Officer asked to leave gun free Outback Steakhouse

[solus]

Raising my hand slowly to avoid ire generation, but...watch the video, if you just shot someone in the back shoulder, would you rush to jerk them up by the same armpit/shoulder to get them on their feet all the while stating we gotta get to the hospital?

https://abcnews.go.com/video ‘police officer accidently shoots partner’ segment

 

[protias]

Raising my hand slowly to avoid ire generation, but...watch the video, if you just shot someone in the back shoulder, would you rush to jerk them up by the same armpit/shoulder to get them on their feet all the while stating we gotta get to the hospital?

https://abcnews.go.com/video ‘police officer accidently shoots partner’ segment

Not negligent but accidental? There is nothing accidental about pointing your firearm in the wrong direction, not knowing what is down range, and then pulling the trigger. That is pure negligence. If you or I did that, we would be in prison.

I also don't know why this is exactly in this thread...

 

[Ghost1958]

Typical cop-hating attitude. You hate the fact that a LEO can be armed somewhere and you can't. Rather than address the problem with the establishment that discriminates against the armed citizen, you stomp your foot and cry (whiny voice)"If I can't have one, neither should he!" So you want the LEO to be unarmed as you. What if the LEO encounters someone he has previously arrested who has decided to ignore the No Gun Rule and exact some revenge on said LEO? How is that LEO supposed to defend himself? With his OC spray? Or his ASP? I agree 100% that citizens should be able to protect themselves, armed or otherwise. I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I totally support your right to carry everywhere I, as a LEO, can carry. But the argument that if a citizen can't carry there than the LEO shouldn't be able to carry there is just plain dumb. Stop being haters.

In reality there IS no place a LEO can be armed that I can't. Legally. So for me that's a non issue.
The COTUS is the law, of the land regardless unconstitutional decrees made after the fact .

Rest assured, if I'm present I'm armed.

Cop can be armed so can I. Period

 

[since9]

In reality there IS no place a LEO can be armed that I can't. Legally. So for me that's a non issue.
The COTUS is the law, of the land regardless unconstitutional decrees made after the fact .

Rest assured, if I'm present I'm armed.

Cop can be armed so can I. Period

The laws in some states say otherwise. For example, in hospitals here in Colorado, if it's posted, I can't be armed, but a law enforcement officer in the official performance of his or her duties can be armed.

 

[Ghost1958]

The laws in some states say otherwise. For example, in hospitals here in Colorado, if it's posted, I can't be armed, but a law enforcement officer in the official performance of his or her duties can be armed.

I agree some states have pieces of paper that illegally infringement the RTKABA.

That said. The COTUS is the Supreme law of the land. Which is why I said legally armed.

The rest of my post stands.

 

[OC for ME]

Not negligent but accidental? There is nothing accidental about pointing your firearm in the wrong direction, not knowing what is down range, and then pulling the trigger. That is pure negligence. If you or I did that, we would be in prison.

I also don't know why this is exactly in this thread...

Cops are not all that and a bag of chips where guns are concerned. The offending restaurant had the right policy, no guns for anyone, and no "accidents" will manifest. When a cop has little to fear from the consequences of abysmal firearm handling why be concerned with the safe handling of their tax payer issued firearm. When cops know that their coworkers will do nothing about their misdeed why worry about the consequences of abysmal firearm handling.

A mere citizen would have been strung up at the nearest tree on the spot. I'll wager that the wounded cop will not sue the shooter.

 

[solus]

Not negligent but accidental? There is nothing accidental about pointing your firearm in the wrong direction, not knowing what is down range, and then pulling the trigger. That is pure negligence. If you or I did that, we would be in prison.

I also don't know why this is exactly in this thread...

Gee whiz, you answered your own question...

 

[since9]

In reality there IS no place a LEO can be armed that I can't. Legally. So for me that's a non issue.
The COTUS is the law, of the land regardless unconstitutional decrees made after the fact .

Rest assured, if I'm present I'm armed.

Cop can be armed so can I. Period

Walk into your local Social Security Administration office with that. They'll give you a "period," all right.

You're missing the point, Ghost. We call know what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means. That's why we're fighting.

Breaking un-Constitutional anti-gun laws, however, isn't the best way to fight it. Unless, of course, you have a couple hundred million dollars. If that's the case, then by all means, fight away. Take every arrest to the Supreme Court. Get us some wins!

 

[Ghost1958]

Walk into your local Social Security Administration office with that. They'll give you a "period," all right.

You're missing the point, Ghost. We call know what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means. That's why we're fighting.

