Apparently it is illegal to carry a firearm in vigo county!

[IndyBeerman]

OK, back up a second here...Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that because a police department has a policy that violates Constitutional protections of fundamental, natural rights, you support the policy over the Constitution, never mind supporting the policy over the natural law of our Creator?

A person performing a completely lawful and harmless activity should be subject to police detention and possibly arrest? Really? That seems reasonable to you?

How about instead, when the proverbial unwashed but voting masses call in hysterical panic <insert shrill tone> "There's a man with a gun here!!!!!1!!!one!!!!eleven!!!", the dispatcher calmly determines that no unlawful activity is taking place, just a guy who happens to have a cell phone clipped to one side of his belt and a pistol to the other, and then informs the person that calling 911 is reserved for emergencies only and if s/he does so again, an officer will be dispatched to cite the caller for tying up emergency lines in the absence of an emergency. (I don't know and don't care to look right now as to whether that would fall under "false reporting" or not.)

After all, that is something our legislators have codified into law as well, and taking up a dispatcher's time and an officer's involvement for something that is no crime at all prevents those people from being available when there is a real crime taking place... like your neighbor's 2 year old daughter being kidnapped, and the officer would have been on patrol to pass by that area, but is instead busy with a report on a non-crime that hurts no one.

Proper response would be to inform the public so that those calls are reserved for the times when the MWG has it out of the holster, pointed at an honest cashier, demanding cash, not just happening to have it with him that day.

Departmental policy in opposition to local ordinance is wrong and must be changed.
Departmental policy or local ordinance in opposition to state law is wrong and must be changed.
Departmental policy, local ordinance, state or federal law in opposition to the Constitution is wrong and must be changed.
Constitutions may be amended, but that process is exceptionally difficult, and our Founders did not do that by accident.

I don't frankly care if Susie Soccermom is scared of the big bad pistol. She's going to be a hell of a lot more scared when there's no one to stop the predatory *maternal fornicating* criminal wanting her money, SUV, sexual virtue, child, or life because the good, armed, law-abiding citizen is stuck in the back of a da*n police cruiser with the good, armed, law-enforcing officer, wasting both their time and leaving the flock unprotected.

What is she, the proverbial unwashed but voting now-victim going to complain about when she's targeted, presuming she survives the experience?

Oh, I forgot... it's everyone else's job to protect her.

No, Al, I'm not angry with you, and if this post comes across that way, let me clarify. What angers me is the entitlement mentality that the "unwashed", to use your term, feel they can decide what's best for everyone and then have a right to complain about it when the unicorn farts don't smell like the pretty flowers. It ticks me off that the time and attention of good LEOs is wasted dealing with this crap over an unConstitutional policy. Something (like "public education") needs to be done and the dispatcher is in a great place to do it, but our mollycoddling society would rather think they have a right to never be scared, rather than a right to do something about it themselves... like maybe go over and talk to the guy... or just leave the area.

What the hell ever happened to personal responsibility? </rant>

Blessings,
Bill

And Repped for this splendid post!

 

[Roadie]

An irony in your excellent analogy is that operating a motorcycle IS a privilege, whereas carrying a gun is RIGHT. So to me, being detained for carrying a gun is much worse.

Indeed!

 

[Roadie]

OK, back up a second here...Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that because a police department has a policy that violates Constitutional protections of fundamental, natural rights, you support the policy over the Constitution, never mind supporting the policy over the natural law of our Creator?

A person performing a completely lawful and harmless activity should be subject to police detention and possibly arrest? Really? That seems reasonable to you?

How about instead, when the proverbial unwashed but voting masses call in hysterical panic <insert shrill tone> "There's a man with a gun here!!!!!1!!!one!!!!eleven!!!", the dispatcher calmly determines that no unlawful activity is taking place, just a guy who happens to have a cell phone clipped to one side of his belt and a pistol to the other, and then informs the person that calling 911 is reserved for emergencies only and if s/he does so again, an officer will be dispatched to cite the caller for tying up emergency lines in the absence of an emergency. (I don't know and don't care to look right now as to whether that would fall under "false reporting" or not.)

