Gun mom looks to sue sheriff - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Gun mom looks to sue sheriff

  1. I agree with everyone here. I got my ccw because I needed a way to protect my familiy that placed me on even ground with type of people that I have had to deal with on a regular basis in my line of work. I am a current corrections employee and the criminals that I deal with are chronic offenders and have made many threats to my family. I am not a gun rights activist but I feel that we all have our rights to do as we please however not everyone is comfortable around open carry. I personally would be more suspicsious of a person who looks to be carrying but seems to be acting bizzare rather than looking at a person who is willing to carry open. I know this sounds hypocritcal but why would somone who wants a gun for protection wish to draw attention to themselves.

  3. #22
    Again, this is one of those topics that just swirls around and round. Best considered with a beer in hand or bottomless cup of coffee, among friends and reasonably respectful people.

    At the core of the 2A is the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear/carry. PERIOD.

    That means YOU decide, not your neighbor, not your preacher, not our politicians, not your mother-in-law (except within their home or property).

    I don't care if you carry on your belt, under your shoulder or in your crotch.

    I don't care if it is an AK-47/74 SA, AR-15, Barret .50, 9mm, .32, 18+1, 6+empty chamber, 5&hammer down on empty, revolver or semi-auto, etc.

    It can be concealed or in plain sight as long as YOU are being responsible for its security from those who don't know how to handle it and those who would mishandle it deliberately. If you don't know how to carry safely, your right should be revoked by a jury of your peers (not a jury of pisant anti's).

    A critical question which many of us believe focuses the issue is: If we hide the guns from the kids and our fellow citizens all of the time, how will they EVER learn that it is normal and accept it as an ordinary right?

    I know of no other CC person who tries to say NEVER carry concealed, ONLY openly, so am at a loss as to why so many people who also carry feel compelled to try to tell others that they shouldn't open carry. If some mouse/sheep/wuss is going to wet their pants over seeing a hardened, dangerous, salivating gun on another's belt - who really cares? Even if it causes some short-term inconvenience or grief, as long as you were within your rights (property, location, secure) and carrying legally - tough. But, if it bothers YOU, then you still have the right to conceal so shut up and conceal.

    However, as I mentioned above, I don't care where/how YOU carry (as long as you are not negligent) and I respect those who recognize their limitations or have philosophical differences which make them NOT carry, but temper your judgments of others before you make statements based on YOUR determination of what is best for YOU.

    For the record, I only open carry on private land or at the range. It would be a relief though to not have to worry about how my jacket was hanging and being able to position closer to 3:00 without worry about breaking concealment.
    Last edited by ecocks; 12-29-2008 at 03:11 AM.
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    Another sterling example, on a gun rights forum no less, demonstrating how some people don't understand what a 'right' is. She did NOTHING wrong. She endangered no one. She harmed no one. She was wronged, damaged, and put upon by those who do not respect HER rights.

    Again, rather than defend the victim in the face of abuse, blame the victim for the abuse suffered at the hands of authority out of control.
    I didn't make the comment about her drawing attention to herself to suggest that what she was doing should be banned. I was merely suggesting that in certain situations, it is more prudent to conceal than to carry openly. Clearly, while it is her right to carry as she chooses, this was not the prudent thing to do. Think what would happen to you if you bad mouthed your boss out in public. Sure, your right to free speech allows you to voice your opinions, however unsavory they might be, about anyone or anything, but free speech does not guarantee anyone job security. Bad mouthing your boss in public, while it is your right, is not the prudent thing to do. Just because exercising a freedom however you choose is your right, that does not make it prudent.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  5. #24
    Ease up on the use of judgmental words like "clearly", "danger" and "prudent" though. Once said they take on an absolute meaning that can be difficult to back away from.

    I can "badmouth" my boss in public. As you point out, I have the right to my opinion and the expression of it as long (as I do not advocate violence or treason). There are consequences however. I may still choose to exercise my right despite the possible consequence of being fired which is a private action by another citizen. However, that is very different from exercising my rights and losing my CWP by an elected official of the community I live in. I can go get another job but getting abother CWP is considerably more challenging.

