Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on January 10, 2009, 08:03:13 PM
-
Thats what Law Enforcement in seems to think is correct!
Or at least that's what this article claims is the case.....
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=8907&TM=37236.69
-
Interesting, but the reality is this: If a LEO tells you to hand over your weapon and you refuse (right or wrong), it won't end well.
-
Interesting, but the reality is this: If a LEO tells you to hand over your weapon and you refuse (right or wrong), it won't end well.
The question is, will you get it back?
It used to be that things confiscated at Airport Security Checkpoints would be mailed back to you (Though it took about 6 months to a year). I had a leatherman confiscated when I had forgot I still had it in my bag. TSAs took it, took down my address, and said they would mail it to me. By the time I got it, I had forgotten about it, but what matters is, I DID get it back. Nowadays they won't return anything. Will that apply to these confiscated firearms too?
-
The question is, will you get it back?
It used to be that things confiscated at Airport Security Checkpoints would be mailed back to you (Though it took about 6 months to a year). I had a leatherman confiscated when I had forgot I still had it in my bag. TSAs took it, took down my address, and said they would mail it to me. By the time I got it, I had forgotten about it, but what matters is, I DID get it back. Nowadays they won't return anything. Will that apply to these confiscated firearms too?
Who knows, but it's better than being shot to death. It would be the cop's word against a dead guy with a gun laying next to him.
-
What they need to do is clearly define the law better, hopefully with this Krause case it will aid in defining this law. This man was completely in the right to have his weapon on him in plain sight.
-
yes my state sucks...
it doesn't help the last few years with people shooting hunters, what 2 different times 5+ people killed in an odd incident out in the woods...
either way though our governor Doyle is a complete liberal ultra melon, and even spoke pubically he will veto any measure to allow regular citizens to carry firearms. we're one of what 4 states that don't allow weapons for self defense?
sometimes I really hate Wisconsin.
-
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.
-
These men aren't drafted or otherwise forced into their line of work; they pursue it.
-
Eh,we have open carry here in Colorado. Not many people do it. I think there are around 6000 concealed carry permits in my county alone and thats how most carry.
-
I think that if it pertains to anything that can make a officer or agent feel threatened you do WHATEVER he tells you to do, it like in a car, your lil consumer car is not going to win against a semi even if the semi is in the wrong
-
The question is, will you get it back?
It used to be that things confiscated at Airport Security Checkpoints would be mailed back to you (Though it took about 6 months to a year). I had a leatherman confiscated when I had forgot I still had it in my bag. TSAs took it, took down my address, and said they would mail it to me. By the time I got it, I had forgotten about it, but what matters is, I DID get it back. Nowadays they won't return anything. Will that apply to these confiscated firearms too?
If it's a firearm probably NOT.
Although IIRC you are within your rights to REQUIRE a receipt?
Legally whenever ANYTHING gets confiscated/taken by Law Enforcement/Gubmint Agent they are SUPPOSED to give you a receipt for that item or any items taken, part of the now gutted 4th Amendment IIRC.
BUT YOU MUST SAY YOU WANT A RECEIPT! You have to ask for one.
-
If it's a firearm probably NOT.
Although IIRC you are within your rights to REQUIRE a receipt?
Legally whenever ANYTHING gets confiscated/taken by Law Enforcement/Gubmint Agent they are SUPPOSED to give you a receipt for that item or any items taken, part of the now gutted 4th Amendment IIRC.
BUT YOU MUST SAY YOU WANT A RECEIPT! You have to ask for one.
Yeah I can vouch for that, a few months ago my girlfriend was over at my house sleeping, about 11 P.M someone rings my bell, I knew right away it was her ex(Josh), so we didn't answer it, he rang it a few more times, eventually she went and looked out the window from behind the curtain, she said she saw a bunch of cars & people out there, she thought it was his friends, so a few min's later I get a call from DuComm, which is the police, so I go out front and open my door and it's the police, I ask them whats going on, they just ask if they can come in so I say ok, next thing I know 2 cops pop out from the sides with M16's drawn on me, they tell me to keep my hands where they can see them, now bear in mind that I'm in a wheelchair and have no use of my right arm, now they go to the back of my house and let in another cop with an M16, I keep asking whats going on, but they just keep saying we'll explain in a minute. So after they clear the house they tell me that her ex called the police and told them that when he knocked on the door that I pointed a gun at him through the window, which of course was complete BS, for one all the guns in the house are on the second floor under my dads bed, and one 38 in his night stand, kinda hard to get to them being in a wheelchair and all. So they find all the weapons and ask if I or my father have a valid F.O.I.D(Firearms Owners Identification) card, unfortunately are cards had both expired, so they had to take all the weapons until we renewed are cards, but they did have to give us a receipt for them.
-
These men aren't drafted or otherwise forced into their line of work; they pursue it.
Quoted for the absolute truth.
I used to live by a DNR post, they were all robocop wannabes. Even the women officers.
I'd refuse to turn over my firearm, and wouldn't do so until I had a lawyer present. You never know what kind of officer you're dealing with, he could have just shot and killed someone down the road in a fit of rage, and try to roll it off on you. Kind of like a Michigan DNR officer's son who killed a buck before season and then laid the blame on a co-worker of mine. His weapon was confiscated, torn apart, and his fines reached over $3000.
