No photographs allowed

[tony cooper]

Someone pulled that on me today. I took my grandchildren to a
shooting range where a group of "Cowboy Shooters" meet once a month.
We spent a couple of hours watching these hobbyists fire six-shooters,
rifles, and shotguns with genuine or replica frontier-era weapons.

Nice group of people. Several took the time to explain what was going
on to my six and seven year-old grandchildren, showed them their
weapons, and one even allowed the boys to dry fire his six-shooter.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-fGQnLTS/0/X3/i-fGQnLTS-X3.jpg

Some good shots of the grandchildren today, but nothing that isn't
just a snapshot. Mostly, the view is the back of people. Not too
good standing in front of them since they are using live ammo.

The shooting is scored on time minus misses, so the person standing
behind this shooter is timing him.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-fLmj27p/0/X3/i-fLmj27p-X3.jpg

In another area was a group of people taking instruction on modern
small weapons from an instructor. I took a couple of snaps and the
instructor came over and said "No photographs allowed".

My answer was the short form: "Bullshit". I was far behind them with
a 200mm lens and out of ear range of the shutter click, so I wasn't
disturbing anything.

The instructor got shirty with me and said it was against the law to
take a photograph of someone without their permission. This made me
laugh. He had an NRA patch on his shirt, so I asked him how he would
feel if I started making up laws about guns. He just turned and
walked away.

The subject matter wasn't interesting, so I left after just a couple
of snaps. What gets me the most is the hypocrisy of the instructor.
There is no group in this country that spends more time, energy, and
money to ensure that their right to pursue their own hobby is not
abridged than gun owners who are in the NRA. Yet, this guy wanted to
deny me my right to pursue my own hobby.

The little would-be tyrant:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-7jgdT9S/0/X3/i-7jgdT9S-X3.jpg

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[George Kerby]

On 9/11/11 4:25 PM, in article c79q67hq98t5pacsj...@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Maybe because his name was on his shirt and he led the secret life of a 'Gun
Controller'?!?

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c79q67hq98t5pacsj...@4ax.com...

> In another area was a group of people taking instruction on modern
> small weapons from an instructor. I took a couple of snaps and the
> instructor came over and said "No photographs allowed".
>
> My answer was the short form: "Bullshit". I was far behind them with
> a 200mm lens and out of ear range of the shutter click, so I wasn't
> disturbing anything.
>
> The instructor got shirty with me and said it was against the law to
> take a photograph of someone without their permission. This made me
> laugh. He had an NRA patch on his shirt, so I asked him how he would
> feel if I started making up laws about guns. He just turned and
> walked away.
>
> The subject matter wasn't interesting, so I left after just a couple
> of snaps. What gets me the most is the hypocrisy of the instructor.
> There is no group in this country that spends more time, energy, and
> money to ensure that their right to pursue their own hobby is not
> abridged than gun owners who are in the NRA. Yet, this guy wanted to
> deny me my right to pursue my own hobby.
>
> The little would-be tyrant:
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-7jgdT9S/0/X3/i-7jgdT9S-X3.jpg

I'm very cagey about shooting or publishing photos that don't show people in
a respectful way. Porn (in all its forms) is just damage. If someone doesn't
want their photo taken you'd better take a damn good photo, or make sure
there's an overriding public interest (and making money isn't one of them).

Irony, the fifth fundamental force, strikes again (maybe for both of us)
because that was the best photo you took. It's very flattering to this Jason
Stratham wannabe with his "pro" kit and small paunch fondling a handgun like
he's seen actors playing special forces handle them on TV.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:25:04 -0400, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
: Someone pulled that on me today. I took my grandchildren to a

: shooting range where a group of "Cowboy Shooters" meet once a month.
: We spent a couple of hours watching these hobbyists fire six-shooters,
: rifles, and shotguns with genuine or replica frontier-era weapons.
:
: Nice group of people. Several took the time to explain what was going
: on to my six and seven year-old grandchildren, showed them their
: weapons, and one even allowed the boys to dry fire his six-shooter.
:
: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-fGQnLTS/0/X3/i-fGQnLTS-X3.jpg
:
: Some good shots of the grandchildren today, but nothing that isn't
: just a snapshot. Mostly, the view is the back of people. Not too
: good standing in front of them since they are using live ammo.
:
: The shooting is scored on time minus misses, so the person standing
: behind this shooter is timing him.
:
: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-fLmj27p/0/X3/i-fLmj27p-X3.jpg

I'd be inclined to crop off about two thirds of the distance from the top of
the frame to the tops of the subjects' hats. The fact that the picture is
already cramped laterally, with one of the subjects badly truncated, makes the
extra margin at the top more conspicuous.

Bob

[Irwell]

That thick throbbing vein on his forehead is a warning sign.

[Savageduck]

I would not be surprised to find that this individual has a day job
with the TSA.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Mike]

The shooting range I would presume is "Private Property" I would say the
same thing if you came into my living room...

Mike

[tony cooper]

He is not the owner of the property. It's a county-owned range
primarily used as a weapons training range by the various county
police departments.

If someone says "Please don't take my picture", I go along with it.
When someone says "No photographs allowed" and "You can't take my
photo without my permission", I keep snapping if I think it could be
an interesting photo.

It was especially aggravating to have a NRA member try to constrain my
rights.

[tony cooper]

It's cropped to 4" x 6" as I crop all family snapshots. It'll be in
the family Lightroom Catalog as a scene-setting photo for the photos
of the grandchildren that day.

I'll creatively crop if the use is for some other purpose.

[PeterN]

Appropriate double standard.

--
Peter

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"Irwell" <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:93do2uwpxta8.78c2oxi1uyl$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:47 +0100, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
>> "tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:c79q67hq98t5pacsj...@4ax.com...

