a "WHAT IF" question for ya

[ThrottleJockey]

Unfortunately until the people who know the law concerning firearms educate those who don't, the police are going to continue to receive calls about people (lawfully) possessing firearms. Until that happens, how do we know what is our business and what isn't?

Wouldn't the community and our tax dollars be better served by just telling the caller that it isn't against the law for a man to have a gun and end the call. Then IF another call comes in about the man actually breaking the law, respond to it? Or just go to the area and keep an eye on the situation without violating a citizens rights?

 

[RobbLG]

Wasn't there a video on here with a news story about this exact thing? Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it...

 

[wtfd661]

Wouldn't the community and our tax dollars be better served by just telling the caller that it isn't against the law for a man to have a gun and end the call. Then IF another call comes in about the man actually breaking the law, respond to it? Or just go to the area and keep an eye on the situation without violating a citizens rights?

So are you able to determine over the phone what the intentions of the "man with a rifle" call is? If so I believe you have missed your calling.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

So are you able to determine over the phone what the intentions of the "man with a rifle" call is? If so I believe you have missed your calling.

No but since he isn't doing anything wrong just by having a gun slung over his shoulder, responding to the call to harass him is pretty much like having a "pre-crime" police force much like in the movie minority report. there is NO reason or excuse for responding to the fact that someone is in possession of a firearm. His intentions aren't a crime either. Besides, it's not like he's going to tell the responding officer what his intentions are if they are illegal anyways.

 

[wtfd661]

No but since he isn't doing anything wrong just by having a gun slung over his shoulder, responding to the call to harass him is pretty much like having a "pre-crime" police force much like in the movie minority report. there is NO reason or excuse for responding to the fact that someone is in possession of a firearm. His intentions aren't a crime either. Besides, it's not like he's going to tell the responding officer what his intentions are if they are illegal anyways.

How would it be "harassing" him by showing up and talking to him while investigating the call?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

He has done nothing illegal, showing up and interrogating him without reason to believe he is committing a crime = harassment.

 

[desmodue]

Yeah because thats what happened to bstewrat3 when he rode his bike through downtown, and what happened to IndyMonkey when he walked into the City Market (which was full of cops BTW) with a slung MP5.

Maybe all the Indy cops at City Market were sober that day.

 

[Rocket57]

It would be perfectly legal, but its obvious that some folks would be afraid, some police would respond, and most rational gun owners would probably also consider you an idiot.

I would be included in those that thought you an idiot. Just because something may be legal doesn't make it a wise thing to do. I see no usefull reason for pulling such a stunt. A planned march/gathering is one thing, a lone man (or woman?) walking around downtown with a shouldered AK would probably raise some eyebrows.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I would be included in those that thought you an idiot. Just because something may be legal doesn't make it a wise thing to do. I see no usefull reason for pulling such a stunt. A planned march/gathering is one thing, a lone man (or woman?) walking around downtown with a shouldered AK would probably raise some eyebrows.

Only because it isn't yet commonplace. The more people that do it, the more common it will become and the more likely others will begin to do so also. I for one take the exact OPPOSITE stance and say it IS a good idea...unless you aren't serious about furthering our cause of RTKBA/2A and would rather sit by and watch as our rights are gradually stripped one by one piece by piece......The second Amendment, use it or lose it.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Maybe all the Indy cops at City Market were sober that day.

I am so overcome by your wit...

 

[Sylvain]

Agreed with all the above. I have brought a scenario up close to that a couple of times, mentioning it's perfectly legal to go get a cup of coffee in your "tacticool" gear. AR hung in the ready with all of its bells and whistles gleaming. But, you need a pink piece of paper to be able to stick your .380 in your pocket and not tell anyone about it.

You dont have to keep your .380 secret as you can OC with your pink paper.

 

[RobbLG]

Only because it isn't yet commonplace. The more people that do it, the more common it will become and the more likely others will begin to do so also. I for one take the exact OPPOSITE stance and say it IS a good idea...unless you aren't serious about furthering our cause of RTKBA/2A and would rather sit by and watch as our rights are gradually stripped one by one piece by piece......The second Amendment, use it or lose it.

