Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[GBuck]

Would that still work if the LEO never thought you were dangerous? The LEO took it for "safety", not because he thought you were dangerous.

The need to do it for "safety" implies that he thought there was potential danger.

 

[MrsGungho]

Would that still work if the LEO never thought you were dangerous? The LEO took it for "safety", not because he thought you were dangerous.

we've also shown that they don't always take it for "safety". In my case I have never had a firearm taken for "safety" and I was allowed to dig through a purse for my license AFTER I told him there was a firearm in there.
Yeah its for "safety"

 

[Jake46184]

For those who have contacted me.....yes, we need a better way to identify those who should not be allowed access to carry firearms but it needs to be done in a way that does not inadvertently gather up those with the maturity to carry responsibly. A simple age or education limit won't work. It needs to be some form of written and verbal test, with the maturity and development of each applicant measured and evaluated. Of course, that invites manipulation of the process by those on the left.

Not sure how we do it but many of the responses in this thread leave no doubt that we need a better answer. Far too many of those who carry guns today have no business doing so.

 

[Mr. Habib]

we've also shown that they don't always take it for "safety". In my case I have never had a firearm taken for "safety" and I was allowed to dig through a purse for my license AFTER I told him there was a firearm in there.
Yeah its for "safety"

It is all about safety. The safety of their egos.

 

[GBuck]

For those who have contacted me.....yes, we need a better way to identify those who should not be allowed access to carry firearms but it needs to be done in a way that does not inadvertently gather up those with the maturity to carry responsibly. A simple age or education limit won't work. It needs to be some form of written and verbal test, with the maturity and development of each applicant measured and evaluated. Of course, that invites manipulation of the process by those on the left.

Not sure how we do it but many of the responses in this thread leave no doubt that we need a better answer. Far too many of those who carry guns today have no business doing so.

[SIZE=+1]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/SIZE]

What part of that is unclear? Where does it say, "with certain qualifying hoops to jump through?"

So you're fine telling some they can't own a gun but not others? You're worried about the LEFT manipulating the system? Why would they need to, when you're doing it yourself? (aside from the fact that you seem to be a leftist with no other intention than to troll here)

"First they came for the"... ah forget it.

 

[jeremy]

For those who have contacted me.....yes, we need a better way to identify those who should not be allowed access to carry firearms but it needs to be done in a way that does not inadvertently gather up those with the maturity to carry responsibly. A simple age or education limit won't work. It needs to be some form of written and verbal test, with the maturity and development of each applicant measured and evaluated. Of course, that invites manipulation of the process by those on the left.

Not sure how we do it but many of the responses in this thread leave no doubt that we need a better answer. Far too many of those who carry guns today have no business doing so.

Maybe, I'm a bit of a simpleton. The way I see it is if you are not currently incarcerated, you should be able to carry.....

 

[PKendall317]

Maybe, I'm a bit of a simpleton. The way I see it is if you are not currently incarcerated, you should be able to carry.....

While I agree with you on people who are currently incarcerated and convicted felons, particularly those convicted of a violent felony, I would add to that list people who have certain mental illnesses AND who have a history of violence.

 

[Jack Burton]

Would that still work if the LEO never thought you were dangerous? The LEO took it for "safety", not because he thought you were dangerous.

There is no legal justification for "safety" unless he thought you were a justifiable danger to him according to the law.

He either can explain to the court why he thought you were a danger, or he can't.

 

[Jack Burton]

For those who have contacted me.....yes, we need a better way to identify those who should not be allowed access to carry firearms but it needs to be done in a way that does not inadvertently gather up those with the maturity to carry responsibly. A simple age or education limit won't work. It needs to be some form of written and verbal test, with the maturity and development of each applicant measured and evaluated. Of course, that invites manipulation of the process by those on the left.

Not sure how we do it but many of the responses in this thread leave no doubt that we need a better answer. Far too many of those who carry guns today have no business doing so.

And this, dear friends, is why we still have to struggle for our rights to keep and bear arms even though it is in the Constitution and there have been hundreds of millions of law abiding firearm owners through the history of the country. Far too many of our own people think nothing of stabbing us in the back.

 

[Jack Burton]

While I agree with you on people who are currently incarcerated and convicted felons, particularly those convicted of a violent felony, I would add to that list people who have certain mental illnesses AND who have a history of violence.

