Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun?
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Garrison Hilliard
Jan 27, 2012, 8:14:50 PM1/27/12
to
Last year, Ohioans got permission from state lawmakers to carry their
guns into bars, restaurants, nightclubs, shopping malls and sports
arenas.
Now, there’s an effort to loosen gun restrictions even more.
For full article see:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120126/NEWS010801/301250169
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
guns into bars, restaurants, nightclubs, shopping malls and sports
arenas.
Now, there’s an effort to loosen gun restrictions even more.
For full article see:
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120126/NEWS010801/301250169
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
Jan 30, 2012, 4:53:52 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 27, 6:14=A0pm, Garrison Hilliard <garri...@efn.org> wrote:
# Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun?
Thats not a valid question in Ohio. In that state, you are legally
obliged to notify any LEOs that you come in contact with that you are
carrying.
A move is on to do away with that law:
"HB422, a bill introduced earlier this week that would eliminate
Ohio's onerous notification requirement, has been referred to the Ohio
House of Representatives' State Government and Elections Committee.
This is a positive first step in moving the bill down the long road to
becoming law. Ohioans for Concealed Carry proposed the specific
language and provisions now contained in HB422 and worked closely with
Rep. Maag (Dist. 35), who introduced the bill."
Source http://www.ohioccw.org/
# Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun?
Thats not a valid question in Ohio. In that state, you are legally
obliged to notify any LEOs that you come in contact with that you are
carrying.
A move is on to do away with that law:
"HB422, a bill introduced earlier this week that would eliminate
Ohio's onerous notification requirement, has been referred to the Ohio
House of Representatives' State Government and Elections Committee.
This is a positive first step in moving the bill down the long road to
becoming law. Ohioans for Concealed Carry proposed the specific
language and provisions now contained in HB422 and worked closely with
Rep. Maag (Dist. 35), who introduced the bill."
Source http://www.ohioccw.org/
Wayne
Jan 30, 2012, 1:10:20 PM1/30/12
to
"Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley" <cowar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jg5pbg$r2g$1...@news.albasani.net...
# On Jan 27, 6:14=A0pm, Garrison Hilliard <garri...@efn.org> wrote:
# # Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun?
#
# Thats not a valid question in Ohio. In that state, you are legally
# obliged to notify any LEOs that you come in contact with that you are
# carrying.
#
Don't know the state level requirements here in CA, but our issuing sheriff
wants holders to identify themselves any time they are the focus of interest
of a LEO. OTOH, it is a reasonably smart thing to do anyway.
Joe Pfeiffer
Jan 30, 2012, 1:10:21 PM1/30/12
to
One of those laws whose point I sort of wonder about. If something is
happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
simple prudence dictates information the cop.
In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
And somebody who has something nefarious in mind won't be notifying the
cop no matter what the law says.
(in NM, there is no requirement to notify)
happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
simple prudence dictates information the cop.
In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
And somebody who has something nefarious in mind won't be notifying the
cop no matter what the law says.
(in NM, there is no requirement to notify)
Gerald "Brick" Brickwood
Jan 30, 2012, 4:33:10 PM1/30/12
to
Pennsylvania has no requirement to notify. But, if the officer asks it
would be a good idea to answer truthfully.
As I understand it Alaska does have a requirement to notify.
Peter Franks
Jan 30, 2012, 4:33:11 PM1/30/12
to
On 1/30/2012 10:10 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
# One of those laws whose point I sort of wonder about. If something is
# happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
# that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
# simple prudence dictates information the cop.
#
# In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
# instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
In UT, there is a requirement to notify at a traffic stop.
In NV, there isn't.
# One of those laws whose point I sort of wonder about. If something is
# happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
# that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
# simple prudence dictates information the cop.
#
# In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
# instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
In UT, there is a requirement to notify at a traffic stop.
In NV, there isn't.
Jim Yanik
Jan 30, 2012, 7:53:15 PM1/30/12
to
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jg6mec$tj8$1...@news.albasani.net:
# Don't know the state level requirements here in CA, but our issuing
# sheriff wants holders to identify themselves any time they are the
# focus of interest of a LEO. OTOH, it is a reasonably smart thing to
# do anyway.
In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include the
carry permit along with the driver's license that a police officer usually
asks for right at the beginning of the stop. He said it let the officer
know what sort of person they had stopped(no criminal record),was a sign of
respect to the officer,and that they would appreciate the info.
That seems to have worked well for me.
I've been stopped twice in my car and twice on my bicycle,while carrying
concealed.
One auto stop,the officer asked if I would place the gun(in it's fanny
pack) in my trunk while he conducted the stop,and I agreed. (He let me off
for the "failure to signal lane change"[my rear turn signals were obscured
by a low sun and clear bulbs instead of the proper yellow tinted bulbs] and
ignored my limo tint windows.)
the 2nd auto stop,the officer asked my why I gave him the carry permit,and
then asked what sort of gun I carried. He also let me off with a warning.
The first bicycle stop,the officer ignored the carry permit. I wasn't the
bank robber they were looking for.
2nd bicycle stop,the officer had me put the fanny pack on the ground while
he called in the DL. I wasn't the deranged guy they had been called about.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
news:jg6mec$tj8$1...@news.albasani.net:
# Don't know the state level requirements here in CA, but our issuing
# focus of interest of a LEO. OTOH, it is a reasonably smart thing to
# do anyway.
In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include the
carry permit along with the driver's license that a police officer usually
asks for right at the beginning of the stop. He said it let the officer
know what sort of person they had stopped(no criminal record),was a sign of
respect to the officer,and that they would appreciate the info.
That seems to have worked well for me.
I've been stopped twice in my car and twice on my bicycle,while carrying
concealed.
One auto stop,the officer asked if I would place the gun(in it's fanny
pack) in my trunk while he conducted the stop,and I agreed. (He let me off
for the "failure to signal lane change"[my rear turn signals were obscured
by a low sun and clear bulbs instead of the proper yellow tinted bulbs] and
ignored my limo tint windows.)
the 2nd auto stop,the officer asked my why I gave him the carry permit,and
then asked what sort of gun I carried. He also let me off with a warning.
The first bicycle stop,the officer ignored the carry permit. I wasn't the
bank robber they were looking for.
2nd bicycle stop,the officer had me put the fanny pack on the ground while
he called in the DL. I wasn't the deranged guy they had been called about.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
RosemontCrest
Jan 31, 2012, 7:46:29 AM1/31/12
to
On 1/30/2012 1:53 AM, Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley wrote:
# On Jan 27, 6:14=A0pm, Garrison Hilliard<garri...@efn.org> wrote:
# # Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun?
#
# Thats not a valid question in Ohio.
It certainly is a valid question, regardless of which state. _Should_
one be _required_ to inform a police officer? I say no, but I also
believe that it is a prudent course of action to do so.