>>> The little would-be tyrant:
>>>
>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-7jgdT9S/0/X3/i-7jgdT9S-X3.jpg

>> Irony, the fifth fundamental force, strikes again (maybe for both of us)
>> because that was the best photo you took. It's very flattering to this
>> Jason Stratham wannabe with his "pro" kit and small paunch fondling a
>> handgun like he's seen actors playing special forces handle them on TV.
>
> That thick throbbing vein on his forehead is a warning sign.

LOL. Just noticed now you say that - he shaves his legs.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:19:49 -0400, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:39:16 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
: >I'd be inclined to crop off about two thirds of the distance from the top

: >of the frame to the tops of the subjects' hats. The fact that the picture
: >is already cramped laterally, with one of the subjects badly truncated,
: >makes the extra margin at the top more conspicuous.
:
: It's cropped to 4" x 6" as I crop all family snapshots. It'll be in
: the family Lightroom Catalog as a scene-setting photo for the photos
: of the grandchildren that day.
:
: I'll creatively crop if the use is for some other purpose.

Jeez, you're as bad as my daughter. She gripes if I give her any of my
pictures at anything but a 3x2 aspect ratio, because she's got her albums,
etc., set up for that. But she won't take my RAW originals, since she shoots
only JPEGs, and processing RAW is outside her workflow. Fortunately, she's a
good photographer (better than I am in some ways) and doesn't really need my
stuff very often. I'm entirely too lazy to crop a picture differently, just to
give it to her.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:15:26 -0400, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

I don't think he'd see it as a "your rights"/"my rights" situation. It's just
that the NRA is used to getting its way. You don't have any rights that
interfere with that objective.

Bob

[Rich]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in

>: It was especially aggravating to have a NRA member try to constrain
>: my rights.
>
> I don't think he'd see it as a "your rights"/"my rights" situation.
> It's just that the NRA is used to getting its way. You don't have any
> rights that interfere with that objective.
>
> Bob
>

Yawn. Liberal jab noted.

[tony cooper]

I put everything in that Lightroom Catalog at the 3x2 because I'm the
only one who understands that images have to be cropped before they're
printed. My wife, son, and daughter-in-law don't. So, if anyone
wants to have a print made from the family files, the images are set
up for them. And, there are only .jpgs in that Catalog. The RAW
originals are on DVDs.

My daughter edits and crops, but she's in another town.

[N]

Did you ask where the "No Photography" sign is?

--
N

[dadiOH]

Regardless, if someone doesn't want there picture taken I think their wishes
should be respected. YMMV

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

"dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j4krmc$dbj$1...@dont-email.me...

Ture, but either lying or claiming something due to one's ignorance doesn't help
one's case.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:j4ksmq$jh1$1...@dont-email.me...

> "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:j4krmc$dbj$1...@dont-email.me...

>> Regardless, if someone doesn't want there picture taken I think their
>> wishes should be respected. YMMV
>
> Ture, but either lying or claiming something due to one's ignorance
> doesn't help one's case.

Excuse the Buddhist in me stepping in: this is irrelevant. Mere words and
laws whether true or not at just "stuff" without a causal link. They are
just words and laws - fresh air.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[David Dyer-Bennet]

tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:

> In another area was a group of people taking instruction on modern
> small weapons from an instructor. I took a couple of snaps and the
> instructor came over and said "No photographs allowed".
>
> My answer was the short form: "Bullshit". I was far behind them with
> a 200mm lens and out of ear range of the shutter click, so I wasn't
> disturbing anything.

Private property, right? Which you were on? They can make that rule.

> The instructor got shirty with me and said it was against the law to
> take a photograph of someone without their permission. This made me
> laugh. He had an NRA patch on his shirt, so I asked him how he would
> feel if I started making up laws about guns. He just turned and
> walked away.

On the other hand, if that was his justification, then it's bullshit of
course.

Many gun people feel that it's a security issue to avoid being publicly
known as gun people; they feel it makes them more likely to be burgled
if people know they have guns in the house, guns being highly desirable
in the black market. This may factor in to the reaction you were
getting.

(I haven't had that reaction from anybody at ranges I've been shooting
at, myself, though. Sometimes with lots of people who didn't know me.)

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:32:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> In another area was a group of people taking instruction on modern
>> small weapons from an instructor. I took a couple of snaps and the
>> instructor came over and said "No photographs allowed".
>>
>> My answer was the short form: "Bullshit". I was far behind them with
>> a 200mm lens and out of ear range of the shutter click, so I wasn't
>> disturbing anything.
>
>Private property, right? Which you were on? They can make that rule.

As pointed out in another post, the property is owned by the county.
The gun instructor pays a fee to the county to use the facilities. He
can make the rule, but whether or not I have to follow the rule is up
to me.

>> The instructor got shirty with me and said it was against the law to
>> take a photograph of someone without their permission. This made me
>> laugh. He had an NRA patch on his shirt, so I asked him how he would
>> feel if I started making up laws about guns. He just turned and
>> walked away.
>
>On the other hand, if that was his justification, then it's bullshit of
>course.
>
>Many gun people feel that it's a security issue to avoid being publicly
>known as gun people; they feel it makes them more likely to be burgled
>if people know they have guns in the house, guns being highly desirable
>in the black market. This may factor in to the reaction you were
>getting.

With open-carry permissable about everywhere in Florida, it's hard to
believe that some gun owners are shy. The NRA recently bought off the
Florida legislature in order to permit open-carry in public parks and
to stop individual cities from passing gun laws. The only gun laws
allowed in Florida must be state laws.

>(I haven't had that reaction from anybody at ranges I've been shooting
>at, myself, though. Sometimes with lots of people who didn't know me.)

