The Open Carry Argument - Page 41
Page 41 of 62 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 612

Thread: The Open Carry Argument

  1. #401
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lacey, WA
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    That's where it is obvious he was wrong. Washington has full preemption so even if there was a city ordinance it would be invalid. You didn't need to research anything.
    I fully am aware of this, but some cities have created some of their own rules despite that. It was not the time or place to get into a pixxing match. I politely respected his request, verified what I knew with written fact, brought it up to the owner, and problem solved in a civil manner. Law or not, a business can ask you to leave for whatever reason since it is private property. I took the high road as they say, instead of getting all bent out of shape. No reason to burn bridges just because you're right. (Thank god he asked me to leave, made it easier to not buy a bunch of junk for the kids) Remember we are all ambassadors for gun owners in general. Nothing is gained by making somebody who is "anti" even more so.

  2.   
  3. #402
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    I fully am aware of this, but some cities have created some of their own rules despite that. It was not the time or place to get into a pixxing match. I politely respected his request, verified what I knew with written fact, brought it up to the owner, and problem solved in a civil manner. Law or not, a business can ask you to leave for whatever reason since it is private property. I took the high road as they say, instead of getting all bent out of shape. No reason to burn bridges just because you're right. (Thank god he asked me to leave, made it easier to not buy a bunch of junk for the kids) Remember we are all ambassadors for gun owners in general. Nothing is gained by making somebody who is "anti" even more so.
    You did the right thing. Mature, methodical, and with no drama...problem solved...people educated. BZ
    Islander's Law: Registration is Preparation for Confiscation

  4. #403
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    NE Kansas
    Posts
    33
    This will not be popular for people who believe in open carry, but I think the only persons who should be open carrying a firearm are law enforcement, and licensed security officers. When anyone else carries a firearm openly I strongly suspect there has been no background check done on them. Carrying a firearm openly, outside of being in uniform or displaying a badge, scares people. I see no reason to carry a firearm openly unless you fall into one of the groups I mentioned. If you want to carry a firearm, get a concealed carry permit. When I see people in plain clothes, carrying a firearm openly, I have no idea who they are. Neither does the public, which explains why it scares them. I would prefer if a citizen wants to carry a firearm, that they get a concealed carry permit.

  5. #404
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by KSDeputy View Post
    This will not be popular for people who believe in open carry. I think the only persons who should be open carrying a firearm are law enforcement, and licensed security officers. When anyone else carries a firearm openly I strongly suspect there has been no background check done on them, and they could be a criminal. Carrying a firearm openly, outside of being in uniform or displaying a badge, scares people. I am always armed and it concerns me. I see no reason to carry a firearm openly unless you fall into one of the groups I mentioned. If you want to carry a firearm, get a concealed carry license. I am a firm supporter of the constitution, especially the second amendment. I know there are places such as Vermont & Alaska where most people carry a firearm openly. If there were no concealed carry permits, and all carried openly, I might feel differently but I doubt it.
    I do not fear another man's fear. I do not fear the police. Your opinion, fear and disregard for the oath you took does not trump my constitutional rights. You do not respect the constitution as you claim, you respect the parts you deem more important than others. You do not get to pick and choose.

    In our state, our AG put a stop to the illegal and unconstitutional activities of ******** like you.

    http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/ImageL...90604_PD_E.pdf

    I suspect you rely on your gun to feel powerful and in control. Why do you assume that anyone openly carrying a firearm is a criminal? Maybe that is just an excuse to attempt to control and intimidate the people. You're a public employee, employed by the people whose consitutional rights you are charged to protect. You are not our superior. We are yours. Don't get it twisted.

  6. #405
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    In 2001, I took an oath. I have not forgotten it, nor did it expire. It's a shame that so many LEOs have disregarded the constitution, which they have sworn to uphold and defend as a whole, not just the parts they like.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by KSDeputy View Post
    This will not be popular for people who believe in open carry, but I think the only persons who should be open carrying a firearm are law enforcement, and licensed security officers. When anyone else carries a firearm openly I strongly suspect there has been no background check done on them. Carrying a firearm openly, outside of being in uniform or displaying a badge, scares people. I see no reason to carry a firearm openly unless you fall into one of the groups I mentioned. If you want to carry a firearm, get a concealed carry permit. When I see people in plain clothes, carrying a firearm openly, I have no idea who they are. Neither does the public, which explains why it scares them. I would prefer if a citizen wants to carry a firearm, that they get a concealed carry permit.
    KSDeputy, your post should not be popular with anyone who believes in the Second Amendment. In Washington state, as well as many other states, a person can purchase a handgun in a face to face transaction and carry that firearm loaded and in public openly with no government involvement whatsoever required. And that is EXACTLY how it should be. Why should a person have to pass a background check to exercise their Second Amendment rights? Why should the Second Amendment be any different than any of the other amendments?

