all citizens...Hand over your guns on demand

[Golfer]

question......

you're licenced to carry in ohio. does that licence apply where ever you may travel?

For states that have a reciprocity agreement with Ohio yes.  I also hold permits in other states as a nonresident which have reciprocity agreements that do not have them with Ohio.  For instance Georgia does not honor my Ohio permit but they do honor my Pennsylvania permit.  A more practical example would be Delaware.  Delaware does not honor PA permits but does honor Ohio ones.  Makes life convenient if I'm going to visit friends or down to Wilmington.

Shamus I've never ever heard of a LEO who regularly takes posession of concealed carry guns.  As a holder, regardless of carrying or not, you should be required to inform the officer that you are a license holder and that you are/are not carrying.  They will find out and there's no point in making the officers found out something you should have already said.  As DJ111 mentioned the last thing I'd want is to have someone go fishing for their gun.  As a citizen in that situation I'd be very uncomfortable with it for a few reasons:

1.) The officer just told me to draw my loaded gun.
2.) If I'm drawing my gun I fully expect he'd have his at the ready.
3.) The situation has just gone to a highly volatile place because we're about to have 2 people who don't know each other and don't trust each other pulling their guns out at the same time and place.

I don't know the background of the officer pulling me over.  I don't know if he's a new officer, I don't know if his home life is in shambles or his mental state and he doesn't know mine.  Is he having a bad day?  Does he have a short fuse?  Will my actions be perceived as a threat? Leave the guns where they are if you're dealing with a legal license holder unless you need to make an arrest.

[Shuffler]

You could just say which one... and I'm sure he'd call in a second opinion.

[Shamus]

Golfer,

That is why I feel that being required to inform is a bad idea, your 1-3 scenario would not have to happen.

Prior to shall issue being put into place in Michigan you were not required to inform.

For 20 years I went through traffic stops and I and the leo went merrily on our ways, he none the wiser, and me not having to go through any of those "volatile" situations.

I sure don't see any reason to inform a leo that I have a CCW if I am not carrying, that serves no purpose.

shamus 

[Golfer]

I disagree.  It eliminates any and all doubt when they bring up your information and it shows you're a licensed carry permit holder.  They already know the answer, need not require any extra caution when reapproaching your vehicle and any potential escalation is avoided.

Ohio requires you to identify yourself as a permit holder and state whether or not you are.  I've never had it go beyond that.  Sometimes I was, others I wasn't and I have never been asked to present my weapon.  Again, I'd be very uncomfortable having to do so because of the reasons I mentioned above.  Again, they'll find out if you are and in accordance with the local laws you'd actually not have followed proper procedure when the come back to ask you.  I figure if I answer the questions they're going to ask before they need to I'm making their job easier as well as my experience.

That's like going to Subway and ordering a sandwich.  Don't make the poor kid making it ask you as they go down the line if you want every single ingredient one at a time.  You know he's going to ask so as he goes along simply state what you'd like on your sandwich.

[batdog]

Have you ever used an M-16 for an extended period of time?
When I got sent to Louisana to help clean up the katrina mess, we had to have plastic wrapping around the entire weapon, because if a M-16 gets a little wet, it'll rust within minutes.  Let alone the jamming frequency of the weapon, it's plastic stock that'd break if used for close combat.  They'll rust completely shut if used in water, and they'll jam if sand gets poured in the weapon.  Yes, they are absolutely fragile.  Talk to me after you've been in the armed services.

Bullcrap...no service member or 11b would ever put plastic wrapping over a 16. I served 3 yrs active and 4 reserve...and I never put my damn weapon in plastic. This is why you have lube handsomehunk. I walked though many a swamp w/my 16 and it never rusted... jesus you make me want to puke.

Your a wanna-be period. They should kick you off the board for impersonating a service member you pathatic puke.

[Slash27]

On the Assault weapon topic, I am 100% of the thought that it is our right and nobody should be able to take that from us. On that note though, ask the officers shot in North Hollywood, 28 Feb 97 about assault weapons. They may have a different opinion for reasons other that trying to deprive you of something.

I would guess they disapprove of bank robbers having illegal machine guns and using them against the police. Good thing there was a gun store nearby that had legal semi-automatic rifles for the police to obtain and fight back.

What is an "assault weapon" anyway?

[Rich46yo]

Bullcrap...no service member or 11b would ever put plastic wrapping over a 16. I served 3 yrs active and 4 reserve...and I never put my damn weapon in plastic. This is why you have lube handsome. I walked though many a swamp w/my 16 and it never rusted... jesus you make me want to puke.

Your a wanna-be period. They should kick you off the board for impersonating a service member you pathatic puke.

This guy is a Loon. Not just a phony but a Loony phony. These Elvis impersonators always like to think they are using cutting edge psychology to manipulate the rest of us in these forums.