-
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.
Im not DNR nor am I LE in Wisconsin but I will explain this the best way I can from my point of view. Purposely withholding a firearm from an officer who is aware you have it is NOT a good idea. It is in your best judgment to cooperate with an officer should you be in a situation where said officer is asking for your weapon (or it's location on your person/vehicle). Disobeying a lawful order is a crime. There is no possible way that an officer can be sure of your intentions when you withhold a weapon from him. Cooperation is key.
As an officer in a smaller city, I do encounter hunters from time to time. I also encounter MANY CCW holders who are armed. I am told about the weapon 99% of the time and I will secure it while I carry out my contact with the individual. When I am done, I will give back the weapon, as long as the situation warrants (not going to jail, ability to carry (legally and physically/mentally) is certain). Should the weapon be stolen or on a hit list, I keep it. Should you be intoxicated, in a mixed mental state or going to jail for other reasons, I will be hanging on to it.
Do I want to deprive anyone of their Constitutional Rights? Absolutely not.
Do I want to make sure I do everything in my power to go home to my family at the end of the shift? You bet your axx I do.
:aok
-
Im not DNR nor am I LE in Wisconsin but I will explain this the best way I can from my point of view. Purposely withholding a firearm from an officer who is aware you have it is NOT a good idea. It is in your best judgment to cooperate with an officer should you be in a situation where said officer is asking for your weapon (or it's location on your person/vehicle). Disobeying a lawful order is a crime. There is no possible way that an officer can be sure of your intentions when you withhold a weapon from him. Cooperation is key.
As an officer in a smaller city, I do encounter hunters from time to time. I also encounter MANY CCW holders who are armed. I am told about the weapon 99% of the time and I will secure it while I carry out my contact with the individual. When I am done, I will give back the weapon, as long as the situation warrants (not going to jail, ability to carry (legally and physically/mentally) is certain). Should the weapon be stolen or on a hit list, I keep it. Should you be intoxicated, in a mixed mental state or going to jail for other reasons, I will be hanging on to it.
Do I want to deprive anyone of their Constitutional Rights? Absolutely not.
Do I want to make sure I do everything in my power to go home to my family at the end of the shift? You bet your axx I do.
:aok
Would you allow someone to remove the firing pin before handing the weapon over?
-
Im not DNR nor am I LE in Wisconsin but I will explain this the best way I can from my point of view. Purposely withholding a firearm from an officer who is aware you have it is NOT a good idea. It is in your best judgment to cooperate with an officer should you be in a situation where said officer is asking for your weapon (or it's location on your person/vehicle).
As an officer in a smaller city, I do encounter hunters from time to time. I also encounter MANY CCW holders who are armed. I am told about the weapon 99% of the time and I will secure it while I carry out my contact with the individual. When I am done, I will give back the weapon, as long as the situation warrants (not going to jail, ability to carry (legally and physically/mentally) is certain). Should the weapon be stolen or on a hit list, I keep it. Should you be intoxicated, in a mixed mental state or going to jail for other reasons, I will be hanging on to it.
Do I want to deprive anyone of their Constitutional Rights? Absolutely not.
Do I want to make sure I do everything in my power to go home to my family at the end of the shift? You bet your axx I do.
:aok
This part is what give me trouble.....
"Disobeying a lawful order is a crime. There is no possible way that an officer can be sure of your intentions when you withhold a weapon from him. Cooperation is key."
because....
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ~~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
who decides what a Lawful Order is? The Judge or Jury AFTER the fact? And what happened to I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty? And how do I know that YOU are the officer stopping me or if it's some officer that's on a power trip that INTENDS to keep my firearm NO MATTER WHAT?
The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
and.... resistance is required?
Because.....
"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]
I want you to go home to your family SAFE and in good health!
But too much of what you said tells me that Law Enforcement MAY BE gradually taking on too much power!
Ya I know law suites and such are getting so ridicules that you can get sued either way you go so better safe then sorry.
But I've also heard the argument similar to the how do you know the individual isn't on their way to commit a murder/crime with that firearm argument.
You don't! but you also don't know if the individual is just carrying it because they actually believe they STILL have rights.
The question that KEEPS coming up in my head is WHY!
WHY can't I carry around a weapon, or an assault weapon for that matter, in my vehicle if I want to?
-
WHY can't I carry around a weapon, or an assault weapon for that matter, in my vehicle if I want to?
You can carry a weapon in your vehicle, as long as its registered and not banned/stolen/hot. You cannot carry an assault rifle due to the police shootouts in LA in the '90s IIRC and because the firepower behind the weapon out does what police normally carry. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I know I've heard it somewhere before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban)
-
You can carry a weapon in your vehicle, as long as its registered and not banned/stolen/hot. You cannot carry an assault rifle due to the police shootouts in LA in the '90s IIRC and because the firepower behind the weapon out does what police normally carry. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I know I've heard it somewhere before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban)
Really?
"You cannot carry an assault rifle due to the police shootouts in LA in the '90s IIRC and because the firepower behind the weapon out does what police normally carry."
What does that have to do with anyone carrying around such a weapon? Because they MIGHT abuse it? So IF you carry such a weapon around you are GUILTY of MAYBE?
-
This part is what give me trouble.....
