Obviously incorrect. Wearing a ski mask is legal too, but if you walk into a bank wearing a ski mask pretty much everyone is going to be “suspicious”.
Yeah, if it’s July.
You’re reminding me of that old Carlin joke about the most stressful job there is
Bank guard in Nome, Alaska. Everyone’s wearing a ski mask. :p:rolleyes:
Around here law enforcement has been receiving training in which no less than the Attorney General or the Assistant AG have appeared and stated that merely the act of open carry is not reasonable suspicion of a crime.
What about the Terry case I talked about upthread? Walking down the street is legal. Looking through store windows is legal. Talking to another person is legal.
It’s the circumstances which make them suspicious. Carrying a rifle in downtown Pittsburgh and going to Primanti Brothers is certainly, at the very least, suspicious. I fear that in our zeal to assert our second amendment rights, we start to look foolish by claiming that nobody should turn their heads for someone carrying a rifle in town.
There IS a large, glaring, difference. And that is that police not only have the authority but in fact, the DUTY, to go into dangerous situations. Whereas ordinary citizens do not.
Having said that, I’m not against people having guns. They have the right. I just don’t support open carry. I think guns should be restricted to the home and only carried by people who carry excessive valuables or something similar.
I can only respond regarding the laws of my own state. How, exactly, would I avoid disciplinary action and a civil lawsuit for hassling an open carrier without any other factors, when state law, state supreme court decisions, and Attorney General opinions, all clearly say there is no violation of law and no reasonable suspicion?
There have been several cases in Wisconsin of your way happening, and in every one of those cases the police departments ended up paying out thousands of dollars.
I find your standard idiotic and extremely naive.
Perhaps you failed to read the post you quoted, where I mentioned going into private property. If I wear a ski mask in summer walking about in public, there’s no grounds for suspicion. Only if I refuse to remove it when asked to on entering a private place, is it an issue. Same with guns where open carry is legal.
That your government is already ignoring your constitution is not an argument for further breaches. Indeed, the reasoning behind the second amendment originally was to protect against a government that tramples on people’s rights. Oh, the irony.
As for not saying that ownership or at least training with weapons is something every citizen should have, that’s at least implied by saying that a trained militia is necessary. You realise that’s what “well-regulated” in this context means, yes?
I get that a lot of people think the 2nd amendment is somewhere between absurd and dangerous. But that’s reason to further amend the constitution, not to ignore it or circumvent it. Put it this way, anyone who opposes citizens carrying weapons shouldn’t be opposing the NSA snooping, as they clearly don’t give a shit about the constitution.
I’m personally rather glad that I live somewhere that guns are neither legal nor prevalent. But were they prevalent, I’d certainly get one and learn to use it, whatever the law. The law and the government exist for our benefit and protection, and when they act against that they are in the wrong. Stopping ordinary people arming themselves when criminals can easily do so is wrong.
More valuable than their lives? That’s awfully valuable…
Did those cases involve rifles? If they did, then they are absolutely absurd.
Since you quoted a couple of my posts prior to this response, I’m assuming that I’m one of the posters you’re addressing here. And I don’t understand why you and others seem to have such a hard time comprehending what I wrote.
Either that, or you are deliberately trying to dismiss or distort my rational skepticism (in not automatically assuming that any unknown random stranger can be safely trusted to handle a gun in public) by disingenuously pretending that rational skepticism is equivalent to irrational “fear”.
[QUOTE=Flyer]
Do you cringe every time a car approaches, wondering if it might be driven by a suicidal maniac who wants to go out in a blaze of glory?
[/quote]
More exaggeration and distortion. Just because I don’t automatically “cringe” at the possibility that somebody with a car or a gun might be suicidally intent on destroying others doesn’t mean that I automatically assume that they are capable of safely handling it.
Indeed, we know that even well-intentioned people do incredibly stupid or reckless things with cars and guns every day, and many other usually well-intentioned people lose their heads and their tempers and commit actual violence with them. This is the reality behind the eminently sensible principle of “defensive driving”, in which sensible drivers don’t blithely take it for granted that other drivers can be trusted to drive safely.
This is also why we have so many regulations and restrictions on the licensing and use of cars, including rules to keep cars physically separated from pedestrians as much as possible while they’re in use. Are you saying that you support restrictions on gun acquisition and ownership that would require all guns to be, e.g.,
- registered and periodically inspected,
- carried only in special “gun lanes” instead of in general pedestrian areas or inside buildings,
- equipped with mandatory visibility features such as lights and blinkers so that everybody could see where they were at all times,
- prohibited from being handled by anybody under the influence of alcohol, and
- manipulated only in accordance with certain set patterns of movement and signaling to minimize the risk of harm?
Somehow, I doubt you do. And if you don’t, then you need to abandon your tedious and disingenuous equivocations attempting to present widespread public presence of guns as no more than equivalent to widespread public presence of cars.
[QUOTE=Flyer]
Furthermore, open carriers are NOT paranoid. It is no more paranoid to carry a gun than it is to have a fire extinguisher in the house.
