Police Perspective on Open Carry - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Police Perspective on Open Carry

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    SW Arizona
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    Also a Good article the author refers too in his overview. Good read:
    Dealing with citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon
    "With 48 of our 50 states allowing some form of CCW permit..." , Wrong! Government does not 'allow'. Government restricts or denies by authority of law. The are no laws which allow anything. This is the typical statist view.

    "As the ‘right to carry’ spreads across the United States..." The right was recognized and codified in 1783. The right has been unconstitutionally infringed upon at every opportunity ever since. Restoration of government acknowledgement of the right of the individual citzen to bear arms has been a slow process. The government contrivance of permit for fee in the free exercise of an inalienable right is soft tyranny. Denial of the right is absolute tyranny.

    All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.

    Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.

    Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government legitimately extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.

    Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

    Therefore, the entire 'permit' system to bear arms is unconstitutional.

    SCJ Ginsburg on 'Bearing Arms': "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

    "...many law enforcement agencies and police officers express their unease — and for some, outright alarm — at the idea of citizens carrying concealed weapons." Refer to Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) Police have no duty to protect. Therefore, the individual citizen must fend for themselves. It's quite obvious that this is what the nations founders had in mind in 1783 when they recognized the right in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The same Constitution that LEO's take an oath to protect and defend.

    It's a sad state of affairs where an LAC (Lawfully Armed Citizen) has more to fear from the police than he does from the bad guys in the free exercise of an enumerated Civil Right codified 228 years ago.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    Why is it that the police are the first ones to come out and say "we can't be everywhere all the time." People need to take some responsibility for their own safety. Yet when people do just that (carrying a firearm) it becomes an officer safety issue, and they are looked at like a nut case? Can't have it both ways people! They can't sit here and tell us to take care of ourselves and then turn around and ***** about the way we choose to do just that!
    Amen.
    Taurus 24/7 OSS DS .45
    Ruger LCR .357
    Remington 870 Tactical 12 ga

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by SonoraRebel View Post
    "With 48 of our 50 states allowing some form of CCW permit..." , Wrong! Government does not 'allow'. Government restricts or denies by authority of law. The are no laws which allow anything. This is the typical statist view.

    "As the ‘right to carry’ spreads across the United States..." The right was recognized and codified in 1783. The right has been unconstitutionally infringed upon at every opportunity ever since. Restoration of government acknowledgement of the right of the individual citzen to bear arms has been a slow process. The government contrivance of permit for fee in the free exercise of an inalienable right is soft tyranny. Denial of the right is absolute tyranny.

    All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.

    Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.

    Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government legitimately extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.

    Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

    Therefore, the entire 'permit' system to bear arms is unconstitutional.

    SCJ Ginsburg on 'Bearing Arms': "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

    "...many law enforcement agencies and police officers express their unease — and for some, outright alarm — at the idea of citizens carrying concealed weapons." Refer to Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) Police have no duty to protect. Therefore, the individual citizen must fend for themselves. It's quite obvious that this is what the nations founders had in mind in 1783 when they recognized the right in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The same Constitution that LEO's take an oath to protect and defend.

    It's a sad state of affairs where an LAC (Lawfully Armed Citizen) has more to fear from the police than he does from the bad guys in the free exercise of an enumerated Civil Right codified 228 years ago.
    My point was to post the link for review. Not condemn or agree with what was written but to educate on a perspective that is being disseminated on a LEO related web site. "Good Read" to me meant I learned something different, again from the authors point of view. Just trying to understand more of what I don't fully know. The reality is this IS what is being disseminated and taught to LEO's. So adapt, over come and improvise to the situation using the skills and KNOWLEDGE you learn along the way. MY ERROR was to not expound on it other then to say "Good Read"

    As for the Constitutionality of the Right to Bare Arms, you're preaching to the choir. The reality is that it's not the world (or State) that we currently have residence in. We the People are making a difference and State Laws are reflecting that. Keep up the good work but don't rest on your laurels. There are People in our Gov't that wish to take even more from you.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  5. #14
    Not to be sarcastic or anything (okay just a little) why dont we just unarm the police, let them go about their daily routine with out a weapon say a week or so , and see how thier attitudes and opinions are about open or conceeled carry then, especially when they have to rely on us to protect them. I'm a former L.E.O myself.I had just this experience my self, not going to go into details but it really changed my way of thinking.

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tbone1964 View Post
    Not to be sarcastic or anything (okay just a little) why dont we just unarm the police, let them go about their daily routine with out a weapon say a week or so , and see how thier attitudes and opinions are about open or conceeled carry then, especially when they have to rely on us to protect them. I'm a former L.E.O myself.I had just this experience my self, not going to go into details but it really changed my way of thinking.
    Many countries have disarmed their Law Enforcement and the ones at are allowed to carry a firearm are permitted. But we can't do that here in the USA, because the police would start crying "officer safety!" I say horse crap to that! It's ok to disarm citizens of their firearms as long as the police can keep theirs right. What about CITIZEN SAFETY? Oh wait I forgot that's why we have armed police officers right? I just wish the officer would fit in my pocket!