"Disobeying a lawful order is a crime. There is no possible way that an officer can be sure of your intentions when you withhold a weapon from him. Cooperation is key."
because....
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ~~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
who decides what a Lawful Order is? The Judge or Jury AFTER the fact? And what happened to I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty? And how do I know that YOU are the officer stopping me or if it's some officer that's on a power trip that INTENDS to keep my firearm NO MATTER WHAT?
The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
and.... resistance is required?
Because.....
"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]
I want you to go home to your family SAFE and in good health!
But too much of what you said tells me that Law Enforcement MAY BE gradually taking on too much power!
Ya I know law suites and such are getting so ridicules that you can get sued either way you go so better safe then sorry.
But I've also heard the argument similar to the how do you know the individual isn't on their way to commit a murder/crime with that firearm argument.
You don't! but you also don't know if the individual is just carrying it because they actually believe they STILL have rights.
The question that KEEPS coming up in my head is WHY!
WHY can't I carry around a weapon, or an assault weapon for that matter, in my vehicle if I want to?
I'm with ya, bro. But the harsh reality is that if a LEO feels he may be in danger, he is NOT going to calmly discuss constitutional rights. He is going to want you to comply NOW. Failing to do so would not end well for either or both of you. Like I posted earlier, if it escalates....it would be the word of a LEO against a body on the ground with a gun laying next to it.
-
What do you mean "What does that have to do with anyone carrying around such a weapon"? If you're packing more heat than the police, bad things will happen. You'll shoot your big gun, hitting/killing a few officers, and then they'll shoot you a bazillion times, and your family will sue them.
Like I said, I'm not 100% sure if what I said is correct or not, I'm almost sure I've heard it before.
-
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb)
Quoted from source:
Q: Why did police support the ban so strongly?
A: While there are no exact numbers of assault weapon incidents, police across America in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the "weapon of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs and paramilitary extremist groups.
Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor. In addition, limiting civilian access to such weapons lessens the need for law enforcement to carry assault weapons themselves in order to match the firepower capability that criminals with assault weapons would have. Law enforcement officers do not want to have to carry M-16s as their standard service weapon. In 1997, after a North Hollywood, CA shootout in which police were outgunned by two men with assault weapons, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police stated
An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them...Police are armed with weapons that are effective with criminals in line of sight. They don't want and don't need weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.[
:aok
-
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb)
Quoted from source:
:aok
Brady Campaign, huh? I suppose you thing the Second Amendment is about hunting and skeet shooting too...
-
Is that a Frederic joke?
-
Actually SMKelly its very unusual to have so called assault weapons involved in crime. Even the gangs, while they would occasionally pop at us when the High rises were up, didn't want their AK taken away. Besides, it was already illegal. So what can you do? Make it really,really,really, illegal? But the truth is we dont often see them, where'as the Brady bunch would have you believe there is an AK toting criminal around every corner.
Besides, I'd rather have some gangbanger, with a chickens brain, go off with his AK then I would some redneck, ex-paratrooper, lifelong deer hunter, go off with his .300 win mag. And again we start backing into the 2nd amendment, which specifically guarantees the rights of Americans to own firearms. Which is my belief too. Ive seen enough gun control in my career to make me laugh at it when I see it. Since when did we become a Nation at the mercy of Government?
None of this has anything to do with a game warden doing his job however. Ive been checked many times and I just give him my shotgun. He has a right to check and make sure I'm in compliance with game laws. And afterwards I thank him for being out here, what with all the poaching going on.
A "part time instructor" that "owns a sporting goods store"? And now he is making himself a "part time ambulance chaser" as well. And getting his students into trouble with his little attitude problem? What we dont have enough problems in the game fields without Mark Palan going for his 15 mins worth?
-
It's not unusual, more or less that it's not as likely as a .40 pistol or sawed-off shotgun. I never said you'd see it all the time, I provided the one instance I know about.
Besides, I'd rather have some gangbanger, with a chickens brain, go off with his AK then I would some redneck, ex-paratrooper, lifelong deer hunter, go off with his .300 win mag.
This defies sane logic. One is a sniper rifle, the other an automatic machine gun. Both would result in many casualties, but chances are, the AK would take out more people then the sniper rifle. Either way, people will/would die. You don't know what would actually happen. The gangbanger could be ex Marine Recon, while the redneck was just a plain Jane Army grunt. Add in rates of fire, reload times, mobility, and many other variables and it'd become clear that the AK-47 has a distinct advantage over a sniper rifle. And, is it close combat or from a mile away? Your little comparison is awfully vague.
Also, it'd make more sense if you said sniper instead of paratrooper.
The Second Amendment allows every American the chance (unless a felon) to own a firearm. Unless regulations are put in place, the great people of this country would be mounting Gatling guns to their vehicles. You cut someone off on the express way and you'd be getting torn in half by a Gatling gun. This argument is alot like owning a pitbull. Why does someone need to own a M16, or AK-47? They aren't good hunting weapons, the M16 is fragile. Do they need to protect themselves from 10 feet tall angry wolverines? I personally own weapons, and am appreciative of it, but I'm not going to have a seizure over the fact my government says no assault weapons.
Since when did we become a Nation at the mercy of Government?
Are you serious?
-
(1)You don't know what would actually happen.
(2)Why does someone need to own a M16, or AK-47?
(1) But you are all-knowing, right?