Breaking un-Constitutional anti-gun laws, however, isn't the best way to fight it. Unless, of course, you have a couple hundred million dollars. If that's the case, then by all means, fight away. Take every arrest to the Supreme Court. Get us some wins!

Again rest assured if I'm present I AM armed. Period.

One can't break an unconstitutional law because an unconstitutional law is null and void from its writing. And no court can give it legitimacy.
Those are SCOTUS words, not mine.

I'm not missing the point at all. Unconstitutional laws are not laws at all.
Can gov use it's paid mercenaries to illegally enforce them with brute force, and greater numbers, on those few they catch. Yep.

We will never regain the RTKABA in the courts or through voting.

But it is still a right for those who refuse surrender it. THAT is the point.

 

[since9]

Again rest assured if I'm present I AM armed. Period.

Again, Social Security Administration offices have armed guards, metal detectors, and an inspection station required for entry.

You're going to be armed there, HOW, exactly? Claim so doesn't make it so.

One can't break an unconstitutional law because an unconstitutional law is null and void from its writing. And no court can give it legitimacy.
Those are SCOTUS words, not mine.

I'm not talking about breaking laws. I'm talking about your claim that your claim, "rest assured if I'm present I AM armed. Period."

Not if you're in a federal building with metal detectors and armed guards, you're not.

Your bravado notwithstanding, our nation has a LONG way to go before our Second Amendment is respected as written.

I'm not missing the point at all. Unconstitutional laws are not laws at all. Can gov use it's paid mercenaries to illegally enforce them with brute force, and greater numbers, on those few they catch. Yep.

Definition of mercenary: one that serves merely for wages (Source)

While I can that term being aptly applied to many armed guards, I think you'll find most sworn officers, as well as those of us who've served in the U.S. military, ready to punch anyone who called us "mercenaries" in nose.

We will never regain the RTKABA in the courts or through voting.

Sure we will. Just a few years ago, in fact, We the People of Colorado voted out a heinous anti-2A jerk who violated both federal and state constitutions.

But it is still a right for those who refuse surrender it. THAT is the point.

That may be your point, but it was never mine. I follow the law.

Furthermore, I learned how to use a dictionary: Inalienable rights aren't merely those who fight for them, but for everyone, whether they "refuse surrender it" or not. They're inalienable. You cannot, by definition, surrender an inalienable right:

Definition of inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (Source)

Any other semantic holes you'd like to dig, Ghost1958?

 

[Ghost1958]

Again, Social Security Administration offices have armed guards, metal detectors, and an inspection station required for entry.

You're going to be armed there, HOW, exactly? Claim so doesn't make it so.



I'm not talking about breaking laws. I'm talking about your claim that your claim, "rest assured if I'm present I AM armed. Period."

Not if you're in a federal building with metal detectors and armed guards, you're not.

Your bravado notwithstanding, our nation has a LONG way to go before our Second Amendment is respected as written.



Definition of mercenary: one that serves merely for wages (Source)

While I can that term being aptly applied to many armed guards, I think you'll find most sworn officers, as well as those of us who've served in the U.S. military, ready to punch anyone who called us "mercenaries" in nose.



Sure we will. Just a few years ago, in fact, We the People of Colorado voted out a heinous anti-2A jerk who violated both federal and state constitutions.



That may be your point, but it was never mine. I follow the law.

Furthermore, I learned how to use a dictionary: Inalienable rights aren't merely those who fight for them, but for everyone, whether they "refuse surrender it" or not. They're inalienable. You cannot, by definition, surrender an inalienable right:

Definition of inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (Source)

Any other semantic holes you'd like to dig, Ghost1958?

Not digging any holes. I'm speaking very plainly. Please once again read what I wrote. If I am present I am armed.

As to your dictionary. Sir you may not realize it but as a group our RTKABA as the founders tried to protect it was taken by government before you or I were born.
All we defend now is gov permission to keep and bear the arms they approve given to those they approve.

Even if Colorado was the no 1 gun friendly state in the nation with no restrictions, as long as there are Federal restrictions being honored you still have gov permission to keep and bear arms.

As far as sworn officers of LE I was one once. A sworn officer knowingly and willingly violating a person's rights is just that. A mercenary paid to carry out the orders of what gov unit pays him, right or wrong.
If that shoe fits wear it. If not don't.

One may not be able to surrender a inalienable right, but one can darn sure stand and do nothing and watch gov take it away.

 

[Deanimator]

So the LEO, carrying a firearm as a tool of his profession, should have to remove it while he eats in a restaurant?

You cop haters are a real piece of work.

That's an interesting argument.

It's EXACTLY the same as one of the ones which the Chicago Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police used to justify its demand that cops, and ONLY COPS, CONVICTED of domestic violence be allowed to own, possess and carry firearms.

