View Single Post
Old August 30, 2012, 03:20 PM   #94
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,116
Originally Posted by zukiphile
...the court doesn't adopt the standard you suggest .... That court found the POs to have reasonable suspicion. Simply observing a person legally engaging in open carry can't itself be reasonable suspicion.
Actually the court adopted essentially the same standard I did suggest. I didn't refer to merely legally openly carrying a gun. I wrote (post 67):
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
...if someone is seeking a confrontation and consciously acts in a way to provoke one, he really can't complain when he gets one....
Originally Posted by zukiphile
...That begs the question "Why are they [police officers] expected to be armed?". The answer to that question is because it is routinely observed...
No, it is because we have assigned to the police certain responsibilities and have decided at some point that carrying out those responsibilities reasonably requires that they go about carrying firearms.

Originally Posted by zukiphile
...that observation doesn't argue against the proposition that making an event routine tends to allow people to become more familiar with it and less alarmed by it.
Even that isn't always true. Consider many zoning ordinances. In many communities, the repeated appearance of people working on their cars in view of the street or parking RVs in view of the street, resulted in the adoption of land-use rules prohibiting such activities.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.03740 seconds with 7 queries