Packing in public: Owners not gun-shy

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004464820_opencarry08.html

There is no law against open carry, but there is precedent for people getting arrested for it, if even so much as one person calls the cops saying they felt threatened by it.

Personally, I prefer concealed carry anyway. If I'm picking something up at the local Stop 'N Rob and standing in line when some scumbag comes in to rob the place, if I'm carrying openly, I'm going to be the first person shot, most likely.

He now carries his Glock 23 openly into his bank, restaurants and shopping centers.
He wore the gun to a Ron Paul rally.

Noooo ... the gun militant movement is NOT an outgrowth of the racist / misogynist right wing.

You've stated repeatedly that almost anyone who owns guns for self-defense and/or believes in permissive firearms ownership policies is a racist, misogynist or a dupe of the right wing. Case in point:

"Do you honestly believe...
Every single person who posesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense is either a racist/misogynist or a dupe?"

"You could try me on a few exceptions to the general rule, as I'm sure there would be a few. But otherwise, yup.

Dupe, generally. The racists and misogynists have other primary reasons."

You also like to accuse people of ethnocentrism. This is kind of interesting in light of your comments on RKBA politics, because making the statement above betrays an extreme level of ethnocentrism. It's little different than the right-wing frame that divides the whole world into Good Capitalists and Evil Communists and states that any kind of tax-funded social program is Evil and Communist. There's no limit to the varieties of political beliefs people can have, and the statement that owning a firearm for self-defense plants a person firmly in right-wing territory betrays an inability on your part to think outside the politics of the time and place where you live.

What, you think I don't think that people who say the same things in Canada and the UK and Australia etc. etc. are racist / misogynist right-wingers?

I'd say think again, if that's what you had in mind.

If that isn't what you had in mind, perhaps you were saying that when I, a white, ethnically English, English-speaking Canadian, say such things, the fact that every organization dedicated to the interests and welfare of, say, African-Americans in the US takes positions on firearms policy similar to mine is irrelevant and I'm just speaking as a white English person.

the statement that owning a firearm for self-defense plants a person firmly in right-wing territory betrays an inability on your part to think outside the politics of the time and place where you live.

Of course, my actualy statement was that most people in that category are dupes. Just as a whole lot of people who voted for GW Bush were dupes. I don't actually think that every single person who votes Republican in the US, or Conservative in Canada, is a racist / misogynist right-winger.

about how it's a violation of fundamental human civil constitutional god-given natural inalieable rights for the police to take any investigative action to determine whether a person promenading around in public festooned in firearms is legally entitled to do so, let alone up to no good.

Police Chief John Greiner recalled that last year in Ogden, Utah, a man was openly carrying a shotgun on the street. When officers pulled up to ask him about the gun, he started firing. Police killed the man.

Well hell, what else would he do??? They were violating his rights!!!!

"about how it's a violation of fundamental human civil constitutional god-given natural inalieable rights for the police to take any investigative action to determine whether a person promenading around in public festooned in firearms is legally entitled to do so, let alone up to no good."

investigation is one thing- overreaction is another (which seem to be a big problem with police agencies these days" Its one thing to stop and ask the guy what he is doing and question him- its another thing to throw him down to the ground and cuff him for doing a perfectly legal activity

Here is a little story- as a i Firefighter im allowed to have emergency lights on my car (in fact i have more lights than the county and state police vehicles do. It is perfectly legal for these lights to be displayed anywhere on my vehicle as long as i only use them when responding to alarms. I was getting onto an entrance ramp to a highway and on the ramp the state police were doing inspection checks (they would make us drive slowly so that they could see the color of our inspection sticker) One officer saw my lights and ordered me to pull over. I pulled over and the officer asked me why i have emergency lights on my vehicle i told him i was a firefighter and produced department issued ID. The officer scanned over my ID and then told me to be on my way.

see that is a reasonable police investigation. It is not inherently illegal for you to have lights on your car as long as you are of a certain group- and the officer just wanted to be sure i was part of that group

Now the officer could have proceeded this way too. He could have ordered me over, told me to step out of the vehicle- handcuff me, and then searched through my wallet and searched my car to "investigate" my lights.

that would be overreacting

now i understand that it is a different case with a firearm- and i don't blame the police for taking precaution but they have to remember that the activity that is being engaged upon is not inherently illegal.


i find it kind of funny that while i was typing this we got toned out for a general alarm- house fire....so i had to stop in the middle and respond to it....even more funny is that we never found the house that they were talking about...so we just went back...i hope it really wasnt a fire else that guys house will be nothing more than rubble when we arrive

You do seem to have missed the entire discussion here that pretty much consisted of overreacting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x172605

... No, dang, that wasn't the one ...

