The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 11, 2010, 06:50 PM   #26
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Those who would seek to take rights are like a bad penny, they keep popping up and somehow no two of them can ever make cents to anyone.

The Brady's of the world will always be around and we should always be vigiliant of their various intrigues.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old March 11, 2010, 07:04 PM   #27
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Without the Second Amendment there are no other rights because they can all be taken away.
And without the life that the second amendment protects, all other rights are null and void.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 11, 2010, 08:36 PM   #28
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Don't ever count them out - they will never give up - even if the Brady Campaign or Soros or Bloomberg or Peters gave up or quit - there will always be the next individual or group ready to step up to the plate - in a way it is not even so much just guns as it is control. There are always people who think they know what is best for everyone and they are always willing to try to use organized and institutional force to make everyone else do what they believe is right or for the ultimate good.

In fact many individuals who are pro-liberty when it comes to the RKBA are pro-control when it comes to many other issues. There is a good quote by Tolkien's friend C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

So, the forces of gun control will wax and wane - but they will never cease - remember Heller was 5 to 4 - one liberal in place of 73 or 74 year old Scalia or Kennedy and it would suddenly be a different judicial world for the second amendment and therefore for all sorts of possible new gun control legislation or executive orders.

We haven't won much of anything yet in the grand scheme of things - we won a huge victory in Heller and hopefully McDonald next, but the battle to define the scope of the second amendment is just begun and our liberties are in many ways still more constricted than past generations.

The gun controllers aren't dumb - they know they have lost Heller and McDonald so they are already on to the next battle - laying the public propaganda to justify restricting the scope of the second and waiting for a liberal court to start doing so. Even if they can't get Heller or McDonald (if it goes our way) reversed (and with enough of a liberal majority on the court they might) they can still effectively gut the RKBA through the reasonable restrictions of a liberal court defining and limiting the scope of the RKBA.
mack59 is offline  
Old March 11, 2010, 09:43 PM   #29
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
They did get four Justices to agree with them in Heller.
Nope. Four Justices decided as they were pre-inclined to do. The Brady Campaign took credit for that. There's no causality, however.

If there was, they could have killed carry in national parks and Amtrak. They'd have saved the ban on guns in public housing. They've got the administration they want, and they still can't get anything done.

I wonder if keeping them around might be a good idea. A group that knows the right things to say to the right people in the middle would be far more dangerous.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 08:01 AM   #30
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
Good point Tom. They might have very well been pre-inclined to rule against Heller. As well as three of them possibly being pre-inclined to rule against McDonald.

Maybe I should have said they agree with the Brady anti-gun philosophy in terms of the 2nd Amendment affording a collective right only.

Mack: Yes the anti-gunners will never stop, however, if we win McDonald, don't you believe, that as more and more people gain the right to own firearms for self-defense purposes, that this will push them out of the mainstream more and more...........until they eventually become akin to the dodo bird?
RDak is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 11:56 AM   #31
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
The anti gunners have lost two of their biggest arguments.

1. The second amendment only confers a right to keep and bear arms for those citizens who are members of the national guard.

They lost this one in Heller and the exclamation point to their loss is about to be added in McDonald.


2. More guns will necessarily result in more crime.

Gun purchases continue to increase while violent crime continues to decrease. They will find it tough to convince all but the most fervent gun controllers that more guns will necessarily lead to more crime.

One other area they are also losing on is the need for a national gun registry. Our neighbors to the north provide ample evidence that this would be extremely costly and ineffective in reducing crime rates.

