunting license If I didn't unload my rifle before handing it over, I would Act the same way with a cop, TELLING HIM what I was doing and why.
While doing stuff this weekend I have been thinking about this thread. I had thought the same thing ... I would explain what I was going to do, and unload the gun before handing it over ... for their safety and mine.
Remember, and this is what the Conservation Officer was referring to, you never hand a loaded firearm from one person to another. You at a minimum open the action, but preferably drop the magazine, check the chamber and leave the action open.
-
Guys and gals, I have been a sheepdog in L.E. for over 29 years. The instances where I have come across a licensed person carrying, I have instructed them to keep their hands away from the firearm and there would be no problem.
In Connecticut, there is no requirement to notify a L.E.O. about carrying one. However, if you are being asked to exit your vehicle, I would encourage you, with your hands on the steering wheel, telling the officer that you have a valid permit and are armed, and ask for his next instructions.
In the case of the Washington Trooper, with the obvious intoxcated driver, there would have been a backup call right off and yes, the gun would have been placed in my car for safe keeping. Alcohol, drug use while carrying cancels out the maturity and common sense of the possessor.
If I am stopping for a red light or other infraction, guess what, I don't need to know. Do you think the GB (guilty b#st#rd) is going to tell me? So like one of the other lawdogs stated I practice this principle: "I treat everyone as I would want to be treated, but I do have a plan to kill them."
Working with many young guy and gal sheepdogs; there is a lot of ignorance and unfamiliarity with firearms, because most have no military experience and have limited firearms exposure, mostly confined to department weapons only. A lot of "know-nots" claim to be experts, and I give you one example for your edification and entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0)
By the way, if you are a CCW; remember it is up to us to act in a way that reflects the great responsibility we have been given in all the ways of our life. Please know that most law dogs support the right to carry by citizens and realize that most recent active murderer (shooter) scenarios that have been interrupted reducing the mayhem has been early intervention by an armed citizen or off-duty lawdog. There are alot of sheepdogs in our society who do not wear a badge, and I salute all of you. Act accordingly. Stay safe!
-
However, if you are being asked to exit your vehicle, I would encourage you, with your hands on the steering wheel, telling the officer that you have a valid permit and are armed, and ask for his next instructions.
Thank you Sgt. Z.
The LEO's I have known at an off duty level, all reinforce your mindset.
If I get pulled for "whatever", but am a sober non-confrontational citizen, I disclose the fact that I am armed, and am compliant with the officers instructions. For better or worse, as I have done in the past, I handed my Model 411 S&W .40 to a Char-Meck officer and got it back unloaded. Warning for the brake light, and a very cordial interaction.
Had my attitude been different, I can only assume the LEO would have treated me accordingly. I refer to Ichiban's "How not to get your ass kicked" video. ::)
-
I pulled in behind a pick up in a gas station to tank up. The pick up driver was passing gas, his un-holstered hunting pistol was stuffed under the windshield on the dash and a cop had just backed in at his 2 oclock. The Officer took a few moments to size things up then went to the fellow, asked about the gun then told the guy to put his hands on the hood and wait. The Cop opened the drivers door and it stayed open between them while he went in through the drivers door and retrieved a single action .44 Ruger. I stood there watching him try to push the cylinder out and after a few moments I shuffled up behind him and told him to pull the hammer to half cock - open the gate and turn the cylinder. He seemed to get it but I finished quickly and got out of there. I think every Cop should be required to spend some of their own time at a gun store going through the samples till they've figured them all out. As for the wounded Cop Chick it seems that more than a few of them here in WA State have been killed through what seem to be poor tactics.
-
I'd rather have them trained to clear autos then single actions.
they are not very common and unless the hammer is cocked, even pulling the trigger does not make them go bang.
-
I have a separate, small case which has three clear plastic windows for my DL, Military ID and HCP (it's called a Handgun Carry Permit in TN). If I'm ever stopped for any reason, the first thing I will do is reach into my shirt pocket and retrieve those three items to produce to the LEO. Then it is up to him or her whether they want me to reach into the glove compartment to retrieve my insurance card as well as to ask if I am carrying (I always am) and what they want me to do then. In the meantime, my hands will remain on the steering wheel at all times after retrieving and handing them my documents. I do not want to take any chances with a LEO who may be new on the job or has never encountered someone with a carry permit so I want to make it as clear as possible that I have a permit and, if asked, will tell them that I am armed. If, after that, they want me to step outside the vehicle and "assume the position" I will be happy to comply. They have a tough enough job to do already and I have no intention of making it any tougher for them or for myself.
