Former active duty Marine openly carrying handgun turned away from poll location - Page 2

Patriot86 · May 12, 2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

I am not big on OC, but sometimes when I see the attacks on OC from TFL members, all I can picture is black people worrying that Rosa Parks might get the white folks all riled up if she doesn't move to the back of the bus - her insistence at keeping her seat could cause repercussions...

BIG +1

Pond, James Pond · May 12, 2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

No one in this country should have to set aside one right in order to exercise another.

Hence why he could have then made a big song and dance about it after having had to vote without his gun.....

I feel the underlying message he gave the staff at that poling station was, "carrying my gun into this building, for the next 5 minutes is more important to me than my democratic right to vote"

After all, polling day is just that: one day.
Miss that and you've lost your chance...

Personally, I see that as the wrong message.

Quote:

However, open carry IS legal where the incident took place, so why should he be expected to leave the gun in his car? The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2A is a "fundamental" right and that a "core purpose" of the 2A is self-defense. Rights that are not exercised are lost.

Is the Second Amendment specifically geared toward open carry?

gunsmokeTPF · May 12, 2012, 12:48 PM

Deleted, cause not worth responding.

MLeake · May 12, 2012, 01:03 PM

If you wish to take things personally, gunsmokeTPF, that's your prerogative. However, you are putting words in the mouths of others. Please show me where Patriot86 or I told you that you (or any other TFL member - you were only singled out in your own mind) that you could not voice an opinion.

We obviously disagree with your (and some others') position. That is hardly the same as imposing a gag order.

If you have been admonished by the moderators for wording things in an intemperate manner, welcome to the club. I don't know what you wrote, that drew their negative attention. I know that the times I've received PMs from staff, I really couldn't take offense - some of my remarks had been provocative.

I still think that denigrating OC ultimately only helps to subvert a right. Do some engage in OC in a way that smacks of bravado or immaturity? Yes. Do some people speak in unwise or immature ways? Also, yes - and yet one does not see 1st Amendment supporters saying fools should not talk.

(Again, not a personal attack, just a general statement.)

hogdogs · May 12, 2012, 01:10 PM

Gunsmoke, The reason I sent you PM regarding your wording in a different post is I feel obliged to try and show others what is required as a member here at TFL...

You see, I am a "Poster Child" for the tolerance of the staff here... In my early days here, I was gleefully skating on some rather thin ice until I got past the "non-conformist" in my nature...

Since you are still here... you are just another of a long list of "Poster Children" for their tolerance... and patience...
Regards,
Brent

Water-Man · May 12, 2012, 01:11 PM

A clear demonstration of a lack of common sense.

gunsmokeTPF · May 12, 2012, 01:20 PM

MLeake, I decided to erase my post to avoid getting into any deep discussion concerning this matter. I was suspended for responding to a personal attack on the Ted Nugent thread. That you can checkout if you'd like to. I'm sorry but I grew up defending myself and spending many years as a street cop also taught me to not back down to any kind of opposition whether it be verbal and physical.

I'm not going to argue with those controling this forum. Rules must be followed whether, or not liked, or disliked. We all bend and like I wrote before, gays have legal standing now, but it's wise for those individuals not to throw their preferences into people's faces, just as an example when the ex- grunt wouldn't put the gun away. Polling places are filled with very high emotions. People have their kids there, as well as elderly persons. Being stubborn is sometimes being very stupid.

overkill0084 · May 12, 2012, 01:51 PM

The problem is that there is this "If I don't like it, it must be illegal" mentality that is gaining traction among govt functionaries. It must be called out and corrected.
The fact that they were either lying to him or incompetent doesn't really help matters.

