HB 142 Eliminate need when stopped to notify carrying firearm. - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: HB 142 Eliminate need when stopped to notify carrying firearm.

  1. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    You asked, I answered. I provided links and examples to substantiate my position(s). Bofh added reasons that also contribute to my position(s). I showed no anger at all. I was simply straightforward and blunt. Volunteering to talk to cops is no different than volunteering to have the IRS audit your tax returns. Let us know when you do that on the basis that you "don't break any laws." The reason the Fifth Amendment was penned is that its authors and signers well knew that talking to government officials (at any level) is an invitation for it to work its will upon you. That is government's nature. Nature doesn't anger or frustrate me, its most dangerous aspects simply make me wary of it. Government in all its various form is nothing more complicated than brute force. Brute force is never friendly, never interested in what you have to say, and always on the hunt for places and people where it can apply force with impunity. For government, its hunting grounds are target-rich environments because another part of its nature is the inherent ability to brainwash its victims into believing it is benevolent, friendly, and caring, combining to validate in the mass's collective mind its own manufactured myth that there's no reason to fear it. I proved to you, and bofh provided a case which should do the same (Philando Castille), that there is much to fear from those who suffer no consequences when they screw up on the job.

    Rather than me being angry or frustrated, it appears from where I'm sitting that you're angry that someone actually answered a question you posed in such a way as to prevent you from rebutting it, because there is no rebuttal to truth. That is to say, I told you the truth and you gave zero reply to it, and instead tried to make me out to possess traits that you couldn't possibly know the truth of. In other words, you got nothin', which was fairly apparent when I said in my previous post, "(I rarely, if ever, use Wikipedia for a source, but that Oscar Grant one is from there, and that's only because 1) there are so few unknown facts about the Oscar Grant killing for Wiki to get wrong, and 2) I don't get the impression that you're likely to be checking my sources, or familiarizing yourself with the facts of any of the cases I'm referencing here, so what's the point in trying to be thorough in finding just the right source?)."

    Obviously no point at all, so fare thee well, I'm out.

    Oh, wait, one more thing. Look at the pic and correctly identify the following people for extra credit:

    Who is,

    1) Government
    2) The cop (government's enforcer)
    3) You (SmiddySW)
    4) Me (BluesStringer)

    Good luck:

    Ok so here's the rebuttal, but honestly it's not going to matter because obviously we have very different views about LEO's.

    * personal experience + having good friends who are career LE, and US Marshal service is that not all cops are looking to get an excuse to jack me up on BS charges

    * The examples you listed were pretty excessive in number as if you were trying to drive an "all cops are bad" agenda

    * The Klan, rebel flag + cop pic looked as if you'd have me think cops are bigoted towards black people.

    * You were indeed blunt, to the point of nauseatingly blunt

    * In this post you were rude telling me "You don't have jack"

    The issue of notifying was my personal practice & I could care less what anyone thinks of what has worked for me 100% of the time.

    As for comparing notifying voluntarily to requesting a tax audit, it presumes My voluntarily notifying cops as I deem prudent is somehow asking them to search me, my car, or even my house to try to find any little thing out of order so they can fine me.

    In reality, at least my reality, I'm confident enough in the legality of everything i do related to firearms I would be fine with it if they did search all of that. I keep things upright and legal where it applies to my firearms, and if I did do something wrong I'd deserve to be charged for it so that's fine :)

    From the statements you make, it causes me to feel as if you're a person who always thinks "big brother" or "the man" or whomever is out to get you.

    If I'm wrong about this stuff please forgive me. My last reply was based on such perceptions, and reinforces my belief that it's rarely possible to have a conversation online that lacks voice tone, volume, or inflection, not to mention body language, all of which could change the entire meaning of words said.




    USAF(Ret)

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    Ok so here's the rebuttal, but honestly it's not going to matter because obviously we have very different views about LEO's.
    Submission by you to my way of thinking was not the goal in the first place, as you presented in the first post of yours that I replied to whom you submit voluntarily, because as you said, you, "...don't break any laws." That is literally an impossible assertion to substantiate here on a forum, but also to achieve in the real world, as laws have so vastly outpaced human beings' ability to fully comprehend, that neither you nor the cop you're talking to can ever know all the laws. I first tried to just joke about it, but you asked me to explain the basis for my jokes, and then offered nothing in reply to my sincere attempt to answer that request seriously, except of course a wish for a happy Easter, which I sincerely appreciated, but had no desire to discuss in the context of our exchange to that point, and still don't, at least not here in this thread.

    Otherwise, this is a *discussion* forum, where it is (or at least should be) taken for granted that people will disagree, so our obvious differences in views (which I freely acknowledge) do matter when in the process of *discussing* them. Neither you or I learn anything about the other if all we do is say "your views don't matter."