-
There is a diffrence between saying for both our safety and just yours. The "i'm going home at any cost" stick is one of the major probs with LEOs .they have lost the "protect and serve" deal for , "i'm better then you are" Its all over the plave, it just shows its ugly head when it comes to guns.
I'm sorry TAB, but in this case you are just plain wrong. It's not a matter of one person being "better" than another, it's a matter of not knowing you from Adam, not knowing if you are nervous, high, just coming from killing your spouse, what have you. The LEO's see things on a daily basis that are so horrendous that you wouldn't be able to wrap your little brain around them. Do they seem paranoid to you? Perhaps. But remember, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that somebody ISN'T out to get you.
-
Kansas you are not required to tell the officer you are carrying unless he or her ask if you are and then yes by law. Our instructor was a retired cop and said to not say anything about being armed unless asked. I asked about Missouri rules on telling the officer and never got a clear answer.
-
I'm sorry TAB, but in this case you are just plain wrong. It's not a matter of one person being "better" than another, it's a matter of not knowing you from Adam, not knowing if you are nervous, high, just coming from killing your spouse, what have you. The LEO's see things on a daily basis that are so horrendous that you wouldn't be able to wrap your little brain around them. Do they seem paranoid to you? Perhaps. But remember, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that somebody ISN'T out to get you.
So your ok with LEOs being able to buy guns you can't? I'm not talking about machine guns. or how about them getting nation wide CCW, you could be a 18 yo that is the son of the sheriff, working as a file clerk and carry nation wide. yet some one that has spent thier entire life as a weapons instructor for the miltary can not carry nation wide. You really don't see a prob with that?
Something else to think about. LEOs are not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs, nor are then in the top 5 for being assulted while on the job.
-
I gotta agree with TAB on this one. The attitude of "I'm going home at the end of the shift and if you get hurt, or killed, or your rights are violated, that's just too bad" might be appropriate for the Charlie sector of Detroit or Five Points in NYC or any other area known for high crime, it just isn't necessary for most situations. Respect given is respect received.
Here in Ohio, we've had a reported instance where an OHP officer disarmed a driver by reaching into the vehicle, across the driver and unholstering the weapon from the driver's right hip thereby exposing his entire torso, his weapon, and the back of his head to the driver. I really wouldn't call that safe, would you?
So..if ever I am stopped by an LEO I will have ready my, DL, my CHL, and my INS. Then, I'll hit the button on my digital recorder. After all, it's for your protection and mine..
-
............. I think every Cop should be required to spend some of their own time at a gun store going through the samples till they've figured them all out. As for the wounded Cop Chick it seems that more than a few of them here in WA State have been killed through what seem to be poor tactics.
Yup. A week long weapons handling course to advance public safety. Sounds like a great idea.
..........Something else to think about. LEOs are not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs, nor are then in the top 5 for being assaulted while on the job.
Dang Tab, I gotta say I see some movement to the right in you. But, careful with what you say, you are "dissin" the LEO Holy Grail here....gee, have you no respect? I lost several people who I was friends with working offshore platforms for 10 years but all the buds that were in law enforcement back in college are still kicking (and I say that's a good thing). No parades, no salutes, nothing but a regular funeral.
Being an officer is a suckey job but not the most dangerous across the nation. There are some officers who use the danger mystique to enhance their own self-image...Tab....if some are on this board you just pissed them off. We all know it can be a dangerous and fatal job but when compared to national averages as a profession it's not the most dangerous.
Tab...what's the 10 most dangerous jobs?
-
#1........Having my family in danger and you being between them and me............
Your chances coming out alive are better if you encountered Satan!
In fact..that is what you might think your job had been if that happened.. hahaha
Ok now..........next job? ;D
-
#1........Having my family in danger and you being between them and me............
Your chances coming out alive are better if you encountered Satan!