Quote:

But the officers could not find a statute that clearly outlined the situation they found themselves in.
After about an hour and a half; the officers, who had asked for assistance from the Election Board, were provided a state statute (35-47-2-1) and relayed it to Edinger, telling him that it kept him from being able to bring the gun inside.
Edinger was skeptical, however, and opted to return home to look the statute up, instead of the solution of locking his gun in his car and voting first as Vanoverberghe offered.
After Edinger left, we began to do some research of our own. We quickly found that IC 35-47-2-1 dealt with the regulation of handguns; specifically, the carrying of handguns without a license or by a person convicted of domestic battery, and the exceptions there in.
There was no indication, nor intimation, that Edinger has ever been convicted of domestic battery; and Edinger is licensed to carry the gun.
It was clear this statute did not apply in this situation.
We contacted the County Clerk’s office, elections department and were connected with the Clerk herself.
Terri Rethlake admitted they had passed on an incorrect statute, seemingly by mistake. She said they had been provided the information by one of the general consul for the Election Board, Leslie Barnes.
We contacted Barnes, who told us she had been given information by the Indiana State Police, and provided us a number to reach them at.
We contacted the State Police at the number provided, but the individual was unable to help us as his equipment was not allowing him to access the state statutes electronically.
He transferred us to the Indianapolis Division of the State Police, where two officers spent the better part of an hour looking for a statute that would prohibit Edinger from bringing the gun inside.
They even enlisted the help of an attorney, who also could not locate such a statute in the same time frame and given the resources they had at the time.
About 30 minutes before the polls closed, Edinger returned to the fire department and waited for a St. Joseph County officer to arrive.
The officer spoke to Edinger and told him that even he, the officer, could not wear his gun into the building to vote.
The officer said he had been told this while working for the South Bend Police Department four years prior.
He could not remember the State Statute that he had been shown.

Come on. Seriously? Everyone involved either needs a new job that doesn't require reading or, at a minimum, remedial training.

gunsmokeTPF · May 12, 2012, 01:54 PM

Hogdogs, I thank you for your wise choice of words. You're correct in all you say. I never thought that this open carry thread would spread out to a different direction and that's why I erased my post, unfortunately not fast enough.

I just recently got into a little trouble cause I typed &^$%* instead of writing what I wanted in order to possibly avoid a warning. At the end of my post I deliberately stated to not perceive these to be curse words. I never use curse words on forums and don't like reading them, cause it lowers the level of the discussion. The words were descriptive and I didn't know if they'd be acceptable. I received no warning, just was given 2 points for words known only by myself.

By showing you now what I wrote might get me smacked in the head again and nothing surprises me. I'm not a non conformist, cause I've conformed my entire life. I don't enjoy breaking rules either. I'm on here to learn from others and maybe add to some discussions hopefully. I'm not coming on here to argue, cause I've been married 42 years and have an expert to argue with.

Anyway, that guy's gun should've been put away. There's a bigger fight across this country regarding just owning a firearm and concealed carry like in places like Illinois.

**Aguila Blanca** · May 12, 2012, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rifleman1776

But my state, Arkansas, does not have an open carry law.

I think it does.

Anything that is not prohibited by law or regulation is legal. According to www.opencarry.org, Arkansas does not allow open carry. That means there must be a state law that prohibits open carry, so you DO have an open carry law. It's just not a law that authorizes open carry, but rather prohibits it.

Conn. Trooper · May 12, 2012, 02:29 PM

Really?

The law in Connecticut is that you can't carry without a permit. Once you have a permit, there is no law, statute, ordinance or regulation that says you must carry concealed, yet people all over your state have been arrested when open carrying. Typically, once the officer figures out that he can't use the carry statute, he defaults to that old standby: "Disturbing the peace."

Are you prepared to tell us that no Connecticut State Police troopers have ever done this?

Not even going down this road with you. We have done this dance over and over again in other threads, whatever your opinion is, it's not changing. I have never even seen or heard of anyone being arrested by the State Police for OC. Only case of an OC'er getting arrested, that I have even heard about was years ago by a local PD. I have been here over 15 years and that's the only case I have heard of. I have heard recently of a bill to ban open carry, because of the OC crowd bringing it to light that it is not specifically illegal. We shall see how that goes.

Skadoosh · May 12, 2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

No one in this country should have to set aside one right in order to exercise another.

Hence why he could have then made a big song and dance about it after having had to vote without his gun.....

Sigh. You would have him forfeit his 2nd Amendment right in order to practice his 15th Amendment right.

The former marine has the right to vote while wearing his gun but was prevented by authorities from doing so. Kowtowing to faulty authority is worse than not voting.