The "Cowboy Shooters" group, who are gun owners, welcomed being
photographed. Not only are they gun owners, but they each have at
least three guns (pistol, rifle, shotgun) to compete, most had more
than three with them, and one assumes some modern guns at home.

I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.

[Savageduck]

That is not quite correct, and some of those folks in Florida who might
think they can go about openly carrying a gun on their belt, might want
to recheck their law.

There are clear differences between "open carry" and "concealed carry"
even in Florida.
For "concealed carry" Florida is a "shall issue" state. That means the
state "shall issue" if you are not in anyway disqualified. You still
have to apply for a CCW permit. < http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/ >
and that still has you jumping through some official hoops such as a
finger print background check and an exclusion for convicted felons or
those with protective restraining orders held against them, training
certification and annual qualification.

Florida is not a traditional "open carry" state.
In April of this year Florida implemented an Amendment which still bans
"open carry" in Florida, but protects legal gun owners with valid
concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits if they inadvertently expose their
concealed weapon, and those engaged in, or going directly to and from
legitimate shooting events. You cannot drive in your car with a gun on
your belt.
It has been referred to as "open carry lite".
< http://opencarry.org/fl.html >

Traditional & modified open carry is permitted in many states, and
there are usually clear rules to the way "Open carry" is implemented in
each of the states which allow it. In California for example, "open
carry" is permitted, but to remain within the law the gun has to be
worn clearly visible and UNLOADED.

>
>> (I haven't had that reaction from anybody at ranges I've been shooting
>> at, myself, though. Sometimes with lots of people who didn't know me.)
>
> The "Cowboy Shooters" group, who are gun owners, welcomed being
> photographed. Not only are they gun owners, but they each have at
> least three guns (pistol, rifle, shotgun) to compete, most had more
> than three with them, and one assumes some modern guns at home.
>
> I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
> photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
> attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.



--

Regards,

Savageduck

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:0b8s67hh86m4lsru6...@4ax.com...

> I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
> photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
> attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.

Usually? Oh, a fucking wiseguy. You're just bellyaching like Sisker did
because your nose is out of joint.

You don't know someone's history or interests, or what risk you are running
of getting that camera shoved up your ass.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[David Dyer-Bennet]

tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:32:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:

>>Many gun people feel that it's a security issue to avoid being publicly
>>known as gun people; they feel it makes them more likely to be burgled
>>if people know they have guns in the house, guns being highly desirable
>>in the black market. This may factor in to the reaction you were
>>getting.
>
> With open-carry permissable about everywhere in Florida, it's hard to
> believe that some gun owners are shy. The NRA recently bought off the
> Florida legislature in order to permit open-carry in public parks and
> to stop individual cities from passing gun laws. The only gun laws
> allowed in Florida must be state laws.

Is it? I remember reading about Florida being one of the states where
if your shirt-tail blew up exposing your gun, it made you a felon.
Maybe they've changed it since then, though; that would be smart. I was
very happy that Minnesota allows both open and concealed carry on a
carry permit, precisely because it avoids criminalizing minor flaws in
concealment. But that's unusual.

I'm VERY sympathetic to state-wide preemption. Anything less leads to a
patchwork of rules that's impossible to actually carry in. Which is the
goal of a lot of people, of course; but it's not my goal. I hate all
the back-door ways to block things that they can't muster the votes to
simply reject. But then, the two basic positions on this are "the
presence of guns makes things less safe" and "allowing law-abiding sane
people to carry guns makes things safer", and I'm solidly in the second
group.

>>(I haven't had that reaction from anybody at ranges I've been shooting
>>at, myself, though. Sometimes with lots of people who didn't know me.)
>
> The "Cowboy Shooters" group, who are gun owners, welcomed being
> photographed. Not only are they gun owners, but they each have at
> least three guns (pistol, rifle, shotgun) to compete, most had more
> than three with them, and one assumes some modern guns at home.

Yes, I know of the CAS, and that competitions are three-gun.

> I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
> photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
> attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.

That's about where I am on that part. On principle I should not
photograph people who don't want to (at least in recreational
circumstances; if it's a real news story it's something else); but if
they piss me off enough I may not be nice about it.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> In April of this year Florida implemented an Amendment which still
> bans "open carry" in Florida, but protects legal gun owners with valid
> concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits if they inadvertently expose
> their concealed weapon, and those engaged in, or going directly to and
> from legitimate shooting events. You cannot drive in your car with a
> gun on your belt.
> It has been referred to as "open carry lite".
> < http://opencarry.org/fl.html >

Ah, thanks. I remembered older articles on the problem of minor
concealment mishaps ("wardrobe malfunctions" :-) ) being criminalized.
I'm glad they at least sort-of fixed it.

But what's this about not being able to carry in my own car? That's
absurd.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:37:48 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>

wrote:

>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:32:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Many gun people feel that it's a security issue to avoid being publicly
>>>known as gun people; they feel it makes them more likely to be burgled
>>>if people know they have guns in the house, guns being highly desirable
>>>in the black market. This may factor in to the reaction you were
>>>getting.
>>
>> With open-carry permissable about everywhere in Florida, it's hard to
>> believe that some gun owners are shy. The NRA recently bought off the
>> Florida legislature in order to permit open-carry in public parks and
>> to stop individual cities from passing gun laws. The only gun laws
>> allowed in Florida must be state laws.
>
>Is it? I remember reading about Florida being one of the states where
>if your shirt-tail blew up exposing your gun, it made you a felon.
>Maybe they've changed it since then, though; that would be smart. I was
>very happy that Minnesota allows both open and concealed carry on a
>carry permit, precisely because it avoids criminalizing minor flaws in
>concealment. But that's unusual.

The NRA is extremely active in Florida under Marion Hammer (former
President of the NRA and now a lobbyist in Tallahassee). There are so
many legislative changes in Florida regarding guns, I can't keep track
of which are proposed and which have passed.