# In that state, you are legally
# obliged to notify any LEOs that you come in contact with that you are
# carrying.
That is a response to the question: "_Is_ one required by law to inform
a police officer?"
# On Jan 27, 6:14=A0pm, Garrison Hilliard<garri...@efn.org> wrote:
# # Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun?
#
# Thats not a valid question in Ohio.
It certainly is a valid question, regardless of which state. _Should_
one be _required_ to inform a police officer? I say no, but I also
believe that it is a prudent course of action to do so.
# In that state, you are legally
# obliged to notify any LEOs that you come in contact with that you are
# carrying.
That is a response to the question: "_Is_ one required by law to inform
a police officer?"
Shall not be infringed
Jan 31, 2012, 7:46:30 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 27, 8:14=A0pm, Garrison Hilliard <garri...@efn.org> wrote:
# Last year, Ohioans got permission from state lawmakers to carry their
# guns into bars, restaurants, nightclubs, shopping malls and sports
# arenas.
#
# Now, there=92s an effort to loosen gun restrictions even more.
#
# =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 For full article see:
#
# http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120126/NEWS010801/301250169
Police officers are not allowed to profile. They should always assume
that everyone is carrying.
# Last year, Ohioans got permission from state lawmakers to carry their
# guns into bars, restaurants, nightclubs, shopping malls and sports
# arenas.
#
# Now, there=92s an effort to loosen gun restrictions even more.
#
# =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 For full article see:
#
# http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120126/NEWS010801/301250169
Police officers are not allowed to profile. They should always assume
that everyone is carrying.
Gunner Asch
Jan 31, 2012, 7:46:31 AM1/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:33:11 +0000 (UTC), Peter Franks
<peter....@cox.net> wrote:
#On 1/30/2012 10:10 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
## One of those laws whose point I sort of wonder about. If something is
## happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
## that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
## simple prudence dictates information the cop.
##
## In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
## instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
#
#In UT, there is a requirement to notify at a traffic stop.
#
#In NV, there isn't.
#
California there isnt either..but its a good idea to do so by all
accounts.
<peter....@cox.net> wrote:
#On 1/30/2012 10:10 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
## One of those laws whose point I sort of wonder about. If something is
## happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
## that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
## simple prudence dictates information the cop.
##
## In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
## instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
#
#In UT, there is a requirement to notify at a traffic stop.
#
#In NV, there isn't.
#
California there isnt either..but its a good idea to do so by all
accounts.
Mike Fontenot
Jan 31, 2012, 6:48:34 PM1/31/12
to
On 01/30/2012 05:53 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
#
# In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include the
# carry permit along with the driver's license that a police officer usually
# asks for right at the beginning of the stop. [...]
# That seems to have worked well for me.
#
I've heard stories that argue for both sides of this issue.
Every time I hear about an officer responding APPROPRIATELY when
informed (which, to me, means either "shrugging", or at most saying
"don't touch yours, and I won't touch mine"), I conclude that I SHOULD
inform.
But every time I hear about an officer responding INAPPROPRIATELY when
informed (ranging from requiring your legal firearm to be handled,
re-located, or surrendered in ANY way, to cases where the officer "goes
ballistic" and prones you out), I conclude that I SHOULDN'T inform.
Most of the time, I go with the latter plan: during a traffic stop, my
being legally armed or not shouldn't be a factor at all. Smart cops
know that they need to always be prepared to handle dangerous
situations, and legal concealed-carry has NOTHING to do with that.
I've never been pulled over (at least, not in the last 20 years or so),
so I haven't been forced yet to ACTUALLY make a REAL choice ... at this
point, it's just academic and theoretical.
--
Mike Fontenot
#
# In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include the
# carry permit along with the driver's license that a police officer usually
# asks for right at the beginning of the stop. [...]
# That seems to have worked well for me.
#
I've heard stories that argue for both sides of this issue.
Every time I hear about an officer responding APPROPRIATELY when
informed (which, to me, means either "shrugging", or at most saying
"don't touch yours, and I won't touch mine"), I conclude that I SHOULD
inform.
But every time I hear about an officer responding INAPPROPRIATELY when
informed (ranging from requiring your legal firearm to be handled,
re-located, or surrendered in ANY way, to cases where the officer "goes
ballistic" and prones you out), I conclude that I SHOULDN'T inform.
Most of the time, I go with the latter plan: during a traffic stop, my
being legally armed or not shouldn't be a factor at all. Smart cops
know that they need to always be prepared to handle dangerous
situations, and legal concealed-carry has NOTHING to do with that.
I've never been pulled over (at least, not in the last 20 years or so),
so I haven't been forced yet to ACTUALLY make a REAL choice ... at this
point, it's just academic and theoretical.
--
Mike Fontenot
CS
Jan 31, 2012, 8:25:07 PM1/31/12
to
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message news:jg8nr7$g0g$1...@news.albasani.net...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:33:11 +0000 (UTC), Peter Franks
<peter....@cox.net> wrote:
#On 1/30/2012 10:10 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
## One of those laws whose point I sort of wonder about. If something is
## happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
## that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
## simple prudence dictates information the cop.
##
## In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
## instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
#
#In UT, there is a requirement to notify at a traffic stop.
#
#In NV, there isn't.
#
California there isnt either..but its a good idea to do so by all
accounts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agreed.
I've been pulled over a number of times while armed, once on my bike. I've
never had a cop get stupid over it.
I've had them get stupid, that's for sure, but not over me having a firearm.
CS
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:33:11 +0000 (UTC), Peter Franks
<peter....@cox.net> wrote:
#On 1/30/2012 10:10 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
## One of those laws whose point I sort of wonder about. If something is
## happening where the fact you're armed is relevant (if something happened
## that meant I was getting searched, and was carrying, for instance)
## simple prudence dictates information the cop.
##
## In circumstances where it isn't relevant (a traffic stop, for
## instance), there's no need to complicate matters.
#
#In UT, there is a requirement to notify at a traffic stop.
#
#In NV, there isn't.
#
California there isnt either..but its a good idea to do so by all
accounts.
Agreed.
I've been pulled over a number of times while armed, once on my bike. I've
never had a cop get stupid over it.
I've had them get stupid, that's for sure, but not over me having a firearm.
CS
Wayne
Jan 31, 2012, 9:08:42 PM1/31/12
to
I think the issue is to avoid having a LEO be surprised by discovering that
you are packing, before he has seen the permit/license. That seems like a
situation with a more volatile set of possible outcomes than having the
facts come out first.
-
CS
Feb 1, 2012, 7:35:32 AM2/1/12
to
Nobody wants a surprised cop.
