It's a shame you are so quick to judge someone you have never met.And on a personal level? I wonder why a gal would want to go out on a date/dates with someone who openly carries a handgun and who seems to enjoy and, indeed, invite his confrontations with law officers?
Certainly Bill hasn't had 2 weeks of law school but I have always found him to be pretty sharp and able to comprehend what he reads. I may not always agree with him but I feel confident in his ability to read a city ordinance.
Doesn't matter what his personal opinion is on that, you can carry in places that serve alcohol.Cop 2, to me now: We're gonna get you out of here, man. We're not taking your s**t, you're not getting a ticket. I think everybody outta have a gun personally, but, in the park, at an alcohol event, absolutely not. (I had no idea it was an alcohol event until he said that!)
CC / OC, there's nothing in the ordinance that I see treats one any different from the other.
I would like to offer a public apology to any LEO who I unintentionally offended with a phrase I used in an earlier post. I received a PM telling me that the term "tin shield" is taken as a derogatory comparison to a security guard or other, less-trained worker (similar in my field to calling a paramedic an "ambulance driver", a term from the very early days when and shortly after the ambulances were actually hearses.
I intended no insult but was attempting to show that a person's merits and demerits, his/her character or lack thereof, his worth as a human being, do not come from a piece of metal pinned to a uniform shirt but from within him/herself.
If I have given the impression, as I was told, that I am anti-LEO, I am not. I am anti-bad(/crooked)-LEO. Those who hold their oath sacred, I hold in high regard. Those who do not, who have neither integrity nor scruples have instead, my contempt.
The person who wrote me wrote a polite version of a rant. I appreciate very much his coming to me directly with the issues he brought, and I respect his opinions. It is through discussion and the sharing of opinions and perspectives that we learn things we did not know previously.
Once again, my apologies if my words have offended.
Blessings,
Bill
No, no difference as far as the ordinance is concerned - just that one makes it obvious you're breaking the ordinance and the other means you can carry anyway and still not have troubles with the cops.
Since a city violation was committed, i'm seeing that the opinions of Unit308 are justified. The officers in this situation handled it well as did the OP thus the reason he was allowed to leave with no reprocussions. KUDOS to both sides.
I've read this thread from start to the current state and must say that i'm a bit disapointed in the way the round table went on this one BUT maybe that's cause i've always held INGO and it's members in the highest regard and still do.
Just sayin' I think we can do a little better .... especially the comments about negative reps being given. REALLY ??? c'mon folks.
I would like to say I am very sorry if I contributed to your disappointment in some way.
Do you mean now you'd just be more sneaky about it next time now that you know full well you are breaking the law and not wanted there? They cut you a break last time, what do you think they should they do next time?
Do you mean now you'd just be more sneaky about it next time now that you know full well you are breaking the law and not wanted there?
What I'm trying to put as delicately as possible is that IF I were to be in a Terre Haute park and IF I were to be armed at the time, I wouldn't make it obvious I was armed. And now, I wish to exercise my fifth amendment right and count on my fourth amendment rights to protect me in any future visits to a TH park.
What about all those laundry list of reasons for you to be OCing you were giving the officers on the scene and quoting here? Don't those matter any more? How will the sheeple be educated now? How will you achieve maximum comfort? What about those legalities you were talking about and all your rights?