Well, I guess Republicans can tell the difference between gun totin’good guys and bad guys just by lookin’ at them. Or, maybe Jesus will whisper in their ears and let ’em know.
I guess they will tell the difference between the good and bad guys open carrying the same way they tell the difference between the good and bad guys who are concealed carrying. The good guys are the ones not committing a crime. The bad guys are the ones committing a crime.
I guess cops asking, “do you plan to shoot someone” will really solve something as well. The presumption that someone with a gun on their hip (willing to open carry) must be guilty and in need of questioning is annoying.
I don’t think cops should be able to stop someone driving a car to ask them if they plan to drive drunk is any better.
Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Moron, (and you Clearly Fit in One of these categories) it is black letter Supreme Court Law (Terry v Ohio) that law enforcement cannot stop (read “detained”)a citizen unless they have Reasonably Articulable Suspicion (RAS)supported by Specific and Articulable Facts that the person to be stopped has, is or is about to commit a crime.
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons — IF — they have RAS that the person stopped is armed. RAS must be based on “Specific and Articulable Facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch.
Without RAS, the citizen cannot be detained.
If a citizen is carrying a weapon in a manner that complies with the laws of the state, RAS cannot be established that a crime has been committed because Carrying is Not a Crime. Therefore, any contact by law enforcement, in this situation, is a voluntary encounter and the citizen does not have to ID themselves, answer any questions and is free to leave without talking to the officer.
State Law Cannot Override Supreme Court Law.
Terry v Ohio is for citizen’s protection, even Retired Union Workers.
I don’t see where it says the bearing of arms is only for a militia. If it’s interpreted that we have the right to a well regulated militia, as well as the right to keep and bear arms individually, then this does mean we can carry handguns willy nilly.
You don’t see where it says that? Not only did Center Point cite the text, but it’s the first 4 words in the 2nd amendment. There is no interpretation there – it clearly states “A well regulated militia…” Unless I missed your point, then I ask you to explain it again a different way.
It doesn’t say only a militia has the right to bear arms. It says the people have a right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. The people have that right so they can then form a militia, not the other way around.
June 4, 2015 at 8:30 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Gotcha – must’ve missed the “only” part of your replies.
May 29, 2015 at 4:07 pm
Conservative view says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
26
27
RetiredUW, it’s a shame you have to take to sarcasm and attacking people’s faith…
I think it’s appalling that the Executive branch of government (law enforcement) has the audacity to make law!
The police can’t pull me over if I’m riding a motorcycle, just to be sure I have the proper license without probable cause. Why would this be conceived as acceptable?
Police departments across the country are under scrutiny for the appearance of profiling and excessive force to minorities. Removing the provision that restricts law enforcement from demanding proof of eligibility will only exacerbate this situation/problem.
In the majority of the states (which allow open carry), this doesn’t seem to be an issue. I’m originally from a state that allows open carry. I have openly carried there without ever once being asked to prove that I was eligible. I would be taking a great risk in breaking that law. They should worry about enforcing the laws the legislature pass. Arrest and prosecute offenders to the full extent of of the law…
There is a reason our Legislature is separate from our Executive branch of government!
Just some food for thought…
If the police assumed all people were armed, they might be better prepared for whatever might happen. Consider it Universal Precautions…
There are only six states that do not allow open carry, how do they deal with it? Do you really want the police stopping everyone to see if they are licensed? There will be a lot of profiling going on! Use some common sense here!!
If one really wants to look at Anarchy in action, take a look at Baltimore and Chicago who both have strict gun laws. They lead the nation in shooting murders by the thugs who get guns illegally. Cops are being shot in their cars now while just sitting there minding their own business.
Why are police legislating?
Their job is to enforce laws (Executive Branch of government) that the Legislature passes, not legislate the law.
If law enforcement observed the same universal precautions that the medical industry observes, they might be safer, i.e., assume all people are armed (I believe this is already part of their training).
RetiredUW, there is really no need for your sarcasm or attack of faith. Please articulate your point without having to resort to such sophomoric means.
