This is a discussion on Stopped by cops for Open carry on Campus-Video. What do you think? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by razor02097 Its a moot point. You can NOT carry a gun on a University campus in Ohio. Concealed or not it is ...
Legal does not equal smart. You guys keep complaining about how your rights are going to be infringed upon by the fear mongers, yet you're not willing to meet halfway and keep them from seeing it, when asked. Out of sight, out of mind (and fear.) The subject in this video is not proving anything to the general population, except pushing them further away from his agenda.
Keep pushing it... you know what they say about backing people into corners.
Lets say that law didn't exist... then you have the law stating that gun buster signs are legally binding.
to make it a valid hypothetical situation you would have to ignore several Ohio laws.
Yeah it sucks the guy in the OP was confronted but if I went to UVU and was allowed to carry I would be happy as a fly on ****. Here in Ohio you can barely drive through a school zone while armed. They also recently allowed University students to lock up their guns in their trunks.
There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Comparing the likely reaction of gang member seeing you do something he doesn't like to the reaction of an Officer of the Law seeing you do something that is legal???
As I posted before:
andDisclaimer: I have CC on College Campuses to avoid the hassle -- especially when attending events where me being hassled would have created hardship, logistical problems, etc for others with me and when I thought it was the best tactic for the event. OTOH, I do OC on campus to help educate the staff & students that it is legal -- to help them get over their unreasonable fear and offset the myth that the campus is completely a "Unarmed Victim Zone"
Are we a country of "The Rule of Law" or a "Country of of the Rule on Man"? The Law says, "This is right." The man says, "This is my opinion." Which is controlling the situation? The Law? The opinion?
A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost. To be sure, each must decide if this hill is worth dieing for. But make no mistake, we are in a struggle to win back our rights and freedom -- or maybe just a struggle to keep the rights and freedom, which we still have.
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
Should you drive 45 instead of 55 in a 55 zone because the police tell you that you will get better mileage or that it's safer?? NO, not if you wanna drive 55! Go as fast as you want... up to 55 that is!
That's why there is a limit, if you abide the limit, you aren't doing something wrong. Sure driving at 55 during a driving rain may not be the smartest thing, but it's the drivers prerogative... isn't it?
Regarding driving 55 during a driving rain, you can actually be ticketed for that, (in Utah, not sure about other states), it's called driving too fast for the conditions. So, this isn't the best example, but I understand what you're talking about.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
We "had" a law here where they exempted those with CC licenses. Everyone kept real quiet about it, with the idea that if a CC gun was accidentally exposed... we were still legal. However, someone caught on to it ..... and after 2 yrs of it being legal, they are now changing the law and making it illegal for a CC licensed person to open carry.
This guy was out to make an issue and did. The officer's advice was good advice to me.
There's other ways to argue more effectively that open carry should be legal, which some people are doing with state representatives. However, incidents like this make it more difficult to get them convinced to vote for it.
The citizen was simply walking along. Yes, he was armed, little different than if done in his own neighborhood or in town. There was no threat, no aggression, and no attempt to instill fear or upset anyone, on the part of the citizen. Legislators should see this, even if heavy-handed law enforcement opts not to. After all, the legislators put into place the perfectly legal treatment of this benign act, yet the attack on liberty is made anyway.
Incidents "like this"? One would think they would be seen for what they are.
But, in this situation, the only real distinction between walking down one's own neighborhood street was the fact that this citizen was walking down the sidewalk at the university campus. According to the reports described so far, no "limits" were broken by the citizen: the carrying was legal; the state's preemption bars the state-funded university from twisting its knickers on this issue; there was no threat or aggression toward others; there was no overt offense given; there was no attempt to intimidate or influence others by the action. As such, there really wasn't any justification for any action against this citizen's liberties. The correct method to altering such behavior is, as some have pointed out, altering the legislative coverage of such activities. You want the behavior eliminated from your "back yard"? Speak with your legislator. Don't tramp on the liberties of citizens with zero regard for the law.
oooops I got involved!!
if the officer had asked those colored boys to not eat in the white section because it disrupting the business they should of done so and not busted the officers chops
if the officer had asked those black folks to not vote in that election because it made people afraid they should of done so and not busted the officers chops
if the officer had asked that Rabbi to conceal that Star of David because it made people nervous he should of done so and not busted the officers chops
if the officer had politely asked that Muslim to take off that turban because it made people nervous and afraid, he should have and not busted the officers chops
Remember Archie Bunker who would say he was not a bigot he had colored friends, how he had nothing against "those people"? Well this is an Archie Bunker cop. If the officer was really pro 2A he would be talking to the complainant explaining that the OCing citizen was doing nothing wrong. Well within his rights. Explain to the citizen that while he understood their personal reluctance to accept the responsibility of carrying a gun. The citizen should thank those that do, because statistically it has been proven beyond a doubt to make the community safer, with less rape, less murder, less robbery, less assault, less violence and crime. But he does not do that because he is not really pro 2A. He lied to this citizens just as he Lied to God when he swore and OATH to protect and defend the Constitution. That lie tells me everything I ever need to know about that officer.
Sadly this student is bowing down because he loves UVU. Even though UVU has no love for him and would prefer he be unarmed defenseless prey ala Virginia Tech. Today they got on step one gun closer to their goal thanks to his being a good subject and one officers contempt for the Constitution
Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution
Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family