Rarely does legislation not pass when endorsed by the NRA, but one
bill making it no longer illegal to have a gun on a college campus was
recently defeated, but only after a legislator's child was killed on
campus by a mishandled gun.

>I'm VERY sympathetic to state-wide preemption. Anything less leads to a
>patchwork of rules that's impossible to actually carry in.

Florida cities are now busily revising local laws, mostly to no longer
make it illegal to have a gun a city park or laws about taking a gun
into a public building.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:39:45 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>>You cannot drive in your car with a
>> gun on your belt.
>

>But what's this about not being able to carry in my own car? That's
>absurd.

You may not "open car carry" in Florida. A person 18 or older to may
possess a concealed firearm in their car, without a license, if the
firearm is "securely encased". "Securely encased" means in a glove
compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun
case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed
box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for
access.

[Savageduck]

That is Florida and its version of open carry. I believe it has
something to do with Florida drawing a narrow line between "concealed"
and "open" carry. Their interpretation has a non-CCW gun owner,
walking in plain sight from his car to a shooting event with his gun
clearly visible on his hip he is OK. If he has the gun on his hip while
sitting in a car it is concealed from the casual observer and now
requires a CCW.

So if you do not have a Florida CCW permit you can walk to wherever you
are engaged in legal shooting, be that to a range or legal hunting,
with your gun on your hip in open carry. Don't wear a jacket or a shirt
which will cover it, or you are back in CCW territory.

In California a gun on the hip, uncovered is consider open carry, but
must be unloaded. That has led to some of the strange scenes in San
Francisco Starbucks with groups of open carry protagonists sipping
coffee while wearing unloaded handguns. California has specific laws
for transportation of firearms in vehicles which would mean that any of
these California open carry protagonists would not be able to carry
their guns on their hip legally without a CCW.

Personally as a retired LEO I have 50 state CCW privilege.
<
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2004/07/072404-atf-law-enforcement-safety-act.html
>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

I completely agree with you. So does Tony. IIRC somewhere in this thread
he said he would not take someone's picture if asked not to. In this
case I understand the NRA guy ws tell him no pictures of anybody was
allowed.

Where Tony Cooper and I disagree is that I will ask, implicitly or
explicity. In the case of a child I will not shoot without asking the
supervising adult if it is OK.

--
Peter

[PeterN]

On 9/12/2011 11:23 AM, tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

> I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
> photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
> attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.
>

Sorry Tony I misunderstood what you said.
Here in NY, especially in come of the ethnic neighborhoods some people
get really upset at the sight of anyone with a camera. Attitude or not,
I just don't think it's right to make someone uncomfortable, just for my
own pleasure.


--
Peter

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:43:42 -0500, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote in

You can "note" whatever you like. But you'd better not get on the bad side of
the NRA.

Bob

[tony cooper]

In this particular case, the instructor was in the middle of a class.
I wasn't about to go up and ask him. I would have got nothing but
backs of the class members from my position because they were facing
the instructor.

However, you are right in that I shoot a lot of candids and do so
without asking even though I could. I'm not going to get a candid
shot if I ask.

Quite often the subject sees me. There's either no reaction a
favorable reaction 99% of the time. With bikers, I get a thumbs up or
a wave. What I'm looking for in a candid is subject with some
character.

I've been waved off a few times when the subject has seen me raise the
lens. I don't take the shot. I was warned off once when I saw a
group of bikers stopped at a rest stop on the way to Daytona. I got
out of the car with my camera, and a guy from the group ambled over
and pointed out Warlocks don't like their pictures taken. I got back
in the car.

I rarely take photos of children. For this one, I asked the mother
and offered to email her a copy:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-jBDQCkP/0/X3/2010-01-30-5-X3.jpg

Also asked before taking this one the same day:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-Ks3wj9c/0/X2/2010-01-30-02-X2.jpg


I didn't ask for this one, but the child's face isn't really visible.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-qd8mbV4/0/X3/2010-03-07-01-X3.jpg

[tony cooper]

I have a couple of series of shots I took at a wholesale farmer's
market where all of the subjects were Mexicans. These are people who
bring in fruit and vegetables and sell it people who run small
groceries and roadside stands.

I didn't ask anyone's permission, but I held up the camera and kinda
gestured that I was taking photos. There were a *lot* of wave-offs
that day, but some willing subjects.

I thought the wave-offs and turn-away-quicklies were about
undocumented people, but one stall owner explained the fear was that I
was from the state and photographing them making unreported income.

My favorites from those series are:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Plant-City-Market/105/561693044_tra6R-X3.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Plant-City-Market-Revisited/102/616870469_t4ibA-X2.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Plant-City-Market-Revisited/110/616881174_5mpb6-X3.jpg

Obviously, I didn't ask the first lady, but the subjects in the other
two knew they were being photographed.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Ah, it's a restriction on the "open" part. That's more common, and not
so big a deal to me. (I haven't been in Florida in years. I've carried
in a number of states that recognize my MN permit, and of course make a
point of checking their laws before I go there, or at the very least
asking locals who I trust to get it right.)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2011-09-12 11:39:45 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>
>>> In April of this year Florida implemented an Amendment which still
>>> bans "open carry" in Florida, but protects legal gun owners with valid
>>> concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits if they inadvertently expose
>>> their concealed weapon, and those engaged in, or going directly to and
>>> from legitimate shooting events. You cannot drive in your car with a
>>> gun on your belt.
>>> It has been referred to as "open carry lite".
>>> < http://opencarry.org/fl.html >
>>
>> Ah, thanks. I remembered older articles on the problem of minor
>> concealment mishaps ("wardrobe malfunctions" :-) ) being criminalized.
>> I'm glad they at least sort-of fixed it.
>>
>> But what's this about not being able to carry in my own car? That's
>> absurd.
>
> That is Florida and its version of open carry. I believe it has
> something to do with Florida drawing a narrow line between "concealed"
> and "open" carry. Their interpretation has a non-CCW gun owner,
> walking in plain sight from his car to a shooting event with his gun
> clearly visible on his hip he is OK. If he has the gun on his hip
> while sitting in a car it is concealed from the casual observer and
> now requires a CCW.

