Badge or No Badge?

[iplay42]

imported post

The reason you would want to wear a badge is to avoid being arrested and fined for not displaying the state-issued badge (the badge not on your chest, but on or adjacent to your holster) when open-carried. Why should open-carry proponents want such a law? To greatly minimize being harassed by police. As it is now, people see the gun, become alarmed, call the police and a person's day is ruined. The badge which would say "Authorized to open carry" would be the visible proof to whoever sees the gun that the person has undergoned the training and testing required by the state to be issued the badge. It's not about trying to impersonate a leo; it's about calming the nervous public and reducing incidents of being hassled. The badge would be simply the observable proof that the state has authorized the carrier to open-carry.

 

[Lezchap]

imported post

iplay42 wrote:

The reason you would want to wear a badge is to avoid being arrested and fined for not displaying the state-issued badge (the badge not on your chest, but on or adjacent to your holster) when open-carried. Why should open-carry proponents want such a law? To greatly minimize being harassed by police. As it is now, people see the gun, become alarmed, call the police and a person's day is ruined. The badge which would say "Authorized to open carry" would be the visible proof to whoever sees the gun that the person has undergoned the training and testing required by the state to be issued the badge. It's not about trying to impersonate a leo; it's about calming the nervous public and reducing incidents of being hassled. The badge would be simply the observable proof that the state has authorized the carrier to open-carry.

But why, since many states are OC without permit, or allow OC with permit (no visible badge), and no state currently has a badge requirement for carry, would I support any change that would require I wear a badge "to avoid being arrested and fined". Seems like one more legal requirement to practice a inborn right.

I say again, CARRY, in any fashion, should be protected under the 2nd Amendment, and not be infringed upon by any requirement for registration or licensing. Until that day comes, I will continue the OC movement...it's not just about being able to carry a visible firearm...it's about being open to carry any firearm I own without any legislation telling me how, when, where, or with any extra beurocracy (licensing) to hinder me from doing so.

Please...no states issue a badge, and trying to get them to start is a BAD thing.

 

[SFCRetired]

imported post

OK, I'm new on the forum, but not new to carrying. Personal opinion: Either OC or CC, I would not carry a badge unless I were a sworn LEO. Here in Alabama, I can virtually guarantee that you would be charged with impersonation no matter what is written on the badge.



I'm trying, btw, to work up my nerve (and get a decent holster for my P89DC) to start open carrying. My wife and (step)daughter, being from a country where citizens are absolutely forbidden to own fireams, are nervous as cats around my two. I'm working on them, though.

 

[Gator5713]

imported post

Our military (with a few exceptions such as MPs) don't even carry badges, why on earth should a regular citizen have one?
I used to work security and the place that I worked for 'issued' a badge to me, I refused to wear it stating that my attire and demeanor was all the badge I needed and I was NOT a cop! The patrons never questioned my 'authority' and when the cops did have occasion to make an appearance, they knew that I was simply 'security' and that I made no presumptions otherwise.
We want the average person to get used to seeing other average people carrying.
The average person associates a 'badge' with authority/fire/ems, add a gun and they think cop. That detracts from our cause. If I ever become an LEO (not likely) then I will wear a badge with my uniform, until then and in street clothing, no badge, just confidence.
Reference another thread about many of us being mistaken for cops WITHOUT a badge!!!

 

[AbNo]

imported post

What the hell is a CCW badge, and why would ANYONE think it's a good idea? :?

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Welcome to the forum.

I think a badge is stupid. I would never wear one. In fact, I think it's bad taste to wear one if your intent is to make others think you are a cop, which is probably the only reason they would hassle you less.

Besides, the message we should be sending is that regular citizens can carry guns, not just people with badges.