If he wants you to get out of the car, you accidently 'show', or, if your
like me, bullets just seem to migrate to every nook and cranny of your
house/car/motorcycle/clothing over a decade and a half of carrying, and he
finds out your carrying before you've told him, unhappiness will ensue.
I'd rather risk having an idiot cop get all stupid with me than that.
Happened to a friend of mine. Nothing serious, he was arrested after
showing his creds, after they were confirmed legit, and after the 'owner' of
the gun turned out to be the company that issued his creds. Turns out they
didn't believe him, probably because he is black. In the next year or so
he'll be settling with the department for a goodly sum, I'm sure.
Too bad they didn't beat his ass in front of some cameras. Major bucks
there.
CS
If he wants you to get out of the car, you accidently 'show', or, if your
like me, bullets just seem to migrate to every nook and cranny of your
house/car/motorcycle/clothing over a decade and a half of carrying, and he
finds out your carrying before you've told him, unhappiness will ensue.
I'd rather risk having an idiot cop get all stupid with me than that.
Happened to a friend of mine. Nothing serious, he was arrested after
showing his creds, after they were confirmed legit, and after the 'owner' of
the gun turned out to be the company that issued his creds. Turns out they
didn't believe him, probably because he is black. In the next year or so
he'll be settling with the department for a goodly sum, I'm sure.
Too bad they didn't beat his ass in front of some cameras. Major bucks
there.
CS
Joe Pfeiffer
Feb 1, 2012, 7:35:33 AM2/1/12
to
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> writes:
# I think the issue is to avoid having a LEO be surprised by discovering that
# you are packing, before he has seen the permit/license. That seems like a
# situation with a more volatile set of possible outcomes than having the
# facts come out first.
I guess that's what I was trying to get at with my earlier response: if
things are going in a way where, for any reason, he's going to be
finding it, you're better off notifying him before he encounters it.
Which does loop back to my question of what a "required to inform" law
really accomplishes.
# I think the issue is to avoid having a LEO be surprised by discovering that
# you are packing, before he has seen the permit/license. That seems like a
# situation with a more volatile set of possible outcomes than having the
# facts come out first.
I guess that's what I was trying to get at with my earlier response: if
things are going in a way where, for any reason, he's going to be
finding it, you're better off notifying him before he encounters it.
Which does loop back to my question of what a "required to inform" law
really accomplishes.
Truebrit
Feb 1, 2012, 7:35:35 AM2/1/12
to
#"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
#news:jga6ra$771$1...@news.albasani.net...
# I think the issue is to avoid having a LEO be surprised by discovering
# that
# you are packing, before he has seen the permit/license. That seems like a
# situation with a more volatile set of possible outcomes than having the
# facts come out first.
# -
# situation with a more volatile set of possible outcomes than having the
# facts come out first.
#
The guy in this video wasn't given the chance to inform he was carrying but
the cop did a nasty number on him anyway. Hope the cop got at least a
lengthy suspension if not fired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc
Truebrit.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 1, 2012, 3:47:10 PM2/1/12
to
# Agreed.
#
# I've been pulled over a number of times while armed, once on my bike.
# I've
# never had a cop get stupid over it.
#
# I've had them get stupid, that's for sure, but not over me having a
# firearm.
#
I've just had one go stupid on me just recently.
Cited me for burning a red while claiming that it was illegal to make a left
turn on a red light, even though it's specifically stated in the statute
under which he cited me.
Can't wait to talk to the prosecutor about it, with the specific statute in
hand.
..
Don Bruder
Feb 1, 2012, 3:47:14 PM2/1/12
to
In article <jgbbim$erd$1...@news.albasani.net>,
# lengthy suspension if not fired.
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc
Last thing I saw on the subject (Back on the 18th of January) said that
the charges against his victim had been dismissed, and that the cop
involved has indeed been fired. Further details weren't given in the
piece I saw it in, but I'd like to believe that the (now ex-)cop is
still looking at some time in court, if not in jail. "The Grapevine"
seemed to be indicating that his victim was planning on raking both him
and the city of Canton over the coals a few times. One can only hope...
"Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com> wrote:
# The guy in this video wasn't given the chance to inform he was carrying but
# the cop did a nasty number on him anyway. Hope the cop got at least a
# The guy in this video wasn't given the chance to inform he was carrying but
# lengthy suspension if not fired.
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc
Last thing I saw on the subject (Back on the 18th of January) said that
the charges against his victim had been dismissed, and that the cop
involved has indeed been fired. Further details weren't given in the
piece I saw it in, but I'd like to believe that the (now ex-)cop is
still looking at some time in court, if not in jail. "The Grapevine"
seemed to be indicating that his victim was planning on raking both him
and the city of Canton over the coals a few times. One can only hope...
Jim Yanik
Feb 1, 2012, 3:47:16 PM2/1/12
to
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in
news:jgbbil$erb$1...@news.albasani.net:
# I guess that's what I was trying to get at with my earlier response:
# if things are going in a way where, for any reason, he's going to be
# finding it, you're better off notifying him before he encounters it.
#
# Which does loop back to my question of what a "required to inform" law
# really accomplishes.
the simplest and IMO,safest way to notify an officer that you're armed is
to hand your carry permit over at the same time you hand them your driver's
license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or "I'm armed".
that might be construed as a threat.
ID/license is the first thing they ask for anyways,and most people have
their license ready to hand over by the time the cop approaches.
I keep my permit right behind my DL,in my wallet.
I just hand over both cards,slightly separated so the officer knows he's
getting TWO IDs. He automatically looks at both of them.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
news:jgbbil$erb$1...@news.albasani.net:
# I guess that's what I was trying to get at with my earlier response:
# if things are going in a way where, for any reason, he's going to be
# finding it, you're better off notifying him before he encounters it.
#
# Which does loop back to my question of what a "required to inform" law
# really accomplishes.
the simplest and IMO,safest way to notify an officer that you're armed is
to hand your carry permit over at the same time you hand them your driver's
license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or "I'm armed".
that might be construed as a threat.
ID/license is the first thing they ask for anyways,and most people have
their license ready to hand over by the time the cop approaches.
I keep my permit right behind my DL,in my wallet.
I just hand over both cards,slightly separated so the officer knows he's
getting TWO IDs. He automatically looks at both of them.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Steve B
Feb 1, 2012, 3:47:18 PM2/1/12
to
Do what the instructor in your state told you to do in your CCF class.