Ah, okay, under their "open" carry; I was thinking originally it was
restriction on CCW carry, which was obviously absurd.

> So if you do not have a Florida CCW permit you can walk to wherever
> you are engaged in legal shooting, be that to a range or legal
> hunting, with your gun on your hip in open carry. Don't wear a jacket
> or a shirt which will cover it, or you are back in CCW territory.

I would of course check local laws before going somewhere new and
carrying there.

I don't have a Florida CCW; though I've signed people off as qualified
to get one (I was MN carry permit instructor for a while, and also got
Utah certification to teach a combined MN/UT/FL course; FL just lets me
sign off on a fairly general letter for out-of-state people applying for
an FL permit).

> In California a gun on the hip, uncovered is consider open carry, but
> must be unloaded. That has led to some of the strange scenes in San
> Francisco Starbucks with groups of open carry protagonists sipping
> coffee while wearing unloaded handguns.

That one I remember from local news.

> California has specific laws
> for transportation of firearms in vehicles which would mean that any
> of these California open carry protagonists would not be able to carry
> their guns on their hip legally without a CCW.
>
> Personally as a retired LEO I have 50 state CCW privilege.

Nice for you :-) .

[Savageduck]

Unfortunately MN is one of the states without mutual CCW reciprocity
with Florida.

>
>> In California a gun on the hip, uncovered is consider open carry, but
>> must be unloaded. That has led to some of the strange scenes in San
>> Francisco Starbucks with groups of open carry protagonists sipping
>> coffee while wearing unloaded handguns.
>
> That one I remember from local news.

There are some California Counties and municipalities which restrict
and forbid open carry. A stroll down Hollywood Boulevard with a visible
firearm on your hip would for example gain you the attention of LA's
finest.

>
>> California has specific laws
>> for transportation of firearms in vehicles which would mean that any
>> of these California open carry protagonists would not be able to carry
>> their guns on their hip legally without a CCW.
>>
>> Personally as a retired LEO I have 50 state CCW privilege.
>
> Nice for you :-) .

...and here we are ;-)
< http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/135613117 >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

"Charles E. Hardwidge" <nos...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j4ktue$rp5$1...@dont-email.me...

Can the Buddhist in you explain exactly what in my post you consider to be
irrelevant?

[PeterN]

Interesting shot. You have captured her exhaustion. There is something
bothering me about her skin tones. Did you try some color mapping?


>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Plant-City-Market-Revisited/102/616870469_t4ibA-X2.jpg
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Plant-City-Market-Revisited/110/616881174_5mpb6-X3.jpg
>

Playful mood. I would have been tempted to buy a watermelon and
encourage them to get into a food fight with it. It would not take much
to get them to do it. ;-)

> Obviously, I didn't ask the first lady, but the subjects in the other
> two knew they were being photographed.
>


--

Peter

[PeterN]

Cute family portrait. They will enjoy it in years to come.

>
> Also asked before taking this one the same day:
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-Ks3wj9c/0/X2/2010-01-30-02-X2.jpg
>

Shows a lot a character. Wonder what caused their sadness. Kids with
painted faces don't usually look that sad, unless mom just said
something like: "two ice cream cones are enough."

>
> I didn't ask for this one, but the child's face isn't really visible.
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-qd8mbV4/0/X3/2010-03-07-01-X3.jpg
>


--

Peter

[Whisky-dave]

On Sep 12, 12:15 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:03:35 -0400, Mike <n...@none.invalid> wrote:

> >The shooting range I would presume is "Private Property" I would say the
> >same thing if you came into my living room...
>
> He is not the owner of the property.  It's a county-owned range
> primarily used as a weapons training range by the various county
> police departments.  
>
> If someone says "Please don't take my picture", I go along with it.
> When someone says "No photographs allowed" and "You can't take my
> photo without my permission", I keep snapping if I think it could be
> an interesting photo.

Personally I'd draw the line when that person is holding a gun ;-)
Well I'm from the UK :)

>
> It was especially aggravating to have a NRA member try to constrain my
> rights.
>

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:44:37 -0400, PeterN

No, I shot RAW, opened in Photoshop, adjusted Levels and
Shadows/Highlights, boosted Contrast, and saved as a .jpg. All global
adjustments, and my usual post-processing technique. I don't even
know how to do color mapping.

I suspect the skin appearance has something to do with the filtered
light from the tree (seen on the right of the image) that shades her.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2011-09-12 22:11:21 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> I don't have a Florida CCW; though I've signed people off as qualified
>> to get one (I was MN carry permit instructor for a while, and also got
>> Utah certification to teach a combined MN/UT/FL course; FL just lets me
>> sign off on a fairly general letter for out-of-state people applying for
>> an FL permit).
>
> Unfortunately MN is one of the states without mutual CCW reciprocity
> with Florida.

Yeah. Despite having taught for them, I haven't had a Florida or Utah
permit. I don't travel enough for it to be a big deal, and the places
I'm actually more interested in traveling it wouldn't help (CA, MA, IL,
NY). Well, maybe at least IL will get fixed. WI, my neighbor, is
getting fixed, though I haven't seen anything on reciprocity.