Pond, James Pond · May 12, 2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Sigh. You would have him forfeit his 2nd Amendment right in order to practice his 15th Amendment right.

The former marine has the right to vote while wearing his gun but was prevented by authorities from doing so.

Forfeit his Second Amendment right for all of 5 minutes.

I believe that people "forfeit" their second amendment rights in order to practice their right to an education whenever they have to enter a Uni campus unarmed...

He's now lost his democratic means of expressing his views, until the next time.

Quote:

Kowtowing to faulty authority is worse than not voting.

That is your view, and yet voting is the main means for citizens of a country to voice their opinion of faulty authority, and he walked away from it...

Skadoosh · May 12, 2012, 03:19 PM

Sigh again. You are so missing the point. If you are willing to voluntarily suspend a guaranteed right even for one second in order to exercise another guaranteed right, you open the door for someone else to suspend your rights indefinitely.

gunsmokeTPF · May 12, 2012, 03:34 PM

I'd like to see all states treat guns the way they do in Vermont. No license required and no registration. That's the way it should be and what happened with confiscations in New Orleans and forced sale of registered long guns banned in NYC won't ever happen. The strange thing is that Vermont has many liberals, but respect gun rights. Now isn't that just lovely?

I don't know how they'd react to someone coming into a polling place with a gun strapped on their hip, but under their living conditions if that was taboo it wouldn't bother me one bit. To keep and bare arms doesn't necessarilly mean they could be shoved in other people's faces. Sometimes even too much of a good thing can turn into a bad thing.

Pond, James Pond · May 12, 2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Sigh again. You are so missing the point, If you are willing to voluntarily suspend a guaranteed right even for one second .

Sigh all you like...
He did what you just decried:
He voluntarily suspended one of his own rights in favour of another, in this case the right to vote for however many years till the next polls.
How is that better?

The fact is the polling staff made a call.
We all agree it was the wrong one: no one is disputing that.
Saying that what they did was bad is now a moot point.

What remains to be decided is how you deal with that wrong call.

I don't believe boycotting the vote is the way to do it....

I asked for clarification on this earlier, but I don'teven know that Open Carry is part of the Second Amamendment. If it is not, this is not a Second Amendment issue, it is a state law issue and a local official education issue

MLeake · May 12, 2012, 03:57 PM

The gun in question was holstered, not being shoved in anybody's face.

The point remains, if something is a "right," then it shouldn't be subject to the arbitrary whims (or comfort levels) of others.

Telling the man he can't carry (with no law to back that up) is like telling gay people to stay closeted. If I could ban people from doing things I might find uncomfortable or distasteful, there might be a lot of disgruntled people out there.

Instead, if somebody does something that I don't like, but that is not illegal, I generally go elsewhere.

Edit: I agree with Pond. The carrier should have secured the weapon long enough to vote, and then filed either a complaint or a lawsuit. Unless his goal was to gain standing for a bigger lawsuit (IE, he can now state that he was harmed, by being blocked from voting).

Double Naught Spy · May 12, 2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Sigh again. You are so missing the point. If you are willing to voluntarily suspend a guaranteed right even for one second in order to exercise another guaranteed right, you open the door for someone else to suspend your rights indefinitely.

I don't know if you are up on current events or not, but the guaranteed right about which you speak isn't guaranteed anywhere in the country in which this event took place. It wasn't even guaranteed by the Founding Fathers involved in the penning of the amendment in that they acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed can be taken away from you. How is it a guaranteed right if they can take it from you? Ironic, no?

Water-Man · May 12, 2012, 04:33 PM

There are some people who don't seem to understand the saying 'Don't cut off your nose to spite your face'.

gunsmokeTPF · May 12, 2012, 04:33 PM

Carrying a gun in the open in unsuitable locations is brandishing a weapon and is very much the equal to kinda sticking it in someone's face. There are people who are scared to death of guns and never even touched one. Sometimes you gotta show a little respect for others. As long as you can carry concealed it's sufficient enough. Besides, those who open carry are more likey to be confronted than someone concealing their weapon. That's a fact that's dictated by common sense. I always preferred plainclothes to being an open target in uniform. Being able to surprise a perp is advantagous with the man carrying concealed and not a showoff wannabe Rambo.