Thus, they are either at or approaching the point of "3 strikes and you're out".
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 12:46 PM   #32
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
The anti gunners have lost two of their biggest arguments.
Yes they have and with each decision that goes our way in the courts it will make it harder to reverse those decisions by a later liberal court. Need to get CCW in there soon though.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 02:07 PM   #33
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Need to get CCW in there soon though.
Agreed. Or OC, but just as CCW was frowned upon and seen as underhanded in society 200 years ago, open carry is seen as rude, at best, in modern society. So, yeah, CCW, but I would hate to see an expansion of the Texas model where, if your shirt blows open once, and someone sees it, you get taken to the hoosegow.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 10:18 PM   #34
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Maestro Pistolero:
Quote:
open carry is seen as rude, at best, in modern society. So, yeah, CCW, but I would hate to see an expansion of the Texas model where, if your shirt blows open once, and someone sees it, you get taken to the hoosegow.
What we need to implement is a $25.00 fine for the knot heads who report law abiding citizens seen carrying a firearm in public to the police, even though the carrier is not doing anything threatening. I'm getting awfully tired of the sheep who are scared poopless by the mere sight of a gun, unless someone in uniform is carrying it. Some of the same people who would think nothing of a private security guard openly carrying a handgun in public because he is in uniform, will call the cops the minute they see a non uniformed citizen openly carrying a handgun, even if that citizen is doing nothing but minding his own business.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 10:31 PM   #35
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The anti gunners have lost two of their biggest arguments.
Yes they have and with each decision that goes our way in the courts it will make it harder to reverse those decisions by a later liberal court. Need to get CCW in there soon though.
I agree. The more court victories we can chalk up, the tougher it will be for the liberals to reverse course, either legislatively, or via the courts. CCW will be a big one. You are correct, we need to get it done soon. I think the American people are ready to accept it, even if the anti gunners aren't. Isn't it funny that a significant majority of the American people are screaming, "Do not pass this Obama care health bill", and the liberals plug their ears and say "We're going to pass this thing come heck or high water". Then, for a political issue where the American people would likely be in majority agreement, CCW, the liberals won't even discuss bringing it up in a bill. Politics. I get it, but that doesn't mean I like it.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 10:49 PM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
I'm getting awfully tired of the sheep who are scared poopless by the mere sight of a gun, unless someone in uniform is carrying it.
Please don't take offense, but couching it in those terms is exactly why some people are leery of the gun culture.

Too many people in our camp are very quick to fume and castigate when someone questions the wisdom, legality or practicality of what we do. Perhaps that energy would be better spent changing hearts and minds than reacting with vitriol.

The idea of punishing people who act out of ignorance isn't the way to do that. It's harder, but more rewarding in the long run, to take the time to convince the skeptics.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 14, 2010, 10:50 PM   #37
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by mack59
"in a way it is not even so much just guns as it is control."
+1

I am convinced that this is so. IMHO anti-gun organizations include many for whom 'gun ownership' is no longer the issue, per se. In fact, they themselves may even own a gun for their personal protection, for those impending 2012 "TEOTWAWKI" scenarios...

Instead, they have gotten caught up in the political warfare that accompanies the issue, the drama and breathless rhetoric, the entire zero sum game perspective where the slightest gain on the part of the other side is an unacceptable loss for their own.

I believe they are motivated by an intense desire to win at all costs - to control "how things shall be", and are genuinely convinced that a magical absence of legal firearms ownership would lead to an drastic reduction of crime - despite brutal evidence to the contrary in both cases. "Guns" per se have taken a back seat to this desperate need to control their environment, to enforce their personal utopian dreams on the rest of society.

I wonder to what extent it may be true that "anti-gunners" are simply individuals who have not yet been victims of violent crimes? I doubt that their skepticism will be overcome by any less compelling argument...
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 01:03 AM   #38
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
As more and more people get a taste of 2A freedom they are not going to want to let it go. Those of you who have had CCWs for awhile, could you imagine giving them up easily?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 04:38 AM   #39
RDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
Quote:
The idea of punishing people who act out of ignorance isn't the way to do that. It's harder, but more rewarding in the long run, to take the time to convince the skeptics.
I hear you Tom but I just cannot do that any longer.

It's been too long and too irrational a fight waged by the anti-gunners for me to placate them any longer. I just don't have the patience to argue with them or try and convince them their beliefs are incorrect.

The younger guys and gals will have to pick up the torch in this regard. I just can't do it any longer.

That said, as I and Maestro have been saying, when McDonald is decided, and hopefully goes our way, people who could not own firearms will now be able to. This will, perhaps, be the final "nail in the coffin" for the serious anti-gun movement?

Once a right is acknowledged and "practiced", it is very hard for people to give that right up IMHO.

Quote:
I believe they are motivated by an intense desire to win at all costs - to control "how things shall be", and are genuinely convinced that a magical absence of legal firearms ownership would lead to an drastic reduction of crime - despite brutal evidence to the contrary in both cases. "Guns" per se have taken a back seat to this desperate need to control their environment, to enforce their personal utopian dreams on the rest of society.

