• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A LEO who gets it

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
Thanks for the post.

The comments following the article are what I always find interesting. Supposedly these are all LEO writing. Some understand the People's Rights and clearly some see the People's Rights as a impediment to their ability to do their job.
 

Brion

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
160
Location
Goldsboro, NC
I kinda agree on passive-aggressive against OC. But only kinda. I guess that's why it's passive. It was more of a both sides need to just "Deal with it." OC are gonna OC. LEOs are gonna bug you. "Play nice, kids." Sounds like it justifies LEOs taking your weapon for sefety. Sounds like it says if it is easy to get CC then you should CC.

And not every1 that OC is protesting. I just started and I don't feel like I'm protesting. I'm going to start all my encounters with a smile and maybee even a handshake if everything seems nice. After I started I feel so much safer. I love it. Feels good. I'm still watching my back where I go and keep an eye out for exits but that's been my way forever. But I don't feel like if SHTF I'm going to be an inocent bistandard anymore. If cornered I have a dog in this fight. And I want every1 to know I have a weapon. It's a message to gangbangers and the like in a non-verbal tone - "I'm not the one you want to F*** with today." statement. No protest. Nothing agains governemtn. I'm a military aviator. I work for the government. I take my Oath VERY seriously.
 

Brion

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
160
Location
Goldsboro, NC
The comments following the article are what I always find interesting. Supposedly these are all LEO writing. Some understand the People's Rights and clearly some see the People's Rights as a impediment to their ability to do their job.

It is www.policeone.com soooooooo.

Anyway. I agree the comments are worth taking note on. Some are agains OC and CC all together. = bad LEO.

One even said
"A downside to open carry (compared with concealed carry) is a bad guy (or two or three) can sneak up behind, smash the citizens' head, and quickly steal what's likely to be a quality handgun from a non-security type holster.

Citizens are not likely to be trained in weapon retention techniques either. Concealed is a smarter way to carry.... "

What makes you immune to the exact same attack just because you are a LEO? It's that subconcious mideset that some people have that LEOs are superhuman and immune to such thigns. Just because it was required of you during your training at the academy doesn't mean that the same exact and possibly better techniques can't be taught to a civilian. It's all up to the individual how far they want to take their training. None of your business how far they take their training.

Something I learned in Military Aviation is you NEVER stop learning. And if you do, it's time to get out.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
This officer does not get it. He is far better than some, but getting it is:

"OC is a right. Note the presence of the gun, just as anyone would, and move on!"

That's it. That simple. That's getting it.
 

CORN BORN

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
23
Location
Vista, CA.
I like #1 and #2. Saying it is a LEGAL RIGHT and then going on to say that we are POLITICAL PROTEST, Extremists, Political Martyrs. I guess by thinking that we have this right and use this right makes us a target because we are not sheep and we voice our opinion. Oh there is another right(1st) we are taking advantage of.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
"and then going on to say that we are POLITICAL PROTEST, Extremists, Political Martyrs. I guess by thinking that we have this right and use this right makes us a target"

No,and there goes that selective/paranoia reading again.
He says "there will be extremists who are willing to be political martyrs by doing whatever it takes to push their agenda and raise awareness to their cause. "

Apparently he's been doing some reading in here, because his point gets proven 19 ways to Sunday and back every day on these forums.(hence the dozens of "what to do if/when w/ LEO'S" and "when/where to record LEO's" nonsense threads) There are indeed some extreme folks on our side who seem to look forward to provoking confrontations just to make some point or other-instead of just carrying out their right, and driving on with their lives. Something I think is ultimately going to undermine our cause,rather than further or promote it.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I liked the article, it could have been better, but it could have been a lot worse too, like written by the NYC or Chicago COP, or worse yet, the Toronto COP.

Anyway, I also appreciate the comments, it shows what I have experienced, some LEO are fully for the 2A and some are somewhat afraid. I think the LEO's have their own set of locker room (propaganda) myths that do not necessarily fit reality. A lot of misinformation can be spread that way.

I personally have never been asked to surrender my weapon, and if I was, I would do so, and then politely discuss why the LEO felt threatened by an armed citizen.

That attitude (that the LEO would feel threatened) is what I have a problem with. It is very simple in my mind,,,my nose is clean, otherwise I would not have a CPL, and I am not about to do anything to jeprodize that CPL.

I was reading all of the reasons given that we (at least some of us) are perceived to carry openly. Not even close, unless you want to count mine as a protest against the Canadian Government's stupidity. When I lived in Canada my right to defend myself was extremely limited.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I liked the article, it could have been better, but it could have been a lot worse too, like written by the NYC or Chicago COP, or worse yet, the Toronto COP.