Steve
Steve
Truebrit
Feb 1, 2012, 4:34:40 PM2/1/12
to
## "Truebrit" <true...@hotmail.com> wrote:
# # The guy in this video wasn't given the chance to inform he was carrying
# but
# # the cop did a nasty number on him anyway. Hope the cop got at least a
# # lengthy suspension if not fired.
# #
# # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc
#
# "Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
# Last thing I saw on the subject (Back on the 18th of January) said that
# the charges against his victim had been dismissed, and that the cop
# involved has indeed been fired. Further details weren't given in the
# piece I saw it in, but I'd like to believe that the (now ex-)cop is
# still looking at some time in court, if not in jail. "The Grapevine"
# seemed to be indicating that his victim was planning on raking both him
# and the city of Canton over the coals a few times. One can only hope...
#
With an armed cop that far out of control the poor guy must have been
terrified. I know I would have been. Hope he soaks the ex cop. The police
dept. and the city of Canton big time.
--
Cheers!
Alex.C
# # The guy in this video wasn't given the chance to inform he was carrying
# but
# # the cop did a nasty number on him anyway. Hope the cop got at least a
# # lengthy suspension if not fired.
# #
# # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc
#
# "Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
# Last thing I saw on the subject (Back on the 18th of January) said that
# the charges against his victim had been dismissed, and that the cop
# involved has indeed been fired. Further details weren't given in the
# piece I saw it in, but I'd like to believe that the (now ex-)cop is
# still looking at some time in court, if not in jail. "The Grapevine"
# seemed to be indicating that his victim was planning on raking both him
# and the city of Canton over the coals a few times. One can only hope...
#
With an armed cop that far out of control the poor guy must have been
terrified. I know I would have been. Hope he soaks the ex cop. The police
dept. and the city of Canton big time.
--
Cheers!
Alex.C
Peter Franks
Feb 1, 2012, 6:32:08 PM2/1/12
to
On 2/1/2012 12:47 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
# Joe Pfeiffer<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in
# news:jgbbil$erb$1...@news.albasani.net:
#
# # I guess that's what I was trying to get at with my earlier response:
# # if things are going in a way where, for any reason, he's going to be
# # finding it, you're better off notifying him before he encounters it.
#
# the simplest and IMO,safest way to notify an officer that you're armed is
# to hand your carry permit over at the same time you hand them your driver's
# license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or "I'm armed".
# that might be construed as a threat.
#
# ID/license is the first thing they ask for anyways,and most people have
# their license ready to hand over by the time the cop approaches.
# I keep my permit right behind my DL,in my wallet.
# I just hand over both cards,slightly separated so the officer knows he's
# getting TWO IDs. He automatically looks at both of them.
I think that is the smartest option, regardless of the state requirement.
# Joe Pfeiffer<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in
# news:jgbbil$erb$1...@news.albasani.net:
#
# # I guess that's what I was trying to get at with my earlier response:
# # if things are going in a way where, for any reason, he's going to be
# # finding it, you're better off notifying him before he encounters it.
# #
# # Which does loop back to my question of what a "required to inform" law
# # really accomplishes.
# # Which does loop back to my question of what a "required to inform" law
#
# the simplest and IMO,safest way to notify an officer that you're armed is
# to hand your carry permit over at the same time you hand them your driver's
# license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or "I'm armed".
# that might be construed as a threat.
#
# ID/license is the first thing they ask for anyways,and most people have
# their license ready to hand over by the time the cop approaches.
# I keep my permit right behind my DL,in my wallet.
# I just hand over both cards,slightly separated so the officer knows he's
# getting TWO IDs. He automatically looks at both of them.
I think that is the smartest option, regardless of the state requirement.
Doug White
Feb 1, 2012, 6:32:09 PM2/1/12
to
Mike Fontenot <mlf...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:jg9uki$3ic$1...@news.albasani.net:
# On 01/30/2012 05:53 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
# #
# # In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include
# the # carry permit along with the driver's license that a police
# officer usually # asks for right at the beginning of the stop. [...]
# # That seems to have worked well for me.
# #
#
# Every time I hear about an officer responding APPROPRIATELY when
# informed (which, to me, means either "shrugging", or at most saying
# "don't touch yours, and I won't touch mine"), I conclude that I SHOULD
# inform.
#
# But every time I hear about an officer responding INAPPROPRIATELY when
# informed (ranging from requiring your legal firearm to be handled,
# re-located, or surrendered in ANY way, to cases where the officer
# "goes ballistic" and prones you out), I conclude that I SHOULDN'T
# inform.
#
# Most of the time, I go with the latter plan: during a traffic stop, my
# being legally armed or not shouldn't be a factor at all. Smart cops
# know that they need to always be prepared to handle dangerous
# situations, and legal concealed-carry has NOTHING to do with that.
#
# I've never been pulled over (at least, not in the last 20 years or
# so), so I haven't been forced yet to ACTUALLY make a REAL choice ...
# at this point, it's just academic and theoretical.
I live in Massachusetts. I have been stopped a couple of times for minor
traffic stuff, never while carrying. The local cops have not asked, and
I did not offer any info. HOWEVER, if the State Police are involved,
they automatically run a check on the owner of the car before they even
get out of their vehicle. They KNEW I had a permit, and the first thing
they asked was if I was carrying. I put both hands on the top of the
steering wheel as they approached, and I told them I did not have a
firearm with me. No point in making them nervous.
Doug White
news:jg9uki$3ic$1...@news.albasani.net:
# On 01/30/2012 05:53 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
# #
# # In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include
# officer usually # asks for right at the beginning of the stop. [...]
# # That seems to have worked well for me.
# #
#
# I've heard stories that argue for both sides of this issue.
#
# Every time I hear about an officer responding APPROPRIATELY when
# informed (which, to me, means either "shrugging", or at most saying
# "don't touch yours, and I won't touch mine"), I conclude that I SHOULD
# inform.
#
# But every time I hear about an officer responding INAPPROPRIATELY when
# informed (ranging from requiring your legal firearm to be handled,
# re-located, or surrendered in ANY way, to cases where the officer
# "goes ballistic" and prones you out), I conclude that I SHOULDN'T
# inform.
#
# Most of the time, I go with the latter plan: during a traffic stop, my
# being legally armed or not shouldn't be a factor at all. Smart cops
# know that they need to always be prepared to handle dangerous
# situations, and legal concealed-carry has NOTHING to do with that.
#
# I've never been pulled over (at least, not in the last 20 years or
# so), so I haven't been forced yet to ACTUALLY make a REAL choice ...
# at this point, it's just academic and theoretical.
I live in Massachusetts. I have been stopped a couple of times for minor
traffic stuff, never while carrying. The local cops have not asked, and
I did not offer any info. HOWEVER, if the State Police are involved,
they automatically run a check on the owner of the car before they even
get out of their vehicle. They KNEW I had a permit, and the first thing
they asked was if I was carrying. I put both hands on the top of the
steering wheel as they approached, and I told them I did not have a
firearm with me. No point in making them nervous.