(2) Because it's our RIGHT to own them.
-
smelly13, what do you think the purpose of the Second Amendment is?
-
SMkelly you sound like a 14yo kid thats never even fired a gun before. Let alone been in the service. M16 fragile? Are you high?
But thanks for straightening me out anyway. :huh
-
SMkelly you sound like a 14yo kid thats never even fired a gun before. Let alone been in the service. M16 fragile? Are you high?
But thanks for straightening me out anyway. :huh
Guessing 13 myself.
-
SMkelly you sound like a 14yo kid thats never even fired a gun before. Let alone been in the service. M16 fragile? Are you high?
But thanks for straightening me out anyway. :huh
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.
-
You must have crappy 16s then. Mine never rusted or jammed... I've humped 20k's in pouring rain, it didn't rust.
-
(1) But you are all-knowing, right?
(2) Because it's our RIGHT to own them.
1 - Yes, I'm glad someone finally notices it. Thank you, you have made my day complete, and I haven't even had dinner yet.
2 - Yes it is, and our country can decide whether or not we can actually have them or not regardless of what is written on a piece of paper (they've. There's obviously a reason why they are banned. They aren't conventional weapons for civilians to own, and operate. Like a civilian cannot own a Abrams tank, or a stealth bomber, or a submarine with nuclear capabilities. I don't like being told what I can, and can't have, like 90% of the other people in this country, I've just learned to accept them and not ask questions or raise a fuss. No matter what we say, no matter how much we beg, the ban will not get lifted until our government deems it unnecessary. It's the facts o'life my friend. Thank the people who have screwed it up for the rest of us.
Believe it or not, I'd love to own an assault rifle. I like using machine guns.
-
So the Constitution is just some flimsy piece of paper?
I see.
-
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere does it make exceptions for assault weapons.
You never answered my question. What do you think the Second Amendment is for?
-
You must have crappy 16s then. Mine never rusted or jammed... I've humped 20k's in pouring rain, it didn't rust.
Brand new, actually.
It's a possibility of the added humidity. Whenever the M-16 comes up in conversations as being a top-notch weapon, I cringe. They have many small moving parts that if lost makes the gun useless, it jams far too often, it rusts, and it's stopping power is not impressive. I've had to use them before, if you understand what I'm meaning.
-
As I said before.
I've never been in those situations.
Just basic cleaning kept mine at 100%.
And it was an A2 to boot.
-
2 - Yes it is, and our country can decide whether or not we can actually have them or not regardless of what is written on a piece of paper (
you will go far in the party comrade. Now i must ask you for your papers, it is just a formality, if you fully cooperate you may not be arrested.
-
I've had to use them before, if you understand what I'm meaning.
video games don't count. :lol
-
So the Constitution is just some flimsy piece of paper?
I see.
To me? Absolutely not. I'd sacrifice my life for the Constitution of the United States.
To the government? Sometimes. Look at some of the illegal things they have committed in the last couple of years. The Patriot Act. Firebombing. They'll break the Constitution whenever they feel like it, but also use it as a crutch when need be.
-
video games don't count. :lol
Yeah, it's funny. :aok
-
This part is what give me trouble.....
"Disobeying a lawful order is a crime. There is no possible way that an officer can be sure of your intentions when you withhold a weapon from him. Cooperation is key."
because....
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." ~~ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
who decides what a Lawful Order is? The Judge or Jury AFTER the fact? And what happened to I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty? And how do I know that YOU are the officer stopping me or if it's some officer that's on a power trip that INTENDS to keep my firearm NO MATTER WHAT?
The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
and.... resistance is required?
Because.....
"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]
I want you to go home to your family SAFE and in good health!
But too much of what you said tells me that Law Enforcement MAY BE gradually taking on too much power!
Ya I know law suites and such are getting so ridicules that you can get sued either way you go so better safe then sorry.
But I've also heard the argument similar to the how do you know the individual isn't on their way to commit a murder/crime with that firearm argument.
You don't! but you also don't know if the individual is just carrying it because they actually believe they STILL have rights.
The question that KEEPS coming up in my head is WHY!
WHY can't I carry around a weapon, or an assault weapon for that matter, in my vehicle if I want to?
Sorry for my delay in response Wrag, I took a nap ;)
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.
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 am more for the control and ban of certain grains and projectiles in ammunition. There are rounds out there that will penetrate the highest levels of our armor. That scares me.
:salute
-
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.
Guesses on who this guy is? Elvis maybe? :lol
"Absolutly fragile"? Boy these trolls just dont stop coming do they?
Another Elvis sighting and we still dont have forum ignore privelages.
-
Guesses on who this guy is? Elvis maybe? :lol
"Absolutly fragile"? Boy these trolls just dont stop coming do they?
Another Elvis sighting and we still dont have forum ignore privelages.
When I see what that guy types, the phrase.....drug induced fantasies....keeps coming to mind. :D
-
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.
We don't know YOU either. We want to go home safe every day as well. How do WE know that YOU (or any other LEO for that matter) are not an LEO like these two?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOI9ahGxMfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc&fmt=18
Concern for one's safety goes both ways, and you are not taking my gun for your safety because I just may need it for mine, and when it comes down to the nitty gritty, my safety is more important than yours.