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

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    SW Arizona
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    My point was to post the link for review. Not condemn or agree with what was written but to educate on a perspective that is being disseminated on a LEO related web site. "Good Read" to me meant I learned something different, again from the authors point of view. Just trying to understand more of what I don't fully know. The reality is this IS what is being disseminated and taught to LEO's. So adapt, over come and improvise to the situation using the skills and KNOWLEDGE you learn along the way. MY ERROR was to not expound on it other then to say "Good Read"

    As for the Constitutionality of the Right to Bare Arms, you're preaching to the choir. The reality is that it's not the world (or State) that we currently have residence in. We the People are making a difference and State Laws are reflecting that. Keep up the good work but don't rest on your laurels. There are People in our Gov't that wish to take even more from you.
    I hope that the OP of that commentary and other LEO's might read and ponder my rebuttal. Here's the deal in a nutshell. In the absence of any other factor amounting to RAS: 'Leave us alone!' Go power trip someplace else. I'm an 18 week police academy graduate and former street cop. I know what it's about. I know the mindset and it's endemic in some Departments. It's called Law Enforcement' not Opinion Enforcement. Abuse of authority under color of law is petty tyranny. I've never experienced this 'He's gotta gun' drama queen hysterics in Arizona. If anything... a cop or deputy will ask what it is... then say something like: 'I wish we had .45's'. I go thru Border Patrol checkpoints with a loaded AK-47 clone visible between the seat and center console... and the agent says 'Nice gun!'. (Lotta miles of nothin' between anywhere in AZ... ya never know what you'll encounter.) Bear in mind that the US Constitution applies equally to everyone. The 2A has been incorporated against the states by McDonald vs Chicago. State laws and local ordinances MUST be in agreement with the Constitution or they are de facto illegitmate contrivances of tyranny.

    Why I carry a gun (or any other weapon) is my own business as long as I do it in a responsible and sober manner. 'Same goes for anyone else. I dont ask permission or fear reprisal. Not here... not in Arizona. This is the dynamic envisioned by the nations founders; not VPC or the Brady's. It's called Freedom... coming soon to a location near you. Get used to it.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by S&WM&P40 View Post
    Why is it that the police are the first ones to come out and say "we can't be everywhere all the time." People need to take some responsibility for their own safety. Yet when people do just that (carrying a firearm) it becomes an officer safety issue, and they are looked at like a nut case? Can't have it both ways people! They can't sit here and tell us to take care of ourselves and then turn around and ***** about the way we choose to do just that!
    Lots of people want power. Few people want responsibility.

    "You don't need a gun, that's what we're here for!" is a handy excuse why you shouldn't be allowed to own or carry a firearm.

    "The police can't be everywhere!" is a handy excuse when, having taken the above to heart, you're robbed, raped or murdered and the police were nowhere in sight... or as occasionally happens, they DECIDED not to come for whatever reason.

    Like everyone else, the police will generally say and do what they perceive is in THEIR best interest, whether it's in the best interest of the public at large. Hence the support of the Chicago Lodge of the FOP for the "right" of convicted wife beaters to own and carry guns... if they're LEOs.

    The police are free to believe and (within certain limits) say what they want. You're under no obligation to believe or buy into it if it's manifestly contrary to your best interests. Certainly no more so than you are with a car salesman who tries to talk you into a car that gets 5 miles to the gallon and has a history of exploding in slow speed accidents.

  9. #18
    handgonnetoter Guest
    I don't get it. In the old west people carried all the time and the others did not wet their pants at the sight of a gun. Damn. I do believe that all these anti open carry people would be the first to grab for a gun if the bottom ever fell out of society. Anything to save their selfish hydes. I personally CC 99% of the time, but it does not bother me at all when I see someone OC. The mind is the weapon, not the gun. The other day we saw a guy, who must have been coming from a Karate class or something, at the store. He was wearing his suit and had a black belt with two red tips on it. I'm sure with one swift move he could have chopped the lady next to him in the throat and killed her outright. Nobody seemed to care about that, but if the same guy would have been dressed normally and was OC'ing, the wienies probably would have been soiling their britches. The general population is so stupid. JMHO.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    I don't get it. In the old west people carried all the time and the others did not wet their pants at the sight of a gun. Damn. I do believe that all these anti open carry people would be the first to grab for a gun if the bottom ever fell out of society. Anything to save their selfish hydes. I personally CC 99% of the time, but it does not bother me at all when I see someone OC. The mind is the weapon, not the gun. The other day we saw a guy, who must have been coming from a Karate class or something, at the store. He was wearing his suit and had a black belt with two red tips on it. I'm sure with one swift move he could have chopped the lady next to him in the throat and killed her outright. Nobody seemed to care about that, but if the same guy would have been dressed normally and was OC'ing, the wienies probably would have been soiling their britches. The general population is so stupid. JMHO.

    Hey!! You had better stop posting things that make sense... Some on here dont like that........

  11. #20
    If what your saying is true, than I shouldn't have to pay the fee in CT. to get my Carry permitt...
    Has anyone you know of challenged their state in a law cort over this fee for rights?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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