Anyway, I also appreciate the comments, it shows what I have experienced, some LEO are fully for the 2A and some are somewhat afraid. I think the LEO's have their own set of locker room (propaganda) myths that do not necessarily fit reality. A lot of misinformation can be spread that way.

I personally have never been asked to surrender my weapon, and if I was, I would do so, and then politely discuss why the LEO felt threatened by an armed citizen.

That attitude (that the LEO would feel threatened) is what I have a problem with. It is very simple in my mind,,,my nose is clean, otherwise I would not have a CPL, and I am not about to do anything to jeprodize that CPL.

I was reading all of the reasons given that we (at least some of us) are perceived to carry openly. Not even close, unless you want to count mine as a protest against the Canadian Government's stupidity. When I lived in Canada my right to defend myself was extremely limited.

I don't surrender my weapon I am not handling it in their presence, I won't physically resist being disarmed (and then I'll sue after).

I think the fear many cops have is because they do get what the 2A is about, even if it is only on a sub conscience level, it is about protection against tyranny. Who will be and are being used as the arm of tyranny now? It is the LEO and LEA's of this country. So yes they have valid reason to be afraid of an armed public and that is how it is supposed to be, because it is the fear of what an armed public might do that is supposed to keep them in check.

Now what is wrong is them lobbying for and pushing for and enforcing unconstitutional and ever more restrictive firearm laws against the public whom they serve.,
 
Last edited:

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
I also think it was an ok article....

I found the sidenote towards the end of the article interesting as it was written by the same LEO that wrote the article...

"A side note to the citizen carrying openly: You should expect to be contacted law enforcement. You should expect to be feared by some, and considered to be a person of interest to many. Understand that by wearing a weapon in the open, you raise the perceived threat level in the eyes of law enforcement and other citizens. Friendly behavior goes a long way. People key on behavior rather than the weapon. Most folks respond well to a smile, polite behavior or a warm hello rather than a cold stare. I recommend that approach. You will be surprised how many people respond in a positive manner when you do that. Actually, this holds true on both sides of an open carry discussion, contact, or encounter..."

I know this basically goes against the general feelings of this group ("do not talk to cops"), but the friendly approach been my philosophy even before I started to open carry....and it has server me well....

Outdoorsman1
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
I also really liked tips #3 and #5...

3.) Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them may backfire and could be very expensive in the long run. One of the universities in Utah apparently tried this approach and it was leaked to the press. Now we run into civil liberties violations, etc.’

5.) Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself. It is the behavior of the person — not the gun — that we key on. If they get annoyed and start protesting you, remember that unless they are threatening you with harm, they have a right to voice their opinion, even if they raise their voice at you.

I'd say at least on the above levels... He gets it....

Outdoorsman1
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
No... the LEO doesn't 'get it'. Not quite.

Police generally are the product of their local culture. Note: "open carry is a form of political protest. While the majority will do what is asked of them without a lot of fuss, there will be extremists who are willing to be political martyrs by doing whatever it takes to push their agenda and raise awareness to their cause." I suspect this was written by an Easterner. It's the exact attitude developed thru cultural indoctrination from childhood. Let me be clear; 'Open Carry is a form of proactive self defense. Open carry is the essence of 'The right to keep and bear arms.' And... let's not forget that pesky 'Shall not be infringed' part.
As Kaspar noted: "If seeing a citizen with a gun is reason for them to fear for their life then they should have chosen a different job." All police swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. All of it... not just the parts they agree with.

I'm Arizonan. The individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized here and enumerated in the State Constitution (AzC Art 2 Sec 26)for 100 years. I carry a side arm and sometimes a rifle (or both) openly. I need no government contrivance of permission to do so. Rights do not require permission. Rights only require responsibility in their exercise. I don't consider myself a political martyr and I'm not making any 'statements'. The vast majority of the time, there's nobody to make a statement to, nor reason for doing so. I carry arms (firearms and edged weapons) by choice as I will, where not otherwise prohibited.

Quote: 'the majority will do what is asked of them'. Why ask anything when there is no RAS to do so? Again... this is a perpetuation of the two tierd 'us vs them' mentality near endemic in some LEA's. The visual presence of a properly holstered sidearm alone is no cause for any interaction between LEO's and civilians. No... it does not meet 'Terry vs Ohio' either. For all the doubting Thomas cops who may read this... Your department didn't issue your gun to shoot people. They issued it for self defense. That right to self defense is derived from the same 2nd Amendment some of you would deny your fellow citizens. Again... if you're scared of lawfully armed citizens going about their business... You're in the wrong occupation.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
The perception of lethality in regards to Concealed Carry has always made me chuckle a bit. In regards to that topic, as a prior military trainer, the first person to be shot during field detainment of enemy POW's, is the one who goes willy-nilly reaching through his clothing or makes any sudden or attempted "sly" movements at all when being told to comply with a command to stay still.

