Carried illegally last night.

[finity]

I think the point is, that you should always be careful about what you post on the internet. While it seems to be anonymous, it's really not. If something would happen in the future, someone could research his history and find a pattern of disregard for the law if he had made several posts like this.

It comes down to it being really stupid to admitting to breaking the law or anything else that may come back to bite you on the internet. The internet/facebook/twitter is a divorce atty/prosecutor/private investigators best friend and it's only because people think they need to post their entire lives online.

I could be wrong but I don't think you can be arrested simply for saying that you broke a law without there being some other evidence to back that claim up.

If that were true then every comedian who ever claimed to have smoked pot in their act would have been arrested for drug use.

That's not the real problem here, though. I still say it's childish to break a law then brag about it "anonymously" & unsolicited on the internet. Especially when there was a legal alternative (OC outside your vehicle while walking those "mean streets") that is inline with the 2A which was why the OP said he decided to break the "unConstitutional" law in the first place.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I went to Cincy myself yesterday, to watch the Reds play (got a hell of a sunburn) I love the Reds, but I know for me to carry there is illegal. I park the car, with my gun securely hidden inside, in Newport KY, and walk across the bridge to the games. I can see my favorite team, and not come away a felon. Do I think it's a stupid law? Hell YES I do, but I'm not gonna lose everything I have, including my right to own a gun, just because I WANT to carry where it's forbidden.

Careful on that walk. I know a woman who was sexually assaulted on that bridge walking from the Cincinnati side to the Newport side and just wanted to go to the movies. Park at the statium. It's a lot more money than at the levy but you make yourself much less of a target. Scum know that bridge as mostly easy pickins and its just between Kenton county jail and another one right off 50 on the Ohio side.

 

[SEIndSAM]

I could be wrong but I don't think you can be arrested simply for saying that you broke a law without there being some other evidence to back that claim up.

If that were true then every comedian who ever claimed to have smoked pot in their act would have been arrested for drug use.

That's not the real problem here, though. I still say it's childish to break a law then brag about it "anonymously" & unsolicited on the internet. Especially when there was a legal alternative (OC outside your vehicle while walking those "mean streets") that is inline with the 2A which was why the OP said he decided to break the "unConstitutional" law in the first place.

You misunderstood my post. I am not saying he could be arrested for admitting what he did on the internet. No prosecutor would bring that charge without an LEO as a witness.

But if he continued to knowingly violate the law, admits to it on the internet, and is arrested for something in the future, an Attorney or Prosecutor would tear him a new one. He would be exhibiting a pattern of disregard for the law and a Judge or a jury would not look favorably at it.

Say next time someone does attempt to mug him and the OP shoots in self defense. If the guy survives, the BG's lawyer could find out through internet posts that the OP had a pattern of disregard for the law. He could turn it so that the OP went to that area looking for trouble and wanted to shoot someone with his "illegal" gun. He has already admitted doing this to the world, in fact he brags about it. The lawyer would say the BG was just minding his own business and this gentlemen (OP) pulls up and shoots him. Why, because the OP was violating the law to begin with.

NOTHING YOU SAY ON THE INTERNET IS PRIVATE AND IT CAN BE TRACKED BACK TO YOU!!! Believe it and think before you post something.

 

[jedi]

You make it sound like I think Im a badass because I broke some pointless law. The point of the thread is that me and many others are going to carry wherever we feel like it regardless of the law.

-1 for you Awful Waffle. Congrats as you are only my 2nd time I have used a -1.

He's just trying to reach his 50 post

Suspect that this may be true. If not then I do hope he heads the warnings many of you have already given him.

Otherwise it's a double fail.
1) For breaking the law
2) For bragging about it online.

 

[rmabrey]

You make it sound like I think Im a badass because I broke some pointless law. The point of the thread is that me and many others are going to carry wherever we feel like it regardless of the law.

Around here we call those people criminals

 

[finity]

You misunderstood my post.

OK. Carry on then.

My apology.

Around here we call those people criminals

I was going to rep you but it says I must spread it around first.

 

[mikerccie]

The first rule of "illegal carry club" is don't talk about illegal carry club.

 

[Awful Waffle]

Wow........

 

[88GT]

Doesn't civil disobedience involve flagrantly flaunting the law that you believe to be unjust, getting arrested for it, and becoming a cause for political/legislative battles? Civil disobedience aims to change the law. Think Rosa Parks. She did not "hide" in the front of the bus. She made a point of breaking a law that was unjust, and now she's our hero. The OP did not engage in civil disobedience. He just broke a law.


Da Bing

Flagrant and in-your-face is not a requirement of civil disobedience. It is enough that one is breaking the law for the purpose of opposing it. It would seem that taken on face value, the OP did just that.

But if the members here had been Negroes on that same bus, they all would have been telling Ms. Parks to get her ass to rear.

 

[Sgood]

I would not break the law to prove a point or make a statement but, i am not going to knock the op if he wishes to do so.

I have seen numerous post on this board of people saying they would protect themselves no matter the law.......this post is full of the ones that would not.....

so, to the op good job making it out of one of the worst cities, I have personally have ever encountered. I have been to 15th and liberty, what a place.

 

[gunman41mag]

Wow........

two more post & you hit the magic number of 50 post

 

[Sgood]

two more post & you hit the magic number of 50 post

With guys like you on this board it is a wonder any hit 50!!!! Thats why you just pay the 10 bucks and get it over with.

If he just wanted 50 post, I am sure he would have not taken the time to explain his evening to the forum.

 

[Awful Waffle]

two more post & you hit the magic number of 50 post

Follow me after I get 50 posts, I have nothing for sale and dont plan on using the classifieds anytime soon.

 

[gunman41mag]

Follow me after I get 50 posts, I have nothing for sale and dont plan on using the classifieds anytime soon.

I try to say away from the classifieds, cause it's a INFRACTION trap

 

[youngda9]

This must be a thread about more of those "law abiding gun owners" I keep hearing about.

Just because you pack, doesn't mean you're a puritan.

 

[youngda9]

Guess what- I'm one of those people. Why did you chop off the first part of the sentence?

Cuz I wasn't commenting on the first part of the sentence, and it made no difference in the context of things. No offense meant but I didn't think it made a difference and didn't think anything of it as I was doing so. I'll work on that.

 

[bingley]

Flagrant and in-your-face is not a requirement of civil disobedience. It is enough that one is breaking the law for the purpose of opposing it. It would seem that taken on face value, the OP did just that.

But if the members here had been Negroes on that same bus, they all would have been telling Ms. Parks to get her ass to rear.

This is not correct. Take a look at this eloquent statement of civil disobedience:

On the most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, the persons who practice civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows their fidelity to the rule of law.

Civil Disobedience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Did the OP violate a law? Yes. Did he do so with the intention of bringing about a change in the law? In other words, was this act a part of a larger campaign to change the gun carrying law in Ohio? No. Did the OP exhibit fidelity to the rule of law? Again, no. He said his point was to show that people would carry guns no matter what the law says. This is someone who disrespects the rule of law. Please do not use venerable concepts to cover up someone's base and wicked inclinations.

And, lastly, "negroes"? Please try and catch up with the 21st century.

Da Bing

 

[dice dealer]

Just 1 more your at 49 ......come on you can do it

 

[Sgood]

Just 1 more your at 49 ......come on you can do it

THIS IS CONSIDERED TROLLING IN ANY OTHER FORUM ......HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OP'S POST

1 of the great INGO members right here, you are the greatist EVER, YOU

 

[dice dealer]

1 of the great INGO members right here, you are the greatist EVER, YOU

THANKS !!!!!