    Here's an idea - let's apply the same restrictions to the 4th Amendment. Let's make a government license that a person has to apply for and carry in order to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. So, it would work like this - cop knocks on your door and says they want to search your house for evidence of illegal activities. You have to pay to be fingerprinted and have a license issued to you by the government in order to exercise your 4th Amendment rights: no license, guess what - you are now required by law to allow officer friendly to search your house for evidence. Wouldn't that make law enforcement job so much easier? How about having to pass a language and grammar proficiency exam and pay for a license to write or say anything that might be read/heard by the public?

    Let me ask you this - does a concealed carry permit system requiring a background do anything at all to keep the criminals from hiding their guns? Do less criminals hide their guns in Illinois and California than in Vermont, Wyoming or Arizona (and other states that have some form of unlicensed carry)? No. But I can tell you less law abiding citizens are able to defend themselves in Illinois and California from the criminals than in Wyoming or Arizona, and all the states that allow some form of unlicensed carry.

    Do you even know the historical background of handgun permits? Look up "Big" Tim Sullivan, New York, 1911. He was a corrupt state senator that was also a mob boss and the reason he implemented the New York pistol permit system (the first in the nation) was so that he could make it illegal for the immigrants to be armed because they were resisting his mobsters too much and shooting the mobsters instead of paying protection money. The first pistol permit system was created to enable criminal activity, not to lessen or prevent it! Again, I ask, exactly how does a background check and pistol permit system do anything but enable criminal activity by making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to carry guns.

    And you don't like open carry as a Law Enforcement Officer?!? REALLY?!? If I were a law enforcement officer I would be against concealed carry. I would be much more concerned about the firearms that I could not see than I would the firearms I could see. I just love your statement of, "When I see people in plain clothes, carrying a firearm openly, I have no idea who they are." Well, let's analyze that. When you see someone not carrying a firearm, not only do you not know who they are, but now you have no idea if they are armed or not! So REALLY? Pull your head out of the sand (and that's being kind.) I would rather know the stranger does have a gun than not know if they have one or not! I love my stepdaughter's answer whenever she hears someone say that people should not open carry, "He has no reason to hide his gun because he is not a criminal!"

    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    In 2001, I took an oath. I have not forgotten it, nor did it expire. It's a shame that so many LEOs have disregarded the constitution, which they have sworn to uphold and defend as a whole, not just the parts they like.
    Amen, tricolordad!
    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.

  8. #407
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Amen, tricolordad!
    Hooah!

    Took this one in 2001....
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
    And this one in 2005...

    "I having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
    Yours, ksdeupty, should be something like this:

    I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Kansas. I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of deputy of the ______ Sheriff's department to the best of my ability. So help me God."
    And I see nowhere in any of these that states that the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ever ends. It's a lifetime commitment. To pick and choose which parts you want to uphold makes you a traitor to this great nation.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post

    Hooah!

    Took this one in 2001....

    And this one in 2005...

    Yours, ksdeupty, should be something like this:

    And I see nowhere in any of these that states that the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ever ends. It's a lifetime commitment. To pick and choose which parts you want to uphold makes you a traitor to this great nation.
    Tcd,i took the first oath in 1980,still believe every word.semper fi!!!

  10. #409
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,618
    Quote Originally Posted by KSDeputy View Post
    This will not be popular for people who believe in open carry, but I think the only persons who should be open carrying a firearm are law enforcement, and licensed security officers. When anyone else carries a firearm openly I strongly suspect there has been no background check done on them. Carrying a firearm openly, outside of being in uniform or displaying a badge, scares people. I see no reason to carry a firearm openly unless you fall into one of the groups I mentioned. If you want to carry a firearm, get a concealed carry permit. When I see people in plain clothes, carrying a firearm openly, I have no idea who they are. Neither does the public, which explains why it scares them. I would prefer if a citizen wants to carry a firearm, that they get a concealed carry permit.
    I apologize for the length of this reply....