Doug White
Mike Fontenot
Feb 1, 2012, 7:30:58 PM2/1/12
to
On 02/01/2012 04:32 PM, Doug White wrote:
# Mike Fontenot<mlf...@comcast.net> wrote in
# news:jg9uki$3ic$1...@news.albasani.net:
#
#[...]
# HOWEVER, if the State Police are involved,
# they automatically run a check on the owner of the car before they even
# get out of their vehicle. They KNEW I had a permit, and the first thing
# they asked was if I was carrying.
Until recently, Colorado left it up to the local sheriff to decide
whether to enter CCW data into a statewide database that is checked by
ALL cops during traffic stops. My sheriff (Boulder, Colo) DID choose to
enter that data. But during the last year, the law changed and made it
illegal for that data to be entered into that database, and any existing
CCW data was supposed to be destroyed. So, assuming that actually
happened in all cases, CCW data is no longer available to cops during
traffic stops. (And Colorado DOESN'T require notification during
traffic stops).
--
Mike Fontenot
# Mike Fontenot<mlf...@comcast.net> wrote in
# news:jg9uki$3ic$1...@news.albasani.net:
#
#[...]
# HOWEVER, if the State Police are involved,
# they automatically run a check on the owner of the car before they even
# get out of their vehicle. They KNEW I had a permit, and the first thing
# they asked was if I was carrying.
Until recently, Colorado left it up to the local sheriff to decide
whether to enter CCW data into a statewide database that is checked by
ALL cops during traffic stops. My sheriff (Boulder, Colo) DID choose to
enter that data. But during the last year, the law changed and made it
illegal for that data to be entered into that database, and any existing
CCW data was supposed to be destroyed. So, assuming that actually
happened in all cases, CCW data is no longer available to cops during
traffic stops. (And Colorado DOESN'T require notification during
traffic stops).
--
Mike Fontenot
CS
Feb 2, 2012, 11:27:16 AM2/2/12
to
# "Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
# Last thing I saw on the subject (Back on the 18th of January) said that
# the charges against his victim had been dismissed, and that the cop
# involved has indeed been fired. Further details weren't given in the
# piece I saw it in, but I'd like to believe that the (now ex-)cop is
# still looking at some time in court, if not in jail. "The Grapevine"
# seemed to be indicating that his victim was planning on raking both him
# and the city of Canton over the coals a few times. One can only hope...
#
With an armed cop that far out of control the poor guy must have been
terrified. I know I would have been. Hope he soaks the ex cop. The police
dept. and the city of Canton big time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
# Last thing I saw on the subject (Back on the 18th of January) said that
# the charges against his victim had been dismissed, and that the cop
# involved has indeed been fired. Further details weren't given in the
# piece I saw it in, but I'd like to believe that the (now ex-)cop is
# still looking at some time in court, if not in jail. "The Grapevine"
# seemed to be indicating that his victim was planning on raking both him
# and the city of Canton over the coals a few times. One can only hope...
#
With an armed cop that far out of control the poor guy must have been
terrified. I know I would have been. Hope he soaks the ex cop. The police
dept. and the city of Canton big time.
A fitting punishment would be making him do this routine in Los Angeles.
He wouldn't last two hours.
Anyway, seems this wasn't his only audition for Prison Bitch Idol:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/i-am-going-to-shoot-you-third-explosive-canton-cop-video-emerges/
The scary part is this:
http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x638339306/Daniel-Harless-fired-from-Canton-police-force
"The city law department asked the Massillon prosecutor’s office to
determine whether Harless’ actions warranted criminal charges. John Simpson,
chief prosecutor for the city of Massillon, said that he reviewed state law
for menacing, aggravated menacing and assault, but there was insufficient
evidence to support any charges."
Perhaps things are different in Ohio, but in California, assault, battery,
and terrorist threats are all obvious. I believe doing these things under
the color of law is on the books in CA, but it is definitely on the books at
the federal level. Somehow it doesn't look like these officers, and the
department, are going to get the Rodney King treatment from this
administration.
Hopefully he'll stay fired. His union wants to put him back on the streets.
CS
Joe Pfeiffer
Feb 2, 2012, 11:27:18 AM2/2/12
to
# I live in Massachusetts. I have been stopped a couple of times for minor
# traffic stuff, never while carrying. The local cops have not asked, and
# I did not offer any info. HOWEVER, if the State Police are involved,
# they automatically run a check on the owner of the car before they even
# get out of their vehicle. They KNEW I had a permit, and the first thing
# they asked was if I was carrying. I put both hands on the top of the
# get out of their vehicle. They KNEW I had a permit, and the first thing
# steering wheel as they approached, and I told them I did not have a
# firearm with me. No point in making them nervous.
A point I hadn't considered -- I'd be very surprised if NM cops (both
state and local) didn't do the same. It'll be interesting to see what
happens when my permit comes through (I've taken the test and filed the
paperwork, and am checking my mailbox daily!)...
Joe Pfeiffer
Feb 2, 2012, 11:27:20 AM2/2/12
to
# Until recently, Colorado left it up to the local sheriff to decide
# whether to enter CCW data into a statewide database that is checked by
# ALL cops during traffic stops. My sheriff (Boulder, Colo) DID choose to
# enter that data. But during the last year, the law changed and made it
# illegal for that data to be entered into that database, and any existing
# CCW data was supposed to be destroyed. So, assuming that actually
# happened in all cases, CCW data is no longer available to cops during
# traffic stops. (And Colorado DOESN'T require notification during
# traffic stops).
Is CCW at the county level in Colorado? In NM, it's issued by the
state. I guess I'm surprised to hear that there's a state where it
wouldn't be at that level.
Mike Fontenot
Feb 2, 2012, 1:49:10 PM2/2/12
to
On 02/02/2012 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
#
# Is CCW at the county level in Colorado? In NM, it's issued by the
#
# state. I guess I'm surprised to hear that there's a state where it
# wouldn't be at that level.
#
When I got my permit (about 15 years ago), Colorado wasn't a
"shall-issue" state ... it was left up to each individual sheriff ...
some never issued any at all, some just issued them to their friends and
the well-connected, some issued to anyone they vetted (more involved
than the current requirements), and some issued to almost anyone
(including residents of other counties).
Then (maybe 8 or 10 years or so ago), the state passed a shall-issue law
... one of the best and least restrictive in the nation ... about the
only annoying restriction is that K-12 schools are posted (that wasn't
the case for ALL the years in Colorado before, and I don't think there
was ever a single problem in schools in all those years caused by a
permit-holder) ... so K-12 schools are now "defenseless-victim zones".
But even though we are now a "shall-issue" state (where the rules are
uniformly determined at the state level), the sheriffs still have the
responsibility of administering the permitting process for the residents
of their counties, even though the sheriffs no longer have any say about
who gets approved, and can't impose any additional restrictions or
requirements of their own.