Even when the country was founded their long guns, which realistically would be difficult to conceal and knives were left at the door when go'in to church, social events, court and places where voting took place, so as to not intimidate other voters. I find that most who insist on carrying openly in the most inappropriate places have something lacking in them that they feel either more secure, or more macho by showing off their gun.

This isn't Israel where people are being blown up all the time. They carry full auto Uzi's to the beach while in bathing suits. Who in their right mind would want to live under those conditions? Maybe one day it'll happen even here. I have a wonderful ak I can carry out there, but I prefer not to, cause I've seen too many people killed in my lifetime. If everyone carried open in our cities how would a police officer even know who to challenge?

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms , which is wonderful, but have the common sense to bare it in your pocket, or under your shirt. There's a time and place for everything, which also includes open carry. If we keep pushing for open carry in inappropriate locations then laws will be passed to ban it and that won't be prevented by quoting the 2nd amendment.

Brian Pfleuger · May 12, 2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunsmokeTPF

If everyone carried open in our cities how would a police officer even know who to challenge?

He could start (and end!) with the ones committing a crime, perhaps?

gunsmokeTPF · May 12, 2012, 05:10 PM

Obviously you have no police experience, cause perhaps like I've done on a couple of occassions stopped someone from getting shot. It wasn't very funny and is a little insulting to people who were and are presently in LE. This reply wasn't worth more than a couple of sentences.

Brian Pfleuger · May 12, 2012, 05:51 PM

Irrelevant.

This man was not and did not commit a crime. What he tried to do was not and is not illegal.

Perfectly legal activity was used to prevent his involvement in other perfectly legal activity.

Whether or not it makes us feel warm and fuzzy is irrelevant.

Should someone shouting racial slurs be prohibited from voting because we don't like the way they exercise their freedom of speech?

How about someone who wears a cross, if we happen to be atheists?

How about openly gay folks? Can they vote if I don't like the fact that they don't hide it in public?

THAT'S the point. I can pass off anything I want as being publicaly inappropriate, makes people nervous, lacks common sense, etc, etc.

Whatever. One right we DON'T have is the right to not be uncomfortable or offended by someone else's choices.

This sort of "presumptive, preemptive interference" reminds me of Minority Report.

gunsmokeTPF · May 12, 2012, 06:14 PM

Put on a uniform for crummy pay and strap a gun on in NYC's Washington Heights,or Brownsville in Brooklyn and then give me an educated opinion. It's easy to be casual about non existant rights, while sitting in the safety of your home.

Let someone stick a loaded colt 1908 to your belly and pull the trigger and not discharge due to a light hit to the primer, but go off when tested by the police lab. Right my eyeball. People who want to carry openly should do so in proper surroundings. This ain't Mayberry!

Obviously being a central New Yorker you're capable of protecting yourself, so I'd demand, since you don't require police protection, that you'd be given a reduction in taxes where police are concerned. You have a right to your opinion like I do. Also, please forgive me for being uncomfortable with people walking behind me with guns on their hip. It's just a quirk I had while in uniform.

Segerrik · May 12, 2012, 06:23 PM

God bless this Marine. He did not falter. He did not waver. He suffered the humiliation and the significant threat of arrest in order to stand up for his rights. He did not allow lies and false authority to strip him of his rights and his dignity. Even though he no longer wears the uniform, duty- honor- country still echoes in his deeds and demeanor.

Those that say ill of all who open carry seem quite narrow minded. It is open carry that is recognized as the right by the supreme court and concealed carry that the supreme court has relegated to behavior of scoundrels and cowards.

If fundamental rights can so easily be stripped away by the arbitrary feelings of others, then what rights are really safe?

Live Free or Die

May 12, 2012, 12:48 PM	#28
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	Deleted, cause not worth responding. Last edited by gunsmokeTPF; May 12, 2012 at 12:54 PM.