-
What do you mean "What does that have to do with anyone carrying around such a weapon"? If you're packing more heat than the police, bad things will happen. You'll shoot your big gun, hitting/killing a few officers, and then they'll shoot you a bazillion times, and your family will sue them.
Like I said, I'm not 100% sure if what I said is correct or not, I'm almost sure I've heard it before.
You perhaps have issues with freedom and liberty? Those things scare you do they?
ALL are guilty in your eyes?
"If you're packing more heat than the police, bad things will happen."
Why? Why will bad thing happen? Please explain?
"You'll shoot your big gun, hitting/killing a few officers, and then they'll shoot you a bazillion times, and your family will sue them."
Why would I do that? Why would I shoot a few officers? Do you know something I don't?
-
It's not unusual, more or less that it's not as likely as a .40 pistol or sawed-off shotgun. I never said you'd see it all the time, I provided the one instance I know about.
This defies sane logic. One is a sniper rifle, the other an automatic machine gun. Both would result in many casualties, but chances are, the AK would take out more people then the sniper rifle. Either way, people will/would die. You don't know what would actually happen. The gangbanger could be ex Marine Recon, while the redneck was just a plain Jane Army grunt. Add in rates of fire, reload times, mobility, and many other variables and it'd become clear that the AK-47 has a distinct advantage over a sniper rifle. And, is it close combat or from a mile away? Your little comparison is awfully vague.
Also, it'd make more sense if you said sniper instead of paratrooper.
The Second Amendment allows every American the chance (unless a felon) to own a firearm. Unless regulations are put in place, the great people of this country would be mounting Gatling guns to their vehicles. You cut someone off on the express way and you'd be getting torn in half by a Gatling gun. This argument is alot like owning a pitbull. Why does someone need to own a M16, or AK-47? They aren't good hunting weapons, the M16 is fragile. Do they need to protect themselves from 10 feet tall angry wolverines? I personally own weapons, and am appreciative of it, but I'm not going to have a seizure over the fact my government says no assault weapons.
Are you serious?
hmmm................
you're 13 right? You sound 13 and you sound like you're filled with what many 13 year olds coming out of our schools seem to believe.
"The Second Amendment allows every American the chance (unless a felon) to own a firearm." Chance? Have your EVER READ the preamble to the Bill of Fights? The word CHANCE does NOT appear there.
"Unless regulations are put in place, the great people of this country would be mounting Gatling guns to their vehicles. You cut someone off on the express way and you'd be getting torn in half by a Gatling gun."
Again you SEEM MISINFORMED... as it is ALREADY illegal to mount Gatling guns on vehicles AND you must have a special license to own a Gatling gun.
I hope you're not one of those idiots?????? the ones that seem to think it's ok to "You cut someone off on the express way ......"
-
From the replies I've seen, the wording, and such by smkelly13......
sounds young?
hasn't answered several questions....
and IMHO is uninformed/misinformed, wants attention really bad, or perhaps is a deliberate troll?
-
From the replies I've seen, the wording, and such by smkelly13......
sounds young?
hasn't answered several questions....
and IMHO is uninformed/misinformed, wants attention really bad, or perhaps is a deliberate troll?
Not terribly young, depends on what you consider to be young. If you're 40, then yes, I would be considered young next to you. I'm actually 23, former United States Marine, reached the rank of Corporal in the 0811 MOS field (I shot and operated the M-198 medium towed howitzer).
I don't have steady internet access, when I'm online however, I will address any and all question thrown my direction.
I've been told that I am an attention potato. It happens. I'm not trying to stir the hornets nest, and do actually like this forum, I wish politics and religion were open topics of discussion though. If you guys think I'm being a troll, I'll tone it down a notch. I mean no offense, and just want to have a conversation about something that interests me.
Opinions will differ, I don't expect you to share my same outlooks, or what have you, just as you hopefully share the same ideology.
-
Any time I've ever encountered an officer as a CCW holder in multiple states including visiting states all I've ever had to do is inform the officer that I was licensed to and was carrying a weapon. I've always presented the cards with my drivers license for verification but I have never ever been asked for the firearm and it's best left where it is in my opinion. In fact I've never been asked where it was.
Repo is the very first LEO I've heard of who regularly asks for those people to present their concealed carry weapons.
-
hmmm................
you're 13 right? You sound 13 and you sound like you're filled with what many 13 year olds coming out of our schools seem to believe.
"The Second Amendment allows every American the chance (unless a felon) to own a firearm." Chance? Have your EVER READ the preamble to the Bill of Fights? The word CHANCE does NOT appear there.
"Unless regulations are put in place, the great people of this country would be mounting Gatling guns to their vehicles. You cut someone off on the express way and you'd be getting torn in half by a Gatling gun."
Again you SEEM MISINFORMED... as it is ALREADY illegal to mount Gatling guns on vehicles AND you must have a special license to own a Gatling gun.
I hope you're not one of those idiots?????? the ones that seem to think it's ok to "You cut someone off on the express way ......"
1. You try to dog me on things, but look at the first bolded part of your response. The Bill of Fights? Obviously you meant the Bill of Rights. I read the preamble back in high school, but unfortunately, I cannot remember everything I read.
2. 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. Minus felons of course.
3. And why is it illegal, I may ask? Why would the government possibly make it illegal? Exactly why I put it in my post. Because if it wasn't illegal, people would have them mounted on their vehicles.