Of course a handgun is the "tool of the trade" for Jerry Miculek... and Sammy "The Bull" Gravano. By your "logic", they should therefore be allowed to carry in Outback as well.

 

[Deanimator]

What if the LEO encounters someone he has previously arrested who has decided to ignore the No Gun Rule and exact some revenge on said LEO?

What if one of the neo-Nazis whom I regularly abused in usenet decided to do the same thing to me?

Apparently my life is of less value (or none at all) than that of the cop.

1. This isn't Nanking in 1938.
2. The police aren't the Imperial Japanese Army.
3. The rest of us aren't Chinese.

 

[since9]

Not digging any holes. I'm speaking very plainly. Please once again read what I wrote. If I am present I am armed.

I've asked you several times how you get away with being armed in locations such as courts, social security offices, IRS offices, local offices of Congress, all of which are gun-free zones, and most of which have metal detectors and screening personnel to ensure compliance.

To date, all you have responded with is, "If I am present I am armed." You might as well claim you live on the Moon.

As to your dictionary...

It's not my dictionary. I use Webster's. Merriam-Webster's, to be precice:

"
Merriam-Webster, Inc., is an American company that publishes reference books and is especially known for its dictionaries.

"In 1828, George and Charles Merriam founded the company as G & C Merriam Co. in Springfield, Massachusetts. In 1843, after Noah Webster died, the company bought the rights to An American Dictionary of the English Language from Webster's estate. All Merriam-Webster dictionaries trace their lineage to this source. In 1964, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. acquired Merriam-Webster, Inc. as a subsidiary. The company adopted its current name in 1982."

Sir you may not realize it but as a group our RTKABA as the founders tried to protect it was taken by government before you or I were born.

I would argue it's been infringed, in some places far more heavily than in others.

All we defend now is gov permission to keep and bear the arms they approve given to those they approve.

Perhaps in your state. My state's Constitution reads as follows:

ARTICLE II. Bill of Rights

• Section 13. Right to Bear Arms.

"That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil powers when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

That said, we're a "shall issue" state, with 388,646 active concealed handgun permits at this time, out of a population of 5,695,564. While that's only 6.8%, the rate of issue is rather high at 99.3%. In fact:

"And while only a tiny fraction of permits are ever denied or revoked, reasons for permit denials are often tied to alcohol abuse and mental health concerns, denial letters obtained by a Coloradoan open records request show. Sheriff's offices across Colorado received 39,485 applications — both new petitions and renewals — for concealed carry permits in 2015. Just 278, or 0.7 percent, were denied, according to records on file with the County Sheriffs of Colorado. Law enforcement revoked 373 permits statewide, generally after being alerted to an applicant's arrest records through the series of routine checks county sheriffs are tasked with performing before issuing a permit." - Source

If I recall correctly, firearms purchase background checks result in about a 3% rate of denial.

Even if Colorado was the no 1 gun friendly state in the nation with no restrictions, as long as there are Federal restrictions being honored you still have gov permission to keep and bear arms.

That's funny... No such permission is required to open carry here in Colorado, whether on routine public land, state parks, national parks, or national forest. As for CC, it's only restricted in buildings where federal employees routinely work, such as the visitors centers of national parks and the aforementioned areas.

As far as sworn officers of LE I was one once. A sworn officer knowingly and willingly violating a person's rights is just that. A mercenary paid to carry out the orders of what gov unit pays him, right or wrong.
If that shoe fits wear it. If not don't.

Thank you for your service.

I, too, am a sworn officer. The difference between you and I, however, is that while you swore your oath of office and served in law enforcement, I swore my oath of office and served in the military.

Here's the oath of office to which I swore: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

How did your oath of office read? I'll bet if it's not identical, it's very similar.

Also, aren't law enforcement officers commissioned? If so, what's the source of their commission? Mayor? Governor? Or were you a federal law enforcement officer?

When I became an officer in the U.S. military, President George H. W. Bush signed my commission.

One may not be able to surrender a inalienable right, but one can darn sure stand and do nothing and watch gov take it away.

I have absolutely done no such thing! In fact, since the mid-1980s, I have repeatedly exercised all lawful options available to me to push for purity in my state's and our federal government's application of our U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, most notably exercising my First Amendment rights to speak freely, peaceably assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sadly, when it comes to the Second Amendment, such efforts largely fall on deaf ears due to "case law" that's "SOMEHOW" overriding our U.S. Constitution's "shall not be infringed."

