Do Americans have a right to carry?

[omega 616]

SNIP

He didn't listen to the officer. He should have been on his stomach, then hand cuffed, then placed in the back of a squad car until this was cleared up. That's the law. That's what 'TEMPORARILY DETAIN' means. A person a few posts up quoted the law relevant here.

The guy said to him, "do you want to see my drivers ID and my license to carry it" he said the famous lines again.

There was no need to arrest the guy, call in back up, have a go at him for it and then just sort it out.

Let him throw his stuff over, read it and then have a good laugh or a "sorry for the inconvenience, just wanted to sure and safe", the guy seemed more than reasonable and would have probably said "it's ok, I know you were just doing your job".

The cop blew it all out of proportion.

There is a need to detain him (that's different from an arrest) , and he resisted by not complying. This idiot decided to have attitude and not listen.

I can still tell you haven't even listend to the clip.

Until you do there is no point continuing this.

He never had an attitude, I would have had attitude, this guy just wanted to pick up a car part and not be arrested for a few hours while they dragged there knuckles and slowly realized they dun goofed.

You're listening to something else then. He refused to listen to the officer. He flat out told him no!!!

With an attitude? No.

He wanted to save time and get on with his day, while co-operating. The cop wasn't co-operating with him.

The was too busy waving his gun around and being captain big bollocks, all the cop had to do with difuse the situation he caused was to just look at his I.D.

The cop obviously had low arrest figures and wanted to pad them, either that or he was really bored and wanted to find something to do.

SNIP

He didn't listen to the officer. He should have been on his stomach, then hand cuffed, then placed in the back of a squad car until this was cleared up. That's the law. That's what 'TEMPORARILY DETAIN' means. A person a few posts up quoted the law relevant here.

Seems unreasonable to me.

He was cooperating, trying to calmly explain why he had a gun.
He offered the required paperwork, but the police officer plain refused to listen.

You can't just tackle someone to the ground, put your knee on their face and handcuff them for no reason.
And certainly nor so when they have done nothing wrong.

Officers have a duty to protect others, then protect themselves. Denial of rights doesn't figure into miscommunication. If the officer is at fault, that's something you sort out later when people aren't waving weapons around.

You get the fuck down when an officer tells you to.

The only person doing the waving was the cop, who pointed the gun before the guy even knew the cop was there.

 

[MaxwellMurder]

In Connecticut you need a license to open carry and sometimes you need to clear it with owner of the property

 

[shadowform]

This has cycled through here a few times already, but my position hasn't changed.

Americans do and should have the right to carry, and infringing upon that is going against our personal freedom and the Bill of Rights. If anyone thinks that we are interpreting the 2nd Amendment incorrectly, they need to call their congressman and demand a constitutional amendment immediately.

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.

This means that we should be able to form a militia when necessary, but also that our individual right to own a firearm can not be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has sided with this time and time again.

Personally, I happen to believe that was merely supposed to mean being able to serve in the military (which means that banning homosexuals was unconstitutional).

However, that's totally irrelevant, as there's no reason why you can't allow for privately owned weapons with other laws (or, for that matter, ignore the Bill of Rights when convenient).

Speaking from a historical context, 'militia' refers more to a collection of civilians that have taken up arms for one reason or another, rather than a distinct military force, or at least that's always how I've understood it.

 

[newwiseman]

In Oregon you can open carry any weapon, I think Portland tried to pass some city ordinances but I don't know if there are any standing.

Oregon law is funny, it is only legal to conceal a gun here with a concealed weapons license; a knife of any length is illegal to carry in your pocket, however the law states that police must present you with a valid reason for a search before you have to reply if you have a weapon or not in your pocket.

There are a few cities around the country that have gun control laws that are different than the state law, Chicago is a big one that comes to mind.

 

[SuperNova221]

O didn't listen to much of the audio. Maybe a minute at mst. All I needed to hear.

Not going to state my personal views on guns, would take too long. all I'm going to say is that the victim was being perfectly reasonable, and the officer was being the opposite. I only listened up to the part where the victim mentions that he has a permit and driving license and will show it to the officer. Then immediatley the officer radios in for backup because his victim is causing trouble. Completely irrational response from the officer.

 

[Brandon237]

This guy has a gun, he isn't listening to the officer, taser the fuck head.

Regardless if he has a right to carry the weapon, he is blatantly defying a police officer.

