Do Americans have a right to carry?

[RaNDM G]

I don't know anything about the gun laws in the states but shouldn't it atleast be concealed?

It's illegal to conceal a firearm without a license. Personally I don't like the idea of showing everyone that you're armed and dangerous, but open carry of an unloaded firearm is legal in most states.

Nowadays, politicians are paranoid of guns to the point where it affects law enforcement, which in turn infringes on our civil liberties.

 

[Vigilantis]

Topic question: Yes Americans have the right to own/carry a firearm.

I don't know anything about the gun laws in the states but shouldn't it atleast be concealed?

Some states require it to be concealed but as I know of Washington state does not require it to be tucked under your clothing so I would guess other states have the same options.

And finally, the cop is in the wrong for not knowing his states own laws, however he is not in the wrong for challenging a man whom he observed with a firearm. The guy himself also did not help his case as it seems it took him awhile to get down, whether he was permitted to have a gun or not and whether the ground is muddy and dirty the dude did not get any points trying to reason with the cop saying it was disrespectful to get on his knees and arguing. Didn't get too into this when it hit the news but if he wasnt charged with resisting arrest he damn well should have been for being a moron.

Both sides are in the wrong, however its the cops side that is disturbing to everyone as he's the one who should KNOW the law.

Series of events should have gone like this:

Cop sees guy with gun-Challenges man-Man obeys officers request-Cop finds permit to be valid-Man goes free after 15/30minute delay in his day.

 

[Mcupobob]

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.

Disrespectful? You sir, are hilarious! He has no obligation to say 'Please, I'm a little put off that you have a gun, would it bother you if I asked you kindly to get on the ground' instead of 'Get the fuck on the ground now!' I hear people in California complain when the police aren't all roses and sunshine, but this was in Philly, not that it matters.

The law this idiot is holding so dear, demands he be detained. End of story. It's his fault he didn't comply. The second he doesn't comply, then talks back, he is resisting.

If any person calls me junior while pointing a freaking gun at my back unnecessarily they are being disrespectful as all hell. And while he has no obligation to do so, it would certainly be the best way to handle situation instead of swearing and coming off as a tourettes sufferer with a chip on his shoulder.

While the civilian's actions weren't perfect, they were reasonable, logical and all that was necessary. The cop was Undeniably trying to cause trouble: honestly, pulling out a gun, pointing it at a civilian and then calling them condescendingly, that is asking for trouble.

And again, law versus morality and common sense. Does it not make more sense to just check the permit there and then, no dignity violated, no time wasted, same results, less paranoia. It is common sense, if you can't see that now then you never will, and there never will be any point in arguing this. If you were in this person's position, how would you feel? If you say that you were happy that the cop tried to enforce the law, then I really am in the matrix after all...

I am happy that this officer of the law, enforced the law. You might not be from an area where gun violence is a problem, but I am. When ever confronted by the police, you listen to them. Any ding bat who doesn't, is asking for trouble.

It is 100% 'UNreasonable' for this kid to have not just shut his mouth and comply. But hey, some people feel the need to be an ass, this guy did, and got not nearly enough as he deserved. You don't fuck around with guns.

This isn't the Matrix. Movies are cheap escapes from reality like video games. This is real life, and I wouldn't want an officer of the law to act like a flimsy wishy washy hippy.

Sorry to sound so angry, I just can't wrap my head around why anyone would think ill of this officer. He didn't beat the kid, he followed procedure. I can get you might not like the way he did it, but that's too bad. Like I said earlier, you don't fuck around when it comes to guns.

The police officer didn't enforce the law he broke it as it was stated many times over the man had a perment and was legal, he was not waving his gun around or even doing anything in a threating manner. The cop should be hung as he was waving his gun around and endangering the lives of innocents those he was suppose to protect. Also in the real world the police are not some saints they are for the most part corrupt and as easily as wrong as any other human being. This mans life was threaten and had his rights stepped on in public. Just because someone has a uniform that doesn't make them right or give them the right to be above the law. It honestly scares me how quickly people are ready to submit to authority figures just because they were given a title and a gun.