Here we are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x171657

It comes down to: nope. A proper gun militant does not agree that the police may ask someone carting a firearm around openly in public anything.


I guess if there was no smoke ... there musta been no fire!

they are not mine

i believe it is reasonable for a police officer to ask- as long as it is done in a respectful way.

It's a start. ;)

it's an end...

but if we are talking about snakes and wearing frosted glasses it could be either...thats the problem with snakes and legally blind people- you just can't tell where they start and where they end

http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/index/65892

2003-2007

Mike Stollenwerk
Democratic: $0
Republican: $422

http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/index/18313

1997-2003

John L Pierce
Democratic: $0
Republican: $600

Fish in a bloody barrel.


I liked this comment: "Mike Stollenwerk carry openly a sign saying you have no brain"

Are these people really that paranoid?

but just because i see no need doesn't mean im against it

who knows...maybe a mocha frappacino machine will go crazy and start squirting coffee in everyones face

a pistol in a Luby's Cafeteria? a pistol in a Von Mauer? a pistol in a McDonald's? a pistol at a post office? a pistol at VT? Are people really that paranoid? Nothing ever happens at those places...er...never mind..

Only dropped his knife and surrendered when police threatened to shoot him. Do you think the victims' survivors wish someone had shot him before he started knifing?

Nice of you to insult people being stalked and threatened.

David

It's largely an issue of personal experience and personal circumstances, not paranoia. When my father was growing up, my grandfather found himself the target of repeated death threats against his family and attempted assaults by a violent boyfriend of his sister(we can discuss exactly what my grandfather did to "deserve" this if necessary, but it's not pertinent to the story). He then started carrying a pistol in his truck. Months later, the thug accosted my grandfather in a church parking lot, forcing him to shoot and critically wound his attacker. Since then, my family has embraced the value of lethal force.

That's my background. Others' reasons for carrying or declining to carry are as varied as the individuals. I have nothing but respect for each person's choice not to carry - I'm happy that I can be around to defend them if the tragic choice ever has to be made.

A boyfriend who has repeatedly violated a restraining order and has threatened to kill her if she pursues charges against him. That's just one person I know. She is a little edgy now. I don't know if she is paranoid or not.

David

Having her run around like a vigilante is not good for the community.

Then they say there is no proof he was there. The last time she called when he tried to break in, 911 said they only had one officer for the whole county and he was busy. He arrived 3 hours later to take a report. The prosecutor let the boyfriend postpone the hearing before the judge 3 times now, her next court date is for the middle of June. How is her carrying a gun for her protection being a vigilante?


David

The 911 operator did tell her to make sure her windows and doors were locked. We have a friend that loaned her a german sheperd hopefully that will scare him off, until he figures out that the police aren't coming.


David

You might call that paranoia, or over-reaction or what have you, but I would not call that vigilanteism. I would disagree that it's over-reaction, I've seen too many of these stories end up with a dead woman in the end, from some scumbag that everyone knew was coming, but didn't do much to stop, BUT it would at least be a little more accurate.

She is not taking the law into her own hands. In this case, that would be hunting the guy down and punishing him for his behavior. Carrying a weapon for self defense, and ever USING it for self defense is not in any way vigilanteism. Self defense is a struggle for survival, vigilante justice is one person taking it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and execution. The two concepts are unrelated.


Society needs to get better about giving these women someplace safe to go, with no forwarding address, offering some meaningful protection, and keeping an eye on these abusive men. Especially letting everyone know what the guy is up to. (Same goes for gender reversal or mix in these roles, I'm just going with the most common form of it) This shit is not acceptable, and we need to step up efforts to combat it.

Possible strategy, paying off-duty or undercover officers to 'bunk up' with people who need this kind of protection. Just a 'roommate'. That sort of thing.

and training that sort of behavior out of people, as much as possible. I disagree with a witness protection style approach of removing the woman (or man, whatever) from their life because an ex is threatening them. I do think that a program to have a cop roomate for however long it takes would be a neat approach, especially since it would also allow officers who volunteered to increase their income, sounds like a winning plan to me. And if anything did happen there would be a superb witness.