I would venture to say that it would never become commonplace... Stunts like this would just serve to "educate" the public that it isn't illegal... Gun Rights would lose in the court of public opinion and it would be a very easy sell for a politician to pass a law making it illegal... Thereby stripping you of that "piece" of your second amendment rights...

 

[Chase515]

I tried this when I was a child! I slung my red rider over my shoulder and went to the grocery store. The nice lady behind the counter took it from me while I went to the back and got my pepsi and a deli sandwich. After checking out she handed it back to me and I was on my way. No cops just respect for each other, she said not in my shop I said ok and we both got what we wanted.

 

[Bill of Rights]

no plans on doing this, its a though that just popped up in my head. What if you slung a shotgun,rifle,ar,ak etc. over you shoulder and went shopping downtown. what would happen and what could be done if anything could be done. like i said this is a random thought that popped in my head... no plans on doing this

do you think downtown would lock its doors knowing there is someone walking around with a rifle????

That depends.... Downtown where? (as in what city/town?)

In some places, you'd get proned out and cuffed while your intentions were determined. In others, you might get a second glance. Maybe. (Admittedly, the latter are becoming fewer and farther between.)

Most places, I think, would fall somewhere between those two extremes.

The old joke is that the sheriff went to a dinner where he was being given an award, when a snooty, "high society" lady approached him and disdainfully asked, "I see you brought your pistol, Sheriff. Are you expecting trouble?"
The sheriff set his coffee cup down and replied, "No Ma'am. If I was expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle."

The point? While a pistol might be considered borderline acceptable in some places, a long gun is a more serious tool for a different job, and is not as common nor as accepted. Now, before anyone jumps on that, personally, I think both are acceptable and it matters less what you carry and more what you intend to do with it. If I carry a tool with me, whether it's a Leatherman, a pocketknife, a P38 canopener on my keychain, or a pistol, I'm carrying something I think I might need. Of those, only my pistol has not proven to be needed to date.

I support the rights of those who have done the OC walks. That doesn't mean I think the walks or the people engaging in them are particularly wise ideas. Walking around with a long gun is, IMHO, more likely to draw attention to the fact that anyone can do so without any licensure or permission process (both of which I consider to be unnecessary infringements) and cause some eager beaver legislator or some soccer mom with a broomstick up her backside to raise a stink and attempt to implement those infringements.... and with the full backing of the TV, radio, and print media, along with folks like Ballard, Irsay, Helmke, etc., they just might manage to enact it. I'd much prefer to, like the Third Amendment, not use it and just hold it in reserve for the day that I do need it or choose to use it.

Some like to say that if we do not use our rights, we will lose them. I disagree. So far in my life, I've never had to use my right against self-incrimination, nor my right to counsel or to jury trial. I've never needed to use my right to not be subject to excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment. Would any dispute that I maintain those rights? Would any claim that I owe my ability to continue to exercise them to the criminals who do so regularly? No, I keep all my rights, even if I choose not to exercise them. I understand that the walkers are choosing to exercise their RKBA. Maybe they have accomplished good educational goals; I hope so. If they have, they've served a good purpose. As for me, I'll remain mindful of the Law of Unintended Consequences and refrain. For now. Today.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

You dont have to keep your .380 secret as you can OC with your pink paper.

I think his point was that you need a permission slip to legally carry that little .380 but you can carry an AR in .50 Beowulf with nothing more than good intentions and remain completely within the law.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BulkAmmo]

I'll leave the legalities of carry outdoors to a lawyer. There shouldn't be anything illegal about it though.

You will garner quite a bit of attention though. As long as you don't take a firearm into a place that doesn't want it you shouldn't be hassled too much.

__________________
bulk .38 spl ammo

 

[finity]

Reactive rather than proactive....common. They should mind their own business and respond to crime not some idiots idea of what MIGHT be a crime.

I think you're confused.

They aren't being REactive. They are being PROactive by confronting the person with the rifle & unknown intentions BEFORE they commit a crime.

