Where is "the wrong place" for a gun?

[KLB]

So no actual rebuttal, just a very poor attempt at ridicule?

That's strange because I still see them all over. Amusement parks, malls, public pools, bus/train stations. Heck at least one state (I can't remember which state, but I think Georgia or Tennessee) they are mandated by law to have them at court houses. ETA Indiana requires them by law for casinos. How many times has someone hid a bomb in a locker(not including in the movies that is)? The Boston marathon bombing the backpack was just left on the sidewalk, the Murrah building bombing was a truck parked outside.


I have to spread it around a bit before I can rep you, but in lieu of . That also is for your previous posts in this thread. Heck it applies to the vast majority of your posts here.... If someone could get BoR for me it would be greatly appreciated.

ETA While Lee Paige may be a very good example of officers not always being proficient in firearm handling, ex officer Harless of Canon OH would be a better example in this case. Didn't he tell a lawfully armed citizen that he should take two steps back, unload his pistol into him and that he would sleep well that night? While he didn't actually do it, it does show his mindset. Heck iirc he was caught on tape more than that one time issuing similar threats.

I got him.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Actually, not a coroner but a medical examiner.. that is, a physician, with years of medical school and training behind him. A pilot can fly a plane because he's trained to do so. Is it your contention that only a police officer has the proper training to carry a gun in that special room? Lee Paige, anyone?

Are you perhaps saying that no police officer has ever misused his gun or abused the power of his badge to waste someone he knew was guilty, court be da*ned? Or just that the cop isn't going to do it in a room full of witnesses?

This isn't a point about training, though, BBI, it's about the rights of those who have committed no crime. We're back to the safety vs liberty argument here, and all the superfluous stuff burned away, that's what this boils down to. If we're going to deny the ability to exercise rights to those people who have done no wrong, what exactly are you or any of us actually defending? Doesn't sound much like the liberty our Founders put their lives on the line to defend to me.

If the accused is at that much risk, perhaps he should be behind bullet-resistant material... Or maybe a layer of that setting off the gallery from the court proceedings? Or, alternatively, I'll just ask: How likely is he to draw when there are that many folks around, armed and ready to defe

I'll grant you the point about witness intimidation.

As for murder trials... I served on a murder jury in Bexar County, Texas at the age of 18 or 19. At the time, San Antonio was the tenth largest city in the country. I don't suppose murder trials are so different in Marion County. I would consider, though, that perhaps that might serve as an additional deterrent if the perp knew there was a good likelihood he might have to face not only his accusers but the family of his potential victim, later.

Just my thoughts.

Blessings,
Bill

My contention is the phrase "some animals are more equal than others" is overused and misapplied. There are certain occupations and certain positions that allow one person to do something others cannot legally do in that same position. I cannot carry a firearm onto an airplane. If I were a pilot who has gone through the appropriate training, I could. If I was transporting a prisoner and had the appropriate certification from the Feds, I could. I cannot, though. So again, is a pilot more equal than me, whatever that means to you? Am I more equal than myself is I am on duty transporting a prisoner vs flying on vacation?

If I am the accused, I cannot carry into court. Ask any cop who's been sued and gone to federal court. Did their training evaporate? Are they now less equal than themselves? Or did their role in the proceedings change?

Are murder trials different in Marion Co? I don't know, but a sample size of 1 how many years ago doesn't necessarily equate to much in terms of understanding. Did deputies walk anyone to their car afterward? Was their a melee that deputies had to break up outside the courtroom between the two families/factions? I can think of a hand full of occurrences of each this year in our building.

Ideals are great. Sometimes practicality gets in the way, though, and we modify our practices away from our ideals a bit to reflect that. It isn't Animal Farm to do so. In this instance, its a recognition that not everyone in a court proceeding is filling the same role.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You don't see any potential issues with a witness in a police misconduct case with 20-30 armed officers in full uniform sitting in the court room? If you want to talk about Rule of Law, do you think that perhaps witness intimidation may result in less of that and more fear of retaliation? If your worried about witness intimidation and a fair trial all officers that are particpating in the trial and/or watching from the bleachers should be in plain clothes, unarmed and with no visible sign of their profession. And actually that should go for all trials, not just police misconduct. Traffic tickets on up.