After all, that is something our legislators have codified into law as well, and taking up a dispatcher's time and an officer's involvement for something that is no crime at all prevents those people from being available when there is a real crime taking place... like your neighbor's 2 year old daughter being kidnapped, and the officer would have been on patrol to pass by that area, but is instead busy with a report on a non-crime that hurts no one.

Proper response would be to inform the public so that those calls are reserved for the times when the MWG has it out of the holster, pointed at an honest cashier, demanding cash, not just happening to have it with him that day.

Departmental policy in opposition to local ordinance is wrong and must be changed.
Departmental policy or local ordinance in opposition to state law is wrong and must be changed.
Departmental policy, local ordinance, state or federal law in opposition to the Constitution is wrong and must be changed.
Constitutions may be amended, but that process is exceptionally difficult, and our Founders did not do that by accident.

I don't frankly care if Susie Soccermom is scared of the big bad pistol. She's going to be a hell of a lot more scared when there's no one to stop the predatory *maternal fornicating* criminal wanting her money, SUV, sexual virtue, child, or life because the good, armed, law-abiding citizen is stuck in the back of a da*n police cruiser with the good, armed, law-enforcing officer, wasting both their time and leaving the flock unprotected.

What is she, the proverbial unwashed but voting now-victim going to complain about when she's targeted, presuming she survives the experience?

Oh, I forgot... it's everyone else's job to protect her.

No, Al, I'm not angry with you, and if this post comes across that way, let me clarify. What angers me is the entitlement mentality that the "unwashed", to use your term, feel they can decide what's best for everyone and then have a right to complain about it when the unicorn farts don't smell like the pretty flowers. It ticks me off that the time and attention of good LEOs is wasted dealing with this crap over an unConstitutional policy. Something (like "public education") needs to be done and the dispatcher is in a great place to do it, but our mollycoddling society would rather think they have a right to never be scared, rather than a right to do something about it themselves... like maybe go over and talk to the guy... or just leave the area.

What the hell ever happened to personal responsibility? </rant>

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

And Repped for this splendid post!

I thank you, good sir, and all who have done so. I didn't write that for rep, though. To my way of thinking, it simply makes sense. Take care of yourself; if you won't, why should anyone else risk his/her life or safety to do so?

The esteemed elder statesman Mr. Franklin was asked what kind of government he and the others in the Continental Congress created for us. His answer was "A Republic, if you can keep it!" Sadly, it seems that it is not only those in that government who could not keep it, but rather, we have the government some feel we deserve.

I think we deserve much better.

Again, my thanks to all for the rep.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[.30 Cal Al]

Hi

So you would be OK with an SOP dictating that you could be pulled over at any time, just to make sure you are licensed and insured?

They're called, "spot checks," and they happen when someone high-up in the municipal elected food chain's up for reelection and needs to demonstrate that he's working to protect the voters, and no, they don't particularly bother me.

Errr.

...DIDN'T particularly bother me, back when I could drive.

When the police pull me over --- used to pull me over, they'd always ask, "do you know why I pulled you over."

The way I figure it, most of the time, they're looking for ideas.

 

[infidel]

The way I figure it, most of the time, they're looking for ideas.

I think they do that so you admit to (speeding, running stop sign, loud music). Incriminating yourself doesn't get you very far in court if you wanna fight it. That's why I always ask "what seems to be the problem officer?" before they get a chance to say anything.

 

[rich8483]

So you would be OK with an SOP dictating that you could be pulled over at any time, just to make sure you are licensed and insured?

i laugh everytime i read someone type this, b/c they DO that exact thing to truck drivers all the time. just to make sure they have all their paperwork in order and their tires are good, yadda yadda. you dont have to be speeding or doing anything wrong. im still fighting with a lawyer about a bogus ticket i got in may under these very circumstances.

 

[thompal]

Hi

It's not about what people should do: It's about the doodoo they do do.

And actually, if the police department has a, man-on-a-motorcycle policy and they get a man-on-a-motorcycle call, then yes, it does sound reasonable.

There was recently (within the past year, I think) a decision in another district that the mere presence of a gun wasn't evidence of a crime, or probable cause that a crime was being committed, and police could not stop a person simply for carrying.