-'A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES
AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT
IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY
DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A
FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS
OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

B. IMMEDIATLEY SEIZE ANY FIREARMS FOR OFFICER SAFETY
DURING THE STOP AND UNLOAD THE FIREARMS IF POSSIBLE,
BUT ONLY IF IT CAN BE DONE SAFELY.-'

Yeah, this dumb dumb will more than likely have his license revoked.

-.-
Seriously?
Did you listen to the audio recording? The cop harassed him, refused to listen, Would not even let him move his foot off the dirt and shouted, swore and got pissed off for no reason other than to create a power struggle for the sake of it. What's wrong with "Hello, please stand where you are and slowly draw your permit for that weapon on your hip, thank-you." *Check permit* "Thank-you sir, have a nice day."

Police do not deserve respect because they are police, they deserve it IF they do their job properly, without infringing on the rights and lives of innocent civilians. If they do not, they should not be given a fire-arm and should not be given respect they do not deserve, this is simply causing friction between police and civilians.

taser the fuck head

Because this will NEVER lead to unnecessary violence, hate, injury and shootings. Not in this wonderful Orwellian World we live in that denies the existence of human rights to all but those in government and the police force.

I listened. He refused to comply to the officer.

And the officer was being completely disrespectful, unreasonable, unnecessarily aggressive and threatening from before the guy knew what the hell was going on, this makes compliance go to the bottom of the list of things on your mind. The law is there to guide people who don't have very good moral or social approaches to life, not to completely replace any shred of common sense or respect.
And again, any police officer who doesn't deserve respect should not get it and should not be one in the first place.

And you addressed, in very little detail, 1 point of the couple I made, ones that I'm rather scared to even have to make knowing that people who SUPPORT this exist. It is a scary thought.

 

[player3141]

Both parties were wrong.
The officer was just on a power trip. He was cursing when there no need to and being unreasonable.
The person who had the gun was in violation of the law as he needed a concealed carry license for Philadelphia. He also should have complied with the police officer, instead he argued with someone who refused to listen.

 

[Thanatos5150]

We open carry for self defense, it is perfectly reasonable to want to keep yourself alive.

That's a load of balls.

You carry a gun to feel safer, it makes you no more able to defend yourself than before. If I were going to attack you, I would walk up from behind then slit your throat first, you've got a gun, best never give you a chance to use it. Whilst you lie there drowning I'll take your gun, should be worth a few bucks or at least a few ounces to the right person.

Or I would just, y'know, shoot you in the back, since I can go and buy guns and ammo.

That it makes you any safer is a silly assertion, it's the number one method of both suicide and murder in the US, nevermind the higher than average rate of 'mishaps' with fire arms in America. If you want to be safer, you should walk around wearing a kevlar vest for all the idiots with guns.


#Edit.

I've just been on the NRA website. Even they assert that carrying a fire arm actually increases the risk to yourself and other people, the NRA says guns make life more dangerous and promote proper safety precautions.

Also, here's a cheery little graphics from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

Yes, because everyone knows all criminals are trained ninjas, your ignorance amazes me. In America we have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you believe that a gun wont save your life, then you are falling for the power grab that police have been making for years. The police fear a citizen with a gun, because it takes their false authority away.

Yes, guns are risky.
No, they are not toys.

They deserve respect and should be handled extremely carefully.

If you cant be careful around them, don't own them. But don't shit in other people's cereal if you cant handle the flavor.

No, all criminals are not trained, stealthy operatives.
However, Laws on carrying knives are usually much less strict than firearms laws, and, on the average city/suburban street, what are the chances you're looking behind you at any given moment? What are the chances Joe Citizen gives the random guy behind him a second look?
Shadowing people on in Urban areas is disappointingly easy, as is closing the distance. Had I a mind to and a knife, I would have been in position to many, many times in my life.
And then the times where I DID have a combat knife on me, I have also been in a position to potentially take a life many times, and nobody was the wiser.

 

[omega 616]

SNIP

He didn't listen to the officer. He should have been on his stomach, then hand cuffed, then placed in the back of a squad car until this was cleared up. That's the law. That's what 'TEMPORARILY DETAIN' means. A person a few posts up quoted the law relevant here.

The guy said to him, "do you want to see my drivers ID and my license to carry it" he said the famous lines again.

There was no need to arrest the guy, call in back up, have a go at him for it and then just sort it out.

Let him throw his stuff over, read it and then have a good laugh or a "sorry for the inconvenience, just wanted to sure and safe", the guy seemed more than reasonable and would have probably said "it's ok, I know you were just doing your job".

The cop blew it all out of proportion.