I've never been to a police misconduct trial, but if its in federal court (ie civil rights violation) then you can't for sure. I know on the local level when there is a trial officers may be interested in on a personal level (like the guy who shot Perry), we've been told we couldn't go in uniform if we were just observing. I cannot protest in uniform, etc.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wrong place? MRI room.

Had a Cook County deputy hurt himself at Good Shepherd hospital when he ignored the "no metal" warnings. Man, just reading about it hurt.

Oxygen tent may be a wrong place too?

 

[2A_Tom]

That's strange because I still see them all over. Amusement parks, malls, public pools, bus/train stations. Heck at least one state (I can't remember which state, but I think Georgia or Tennessee) they are mandated by law to have them at court houses. ETA Indiana requires them by law for casinos. How many times has someone hid a bomb in a locker(not including in the movies that is)? The Boston marathon bombing the backpack was just left on the sidewalk, the Murrah building bombing was a truck parked outside.

Actually i just found this in an older thread.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e/374353-casino-lock-boxes-2.html#post5642682

 

[2A_Tom]

I'm not sure I agree with having to have someone else's key to get to my property. The guard I mentioned was only to ensure that no one forces a locker without the proper key for it.

Actually, I am sure. I don't agree with it.

Other than that, you guys are on point.

Bill as always you have a very good point. Even if it were not a two key system, like a bank safe deposit box, the area would have to be under the control of the officer. Otherwise, A criminal miscreant (or is that excrement) could retrieve their weapon while the officer was busy and possibly do harm to him and others.

And as my previous post states lock boxes are no longer provided by casinos, it was too much of a financial burden, or they needed the space for an additional black jack table or two.

 

[NoAdmiration]

In the possession of someone consuming alcohol.

 

[Bill of Rights]

My role is always to protect myself and those in my care, BBI. That does not change regardless of my location or any current proceedings. An INGO member who I've not seen post in many months once made a good point to me, that the Constitution protects rights to life, liberty, and property, and states that those may not be denied without due process. It follows, then, that they may be denied WITH due process, such as incarceration (denial of liberty) execution (denial of life)and yes, disarmament as one example of denial of property. In other words, when someone has been found guilty of a crime, he may be denied those things set out in law as punishments of that crime. An accused has not been found guilty. Whether officer or not, to deny that right at that time is wrong, IMHO, especially since those bent on causing harm and damage don't care. You've seen examples of how someone could enter a courtroom armed without letting anyone know. There is also the example, (I forget where it happened) of a man entering the courthouse with an AK blazing... The guys at the metal detector were not equipped to stop him. Neither was anyone else. Sure, my one case is a small sample size, but I can easily see how you arrived at your line of thinking. I just don't agree with it. Did deputies walk anyone to their car afterward?None that I saw. I know they didn't walk ME anywhere. I know the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 75 years. He was escorted to a cell. (He got out a few years ago. (27 years served)) Safety does not trump liberty. As I sat in the jury box, even in those days when I was not the gun rights advocate I am now, I contend that I SHOULD have been able to choose to be armed. You have the luxury of backup, a radio, and many other benefits. Those are perks of your job. Basic human rights are not a perk of a job or a role. They are inherent in and to EVERY human being.

Tim made a good point as well, reference intimidation: You see things from the perspective of a LEO, and rightly so. You don't experience being forced to disarm and make yourself helpless in many places. One of our local INGO officers made the point about carrying at the Statue of Liberty, playfully thumbing his nose at the rest of us who can't do that, but the point is clear, and whether you like Orwell's phrasing or not, Napoleon and the other pigs set themselves higher than everyone else, saying that everyone else was "more equal"and they were less so, meaning they (the pigs in his story) didn't have to adhere to the same rules.

We've all heard stories about the guy that reports a cop for some violation of one thing or another. Harless referenced "every time Isee this car, I'm having it towed". This is clearly harassment and yes, intimidation. The message is that a cop is above reproach and can't be held accountable for his actions. That's not true, most of the time, but look how long it took for Harless to lose his job. Look how hard the city fought to keep him on. You and every cop I've ever talked to surely found his actions unconscionable, but let's move that into a courtroom, where the footing is so markedly unequal. On the now-outmoded continuum of force model, "officer presence" was the first step of exercising authority. So.... a bunch of cops in a room as you're testifying against them won't intimidate? Really? And that's just in re:testimony. What happens when that witness/defendant/whatever leaves the courtroom and gets stopped 4 times in as many blocks for speeding, busted taillight, crossing the center line, and weaving in lane?