--
Mike Fontenot
Mike Fontenot
Feb 2, 2012, 1:49:12 PM2/2/12
to
On 02/02/2012 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
# [...]
# #HOWEVER, if the State Police are involved,
# # they automatically run a check on the owner of the car before they even
# # get out of their vehicle. They KNEW I had a permit, and the first thing
# # they asked was if I was carrying.
# [...]
# A point I hadn't considered -- I'd be very surprised if NM cops (both
# state and local) didn't do the same. It'll be interesting to see what
# happens when my permit comes through (I've taken the test and filed the
# paperwork, and am checking my mailbox daily!)...
#
Whether cops have access to that data SHOULD be (and hopefully IS)
publicly-available information.
--
Mike Fontenot
Wayne
Feb 2, 2012, 1:49:13 PM2/2/12
to
"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message news:jgedh7$9am$1...@news.albasani.net...
# Until recently, Colorado left it up to the local sheriff to decide
# whether to enter CCW data into a statewide database that is checked by
# ALL cops during traffic stops. My sheriff (Boulder, Colo) DID choose to
# enter that data. But during the last year, the law changed and made it
# illegal for that data to be entered into that database, and any existing
# CCW data was supposed to be destroyed. So, assuming that actually
# happened in all cases, CCW data is no longer available to cops during
# traffic stops. (And Colorado DOESN'T require notification during
# traffic stops).
<Is CCW at the county level in Colorado? In NM, it's issued by the
<state. I guess I'm surprised to hear that there's a state where it
<wouldn't be at that level.
-
Thus, there are a fair number of CCWs in some counties (typically inland),
and virtually none in other counties (typically along the coast).
Kevin Snodgrass
Feb 3, 2012, 5:20:55 AM2/3/12
to
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:47:16 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
# driver's license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or
# "I'm armed". that might be construed as a threat.
Maybe stating "I have a concealed carry permit, would you like to see it
also?" or something similar would eliminate the construed threat issue.
# driver's license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or
# "I'm armed". that might be construed as a threat.
Maybe stating "I have a concealed carry permit, would you like to see it
also?" or something similar would eliminate the construed threat issue.
Gunner Asch
Feb 3, 2012, 2:14:59 PM2/3/12
to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:49:10 +0000 (UTC), Mike Fontenot
<mlf...@comcast.net> wrote:
#On 02/02/2012 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
#
##
## Is CCW at the county level in Colorado? In NM, it's issued by the
## state. I guess I'm surprised to hear that there's a state where it
## wouldn't be at that level.
##
#
#When I got my permit (about 15 years ago), Colorado wasn't a
#"shall-issue" state ... it was left up to each individual sheriff ...
#some never issued any at all, some just issued them to their friends and
#the well-connected, some issued to anyone they vetted (more involved
#than the current requirements), and some issued to almost anyone
#(including residents of other counties).
#
#Then (maybe 8 or 10 years or so ago), the state passed a shall-issue law
#... one of the best and least restrictive in the nation ... about the
#only annoying restriction is that K-12 schools are posted (that wasn't
#the case for ALL the years in Colorado before, and I don't think there
#was ever a single problem in schools in all those years caused by a
#permit-holder) ... so K-12 schools are now "defenseless-victim zones".
#
#But even though we are now a "shall-issue" state (where the rules are
#uniformly determined at the state level), the sheriffs still have the
#responsibility of administering the permitting process for the residents
#of their counties, even though the sheriffs no longer have any say about
#who gets approved, and can't impose any additional restrictions or
#requirements of their own.
and carrying Denver?
<mlf...@comcast.net> wrote:
#On 02/02/2012 09:27 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
#
## Is CCW at the county level in Colorado? In NM, it's issued by the
## state. I guess I'm surprised to hear that there's a state where it
## wouldn't be at that level.
##
#
#When I got my permit (about 15 years ago), Colorado wasn't a
#"shall-issue" state ... it was left up to each individual sheriff ...
#some never issued any at all, some just issued them to their friends and
#the well-connected, some issued to anyone they vetted (more involved
#than the current requirements), and some issued to almost anyone
#(including residents of other counties).
#
#Then (maybe 8 or 10 years or so ago), the state passed a shall-issue law
#... one of the best and least restrictive in the nation ... about the
#only annoying restriction is that K-12 schools are posted (that wasn't
#the case for ALL the years in Colorado before, and I don't think there
#was ever a single problem in schools in all those years caused by a
#permit-holder) ... so K-12 schools are now "defenseless-victim zones".
#
#But even though we are now a "shall-issue" state (where the rules are
#uniformly determined at the state level), the sheriffs still have the
#responsibility of administering the permitting process for the residents
#of their counties, even though the sheriffs no longer have any say about
#who gets approved, and can't impose any additional restrictions or
#requirements of their own.
and carrying Denver?
Gunner Asch
Feb 3, 2012, 2:15:01 PM2/3/12
to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:49:13 +0000 (UTC), "Wayne"
<mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
#
#
#"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message news:jgedh7$9am$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
## Until recently, Colorado left it up to the local sheriff to decide
## whether to enter CCW data into a statewide database that is checked by
## ALL cops during traffic stops. My sheriff (Boulder, Colo) DID choose to
## enter that data. But during the last year, the law changed and made it
## illegal for that data to be entered into that database, and any existing
## CCW data was supposed to be destroyed. So, assuming that actually
## happened in all cases, CCW data is no longer available to cops during
## traffic stops. (And Colorado DOESN'T require notification during
## traffic stops).
#
#<Is CCW at the county level in Colorado? In NM, it's issued by the
#<state. I guess I'm surprised to hear that there's a state where it
#<wouldn't be at that level.
#-
#California is mostly issued by county, but some police chiefs issue them.
#Thus, there are a fair number of CCWs in some counties (typically inland),
#and virtually none in other counties (typically along the coast).
City of Los Angeles, some 9 million souls...13 permits that they admit
to.
Gunner
<mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
#
#
#"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message news:jgedh7$9am$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
## Until recently, Colorado left it up to the local sheriff to decide
## whether to enter CCW data into a statewide database that is checked by
## ALL cops during traffic stops. My sheriff (Boulder, Colo) DID choose to
## enter that data. But during the last year, the law changed and made it
## illegal for that data to be entered into that database, and any existing
## CCW data was supposed to be destroyed. So, assuming that actually
## happened in all cases, CCW data is no longer available to cops during
## traffic stops. (And Colorado DOESN'T require notification during
## traffic stops).
#
#<Is CCW at the county level in Colorado? In NM, it's issued by the
#<state. I guess I'm surprised to hear that there's a state where it
#<wouldn't be at that level.