[smkelly13]

Bullcrap...no service member or 11b would ever put plastic wrapping over a 16. I served 3 yrs active and 4 reserve...and I never put my damn weapon in plastic. This is why you have lube handsome. I walked though many a swamp w/my 16 and it never rusted... jesus you make me want to puke.

Your a wanna-be period. They should kick you off the board for impersonating a service member you pathatic puke.

You think I did it by choice?  I, like the rest in my unit, were given orders to cover our weapons with plastic, which was provided.  Believe it or not, we get the left over M16's from the Army, same goes with the

That's not cool man.  I don't know why you're being so disrespectful, what have I done to you?  What, our opinions differ so that makes it okay for you to call me an imposter, a wanna-be?  Have I kicked your dog or something?

[wrag]

question......

you're licenced to carry in ohio. does that licence apply where ever you may travel?

NO!  Each State has different rules.

HOWEVER....

SOME state have what is called a reciprocal agreement in that they do honor other States CCW IF that State honors theres.

[Golfer]

NO!  Each State has different rules.

HOWEVER....

SOME state have what is called a reciprocal agreement in that they do honor other States CCW IF that State honors theres.

Was that not addressed properly at the top of the page?

[SmokinLoon]

Everytime a DNR agent goes into the woods during hunting season he's pretty much guaranteed to encounter an armed person. The stress there during any type of encounter has to be huge and to think he probably has multiple encounters a day has to be hugely stressfull.

I think having some type of clear cut way to handle the situation from both the DNR and the hunters side that is fair and impartial to both sides needs to be put in writing and the training courses.

The way it looks to me is the DNR is taught to consider the hunter guilty and disarm him before checking his credentials. This to me is just wrong.

Nah, it is removing one half of a nasty equasion.  It isnt presuming anyone is guilty, it is stopping something before it happens.  It isnt about "turning them in", it is about keeping your hands off of them when a public official is excercising legal authority.  No rights are being violated. 

When I was forced to speak to someone (as a deputy sheriff) who was armed because they were hunting, target shooting, etc.  The first thing I asked them in a polite but stern voice was to either put their firearm down or step away from where the firearm was at and I explained why.  I didnt ever have a problem.  In each situation I was called out to investigate a "hunting while trespassing" or the use of a firearms range beyond normal hours (note: dont be shooting at the range at 11pm via use of headlights, it isnt cool).  I was on a higher state of alert when dealing with these kinds of situations due to the nature of things.   

[wrag]

smkelly13.... PLEASE refrain from sending me PM regarding this issue and POST here for all to see!

I replied to your PM with the suggestion that you put your replies here for all to see.

If you can't do so fine, but NO MORE PM's PLEASE!

[smkelly13]

Dog you?  I don't think that is the case.  Yes that is correct I meant the Bill of Rights.

Saying that I write like a 13 year old kid?  Come on, reading comprehension is a must, and it appears that you are lacking in that department.  No one but you has called out my posts in the manner that you've done.  We are getting lost in translation.  I don't feel it necessary to no offense, dumb it down, so you'll be able to comprehend what I'm writing.

From your previous post I get the impression that you hold the belief that UNALIENABLE means it CAN be taken away.....

Absolutely not.  I DO however believe, and will continue to believe, is that our government should ban certain weapons.  The normal civilian would become a very dangerous individual with the stronger firearms.  I work as a retail salesmen, 90% of the people that walk in my store are complete morons.  I wouldn't feel safe knowing that these people, who cannot even bathe themselves, or take care of their teeth own a heavy firepowered machine gun.  I don't know about you, but I don't trust many people, and have lost almost all of the respect I once had for the human race as a whole.

The Government can and should CONTROL everyone for their own good....................

I don't know where you draw this conclusion from. 

"I wasn't quoting the Bill of Rights, so I don't understand your tone regarding my usage of the word chance.  Everyone has the right to own a weapon, but not everyone has a chance to do so."

What are you actually saying here???   That Government refuses to allow them to have weapons?   That they're too poor?  Please be more clear!

You can draw your own conclusions to what I wrote.  It's not difficult, if they're felons, poor, not allowed to (for whatever reason)...its not hard.

Sure looked to me like you were saying..... "Unless regulations are put in place," ..... this suggest that you did NOT realize regulations are ALREADY in place..............

It does?  That's news to me.

and I now see.....  "Exactly why I put it in my post.  Because if it wasn't illegal, people would have them mounted on their vehicles."  would be VERY expensive to do so?  And of course they COULD be charged with MURDER for using them wouldn't they?

That wasn't a variable in the discussion, was it?

Did it ever occur to anyone that the weapon was WRAPPED because it was NOT supposed to be used against American civilians?  That the use of it was only intended if the troops came under attack?

So it was wrapped to make it NECESSARY to do specific things BEFORE it could be used.

No.  No.  No.  I was ordered by my superior officers, and staff Sergeant to cover my weapon with plastic to avoid rust and debris.  It's that simple.  End of story, believe it or not, I cannot prove it, you'll just have to take my word for it.  Think about it, why would I make this up?  Does it make me sound cool, smart, anything that would increase my stock among the posters here?  No.