In fact..that is what you might think your job had been if that happened.. hahaha
Ok now..........next job? ;D
Awesome Marshal'ette - I know several females with the same life outlook. Very dangerous job
-
So your ok with LEOs being able to buy guns you can't? I'm not talking about machine guns. or how about them getting nation wide CCW, you could be a 18 yo that is the son of the sheriff, working as a file clerk and carry nation wide. yet some one that has spent thier entire life as a weapons instructor for the miltary can not carry nation wide. You really don't see a prob with that?
Something else to think about. LEOs are not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs, nor are then in the top 5 for being assulted while on the job.
I don't think we should underscore the dangers of being in law enforcement. Sure they don't die at the rate of some other jobs but when they die someone else is usually doing the killing. I worked in construction and saw people die. In every instance I saw, it was there own fault. Not being tied off or being in a position they should not have been in. WhatI am saying is that some LEO's need to think a little more use there heads and evaluate there situation. When a person tells them that they are carrying, I would think that the chances are very low that the person is planning on doing the officer harm. If the officer can't do that, maybe he picked the wrong line of work.
-
The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002
Full article http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp
1. Logger
2. Pilot
3. Fisher
4. Iron/Steel Worker
5. Garbage Collector
6. Farmer/Rancher
7. Roofer
8. Electrical Power Installer/Repairer
9. Sales, Delivery, and Other Truck Driver
10. Taxi Driver/Chauffeur
Full article http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america.htm
-
I think that commercial fisherman top this latest list, nearly two to one over the next group! circa 2007....
Fisherman 141 deaths per 100K
Logging 88 deaths per 100K...
either way, tough men and women in those occupations.....God Bless 'em....
-
And that's just fatalities.......don't forget maiming and injuries..... dangerous jobs indeed.
-
"some one that has spent thier entire life as a weapons instructor for the miltary can not carry nation wide. You really don't see a prob with that?"
I am all for reciprocal recognition of state permits through out the U.S.
-
I am all for reciprocal recognition of state permits through out the U.S.
That not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about how they have createed a federal class system. We all know on strick US cons ground that law would be struck down, but no one is going to step up to challenge it and no judge wants to be known as some one that "takes away a cops protection".
As to the top 10 deadly jobs, it changes on how exactly the study is done.
OSHA does it per 100k man hours. the list is mainly construction and transprotation.
OSHA also lists the number of assults per 100k man hours. LEOs are ranked 8, CO officers are ranked 7. Retails personal and medical took up the top 5( diffrent jobs) 6 was a shock, RE agents.
-
That not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about how they have createed a federal class system. We all know on strick US cons ground that law would be struck down, but no one is going to step up to challenge it and no judge wants to be known as some one that "takes away a cops protection".
As to the top 10 deadly jobs, it changes on how exactly the study is done.
OSHA does it per 100k man hours. the list is mainly construction and transprotation.
OSHA also lists the number of assults per 100k man hours. LEOs are ranked 8, CO officers are ranked 7. Retails personal and medical took up the top 5( diffrent jobs) 6 was a shock, RE agents.
Tab, Why would you complain about a law that would allow someone or ANYONE the right to protect themselfs? It sounds like just because the law doesn't effect you you are against it. Sure I'd like too see a law passed that would make all states reciprocal to each other, but I'm not going to bitch because there is more good guys with guns out there.
-
It creates a class system. Your either a LEO or your not. it also complete destroys the rights of states to remain seprate and have thier own laws. You realize that you could be a LEO in one state, yet be DQ from being one in another, let alone getting a CCW. If all states had the same standard for issuing ccws it would not be a prob. Since that is not the case, there is one.
Example utah will give yuo a CCW even if you have a minor drug conviction, many states that will DQ you. Recently wy made a stink about that( and rightfully so) so they droped UTs permits recipt... then put it back, then took it away again... now its being looked at, so who knows where it will end up.
-
I don't think we should underscore the dangers of being in law enforcement. Sure they don't die at the rate of some other jobs but when they die someone else is usually doing the killing. I worked in construction and saw people die. In every instance I saw, it was there own fault. Not being tied off or being in a position they should not have been in. WhatI am saying is that some LEO's need to think a little more use there heads and evaluate there situation. When a person tells them that they are carrying, I would think that the chances are very low that the person is planning on doing the officer harm. If the officer can't do that, maybe he picked the wrong line of work.