But you're okay with these apparently highly dangerous and unstable people walking the streets, and with having full access to the ability to kill and maim dozens if not hundreds of people?

Are you aware that the third largest mass murder in America which killed about a hundred people was done with a gallon can of gasoline that was purchased 30 minutes earlier?

 

[PKendall317]

But you're okay with these apparently highly dangerous and unstable people walking the streets, and with having full access to the ability to kill and maim dozens if not hundreds of people?

Are you aware that the third largest mass murder in America which killed about a hundred people was done with a gallon can of gasoline that was purchased 30 minutes earlier?

Yes I am aware of that. And what would you do with these people?

 

[drillsgt]

While I agree with you on people who are currently incarcerated and convicted felons, particularly those convicted of a violent felony, I would add to that list people who have certain mental illnesses AND who have a history of violence.

What would constitute a history of violence, and who decides? Getting in a fight at school? Being in a bar fight when you're young? What mental illnesses? Were already seeing some of the fallout from this line of thinking with veterans. Last I knew in MI if you have been treated for depression this can count against you for a CPL also.

 

[jLr]

While I agree with you on people who are currently incarcerated and convicted felons, particularly those convicted of a violent felony, I would add to that list people who have certain mental illnesses AND who have a history of violence.

Because making it illegal for an "improper" person to carry and/or possess a firearm will stop that person from doing so, correct?

I am very concerned about you becoming a police officer, after reading your postings.

 

[Jack Burton]

Yes I am aware of that. And what would you do with these people?

You're the rights denier. I think that you should explain yourself first.

 

[Rookie]

While I agree with you on people who are currently incarcerated and convicted felons, particularly those convicted of a violent felony, I would add to that list people who have certain mental illnesses AND who have a history of violence.

Agreed because the second states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed UNLESS...

It's all or nothing.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Yes I am aware of that. And what would you do with these people?

Keep them in jail.

 

[aikidoka]

There is no legal justification for "safety" unless he thought you were a justifiable danger to him according to the law.

He either can explain to the court why he thought you were a danger, or he can't.

I imagine the officer would claim he had reason to suspect I was a danger because he had not seen my LTCH yet. Whether that would fly or not in court is the question. I was just standing at a redbox deciding whether or not I wanted to rent a movie. He asked if I was LEO and I said no. I don't know if I mentioned I had a LTCH or had time to before he went for my gun but he certainly did not ask for it before taking my gun. But the digital recorder will make that clear next time something like that happens.

 

[Mr. Habib]

I imagine the officer would claim he had reason to suspect I was a danger because he had not seen my LTCH yet. Whether that would fly or not in court is the question. I was just standing at a redbox deciding whether or not I wanted to rent a movie. He asked if I was LEO and I said no. I don't know if I mentioned I had a LTCH or had time to before he went for my gun but he certainly did not ask for it before taking my gun. But the digital recorder will make that clear next time something like that happens.

Since you do not need any type of license or permit to carry the rifle, knowledge of your LTCH is a moot point. Washington v State and Arizona v Grant make that point even clearer since you were remove from the vehicle.

 

[cerebus85]

I think he is trying to make the point that the officer has a right to be concerned about his own safety. Can you blame him? Just read through some of the threads on INGO about how LEOs are viewed. The hatred spewed is limited only by the hated mods.

My post earlier was to suggest that if a LEO treats me with respect, acts professionally, I can accept him taking precautions. I know, it is a trade off. But I also know I need that officer to keep the fools and psychopaths in check. All of us on INGO are prepared to defend ourselves, but if the LEO will do it for us I think it wise to let him/her do so. LEO is far better trained than I.

Good. That is a very fair and rational thing to say. I understand both sides of the debate, and i appreciate them as well. But Instead of me writing someone else did.

 

[jeremy]

While I agree with you on people who are currently incarcerated and convicted felons, particularly those convicted of a violent felony, I would add to that list people who have certain mental illnesses AND who have a history of violence.

I do not care if they are Convicted Felons or not. If they are not incarcerated then they should have the ability to defend themselves.

As far as those that are Mentally Ill and/or have a history of violence.
- The first group I do not care if they carry or not, it is their choice.
- As for the second group, if they are that prone to violence, why are tehy not either incarcerated or executed...