The trained response is simple. *Tap--Tap*. No questions.

While it is true that CCW permitees who carry in a concealed manner, have actually thwarted some dastardly evil-doers plot in robbing a convenience store at some point in time, the act itself does not act as a physical deterrent. "Surprise" is not something you want to do to an individual who currently has his muzzle sweeping you, and a crowd of others. There are by the way, citations that can be pulled, such as Kennesaw, GA, where the mere presence of an open carrier prevented a crime.

In regards to the "uniform" making you a target, this is an inaccuracy at best. While it may provide a focal point for retaliation by individuals seeing to make a point, gang initiation, or just plain retaliation (revenge), the fact is, uniforms in "numbers" flat out deter crime.

This same philosophy applies to the armed citizen as well.

I would rather, indeed, be surrounded by armed citizens everywhere I go, than leave a target rich environment for criminals with near no threat of mortal consequence.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
He does not get it in point #3. If he got it his statement would be, "Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them is both unwarranted and illegal." Instead he says "may backfire." Or it may not backfire. In any case, he nowhere states that behavior is wrong or discourages it... he only states it may come back to bite the officer in the butt.



Why? Why should I expect to be contacted by law enforcement if I am not engaged in any behavior to indicate a criminal act?

I think a huge part of our problem as a gun community is that we have come to accept certain levels of harassment as acceptable, thinly disguised as either "reasonable investigation" or "officer safety."

Ok..I see your points and totally agree.... Now I "Get It"...

Outdoorsman1
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
He does not get it in point #3. If he got it his statement would be, "Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them is both unwarranted and illegal." Instead he says "may backfire." Or it may not backfire. In any case, he nowhere states that behavior is wrong or discourages it... he only states it may come back to bite the officer in the butt.



Why? Why should I expect to be contacted by law enforcement if I am not engaged in any behavior to indicate a criminal act?

I think a huge part of our problem as a gun community is that we have come to accept certain levels of harassment as acceptable, thinly disguised as either "reasonable investigation" or "officer safety."

Shack. Taken on balance and at first reading, not bad. But my squid friend has hit the nail on the head (or 'shack' which means direct hit to flier types...) "may backfire" is an outrageous apologia for unlawful action on the cop's part. In other words, be careful when you violate the rights of citizens because you may pick the wrong guy's rights to step on. The correct take to give cops is worry about the bad guys, not citizens exercising their rights that you have sworn to uphold and defend.
 

CORN BORN

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
23
Location
Vista, CA.
"and then going on to say that we are POLITICAL PROTEST, Extremists, Political Martyrs. I guess by thinking that we have this right and use this right makes us a target"

No,and there goes that selective/paranoia reading again.
He says "there will be extremists who are willing to be political martyrs by doing whatever it takes to push their agenda and raise awareness to their cause. "

Apparently he's been doing some reading in here, because his point gets proven 19 ways to Sunday and back every day on these forums.(hence the dozens of "what to do if/when w/ LEO'S" and "when/where to record LEO's" nonsense threads) There are indeed some extreme folks on our side who seem to look forward to provoking confrontations just to make some point or other-instead of just carrying out their right, and driving on with their lives. Something I think is ultimately going to undermine our cause,rather than further or promote it.

Apparently j4l you got me figured out 19 ways to Sun. I will follow you from now on. :idea:
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
I also really liked tips #3 and #5...

3.) Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them may backfire and could be very expensive in the long run. One of the universities in Utah apparently tried this approach and it was leaked to the press. Now we run into civil liberties violations, etc.’

5.) Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself. It is the behavior of the person — not the gun — that we key on. If they get annoyed and start protesting you, remember that unless they are threatening you with harm, they have a right to voice their opinion, even if they raise their voice at you.

I'd say at least on the above levels... He gets it....

Outdoorsman1

+1
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I found the article to be loaded with passive-aggressive negativity towards open carry.

As a freelance writer, I find when someone throws comments like this out there in response to an article of that caliber, particularly when they're non-specific, blanket, and unsupported, there's usually something at work in the heart and mind of the reader, not the author of the article.

Seriously, what's up? It's not that I don't respect your opinion. It's that you've not supported it yourself, and the article certainly doesn't support it.

Enlighten us.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
As a freelance writer, I find when someone throws comments like this out there in response to an article of that caliber, particularly when they're non-specific, blanket, and unsupported, there's usually something at work in the heart and mind of the reader, not the author of the article.

Seriously, what's up? It's not that I don't respect your opinion. It's that you've not supported it yourself, and the article certainly doesn't support it.

Enlighten us.

Keep reading. His more thoughtful assessments are posted later in the thread. I found all of his assessments, including the one you quoted, to be on target. This article cites the practical reasons for not bothering OCers. The author does not show respect for the right nor its exercise.
 
Top