Amen.
-
It creates a class system. Your either a LEO or your not. it also complete destroys the rights of states to remain seprate and have thier own laws. You realize that you could be a LEO in one state, yet be DQ from being one in another, let alone getting a CCW. If all states had the same standard for issuing ccws it would not be a prob. Since that is not the case, there is one.
Example utah will give yuo a CCW even if you have a minor drug conviction, many states that will DQ you. Recently wy made a stink about that( and rightfully so) so they droped UTs permits recipt... then put it back, then took it away again... now its being looked at, so who knows where it will end up.
Sounds like we have a legislator problem there, and that is the problem throughout the U.S. Yes, you are either a LEO or not. That is kind of obvious. Allow nation wide carry for all with a valid CCW.
-
CCW needs to be left up to the states.
-
I don't know where this idea of holy state's rights is really coming from. The people's rights should always preclude the others. Next would be states, then federal. The idea of a federal CCW would be somewhat better, just because there would be no questions about what the law is. However, CCW shouldn't be needed by a people who have a right to arms. Bearing arms shouldn't be restricted by location. Wherever you are, your gun should be there too (or at least be allowed to be there).
-
We have ahd gun control in this country since well before it was founded. CCW has never been a right nation wide, NEVER. Its also a new concept. Up until just recently concealing a gun was viewed as something only crimals did.
If you look at the history of this country, its only about the last 75ish years that "uninfringed" has been taken to mean, no restrictions what so ever. FWIW, we have no rights that are not retstricted. Every single one of them has some type of restrcition on it, why should the 2a be diffrent from the rest?
-
I don't know where this idea of holy state's rights is really coming from. The people's rights should always preclude the others. Next would be states, then federal. The idea of a federal CCW would be somewhat better, just because there would be no questions about what the law is. However, CCW shouldn't be needed by a people who have a right to arms. Bearing arms shouldn't be restricted by location. Wherever you are, your gun should be there too (or at least be allowed to be there).
The laws of one state, should never be allowed to super seed the laws of another. Its just that simple.
Lets just say you live in state A, where you can legally CCW, but you want to go to state B, where if you lived there you would be DQed. Tell me how its fair to state B, if you can legally CCW there do to your own states laws.
-
We have ahd gun control in this country since well before it was founded. CCW has never been a right nation wide, NEVER. Its also a new concept. Up until just recently concealing a gun was viewed as something only crimals did.
If you look at the history of this country, its only about the last 75ish years that "uninfringed" has been taken to mean, no restrictions what so ever. FWIW, we have no rights that are not retstricted. Every single one of them has some type of restrcition on it, why should the 2a be diffrent from the rest?
A typical Tab response, but still not at all true. Starting at the top:
Early gun control in this country was to mandate ownership of firearms and sufficient powder and ball to serve in the militia. Rather different than today's gun-grabber version.
OK, you got one - CCW is a new concept. See next paragraph.
CCW is a modern concept used because states fear gun-bearing citizens and compromised on CCW to allow State approved (like that phrase?) citizens to carry. Therefore, as a "right" to keep and bear arms, it is viewed today more as a gummint approved privilege and not a right as enumerated in the US Constitution (and numerous state Constitutions as well)
Concealing firearms - for a while everyone carried concealed, it was assumed in the violent and rough cities and in the old West, gentlemen were always assumed to be carrying. Where did all of those small pocket revolvers - and John Moses Browning's early automatics - come from? Why were these invented? To fill a need of course. Old urban papers had numerous ads for pocket holsters, pants with reinforced pockets for carrying a pistol that could be easily retrieved. If you read the accounts of the gunfight at the OK Corral (a nearby alley actually, but that is another conversation), Wyatt Earp had his revolver in his coat pocket. Virgil had stuck his in his pants waistband near the small of his back after Behan had informed them that the cowboys had been disarmed. Carrying concealed was SOP.
"Uninfringed" - wrong, the language was used in the 2A because it was intended to be absolute. Having just come out of the Revolutionary War, where arms were required, and in fact the people were products of the very culture that mandated arms, they would not have been in a mindset of "well, sometimes yes, sometimes, no". Read the anti-Federalist papers especially, as well as some of the correspondences among the key players and it is clear that they never intended for there to be "reasonable" restrictions on the rights in the Bill of Rights. Those restrictions are a fairly recent idea, although violating the Constitution by the gummint and President does go way back almost to the beginning.
