This is a discussion on Stopped last night within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by SIXTO Why not? I thought it was a fair question. Because it's the same as asking me why I chose to exercise ...
"Violence is seldom the answer, but when it is the answer it is the only answer".
"A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves".
The way a guy says something is almost as important as the words he used. The OP said the cop spoke in a way that said he questioned the need for civilians to carry, and I have no reason to doubt that. I find it ironic that a cop expects to be treated courteously by motorists, but he is allowed to be disrespectful if he's having a bad day? We all have bad days, suck it up!
I don't have a problem with any of NC's concealed carry laws except for the "notifying law enforcement" part. In some situations, it actually makes the situation more complicated. He might have been biased towards me because I don't really look like a "gun person". I am a grad student and look like a "youngin" and he might expect someone like me to be drinking and driving, etc.
Edit: Maybe I was just overreacting, but I don't like a LEO being nasty about me carrying. I wouldn't have posted if he asked in a nice way.
Philo.....welcome to the forum from your neighbor to the north
sure 1000 officers nationwide could be against CCW...and that is a lot...but....compare it nationwide to all the officers that DO like CCW compared to citizens that do/don't
our dept is overwhelmingly supportive of CCW, I'm pretty sure that demographic isn't that different here from Lubbock since I'm just up I-27 from you, we love seeing people exercising their 2nd amend rights, we wish we had more of it
from what I've seen and personally observed, the majority of cops that are against ccw are liberal leaning in their views anyway (seen this first hand) and are a member of the same demographic we're all a part of; a lot of anti-ccw cops are in administration...especially in bigger cities
now...checkpoints....they're legal in some states, some outlaw them, I personally would rather be patrolling watching for people doing wrong then at a roadblock
driving is a privilege, not a right...no matter how much someone is obeying the law it doesn't effectively become a right to drive nor does anything else effectively become a right because someone is doing it
DL....AGREE 100%--we need to do something about this....the 16 year olds on the road are horrible drivers, the laws need to be changed, more education, mandatory behind the wheel trainingMy philoshy on society:
1. It's way too easy to get a drivers license.
2. It's way to easy to become and remain a teacher.
3. It's way too easy to become a cop.
the other two...I completely disagree since I have experience in both, we all have opinions
becoming a teacher by getting a 4 year degree (if not a master's) then passing a certification test (in Texas anyway), then putting in all the time (including unpaid/off the clock), effort, and personal money to make your classroom be what you want it to be, then maintaining continuing ed is not way TOO easy in my book, it wasn't for me, my mom, or my sis-in-law either
as for becoming a cop....my academy's testing process started with 650 people, written exam, physical agility test, run test, 3 written psychological tests, psychological interview, board interview, physical, blood/disease screenings.....all to get the 26 people in my academy.....then spend 27 weeks 8 hours a day, basically getting an associates degree in 27 weeks, then going through "hell week" with the swat team to see who has what it takes to apply on the street what they've learned in the classroom, lost 3 in the academy that couldn't do it.....it wasn't way too easy either
our department doesn't have people that display the attitude and disrespect thats being discussed here, they take care of business when they need to and know when to turn that stuff on and off, I know its not like that everywhere all the time
and its always 99% coverage when cops screw up and only 1% when something is good, we have to deal with that, we have to deal with the public expecting a lot from us....we are trained on that too
I get what you're saying....cops don't need the chips on the shoulders, they don't need to speak to everyone like they are murder suspects or are the suspect they are looking for
cops need to be respectful to get the same in return....it goes both ways....be rough/gruff with the ones that need that treatment but not everybody all the time
the way something is asked is usually the determining factor in how a situation runs its course...good or bad...tone of voice, choice of words to express what you want to say....a lot of cops have the best intentions but they're not all wordsmiths
I always get more files with honey than with vinegar, but when the person I'm dealing with changes the situation the vinegar will be served
questions on traffic stops....to see how the person speaks (intoxicated or not, thinking logically, making up lies, etc),
WHY to carry....some people, cops or not, don't agree with ccw...they are out there
me...when I make a stop I won't ask because I know why....I did it 5 years before I got my badge, I like seeing people handing me a CHL with their DL and talking guns for a bit
If I was the OP I would have answered "to protect myself from an attacker, calling 911 is reactionary and I could be dead by the time help arrives"
no disrespect in that and its the truth
if you are required by law to disclose carrying then do it to stay out of trouble, if not required its a judgment thing
if asked why.....show you're just protecting yourself and exercising your right, if you're treated wrong by a cop then contact the department about it
Certified Glock Armorer
not enough space for list, main gear: duty-G17, S&W 642 bug, 870, RRA AR-15; G30 off-duty
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?
These are called suspicionless checkpoints and are illegal. These stops are a clear violation of one's 4th amendment rights. In this country we have the freedom of movement and without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, the police are violating your rights by forcing you to stop.
I would have cracked my window and asked the officer, "Am I being detained?" and would continue asking this until they let me go.
I can't argue with any of that. I think it should b e very hard to become a cop, then their starting paying should be $100k/yr. Good ones are worth that.
I was through your part of the world last week on my way to Dodge City, Ks. We always go through Canyon, Amarillo, Panhandle, Borger, Booker...
I have not had a negative interaction with LEO's around here. I was OCing when the HP officer pulled up to investigate an accident. He secured the gun in MY vehicle during the investigation/paperwork. No questions about "why". He did comment that I had a nice firearm, he was a Glock guy too. All of my DL checkpoint scenarios played out in about 30-45 seconds. I try to have my DL and CCP in hand when I pull up. They check the info and I get a "Have a nice day/night." The one funny time was in Haywood County, Canton PD. When I told the very young LEO that "I had a CCP and was armed" his eyes nearly bugged out and he stuttered "Uhm, well, OK that's nice to know. Have a nice day."
Heck, I have OC'd around cops in gun stores and no issues. But guns are an accepted part of life around here too. A buddy from Church is a CSI for a local Sheriff. He has said the he has NEVER had an issue with or had to investigate a CCP holder in his career. He's all for it. When I told him I was carrying his comment was "Good!"
Maybe he was having a bad night. You know, stuck in the middle of the road, asking stupid questions that irritate folks. That's got to suck.
I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!
"Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"
YMMV -- but being not negative is not messing w/ my gun, IMHO.
To me "not negative" is something along the lines of:
"Thanks for letting me know you are carrying. Where is your gun?"
"Holstered a 3:00"
"OK leave it there and don't go making any quick moves."
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
Real estate people, bankers, and mechanics do not have the authority to:There are crooked real estate people, embezzeling bankers, shister mechanices, and on and on and on.
1. Bust through my front door.
2. Arrest me.
3. Taze me.
4. Shoot me.
Those who have the authority to do great harm, are judged more harshly. The pilot in the left seat of the B737 you're riding in operates by a very narrow, strict set of guidelines from which people may die if he deviates. A brain surgeon is not allowed to make mistakes like most of us make, because people die if he does. With the authority/capacity to do grave harm comes a much higher level of accountability. If a cop doesn't like that, he chose the wrong line of work.
Disclaimer: I like most LEOs and soldiers and very much appreciate what they do for us all. There are a few "bad apples" in every group and an entire profession should not be mis-labelled based on the actions of a few.
I know I'm new to the board (and will probably catch some grief for it), but I'm inclined to agree with UA99. Clearly, people can be easily offended due to the sensitivity of the subject, but his point is valid nonetheless. The government's initial attempt at violating someone's rights may be nothing more than a simple disregard for that individual's 4th amendment rights (or any amendment of your choice). However, over time, those violations escalate into "bigger and badder" violations of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Several folks on here claim that the uniformed officers deserve respect simply because of their profession (and the fact that "uniforms" should be respected). Going with the same analogy, should the uniformed officers of Germany have been "respected" due to the fact that they were officers of the "law" with their uniforms? Clearly, the answer is no. The Germans began by violating basic rights, and that snowballed into the Holocaust. Obviously, a roadblock can't even be compared to the Holocaust on meter of seriousness, but it's the same principal (although on different scales). I'm not claiming that LEOs or soldiers in the US are the same as the Germans, but the point stands. Individuals do not "deserve" respect based on the fact that they wear "uniforms" or because of their profession. The fact that an individual went through a few weeks of BLET and gets paid to do a job that he or she wanted to do (many of them for the "power-trip" -- and this isn't me simply stereotyping them. I have many LEO friends who admit that a large part of their getting into the business was for this reason) makes him or her no more deserving of my respect than the manager of Burger King who went to "manager school" for a few weeks and has to deal with armed robbers on a constant basis. Failure to question authority when it should be questioned is how countries end up authoritarian governments -- something the US has always combated, not supported. I apologize that this is somewhat of a rambling, stream of consciousness diatribe, but I just don't feel that UA99 should be discredited for making a very valid point. His analogy may be on a sensitive subject, but what the man says makes sense.