Her ex is a clear threat to her safety, she has taken the appropriate steps with the legal system, but if he decides that today is the day he will finally make good on his threats to murder her, how effective is that restraining order going to be? They are an excellent tool, but the order will not protect her from him. If he attacks her she now has the means to stop him. That is not being a vigilante, that is being responsible for your own safety and taking the steps to make sure you will still be alive to report the incident to the police. If he attempts to kill her, as he has already promised he will, and is not deterred by the court action, possibility of going to prison, or her firearm, then he will have caused his own death if she shoots him.

When someone attempts to murder someone else, it is not the victims responsibility to keep the attacker safe. If a person dies because their intended murder victim is armed and determined to survive, it is entirely their own fault, no one elses.

I've seen countless stories where ex-spouses ignored restraining orders and killed their exes. Yeah, talking to the judge will help. I've also seen countless police reports saying the cops won't respond until something happens, usually the ex ending up dead. I've had numerous police tell me to my face that when it comes down to it, I am responsible for my own safety, not them. Real good advice. Police don't even have to answer 911 calls if they don't want to.

and arrest him, and the criminal justice system to proceed from there. And I can't think of much reason why it wouldn't be doing so.

She WILL be safe if he is behind bars. Whether she will be safe if she has a firearm is an entirely open question. Whether the rest of the community will be is another.

but it will never happen- in my short tenure as a public servant i have realized that if there is a human operating an agency- that agency is generally incompetent in its job.

the police services will never be competent enough to protect the public until they are all run by robots and computers. The same goes with the Fire service and the Emergency Medical Service

I mean "arrest someone who has uttered death threats and is in violation of a restraining order".

A police service that says something like "your word against his", particulalry when a restraining order is in place, is not doing its job. Determining credibility is the job of a court, when there is no reason for the police to actually believe that the complainant is lying. The job of the police is to lay charges and arrest and detain where there is evidence that, if believed, where there is no reason not to believe it, would justify a charge, and where there are grounds for bringing the person before a court to decide on detention/bail.

Refusing to do that (assuming we know all the relevant facts) ain't incompetence. It's dereliction.

"Refusing to do that (assuming we know all the relevant facts) ain't incompetence. It's dereliction."

with you 100% on that one...but the sad truth is (since we are homo sapiens) is that NO ONE GIVES A SH*T about anyone else but themselves. And that leads to police not really caring about their job and a justice system which doesn't seem to care either

the sad fact is that you will never be able to change this...this is just human nature...it is the reason i never liked working on a team cause i believe that in most cases, you can never count on your fellow man- unless his/her life is in immediate mortal danger

im telling you, buy a scanner and listen to your local police department- hear the apathy in their voices and what they actually do- which includes ignoring alarms, saying this like "well ill pick up that burglary call after lunch" (i actually heard that today on the radio)

If a woman's being stalked, she needs to get herself immediate protection, not attempt to singlehandedly change the policies and precedents that govern law enforcement. Wherever you are in the world, the police generally don't give a rat's ass about your safety unless you're a politician or good friends with one. Trusting other people to protect you is a dumb idea unless you're paying them by the hour, and sometimes even then.

Wherever you are in the world, the police generally don't give a rat's ass about your safety unless you're a politician or good friends with one.

Guns as recruiting tool for the right wing, which of course wants people to believe that governments and their agencies are the tool of Satan.

The more you can make people hate government, the more you can persuade them they need gunz, the more they will support right-wing parties and organizations that tell them they're stickin' up for their right to have gunz ...


Trusting other people to protect you is a dumb idea unless you're paying them by the hour, and sometimes even then.

That's what it's all about!

If people ever trusted other people, they might start voting for things like ... universal single public payer health care. But no, you just can't trust anybody, and all those other people are going to feed at the trough of free health care like the piggies they are, at your expense ...

Gummint bad! Gunz good! Say it loud and proud!

In what nation can police be counted on to proactively protect citizens? Certainly not the nonviolent utopia of Great Britain, where burglary and assault are surging out of control.

Gummint bad! Gunz good! Say it loud and proud!

