Open Carry, and where it gets rediculas. - Page 5
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 115

Thread: Open Carry, and where it gets rediculas.

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by emt232004 View Post
    MCL 750.234d provides that it is a 90 day misdemeanor to possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
    A depository financial institution (e.g., bank or credit union)
    A church or other place of religious worship
    A court
    A theater
    A sports arena
    A day care center
    A hospital
    An establishment licensed under the Liquor Control Code

    The above section does not apply to any of the following:
    The owner or a person hired as security (if the firearm is possessed for the purpose of providing security)
    A peace officer
    A person with a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by any state
    A person who possesses on one of the above listed premises with the permission of the owner or owner’s agent



    MCL 28.425o provides that a person with a valid CPL shall not carry a concealed pistol in a pistol-free zone. First offense is a state civil infraction. The following is a list of the premises (excluding parking lots) included in the statute:

    School or school property, except a parent or legal guardian who is dropping off or picking up a child and the pistol is kept in the vehicle
    Public or private day care center
    Sports arena or stadium
    A bar or tavern where sale and consumption of liquor by the glass is the primary source of income (does not apply to owner or employee of the business).
    Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless authorized by the presiding official
    An entertainment facility that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more
    A hospital
    A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university
    A casino (R 432.1212, MCL 432.202)

    Note, the above statute applies to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. If the CPL holder is carrying a non-concealed pistol, the statute does not apply. As noted above, the unlawful premises listed in MCL 750.234d do not apply to persons with a valid CPL. Therefore, a person with a valid CPL may carry a non-concealed pistol in the areas described in MCL 28.425o and MCL 750.234d.



    Most have cameras that clip on their belt and are the size of a bluetooth. If you had to use your firearm in self defense would you not want a video recorder after the fact to document anything that happens from the point the attacker is down? To show police response and your cooperation for them or that you where not just going on a killing rampage?
    No I wouldn't want a video camera in such a case. It would point to my mind set at the time of the attack. The prosecutor could argue that my actions where premeditated and I knew what I was doing. He would also point out that I had enough time to film my self using deadly force. But I did use that extra time to try and get away. On top of that when your faced with a threat your body goes into to FFF mode (Fight, Flight, or Freeze). All fine motor skills go out the window and your body pumps blood to your legs and arms. Your body dumps a tone of Epinephrine (Adrenaline) and you get tunnel vision and your fingers tend to lock up. Police Officers & Military members train for years to hone their skills and teach themselves how to react and over come FFF. So for you to say that Joe Public with little to no firearm training (outside of that needed to get a CWP, if any.) Will be able to not only over come it but be able to film it and draw his/her firearm and shoot the attacker while filming. IS JUST ******* NUTS!

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by emt232004 View Post
    That is why I OC a Springfield XD-40 in a serpa holster
    Then tell me what purpose does OCing a long gun serve in the self defense roll? The answer NOTHING! They do it for the attention factor. Hell I could Open a 40mm thumper but what purpose would it serve other then the look at me one?Bottom line is they do it because they can nothing more nothing less.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  4. Quote Originally Posted by asaling View Post
    I saw these "mini movies" about 2 months ago. My first thought was what a bunch of attention Wh???'s.

    Another case of the minority making it tougher on the majority.

    Yes, I know the "have the right"... but come on, why would you really need to carry a AR into a Denny's or Ponderosa.
    I would tend to agree...AR openly carried into Ponderosa = asking for an encounter and just dumb. But we have to illustrate something important in the video: Safety in numbers. These folks were smart enough to be in a group with video capability at their disposal. That makes it much more difficult for a LEO to claim that a crime occurred (even disorderly conduct or obstruction) when there are that many witnesses and video.

    Remember rule #1 with LEOs: Say absolutely NOTHING, use your 5th Amendment rights. Everything you say will be used against you in a court of law, even if it's for a completely unrelated case. Nothing that a LEO tells you is admissable in court, it's deemed hearsay...unless you have it on video or audio. (this is the most important) The US Supreme Court ruled that it's perfectly acceptable for a LEO to lie to you so they can obtain evidence (note that this constitutes moral turpitude which is a disqualifying critera for LEO positions if there's evidence illustrating or convicting you of such).

