16 Open Carriers vs Several Police Officers!

[Roadie]

My way of thinking is, People OC all the time without incident. Comparing this to Parks would be saying that every time someone OCs, they are hassled for it.
That simply isnt the case, as stated by MANY in this thread.
Again, everyone sees things differently, and as is common with our own ideas, I mentioned that when I shouldnt have....apparently, as Doc Holiday said in Tombstone, My hypocrisy knows no bounds....

It's a common misconception about the Rosa Parks story, no worries

And yes, many OC without incident, my point however is that there are quite a few that get hassled for it.

Sadly, some get hassled for volunteering that they are carrying, hence why I personally am skittish to do so..

I don't volunteer I am carrying a knife, nor a tire iron, a hammer, a baseball bat, etc, all can do harm, but all, like my gun they are all legal, so why should I have to declare any of them?

 

[Lodogg2221]

It's a common misconception about the Rosa Parks story, no worries

And yes, many OC without incident, my point however is that there are quite a few that get hassled for it.

Sadly, some get hassled for volunteering that they are carrying, hence why I personally am skittish to do so..

I don't volunteer I am carrying a knife, nor a tire iron, a hammer, a baseball bat, etc, all can do harm, but all, like my gun they are all legal, so why should I have to declare any of them?

I dont know. Seems like if its legal, unless you have done something to warrant an LEO talking to you specifically about your weapon, there shouldnt be an issue of any kind at all.
I think the major issue here is that lots of people are alarmed when they see someone carrying a gun openly, and things like the above video result. We need to change that from "alarm" to "accepted", and I just wish I knew the magic phrase or paragraph I could memorize that would make people ok with it in any circumstance or any building/school/mall, etc...

 

[Roadie]

I dont know. Seems like if its legal, unless you have done something to warrant an LEO talking to you specifically about your weapon, there shouldnt be an issue of any kind at all.
I think the major issue here is that lots of people are alarmed when they see someone carrying a gun openly, and things like the above video result. We need to change that from "alarm" to "accepted", and I just wish I knew the magic phrase or paragraph I could memorize that would make people ok with it in any circumstance or any building/school/mall, etc...

Agreed. However, there are a few cases out there on INGO where a law abiding citizen/citizens were OCing in public and were detained, in a couple cases cuffed, merely for carrying.

Some of those can't talk about it as there is ongoing litigation..

 

[NDguido]

The push back is that EVERYBODY knew why the cops where there (right), and nobody met them at the door, or went outside, to "just tell their side" of the stroy, instead, everybody sat (acting defiant) (recording, mumbling) and hey, the respectful thing would be have one in your group, go willingly and say, "we are just out for a meal, exing our 2nd rights, sorry for the hassle". DONE easy peasy.

But everyone sat, waiting for a faux confrontation including recording it, THAT's what I mean by "push back". They were likely on your side (as you found out) but they had to have gotten a call to be there, so one of you could and I say should have made it easier. you can disagree, that's fine, I am just saying, someone should have manned up and spoke for the group out of respect for the cops and your group.

People keep saying "someone called".............there's a problem with that logic. If somebody called, then that person was ignorant about the law.

The police would have much better served to investigate the call (which i have no problem with), and then when they saw that it was simply a group of people enjoying a meal, they should have educated the "caller" that the state they live in allows open carrying of a firearm and that the group of people had just as much right as the "caller" had to be there.

 

[7.62]

That's awesome. They looked completely confused on what to do!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You cant have it both ways, either we can all have our differing opinions, or we can just FORCE others to think as we do.

Obviously you do not understand my viewpoint nor my argument. I was responding to someone who was bashing the subjects int he video for how they chose to respond to police officers interupting their meal/meeting.

Talk all you want to police as it is no sweat of my back but there is not really any benefit to it in the real world. The fact remains if you are committing a crime, they will arrest you. If you are not eventually they will either leave you alone or you can seek relief after the fact through complaints or litigation.

Does that help you understand my viewpoint?

 

[Lodogg2221]

Obviously you do not understand my viewpoint nor my argument. I was responding to someone who was bashing the subjects int he video for how they chose to respond to police officers interupting their meal/meeting.

Talk all you want to police as it is no sweat of my back but there is not really any benefit to it in the real world. The fact remains if you are committing a crime, they will arrest you. If you are not eventually they will either leave you alone or you can seek relief after the fact through complaints or litigation.

Does that help you understand my viewpoint?

Yes. As I mentioned, I can see both sides, just trying to get more insight on them though, so I can better undestand why either side does what they do.

Ive been really guilty of saying that we need to understand that there are differing opinions, and then tyring to talk down the other opinion in an argument, though usually those arent gun related (I guess Im lucky that most of my friends think as I do in that regard). In this case, Im trying not to do that and to really understand both sides....

 

[japartridge]

If you want to play that game, that's fine. The state statute does state that all you need to give LE are those items, but you can bet for dang sure you're going to stand there until that information is confirmed. I'm not trying to be an ass, but if you can present an ID, just do it if an officer has a legitimate purpose to ask for id info... it makes both lives easier. A person shouldn't have to carry an ID card on them at all times unless driving... that is the point of the legislation, but it makes it easier for you and me if you can produce something with real data on it.

Especially true if you're giving info to confirm a LTCH. I would even go as far as to ask for a pic from dispatch if possible.