I wonder to what extent it may be true that "anti-gunners" are simply individuals who have not yet been victims of violent crimes? I doubt that their skepticism will be overcome by any less compelling argument...
I think to many of us, you have hit the nail on the head Doc (and Mack).

And this is why I just don't have the patience to argue with their irrational position any longer. I'm just plain getting too old and worn out to do so.
RDak is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 11:58 AM   #40
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
It's been too long and too irrational a fight waged by the anti-gunners for me to placate them any longer. I just don't have the patience to argue with them or try and convince them their beliefs are incorrect.
But how many hard-core anti-gunners are left at this point, and how much influence do they really have? Trust me, folks have been quietly defecting from their camp for quite some time.

This was the point of my earlier posts in this thread. Fifteen years ago, I was terrified of the Brady Campaign. When that guy ran his plane into the IRS building a few weeks back, I immediately had flashbacks to Oklahoma city, and I was on pins and needles expecting the the media to blame us somehow (they did back then).

And yet, nothing. Same with the Seattle Jewish center shooting and the one in Birmingham.

Nobody shows pictures of Klan rallies and neo-Nazi militia drills when they talk of guns on the evening news anymore. I haven't seen or heard of Henigan, Brady or Sugarmann on any major outlet in years.

Public opinion has changed in our favor drastically over the last decade. The stakes aren't as high as they were back then, and our mission has become more subtle. We need to be changing the hearts and minds of those in the middle.

Don't bother with the moonbats; they won't be convinced by any means. The folks we need to win over are the ones who aren't involved in the issue but don't oppose it, either. That leaves (at a guess) 80% of this country.

Those are people who may not have had a problem with the Assault Weapons Ban as it was advertised, but who would have definitely opposed it had they known the truth. These are the folks you don't see protesting Starbucks (for either side) in front of the news cameras. These are the folks who never get involved one way or another.

But they spend money, and the vote.

The good news is that they're somewhat sympathetic towards the 2nd Amendment. The bad news? That can change if we spook them by screaming confrontational slogans our acting like we're on some kind of holy crusade.

I know there are some folks, especially in the newest generation, who have a "what part of shall not be infringed" take-no-prisoners approach to the cause. It would be charming if it wasn't counterproductive. We can print all the catchy t-shirts and crow for the approval of each other all we want. It changes nothing.

Neither does picking fights with the anti-gunners who are left. They won't be convinced, and if those representing us can't show a little temperance, they might be able to turn a few folks away from us.

We have the facts. We are in the right. Calm voices win the day on this one.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 01:37 PM   #41
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
I know some are older on here, and some have been involved in the issue longer than I may have been, but there definitely is a part of me that agrees with RDak - or as they say, "its not so much the age as it is the mileage."

Tom I agree that more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar, but the truth is the older I get the more direct and less diplomatic I feel. The only thing that saves me from being rudely direct and honest with people at times is that - I've been there, done that - meaning I've had that argument or debate before and I don't feel like wasting my time doing it again - so sometimes I do keep my mouth shut - sometimes.

So, I am glad that there are good patient ambassadors out there like Tom. But I would argue that the take no enemies camp is important too. I think of it like the NRA, SAF, JPFO and so on. You have the moderate voice of the NRA, a voice that is needed to be the largest umbrella of gun owners not just RKBA activists, but also individuals who are mostly just hunters or sport shooters. Yet there is a need for the more aggressive organizations like the JPFO - that cut to the chase and yell "shall not be infringed" from the roof tops. In the end they complement each other, those on the extreme edge make the NRA seem moderate by comparison. A version of good cop, bad cop if you will. Some are spiritual or ideological leaders and others are practical builders. Consider the NRA - dragged kicking and screaming by Gura and Levy into Heller - or Gura going for a home run with PoI in McDonald and the NRA going strictly with DP and their case and then McDonald. Both are important. In my state the NRA affiliate state rifle association was loath at times to push aggressive legislation - but upstart local organizations pushed ahead on issues anyway. The state association got to be moderate pal to skittish legislators and the locals got things fired up. Just like with Open Carry advocates and the NRA and CCW groups - Open Carry is a lightning rod, they start debates, the NRA sits in the background with CCW ready to reap benefits - and in the end the whole carry movement goes forward. Open Carry argues to normalize people carrying loaded guns openly so it becomes normalized - while NRA pushes shall issue CCW. In the end public awareness is raised and people are confronted with the issue of RKBA and forced to think about it - and more people carry and get CCW and CCW laws are liberalized. And sometimes even open carry wins. Just like for every prudent Craig Boddington or Massad Ayoob we need an Elmer Keith or Jeff Cooper.