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    * personal experience + having good friends who are career LE, and US Marshal service is that not all cops are looking to get an excuse to jack me up on BS charges
    I never said that all cops are out to jack you up. I bristled at the notion that "...all the cops in" your area are pure as the wind-driven snow, paraphrasing of course how you actually stated it, but that's how it came across to me in any case.

    Maybe even most cops are "good people" at heart, but like I said in my last reply, it is literally impossible for any of them to be good, constitutionally-compliant cops anywhere in this country anymore. I'd be glad to explain in detail why I say that if you're at all interested, but I gave you a way to figure it for yourself already when I suggested that you test the text of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights against the many modern-day ubiquitous demands upon cops on the street today. Just one easy and quick example would be Terry v. Ohio concerning "reasonable articulable suspicion" and stop-and-frisk tested against the unambiguous text concerning probable cause and search & seizure of the Fourth Amendment.

    Bottom line is you don't know which cop you're going to encounter, even among those whom you count as friends - the one who presents as a "good person" or the one who will beat you to death simply because you straightened your legs when he told you to keep them crossed. It is my contention that every cop in America has some of both of those extremes in him/her, just as every human being with a working conscience still has to struggle with good and evil throughout our lifetimes. The difference is, we, as lowly citizens, are held to account many orders of magnitude more often when we lean to the "evil" side than cops are, and so leaning evil is rarely corrected with enough consequence to matter, which makes it an almost irresistible temptation to engage in with impunity for the bulk of a cop's career. Laws that are not enforced equally amongst cops are unjust laws, and cops who cannot be trusted to follow laws on the books that, in a perfect world, should apply equally to them as anybody else, are unjust government agents. Unjust government agents who enforce unjust laws, prove that government is unjust at its root.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    * The examples you listed were pretty excessive in number as if you were trying to drive an "all cops are bad" agenda
    Three is "excessive?" The only "excessive" numerical issue I can be accused of engaging in is the excessively incomplete number of such incidents I could post to make the points I was attempting to make. I gave exceedingly brief details about Kelly Thomas' and Keith Vidal's murders-by-cop, and left Oscar Grant's murder to be explained by Wikipedia. It is quite clear that your resistance to being exposed to truth backed up with links of real incidences of excessive force being used by cops is itself excessive. It is true that I believe that the system disallows cops being "good" from a constitutional perspective these days, but you'll not trap me into copping to believing something I never said to you or anyone else about all cops being "bad." Never said or thought it, which is precisely why I put the complete opposite thought in my sig-line.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    * The Klan, rebel flag + cop pic looked as if you'd have me think cops are bigoted towards black people.
    The klan, rebel flag + Chief of Police and at least a wide majority, if not all of his white underlings pic, was exactly what I said it was - an example of modern-day policing that is, at its highest levels of leadership, conducted in not only an unconstitutional manner, but corrupted in the most grotesque ways possible against people who, in Dothan at least, are the least able to afford defending themselves legally.

    One might think the story here is that in Dothan, AL, it is a well-established fact that people who make a point of making themselves aware of what's happening in their local government(s), should see all white Dothan cops as bigoted towards black people. What else could that picture possibly say? It was an example of rampant corruption from top to bottom of a modern police department. I didn't say anything to suggest that bigotry is the only type of corruption a cop-shop might be partially or wholly infected by. I'd have you think the truth of the Dothan, AL cop-shop, as-substantiated by any number of the 90,700 links in the search I provided for you when I first mentioned it. That's all it was intended to "have you think."

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    * You were indeed blunt, to the point of nauseatingly blunt
    So we do agree on something! Yeah, agreement doesn't matter to me either.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    * In this post you were rude telling me "You don't have jack"
    I told you you replied exactly zero in response to anything I said, and that's exactly what you did do.

    In just a couple of call-and-responses, you have established a nasty habit of reading into things I've said and spitting out responses to stuff I've never said, and never would say. Just because the truth hurts, which I don't know why it would in this quote's particular case, as it's clear as a bell that it is the truth, doesn't give you the right to respond to words or thoughts that you clearly make up in your own mind, but nonetheless attribute to me. Kindly stop it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    The issue of notifying was my personal practice & I could care less what anyone thinks of what has worked for me 100% of the time.
    Same 100% efficiency for my not voluntarily notifying. So?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    As for comparing notifying voluntarily to requesting a tax audit, it presumes My voluntarily notifying cops as I deem prudent is somehow asking them to search me, my car, or even my house to try to find any little thing out of order so they can fine me.
    While I wouldn't limit your potential adverse consequences for your own voluntarism in this regard to simply being "fined," that's exactly the implication I intended, and SCOTUS is the governmental body that has established those abstract thoughts as set-in-stone law for the entire country, so "your area" is irrelevant to the status of the law as it currently stands. Heck, since 2013, even silence can be used against you under some circumstances, so just imagine how much more use they stand to have available to them when you start yappin' like government is your friend or some such nonsense?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    In reality, at least my reality, I'm confident enough in the legality of everything i do related to firearms I would be fine with it if they did search all of that. I keep things upright and legal where it applies to my firearms, and if I did do something wrong I'd deserve to be charged for it so that's fine :)
    As bofh tried to gently (as opposed to "nauseatingly bluntly" I suppose) warn you, your and Philando Castille's "realities" are at wide variance. I'd go a bit further and say that your reality is at diametrically-opposed variance with any actual scrutiny of the provable truth of the matter based only on the juxtaposition of your stated opinions in this quote and the facts surrounding why Philando Castille is dead now, but I'm OK with how bofh framed it just the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    From the statements you make, it causes me to feel as if you're a person who always thinks "big brother" or "the man" or whomever is out to get you.
    I commented on what I see as the nature of government. Whether or not I choose catch-phrases or slogans to describe it as I have is irrelevant to rebutting it effectively, or in this case, at all. My position in this thread should come across much different than how you think I've stated it thus far though. You should recognize that I'm concerned that government is out to get you, and that you aid it in that quest whenever you volunteer to talk to it. Any attorney worth their salt will tell you the same thing. Most "honest" cops will tell you the same thing too. The American Bar Association will tell you the same thing. The ACLU will also. I''m not particularly fond of any of those groups or .orgs, but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and they all use one of their right picks whenever they correctly disseminate that well-intentioned advice. Take it or leave it, but it is intended at the bottom line to benefit your safety and security from an ever-expanding and overreaching government.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    If I'm wrong about this stuff please forgive me. My last reply was based on such perceptions, and reinforces my belief that it's rarely possible to have a conversation online that lacks voice tone, volume, or inflection, not to mention body language, all of which could change the entire meaning of words said.
    Nope, no forgiveness required, and except for inserting stuff that I never said or thought, you got some stuff right this time.

    I realize that this discussion is kind of off-topic to the thread OP, but I think it's important for people to hear both sides of the voluntarily-disclosed-armed-status argument. The "you" to whom I refer above is a generic "you." It's all the you's out there who never gave voluntarily informing much thought. People get shot for innocently pulling out their phone or reaching for their wallet or glove box to get ID and other papers. If it can happen to any of the people we know it's happened to, it can happen to you. Be wary of government. Government is not your friend. This country was founded on the premise that government had always, for time immemorial, been the enemy of the people who founded it - not in the metaphorical sense, but in a quite literal sense. I mean nothing personal towards you, SmiddySW, nor towards individual cops who strive to do as good a job as they can. I only recognize, and have the audacity to say out loud, that you just never know who the "good" ones are, and who the bad ones are.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    At any rate, I'm not sure why I wouldn't allow myself be in a casual conversation with an officer. Perhaps you could explain why you think we should never voluntarily talk to cops?
    I live in Ohio but I was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago. I don't trust the average cop as far as I can throw Amy Schumer.

    I want NOTHING to do with the police, hence I conduct myself in a manner calculated to keep contacts with them to the absolute minimum.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    I live in Ohio but I was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago. I don't trust the average cop as far as I can throw Amy Schumer.

    I want NOTHING to do with the police, hence I conduct myself in a manner calculated to keep contacts with them to the absolute minimum.
    Maybe I'm just friendly and a badge doesn't change that. For instance if I see a cop in a local gas station I say hello. I don't get more engaging with many ppl beyond that but a brief greeting is just how I do. If an actual conversation was started by then it'd be right when I said, "Just so you're aware officer, I'm legally armed." Which is exactly what I say if stopped as they approach my open window with my hands on the wheel, licenses in hand.

    A badge doesn't make me treat cops any different than anyone else unless it has to do a legality. No i don't ask them when they're buying my coffee and a donut but they're no different than I except when it's their job not to be, especially if I've personally given them cause to do that job with me.
    But ok whatever, people don't impress me enough to make me avoid them because of their job until it intersects with my life, and even then they still put their pants on one leg at a time just like me.


    USAF(Ret)

  6. Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    Maybe I'm just friendly and a badge doesn't change that. For instance if I see a cop in a local gas station I say hello. I don't get more engaging with many ppl beyond that but a brief greeting is just how I do. If an actual conversation was started by then it'd be right when I said, "Just so you're aware officer, I'm legally armed." Which is exactly what I say if stopped as they approach my open window with my hands on the wheel, licenses in hand.

    A badge doesn't make me treat cops any different than anyone else unless it has to do a legality. No i don't ask them when they're buying my coffee and a donut but they're no different than I except when it's their job not to be, especially if I've personally given them cause to do that job with me.
    But ok whatever, people don't impress me enough to make me avoid them because of their job until it intersects with my life, and even then they still put their pants on one leg at a time just like me.


    USAF(Ret)
    Hi Smiddy,
    Is your post saying that in a casual conversation you would relate to an Officer that you are in fact, carry concealed? Like at Dunkin Donuts? I mean outside of an actual traffic stop in a shall disclose state? Just trying to understand because I tell zero people that I carry except for adults in my immediate family who aren't gun phobic. Thanks.

    The Place To Be

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by SmiddySW View Post
    Maybe I'm just friendly and a badge doesn't change that. For instance if I see a cop in a local gas station I say hello. I don't get more engaging with many ppl beyond that but a brief greeting is just how I do. If an actual conversation was started by then it'd be right when I said, "Just so you're aware officer, I'm legally armed." ....
    I'm sorry but that sounds almost like a challenge in that context.

    A badge doesn't make me treat cops any different than anyone else unless it has to do a legality....

    USAF(Ret)
    Do you mean that you tell everyone that you interact with that you're carrying a gun?

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    I'm sorry but that sounds almost like a challenge in that context.


    Do you mean that you tell everyone that you interact with that you're carrying a gun?
    If I were a LEO and having a conversation with a citizen and they just blurt out that they have a gun on them, I would probably wouldn't be far off base to say that it will escalate the discussion from conversational to confrontational.

    Cops don't really want to know or care that you are carrying and just shooting the breeze about the weather would be wiser IMHO. They are hyper sensitive these days as is and keeping the banter at a level where they don't get their Spidey senses tingling is where I would leave it. The less people that know I'm carrying, the better, and LEOs have enough to worry about.

    The Place To Be

  9. Quote Originally Posted by niceshootintex View Post
    If I were a LEO and having a conversation with a citizen and they just blurt out that they have a gun on them, I would probably wouldn't be far off base to say that it will escalate the discussion from conversational to confrontational.

    Cops don't really want to know or care that you are carrying and just shooting the breeze about the weather would be wiser IMHO. They are hyper sensitive these days as is and keeping the banter at a level where they don't get their Spidey senses tingling is where I would leave it. The less people that know I'm carrying, the better, and LEOs have enough to worry about.

    The Place To Be
    In re: to the last replies here--

    No i don't tell everyone I cross I'm carrying. I keep it on a need to know basis. As long as it's concealed and I'm not threatened to the point of needing to draw, they don't need to know.

    As for cops and conversation, I've not encountered one that thought my calm, matter of fact disclosure found it alarming. I just say it as it is, that being no big deal. If in a state where it's not required to disclose, then I won't.

    I dunno, maybe I need to reevaluate my methods, but I've yet to run into any issues.

    I just don't see my disclosure as being any bigger a deal than their sidearm being exposed in public. But is dependent on the situation like everything else.

    And I don't just "blurt." No desire to alarm anyone so like I said, if I feel it necessary to disclose I do so in a very matter of fact way as if I am saying "it's nice out today."

    It's not like if I walk into a business and see a LEO I immediately run up to them and loudly say, "Hey azzhole, I've got a gun!" Ya know?

    As with everything I do, I evaluate and gauge situations based on the variables present. It's important to stay calm all the time while carrying anyway, at least until it's time to unholster...




    USAF(Ret)

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cuyahoga County, Ohio
    Posts
    190
    The following is an email sent out by Ohioans for Concealed Carry:

    Fellow pro-gun Ohioans,

    ***WE NEED YOUR CALLS & EMAILS***

    As we enter into this Independence Day holiday weekend we should all reflect on the founder's drive to protect our freedoms. Today we have our own battles to fight, and this is your trumpet call to action:

    This Wednesday 7/5/2017 there will be a VERY IMPORTANT hearing in the Ohio House Federalism & Interstate Relations Committee at 1pm (Statehouse, Room #115). Two (2) of our high priority pro-gun bills are on the list as having possible votes. Among them is HB142 (repeals active notification requirement for CHL holders when stopped by law enforcement), which OFCC will be scoring as a KEY VOTE for which legislators respect our rights. But all is not sunshine and roses - there is the possibility of an amendment that could water down HB142. It is imperative that HB142 get a fair up-or-down vote with the AS INTRODUCED LANGUAGE. We know full well that this is the #1 issue to our members and we're pulling with you on this critical bill. Here's the list of all the bills to be considered:
    HB142 (notification repeal)
    HB233 (decriminalizing no-guns signs)
    Please CALL & EMAIL your state representatives indicating your support for these bills! Reiterate that HB142's AS INTRODUCED LANGUAGE is what needs to move forward. You can find your state representative by going to the "Member Search" tool at the bottom left of this page and entering your zip code:
    The Ohio House of Representatives

    If these bill(s) get voted out of committee on Wednesday there is the possibility of a full house floor vote on Thursday 7/6/2017! This would be the last chance for the house to act before the summer recess. Don't let this golden opportunity slip by! Call/email your representative today!!!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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