That's a nice strawma, er, oops, I mean, straw PERSON.

Yeah, I'm going to "refute" the statement that the cops just don't care.

Here: They do so. Nyah nyah.

Happy?


Gummint bad! Gunz good! Say it loud and proud!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3411371

Always.

Guns as recruiting tool for the right wing, which of course wants people to believe that governments and their agencies are the tool of Satan.

The more you can make people hate government, the more you can persuade them they need gunz, the more they will support right-wing parties and organizations that tell them they're stickin' up for their right to have gunz ...

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14766800&BRD=1585&PAG=461&dept_id=213470&rfi=6

If we didn't have court decisions like that, I would take the optimistic high road and completely agree with you. If only. But here, 'Protect and Serve' apparently means no such thing.

I don't hate our Government. I'm dissapointed in it.

it is realizing that no matter what you do- they will always be incompetent

seriously, listen to a radio scanner one day, its eye opening- and not in a good way

And it's about trying to convince everybody in sight that government is incompetent.

So how 'bout that universal health care thang? Baaaaad stuff, eh? Insurance companies, that's where the competence is. Not to mention the, uh, how's that go ... profits.

High time you just did away with those governments, isn't it?

"So how 'bout that universal health care thang? Baaaaad stuff, eh? Insurance companies, that's where the competence is. Not to mention the, uh, how's that go ... profits."

how about the insurance companies are even more incompetent...ever think of that one

many government agencies are incompetent and i say that from experience...i naively thought that i could make a difference in my small world but i was wrong

you put too much stake in the good faith of others...from my experience my fellow man has only disappointed me time and time again. From my own experience it seems like we are all on our own for the most part

"High time you just did away with those governments, isn't it?"
its high time you believe that every problem can be fixed by government or their agencies

i dont know, maybe im a pessimist

maybe you would feel that way if you realized that you were the only one...that your calls for assistance go unanswered...

maybe its just the day i'm having

no its not- you just make it that way so you can demonize them without feeling any bit of guilt

Americans are unable to connect the dots. No healthcare=Death.

you post doesnt make sense (which isnt out of the ordinary for ya)

but we will have some form of universal system soon- its an important issue to many americans

Seriously, this is your 3rd drive by posting this morning. Was your computer down for a few days and you are just making up for it? Please tell me you aren't trying to get to 400 posts by lunchtime.

David

with right-wing this and right wing that....i may not agree with their politics but i dont consider them the evil of the world- it makes you sound like a fear mongerer

reality is that there are nuts on both sides- ultra left wing people i believe are out of touch with reality- along with ultra right wingers

When there is one cop in over 300 sq miles then there is a problem. Care or not the cops likely can't be where they are needed in the time they are needed to be there. I have seen some cops that are numb to the problems of victims, not many though.

David

too bad they made a bad call and got away scotfree. :puke:

I was talking about the cops in my friends case.

David

He was arrested after her latest complaint. Not on her complaint though they police actually ran him and found a warrant from another county they arrested him on that charge. His mother bailed him out in less than 4 hours. A judge will hear her complaint next week, I believe she said the 16th, the prosecutor told her they had to postpone the hearing because the defendant said he had to work on the rescheduled date. State law says the hearing has to take place within 2 weeks. She's going on 5 weeks now. The prosecutor said she didn't want to look unfair by refusing to postpone the case for the defendant. As to the police, the county that she lives in is just over 300 sq miles. At most there are 3 officers working at any one time. Apparently one officer was injured on the job and has left them shorthanded, which contributed to the situation of one officer for more than 300 sq miles. It's a bad situation, unfortunately institutions like police departments and the courts move slowly in cases like this and changing them in a short period of time is virtually impossible.

David

Or at the ATM getting money for the coffee?

The thinking is not "there might be a robbery at Starbucks", it's "I'm heading out, time to holster up just in case something happens".

dark parking lot at walmart....there were a few rapes at my local college walmart last year....right in the parking lot

http://southcountyjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2008/03/05/news/doc47cf266fa868b029687145.txt

Police hunt two in Starbucks killing

What fun have I missed? ;)

I've been told that even though open carry is legal in Indiana, the cops will come up with a reason to detain me if they see me carrying openly.

that "open carry" groups are trying to fight. They're doing a pretty good job of it too. Unfortunately Texas has no provision for open carry.