There is a need to detain him (that's different from an arrest) , and he resisted by not complying. This idiot decided to have attitude and not listen.

I can still tell you haven't even listend to the clip.

Until you do there is no point continuing this.

He never had an attitude, I would have had attitude, this guy just wanted to pick up a car part and not be arrested for a few hours while they dragged there knuckles and slowly realized they dun goofed.

You're listening to something else then. He refused to listen to the officer. He flat out told him no!!!

With an attitude? No.

He wanted to save time and get on with his day, while co-operating. The cop wasn't co-operating with him.

The was too busy waving his gun around and being captain big bollocks, all the cop had to do with difuse the situation he caused was to just look at his I.D.

The cop obviously had low arrest figures and wanted to pad them, either that or he was really bored and wanted to find something to do.

He wanted to save time? Who gives a shit? He had a fucking gun! If he refuses to comply with the law by refusing to be detained, while they check his license, then he deserves what he got. Had he simply listened and not talked back this would have been over and done with before the 15 minute sound clip was done.

The cop was the jerk on a power trip, nothing more to it.

He took the situation to a level that it never should have got to, if you are well within the law (evident by his knowledge of the law he cited) there is no need to be arrested.

Say your in school and the teacher goes out, comes back in and sees you stood up, putting something in the bin (which isn't unreasonable, she was out the room, so not teaching and you didn't want to litter). She starts shouting about disobeying her and puts you in dentetion, as you try to explain yourself she is increasing your punishment.

Don't tell me you wouldn't try to explain yourself 'cos we all would. There is no way you would just say "sorry" then wait for detention to come around before going up to her and telling her what happened.

Maybe there was a line were they guy who was being targeted (in more than one sense) should have just said "fine, and got down on the ground" after he realized the cop was a dick and wasn't going to be reasonable.

 

[Citizen Snips]

This has cycled through here a few times already, but my position hasn't changed.

Americans do and should have the right to carry, and infringing upon that is going against our personal freedom and the Bill of Rights. If anyone thinks that we are interpreting the 2nd Amendment incorrectly, they need to call their congressman and demand a constitutional amendment immediately.

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.

This means that we should be able to form a militia when necessary, but also that our individual right to own a firearm can not be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has sided with this time and time again.

Personally, I happen to believe that was merely supposed to mean being able to serve in the military (which means that banning homosexuals was unconstitutional).

However, that's totally irrelevant, as there's no reason why you can't allow for privately owned weapons with other laws (or, for that matter, ignore the Bill of Rights when convenient).

I believed the same thing for a while myself, but I've read extensively on English law for quite a few years and looking past the Latin context of it's literal translation the "Right to Bear Arms" has been used in many contexts besides a military in that time period.

"Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that...have nothing to do with military service...[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian's edition of Blackstone's Commentaries that appeared in the 1790's described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms 'everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.' This right was separate from militia duties."

This is also in line with keeping to common law as per the 9th Amendment as well.

 

[Angryman101]

SNIP

He didn't listen to the officer. He should have been on his stomach, then hand cuffed, then placed in the back of a squad car until this was cleared up. That's the law. That's what 'TEMPORARILY DETAIN' means. A person a few posts up quoted the law relevant here.

The guy said to him, "do you want to see my drivers ID and my license to carry it" he said the famous lines again.

There was no need to arrest the guy, call in back up, have a go at him for it and then just sort it out.

Let him throw his stuff over, read it and then have a good laugh or a "sorry for the inconvenience, just wanted to sure and safe", the guy seemed more than reasonable and would have probably said "it's ok, I know you were just doing your job".

The cop blew it all out of proportion.

There is a need to detain him (that's different from an arrest) , and he resisted by not complying. This idiot decided to have attitude and not listen.

I can still tell you haven't even listend to the clip.

Until you do there is no point continuing this.

He never had an attitude, I would have had attitude, this guy just wanted to pick up a car part and not be arrested for a few hours while they dragged there knuckles and slowly realized they dun goofed.

You're listening to something else then. He refused to listen to the officer. He flat out told him no!!!

With an attitude? No.

He wanted to save time and get on with his day, while co-operating. The cop wasn't co-operating with him.

The was too busy waving his gun around and being captain big bollocks, all the cop had to do with difuse the situation he caused was to just look at his I.D.

The cop obviously had low arrest figures and wanted to pad them, either that or he was really bored and wanted to find something to do.

He wanted to save time? Who gives a shit? He had a fucking gun! If he refuses to comply with the law by refusing to be detained, while they check his license, then he deserves what he got. Had he simply listened and not talked back this would have been over and done with before the 15 minute sound clip was done.