 

[iplay42]

imported post

I remember reading some years ago about the man who believed the state didn't have any right to require him to get a drivers license or license plates for his car. If I recall correctly, he wrote his declaration that he was asserting his rightto drive withoutsuch onerous requirements mandated by the state and put it in lieu of his rear license plate. Eventually he was spotted by a policeman, stopped, a confrontation ensued and the policeman shot the man dead. He, like the open-carriers here, didn't believe that the state should be so obtrusive as to make him meet certain requirements. He believed in his rights, probably to his last breath---but he's gone andthe state still requires people to obtaina drivers license to drive a car and still requires state-issued license plates. All the incidents you read about where someone becomes alarmed when seeing someone who is openly carrying a gun (when it is discerned that the open-carrier isn't a cop) calls the police and the open-carrier gets hassled or arrested ought to make the proponents of open-carry here want to do something to reduce and minimize such incidents. Hence my proposal for a state-issued badge, which would simply be a visible, tangible evidence seen by the public that the open-carrier has met state requirements and thus can be recognized by the pubic as being authorized to responsibly open-carry. But the majority here cannot get past the thinking that a state-issued open-carry"badge" must somehow be an attempt at impersonating a leo. So forget a badge---get over that word. The public wants to be assured that the people who drive cars know the applicable laws and have been tested to see they can safely handle a vehicle---for a car can kill a person if not controlled properly. Same way with guns---the public does have a valid interest in knowing that a person wearing a gun knows the laws and is a responsible (background checked, not a criminal)person apt not to mishandle it recklessly. The solution is to submit to the requirements of the state to obtain a chl and the state law changed to permit chl holders onlyto open-carry. And a requirement for open-carry be that the laminated chl be displayed on or near the holster so that the public can see it and thereby not be be unduly alarmed---with the good consequence being that there will be fewer "man with a gun" calls to the police, fewer hassles and harassments. Aconcealed handgun license in no way resembles a badge, but it canconvey to the public that the open-carrier is authorized by the state to carry the gun they see.

 

[Lezchap]

imported post

iplay42 wrote:

I remember reading some years ago about the man who believed the state didn't have any right to require him to get a drivers license or license plates for his car. If I recall correctly, he wrote his declaration that he was asserting his rightto drive withoutsuch onerous requirements mandated by the state and put it in lieu of his rear license plate. Eventually he was spotted by a policeman, stopped, a confrontation ensued and the policeman shot the man dead. He, like the open-carriers here, didn't believe that the state should be so obtrusive as to make him meet certain requirements. He believed in his rights, probably to his last breath---but he's gone andthe state still requires people to obtaina drivers license to drive a car and still requires state-issued license plates. All the incidents you read about where someone becomes alarmed when seeing someone who is openly carrying a gun (when it is discerned that the open-carrier isn't a cop) calls the police and the open-carrier gets hassled or arrested ought to make the proponents of open-carry here want to do something to reduce and minimize such incidents. Hence my proposal for a state-issued badge, which would simply be a visible, tangible evidence seen by the public that the open-carrier has met state requirements and thus can be recognized by the pubic as being authorized to responsibly open-carry. But the majority here cannot get past the thinking that a state-issued open-carry"badge" must somehow be an attempt at impersonating a leo. So forget a badge---get over that word. The public wants to be assured that the people who drive cars know the applicable laws and have been tested to see they can safely handle a vehicle---for a car can kill a person if not controlled properly. Same way with guns---the public does have a valid interest in knowing that a person wearing a gun knows the laws and is a responsible (background checked, not a criminal)person apt not to mishandle it recklessly. The solution is to submit to the requirements of the state to obtain a chl and the state law changed to permit chl holders onlyto open-carry. And a requirement for open-carry be that the laminated chl be displayed on or near the holster so that the public can see it and thereby not be be unduly alarmed---with the good consequence being that there will be fewer "man with a gun" calls to the police, fewer hassles and harassments. Aconcealed handgun license in no way resembles a badge, but it canconvey to the public that the open-carrier is authorized by the state to carry the gun they see.

Cars and Driving isn't something which is an inborn human right. Being able to own, carry, and use common weapons is. People need to learn that guns aren't dangerous, and a gun that isn't used threateningly isn't something to worry about. A badge isn't the answer, carrying openly more often so people learn is.

Some states, like AZ I think it is, where OC is common there are almost no incidents you're mentioning. However, when the OC happens where it is less common, people are shocked and panic...We shouldn't have to add legal requirements to our method of carry to appease the masses...They need to learn that a gun is only as threatening as the person in control of it.

You won't find much support for the badge idea...sorry.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Being that a duplicate and/or replica badge would be easily obtained (or a real one! :shock I fail to see what good a badge would do.

See also: Blue light rapist from the 90's in Arkansas. It's amazing what one can pull off when looking official.