>>> In California a gun on the hip, uncovered is consider open carry, but
>>> must be unloaded. That has led to some of the strange scenes in San
>>> Francisco Starbucks with groups of open carry protagonists sipping
>>> coffee while wearing unloaded handguns.
>>
>> That one I remember from local news.
>
> There are some California Counties and municipalities which restrict
> and forbid open carry. A stroll down Hollywood Boulevard with a
> visible firearm on your hip would for example gain you the attention
> of LA's finest.

It's a big state; the state preemption concept makes more sense in
smaller ones.

>>> Personally as a retired LEO I have 50 state CCW privilege.
>>
>> Nice for you :-) .
>
> ...and here we are ;-)
> < http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/135613117 >

Ah, a 1911 person.

While I wouldn't advise you (though we could no doubt debate it
amusingly if we were both in the mood), I did advise students (who were
mostly not really that familiar with handling firearms) that a
single-action auto wasn't a very good choice for carry for most people.
I'm amazed at how many people seemed to have trouble with the
manual-of-arms for their weapon in the (extremely lenient) "timed"
shooting qualification we used. People pass just fine with a revolver
and a pile of loose cartridges (have to reload in the middle; required
even if your magazine is big), but people frequently screwed up just
handling a semi-auto. Strange to me; but my stress reactions don't run
that way, and I don't find tests stressful.

Nice 1911, and nice holster, anyway.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfkzki8...@dd-b.net...

> Nice 1911, and nice holster, anyway.

It can't be a Real American Gun (TM) because it doesn't have "Made in China"
stamped on it. :-p

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Savageduck]

Anybody who does not have a good training history with a 1911 is best
advised to steer clear for carry purposes.
It is definitely not safe for somebody unfamiliar with the concept of
carrying "cocked & locked". For those without the time and available
ammo to run the drills, a better option is undoubtably a DA revolver,
or DOA auto.
I have years of drills and thousands of rounds down range behind me
with many pistol types, including various 1911's.

We also had S&W M10's, & S&W 4006's as service handguns. Back in 1990 I
bought a Glock 23 which served very well, but I hate the trigger, It is
however an indestructible workhorse.
Now I have my Kimber and it is the best working carry pistol I have
ever owned. For qualifying I shoot with mags loaded with 6 rounds
requiring a reload at each station.
While still active I had to qualify quarterly, now as retired LEO I
only have an annual qualification.

I have other handguns which are purely target weapons, a Hi-Standard
Supermatic Trophy, S&W M41, S&W M52, & S&W K38 Masterpiece, all well
used.
Add to those a few other curiosities and my home maintains its own
little armory.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2011-09-13 18:31:45 -0700, "Charles E. Hardwidge"

<nos...@invalid.co.uk> said:

>
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:ylfkzki8...@dd-b.net...
>
>> Nice 1911, and nice holster, anyway.
>
> It can't be a Real American Gun (TM) because it doesn't have "Made in China"
> stamped on it. :-p

Naah! Wouldn't find too many Chinese handguns in this market. Italian,
Swiss, German, Austrian, Brazilian, Czech, even Korean.

That is a Kimber, made in the USA. Actually made in New York State.
< http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/cdp-ii >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Frank S]

"PeterN" <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4e6f5255$0$22982$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

> On 9/12/2011 10:56 PM, tony cooper wrote:

[ ... ]

>>
>> Also asked before taking this one the same day:
>>
>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-Ks3wj9c/0/X2/2010-01-30-02-X2.jpg
>>
>
> Shows a lot a character. Wonder what caused their sadness. Kids with
> painted faces don't usually look that sad, unless mom just said something
> like: "two ice cream cones are enough."
>
>>

I think they both just realized the girl's face-paint job seemed to make her
awfully familiar-looking.

Where's Bert Lahr when you need him?

http://withfriendship.com/images/h/39560/Bert-Lahr-image.jpg

Ngaaah-ngaaah-ngaaah.


--
Frank ess

[Savageduck]

BTW the holster is the work of a great English craftsman leatherworker,
Andy Arratoonian, who hand makes each holster one at a time, first
come, first serve. and runs about a 6-9 months backlog on orders. He
works out of his home at Ripon in Yorkshire.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jerry]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:59:35 -0400, PeterN
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

[Jerry]
No one has mentioned the issue of GEOTAGGING. Altho your
Nikon D40 doesn't have GPS built in there is a GPS unit
available for it.... and in general the range officer
wouldn't know if GPS tagging was being used.
The NRA may not want the location of their private
shooting range broadcast all over the Internet by EXIF
geotags in digital pictures. When it comes to guns they
certainly have reason to be cautious nowadays.
In general I think geotagging has raised a whole new
issue on the legality of photographing unsuspecting
subjects..

[PeterN]

Several errors in your statement:
It was a public range
What makes you think the NRA has private shooting ranges.
I have never shot with a D40 in my life.
There is nothing wrong with geotagging.



--
Peter

[Jerry]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:12:15 -0400, PeterN
<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:


>>>
>>> Where Tony Cooper and I disagree is that I will ask, implicitly or
>>> explicity. In the case of a child I will not shoot without asking the
>>> supervising adult if it is OK.
>>>
>>>
>> [Jerry]
>> No one has mentioned the issue of GEOTAGGING. Altho your
>> Nikon D40 doesn't have GPS built in there is a GPS unit
>> available for it.... and in general the range officer
>> wouldn't know if GPS tagging was being used.
>> The NRA may not want the location of their private
>> shooting range broadcast all over the Internet by EXIF
>> geotags in digital pictures. When it comes to guns they
>> certainly have reason to be cautious nowadays.
>> In general I think geotagging has raised a whole new
>> issue on the legality of photographing unsuspecting
>> subjects..
>
>Several errors in your statement:
>It was a public range

[Jerry]
Oh

>What makes you think the NRA has private shooting ranges.

[Jerry]
Just a guess intuitively obvious t a casual observer.