This isn't aimed at you necessarily, ThrottleJockey as I think by the rest of your post I kind of *almost* agree with you, but as gun-owners (or probably just people in general) we seem to want it both ways. We say we carry guns because the cops aren't required to protect the public & many times don't/won't/can't (they aren't proactive) but as soon as the cops even START to act like they might be proactive then gun owners complain because they are "hassleing" people.

I also think that gun-owners tend to be over sensitive where guns are concerned but seem to be OK (generally) with the police being proactive in OTHER areas of society where THEY aren't affected. The same goes for non-gun owners, as well. People just tend to be OK with infringing on others rights...as long as they aren't the ones who are being infringed on & they have some "moral" idea that what the "others" are doing is "wrong".

I think that we should have a police force that is proactive in preventing REAL crimes while taking great pains to ensure that no ones rights are violated, full well accepting the fact that not all criminals will be arrested. Maybe I'm naive but I honestly believe that wouldn't be that difficult.

When we have the atmosphere that we have today where "law & order" & "get tough on crime" is placed above all else, it's no wonder that we have the abuses on non-criminals by the enforcers.

I have no problem with a simple voluntary interaction with the police or with the cops "keeping an eye" on the guy. He's in public & has no expectation of privacy. I would have a problem with them forcibly detaining him if there was no evidence that he committed any crime. Or worse...

I would be included in those that thought you an idiot. Just because something may be legal doesn't make it a wise thing to do. I see no usefull reason for pulling such a stunt. A planned march/gathering is one thing, a lone man (or woman?) walking around downtown with a shouldered AK would probably raise some eyebrows.

What would be the point of the "march/gathering" if not to highlight the fact that it's completely legal for someone to carry a gun in the open? The right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. If all anyone ever sees is a GROUP of people carrying I can't see how that advances the education of the general public about our INDIVIDUAL rights. It's the whole collective (militia) right vs. individual right argument again. An argument that was firmly & finally settled by the Heller case.

I would venture to say that it would never become commonplace... Stunts like this would just serve to "educate" the public that it isn't illegal... Gun Rights would lose in the court of public opinion and it would be a very easy sell for a politician to pass a law making it illegal... Thereby stripping you of that "piece" of your second amendment rights...

What's the difference between a right that you don't exercise because you're afraid if you do you will lose it & one that is ALREADY lost?

Some like to say that if we do not use our rights, we will lose them. I disagree. So far in my life, I've never had to use my right against self-incrimination, nor my right to counsel or to jury trial. I've never needed to use my right to not be subject to excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment. Would any dispute that I maintain those rights? Would any claim that I owe my ability to continue to exercise them to the criminals who do so regularly? No, I keep all my rights, even if I choose not to exercise them.

You may not have personally exercised your rights but many others have. That's why you still have them. It's not out of some benevolence of the state. People have exercised & then fought for their rights when they were infringed upon for centuries (even before our founding) thereby ensuring the continued support for the rights of all, even you even if you happen to never need them. If no one had ever tried to exercise those rights that would be the same as a de facto ban on those rights.

How do you think the first gay man felt as he was taking that first step toward exercising his right to live as he actually was in a society that had systematically seen fit to abridge his most basic freedom to love whoever he chose? If not for that first guy/group then we wouldn't have seen the gay rights movement advanced to it's present form, even though they still have a LONG way to go.

The RKBA is the same. I've rarely OC'd but I do support those who do (as long as it is done within the law & diplomatically) because I know that they are keeping the knowledge of our rights out there in the public's eye. If we keep the fact that we DO HAVE the RKBA a "secret" then we'll always be relegated to the "backrooms" or the "back of the bus" in society. Again, why do you think we've made such great strides in the last few decades toward more gun rights? Because of the people who weren't afraid to exercise their rights & go after more...to the benefit of all.

 

[Audie Murphy]

Go ahead and try it and see what happens..

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Go ahead and try it and see what happens..

I may just give it a go on Monday. If I do, I'll post a report.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I may just give it a go on Monday. If I do, I'll post a report.

Where and what time Monday, I'll join you with my pistol, only because I have one useful arm right now.

OP, nothing illegal about it, the one detained downtown didn't have a rifle, and who cares if idiots think your an idiot.

I've carried my rifle around downtown in a group and I know someone that did it all by himself with no problem.