Law enforcement personnel want the right to stop and ask for ID’s or proof of legality so that they can circumvent the 4th amendment. this has been law enforcement policy for eons. side-stepping the rights of others to solidify their own positions of power (or over-power) over the general population. This is easier than following the written rule of law.
Now, I am a law-abiding citizen and have never minded being stopped by police. I’m doing nothing wrong.However, my general congeniality should never be mistaken by others as subservience. I love my rights and will defend them in a heart beat.
You can’t legally drive a car without a license, but officers can’t pull everyone over just to see if they have a license. I figure it will be the same way with license open carry.
so if there is an open carry law in place and I’m just walking down the street in compliance with the law I should be stopped and questioned? Can you stop someone driving a car just to see if they have a driver’s license? Stop and frisk is outlawed in many places do to liberals…but in this case it would be ok?
Michael, Stop and Frisk in NYC was a valuable deterrent to crime and the statistics back it up. When it was stopped, crime went up. Gun free zones have not prevented mass shootings. If anything, the thugs look for gun free zones because they know the citizens can’t stop them.
I’m not arguing if the stats back it up or not, but I don’t agree that Stop & Frisk in NYC was valuable considering all the unexpected consequences that happened with the inconsistent enforcement of that program. Again – I’m not saying your belief in the crime stats are wrong, just that the program eroded what little confidence minorities already had in the police force.
Rosenblatt, do you think what is going on in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, NY merits a change in policy by these cities? How many murders do you want to tolerate or do you want to let the thugs run free to do whatever they want, shoot cops sitting in their patrol cars, vandalize, pillage, rob pedestrians etc? Baltimore and the south side of Chicago are pretty close to anarchy and the mayors of both just sit on their hands and want more gun control.
“How many murders do you want to tolerate” The answer is zero fo course, but that includes those who murder police officers AND police officers who murder unarmed citizens!
If you don’t think police officers murder unarmed citizens, I highly suggest you google “Michael Brelo and Timothy Russell” and read up on that atrocity.
June 1, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Shari says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24
0
Police stop all vehicles and check licenses (and check for DUI)every weekend with no cause other than it is a weekend night. Many of you state that the police can’t stop a car just to see if the driver is licensed but road blocks happen all the time.
Well, I guess Republicans can tell the difference between gun totin’good guys and bad guys just by lookin’ at them. Or, maybe Jesus will whisper in their ears and let ’em know.
I guess they will tell the difference between the good and bad guys open carrying the same way they tell the difference between the good and bad guys who are concealed carrying. The good guys are the ones not committing a crime. The bad guys are the ones committing a crime.
I guess cops asking, “do you plan to shoot someone” will really solve something as well. The presumption that someone with a gun on their hip (willing to open carry) must be guilty and in need of questioning is annoying.
I don’t think cops should be able to stop someone driving a car to ask them if they plan to drive drunk is any better.
Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Moron, (and you Clearly Fit in One of these categories) it is black letter Supreme Court Law (Terry v Ohio) that law enforcement cannot stop (read “detained”)a citizen unless they have Reasonably Articulable Suspicion (RAS)supported by Specific and Articulable Facts that the person to be stopped has, is or is about to commit a crime.
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons — IF — they have RAS that the person stopped is armed. RAS must be based on “Specific and Articulable Facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch.
Without RAS, the citizen cannot be detained.
If a citizen is carrying a weapon in a manner that complies with the laws of the state, RAS cannot be established that a crime has been committed because Carrying is Not a Crime. Therefore, any contact by law enforcement, in this situation, is a voluntary encounter and the citizen does not have to ID themselves, answer any questions and is free to leave without talking to the officer.
State Law Cannot Override Supreme Court Law.
Terry v Ohio is for citizen’s protection, even Retired Union Workers.
This is old, an agreement was reached last night. Support the second!
The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms for
a well regulated militia, not carry handguns willy nilly.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I don’t see where it says the bearing of arms is only for a militia. If it’s interpreted that we have the right to a well regulated militia, as well as the right to keep and bear arms individually, then this does mean we can carry handguns willy nilly.
