LEO responds positively to OC

[Titanium_Frost]

No, because that's just part of the statistic. There are far more semi-auto AR-15's than there are semi-auto mp5 clones. In fact, I've never seen a semi mp5 in real life, and I've seen dozens of semi AR-15's.

It is far less likely that a civillian with "an assault rifle" is actually an NFA item than a civillian with an mp5 lookalike.

This is dependent on your own ignorance of what weapons are out there for private citizen's consumption. Even if it WERE a ful auto NFA item there is no RAS that a crime is being committed.

... and since when are cops not allowed to ask for ID and stamp to enforce NFA items?

Which part? If they have RAS of an infraction or ordinance violation they can get ID otherwise they can go fish.

A TAX stamp is a private tax document that only an officer of the treasury has the authority to inspect. Secret Service, ATF and IRS are the only ones with the authority to verify a tax stamp.

A LEO has the same authority to take a look at your tax returns, but I guess you would hand those over with a smile on your face as well.

 

[VidGuy]

It doesn't matter what's legal. It's the perception.

It's like standing on a corner, waving your arms, and screaming "The end is near!"

Sure it's legal. But you look like a nut, and it draws undue attention to you.

I can't fault a cop for checking it out. This guy wasn't carrying for protection. He was carrying something that looked like it could be an illegal weapon to provoke a response, and it's that kind of thinking that makes gun owners look like psychopaths.

It's one thing to carry a pistol in a holster. It's quite a different thing to be carrying an MP5 on a sling. One looks reasonable. The other doesn't.

 

[Rookie]

Why?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

It doesn't matter what's legal. It's the perception.

It's like standing on a corner, waving your arms, and screaming "The end is near!"

Sure it's legal. But you look like a nut, and it draws undue attention to you.

I can't fault a cop for checking it out. This guy wasn't carrying for protection. He was carrying something that looked like it could be an illegal weapon to provoke a response, and it's that kind of thinking that makes gun owners look like psychopaths.

It's one thing to carry a pistol in a holster. It's quite a different thing to be carrying an MP5 on a sling. One looks reasonable. The other doesn't.

Uh...actually it matters very much what's legal. If it's legal you can do it without interference from government agents. If you look like a nut it doesn't matter one damned bit.

If I'm allowed to interfere with your rights because of my personal opinion that you "look like a nut" exercising them, or if I support the government doing the same, then we can kiss them goodbye.

Who appointed you to decide what looks "reasonable?"

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Liberty took the words right outta my mouth.

How can you say "it doesn't matter what is legal?"

Are you talking about the guy OCing or the cops violating this guy's rights?

 

[foszoe]

Ok correct me in my ignorance. I read up on Terry Stops (Wikipedia version) and at what point is the cops action illegal? Is it because there was no reasonable suspicion threshold?

 

[Rookie]

A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Ok correct me in my ignorance. I read up on Terry Stops (Wikipedia version) and at what point is the cops action illegal? Is it because there was no reasonable suspicion threshold?

To comply with the standards of Terry vs. Ohio, a LEO must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the citizen being stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

The LEO in this case did not meet that standard.

 

[Rookie]

Someone is going to throw out, "but the officer thought it was full auto"

 

[foszoe]

Someone is going to throw out, "but the officer thought it was full auto"

Yes I am having trouble deciding that doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion as in i dnn't know why it does or doesn't

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Yes I am having trouble deciding that doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion as in i dnn't know why it does or doesn't

Reasonable suspicion of what?

 

[foszoe]

Reasonable suspicion of what?

Possession of an NFA class weapon w/o permit.

Now that I am thinking about it though, that doesn't seem to be enough, because if I am seen with any weapon, NFA or not, if I am not doing anything that looks "wrong" I should be left in peace.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Possession of an NFA class weapon w/o permit.

Now that I am thinking about it though, that doesn't seem to be enough, because if I am seen with any weapon, NFA or not, if I am not doing anything that looks "wrong" I should be left in peace.

Local law enforcement officials do not have the authority to enforce the National Firearms Act.

 

[VidGuy]

Look, we all know it's legal to carry around an MP5.

But it's not smart.

You can argue all day about how it's your right to do it, but it's still not a smart thing to do.

If any of you can give me a good reason why it IS smart to do it, then I'm all ears.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Look, we all know it's legal to carry around an MP5.

But it's not smart.

You can argue all day about how it's your right to do it, but it's still not a smart thing to do.

If any of you can give me a good reason why it IS smart to do it, then I'm all ears.

Why does it matter whether or not it's smart to do it?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Look, we all know it's legal to carry around an MP5.

But it's not smart.

You can argue all day about how it's your right to do it, but it's still not a smart thing to do.

If any of you can give me a good reason why it IS smart to do it, then I'm all ears.

That is your subjective opinion against legal fact. YOU explain how your opinion has any relevance to this discussion.

 

[Rookie]

Local law enforcement officials do not have the authority to enforce the National Firearms Act.

Why don't they? What says they can't?

 

[VidGuy]

My point is that if you walk around carrying an MP5, you're going to get stopped. Legally or illegally.

You can live in a fantasy land (the one where your actions don't have consequences), but in the real world, especially in this day and age, when you poke the bear, you might get et.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Why don't they? What says they can't?

The NFA is federal law and is enforced by appropriate federal officers. Local LEOs enforce local laws or those of their state.

Therefore local LEOs have no jurisdiction where the NFA is concerned.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

My point is that if you walk around carrying an MP5, you're going to get stopped. Legally or illegally.

You can live in a fantasy land (the one where your actions don't have consequences), but in the real world, especially in this day and age, when you poke the bear, you might get et.

Guys that live their lives so they aren't "inconvenienced" crack me up when they try to convince those of us who would rather exercise our rights regardless of ignorant people to make the same "smart" decisions.