May 12, 2012, 03:19 PM	#39
Skadoosh Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2010 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 2,016	Sigh again. You are so missing the point. If you are willing to voluntarily suspend a guaranteed right even for one second in order to exercise another guaranteed right, you open the door for someone else to suspend your rights indefinitely. __________________ NRA Life Member USN Retired

May 12, 2012, 05:51 PM	#48
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Irrelevant. This man was not and did not commit a crime. What he tried to do was not and is not illegal. Perfectly legal activity was used to prevent his involvement in other perfectly legal activity. Whether or not it makes us feel warm and fuzzy is irrelevant. Should someone shouting racial slurs be prohibited from voting because we don't like the way they exercise their freedom of speech? How about someone who wears a cross, if we happen to be atheists? How about openly gay folks? Can they vote if I don't like the fact that they don't hide it in public? THAT'S the point. I can pass off anything I want as being publicaly inappropriate, makes people nervous, lacks common sense, etc, etc. Whatever. One right we DON'T have is the right to not be uncomfortable or offended by someone else's choices. This sort of "presumptive, preemptive interference" reminds me of Minority Report. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

May 12, 2012, 06:23 PM	#50
Segerrik Junior Member Join Date: July 27, 2011 Posts: 11	Good on you, Marine. I salute you. God bless this Marine. He did not falter. He did not waver. He suffered the humiliation and the significant threat of arrest in order to stand up for his rights. He did not allow lies and false authority to strip him of his rights and his dignity. Even though he no longer wears the uniform, duty- honor- country still echoes in his deeds and demeanor. Those that say ill of all who open carry seem quite narrow minded. It is open carry that is recognized as the right by the supreme court and concealed carry that the supreme court has relegated to behavior of scoundrels and cowards. If fundamental rights can so easily be stripped away by the arbitrary feelings of others, then what rights are really safe? Live Free or Die

May 12, 2012, 01:03 PM	#29
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	If you wish to take things personally, gunsmokeTPF, that's your prerogative. However, you are putting words in the mouths of others. Please show me where Patriot86 or I told you that you (or any other TFL member - you were only singled out in your own mind) that you could not voice an opinion. We obviously disagree with your (and some others') position. That is hardly the same as imposing a gag order. If you have been admonished by the moderators for wording things in an intemperate manner, welcome to the club. I don't know what you wrote, that drew their negative attention. I know that the times I've received PMs from staff, I really couldn't take offense - some of my remarks had been provocative. I still think that denigrating OC ultimately only helps to subvert a right. Do some engage in OC in a way that smacks of bravado or immaturity? Yes. Do some people speak in unwise or immature ways? Also, yes - and yet one does not see 1st Amendment supporters saying fools should not talk. (Again, not a personal attack, just a general statement.)

May 12, 2012, 01:10 PM	#30
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	Gunsmoke, The reason I sent you PM regarding your wording in a different post is I feel obliged to try and show others what is required as a member here at TFL... You see, I am a "Poster Child" for the tolerance of the staff here... In my early days here, I was gleefully skating on some rather thin ice until I got past the "non-conformist" in my nature... Since you are still here... you are just another of a long list of "Poster Children" for their tolerance... and patience... Regards, Brent

May 12, 2012, 01:11 PM	#31
Water-Man Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2008 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 2,126	A clear demonstration of a lack of common sense.

May 12, 2012, 01:20 PM	#32
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	MLeake, I decided to erase my post to avoid getting into any deep discussion concerning this matter. I was suspended for responding to a personal attack on the Ted Nugent thread. That you can checkout if you'd like to. I'm sorry but I grew up defending myself and spending many years as a street cop also taught me to not back down to any kind of opposition whether it be verbal and physical. I'm not going to argue with those controling this forum. Rules must be followed whether, or not liked, or disliked. We all bend and like I wrote before, gays have legal standing now, but it's wise for those individuals not to throw their preferences into people's faces, just as an example when the ex- grunt wouldn't put the gun away. Polling places are filled with very high emotions. People have their kids there, as well as elderly persons. Being stubborn is sometimes being very stupid.