 

[Ghost1958]

I've asked you several times how you get away with being armed in locations such as courts, social security offices, IRS offices, local offices of Congress, all of which are gun-free zones, and most of which have metal detectors and screening personnel to ensure compliance.

To date, all you have responded with is, "If I am present I am armed." You might as well claim you live on the Moon.



It's not my dictionary. I use Webster's. Merriam-Webster's, to be precice:

"
Merriam-Webster, Inc., is an American company that publishes reference books and is especially known for its dictionaries.

"In 1828, George and Charles Merriam founded the company as G & C Merriam Co. in Springfield, Massachusetts. In 1843, after Noah Webster died, the company bought the rights to An American Dictionary of the English Language from Webster's estate. All Merriam-Webster dictionaries trace their lineage to this source. In 1964, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. acquired Merriam-Webster, Inc. as a subsidiary. The company adopted its current name in 1982."



I would argue it's been infringed, in some places far more heavily than in others.



Perhaps in your state. My state's Constitution reads as follows:

ARTICLE II. Bill of Rights

• Section 13. Right to Bear Arms.

"That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil powers when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

That said, we're a "shall issue" state, with 388,646 active concealed handgun permits at this time, out of a population of 5,695,564. While that's only 6.8%, the rate of issue is rather high at 99.3%. In fact:

"And while only a tiny fraction of permits are ever denied or revoked, reasons for permit denials are often tied to alcohol abuse and mental health concerns, denial letters obtained by a Coloradoan open records request show. Sheriff's offices across Colorado received 39,485 applications — both new petitions and renewals — for concealed carry permits in 2015. Just 278, or 0.7 percent, were denied, according to records on file with the County Sheriffs of Colorado. Law enforcement revoked 373 permits statewide, generally after being alerted to an applicant's arrest records through the series of routine checks county sheriffs are tasked with performing before issuing a permit." - Source

If I recall correctly, firearms purchase background checks result in about a 3% rate of denial.



That's funny... No such permission is required to open carry here in Colorado, whether on routine public land, state parks, national parks, or national forest. As for CC, it's only restricted in buildings where federal employees routinely work, such as the visitors centers of national parks and the aforementioned areas.



Thank you for your service.

I, too, am a sworn officer. The difference between you and I, however, is that while you swore your oath of office and served in law enforcement, I swore my oath of office and served in the military.

Here's the oath of office to which I swore: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

How did your oath of office read? I'll bet if it's not identical, it's very similar.

Also, aren't law enforcement officers commissioned? If so, what's the source of their commission? Mayor? Governor? Or were you a federal law enforcement officer?

When I became an officer in the U.S. military, President George H. W. Bush signed my commission.



I have absolutely done no such thing! In fact, since the mid-1980s, I have repeatedly exercised all lawful options available to me to push for purity in my state's and our federal government's application of our U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, most notably exercising my First Amendment rights to speak freely, peaceably assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sadly, when it comes to the Second Amendment, such efforts largely fall on deaf ears due to "case law" that's "SOMEHOW" overriding our U.S. Constitution's "shall not be infringed."

I'll try to take this one thing at a time. Forgive if I miss something.

First if there is a will there's a way. And last time, if I am present I am armed. How is my business.


My oath was pretty similar both times I took it. Overriding concern is to protect and defend the COTUS against all enemies foreign and domestic.
I was a county officer.

To the rest.

My state OC requires nothing at all. Never has. Without a state constitutional amendment never will.

Cc requires a permit, shall issue.

That said the permit itself is infringement.
NICS is infringement
NFA GCA. FFls etc etc.

A right needs no permission, permit, background check etc.

As long as one gun regulation exists there is no true RTKABA
The 2A forbids infringement, definition... Limit or interfere with.
Any gun regulation does one, the other or both.

And thank you for serving also.

 

[solus]

Wow Since9, just wow!

 

[since9]

I'll try to take this one thing at a time. Forgive if I miss something.

No worries. All is fair and forgiven in the spirit of learning. I learn something new every day!

First if there is a will there's a way.

I could will myself to ascend to the Moon without a rocket ship for the rest of my life. Ain't gonna happen, though, as it violates the laws of physics.

And last time, if I am present I am armed. How is my business.

Understood.

My oath was pretty similar both times I took it. Overriding concern is to protect and defend the COTUS against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Aye. I also took it to mean one of the best ways to preserve one's rights is to exercise them, particularly those rights like 1A which are so instrumental in defending against incursions on our other rights.

I was a county officer.

The best firearms instructor I ever had was a former U.S. Army MP who was serving as a county Sheriff's Deputy.

To the rest.

My state OC requires nothing at all. Never has. Without a state constitutional amendment never will.

Interesting. OC is built into our State Constitution.