Consider:
- the Kelo case which gutted the second part of the 5th Amendment,
- the idea that a judge can grant immunity to violate the first part of your 5A rights,
- the morphing into law all sorts of PC nonsense violating part of the 1a,
- warrantless searches violating the 4th Amendment
- the lawsuits (and threats) violating the second part of the freedom of religion clause of the 1A which everyone (especially activist judges) like to ignore - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
- the wholesale abandonment of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Not to mention the adoption of the idea of citizens' "privileges" which violate rights to "liberty and pursuit of happiness" so that states and Feds can tax the crap out of an activity. Think driving, licenses (you and the vehicle) and the taxes on cars, gasoline, etc.
Oliver Wendell Holmes (a man I used to admire, like Lincoln, but who now I see as instrumental in destroying the Constitutional basis of this country) made his famous comment about not having the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I covered that in another post - you have a right (and an obligation if there is a fire) to yell fire falsely in a crowded theater, but as with all rights come responsibilities. If you shoot out a lamppost with a firearm and kill someone on the second floor of a building, you can and will be charged with some crime because you had the right to keep and bear arms, but you did not have the right to kill that person. Same with yelling fire - you have the right, you also have the onerous responsibilities that come with it.
The restrictions have been added by people who do not understand or value the US Constitution - people in various gummints positions, not citizens. Think Cynthia McKinney who became a representative solely to get rid of gun rights because her husband was killed on the LIRR. Short sighted and ignorant, but she is there. That is how we get the so-called "reasonable restrictions" on our rights. It's not that they are "normal" - they are added by people with political and financial agendas.
-
you need to brush up on your history. Many citys had no fire arms inside of city limits laws before and after this country was founded. Also the old western movie thing about "no guns in town" is for the most part also true, many cow/railroad towns did pass laws saying no firearms in town. Its only in the living record that unifringed has ment you can't pass any gun laws.
Show me where is says bare arms = concealed carry. bare arms does not mean carry, it means bring to bare, as in against the goverment or forign invadors. The idea that bare arms means I can have a gun with me at all times, is strickly a modern idea.
-
you need to brush up on your history. Many citys had no fire arms inside of city limits laws before and after this country was founded. Also the old western movie thing about "no guns in town" is for the most part also true, many cow/railroad towns did pass laws saying no firearms in town. Its only in the living record that unifringed has ment you can't pass any gun laws.
Show me where is says bare arms = concealed carry. bare arms does not mean carry, it means bring to bare, as in against the goverment or forign invadors. The idea that bare arms means I can have a gun with me at all times, is strickly a modern idea.
You have the right to bare arms anytime you want, TAB. I'd be upset if carrying your arms concealed was banned. If the UV index is extraordinarily high you may want to conceal those arms to prevent sunburn.
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/barearms.jpg)
-
TAB is, as usual, talking out his pelosi. If he had read history, or for that matter listened to the coverage of what was said during the Heller case he would know that that his arguments have been resisted as repressive since at least the 1600's.
The ONLY reason for controlling arms is to control people by a government that does not have the support of those people.
-
TAB is, as usual, talking out his pelosi. If he had read history, or for that matter listened to the coverage of what was said during the Heller case he would know that that his arguments have been resisted as repressive since at least the 1600's.
The ONLY reason for controlling arms is to control people by a government that does not have the support of those people.
+1
I'm glad I don't live in California. People that live there are either brainwashed, ingnorant of common sense, or they are good, smart, logical people having to endure and suffer through because of the other idiots rules, laws, and ideas of their state. My advice.. move and hope that all the crazy's are in CA when it falls off into the ocean.
-
you need to brush up on your history. Many citys had no fire arms inside of city limits laws before and after this country was founded. Also the old western movie thing about "no guns in town" is for the most part also true, many cow/railroad towns did pass laws saying no firearms in town. Its only in the living record that unifringed has ment you can't pass any gun laws.