    While living in WA I kept hearing that open carry was legal. Opinion was often expressed as you can in this town but the police in this other place will give you trouble. Since I never saw anyone do it except at the range. I chose not to do so because even if within my rights, it seemed to be more hassle than it was worth. However, I do not see that "Clearly, while it is her right to carry as she chooses, this was not the prudent thing to do." It was legal, she did it, someone (Sheriff) got peeved about it. It is simply not a "clear" situation with regard to her prudence. Suppose this guy (Sheriff) decides anyone who open carries at church is "clearly" a "danger" to the community? How "clear" is that? Maybe wearing it at Safeway? The local hospital? Inside the bank? I am assuming that the location of the soccer field did not fall into the restricted zones. She was legally carrying and not brandishing or threatening others. This is a very clear problem with the 2A - where do her rights stop and the rights of others in the area begin?

    To some it is very clear she's a danger, to others, myself included, she is clearly increasing the level of security while children are playing a game of soccer.

    It is all in the words - and that's where the lawyers are going to have a field day, or a challenge.
    Last edited by ecocks; 01-01-2009 at 10:20 AM.
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

  6. As your quote states.
    Its "reality, DEAL with IT!"

  7. #26
    This is an interesting argument that can go on forever without really reaching any meaningful resolution.
    I've had a CCW for about 6 months now, and in NC even though you technically have a right to carry open, they have a "terror of the people" rule that basically says you can open carry as long as no one gets scared by seeing your firearm and contacts the authorities. Obviously since about the only place you could go and openly carry without freaking someone out is to a gun store or the range open carry is probably going to cause you problems. It really is lame because it gives them that loophole where they can say you have the right to carry "unless" which pretty much means never.

    I think that if her state explicitly allows open carry then she was well within her rights and hopefully justice will prevail and come out on her side. In that case the Sheriff was breaking the law and should be treated as such.
    However, in the eyes of the general public, firearms are something to be feared. To the uninitiated a gun is more than a tool and they see a firearm in the hands of a civilian, or on the belt of a civilian, as a potential threat. They don't know the person's character, or intent, and I don't think they can be blamed for being fearful. They are in general, inundated with negative images of firearms on a daily basis by liberal sources such as the larger part of the news media, and groups such as the brady campaign. This can only be combated by providing positive examples of gun ownership, and we must be diligent because the negative examples of gun ownership are abound.

    If this woman wins her case, as I think she should, it is a positive example of reaffirming our rights as citizens to carry a legal firearm to protect ourselves. When you are in the minority, as we all area as CCW holders, it is difficult to sway public opinion but we must try. I hope she will continue to be vocal about the violation of her rights and help to provide a positive example of someone enjoying their freedoms that we are entitled to in this country.

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by securecarry76 View Post
    As your quote states.
    Its "reality, DEAL with IT!"
    Exactly. She is and my hope is the Sheriff will get slapped.
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

  9. #28
    hope she wins,she got my support

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Again, even though it's her right to carry however she chooses, you guys should know that prudence should guide that decision every once in a while. How many of you would open carry at a place, where, although technically not illegal, you know would draw lots of unwanted attention to yourself? I wouldn't.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  11. #30
    And it will always draw attention until the right is exercised enough to be clearly understood by the citizenry.

    There are towns and areas where open carry is common and easily accepted. How did it get that way?

    Most of us here dream of living in 2A environments like Alaska and Vermont. Until people like this Sheriff and (apparently) others in the community understand that it is 1. legal and 2. safe, they are going to be skittish when someone like her shows up.

    It would be interesting to get a half-dozen people with out-of-state, but still recognized, permits to open carry in the vicinity of the Sheriff and see what his reaction is to someone with a permit he cannot revoke.

    If that is realized then it would be clear that his actions towards the woman were arbitrary. At least to me.

    As for prudence, if a crazed gunman opens up on the soccer match and her gun is locked in her vehicle and inaccesible, how prudent does she seem to be then?

    Should I prudently not wear my weapon when in the presence of my mother-in-law? Suppose while she is visiting Santa Claus comes to the door and opens fire? Have I been prudent in that case?

    When flying through NY from one RTC state to another, should you prudently not bring your firearm? If the flight is delayed and you are arrested for violating NY law due to being forced to take possession of your baggage, how prudent were you?

    Aside: Tatt - don't take this as an argument. It's a discussion of comments and questions.
    Last edited by ecocks; 01-01-2009 at 10:53 AM.
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts