If I lawfully open carry can the police...? - Page 5
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: If I lawfully open carry can the police...?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Really?
    Please back up those statements with proof....

    I happen to know of only those that fought and WON their cases......... In other words, THEY ARE NOT BEHIND BARS.........


    Even though I consider myself quite brave... I do NOT have big enough ba*** to do what they did...... I prefer to choose my fights a little more carefully....
    I personally know someone who tried to claim that he had no responsibility to pay income tax and social security taxes. He lives in Northern Virginia and he is currently serving 5 years for tax avoidance (not evasion) and contempt of court. He will be released in 2012. I can give just as many examples of that as you can to the contrary. And since you didn't give ANY examples, I guess that says a lot, doesn't it.

    You never answered the question. Do you have a Drivers License?

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Really?
    Please back up those statements with proof....

    I happen to know of only those that fought and WON their cases......... In other words, THEY ARE NOT BEHIND BARS.........


    Even though I consider myself quite brave... I do NOT have big enough ba*** to do what they did...... I prefer to choose my fights a little more carefully....
    Are you referring to the income tax law or the driver's license law?

    No one has ever won a case claiming the tax law is illegal or unconstitutional in total. People have avoided conviction by convincing a jury they actually believed the law did not require them to file a return (ala the Cheeks case), but that is just the failure of the government to prove the mens rea portion of the law.

    Everyone of them ended up having to pay the tax through civil enforcement.

    Wesly Snipes had the means to afford the best defense possible. He ended up being convicted of three counts of failure to file tax returns.

    When clients ask me for support in raising such nonsense, I slap my forehead and say "don't you think Bill Gates would know about this?"

  4. thanks for the info

    I live in Ohio so thanks

  5. So, say that an officer responds to an armed person running through the park with a gun headed toward the pond. The officer arrives to find that he does not see a person with a gun running around. The caller also gave a description that the person was wearing a green t-shirt and blue jeans. The officer arrives at the pond and sees a man wearing a green t-shirt and blue jeans wearing a pistol in a holster on his hip. The man is fishing at the pond and is not currently doing anything suspicious. In your opinion, since the officer does not see the person currently pointing the gun at people, he should clear the call and leave?

    As-soon-as the man sees the police leave, he departs the area. Calls then start coming into the police that a person had actually already been shot in the bathroom at the park. The man then runs into the local elementary school and shoots 10 kids and then himself. The police, failing to act on a legitimate complaint from a citizen, lose all trust from the public that they are supposed to be protecting. People sue the police department for failing to make contact with the man during incident in the park. There are 10 dead children that might be alive if the police would have just inconvenienced the man by conducting an investigative detention using the original 911 call and description of the person as reasonable suspicion to make contact with the person.

    I agree with much of what is said in all of the posts here, but the police seem like that are going to be wrong regardless in a situation like this. I guess that's why I carry because I don't want to depend on the police to protect us!

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Maj.Gen View Post
    There are 10 dead children that might be alive if the police would have just inconvenienced the man by conducting an investigative detention using the original 911 call and description of the person as reasonable suspicion to make contact with the person.
    What a load of crap, for several reasons:

    1. There are 10 dead children due to the actions of the criminal. Put the blame where it belongs, pal, on the criminal.

    2. Inconvenience the man by conducting an investigative DETENTION? Again, why don't you call a spade a spade. How about "violated the man's rights against unreasonable seizure guaranteed by the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution in order to detain the man to conduct an investigation." See my next point.

    3. Using the 911 call and description of the person as reasonable suspicion? Reasonable suspicion of what?!? Reasonable suspicion that a person is engaging in perfectly legal activity? I have jogged through a park with an openly carried holstered handgun. I have been at a pond in a park with an openly carried holstered handgun. Neither of which is remotely illegal in my state. In fact, in my state, state law prohibits cities and towns from banning firearms in parks. So now you are trying to tell us that a 911 call describing perfectly legal behavior should rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to detain a person for investigative purposes? How about if I call police and report that you have children with you at the swings in the park and that you have black hair, but the kids are blonde. Should that provide reasonable suspicion to detain you to investigate to ensure you have not kidnapped them?

    Remove the visible gun from the situation for a moment. What if the man wearing the green t-shirt and blue jeans kept his gun hidden in the park and only showed it during the commission of the actual crime? Would you say the police should "inconvenience the man by conducting an investigative detention" then, with no gun visible? What would change? Only one thing: the sight of a LAWFULLY carried and possessed firearm, which you are claiming now rises to the level of reasonable suspicion.

    Maj.Gen, take your anti-gun trolling rhetoric back to the Brady Campaign website where it came from and where it belongs.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Gotta wonder why someone would put their first post in a thread that is almost 1&1/2 years old. Especially since that means they were looking for it.
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  8. Indiana you can carry either open or ccw!
    "It is what it is, if you make no difference."

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    Gotta wonder why someone would put their first post in a thread that is almost 1&1/2 years old. Especially since that means they were looking for it.
    Yeah, what about that, starts right off trolling

  10. It seems all to be B.S. anymore. We are really fighting hard for rights that we should have without any questions. Are you going to shop at a store if it is ok to ccw rather than open carry? Or would you shop at a store that only lets open carry? We should be Legal to carry anywhere as long as we have a permit without any harassment. Seems even though you do it legally, they always have something to down you on or harass you about. And that comes from an Indiana guy!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is, if you make no difference."

  11. No open carry in CA anymore.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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