Me, the older I get, the more salt and vinegar I like.
mack59 is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 05:09 PM   #42
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Tom Servo:
Quote:
Please don't take offense, but couching it in those terms is exactly why some people are leery of the gun culture.

Too many people in our camp are very quick to fume and castigate when someone questions the wisdom, legality or practicality of what we do. Perhaps that energy would be better spent changing hearts and minds than reacting with vitriol.

The idea of punishing people who act out of ignorance isn't the way to do that. It's harder, but more rewarding in the long run, to take the time to convince the skeptics.
I don't take offense, Tom. We're here to debate, so let the debating continue. You make relevent points.

I don't think the people who are winnable, yet might be leery of the gun culture, are the ones who immediately call 911 when they see someone open carrying or suspect someone is carrying concealed. Thus, they would not be my target for small fines when the cops are called to the scene.

I do whatever I can to convince the skeptics, but I don't think they are the problem when it comes to yelling for the authorities at the mere sight of a gun in public, carried by a non uniformed individual. I would be after people like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Hennighan, etc. Those are people who will never be convinced and who, I'm guessing, would see nothing wrong with calling the cops when they've cited a handgun in public, being carried by a non uniformed individual.

They are wrong headed and they suck up valuable police time in solving real crimes or catching people running red lights, etc. (I almost go hit by one of those maniacs a few months ago with my kids in the car. Good thing I look both ways even on green. They are a real menace to public safety.)

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with you. However, I don't like to hear stories of people calling the cops to harrass law abiding citizens for being law abiding citizens. I'd like to see some way to make them (the folks who make the calls) rethink what they are really doing when they call the police and why. That's my beef. We can debate about the best way to go about it. Maybe a fine isn't the best way, but it's a good opening point to debate how we can be more effective in protecting the rights of the law abiding gun owner from undue harrassment from the authorities, just because some person who is scared of guns calls the authorities for no real good reason.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 06:01 PM   #43
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
However, I don't like to hear stories of people calling the cops to harrass law abiding citizens for being law abiding citizens. I'd like to see some way to make them (the folks who make the calls) rethink what they are really doing when they call the police and why.
I don't have any statistics or sources for this but I am willing to bet big that most folk who call 911 when they see OC are not wanting to "harass" a law abiding gun owner. I believe they are not used to seeing someone carrying around a gun in public and so they are frightened. With the incidences of mass killings and spree murderers that keep being broadcast by the media I think their fear is explainable.

We had a dim-witted kook here in Nashville who walked about a suburban nature park in military style cammies with an AK-47 handgun configuration slung over his shoulder scaring the heck out of the bird watchers. Park Rangers were called and he was released after questioning. Later, the idiot walked down the middle of Belle Meade Boulevard (ritzy part of town) carrying a pistol openly in his hand. Police were called and later this numbskull sued the police and park rangers for "violating his civil rights".

Fortunately, his CCW was been suspended by the state and I hope permanently.

Tom is completely right in his ideas that trying to "punish" folk for being afraid of firearms could backfire and only bring us more gun control attempts that the courts MAY NOT overturn.

Better IMHO to teach and encourage tolerance than get militant and try to ram it down their throats.

While Heller, McDonald and other cases have and will indeed secure more lost rights for gun owners I submit we will NEVER see any gun, anywhere, anyone as law and that the fed, states and local authorities will still have some descretion in regulating guns. I think being good citizens will secure more tolerance in those cases where descretion is exercised rather than militant activity that could backfire into more regulation.

Remember, many movements and strategies can be undone by overplaying one's hand.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 15, 2010 at 06:49 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 08:34 PM   #44
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
TG:
Quote:
I don't have any statistics or sources for this but I am willing to bet big that most folk who call 911 when they see OC are not wanting to "harass" a law abiding gun owner. I believe they are not used to seeing someone carrying around a gun in public and so they are frightened. With the incidences of mass killings and spree murderers that keep being broadcast by the media I think their fear is explainable.