Obligatory quote when discussing badges....

Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

 

[stevenh512]

imported post

iplay42 wrote:

I remember reading some years ago about the man who believed the state didn't have any right to require him to get a drivers license or license plates for his car.

I think you're missing the point. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "the right to drive an automobile shall not be infringed" as it says about the right to keep and bear arms. No state or federal law that I know of grants the right or privilege of driving an automobile without a driver's license or valid registration/license plate. No court has ever ruled that driving an automobile is a "basic human right" as the United States Supreme Court recently ruled in DC vs. Heller in regards to keeping and bearing arms.

Your argument about driving a car is not valid in the context of this discussion, since driving a car is not recognized as a right anywhere in this country (or anywhere else in the world that I know of).

 

[SFCRetired]

imported post

stevenh512 wrote:

iplay42 wrote:

I remember reading some years ago about the man who believed the state didn't have any right to require him to get a drivers license or license plates for his car.

I think you're missing the point. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "the right to drive an automobile shall not be infringed" as it says about the right to keep and bear arms. No state or federal law that I know of grants the right or privilege of driving an automobile without a driver's license or valid registration/license plate. No court has ever ruled that driving an automobile is a "basic human right" as the United States Supreme Court recently ruled in DC vs. Heller in regards to keeping and bearing arms.

Your argument about driving a car is not valid in the context of this discussion, since driving a car is not recognized as a right anywhere in this country (or anywhere else in the world that I know of).

Absolutely agree, StephenH512. The privilege of driving a motor vehicle has always been just that; a privilege. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right that was guaranteed, not granted, by the Constitution.

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

stevenh512 wrote:

iplay42 wrote:

I remember reading some years ago about the man who believed the state didn't have any right to require him to get a drivers license or license plates for his car.

I think you're missing the point. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "the right to drive an automobile shall not be infringed" as it says about the right to keep and bear arms. No state or federal law that I know of grants the right or privilege of driving an automobile without a driver's license or valid registration/license plate. No court has ever ruled that driving an automobile is a "basic human right" as the United States Supreme Court recently ruled in DC vs. Heller in regards to keeping and bearing arms.

Your argument about driving a car is not valid in the context of this discussion, since driving a car is not recognized as a right anywhere in this country (or anywhere else in the world that I know of).

Absolutely agree, StephenH512. The privilege of driving a motor vehicle has always been just that; a privilege. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right that was guaranteed, not granted, by the Constitution.

While you are right in terms of court decisions, I have to disagree personally. We do have a 'right' to travel freely, and being restricted to walking would be impossible for a large number of people. Before I was able to obtain a pistol permit (the name of the CCWs in Alabama) I couldn't carry a pistol, even unconcealed, inside my vehicle. Having to walk places is a pain...

I can understand the safety concerns of a motor vehicle over a pedestrian, and the entire problem could be solved by simply eliminating public roadways and allowing the private sector to take over. Contracts could be made between the drivers and road companies to make people liable for damages and perhaps pass safety courses. No rights would be violated and everyone would be happy (and road developers would try to satisfy customers efficiently instead of wasting billions of dollars to pay people to stand around with shovels and blocking traffic).

Back on topic.. Badges are stupid. Seriously. I don't use the term 'stupid' lightly either. Why do you want to look like a cop?

 

[StarbaseSSD]

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

Our military (with a few exceptions such as MPs) don't even carry badges, why on earth should a regular citizen have one?
I used to work security and the place that I worked for 'issued' a badge to me, I refused to wear it stating that my attire and demeanor was all the badge I needed and I was NOT a cop! The patrons never questioned my 'authority' and when the cops did have occasion to make an appearance, they knew that I was simply 'security' and that I made no presumptions otherwise.
We want the average person to get used to seeing other average people carrying.
The average person associates a 'badge' with authority/fire/ems, add a gun and they think cop. That detracts from our cause. If I ever become an LEO (not likely) then I will wear a badge with my uniform, until then and in street clothing, no badge, just confidence.
Reference another thread about many of us being mistaken for cops WITHOUT a badge!!!