#-
#California is mostly issued by county, but some police chiefs issue them.
#Thus, there are a fair number of CCWs in some counties (typically inland),
#and virtually none in other counties (typically along the coast).
City of Los Angeles, some 9 million souls...13 permits that they admit
to.
Gunner
Scammed Public
Feb 3, 2012, 2:15:02 PM2/3/12
to
On Jan 31, 7:46=A0am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
# On Jan 27, 8:14=3DA0pm, Garrison Hilliard <garri...@efn.org> wrote:
# # Last year, Ohioans got permission from state lawmakers to carry their
# # guns into bars, restaurants, nightclubs, shopping malls and sports
# # arenas.
# #
# # Now, there=3D92s an effort to loosen gun restrictions even more.
# #
# # =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 For full article see:
# #
# #http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120126/NEWS010801/301250169
#
# Police officers are not allowed to profile. =A0They should always assume
# that everyone is carrying.
#
Which is more proof gun registries are rubbish. No sane officer would
go into any situation assuming someone had no gun if a registry check
revealed no ownership.
che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
# On Jan 27, 8:14=3DA0pm, Garrison Hilliard <garri...@efn.org> wrote:
# # Last year, Ohioans got permission from state lawmakers to carry their
# # guns into bars, restaurants, nightclubs, shopping malls and sports
# # arenas.
# #
# # Now, there=3D92s an effort to loosen gun restrictions even more.
# #
# # =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 For full article see:
# #
# #http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120126/NEWS010801/301250169
#
# Police officers are not allowed to profile. =A0They should always assume
# that everyone is carrying.
#
Which is more proof gun registries are rubbish. No sane officer would
go into any situation assuming someone had no gun if a registry check
revealed no ownership.
Argent
Feb 3, 2012, 2:15:03 PM2/3/12
to
In Arizona you don't need a permit to carry, so when I got stopped by
a traffic cop, I told him I had a gun in the car in the glove box
where the insurance and registration are. No problem (other than I
got a traffic ticket!).
a traffic cop, I told him I had a gun in the car in the glove box
where the insurance and registration are. No problem (other than I
got a traffic ticket!).
Mike Fontenot
Feb 3, 2012, 6:49:57 PM2/3/12
to
On 02/03/2012 12:14 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
#
# and carrying Denver?
#
The Denver authorities have tried as hard as they can to circumvent the
law ... they initially claimed "home-rule", as I recall. I don't
remember if they lost that argument outright, or if the case is still
not completely resolved. But they HAVE been forced to reluctantly issue
permits. I've heard of several cases where they have printed additional
restrictions on the permits themselves, but I don't think that carries
any legal weight.
What IS it about big cities and gun-rights? Do people's brains just
turn to mush when the population density gets that high?
--
Mike Fontenot
#
# and carrying Denver?
#
The Denver authorities have tried as hard as they can to circumvent the
law ... they initially claimed "home-rule", as I recall. I don't
remember if they lost that argument outright, or if the case is still
not completely resolved. But they HAVE been forced to reluctantly issue
permits. I've heard of several cases where they have printed additional
restrictions on the permits themselves, but I don't think that carries
any legal weight.
What IS it about big cities and gun-rights? Do people's brains just
turn to mush when the population density gets that high?
--
Mike Fontenot
Wayne
Feb 3, 2012, 9:53:16 PM2/3/12
to
California sheriffs have the option of having restrictions on a permit. For
example, if you didn't convince the sheriff that you need a permit for
anything other than a job driving, there might be a restriction limiting the
permit to driving.
HOWEVER, for the most part, if a California sheriff issues a permit, there
are seldom any restrictions. In LA...who knows....
Mike Marlow
Feb 4, 2012, 5:58:09 AM2/4/12
to
Mike Fontenot wrote:
#> What IS it about big cities and gun-rights? Do people's brains just
#> turn to mush when the population density gets that high?
Yup!
RosemontCrest
Feb 4, 2012, 5:58:11 AM2/4/12
to
On 2/3/2012 3:49 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
#
# [snip]
#
# What IS it about big cities and gun-rights? Do people's brains just
# turn to mush when the population density gets that high?
It's not the population density, it's the density of the populace.
# On 02/03/2012 12:14 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
# #
# # and carrying Denver?
# #
# #
# # and carrying Denver?
#
# [snip]
#
# What IS it about big cities and gun-rights? Do people's brains just
# turn to mush when the population density gets that high?
It's not the population density, it's the density of the populace.
Gerald "Brick" Brickwood
Feb 5, 2012, 5:35:21 PM2/5/12
to
Well if you are a Denverite or a Coloradan call them on the practice. Just
to make sure my meaning is clear on that, Get their a$$es in court as soon
as possible!
New York has roughly the same situation only it has gotten too far out of
hand. There is no basis in the written law for "restricted licenses" or for
that matter, training requirements, storage safes or expiration dates
either. But, the judges that have been given the authority and
responsibility to issue the licenses have (in many cases) take it upon
themselves to set whatever conditions they in their sole judgment chose to
set. This became so commonplace and so "accepted" by the gun owning
community that lawsuits brought by NYS pro-gun activists in the late 1980s
failed in court. So if you have a law that is neutral or fair, fight to
keep it so or it shall soon be turn against you!
Shall not be infringed
Feb 6, 2012, 8:07:15 PM2/6/12
to
#
# Which is more proof gun registries are rubbish. =A0No sane officer would
# go into any situation assuming someone had no gun if a registry check
# revealed no ownership.
So... why do we bother with licensing people to carry?
# Which is more proof gun registries are rubbish. =A0No sane officer would
# go into any situation assuming someone had no gun if a registry check
# revealed no ownership.
So... why do we bother with licensing people to carry?
Joe Pfeiffer
Feb 7, 2012, 8:54:06 AM2/7/12
to
Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> writes:
# #
# # revealed no ownership.
#
# So... why do we bother with licensing people to carry?
Because the politicians have a bizarre belief that it'll keep the
unlicensed from carrying, of course.
# #
# # Which is more proof gun registries are rubbish. =A0No sane officer would
# # go into any situation assuming someone had no gun if a registry check
# # revealed no ownership.
#
# So... why do we bother with licensing people to carry?
Because the politicians have a bizarre belief that it'll keep the
unlicensed from carrying, of course.
cemo33
Feb 7, 2012, 8:54:12 AM2/7/12
to
Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
# #
Control.
# #
# # Which is more proof gun registries are rubbish. =A0No sane officer would
# # go into any situation assuming someone had no gun if a registry check
# # revealed no ownership.
#
# So... why do we bother with licensing people to carry?
# # revealed no ownership.
#
Control.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 7, 2012, 8:54:13 AM2/7/12
to
"Shall not be infringed" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgptg2$ka9$1...@news.albasani.net...