Show me where is says bare arms = concealed carry. bare arms does not mean carry, it means bring to bare, as in against the goverment or forign invadors. The idea that bare arms means I can have a gun with me at all times, is strickly a modern idea.
I know you are sincere...but someone sold you a pig in the poke in your educational system.
I hate that for you because you have such good intentions. I remember the old men carrying guns around in south Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama 45 years ago..in the open in towns of 15k to 25k people. Even in Baton Rouge in the early 60's...wasn't common, but it did happen. Not so much a need for it then...things have changed since we are the tolerant, enlightened, baby-killing society that we now are.
In fact, recently in a suburb area of Baton Rouge, Gonzales, the Gonzales PD lost a lawsuit on open carry...the police chief won't talk about the settlement. He made the asine statement that he did not care what the law was and arrested an open carry citizen.....cost them a bit of coin.
You can find that one on a search...it's recent.
-
you need to brush up on your history. Many citys had no fire arms inside of city limits laws before and after this country was founded. Also the old western movie thing about "no guns in town" is for the most part also true, many cow/railroad towns did pass laws saying no firearms in town. Its only in the living record that unifringed has ment you can't pass any gun laws.
Show me where is says bare arms = concealed carry. bare arms does not mean carry, it means bring to bare, as in against the goverment or forign invadors. The idea that bare arms means I can have a gun with me at all times, is strickly a modern idea.
You need to brush up on your spelling:
Citys: Not a real word
Cities: the plural of City
Bare: to not be covered
Bear: to present or expose to others through action
-
If you're going to correct TAB's spelling you may as well correct all of it. I'm letting it slide.
-
TAB is, as usual, talking out his pelosi. If he had read history, or for that matter listened to the coverage of what was said during the Heller case he would know that that his arguments have been resisted as repressive since at least the 1600's.
The ONLY reason for controlling arms is to control people by a government that does not have the support of those people.
Heller said that people had a right to own a gun in thier home loaded and at the ready for sd... it also said that restrcitions on carry were ok.
-
Heller said that people had a right to own a gun in thier home loaded and at the ready for sd... it also said that restrcitions on carry were ok.
That was the DECISION. Read the arguments where they are talking about discrimination a gainst Protestants under the Stuarts and against Catholics under Cromwell.
-
And most weapon( all kinds of weapons) control over the years has been racist...
-
And most weapon( all kinds of weapons) control over the years has been racist...
So by advancing your arguments against universal CCW you are promoting racism. TAB, I have to tell you, if race is the only reason you can find for hating people your not paying attention.
-
The laws of one state, should never be allowed to super seed the laws of another. Its just that simple.
Lets just say you live in state A, where you can legally CCW, but you want to go to state B, where if you lived there you would be DQed. Tell me how its fair to state B, if you can legally CCW there do to your own states laws.
So what your saying is if a state "A" didn't like the way another state"B" does there driving test They could tell state "B" that they don't honor your states drivers and the Feds could not do anything about it. The Federal Goverment has passed many, many, many laws that the states have to abide by. Some good and some not so good but thats just the way it is.
-
And most weapon( all kinds of weapons) control over the years has been racist...
What the F#@%^%$#@K ???
-
What the F#@%^%$#@K ???
Its very much the truth. here in CA during the gold rush many laws were passed banning "chinese" weapons. a "throwing star" is a felony so are numb chucks and have been since the gold rush. In the south many laws have been passed to prevent blacks from getting guns.
When it comes to DL, states do not have to honor all forms of them and can impose greater restrictions on CDLs then teh federal laws. It is also fedreal law, that marrages do not have to be honored by other states if they do not meet the federal tax standard. So example, single sex and common law marrages, do not have to reconized. Some states choose to, but there is federal la saying they don't have too.
-
We have ahd gun control in this country since well before it was founded. CCW has never been a right nation wide, NEVER. Its also a new concept. Up until just recently concealing a gun was viewed as something only crimals did.
If you look at the history of this country, its only about the last 75ish years that "uninfringed" has been taken to mean, no restrictions what so ever. FWIW, we have no rights that are not retstricted. Every single one of them has some type of restrcition on it, why should the 2a be diffrent from the rest?
Could you quote the relevant sections of the constitution to back up your assertion? What were the early restrictions on gun ownership and carry?