You don’t see where it says that? Not only did Center Point cite the text, but it’s the first 4 words in the 2nd amendment. There is no interpretation there – it clearly states “A well regulated militia…” Unless I missed your point, then I ask you to explain it again a different way.
It doesn’t say only a militia has the right to bear arms. It says the people have a right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. The people have that right so they can then form a militia, not the other way around.
Gotcha – must’ve missed the “only” part of your replies.
RetiredUW, it’s a shame you have to take to sarcasm and attacking people’s faith…
I think it’s appalling that the Executive branch of government (law enforcement) has the audacity to make law!
The police can’t pull me over if I’m riding a motorcycle, just to be sure I have the proper license without probable cause. Why would this be conceived as acceptable?
Police departments across the country are under scrutiny for the appearance of profiling and excessive force to minorities. Removing the provision that restricts law enforcement from demanding proof of eligibility will only exacerbate this situation/problem.
In the majority of the states (which allow open carry), this doesn’t seem to be an issue. I’m originally from a state that allows open carry. I have openly carried there without ever once being asked to prove that I was eligible. I would be taking a great risk in breaking that law. They should worry about enforcing the laws the legislature pass. Arrest and prosecute offenders to the full extent of of the law…
There is a reason our Legislature is separate from our Executive branch of government!
Just some food for thought…
If the police assumed all people were armed, they might be better prepared for whatever might happen. Consider it Universal Precautions…
There are only six states that do not allow open carry, how do they deal with it? Do you really want the police stopping everyone to see if they are licensed? There will be a lot of profiling going on! Use some common sense here!!
If one really wants to look at Anarchy in action, take a look at Baltimore and Chicago who both have strict gun laws. They lead the nation in shooting murders by the thugs who get guns illegally. Cops are being shot in their cars now while just sitting there minding their own business.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Law enforcement personnel want the right to stop and ask for ID’s or proof of legality so that they can circumvent the 4th amendment. this has been law enforcement policy for eons. side-stepping the rights of others to solidify their own positions of power (or over-power) over the general population. This is easier than following the written rule of law.
Now, I am a law-abiding citizen and have never minded being stopped by police. I’m doing nothing wrong.However, my general congeniality should never be mistaken by others as subservience. I love my rights and will defend them in a heart beat.
You can’t legally drive a car without a license, but officers can’t pull everyone over just to see if they have a license. I figure it will be the same way with license open carry.
so if there is an open carry law in place and I’m just walking down the street in compliance with the law I should be stopped and questioned? Can you stop someone driving a car just to see if they have a driver’s license? Stop and frisk is outlawed in many places do to liberals…but in this case it would be ok?
Michael, Stop and Frisk in NYC was a valuable deterrent to crime and the statistics back it up. When it was stopped, crime went up. Gun free zones have not prevented mass shootings. If anything, the thugs look for gun free zones because they know the citizens can’t stop them.
I’m not arguing if the stats back it up or not, but I don’t agree that Stop & Frisk in NYC was valuable considering all the unexpected consequences that happened with the inconsistent enforcement of that program. Again – I’m not saying your belief in the crime stats are wrong, just that the program eroded what little confidence minorities already had in the police force.
Rosenblatt, do you think what is going on in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, NY merits a change in policy by these cities? How many murders do you want to tolerate or do you want to let the thugs run free to do whatever they want, shoot cops sitting in their patrol cars, vandalize, pillage, rob pedestrians etc? Baltimore and the south side of Chicago are pretty close to anarchy and the mayors of both just sit on their hands and want more gun control.
“How many murders do you want to tolerate” The answer is zero fo course, but that includes those who murder police officers AND police officers who murder unarmed citizens!
If you don’t think police officers murder unarmed citizens, I highly suggest you google “Michael Brelo and Timothy Russell” and read up on that atrocity.
Police stop all vehicles and check licenses (and check for DUI)every weekend with no cause other than it is a weekend night. Many of you state that the police can’t stop a car just to see if the driver is licensed but road blocks happen all the time.