    Please understand the following....

    -When a person has a "right" to something they do not need permission to do it...

    -When a person needs permission to do something they do not have a "right"... they only have a "privilege" that is controlled by whoever has the power to grant, or deny, permission...

    -A concealed carry "permit" is a government issued permission slip designed to give the government the power to control who is granted, or perhaps more importantly who is denied, permission to carry a gun.

    So... anyone... politician, police officer, or even an ordinary person, who believes the right to bear arms should be under the control of some kind of governmental "permit" system doesn't believe in the right to bear arms but believes that government should have the power to make bearing arms a privilege. A privilege controlled by the government.

    Everyone understands that a person who has a gun has the power to resist being controlled. That is why tyrants intent on being in control always disarm the populace in order to prevent any resistance to their ... control. And one of the ways to disarm the populace is to limit who is "allowed" to have weapons. But if there are those who are "allowed" then there are also those who are "not allowed".

    And the concealed carry permit system is a perfect way to control who is "allowed" and who "isn't allowed".

    Now before anyone starts some crap about how the permit system prevents criminals from getting a permit.. yeah.. it does prevent them from getting a permit... but preventing them from getting a permission slip called a permit does NOT prevent them from getting guns nor does it prevent them from carrying that gun concealed. So who does the permit system actually control? It sure isn't the criminal.

    Also... I always wonder how many people who want or need to carry a gun concealed don't because they can't afford to pay for the mandated training and the fees? Imagine a mother that works at a 7/11 and has 3 small kids... and a stalker ex husband... trying to decide if she should spend the money for a permit so she can defend herself and her kids... or if she should spend that money on winter coats for those kids. In a case like that the fees involved in getting a permit just denied her the privilege of having that permit.

    But wait!!! There's more!!!

    In Michigan a person has to be 21 years old before they are "allowed" to get a concealed carry permit... but can legally own, and legally open carry, a pistol at the age of 18. Does that mean you really think they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to bear arms... they shouldn't be "allowed" to carry a gun... they shouldn't have the ability to defend themselves... until their 21st birthday just because you have no idea who they are?

    Without trying to be a jerk... may I point out that when you are on duty as a LEO (and even when you are not on duty) it is none of your business who someone is or whether they meet your personal opinion as to whether they should.. or should not.. be allowed to carry a gun openly as long as they are not breaking the law.

    As for people being scared because they saw someone not in uniform carrying a gun? Big deal... when more everyday folks carried guns in the open it wouldn't be very long before people accepted it as just a part of life. Again in Michigan.... open carry, while legal since 1837, hadn't been done much until a few short years ago. Now, after many illegal stops from LE and the resulting law suits (that were won) and the media coverage that resulted much of the general population in Mi are very aware that open carry is legal. And even the Michigan State Police issued a legal update #86 that was distributed to all LE Depts. (large and small) in the State.

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ms...2_336854_7.pdf

    And none of this would have occurred without people standing up for the right to bear arms and actually openly carrying their sidearm right there "in your face" where it had to be acknowledged.

  11. #410
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,618
    Quote Originally Posted by KSDeputy View Post
    This will not be popular for people who believe in open carry, but I think the only persons who should be open carrying a firearm are law enforcement, and licensed security officers. When anyone else carries a firearm openly I strongly suspect there has been no background check done on them. Carrying a firearm openly, outside of being in uniform or displaying a badge, scares people. I see no reason to carry a firearm openly unless you fall into one of the groups I mentioned. If you want to carry a firearm, get a concealed carry permit. When I see people in plain clothes, carrying a firearm openly, I have no idea who they are. Neither does the public, which explains why it scares them. I would prefer if a citizen wants to carry a firearm, that they get a concealed carry permit.
    The following isn't a reply to the post quoted but are my personal observations about it.

    When people see a post like the one I quoted from a poster with a nickname that implies a connection with LE the things mentioned in the post also carry the implication of some kind of authority behind them. Kinda like trying to affect behavior by using subliminal images but in this case the images are conveyed by the printed word.

    And, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, the message I see is that open carry might be legal but LE frowns upon it and therefor also frowns upon those who do it because LE thinks those who open carry just might not be upstanding citizens since upstanding honest citizens will go get checked out to see if they are good enough to qualify for a permit.

    I am of the opinion that the post above is a perfect example of how LE attempts to passively intimidate folks so they don't consider openly carrying.

Page 41 of 62 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... 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