We had a dim-witted kook here in Nashville who walked about a suburban nature park in military style cammies with an AK-47 handgun configuration slung over his shoulder scaring the heck out of the bird watchers. Park Rangers were called and he was released after questioning. Later, the idiot walked down the middle of Belle Meade Boulevard (ritzy part of town) carrying a pistol openly in his hand. Police were called and later this numbskull sued the police and park rangers for "violating his civil rights".
I'm not hard core in calling for the anti gunners to be punished, I'm mostly expressing a frustration level with them making life uncomfortable for other law abiding people, just because they feel uncomfortable.

Your anecdote is certainly one which calls for caution. I don't disagree. However, there was also an instance in Virginia, I believe, where several guys were in a restaurant OPEN CARRYING which was the only way to LEGALLY CARRY in an establishment which served alcohol, IIRC. Some one got upset with them, not because they were acting threatening or anything. As a matter of fact, if I recall the story, they had been there for quite some time before some imbecile got upset and decided to contact the police. It gets pretty tough when laws are written, law abiding citizens follow the law as they were written, yet still get hassled by authorities because some nincompoop "FEELS" uncomfortable around guns. The guns were in holsters. I think those gun owners rights were violated much more so than the dummy who called the cops. It riles me to read stories like that, just as much as it upsets me to read stories like yours. Which one is more common? I don't honestly know.

So, the question remains, what recourse do the law abiding gun owners have when they are singled out by anti gunners and the anti gunners call the authorities on them. It's almost slander to a degree. False police reporting? False accusations? What should be done? Nothing? Like health care reform, we can't just do nothing.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 08:50 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
However, there was also an instance in Virginia, I believe, where several guys were in a restaurant OPEN CARRYING which was the only way to LEGALLY CARRY in an establishment which served alcohol, IIRC. Some one got upset with them, not because they were acting threatening or anything. As a matter of fact, if I recall the story, they had been there for quite some time before some imbecile got upset and decided to contact the police.
Yes, but the open carry movement claims they do so with the intent of educating people. I'd think they'd take a situation like that to educate both the person calling the police and the responding officers, if necessary.

Furthermore, what good would it do to bring charges against the person calling? What if they just didn't know any better? Does punishing make them feel any better about our cause, or will it just fuel more resentment?

How do we know if we're punishing malice, or just ignorance? How does that make us better than them?

Here in Georgia, we have quite a few transplants from places like New York and New Jersey. Those people can be forgiven for thinking something's amiss when they see non-uniformed folks carrying.

Frankly, if someone wants to open carry, they should expect to be the center of attention. Many of them do it for exactly that reason. Well, if they're going to put themselves in that role, then their responsibility is to act as reasonable, temperate ambassadors of the gun culture.

To do otherwise (and I've seen this happen) is to reinforce the "militant" stereotype many people have regarding gun owners.

We're still fighting a war of public perception, and the opinion of the panicky soccer mom at table four matters.

Quote:
Fortunately, his CCW was been suspended by the state and I hope permanently.
I'm the last one to defend Mr. Embody's actions. I really am. But I can't help but wonder if the state made an unethical, and potentially dangerous, mistake in that case.

The question may justify a thread of its own...
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Last edited by Tom Servo; March 15, 2010 at 09:07 PM.
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 09:23 PM   #46
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Tom Servo:
Quote:
Frankly, if someone wants to open carry, they should expect to be the center of attention. Many of them do it for exactly that reason. Well, if they're going to put themselves in that role, then their responsibility is to act as reasonable, temperate ambassadors of the gun culture.
I believe the gentlemen in Virginia were acting reasonable. As a matter of fact, as I recall, they were sitting by themselves, minding their own business. They weren't doing anything to call unnecessary attention to themselves, other than openly carrying.