4. No, I am not one of those people who intentionally cut people off, but accidents do happen.
-
Any time I've ever encountered an officer as a CCW holder in multiple states including visiting states all I've ever had to do is inform the officer that I was licensed to and was carrying a weapon. I've always presented the cards with my drivers license for verification but I have never ever been asked for the firearm and it's best left where it is in my opinion. In fact I've never been asked where it was.
Repo is the very first LEO I've heard of who regularly asks for those people to present their concealed carry weapons.
He is the first I have heard of as well.
Something else he likely has not thought of is that those who volunteer that they are carrying are not the people he needs to be worried about securing their weapons. Those are the law abiding. The ones that would likely do him harm would not be inclined to tell him they are carrying a weapon prior to shooting him.
-
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.
I know of very few combat units- if any, that use the M16 anymore, and I've been serving since 2000. The M16 and M4 carbine are precision built weapons with little tolerance of debree in them--- but they are very accurate. And why would you pour sand in them? Proper maintenance and care is a must for any weapon, even the loosely built and relatively inaccurate (depending on range) AK47. Ive been in many environments with both the M16 and M4 weapons and will tell you this- they are not fragile by any means.... Ever had to mortar an M4 due to stoppage? (slamming the buttstock on the ground while pulling the charging handle) Ever had to USE the weapon? I have never, in over 8 years had a buttstock break in training or on deployment from striking anything..... Possibly poor maintenance/pmcs practices on your part, but you can find fault in the weapon itself for that.
However, I am not in love with the weapon, as a 4 MOA weapon, it lacks what my 1 MOA AR15 can do. (MOA is minutes of angle, basically, a 4 MOA weapon will place a round at 100 meters in a 4in circle, regardless of weapon control- MOA x hundreds of meters)
and Im quite sure the wrapping is more for making sure the guys dont have to clean their weapons as much, because you wont find wrapping on my weapon when im overseas, never have and never will--- I just take care to oil it properly, not too much so it gunks with sand, but enough to keep it lubed, and when I get a chance, wipe it down quickly..
I recentley went through another Long range marksmanship course and over the period of 5 days I average 1500 rounds per day, significantley more than I would fire overseas in one day- and I had 2 jams in 5 days. I only cleaned my weapon at the end of the day, properly, for the next days firing, and I did not wipe the weapon down except during our MRE break.....
Pretty good if you ask me.
Oh, and as a 6 year Airborne Infantryman, and recentley (last two years) Forward Observer, I love gun-bunnies- you know, the guys who fire their rifles at the range for qual and that pretty much sums it up..
-
Any time I've ever encountered an officer as a CCW holder in multiple states including visiting states all I've ever had to do is inform the officer that I was licensed to and was carrying a weapon. I've always presented the cards with my drivers license for verification but I have never ever been asked for the firearm and it's best left where it is in my opinion. In fact I've never been asked where it was.
Repo is the very first LEO I've heard of who regularly asks for those people to present their concealed carry weapons.
That's the LAST thing I want someone to do, is to reach for their weapon and hand it to me.
Nuh-uh, Homey don't play that...
Keep your dam hands on the steering wheel, if you move them, prepare to have my Sig screwed in your ear faster than you can blink.
-
I know of very few combat units- if any, that use the M16 anymore, and I've been serving since 2000. The M16 and M4 carbine are precision built weapons with little tolerance of debree in them--- but they are very accurate. And why would you pour sand in them? Proper maintenance and care is a must for any weapon, even the loosely built and relatively inaccurate (depending on range) AK47. Ive been in many environments with both the M16 and M4 weapons and will tell you this- they are not fragile by any means.... Ever had to mortar an M4 due to stoppage? (slamming the buttstock on the ground while pulling the charging handle) Ever had to USE the weapon? I have never, in over 8 years had a buttstock break in training or on deployment from striking anything..... Possibly poor maintenance/pmcs practices on your part, but you can find fault in the weapon itself for that.
However, I am not in love with the weapon, as a 4 MOA weapon, it lacks what my 1 MOA AR15 can do. (MOA is minutes of angle, basically, a 4 MOA weapon will place a round at 100 meters in a 4in circle, regardless of weapon control- MOA x hundreds of meters)
and Im quite sure the wrapping is more for making sure the guys dont have to clean their weapons as much, because you wont find wrapping on my weapon when im overseas, never have and never will--- I just take care to oil it properly, not too much so it gunks with sand, but enough to keep it lubed, and when I get a chance, wipe it down quickly..
I recentley went through another Long range marksmanship course and over the period of 5 days I average 1500 rounds per day, significantley more than I would fire overseas in one day- and I had 2 jams in 5 days. I only cleaned my weapon at the end of the day, properly, for the next days firing, and I did not wipe the weapon down except during our MRE break.....
Pretty good if you ask me.
Oh, and as a 6 year Airborne Infantryman, and recentley (last two years) Forward Observer, I love gun-bunnies- you know, the guys who fire their rifles at the range for qual and that pretty much sums it up..
1. Never said they weren't accurate, just that they have zero stopping power, unless you take out the brain housing group. Like the saying goes, two to the chest, one to the head. I've been told by many officers, O-5 and up, that the reason that phrase came up was due to the lack of stopping power. In combat, why waste three rounds on someone?