In a previous life, I was an EMT and worked for several departments & companies. With the exception of 2, none issued badges. 1 department did, but gave us the option of not wearing. The other made us wear them for a while, but then got the idea to make them optional. Some of the reasons:
(1) It's a friggin' target. By the vast majority, LEOs wear them.
(a) When dealing with the public, they look at them as signifying someone who can help. Can you help? Can you summon assistance with more authority than they can?
(b) When dealing with BGs, they look at them as as someone who is going to try to interrupt their business. Do you want to be #1 on the hit parade? We sure as heck didn't.
(2) Are you going to protect everyone else, too, or are you out to protect you and yours? It has been stated in various forums that LEOs do NOT have a duty to protect, but a citizen has an expectation and looks to them for protection.
(3) Do you want to be attracting even MORE eyeballs from LEOs?

I understand that after an incident, it might seem to be a good thing to you to have one so they think you are a good guy, but, if you don't know their procedures, or raise their suspicions by not responding properly, what's to stop them from thinking you are a bad guy, too, trying to impersonate?

Way too much bad juju...

 

[stevenh512]

imported post

kurtmax_0 wrote:

While you are right in terms of court decisions, I have to disagree personally. We do have a 'right' to travel freely, and being restricted to walking would be impossible for a large number of people.

I'd have to say you're somewhat right on that one, but not 100%. Sure you can argue that you have a 'right' to travel freely, but that says nothing about your method of travel, and since the invention of the automobile driving has never been considered a right... and who says you're restricted to walking just because you don't have the 'privilege' of driving for whatever reason? There are plenty of ways to travel other than driving and walking.

There's usually the option of taking the bus or some other kind of public transit, while it's not always convenient, I know it's a lot cheaper than driving with today's gas prices (not to mention insurance). For shorter trips, a bicycle is always an option too. Personally I hate driving, I avoid it whenever possible and for years I even refused to get a car or a drivers license because I didn't want to drive and didn't have any need to. It *never* kept me from getting where I needed or wanted to be, so I'd say I traveled pretty freely without driving. Even now I only drive far enough to get off the dirt road I live on (2 miles to the pavement), from there I'll walk, catch the bus or ride a bike.

 

[Gator5713]

imported post

based on your theory that we have the 'right' to drive based on the 'right' to travel 'freely' then shouldn't gas be free????

 

[stevenh512]

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

based on your theory that we have the 'right' to drive based on the 'right' to travel 'freely' then shouldn't gas be free????

Good point.. but take that a step further. Since we actually do have a right to keep and bear arms, then based on your theory, shouldn't ammunition be free? :lol:

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Socialism at its BEST, for once? :shock:

 

[Gator5713]

imported post

stevenh512 wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

based on your theory that we have the 'right' to drive based on the 'right' to travel 'freely' then shouldn't gas be free????

Good point.. but take that a step further. Since we actually do have a right to keep and bear arms, then based on your theory, shouldn't ammunition be free? :lol:

It was mentioned somewhere else in this forum that since we are moving towards socialism we should also have 'socialist ammo' which would be a specific allotment of ammo for those that couldn't afford it much like food stamps!

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

If I'm open carrying, I don't need a badge that announces it. The firearm is in plain sight, making the badge redundant.

If I'm concealed carrying, I'm doing so precisely because I don't want anyone to know I am carrying. This time the badge is counter-productive.

Lastly, if I ever do have to defend myself, the last thing I want is an accusation that I was attempting to impersonate a law enforcement officer. If I'm carrying a concealed carry badge, those allegations could be made.

In short, badges are a bad idea for me.

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

shad0wfax wrote:

If I'm open carrying, I don't need a badge that announces it. The firearm is in plain sight, making the badge redundant.

If I'm concealed carrying, I'm doing so precisely because I don't want anyone to know I am carrying. This time the badge is counter-productive.

Lastly, if I ever do have to defend myself, the last thing I want is an accusation that I was attempting to impersonate a law enforcement officer. If I'm carrying a concealed carry badge, those allegations could be made.

In short, badges are a bad idea for me.

While I dislike badges I highly doubt any attempts to convict you of impersonating a police officer would pass. Those statues generally require you to willingly impersonate an officer. In addition you would probably have to be wearing full officer gear and ALSO start ordering people around, or actually tell someone you are a cop.

More than just cops wear badges. Security guards, ems workers, firemen, inspectors, etc.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

I can't believe that this thread is still going.....