    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanjo View Post
    That group on the Video aren't helping Gun owners, they are helping the Anti Gun people.
    Gun owners simply owning guns helps anti-gun folks. It matters not how or what gun owners do, everything that can be twisted to suit their needs will be twisted by the Anti, even in the face of the statistical information illustrating that guns aren't the problem and that the criminal justice system IS. The other part of the problem is the idiotic, irresponsible, uneducated media.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    LOL, if you can OC in places that you cant CC then that would fall into category (A). Again who walks around with a video camera? No one unless your looking for something to happen. You would not have the time to pull the camera out and turn it on and shoot your attacker. If you have enough time to pull out a camera and start filming before someone attacks you making you use deadly force. Then you have more then enough time to WALK AWAY!!!!!!!
    Since you keep failing to understand why people walk around with video cameras so that they can document the misuse of force by the police officers that show up. Why do Police officers walk around with video cameras to document that they had reason to shoot the suspect.

    As for OCing why is it you are against citizens right to OC? Yet have no complaints about police OCing. It might just be me but I am afraid of police officers with guns due to the actions they take and hardly ever get charged against them. Look at the video that was posted that officer threated the man that was OCing all because he left his house with out calling 911 to report he would be excessing his second amendment that day.

    The video camera is not for BG attackers but the boys in blue that show up. for if you don't have video documentation of the events that took place you are more then likely ending up in jail under false charges. If you watch the video clips you will see that the officers attitude changes when their is a video camera present that is not owned by the police force.

    So while you feel safe with your hand gun the guy in the video feels safe with a M4. And what do most of us tell someone when they ask what gun to get. Chose the one that feels the best and that you can shoot well.So this guy chose the m4.

  6. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Since you keep failing to understand why people walk around with video cameras so that they can document the misuse of force by the police officers that show up. Why do Police officers walk around with video cameras to document that they had reason to shoot the suspect.

    As for OCing why is it you are against citizens right to OC? Yet have no complaints about police OCing. It might just be me but I am afraid of police officers with guns due to the actions they take and hardly ever get charged against them. Look at the video that was posted that office threated the man that was OCing all because he left his house with out calling 911 to report he would be excessing his second amendment that day.

    The video camera is not for BG attackers but the boys in blue that show up. for if you don't have video documentation of the events that took place you are more then likely ending up in jail under false charges. If you watch the video clips you will see that the officers attitude changes when their is a video camera present that is not owned by the police force.

    So while you feel safe with your hand gun the guy in the video feels safe with a M4. And what do most of us tell someone when they ask what gun to get. Chose the one that feels the best and that you can shoot well.So this guy chose the m4.
    LOL what the hell are you talking about? Show me one post that I point blank state that I am against OC? You wont find one because I have stated from day one that I'm for OC if it's your only means to LAWFULLY CARRY! I am against the douchebags that feel the need to OC for attention! Last time I checked police officers don't carry around video cameras. They have a few items on the market that are geared for that (Taser makes a head cam and they have a gun cam, mic cam, etc...) but on a whole they are not used. Having a camera does not make you any safer then not having one. The officer can order you to turn it off and failure to do so leads to you in cuffs and it still gets turned off. Things called wire taping laws and in most states you must have both parties permission to audio and video record. This law does not apply to the government. Lets say you leave it on without the officer knowing and then post said footage online to youtube. They can still arrest you under that wiretapping law. So this notion that having a video camera makes you so much safer is BS. All it takes is a order to shut it off and their goes your video footage.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by emt232004 View Post
    How did open carry of a pistol start to become accepted and gain attention that there is nothing to worry about those who follow the laws while doing so? By people going out and doing so while informing those around them.

    I did not see the guy in this video with the long arm jumping around saying look at me, he was going about things like everyone else. I did not see anything to cause alarm or alter an alert status.