# #
## Which is more proof gun registries are rubbish. =A0No sane officer would
## go into any situation assuming someone had no gun if a registry check
## revealed no ownership.
##
# So... why do we bother with licensing people to carry?
#
For people who need to control, it's a foot in the door
Jim Yanik
Feb 7, 2012, 2:29:39 PM2/7/12
to
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in
news:jgradu$6j1$1...@news.albasani.net:
# Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> writes:
# # So... why do we bother with licensing people to carry?
# Because the politicians have a bizarre belief that it'll keep the
# unlicensed from carrying, of course.
No,that's not true.they already KNOW criminals will carry guns anyways.
It's about making it more difficult for ordinary decent citizens to
lawfully go about armed.
It's just more expense,more red tape,more hoops to jump through,and it also
enables the right to be REVOKED at an official's whim.
It's to reduce a CIVIL RIGHT to a mere privilege granted by the State.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Chris Morton
Feb 10, 2012, 4:11:38 PM2/10/12
to
In article <jgc8ck$fq6$1...@news.albasani.net>, Jim Yanik says...
#the simplest and IMO,safest way to notify an officer that you're armed is
#to hand your carry permit over at the same time you hand them your driver's
#license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or "I'm armed".
#that might be construed as a threat.
That would not be considered proper notification in Ohio and you would be
subject to prosecution for "failure to 'promptly' (not defined) notify".
Notification needs to be done away with in Ohio. In addition:
Harless needs to be prosecuted for filing a false report.
Diels (his partner) needs to be prosecuted for perjury on the stand.
The prosecutor needs to be disbarred for suborning Diels' perjury.
The Canton PD (whose officers volunteered sick leave to Harless) needs to be
"de-Nazified".
Ohioans for Concealed Carry is working on getting the notification requirement
repealed, precisely because of the Harless incident, and the Beachwood incident
which preceded it.
Ohio cops can't be trusted with the notification requirement. They've
repeatedly abused it and it should be taken away from them as punishment.
#the simplest and IMO,safest way to notify an officer that you're armed is
#to hand your carry permit over at the same time you hand them your driver's
#license/ID. It's far better than telling him "I have a gun",or "I'm armed".
#that might be construed as a threat.
That would not be considered proper notification in Ohio and you would be
subject to prosecution for "failure to 'promptly' (not defined) notify".
Notification needs to be done away with in Ohio. In addition:
Harless needs to be prosecuted for filing a false report.
Diels (his partner) needs to be prosecuted for perjury on the stand.
The prosecutor needs to be disbarred for suborning Diels' perjury.
The Canton PD (whose officers volunteered sick leave to Harless) needs to be
"de-Nazified".
Ohioans for Concealed Carry is working on getting the notification requirement
repealed, precisely because of the Harless incident, and the Beachwood incident
which preceded it.
Ohio cops can't be trusted with the notification requirement. They've
repeatedly abused it and it should be taken away from them as punishment.
Dillon Pyron
Feb 15, 2012, 5:08:02 PM2/15/12
to
Thus spake Jim Yanik <jya...@localnet.com> :
#"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
#news:jg6mec$tj8$1...@news.albasani.net:
#
#
## Don't know the state level requirements here in CA, but our issuing
## sheriff wants holders to identify themselves any time they are the
## focus of interest of a LEO. OTOH, it is a reasonably smart thing to
## do anyway.
#
#In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include the
#carry permit along with the driver's license that a police officer usually
#asks for right at the beginning of the stop. He said it let the officer
#know what sort of person they had stopped(no criminal record),was a sign of
#respect to the officer,and that they would appreciate the info.
#That seems to have worked well for me.
In Texas (at least) I am required to tell an officer that I have a CHL
if he asks and I have one, and am carrying. If he asks and I'm not
carrying, you can say nothing and only hand over your DL. Of course,
if you're carrying and you DON'T have a CHL you won't be telling and
handing it over, right?
#
#I've been stopped twice in my car and twice on my bicycle,while carrying
#concealed.
#One auto stop,the officer asked if I would place the gun(in it's fanny
#pack) in my trunk while he conducted the stop,and I agreed. (He let me off
#for the "failure to signal lane change"[my rear turn signals were obscured
#by a low sun and clear bulbs instead of the proper yellow tinted bulbs] and
#ignored my limo tint windows.)
#
#the 2nd auto stop,the officer asked my why I gave him the carry permit,and
#then asked what sort of gun I carried. He also let me off with a warning.
#
#The first bicycle stop,the officer ignored the carry permit. I wasn't the
#bank robber they were looking for.
The bike he was looking for was a Harley? :-)
#
#2nd bicycle stop,the officer had me put the fanny pack on the ground while
#he called in the DL. I wasn't the deranged guy they had been called about.
As an aside, in the UK a fanny is on the front side. Of women only.
One person asked, for amusement purposes, if "fanny pack" and slang
for tampon. :-)
#"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
#news:jg6mec$tj8$1...@news.albasani.net:
#
#
## Don't know the state level requirements here in CA, but our issuing
## sheriff wants holders to identify themselves any time they are the
## focus of interest of a LEO. OTOH, it is a reasonably smart thing to
## do anyway.
#
#In my permit class,the officer that taught it advised us to include the
#carry permit along with the driver's license that a police officer usually
#asks for right at the beginning of the stop. He said it let the officer
#know what sort of person they had stopped(no criminal record),was a sign of
#respect to the officer,and that they would appreciate the info.
#That seems to have worked well for me.
In Texas (at least) I am required to tell an officer that I have a CHL
if he asks and I have one, and am carrying. If he asks and I'm not
carrying, you can say nothing and only hand over your DL. Of course,
if you're carrying and you DON'T have a CHL you won't be telling and
handing it over, right?
#
#I've been stopped twice in my car and twice on my bicycle,while carrying
#concealed.
#One auto stop,the officer asked if I would place the gun(in it's fanny
#pack) in my trunk while he conducted the stop,and I agreed. (He let me off
#for the "failure to signal lane change"[my rear turn signals were obscured
#by a low sun and clear bulbs instead of the proper yellow tinted bulbs] and
#ignored my limo tint windows.)
#
#the 2nd auto stop,the officer asked my why I gave him the carry permit,and
#then asked what sort of gun I carried. He also let me off with a warning.
#
#The first bicycle stop,the officer ignored the carry permit. I wasn't the
#bank robber they were looking for.
The bike he was looking for was a Harley? :-)
#
#2nd bicycle stop,the officer had me put the fanny pack on the ground while
#he called in the DL. I wasn't the deranged guy they had been called about.
As an aside, in the UK a fanny is on the front side. Of women only.
One person asked, for amusement purposes, if "fanny pack" and slang
for tampon. :-)
0 new messages