Holy Crap!!!
I am not in one of Finity's Mega Quotes for once!!!!!!
Congrats!
Holy Crap!!!
I am not in one of Finity's Mega Quotes for once!!!!!!
If I ever get to meet you I'll give you a hug you big softy you....Hey, I had a lot of catching up to do in that one!
The thread had over 600 posts before I even started reading it so it was rife with points that needed to be made.
I actually agree with you most of the time, though. Mostly...
(I know "awww, isn't that sweet...". Whatever... )
Are you really going to try to revive the old worn out meme that “all liberal arguments are based on feelings & only conservatives arguments are based on nothing but reason & good judgment”?
As I’ve said before I’m sure that you will find many liberal issues that are based on the feelings of liberals but I’m also absolutely sure (& I’ve given examples in the past) that you will find as many conservative issues that are based solely on the emotions of conservatives, as well, & have no other basis in fact. They only differ as to the issue not the level of emotion involved.
Just a thought here for consideration. What would you do?
You stop a person. You know the person is unhappy being stopped. You see an assault weapon in plain view. The person also says he has a hand gun.
I'm sorry I could not read past this point.
ASSAULT WEAPON?? FYI assault is an action not a device. His ar-15 is no different than a .223 bolt action rifle. It just has bells and whistles on it. I know my AR hasn't assaulted anyone. When the time comes that I need to defend with it then I will do the ACTION of assaulting an enemy with my AR. Sorry but that ignorance pissed me off. Now I'm going to finish reading the post.
Just a thought here for consideration. What would you do?
You stop a person. You know the person is unhappy being stopped. You see an assault weapon in plain view. The person also says he has a hand gun.
I'm sorry I could not read past this point.
ASSAULT WEAPON?? FYI assault is an action not a device. His ar-15 is no different than a .223 bolt action rifle. It just has bells and whistles on it. I know my AR hasn't assaulted anyone. When the time comes that I need to defend with it then I will do the ACTION of assaulting an enemy with my AR. Sorry but that ignorance pissed me off. Now I'm going to finish reading the post.
FYI. I was using the terminology that had been used in an earlier post. I am not the grammar police, nor am I the terminology police (I have learned the difference between a clip and a mag, though). My point was simply that a cop stopping an unhappy citizen who has two weapons close-to-hand is bound to be nervous. I wanted the reader to consider how the reader would react under those conditions. Would not anyone be a bit nervous, want to take serious precautions, heighten the situational awareness, under those conditions? I am simply asking that we recognize the cops do have a legitimate concern.
As I said earlier, if the cop is professional, courteous and efficient, I can accept being "disarmed" temporarily. An apology when he determines I am not a threat would be appreciated. If he gets up in my face, though, plays the super-hero tough guy, etc., another matter. Time to get name and number, file a complaint, etc.
Please remember, I am not a fan of LEO, but I do understand the guy has a hazardous job that I need him to do with integrity, skill, professionalism and courtesy. Most of them do, to the best of their ability.
I can't, anymore than I can accept being randomly pulled over for a documents check to confirm that I'm not driving on a suspended license or without insurance. Delaware v Prouse affirmed that such spot "document checks" are unreasonable and violative of my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In exactly the same way, US v DeBerry (7th circuit, which includes Indiana) said that in a jurisdiction where the carrying of a firearm is not de facto a crime, where people can legally carry a firearm in public, the presence of such of firearm, in and of itself, cannot constitute RAS either.As I said earlier, if the cop is professional, courteous and efficient, I can accept being "disarmed" temporarily.
Not to ride the drama llama too hard, but cry me a f*&%in' river. Do we need a litany of professions that have a higher on the job fatality rate than beat cops? Garbage collectors. Utility line workers. Loggers. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. If the sight of a free citizen exercising their 2nd Amendment (Art. 1, Sect. 32) rights makes a LEO lose bladder control, then they don't NEED to be a police officer. Let them take a vocational ed class as the local comm. coll. and become a draftsman.Please remember, I am not a fan of LEO, but I do understand the guy has a hazardous job that I need him to do with integrity, skill, professionalism and courtesy. Most of them do, to the best of their ability.
FYI. I was using the terminology that had been used in an earlier post. I am not the grammar police, nor am I the terminology police (I have learned the difference between a clip and a mag, though). My point was simply that a cop stopping an unhappy citizen who has two weapons close-to-hand is bound to be nervous. I wanted the reader to consider how the reader would react under those conditions. Would not anyone be a bit nervous, want to take serious precautions, heighten the situational awareness, under those conditions? I am simply asking that we recognize the cops do have a legitimate concern.
As I said earlier, if the cop is professional, courteous and efficient, I can accept being "disarmed" temporarily. An apology when he determines I am not a threat would be appreciated. If he gets up in my face, though, plays the super-hero tough guy, etc., another matter. Time to get name and number, file a complaint, etc.
Please remember, I am not a fan of LEO, but I do understand the guy has a hazardous job that I need him to do with integrity, skill, professionalism and courtesy. Most of them do, to the best of their ability.
Actually, all you need is your identity, since carrying a physical LTCH is no longer required.
How about schooling by reference?
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...21028-dennys_not_so_great-21.html#post3079353
I can't, anymore than I can accept being randomly pulled over for a documents check to confirm that I'm not driving on a suspended license or without insurance. Delaware v Prouse affirmed that such spot "document checks" are unreasonable and violative of my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In exactly the same way, US v DeBerry (7th circuit, which includes Indiana) said that in a jurisdiction where the carrying of a firearm is not de facto a crime, where people can legally carry a firearm in public, the presence of such of firearm, in and of itself, cannot constitute RAS either.
If a LEO wants to disarm me, He will need one of four things, in order of increasing authority:
1) My consent, which will never be forthcoming.
2) Reasonable, articulable concern for officer safety, which under IC 35-47-14-3 mandates they go before a judge to defend, and which I will never give him enough material to take before said judge.
3) Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit a crime, in order to detain me in a Terry stop.
4) Probable Cause to arrest me for a crime.
3 and 4 are largely cumulative and are a relatively high burden to meet in the field, especially against a non-criminal, which is not to say that dirty cops do not bootstrap and manufacture RAS or PC all the time.
Not to ride the drama llama too hard, but cry me a f*&%in' river. Do we need a litany of professions that have a higher on the job fatality rate than beat cops? Garbage collectors. Utility line workers. Loggers. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. If the sight of a free citizen exercising their 2nd Amendment (Art. 1, Sect. 32) rights makes a LEO lose bladder control, then they don't NEED to be a police officer. Let them take a vocational ed class as the local comm. coll. and become a draftsman.
That's a pretty good comprehensive explanation right there.