If anything it was the cop that was fucking around with gun, and sadly will not be punished. I consider abuse of power and the harassment of those you're meant to serve and protect on the same level as treason as he was betray everything he was suppose to protect. Law doesn't equal right.

 

[Jamie Doerschuck]

Yeah...

I am not surprised by this, and I reckon the cops in question will get off scott free.
As they always seem to do over there.

The police in the US seem like they are above the law, and can nearly do as they damn well please with little to no punishment.

It's disgusting to see in a modern, secular state.

Ha, ha, ha.. "Secular"... I know a large swath of the evangelical population who would love to debate with you on that. Also... A synonym for "Republicans" is "the Religious Right"..

 

[NLS]

None of this would have happened if that guy didn't carry a gun around in the first place. Really, that simple.

I never go around carrying a gun, and I never get in trouble for it either. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Chameliondude]

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

Firstly, how many situations would you be in where no one would see you creep up behind a lone guy (including the guy), slit his throat and get away, or straight up shoot a guy in the back and get away with it, what are you, 5?

Its complete rubbish, every criminal with a brain knows its hard to get away with murder, really hard, thats why they mug people or pick pockets instead of kill them, because they can get away with it easier, and if are caught, then the prison sentance is much much shorter, and its harder to prove so slitting throats would be a big no no, and you are way less likely to mug or try to pick pocket someone with a visible gun, because things can turn ugly.

I live in england so am fine with noone having guns except the very few police who are very well trained to use them, it makes everyone safer, but what you said is moronic, a gun would make you safer and less of a target, but only if you are cafeful with it of course, meaning, only use as a last resort and proper maintenance and care. If its legal and his choice, he has every right to

 

[Sovvolf]

While I think the officer in question was being excessive with the language, attitude and refusal to listen to the perpetrator, I still feel that taking him in was the right thing to do.
I'm not much on American law being a cheese eating Brit but if I thought someone was acting suspicious and had a firearm... I'd at least detain him and I wouldn't mess about in doing it either. Could be life or death in a situation like that and I wouldn't be taking any chances.

Yes this perp was acting reasonably and the officer in question was out of order with the attitude used, the insults and such. I feel the officer deserves the complaint he'll probably receive for this and what ever disciplinary action he'll receive specially regards to the reaction of finding out it was being recorded. However detaining him, I agree with.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

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.

Even so

Well now, let's see if Penn and Teller vs. Bill Hicks can be entertaining. This is taken from pages 272 and 273 of Bill Hicks' book "Love All The People":

"I'll quote Article Two of the Bill of Rights first, then present my simple realization and perhaps, God willing, this ludicrous issue can be resolved once and for all. (Yeah, right...) Here goes: '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.' (!) As far as I can tell, that's one sentence. This issue doesn't need to be debated by constitutional lawyers. This whole debate could be cleared up by my first grade English teacher, Mrs. Farmer. Article Two says, essentially, that: 'In order to maintain a free state a well-regulated militia (the National Guard) is necessary, and to that end only (at least according to the grammatic content of the sentence) people (the National Guard) have the 'right to bear arms'. If you reverse the two parts of the sentence it becomes even more crystal clear: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.'

This sentence, this one idea, this complete thought in and of itself does not say that every Floyd, Clem and Burl has the right to bear arms. It does not say every psychopathic yahoo in the country should be able to own a gun. It doesn't say that at all, and anyone with an education higher than the first grade should be able to comprehend this. Again, I believe people should be able to glean the true meaning of a simple sentence before we even begin to discuss their owning automatic weapons for 'hunting purposes'.

I can't help but wonder why the simple and obvious meaning of this sentence has never been mentioned before. Perhaps this is old news to the gun control debaters, but that still doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Are gun rights advocates arguing that roving gangs of young people shooting innocent bystanders constitutes a 'well-regulated militia'? Or that Clem shooting Burl because he mistook him in the drak for a 'nigra' constitutes a 'secure and free state'? What, exactly, is their argument based on? Because it is not based on any 'guaranteed right' in the constitution. A child could explain this to you if he or she wasn't busy ducking for cover, or being strip-searched on the way into their grade school."