-
Heller said that people had a right to own a gun in thier home loaded and at the ready for sd... it also said that restrcitions on carry were ok.
That still doesn't make the decision completely right ...in many ways it was a cop-out by the court....they ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment in general terms of an individuals rights, but still said DC could use 'restrictions' on said ownership and bearing of arms, which in my opinion contradicts their own decision. Kind of like the old 'having your cake and eating it too' saying.
If you are an American citizen, free of criminal conviction, you should be able to buy, own, and bear said arms at any time or place in this country.
-
That still doesn't make the decision completely right ...in many ways it was a cop-out by the court....they ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment in general terms of an individuals rights, but still said DC could use 'restrictions' on said ownership and bearing of arms, which in my opinion contradicts their own decision. Kind of like the old 'having your cake and eating it too' saying.
If you are an American citizen, free of criminal conviction, you should be able to buy, own, and bear said arms at any time or place in this country.
Peg you're half right. It was a cop out, BUT that kind of cop out is how any smart and concientious appellate or supreme court justice does business when setting a new precedent. There are three rules.
Rule one: Rule only on the issue before the court, not hypotheticals (such as concealed carry) that the ruling may imply.
Rule two: Rule as narrowley as possible. This gives time for legislators and lower courts t hash things out on the ground and produce some results you can look at. That way you're not flying blind when something like a ccw issue does come up.
Rule three: The SCOTUS is not in the business of doing justice. It is in the busines of making rules so that lower courts know how to rule. It will only (in theory, in a perfect world) take a case if the lower circuits are in conflict or there is a new area to be deat with (like the internet) or if there is a clear constiutional issue. Don't be upset that Heller didn't go further. It was an almost perfect ruling. It told the state no, you can't abridge cerain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.
fightingquaker13
-
Peg you're half right. It was a cop out, BUT that kind of cop out is how any smart and concientious appellate or supreme court justice does business when setting a new precedent. There are three rules.
Rule one: Rule only on the issue before the court, not hypotheticals (such as concealed carry) that the ruling may imply.
Rule two: Rule as narrowley as possible. This gives time for legislators and lower courts t hash things out on the ground and produce some results you can look at. That way you're not flying blind when something like a ccw issue does come up.
Rule three: The SCOTUS is not in the business of doing justice. It is in the busines of making rules so that lower courts know how to rule. It will only (in theory, in a perfect world) take a case if the lower circuits are in conflict or there is a new area to be deat with (like the internet) or if there is a clear constiutional issue. Don't be upset that Heller didn't go further. It was an almost perfect ruling. It told the state no, you can't abridge cerain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.
fightingquaker13
That would be fine if the lower courts ruled by the same standards instead of the usual self-satisfying agendas (of the judges). Many judges (including SCOTUS) rule based more on their political affiliations instead of the reading of the letter of the law.
What good did it do for the citizens of DC to have the SCOTUS rule that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right, only to then allow DC to continue to restrict that right with so much red-tape regulations that they might as well have left it alone to start with. Sure they can sue DC and it'll be tied up in lower courts for the next ten years (hashing it out). Like you said, "It told the state no, you can't abridge certain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.", but they are still doing so in spite of the ruling.
I understand your point on narrowing and pinpointing the exact nature of the area being ruled on by the court (like leaving out CCW as you mentioned) and agree to a large extent, as to the nature of how the court should conduct hearings. But if the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was read as intended (IMO) then the issue would be rendered moot. Shall not be infringed means just that. Which is what DC and most other 'civilized' big cities have been doing all along, infringing on a God-given right that is merely 'guaranteed' by the Constitution.
I think we're somewhat on the same page (or at least the same chapter) just reading with different light. ;) 8)
Maybe it's just a 'pipe-dream' of what should be...... and then we wake into the real world.....
-
Thought this story from this past weekend would be kind of pertinent to this thread since it involves a routine traffic stop and two officers being shot. I think it reaffirms the idea that the CCW folks are the 'good guys' and are generally not to be worried about in this situation. It's usually the bad guys that just start shooting.
The shooter ran, but turned himself in sometime Sunday.
Sammy Coleman and James Mock were attempting to make a routine traffic stop that turned into anything but, after Tells Junior pulled into 235 1st Street. That was where he opened fire, hitting both officers in the head.