Practicality gets in the way of ideals? OK. So how is it practical from anyone's perspective other than a LEO's for only the police to be armed? Taking that a step further, let's say for a moment that you're right:Why not have those lockboxes outside, allowing EVERYONEwho may lawfully carry to do so into the building, lock them up outside that room, and enter unarmed... LEO and non-LEO alike? Surely with backup a radio call away, you don't need your gun, taser, spray, baton, etc, to subdue people who are as disarmed as you are.

I'm not saying that there aren't times I'd want someone else disarmed. I'm just saying that putting those thoughts into practice, especially by force of law, and then excepting those who do force/violence on the behalf of those who make those laws..... It's like me moderating a thread I'm participating in, and for example, banning you because you disagreed with me. There's no rule against it. I have, according to the rules here, sole discretion. But, and this is MY rule, you can't do that here, so while I have the ability, I also have the responsibility NOT to do that.
(BTW, just so it's clear, that is in no way to be taken as a threat. Consider it, instead, an assurance. I will issue no bans related solely to someone's disagreement with me. If I see a violation, I will probably let the other mods know to look at it, but when I do that, I do it the same way you can, via the "report post" function. )

Police do not have a duty to any individual citizen, but to the public as a whole, or so decided Castle Rock v. Gonzales. So.... in a courtroom, who has the responsibility for MY safety? Some assclown comes in wanting to do violence, you or other LEOs will not be stepping between the perp and me to act as a human shield, nor do I want you to. I just don't want to be denied the ability to exercise my right to stop the little b*****d myself.

Blessings,
Bill

My contention is the phrase "some animals are more equal than others" is overused and misapplied. There are certain occupations and certain positions that allow one person to do something others cannot legally do in that same position. I cannot carry a firearm onto an airplane. If I were a pilot who has gone through the appropriate training, I could. If I was transporting a prisoner and had the appropriate certification from the Feds, I could. I cannot, though. So again, is a pilot more equal than me, whatever that means to you? Am I more equal than myself is I am on duty transporting a prisoner vs flying on vacation?

If I am the accused, I cannot carry into court. Ask any cop who's been sued and gone to federal court. Did their training evaporate? Are they now less equal than themselves? Or did their role in the proceedings change?

Are murder trials different in Marion Co? I don't know, but a sample size of 1 how many years ago doesn't necessarily equate to much in terms of understanding. Did deputies walk anyone to their car afterward? Was their a melee that deputies had to break up outside the courtroom between the two families/factions? I can think of a hand full of occurrences of each this year in our building.

Ideals are great. Sometimes practicality gets in the way, though, and we modify our practices away from our ideals a bit to reflect that. It isn't Animal Farm to do so. In this instance, its a recognition that not everyone in a court proceeding is filling the same role.

 

[actaeon277]

In the possession of someone consuming alcohol.

Even someone enjoying their 1 Mike's Hard Lemonade they have once a week?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You don't experience being forced to disarm and make yourself helpless in many places.

I have to disarm every time I fly, do a jail interview, and sometimes when I get a search warrant. I wasn't always a LEO, either. I never have to make myself helpless, though. That's not the same thing.

Did deputies walk anyone to their car afterward?None that I saw. I know they didn't walk ME anywhere

Did you ask them to? Our building deputies will. I've seen them do it with witnesses and with the accused who was not being held after the pre-trial.

 

[NoAdmiration]

My hard and fast rule is no, even after one beer. It's a personal choice. I also avoid drinking in public for personal reasons. You may have a different thought and I'm OK with that. On the one hand you don't want to have alcohol in your system if you have to defend yourself with a gun or knife or whatever. On the other hand you also don't want to die because you don't have your weapon with you because you are drinking.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have to disarm every time I fly, do a jail interview, and sometimes when I get a search warrant. I wasn't always a LEO, either. I never have to make myself helpless, though. That's not the same thing.

See, now jail interview, that one I can agree with. I disagree with you (or anyone) having to disarm because that person is meeting with some government official or flying on a plane. Effectively, what policies/laws/whatever that demand that are saying is "You are a peon. You must disarm because otherwise, you might threaten me."