[/quote]
Like I said previously, you can’t have it both ways. If there’s nothing “paranoid” about people thinking they need to carry guns because of potential danger from other people carrying guns, then there’s nothing “cringing” or “fearful” about people who aren’t carrying guns refusing to take it for granted that people who are carrying guns don’t pose any danger.
And the illogic of your double standard here isn’t doing you any favors in your quest to look like somebody who can be trusted to act wisely when handling deadly weapons in public.
Get it? I don’t “fear” you [generic gun-carrying “you”], and I don’t “cringe” at you. I’m just rationally aware that, realistically speaking, the statistical likelihood is that you are probably nowhere near as competent, intelligent, brave, or skilled in firearms techniques as you like to believe that you are. So it makes sense for me, if I don’t happen to know anything about you, not to automatically assume that you are somebody who can reliably be trusted with a gun.
And there is no need for any individual gun carrier to get all butthurt over taking that personally. It’s simply a standard tendency of human psychology, similar to the standard tendency of the vast majority of drivers to believe that they have above-average driving skills. If it’s reasonable to default to skepticism and caution about the safety of the average unknown driver, then it’s equally reasonable to default to skepticism and caution about the safety of the average unknown gun owner.
Of course there is. That’s quite suspicious behavior.
Not really. Openly carrying guns is generally a sign that someone is likely to start a fight or bully someone. And often is a sign that they are dangerously irrational.
The criminals can and do easily arm themselves because the ordinary people are armed. You have the cause and effect backwards.
OK, show me the law against it, that a policeman could use to stop me for doing so.
State Codes Related to Wearing Masks (a partial list)
The government is NOT ignoring the constitution. As I said the right is not absolute. The constitution does not say every citizen is entitled to any and all “arms” they want. It only says they’re entitled SOME KIND of “arms”. If you don’t like the automatic weapons ban, let me ask you… Do you think people should own MX missiles? That’s an “arm” too, isn’t it?
While I recognize that your opinion is as valuable as anyone else’s, you don’t seem to recognize that is only YOUR opinion. The constitution doesn’t even define “militia” let alone “well-regulated”. There are interpretations that say the founders were speaking SOLELY of military service and doesn’t apply to ordinary citizens at all. Another opinion.
Again, you’re implying that, somehow, your personal opinion of what the constitution says is the standard. That is incorrect. I and others believe reasonable limitations can be placed on the types of “arms” people own, the circumstances in which they can be carried AND still give a shit about the constitution.
I’m not against people owning guns but they should be limited to the home and only carried by appropriate people.
I’ll check the past cases but I can tell you there are at least 3 that involved rifles that are currently pending that were in the news recently. One in Appleton, one in Germantown, and I don’t recall where the 3rd one was.
Under what law/case law/AG opinion do YOU (:rolleyes: ) declare them absurd? Remember, I’m talking about the law/case law/AG opinion here, and only here. Being chained by those what makes them absurd?
Absolutely false, uncite-able, and an indefensible post not fit for GD.
The criminal ALWAYS has the advantage over a potential victim because they have the intent and the potential victim doesn’t know it. A criminal knowing a potential victim is armed only gives them one more thing to plan for.
Can you post a cite that shows open carriers have been a significant target by muggers, rapists, etc.?
The vast majority of police spend the vast majority of their time doing things that are not dangerous. Even in major cities, 95% of cops will never use their sidearms; not even once in their whole 20-year career. In smaller jurisdictions, it’s more like 99.9%. They carry them 24/7 – including off-duty – because “you never know what might happen” or “it’s good to be prepared” or because the mere threat of having one enables them to ward off threats … all of which are the exact same reasons private citizens give.
Now if you want to adopt a policy that police should be restricted to keeping guns in the station (or perhaps the car) and only carried by officers heading into a high-risk situation or something similar, well, I’d disagree, but at least you’d be consistent.
Alternatively, you could just fess up and say that you’re okay with police being a different class of citizen, with more of a right to defend themselves than mere “civilians.” It’s a popular opinion; I’d guess ~70% of the populace holds it, though most won’t phrase it that way.
But that just brings us back to what Kimstu said, and my response to it: Some (most) people trust the police more than they do the average law-abiding citizen, and see them as “the good guys.” Others of us are more inclined to see them as not much better nor worse than humanity in general. (And of course, in places like Ferguson, some people trust them less than the average person…)
And other people have noted it too, but yeah, the idea that “people who carry excessive valuables,” and who presumably live and travel in upscale environs, should be able to protect themselves, but the blue-collar guy in a shit neighborhood who risks getting mugged by a crackhead looking for a $20 fix everytime he walks home late should just take his chances … yeah, that’s pretty damned appalling. Talk about “disparate impact.”
So? What’s your point? I mean, really. Who cares what you think? Not the majority of the voting public. Not the politicians. That ship has sailed. It’s done. All states allow concealed carry, most of them generously to any non-felon over 21 some even younger, and most states allow open carry as well. Why bother going on about this.
Do you really think that trend will be reversed any time soon? What’s your point?