May 12, 2012, 01:54 PM	#34
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	Hogdogs, I thank you for your wise choice of words. You're correct in all you say. I never thought that this open carry thread would spread out to a different direction and that's why I erased my post, unfortunately not fast enough. I just recently got into a little trouble cause I typed &^$%* instead of writing what I wanted in order to possibly avoid a warning. At the end of my post I deliberately stated to not perceive these to be curse words. I never use curse words on forums and don't like reading them, cause it lowers the level of the discussion. The words were descriptive and I didn't know if they'd be acceptable. I received no warning, just was given 2 points for words known only by myself. By showing you now what I wrote might get me smacked in the head again and nothing surprises me. I'm not a non conformist, cause I've conformed my entire life. I don't enjoy breaking rules either. I'm on here to learn from others and maybe add to some discussions hopefully. I'm not coming on here to argue, cause I've been married 42 years and have an expert to argue with. Anyway, that guy's gun should've been put away. There's a bigger fight across this country regarding just owning a firearm and concealed carry like in places like Illinois.

May 12, 2012, 02:29 PM	#36
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Really? The law in Connecticut is that you can't carry without a permit. Once you have a permit, there is no law, statute, ordinance or regulation that says you must carry concealed, yet people all over your state have been arrested when open carrying. Typically, once the officer figures out that he can't use the carry statute, he defaults to that old standby: "Disturbing the peace." Are you prepared to tell us that no Connecticut State Police troopers have ever done this? Not even going down this road with you. We have done this dance over and over again in other threads, whatever your opinion is, it's not changing. I have never even seen or heard of anyone being arrested by the State Police for OC. Only case of an OC'er getting arrested, that I have even heard about was years ago by a local PD. I have been here over 15 years and that's the only case I have heard of. I have heard recently of a bill to ban open carry, because of the OC crowd bringing it to light that it is not specifically illegal. We shall see how that goes.

May 12, 2012, 03:34 PM	#40
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	I'd like to see all states treat guns the way they do in Vermont. No license required and no registration. That's the way it should be and what happened with confiscations in New Orleans and forced sale of registered long guns banned in NYC won't ever happen. The strange thing is that Vermont has many liberals, but respect gun rights. Now isn't that just lovely? I don't know how they'd react to someone coming into a polling place with a gun strapped on their hip, but under their living conditions if that was taboo it wouldn't bother me one bit. To keep and bare arms doesn't necessarilly mean they could be shoved in other people's faces. Sometimes even too much of a good thing can turn into a bad thing.

May 12, 2012, 03:57 PM	#42
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	The gun in question was holstered, not being shoved in anybody's face. The point remains, if something is a "right," then it shouldn't be subject to the arbitrary whims (or comfort levels) of others. Telling the man he can't carry (with no law to back that up) is like telling gay people to stay closeted. If I could ban people from doing things I might find uncomfortable or distasteful, there might be a lot of disgruntled people out there. Instead, if somebody does something that I don't like, but that is not illegal, I generally go elsewhere. Edit: I agree with Pond. The carrier should have secured the weapon long enough to vote, and then filed either a complaint or a lawsuit. Unless his goal was to gain standing for a bigger lawsuit (IE, he can now state that he was harmed, by being blocked from voting).

May 12, 2012, 04:33 PM	#44
Water-Man Senior Member Join Date: March 23, 2008 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 2,126	There are some people who don't seem to understand the saying 'Don't cut off your nose to spite your face'.

May 12, 2012, 05:10 PM	#47
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	Obviously you have no police experience, cause perhaps like I've done on a couple of occassions stopped someone from getting shot. It wasn't very funny and is a little insulting to people who were and are presently in LE. This reply wasn't worth more than a couple of sentences.

May 12, 2012, 06:14 PM	#49
gunsmokeTPF Junior member Join Date: February 14, 2012 Posts: 268	Put on a uniform for crummy pay and strap a gun on in NYC's Washington Heights,or Brownsville in Brooklyn and then give me an educated opinion. It's easy to be casual about non existant rights, while sitting in the safety of your home. Let someone stick a loaded colt 1908 to your belly and pull the trigger and not discharge due to a light hit to the primer, but go off when tested by the police lab. Right my eyeball. People who want to carry openly should do so in proper surroundings. This ain't Mayberry! Obviously being a central New Yorker you're capable of protecting yourself, so I'd demand, since you don't require police protection, that you'd be given a reduction in taxes where police are concerned. You have a right to your opinion like I do. Also, please forgive me for being uncomfortable with people walking behind me with guns on their hip. It's just a quirk I had while in uniform.