However, what I said was "in many places". I have to leave my gun in my car (where it could be stolen and create more crime...the theft itself and whatever crime of opportunity the criminal decides to commit because he's now armed) when I go to a school or a "building containing a courtroom", and I have to take my chances with the law just to go to the post office. Some states I have to choose whether to visit them (unarmed and take my chances there) or not. You say you have to disarm to fly: is there not a means in place by which you could lawfully carry in flight? That is, could you not approach your chief and request the NLETS message "to protect my family" for your vacation trip? or especially on official travel? I'm not asking if your chief would do it, that's a departmental and/or personal thing. I'm also not asking about the "LEO flying armed" educational thing, as whether or not you've taken it is your choice.

The basic point is that Kut said he agreed that there should be "no guns in courtrooms", and I pointed out (admittedly with a bit of snark) that what he was seeming to say was "no guns other than those *I* trust in courtrooms", which strikes me as a policy of hypocrisy (not Kut's specifically, but the court's) in that a place designed to protect liberty denies it. (The State Capitol does likewise, unless you're a judge, legislator, or cop. If the Senators and Representatives and for that matter, the Governor are so scared of the people that they must deny them the ability to be lawfully armed, maybe they should govern more in line with the will of the People. Texas not only does not prohibit, having your CHP there allows you faster entry, due to not needing to be security screened.) You took up the discussion and seemed somewhat condescending in your defense of that hypocrisy, with a "necessity" defense. William Pitt the Younger defined that as "the argument of tyrants" and Franklin called it the trading of liberty for security, and the evidence pointed out by others here shows he was right that doing so gains you "neither". My basic premise, all emotion aside, is that policies that allow some people to be armed and others not in so-called "sensitive places" are denials of liberty. I am of the belief that Scalia's use of the term in Heller was the price of the fifth opinion that allowed his to be a majority opinion, though I can't prove that.

If I'm reading your premise correctly, you are defending the idea that because LEOs are tasked with maintaining order, and there might be mayhem with people armed, it's safer to deny all for the actions some might commit.

As to the "not armed" = "helpless" thing, no, *YOU* are not helpless.... right now, at your current state of fitness. The law and various policies DO make someone who has some level of infirmity defenseless in some places, and to and from those places as well. This, IMHO, is making a choice (on the part of an official) that the official's perceived safety is more important than that of the public for whom the official works.

Did you ask them to? Our building deputies will. I've seen them do it with witnesses and with the accused who was not being held after the pre-trial.

At the time? No, I didn't ask. I don't know if anyone else did. I don't doubt that they WOULD have escorted. I took your question to mean the accused, who was at that point, not "accused" but "found guilty". Regardless, the service was not available to those arriving at the building, and again, my contention that lockboxes being available would have removed the demand for that service in either direction. Laws forbade it. To me, that indicates a bad law.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Dead Duck]

That's actually pretty dang cool! What did you carry? And how??

I borrowed my brother's G-17.
Did some boat dives off a few islands out by Catalina.

Basically did it so I can say that I carryed while diving.........like now.
Same reason I shot my shotgun in the front yard, naked, at noon.

 

[Thor]

Oxygen tent may be a wrong place too?

Well, certainly not a good place to shoot one! Just ask Gus Grissom... (not that he fired a weapon in the capsule...)

 

[Thor]

In the possession of someone consuming alcohol.

Any alcohol? Or just getting sloshed? Or is this really just in the hands of someone who has lost (or never had) self control for whatever reason or substance?

Unless you have something personal against this thing that people have been consuming since before recorded history.

Edit - I see it's been replied to earlier...

 

[Alamo]

I was talking to someone the other day and we differed in opinions about guns in church. He said he has a gun at home and "anyone who comes in my home is getting a bullet between the eyes!" However, he said that church is not the place for guns. I can't think of any place where I believe the carrying of a gun should be disallowed. Can anyone name even one place and give a reason for this viewpoint?

Self-explanatory.

 

[ChevyNova1970]

Kinda of the opposite approach but I think carry should be allowed on college/universities. The Only place I think we should not carry is Federal government property. This could be places such as The FBI, military bases, courthouses, etc.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I borrowed my brother's G-17.
Did some boat dives off a few islands out by Catalina.

Basically did it so I can say that I carryed while diving.........like now.
Same reason I shot my shotgun in the front yard, naked, at noon.

Questions:

1. What gun did you use to shoot that shotgun?
2. Why did you shoot it? What did it do to you?
3. Was the shotgun naked, or were you naked?
4. Was that noon local time, or simply noon 'somewhere in the world' (i.e., dead of night locally)?

Self-explanatory.

There was an x-ray machine set up at the Correctional Industrial Complex at Pendleton for a relatively short while until the local agents of the ACLU took the Department of Correction to court. During that time, an handgun was one of several different types of contraband found shoved up inmates' rear ends.

 

[Burnsy]

To each his own but I am surprised at the number of responders to this question that are willing to give up their right to self preservation because they are in a specific location.

Be it a church (have you read the news lately?), courthouse, military base (have you read the news lately?) or whatever the "FBI" means. What is most interestingly common about these locations in which the posters list to me is that every single one of them are publicly funded. Either though taxes or donation (sort of the same thing).

These are places that are funded by the people and are for the people. Yet so many are willing to disarm in or for them because they feel that they are somehow above and supersede the document that we all agree provides the very freedom to do so, for said people. That or it seems like it's because they deserve "respect". While I agree, this seems to include submitting one's self to whatever the hell happens.

Why do you feel that in these places you list you are at any less risk than any place that is not on your list? As I understand, and I don't claim to know why, the occupants with the exception of MPs on militay bases are not allowed to be armed in peace time. Court houses while having a few armed guards are not sworn to protect specifically you, or anyone for that matter.

Hell what if they decide to lay down slide their gun across the floor and give up? What if that results in your execution at the hands of a criminal? These places such as churches and courthouses and federal land that contains the graves of fallen soldiers. I respect them, in the case of the church I am not a religious person but I can still understand why they hold specific value to many. I get that they might be a place of solitude and deserve respect.

The problem is, they are still made of brick and mortar, just like your house or a movie theater....or a school. That makes not one bit of difference to the crack head that needs his fix, the guy who was rolling on crazy pills and shot up the church down south, the degenerates that not so long ago killed soldiers of our country at two different military bases (who were unarmed, don't ask me why soliders in our bases are required to be unarmed) or the name that I refuse to speak that killed so many children and adults in newtown.

These places are not "special" to these animals, they are a gun free zone in which they can do the most damage before they are gunned down or do themselves in because they are cowards too afraid to face the repercussions of their actions like a man. I am not advocating that anyone should break the law, I just don't understand why you would ever trust anyone but you when it comes to seeing the sun rise tomorrow, because you shouldn't.

To answer Que's question other than the very wisely pointed out MRI, in my opinion the gun is going to do more damage to me that I could do to a bad guy trying to pull the thing off the wall of the MRI and O2 tent (hell if I am in an O2 tent I have enough to worry about, putting a hole in it will probably kill my anyway), there is no "wrong" place for a gun. An armed society is a polite society. No exceptions. It would serve to preserve civility and stop this madness.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Actually i just found this in an older thread.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e/374353-casino-lock-boxes-2.html#post5642682

Thank you much, I actually posted in that thread and forgot about it.

Bill as always you have a very good point. Even if it were not a two key system, like a bank safe deposit box, the area would have to be under the control of the officer. Otherwise, A criminal miscreant (or is that excrement) could retrieve their weapon while the officer was busy and possibly do harm to him and others.

And as my previous post states lock boxes are no longer provided by casinos, it was too much of a financial burden, or they needed the space for an additional black jack table or two.

What is to stop a criminal miscreant from doing harm to an officer or others without storing their firearm? If they wished to do harm, why would they store it in the first place. And financial burder perhaps, although the casino I worked at had a guard stationed in the storage room anyway, it was also one of the camera rooms. And no, they couldn't put a blackjack table in there since it wasn't on the boat.

I've never been to a police misconduct trial, but if its in federal court (ie civil rights violation) then you can't for sure. I know on the local level when there is a trial officers may be interested in on a personal level (like the guy who shot Perry), we've been told we couldn't go in uniform if we were just observing. I cannot protest in uniform, etc.

Is that policy for all trials or just on a case by case basis? And police misconduct may have been the wrong term, when an officer is accused of a crime would be better. Especially if that crime involved their profession.

And to stay on topic, in bed during sex and used as a "prop".
Oklahoma man says wife's death was sex fantasy accident - CNN.com