"It's very seldom that we have a shooting, or something like that." James Mock is the former police chief of Cuthbert and was treated and released. He even went back to the crime scene later that night.
Sammy Coleman stayed in the hospital over night. "We are sad that it happened, and we don't want to look down on our officers."
For the story: http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=10133069&nav=menu37_2
-
What caliber ?
-
That would be fine if the lower courts ruled by the same standards instead of the usual self-satisfying agendas (of the judges). Many judges (including SCOTUS) rule based more on their political affiliations instead of the reading of the letter of the law.
What good did it do for the citizens of DC to have the SCOTUS rule that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right, only to then allow DC to continue to restrict that right with so much red-tape regulations that they might as well have left it alone to start with. Sure they can sue DC and it'll be tied up in lower courts for the next ten years (hashing it out). Like you said, "It told the state no, you can't abridge certain individual rights on the one hand. On the other hand however, it did not give marching orders to elected officials and subvert the democratic process. It just told them what they couldn't do.", but they are still doing so in spite of the ruling.
I understand your point on narrowing and pinpointing the exact nature of the area being ruled on by the court (like leaving out CCW as you mentioned) and agree to a large extent, as to the nature of how the court should conduct hearings. But if the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was read as intended (IMO) then the issue would be rendered moot. Shall not be infringed means just that. Which is what DC and most other 'civilized' big cities have been doing all along, infringing on a God-given right that is merely 'guaranteed' by the Constitution.
I think we're somewhat on the same page (or at least the same chapter) just reading with different light. ;) 8)
Maybe it's just a 'pipe-dream' of what should be...... and then we wake into the real world.....
As far as being on the same page we pretty much are. Just remember what I said about the SCOTUS not being in the business of doing justice. (That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact). They aren't worried about citizen X of DC. They are worried about setting up a clear uniform rule of what sort of gun control is ok and what is not. Heller starts the game. We have an individual right to guns and self defense is a good enough reason. The state can impose "reasonable" rules. Now the game proceeds. What restrictions are reasonable? What sort of guns can we own? Who can own them? Can they carry them? Who can regulate them, the city, the state, the feds? You're right sorting all this out will take years. This is what the SCOTUS wants, as it will establish legal precedent and patterns of consensus on what th 2A means on the ground. Its frustrating, but its the way the law, particularly Con. law works. To paraphrase Frost "The wheels of the Court grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding small".
FG13
-
What caliber ?
They have not said yet. I will watch the evening news and see if there is an update. From what they said at the noon report, the shots were glancing shots that did not penetrate into the skull.
(kind of like 'cro-magnon' man from a previous post, or was it 'cro-magnum' man?)
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php/topic,5252.msg61967/topicseen.html#msg61967
-
It's hard to believe that on this forum, there is an argument over what the second amendment means. As far as anything that SCOTUS decides upon, one vote could have sent Heller the other way and that can happen at anytime in the future. Any decision in the past could also have been influenced by the leanings of any justice placed on the bench by whatever crazy President of that time. This underlines the importance of joining the NRA and other groups that will press for the rights that we believe in.
Tab, regardless of what you believe the second actually means, do you feel that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed?
I feel that rights shouldn't necessarily be enumerated in the Constitution. And that we aren't limited to only the rights that are spelled out. Once a right has been put into words, others will try to box that right in to the meanings of how they interpret those words.
I also feel that this right is as clear as day and that the founders expressed their intent for this right many times.
Example:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
… Oh, and "Don't tread on me!"
-
I feel that rights shouldn't necessarily be enumerated in the Constitution. And that we aren't limited to only the rights that are spelled out. Once a right has been put into words, others will try to box that right in to the meanings of how they interpret those words.
+10 fuzzdaddy and it puts you ahead of most of my students. Hamilton raised the same point when he argued against the bill of rights in federalist 84. His fear was that any unenumerated right would be taken as a mere privelege by the state. He was about halfway wrong, but its still a valid point as the ninth ammendment is a dead letter. >:( You are right though, that the constitution doesn't interpret itself and we need to choose people who will protect our rights when choosing judges.
FQ13
-
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." George Mason - 1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention
-
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." George Mason - 1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention
I appreciate the quiet clarity you bring us.