See, you'd be right if the officer had an idea of the law you're talking about, but he didn't. He believed it was against the law to open carry, and immediately drew his weapon and caused what must have been a large amount of emotional distress for the person who was calmly obeying the law and attempting to cooperate.
The officer was in the wrong, and I find it entertaining that you know more about the law than the man who is supposed to be enforcing it.
This temporary detainment does NOT equate to tackling and treating the lawful citizen like a criminal when he is making no threats and is complying with your orders. The officers in question were overly aggressive and deserve to be penalized in some fashion.

 

[EdwardOrchard]

Not going to state my personal views on guns, would take too long. all I'm going to say is that the victim was being perfectly reasonable, and the officer was being the opposite. I only listened up to the part where the victim mentions that he has a permit and driving license and will show it to the officer. Then immediatley the officer radios in for backup because his victim is causing trouble. Completely irrational response from the officer.

I agree here. I think this thread could go on forever in a debate over gun rights and the interpretations of various laws, but I think the point is in the way the cop behaved. This would have been handled so much better if the cop were simply acting in a rational and calm manner, the way that we expect officers to behave.

 

[maninahat]

Well even if the guy has a right to carry fire arms openly, in Philadelphia law it states clearly that an Officer is allowed to detain people carrying firearms, just on the precaution that they might be a threat to the public. I think the cop was doing the right thing. From his perspective, he had to take huge precautions with a guy carrying a deadly weapon in a public place. He is going to become even more jittery when the guy doesn't appear to be doing what he is told, even at gun point.

Now ok, the guy was offering to hand his license over. The cop was obviously wrong about the carry laws. But the guy was in the wrong for arguing and not doing as he was told. And that is the problem. DON'T EVER FUCKING ARGUE WITH COPS! I can't stress that enough. If you calmly do exactly as you are told, then you'll get through things a lot easier. You can always hand in your license at the station, or if the copper eventually asks for it. From the cops perspective, a potential murderer could always say "I have my license, right here sir!" and then blast the cop's head off whilst reaching for it. That is why the cop has to first take these important steps to protect the lives of him and everyone around him. Even if that means making a perfectly innocent man kneel in the dirt. better than getting shot.

 

[maninahat]

Not going to state my personal views on guns, would take too long. all I'm going to say is that the victim was being perfectly reasonable, and the officer was being the opposite. I only listened up to the part where the victim mentions that he has a permit and driving license and will show it to the officer. Then immediatley the officer radios in for backup because his victim is causing trouble. Completely irrational response from the officer.

I agree here. I think this thread could go on forever in a debate over gun rights and the interpretations of various laws, but I think the point is in the way the cop behaved. This would have been handled so much better if the cop were simply acting in a rational and calm manner, the way that we expect officers to behave.

Without the image, it is hard to see things from the officer's perspective. He sees a man walking around with a gun at his side. Instantly, the cop knows this man may potentially be very dangerous and might be planning something hostile. He is acting within his legal capacity to ensure the man is not a criminal, or that he can't harm the public. Just because the guy keeps saying "I have a license" doesn't change anything. Cops are specifically trained to be suspicious of people who keep wanting to reach into their pockets when at gun point. They are also suspicious of people don't appear to be doing exactly as they are told. After all, if the guy really was innocent, why shouldn't he just cooperate fully? That is the cop's logic. His life is on the line, dealing with a situation that could end up with someone dead. He is going to get very god damn angry in the circumstances.

 

[Quellist]

SNIP

He didn't listen to the officer. He should have been on his stomach, then hand cuffed, then placed in the back of a squad car until this was cleared up. That's the law. That's what 'TEMPORARILY DETAIN' means. A person a few posts up quoted the law relevant here.

if i may? no, he was the reasonable on here, he had the gun legally and was supposed to have it out if he didn't have a concealed carry permit, the cop was a stupid piece of shit that refused to listen to him, in case you didn't notice the retarded cop had his gun trained on him before he even told the man to turn around, he was already being unreasonable well before the confrontation started. just so you know, i want to be an officer, i think this was to far and out of line and the cop was in the wrong here man.

With you on this, if the cop wasn't sure if the guy had a licence he should have politely asked the guy to produce it, not acted as though the guy was a dangerous criminal.

And to those saying 'he should do what the cop says' sorry, in any society not a police state we don't have to arbitrarily follow the orders of someone in uniform 'just because they say so'. They are supposed to obey the law, not just enforce it.