>I have never shot with a D40 in my life.

[Jerry]
The EXIF files on your photos viewed with IrfanView says one
of the pics was shot with a Nikon D40 and two of them shot
with a Nikion D60... probably an IrfanView glitch... most
likely all 3 shot with a D60 on 2011:9:11 about 11:44:56

>There is nothing wrong with geotagging.

[Jerry]
That's what you think, but increasingly television
reports are mentioning stalking, burgleries, home invasions
and sex crimes enabled by Internet posted pics containing
geotags. I've taken to cleaning all photos of geotags
before forwarding them by email or posting them. Most
instances of crime are caused by people with smartphones who
forget or don't know how to shut off the geotagging switch.

[Savageduck]

You do realize that the locations of 99.9% of accessible ranges are
well documented?
< ttp://www.wheretoshoot.org/Find_Range/ >

>
>> I have never shot with a D40 in my life.
>
> [Jerry]
> The EXIF files on your photos viewed with IrfanView says one
> of the pics was shot with a Nikon D40 and two of them shot
> with a Nikion D60... probably an IrfanView glitch... most
> likely all 3 shot with a D60 on 2011:9:11 about 11:44:56

Well I am glad that you are finding your new software entertaining.
Here is a GPS tagged image for you to play with. Perhaps you would care
to have a gang of thieves rush off to that location to steal the item
depicted.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg >

>
>
>> There is nothing wrong with geotagging.
>
> [Jerry]
> That's what you think, but increasingly television
> reports are mentioning stalking, burgleries, home invasions
> and sex crimes enabled by Internet posted pics containing
> geotags.

Where are all these reports of geotag facilitated images from the internet?
Please cite.

> I've taken to cleaning all photos of geotags
> before forwarding them by email or posting them.

That's nice. However that is your paranoia not ours.

> Most
> instances of crime are caused by people with smartphones who
> forget or don't know how to shut off the geotagging switch.

"Most instances of crime"??

Sir, you know not of which you speak.
After 25 years in Law enforcement I have yet to investigate of have any
of my currently active acquaintances in Law enforcement educate me as
to the trend you fear.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where you are getting this information.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

I think our newcomer, Jerry has associated Tony's shots with you. I
believe Tony has used a D40 and/or a D60.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

If you read the posts, I stated that it is a public range on
county-owned property that is primarily used by the various police
departments in the county. Anyone can rent range use for the day if a
range is available. The instructor rented range use.

The instructor is a member of NRA according to the patch he had on his
shirt, but he is not an employee of the NRA. He just pays money to
belong. Anyone can join the NRA.

>>I have never shot with a D40 in my life.
>
>[Jerry]
>The EXIF files on your photos viewed with IrfanView says one
>of the pics was shot with a Nikon D40 and two of them shot
>with a Nikion D60... probably an IrfanView glitch... most
>likely all 3 shot with a D60 on 2011:9:11 about 11:44:56
>

The EXIF is correct. I have a D60 and a D40 body. When I go to
something like this, I have the 18-55 mounted on one body and the
55-200 on the other body. I use whichever camera suits the shot.
That's much easier than switching lenses.

Awhile back, I took some test shots with a Tamron 18-270, but wasn't
pleased with the results. It would be nice to have one lens with that
kind of range.

>
>>There is nothing wrong with geotagging.
>
>[Jerry]
> That's what you think, but increasingly television
>reports are mentioning stalking, burgleries, home invasions
>and sex crimes enabled by Internet posted pics containing
>geotags. I've taken to cleaning all photos of geotags
>before forwarding them by email or posting them. Most
>instances of crime are caused by people with smartphones who
>forget or don't know how to shut off the geotagging switch.

Had those photographs been geotagged, all you would know was the
location at which they were taken. That's about an hour with light
Sunday traffic from my house, and who knows where the other subjects
live.

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:34:23 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> Most
>> instances of crime are caused by people with smartphones who
>> forget or don't know how to shut off the geotagging switch.
>
>"Most instances of crime"??
>
>Sir, you know not of which you speak.
>After 25 years in Law enforcement I have yet to investigate of have any
>of my currently active acquaintances in Law enforcement educate me as
>to the trend you fear.
>
>Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where you are getting this information.

He asks fellow airline passengers. The current leading source of
misinformation is now the coach section of any airplane.

[Savageduck]

Would those be the same airline passengers who were the subject of the
recent laptop market share analysis?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Trevor]

"Jerry" <inv...@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:k2827710v37ioniml...@4ax.com...

> No one has mentioned the issue of GEOTAGGING. Altho your
> Nikon D40 doesn't have GPS built in there is a GPS unit
> available for it.... and in general the range officer
> wouldn't know if GPS tagging was being used.
> The NRA may not want the location of their private
> shooting range broadcast all over the Internet by EXIF
> geotags in digital pictures. When it comes to guns they
> certainly have reason to be cautious nowadays.
> In general I think geotagging has raised a whole new
> issue on the legality of photographing unsuspecting
> subjects..

Right, no one ever mentioned where their photo's were taken prior to
Geotagging! And no landmarks ever made it obvious :-)

Trevor.

[Jerry]

[Jerry]
Mentioning a photo was taken in your home is not the same
as giviing your house's geo-coordinates so it can be located
on Google Earth and cased by burglers or stalkers.
They recently broke up a narco-burgler ring in this state
who was scanning pics on egay and Craig's list for likely
targets.
>
>Trevor.
>

[John McWilliams]

Or, where no recognizable landmark exists, such as in a desert, forest,
beach, or on a boat or ship, by the time the photo is posted, the
robbers won't find the principals there anymore.....

Besides, I'm certain FB strips out Exif info, if only to save web space.

[Trevor]

"Jerry" <inv...@invalid.org> wrote in message

news:67r2779fi02s6m8t6...@4ax.com...