As for the JBT comment, I'm usually all for some of the fun stuff on here, but keep in mind that many of these guys/girls enjoy doing the job to help society. A person called it in and no matter the personal opinion of the officer with that situation, they still serve the public and must respond to investigate. They have supervisors and other taxpayers other than you to answer to.

This isn't always the case... I was involved in a stop by an officer that had not received any call, I handed him my LTCH and then he demanded my ID, called in, verified it, and attempted to belittle and intimidate me into concealing... I had to stand around in the parking lot of a gas station for having nothing wrong. I attempted to be polite and professional at all times, he did not. Lucky for me I knew my rights, and I'm not easy to intimidate (6'7", 350#, and equally armed at the time).

 

[N8RV]

It looks like all sides of the OC argument are being represented here, so no comment is required on my part.

However, we all should agree that our little piece of pink paper IS pretty lame. If the state is going to go to the trouble to require us to have a license of some sort to exercise our right to carry, then why not have a photo on it? As was mentioned, if I am asked to procure my LTCH by a LEO, how can he know who I am and if that stupid piece of paper is really mine if I can't prove that it belongs to me?

You can argue amongst yourselves if we should really have to have a license in the first place, but the fact remains that, as long as our LTCH is that moronic, cheap, pink slip of paper and not a photo ID, it only makes sense to show another form of ID to a LEO to validate the info on the LTCH.

It's not rocket surgery, folks. You can make the encounter as easy or as hard as you like, depending on your time availability and whether your lawyer is on retainer and speed-dial on your cell phone.

 

[Signal23]

People keep saying "someone called".............there's a problem with that logic. If somebody called, then that person was ignorant about the law.

YEP, Ton's of people........even some LEO's think Indiana is a Concealed Carry Only state.

"So then the person that called was ignorant about the law" .......YES, Tons of them are sheep and have no idea, and frankly, they don't care...........because Idol comes on in an hour............they live in a world of denial.

that's why surprising THEM with 20 open carry guys made the phone ring, they don't get it and don't want to.

Fast forward, those 20 guys could have walked in with AR's (legal) on their backs as well........how do you think the sheep would have liked that.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

It looks like all sides of the OC argument are being represented here, so no comment is required on my part.

However, we all should agree that our little piece of pink paper IS pretty lame. If the state is going to go to the trouble to require us to have a license of some sort to exercise our right to carry, then why not have a photo on it? As was mentioned, if I am asked to procure my LTCH by a LEO, how can he know who I am and if that stupid piece of paper is really mine if I can't prove that it belongs to me?

You can argue amongst yourselves if we should really have to have a license in the first place, but the fact remains that, as long as our LTCH is that moronic, cheap, pink slip of paper and not a photo ID, it only makes sense to show another form of ID to a LEO to validate the info on the LTCH.

It's not rocket surgery, folks. You can make the encounter as easy or as hard as you like, depending on your time availability and whether your lawyer is on retainer and speed-dial on your cell phone.

It is not my problem that Indiana law does not require me to show identification to appease an officers concern. I will follow Indiana law to the letter and I expect nothing less from a LEO.

If I had my way we would not have to show anything to carry.

 

[TheReaper]

It is not my problem that Indiana law does not require me to show identification to appease an officers concern. I will follow Indiana law to the letter and I expect nothing less from a LEO.

If I had my way we would not have to show anything to carry.

This is why the law needs to be changed to require it.

 

[KG1]

This is why the law needs to be changed to require it.

How come? What is your reasoning for this comment? Just curious.

 

[mrproc1]

That was PAINFULL to watch... that was 6.42 mins of a screaming kid, give him a steak burger or a shake!!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

This is why the law needs to be changed to require it.

You will not only be fighting me tooth and nail the whole way you will be bucking the trend of expanding our rights rather than infringing upon them.

Good luck.

 

[KG1]

You will not only be fighting me tooth and nail the whole way you will be bucking the trend of expanding our rights rather than infringing upon them.

Good luck.

I'm getting the vibe that he would be just fine with that.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I'm getting the vibe that he would be just fine with that.

Of course he is, I just want him to realize the fight he is in for. Government works for the people and I intend to keep it that way.

 

[TheReaper]

I'm getting the vibe that he would be just fine with that.

You're correct, I would be fine with having to show a LTCH being put back into law....so?!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You're correct, I would be fine with having to show a LTCH being put back into law....so?!

Your response to me was that you supported forcing people to show identification along with a LTCH to an investigating officer.

 

[NDguido]

People keep saying "someone called".............there's a problem with that logic. If somebody called, then that person was ignorant about the law.

YEP, Ton's of people........even some LEO's think Indiana is a Concealed Carry Only state.

"So then the person that called was ignorant about the law" .......YES, Tons of them are sheep and have no idea, and frankly, they don't care...........because Idol comes on in an hour............they live in a world of denial.

that's why surprising THEM with 20 open carry guys made the phone ring, they don't get it and don't want to.

Fast forward, those 20 guys could have walked in with AR's (legal) on their backs as well........how do you think the sheep would have liked that.

It doesn't matter. A simple observation on the part of the police would have eliminated any fears of trouble. The onus is on the police to be aware of the law, especially when they are called to a scene that specifically deals with a certain law. Why are they even responding to the call? They are ill-equipped to enforce laws if they don't even know what they are.

There is zero excuse at this present time for ANY officer of the law to be ignorant about gun laws in their state. School shootings, gun legislation and the 2A have been in the news FAR too long lately for departments to not have this topic near the top of their lists.