He goes onto mention some more deep thinking along the lines of America's real social enemy and solutions to the maladies that plague the world. All I can do is recommend the book if anyone is interested in learning more about this issue, and many others.

 

[Xannieros]

Regardless of he wasn't listening to the officer, he did have a licence. The officer did go overboard.

Quote from Youtube.

Since when is "I don't know who you are" reason enough to hold someone at gunpoint? I get that he was worried about the gun, but after Fiorino tells him he has a permit for it why did he not ask to see it? Would that not have ended this incident right away?

Pretty much my thoughts.

 

[Panken]

I'm not too fresh on gun laws, but don't you need mor permeits to conceal the carried firearm than you do to openly carry it? Seems this cop went a bit OTT.

OT: I knew a guy in the US who was going to a shooting range with a few friends, had his weapons in carry cases on the back seat next to a friend, and another friend riding shotgun. Cops pulled him over for a routine traffic stop, asked him what was in the cases and he said "Guns. I'm going to the shooting range with a few buddies"
Reached for his permits and the cop threatened to shoot him. His response was "How the hell do you get your guns from point A to point B?"

The moral? Some cops are just looking to get their arrest record up.

In some states (Arizona for one) you dont need a permit to open carry, you just have to be over the age of 21. But in order to conceal carry you have to go through a program, the is regluated by your state. However, openly carrying anywhere can get you into more trouble than you were looking for.

Also, with your friend in the US. When transporting a gun, unless everyone in the car has a permit, it is best to carry the gun in your trunk. The way the officer told us at my carry class is that it must take more than 2 steps to chamber a round in your gun if you dont have your permit.

Example: Lets say you have a magazine of ammo, already loaded, and a gun in the seat of the car. The magazine is not inside the gun. In order to chamber a round you would have to Step 1: Load the magazine. Step 2: Cycle the action of your firearm. If you did not have your permit then you could go to jail for carrying a gun without a liscense.

In your friend's case if the gun in the case was loaded then all he would have to do is open the case it was in and chamber a round. 2 steps. If anyone in the car did not have a permit then that is illegal.

Uh... how the hell would you quickly get even a loaded, cocked, un-safetied gun quickly out of a carrying case to fire upon the officer before he could put about half a clip into you?

Not sure but its the law. Also, like carrying openly in public, carrying a gun in the cab of your car is asking for trouble if you get pulled over. Trunk is the best way to go.

 

[thelonewolf266]

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.

Oh yes he should have gone up to the man with no way to protect himself when said man had a gun. That's such a good idea what exactly would stop said man from shooting the officer if he had turned out to be a criminal or a psycho.

 

[Actual]

This has to be fake, why was he audio recording? Who walks around recording?

When He turns at a shout to see a police officer pointing a gun at him he immediately goes on the attack, before the police officer can say anything he starts describing what he's seeing (for the video he knew he'd be posting) and demanding the officer (impersonator?) explain, no-one would react that way and no officer would just dumbly point a gun without talking to the suspect.


Fake Fake Fake.

 

[Paradox2063]

I am not an LEO, I do not know anything about proper procedure. This is how I would try to solve the situation if I were the LEO.

After seeing the person carrying a weapon, I would unclasp my holster, and place my hand on my own gun. I would then call out to this person, "Sir, I'm going to need you to stop where you are and let me see your hands."

He responds by turning around, and sees who I am, and says what the guy says, all polite and "I have a permit."

I ask him to hold still, hands in the air (or on his head), and approach slowly, if he makes any sudden moves, I'll draw my weapon, otherwise it's staying in the holster, with my hand on it. When I get to him, I'll ask him where the permit is, and I'll get it out of his pocket. Everything checks out, then I'll clasp my holster, return his wallet, and send him on his way.

Allowing for whatever procedural variables are necessary, the whole incident is ended in minutes.

At least that's what I think should have happened.