    &

    What appeared questionable, dangerous or threatening in a legal lawful open carry dinner where they needed that many cops when everything was legit?
    Apparently there are "questions" because we are having this discussion, thus it's "questionable". See, told you I have a simple mind. :-) I said in my first response my opinion would not be popular will everyone. But I personally did'nt feel carrying the M4 was good judgment. I never said anything was less than legal. Believe me I get it, I don't need to be educated. I'm also entitled to my opinion, as are you... Part of this type of "education" process is getting people to notice and talk about it. isn't that's whats happening here?

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    BS the police can not order you to shut of your camera. Other wise news crews would not be able to report. As the wire taping law is concern that applies to telephones not video cameras that are not hidden. Other wise the videotape of the police officers beating Rodney King would never had been shown.

    This Week In History: In March 1991, a home video captured Los Angeles police officers beating motorist Rodney King. CBS News' Jerry Bowen reports.

    As can be seen from the text above it was recorded by a citizen that seen that the officers were breaking the laws that they were supposed too be enforcing.
    So unless they passed laws to prevent us from video taping them your commit is wrong.

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    BS the police can not order you to shut of your camera. Other wise news crews would not be able to report. As the wire taping law is concern that applies to telephones not video cameras that are not hidden. Other wise the videotape of the police officers beating Rodney King would never had been shown.

    This Week In History: In March 1991, a home video captured Los Angeles police officers beating motorist Rodney King. CBS News' Jerry Bowen reports.

    As can be seen from the text above it was recorded by a citizen that seen that the officers were breaking the laws that they were supposed too be enforcing.
    So unless they passed laws to prevent us from video taping them your commit is wrong.
    LOL wow. Yet another uneducated tool! Google wire taping laws and educate your self fool! Yes the police can order you to shut your video camera off and stop filming! Yes you can be arrested for not complying with a order from a LEO officer. News crews have been arrested for failure to stop reporting/filming. Are you really that uneducated? It happens all the time and it's all over YOUTUBE! Wiretapping does not just apply to hidden video/audio!

    Twelve states require, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

    As is the problem in NH and other states! The way the law is written you must ask the LEO and or any other person if they consent to being audio/videoed. If just one person says no then BY LAW you must shut off the camera. States that have ONE PARTY CONSENT it does not matter and by law you don't have to inform anyone that you are audio/video recording.

    Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

    Point in case if you watch the history channel show AXMen last Sundays episode the Alaska state police showed up to help search for a missing logger. As the search came to a close with out finding the missing man they started asking the officer things(got kinda heated.) The officer turned to the film crew and told them to stop filming.

    YouTube - Video Caught On Tape News Reporter Crew Gets Detained By A Police Officer In El Paso Texas
    YouTube - Police brutality on a US news channel? (you decide)
    YouTube - RT crew arrested in US filming at 'School of Assassins'
    YouTube - Film Is Not A Crime
    YouTube - ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators,

    and so on... That's just a few of news crews I did not even start with Joe public.

    THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    LOL what the hell are you talking about? Show me one post that I point blank state that I am against OC? You wont find one because I have stated from day one that I'm for OC if it's your only means to LAWFULLY CARRY! I am against the douchebags that feel the need to OC for attention!
    You are correct you never come out and say it point blank but you do place restrictions on it. I don't care why someone OC's it is their right. If you want to start infringing on their right to OC because they are doing it for attention then you are against people OCing. Also you state "I'm for OC if it's your only means to LAWFULLY CARRY!"There was no limit placed on the second amendment that makes you chose how you will carry your arms.

    And everyone that OC's is doing it for the attention that OCing provides. It lets everyone know that you are armed and if attacked can respond with deadly force. That is why police OC and have uniforms. It brings attention to them.

    So that you don't accuse me of twisting your words you stated that you are for OC if it's your only means to lawfully carry. So if you have other means to lawfully carry you should not OC is what I take from your comment. The "I am against the douchebags that feel the need to OC for attention!" comment means your against the douchebags actions not their OCing.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Texas has concealed carry after a tragedy in which many folks were killed in a cafeteria do not take your business to anyone or place that does not support the laws, the Ponderosa does not appear to be supportive of the law. Sounds like the Ponderosa and the Police need to review the law.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •  
Quantcast