2. Jesus. Okay, if you're in Iraq, humping through the desert, or say for practical purposes, 29 stumps, and there's a wind storm. All of the loose sand, and there is a lot of it, it'll clog the weapon, and make it jam. I've seen it plenty of times.
3. Proper maintenance? I always reeked of CLP. Listen, don't assume you know a thing about me, or what I did in the service. It's nice that you're a forward observer, but I'm the guy you're calling when you need a fire mission.
4. Well good for you friend. In my EXPERIENCE though, it is a fragile weapon.
5. Yes on both accounts.
6. Again, you're assuming I was a lazy Marine and didn't properly take care of my weapon. I know there's a rivalry between the two branches (Army & Marine for the record, so NO ONE will be confused) but trying to say I didn't take care of weapon is a low blow.
7. And you'd be wrong, again. We were in Louisana, during the aftermath of HURRICANE KATRINA. That means it was rainy, and flooded. LOTS OF WATER.
-
1. Never said they weren't accurate, just that they have zero stopping power, unless you take out the brain housing group. Like the saying goes, two to the chest, one to the head. I've been told by many officers, O-5 and up, that the reason that phrase came up was due to the lack of stopping power. In combat, why waste three rounds on someone?
2. Jesus. Okay, if you're in Iraq, humping through the desert, or say for practical purposes, 29 stumps, and there's a wind storm. All of the loose sand, and there is a lot of it, it'll clog the weapon, and make it jam. I've seen it plenty of times.
3. Proper maintenance? I always reeked of CLP. Listen, don't assume you know a thing about me, or what I did in the service. It's nice that you're a forward observer, but I'm the guy you're calling when you need a fire mission.
4. Well good for you friend. In my EXPERIENCE though, it is a fragile weapon.
5. Yes on both accounts.
6. Again, you're assuming I was a lazy Marine and didn't properly take care of my weapon. I know there's a rivalry between the two branches (Army & Marine for the record, so NO ONE will be confused) but trying to say I didn't take care of weapon is a low blow.
7. And you'd be wrong, again. We were in Louisana, during the aftermath of HURRICANE KATRINA. That means it was rainy, and flooded. LOTS OF WATER.
The .223/5.56 is not a power hitting round, it is a tumbling and "bounce around" round designed to inflict alot of damage inside, not from sheer velocity and kinetic energy.
And reeking of CLP--- heavily oiled weapons, as this leads me to believe is the practice, and as it is in most cases, is improper maintenance/use of the lubricant.
The rest doesnt warrant an answer, other than a quick jibe-- Artillery hasnt been used in any significant amount since the invasion, organic mortars FTW- that and CAS/CCA. Let me know when I can retire because gunbunnies can see what theyre shooting at :)
-
Any time I've ever encountered an officer as a CCW holder in multiple states including visiting states all I've ever had to do is inform the officer that I was licensed to and was carrying a weapon. I've always presented the cards with my drivers license for verification but I have never ever been asked for the firearm and it's best left where it is in my opinion. In fact I've never been asked where it was.
Repo is the very first LEO I've heard of who regularly asks for those people to present their concealed carry weapons.
It is quite common for leo's to take possession of the weapon in a traffic stop here, we are required by law to notify if we are carrying.
I have even had them come back to the car after running my tag and ops and ask if i was carrying when I wasn't, ops or tag must be flagged for ccw holders here, I wonder if that would be probable cause to search the vehicle?
shamus
-
1. You try to dog me on things, but look at the first bolded part of your response. The Bill of Fights? Obviously you meant the Bill of Rights. I read the preamble back in high school, but unfortunately, I cannot remember everything I read.
2. 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. Minus felons of course.
3. And why is it illegal, I may ask? Why would the government possibly make it illegal? Exactly why I put it in my post. Because if it wasn't illegal, people would have them mounted on their vehicles.
4. No, I am not one of those people who intentionally cut people off, but accidents do happen.
Dog you? I don't think that is the case. Yes that is correct I meant the Bill of Rights.
But I AM calling you on some things that I see, that appear unclear, in your post.
I now elaborate.....
Best way I can say it............
From your previous post I get the impression that you hold the belief that UNALIENABLE means it CAN be taken away.....
The Government can and should CONTROL everyone for their own good....................
This part is UNCLEAR to me.....
"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!
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..............
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?
Gatling guns on vehicles... not that it would be a good idea mind you, but it would PROBABLY reduce stupid driving. IF SOME people THOUGHT about the seriousness of the consequences of their actions perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to commit them?
I saw a bobtail semi go over the side of an overpass due to someone, in a small car, cutting him off, saw it happen right in front of me, and it was raining. The driver of that bobtail semi did his very best to avoid hitting anyone. I could see him whirling the steering wheel of his truck back and forth. Skidded across 3 lanes of traffic, frantically missing cars, hit the rail and over he went. If traffic hadn't been so heavy he might have survived. His right fuel tank came off and fell right in front of me. Damaged my vehicle trying to NOT go over with him. Had my sons in the vehicle with me.
If I could have gotten the idiots license plate number.................. Manslaughter charges at the least! IMO That was pure selfish, I'm in a hurry and no one else matters, negligence on that small car drivers part.