Maybe punishing the caller is not going to be useful. If not, then what should be done about a situation similar to Virginia where a citizen or group of citizens is carrying a firearm in a legal manner, and some nitwit gets his undies in a bundle about it. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the "caller" is ignorant of the law(s) and calls for the authorities, what should be the remedy to reduce or attempt to prevent such calls in the future. Let's debate that, not whether open carrying in public is wrong or too agressive for the gun culture. I say it's wrong and too agressive for people to call the authorities when people are open carrying and obeying the laws while doing so.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 10:08 PM   #47
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the "caller" is ignorant of the law(s) and calls for the authorities, what should be the remedy to reduce or attempt to prevent such calls in the future.
There are remedies, but they require some proactive steps.

First off, IIRC, Virginia is an unlicensed open carry state. Folks there should have been in touch with local law enforcement to educate them on the laws. People should be taking a few minutes with the local chief of police to sit down and explain that the mere presence of a gun does not constitute crime or threat. The chief can then instruct his officers accordingly.

People are doing this, right? Please tell me I'm not the only one.

Cops have better things to do than respond to nuisance "man with a gun" calls, and the 911 operators can defuse many such situations by asking the caller whether or not the person with the gun is doing anything odd besides simply being in possession of a gun. If the caller states that there is no present threat, the operator can quickly explain that the person's behavior is legal.

Quote:
I say it's wrong and too agressive for people to call the authorities when people are open carrying and obeying the laws while doing so.
I've been made, and I was once hassled about it. It was a quick and minor inconvenience. It'll happen; it comes with the territory. When did the gun culture suddenly become the Sensitivity Squad?

Like I said, if it happens (and it will), use it as an opportunity to educate. It may be a chance to make a person comfortable being around folks with guns. You may even gain an ally out of it.

The worst-case scenario is to say, "well, I'm sorry you feel that way" and go about your business. On one occasion, the officer told the guy that for me.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 15, 2010, 10:54 PM   #48
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
So, the question remains, what recourse do the law abiding gun owners have when they are singled out by anti gunners and the anti gunners call the authorities on them.
Again, I am not sure that everyone who would do that is "anti-gun" but if they do it in a harassing manner (eg follow you around calling in complaints) then you could take action against them maybe thru civil means.

I would talk to the Chief LEO or my local political representative. Write letters to the editor etc. Raise awareness.

You can't nail them for a false report if all they say is "I see a man with a gun" because that is true. The police have to be careful because the minute they choose NOT to respond and something goes south then they burn for it.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 12:00 AM   #49
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
The police have to be careful because the minute they choose NOT to respond and something goes south then they burn for it.
But they don't burn, really. What's wrong with dispatcher asking a few questions of the caller, such as: Is he threatening anybody? Is he pointing the gun at anyone? Does he seem angry? What is he doing right now? What is he saying? If there is clearly no issue other than an individual lawfully carrying a firearm then there is no reason to dispatch whatsoever.

This is where we are ultimately going if bearing is upheld in future cases, and it is exactly what is done in loaded-open-carry states like Vermont, and Arizona. If we really want to learn what works in the area of policing open carry of guns, why not turn to the folks that do it every day. LE in these pro-carry states are aghast at the way citizens are treated in CA, and other similar places.

As most of us know by now, LE has no duty to protect, but they do have a duty not to violate civil rights.

If an officer proned-out an individual for no other reason than the fact that he/she is lawfully carrying a weapon, they WOULD get burned for it, and they should.

This is what is done in many jurisdictions. So, if LE DOES respond and observes the subject of the call gassing up his car, or mowing the lawn or dropping off dry cleaning, or walking the dog, and no evidence of any threat or a crime exists, or even disorderly conduct, that should be the end of it. If it's CA, the responding officer may elect to do a loaded check, because in that state, for now, the pistol must be unloaded. But THAT'S IT.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 16, 2010 at 12:17 AM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 06:42 AM   #50
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
What's wrong with dispatcher asking a few questions of the caller, such as: Is he threatening anybody? Is he pointing the gun at anyone? Does he seem angry? What is he doing right now? What is he saying? If there is clearly no issue other than an individual lawfully carrying a firearm then there is no reason to dispatch whatsoever.
And this reply should be in the 911 call response manual in every open carry jurisdiction! Under "MAN WITH A GUN" section... subsection (page 2) holstered firearm...

For a method of civil disobedience, folks could... NAY... SHOULD call 911 to report every uniformed officer open carrying in public. They are no different than us! Many are not as mentally stable as most gun toters and MOST leos do not fire near the rounds down range in practice as we do.

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16794 seconds with 7 queries