I would equate it to having a mouth. Both can be used to commit a crime (walking into a bank and saying 'give me the money' vs. walking into a bank and pointing a handgun), but the ability to use either for legal purposes is protected by the Constitution, and the mere possession of either isn't probable cause that a crime is, or is about to be, committed.

Maybe Kirk can find the decision. Maybe this would be a good time for someone who has recently been detained merely for possessing a handgun to file a lawsuit. Anyone here have the resources to fund something like that?? (ha!)

 

[BUCK HINKLE]

You would think texas roadhouse would be a little bit more friendly,this is the place where you toss your peanut shells on the floor right????

 

[Ramen]

So who was this guy who said he could call the police. Is he the manager or an employee or just someone who was there.

He was an acquaintance through a close friend of mine. I just met him an hour earlier.

Next time when you're out with him, just carry (of course with your LTCH in your possession) and make a bet that he pays for dinner if the cops don't show up or don't arrest you .

You should get a free dinner out of it

The conversation went something like this:

Me - State law preempts local laws, and state law is that you can carry a handgun if you have a license.
Him - Do you own a firearm?
Me - Yes.
Him - Go get it, bring it in here, and I will call the cops and we will see what happens.
Me - I am carrying it right now.
Him - You have a gun on you!?!?
Me - I always do.


My friend was laughing this entire time. He knew that I was right (he has family that carry everywhere), and he knows that I have done my homework when I start to argue something.

 

[Ramen]

You would think texas roadhouse would be a little bit more friendly,this is the place where you toss your peanut shells on the floor right????

Oh I forgot to mention, we were at Buffalo Wild Wings. They had been at Texas Roadhouse earlier.

 

[Bill of Rights]

He was an acquaintance through a close friend of mine. I just met him an hour earlier.



The conversation went something like this:

Me - State law preempts local laws, and state law is that you can carry a handgun if you have a license.
Him - Do you own a firearm?
Me - Yes.
Him - Go get it, bring it in here, and I will call the cops and we will see what happens.
Me - I am carrying it right now.
Him - You have a gun on you!?!?
Me - I always do.


My friend was laughing this entire time. He knew that I was right (he has family that carry everywhere), and he knows that I have done my homework when I start to argue something.

I'd have loved to see the expression on his face at that revelation! What did he say/do other than wet his panties?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Eddie]

Lunch

Anybody want to organize a lunch or something in Terre Haute? Maybe after the holidays we could grace a friendly business with our presence.

 

[Ramen]

I'd have loved to see the expression on his face at that revelation! What did he say/do other than wet his panties?

Blessings,
Bill

His expression was definitely a winner.

After that I think he realized that since I was doing what he said was illegal and willing to risk jail time that I probably knew what I was talking about. That is when he started going through scenarios of how the police were going to arrest me, not charge me, and just hold me at the station for a day.


I do hope he did some research afterwords and found out what the law really states. Maybe he will look into exercising some natural rights himself.

 

[thompal]

I do hope he did some research afterwords and found out what the law really states. Maybe he will look into exercising some natural rights himself.

Morons like that rarely go to any personal effort to educate themselves. They will, however, completely believe ANYONE who tells them that things are how they believe they should be. They will, by the same token, totally disregard anything anyone tells them that contradicts their world-view.

Ask him what The Brady Bunch says about firearms and crime, and he'll probably be able to spew the party line. Ask him what the DoJ stats show, and you'll get the deer-in-the-headlights look.

Don't waste your time with morons like that. They've made up their mind how things are, and any evidence to the contrary will be thoroughly ignored.

 

[jdmack79]

Anybody want to organize a lunch or something in Terre Haute? Maybe after the holidays we could grace a friendly business with our presence.

I'd be up for it in a few weeks after the holidays.

 

[Eddie]

Recommendation

Anybody got a recommendation as to where to meet?

 

[45Guy]

Apparently a lot of people are breaking the law every day. You can’t fix stupid

 

[4sarge]

Anybody got a recommendation as to where to meet?

I'm in weather and time permitting. Are we looking for a weapon friendly spot or a questionable one?

 

[GetA2J]

I'm in weather and time permitting. Are we looking for a weapon friendly spot or a questionable one?

We are talking about someplace in Terre Haute. From what I hear ALL of Terre Haute is questionable.