We can argue this topic into the ground somemore, or we can just agree to disagree on this subject.  The horse is dead, let's quit beatin' it, okay?

There you go wrag.

[Terror]

I think you miss my point. I, meaning ME, will secure your weapon every time we contact each other. It has nothing to do with stripping you, or any other law abiding citizen, the right to be armed within the scope of the law. I am securing a weapon, from a person I do not know, for MY safety. I will do it every time. I cannot think of an officer who wouldn't. Is it legal? You're damned right it is.

As a CCW holder, I think it would be more dangerous for a LEO to have me draw my firearm to turn over to him rather than leaving it holstered where it is safe and less likely to discharge.  Unless I have given the LEO a reason (ie. resisting, belligerence, intoxication, etc), I would expect them to leave it in place.  Now if the LEO requests custody of the firearm, I would comply.  No reason to escalate an otherwise hopefully peaceful encounter.  I just feel it would add un-neccessary risks to the encounter.

On a tangent, how do you gain custody when you request the firearm?  Do you have the holder draw, unload and turn it over to you, or do you ask where its at and draw it and unload it yourself.  In my case, if you draw the firearm, it might be a little "uncomfortable" as I use the SmartCarry (http://www.smartcarry.com/) holster.  You might get more of a handful than you expected... 

T

[wrag]

Saying that I write like a 13 year old kid?  Come on, reading comprehension is a must, and it appears that you are lacking in that department.  No one but you has called out my posts in the manner that you've done.  We are getting lost in translation.  I don't feel it necessary to no offense, dumb it down, so you'll be able to comprehend what I'm writing.
Absolutely not.  I DO however believe, and will continue to believe, is that our government should ban certain weapons.  The normal civilian would become a very dangerous individual with the stronger firearms.  I work as a retail salesmen, 90% of the people that walk in my store are complete morons.  I wouldn't feel safe knowing that these people, who cannot even bathe themselves, or take care of their teeth own a heavy firepowered machine gun.  I don't know about you, but I don't trust many people, and have lost almost all of the respect I once had for the human race as a whole.
I don't know where you draw this conclusion from. 

You can draw your own conclusions to what I wrote.  It's not difficult, if they're felons, poor, not allowed to (for whatever reason)...its not hard.
It does?  That's news to me.
That wasn't a variable in the discussion, was it?
No.  No.  No.  I was ordered by my superior officers, and staff Sergeant to cover my weapon with plastic to avoid rust and debris.  It's that simple.  End of story, believe it or not, I cannot prove it, you'll just have to take my word for it.  Think about it, why would I make this up?  Does it make me sound cool, smart, anything that would increase my stock among the posters here?  No.

We can argue this topic into the ground somemore, or we can just agree to disagree on this subject.  The horse is dead, let's quit beatin' it, okay?

There you go wrag.

Lost in translation?

IMO my reading comprehension of what you posted is quite accurate!

I thought I understood what you said and called you on what I see as several inconsistencies or possibly even errors.

In one post you SEEMED to state that laws were NEEDED to be put in place to prevent possession of certain firearms and I pointed out that laws were ALREADY in place and doing just that?

Try here  >>> "own a heavy firepowered machine gun"

Hot news flash!!!! Without a special license/permit they CAN'T   "own a heavy firepowered machine gun".

Then in another later post you claim you didn't say laws NEEDED to be put in place but claimed that you said something else which I can't find contained within your previous post?

As to your opinions of your customers, I think you MAY lack a certain tolerance for what you perceive as their short comings.  Not everyone lives their lives as you SEEM to think they should AND IMHO they should NOT HAVE TO!

I also think you lack an understanding of our history when you state "The normal civilian would become a very dangerous individual with the stronger firearms." as in IF you READ what the founders of this Nation wrote that was their actual INTENT!

And I further think you are passing judgment UNFAIRLY upon the vast majority of America.

As to me being the only one reacting in this manner to your postings, IMHO others have expressed far worse opinions of your post then I.

And your statement in reply to...

[Me] The Government can and should CONTROL everyone for their own good....................

[You} "I don't know where you draw this conclusion from."

Try here >>> "The normal civilian would become a very dangerous individual with the stronger firearms.  I work as a retail salesmen, 90% of the people that walk in my store are complete morons.  I wouldn't feel safe knowing that these people, who cannot even bathe themselves, or take care of their teeth own a heavy firepowered machine gun. I don't know about you, but I don't trust many people, and have lost almost all of the respect I once had for the human race as a whole."

And this >>> "not allowed to (for whatever reason)"....  When one deals with what is a RIGHT then how can it be..... "not allowed to (for whatever reason)"... and still be a RIGHT?

Your posts SEEM to contain what I see as many contradicting statements that when taken as a whole do not SEEM to make sense.

If this horse is dead it is perhaps because you killed it?