>>> In general I think geotagging has raised a whole new
>>> issue on the legality of photographing unsuspecting
>>> subjects..
>>
>>Right, no one ever mentioned where their photo's were taken prior to
>>Geotagging! And no landmarks ever made it obvious :-)
>>
> [Jerry]
> Mentioning a photo was taken in your home is not the same
> as giviing your house's geo-coordinates so it can be located
> on Google Earth and cased by burglers or stalkers.
> They recently broke up a narco-burgler ring in this state
> who was scanning pics on egay and Craig's list for likely
> targets.

True, but that's not photographing "unsuspecting subjects", just being
technologically illiterate and careless.
I'm puzzled though how an innocent photo would help them break in. You can
already guess that a mansion might have something worth stealing without
seeing a photo of it on the internet. Do people really post details of their
security system as well? If so they are deliberately inviting trouble
surely.

Trevor.

[Jerry]

[Jerry]
FB does strip geotags, EB I'm not sure, Craig's list doesn't
at last report. However many lists exist which are way
behind the times. Things like Foursquare have already had a
lot of trouble with stalkers.

[Savageduck]

Cite.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

I keep challenging you to post cites for these threats against domestic
sanctuaries by gangs of geotag analyzing criminal master minds. You
have yet to provide such. For now your paranoid assertion smells of
apocryphal urban myth.

There are very few criminal mastermind, geotag analyzing, social
network lurking, home invading, kidnapping rapists, other than in the
recesses of your mind. Most criminals function at a far more
spontaneous, basic primal level, all without checking geotags.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jerry]

Sight

[Eric Stevens]

Here is one especially for Duck :-)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/image001-2.jpg

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

Shite

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:trj377hivglmpi0e1...@4ax.com...

>
> Here is one especially for Duck :-)
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/image001-2.jpg
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

As my son would say, that is epic!

[Savageduck]

Thanks for singling me out, but there are others you could have
included, Neil for example.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[George Kerby]

On 9/15/11 5:18 AM, in article u6k3779rfc9q7a8fe...@4ax.com,

Shiite

[Pete A]

I'm getting a bit lost - motif or motive?

[PeterN]

On 9/14/2011 7:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-09-14 15:12:15 -0700, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> said:
>

<snip

>>
>> Several errors in your statement:
>> It was a public range
>> What makes you think the NRA has private shooting ranges.
>> I have never shot with a D40 in my life.
>> There is nothing wrong with geotagging.
>
> I think our newcomer, Jerry has associated Tony's shots with you. I
> believe Tony has used a D40 and/or a D60.
>

I think he has a problem with other factual associations, too.
I have no inclination to play further with him.

--
Peter

[Jerry]

[Jerry}
FYI I'm not a newcomer and my name ain't Jerry

[Savageduck]

Now that is odd. We certainly have had other folks using the name
"Jerry" dating way back. Those include a "Jerry" from NZ, one from
Salinas, one from the UK, and I am sure a few others.

...and now we have a "Jerry" from well East of the West coast, and East
of MN, who claims not to have a camera, and has a newly acquired
interest in EXIF data and geotagging.
So "non-Jerry", have you been lurking all this time until your query on
9/12/2011,regarding geotags came to mind? or have we had the dubious
pleasure of prior interaction with you under a different nom-de-usenet?
If so your remark regarding your non-camera ownership seems
questionable.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

No shit, Dick Tracy!!

--
Peter

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
> "tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
>> photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
>> attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.

> Usually? Oh, a fucking wiseguy. You're just bellyaching like Sisker did
> because your nose is out of joint.

> You don't know someone's history or interests, or what risk you are running
> of getting that camera shoved up your ass.

Ah, yes, the good old tradition of lynching (or at least beating
up) anyone you disagree with and who's weaker than the mob you can
whistle up. Personality rights? Right to not be bodily harmed?
Right to legal councel? Due procedure? Who needs that?


Let's all cower from anyone with a gun or at least anyone who
might draw faster than you. It's UNamerican to stand your man
at High Noon. Asking for your rights is something terrorists do.
Or communists in the McCarthy area.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Jerry <inv...@invalid.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:18:16 -0700, Savageduck

Ah, it never happened. Thought so.

Additionally, the photos you claimed they scanned had no
geotagging at all.

-Wolfgang

[John McWilliams]

On 9/14/11 PDT 4:08 PM, Jerry wrote:
Most
> instances of crime are caused by people with smartphones who
> forget or don't know how to shut off the geotagging switch.

Absurd on the face of it.

[Ryan McGinnis]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, PeterN wrote:

> On 9/14/2011 6:00 PM, Jerry wrote:

>>> Where Tony Cooper and I disagree is that I will ask, implicitly or
>>> explicity. In the case of a child I will not shoot without asking the
>>> supervising adult if it is OK.
>>>
>>>
>> [Jerry]

>> No one has mentioned the issue of GEOTAGGING. Altho your
>> Nikon D40 doesn't have GPS built in there is a GPS unit
>> available for it.... and in general the range officer
>> wouldn't know if GPS tagging was being used.
>> The NRA may not want the location of their private
>> shooting range broadcast all over the Internet by EXIF
>> geotags in digital pictures. When it comes to guns they
>> certainly have reason to be cautious nowadays.
>> In general I think geotagging has raised a whole new
>> issue on the legality of photographing unsuspecting
>> subjects..
>

> Several errors in your statement:
> It was a public range
> What makes you think the NRA has private shooting ranges.
> I have never shot with a D40 in my life.
> There is nothing wrong with geotagging.

Also, if you can remember in your head where something was, geotagging
that location is pretty trivial after the fact. Having GPS info makes it
a lot easier, but it's not like you can't manually geotag a photo using
your memory of where you were.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd