Changes need to be made on both sides.
This is a discussion on Why does it have to be OC Vs. Police? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Roon Placing the blame entirely on one side is a little silly. You trying to tell me that there are not those ...
I'm going out on a limb here, perhaps, but I'd bet the bad, stiff manners would largely cease the moment the stomping on lawful behavior ceased.
Changes need to be made on both sides.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
“The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand
The only solution on a local level, is to organize and meet with the police chief. Hold the meeting at the town hall. Bring your state statutes, tell him the problem, focus on a standard procedure for handling Open Carry stops. All the chief has to do is issue a memo at roll call, shift change.
Ahhh, so the old "he hit me first!!" argument?I'm going out on a limb here, perhaps, but I'd bet the bad, stiff manners would largely cease the moment the stomping on lawful behavior ceased.
@ Roon: Which is it" Is it OK to bust someones chops or not??????
I would say that it is probably a good thing that folks with bad, unyielding manners get roughed up from time to time. To quote Bill Burr "Every guy has a line, and if you cross it you get blasted in the mouth". Thats the reality of it...not saying its right...but it is what it is and perhaps a little understanding and more deliberate attempts to show a little kindness and understanding will help make that go away.
I'm not sure who it is you believe should be roughed up. The person who is using bad unyielding manners while unlawfully attempting to gather information. Or, the person who while acting within the law refuses to give out information while acting in a bad unyielding manner?I would say that it is probably a good thing that folks with bad, unyielding manners get roughed up from time to time. To quote Bill Burr "Every guy has a line, and if you cross it you get blasted in the mouth". Thats the reality of it...not saying its right...but it is what it is and perhaps a little understanding and more deliberate attempts to show a little kindness and understanding will help make that go away.
When both are acting in that bad unyielding manner which do we rough up? The one following the law or the one breaking it?
Keep it civil, on point, polite and nice please.
Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 30th, 2012 at 08:45 PM.
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
Here is how it is often handled here (OC is part of our State's Constitution btw) Caller calls 911 "MWAG" Dispatch asks some simple questions for example "is the person pointing the gun at or threatening anyone" - "NO" Dispatch then informs them there is nothing illegal then going on and the Police cannot do anything but they will notify them and have LEO call them IF they want- Dispatch then contacts LEO who will make sure the caller's information is logged IF they get more calls from same caller they will often be charged with abuse of 911 for tying up resources without any cause having been notified by dispatch and LEO (often both on the same time frame) it is 100% legal activity . I have never heard of one case of "liability" (and really WHAT liability is there for not responding to legal activity? ) Obviously callers are informed that IF the carrier starts doing something that IS ILLEGAL to call them back but just being armed is not a crime and there is no need to tie up limited resources "for nothing" it has worked quite well here for a long time (> 150 years - but we didn't have 911 the whole time LOL)
And if LEO does respond and visually observes that there is nothing illegal taking place, the LEO needs to refrain from initiating contact with the person acting lawfully.
If the LEO doesn't initiate contact with the person who is engaged in only legal activity, there is no video of a LEO confrontation to post on youtube.
NRA Life Member
GOA Life Member
Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!
I always assume that when I see open carry that those people are the police...
You have until 6:00 to leave town.
Break your gun on a stump!
I'm glad somebody resurrected this thread. We just haven't had enough OC argument threads lately, even with the whole coffee fiasco.
There are so many possibilities for threads though. OC into a funeral home? OC into the Catholic confessional? OC into the birthing room of your first youngster.
We could go on and on and on and on
Personally I support OC or CC or both at once into any of the above
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
In all seriousness, I do like debating, which is how I actually came to this forum in the first place
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine
I don't always beat a horse ; but when I do I prefer dead ones
Stay Horsey My Friends