-
1. Never said they weren't accurate, just that they have zero stopping power, unless you take out the brain housing group. Like the saying goes, two to the chest, one to the head. I've been told by many officers, O-5 and up, that the reason that phrase came up was due to the lack of stopping power. In combat, why waste three rounds on someone?
2. Jesus. Okay, if you're in Iraq, humping through the desert, or say for practical purposes, 29 stumps, and there's a wind storm. All of the loose sand, and there is a lot of it, it'll clog the weapon, and make it jam. I've seen it plenty of times.
3. Proper maintenance? I always reeked of CLP. Listen, don't assume you know a thing about me, or what I did in the service. It's nice that you're a forward observer, but I'm the guy you're calling when you need a fire mission.
4. Well good for you friend. In my EXPERIENCE though, it is a fragile weapon.
5. Yes on both accounts.
6. Again, you're assuming I was a lazy Marine and didn't properly take care of my weapon. I know there's a rivalry between the two branches (Army & Marine for the record, so NO ONE will be confused) but trying to say I didn't take care of weapon is a low blow.
7. And you'd be wrong, again. We were in Louisana, during the aftermath of HURRICANE KATRINA. That means it was rainy, and flooded. LOTS OF WATER.
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.
-
Any time I've ever encountered an officer as a CCW holder in multiple states including visiting states all I've ever had to do is inform the officer that I was licensed to and was carrying a weapon. I've always presented the cards with my drivers license for verification but I have never ever been asked for the firearm and it's best left where it is in my opinion. In fact I've never been asked where it was.
Repo is the very first LEO I've heard of who regularly asks for those people to present their concealed carry weapons.
question......
you're licenced to carry in ohio. does that licence apply where ever you may travel?
-
I'm with ya, bro. But the harsh reality is that if a LEO feels he may be in danger, he is NOT going to calmly discuss constitutional rights. He is going to want you to comply NOW. Failing to do so would not end well for either or both of you. Like I posted earlier, if it escalates....it would be the word of a LEO against a body on the ground with a gun laying next to it.
Kind of depends on where it takes place and the situation.. A LEO may run into a well informed person on gun laws and rights on his property who has a little more trigger time than he does, so it could very well end in another way.
I understand making a weapon safe and whatnot to be checked for proper hunting practices when on public land, what really upsets me is the targeting of citizens utilizing their right to open-carry as disturbing the peace.
Also, when I have- usually- a weapon in my vehicle for personal defense and I get pulled over, I simply cross my hands on the steering wheel, which tells the LEO I have a weapon, and wait for him to ask me where it is.. I have never been asked to leave my vehicle or present the weapon, only what kind it is and if its loaded, and in Texas, if I have my concealed carry license.. where I am at now, Alaska, open carry and concealed is allowed.
-
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.
-
You could just say which one... and I'm sure he'd call in a second opinion. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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/ (http://www.smartcarry.com/)) holster. You might get more of a handful than you expected... ;)
T
-
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?
-
Well aren't you just a saint. It's a crock of dog poop.
So in your opinion your reading and understanding comprehension is at an adequate level for intellectual discussions on various subjects? That chip must be killing your back...
You are the reason the phrase "Do I need to get the crayons out?" exists.
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?
First of all, that has nothing to do with anything I said. MEANING THAT: your assumption that I think that the government needs to control everything came from something I actually wrote after you imposed your original question.
I wish I could just draw you a nice colorful picture so you can comprehend what's going on.
not allowed to (for whatever reason) MEANING exactly what it sounds like, being a FELON, can't AFFORD, wife/husband/parents won't ALLOW it.
Does the bright red color help you understand, or do I litterally need to draw a picture, scan it, upload it, and post it here so your condensed mind can possibly understand what you should already understand?
-
Well aren't you just a saint. It's a crock of dog poop.
So in your opinion your reading and understanding comprehension is at an adequate level for intellectual discussions on various subjects? That chip must be killing your back...
You are the reason the phrase "Do I need to get the crayons out?" exists.
First of all, that has nothing to do with anything I said. MEANING THAT: your assumption that I think that the government needs to control everything came from something I actually wrote after you imposed your original question.
I wish I could just draw you a nice colorful picture so you can comprehend what's going on.
not allowed to (for whatever reason) MEANING exactly what it sounds like, being a FELON, can't AFFORD, wife/husband/parents won't ALLOW it.
Does the bright red color help you understand, or do I litterally need to draw a picture, scan it, upload it, and post it here so your condensed mind can possibly understand what you should already understand?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
You are a real LAUGH :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
This may have been covered already, but the definition of "assault rifle" as defined by most gun control advocates includes any semi-auto (e.g. not a machine gun) rifle with a magazine having a capacity of over 5 rounds. This seems to be ill-understood by many. Automatic weapons, a.k.a. "machineguns" are already controlled items in every state in the Union, and require a special licence (class III, if I'm not mistaken) to possess.
Regarding request by a LOE to surrender a weapon, my understanding of the law here in Colorado is that they may ask - and you must comply - but they must return the weapon at the end of the encounter...assuming they find you are in legal possession of said weapon. I do not have a problem with this request, as it is a matter of safety to our LOE personnel. CCW laws in most states that allow it require you to inform an officer that stops you for any reason that you are in possession of a weapon, and that you have a permit (be prepared to temporarily surrender both).
Regards,
Sabre