Cc requires a permit, shall issue.

Same here. There was movement afoot in the last year or so to kill the permit requirement, but it seems to have disappeared. Can't find any reference for a status on it. Haven't looked all that hard, though, and I'll keep my permit, as permitless CC isn't accepted by any other state (at least not that I am aware).

That said the permit itself is infringement.
NICS is infringement
NFA GCA. FFls etc etc.

Agreed.

A right needs no permission, permit, background check etc.

Hmmm...

What about a known mental misfit walking into a school carrying an AR-15 and a bag full of two handguns and multiple magazines for both the handguns and his AR-15? Are we going to stand back and say, "Oh, it's his right... He's reached the age of majority... We can't interfere until after he actually does something wrong...

Or are we going to use our reasonable articulable suspicion that something is NOT right and investigate further?

Case in point: Back in 2010, a young gent in Walmart walked passed me carrying a case of beer at 2:30 AM. Can't buy beer after midnight in this state, and he wasn't heading straight for the checkout counter, but rather, towards the side of the store. He also reeked of alcohol as he passed me.

I'm not law enforcement, but we citizens do have the right to keep our eyes peeled.

I did a 180 with my cart and offered to carry his case to the front in my cart. I was OC and angled it such that it was clearly visible to anyone paying attention. Despite his condition, he saw it and declined my offer, but adjusted his trajectory towards the checkout counter. Naturally, they didn't let him buy the beer, so he shuffled out, leaving the beer behind.

I was about done, so I went through the line right behind him. When I exited into the parking lot, a car with three guys pulled up. He was in the passenger seat, rolled down his window and asked if I was a cop. I said, "No," and was trip-wired to dodge to the left while drawing when he relaxed and admitted he was planning on running out with the case. I asked, "What about all the cameras?" to which he replied, "Most of them aren't active." I said, "Yes, but some are. Surely they'd have gotten your face on camera." He said, "Yeah, I guess you're right," and they rode off.

Again, what he does on his own dime is none of my business. But shoplifting costs force stores to raise prices, and paying more than I should makes it my business.

Similarly, whether it's someone walking into a school having the appearance of committing murder and mayhem, or someone breaking Constitutional laws which facilitate public security, I'm of a mind to quietly investigate within the limits of my status as a civilian in my state.

"Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" is an offence against military law in many countries. It has existed in military law since before the 17th century and is an important offence which functions as a catch-all to criminalize offences against military order which are not specified elsewhere.

Typically, we used it when someone is being stupid, er, "disruptive" in a way that's interfering with the mission. Nearly all formally organized and disciplined organizations, particularly those requiring the wear of a uniform, formations, and marching employ something similar.

Same goes for the civilian populace, usually falling under "disturbing the peace" or "creating a public nuisance."

But a guy hauling a case of beer towards the side of the store and a door instead of the checkout counter...

Two years earlier, a different gent was crashing our apartment's pool complex with his friends and making a nuisance of himself. We had words. Then he pushed me. That's when the fight began...

Lasted all of about three seconds, after which he and his friends left with their tales between their legs.

My point (if I can ever get to it!) is that while the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, how one may be preparing to employ their firearm is indeed restricted, and those restrictions are not infringements. "Firing within the city limits," for example, is prohibited except for a few specific situations, including at an approved firing range and in defense of self and others.

I don't like the idea of anyone being armed in an area where I as a law-abiding citizen might be required to attend (jury duty) and someone is carrying in violation of the law.

As long as one gun regulation exists there is no true RTKABA

How does "no one may fire their firearm within the city limits except at an approved firing range or in defense of self or others" violate the right to keep and bear arms?

"Keep and bear" refer to ownership or possession and carriage. It does not reference employment, except by inference. Clearly, employment to protect life, limb, and property are implied by other provisions in federal and state law. But it most certainly is not approval to employ one's firearm in any manner one desires.

The 2A forbids infringement, definition... Limit or interfere with.
Any gun regulation does one, the other or both.

The 2A forbids infringement on "the right of the people to keep (own/posses) and bear (carry) arms." It does not forbid laws which govern employment i.e. brandishing and pulling the trigger.

And thank you for serving also.

It was my honor.

 

[OC for ME]

What about a known mental misfit walking into a school carrying an AR-15 and a bag full of two handguns and multiple magazines for both the handguns and his AR-15? Are we going to stand back and say, "Oh, it's his right... He's reached the age of majority... We can't interfere until after he actually does something wrong...

What does a known mental misfit look like? How do we know the fella with the rifle is a mental misfit. Or, is it the rifle that classifies the citizen as a mental misfit.

 

[eye95]

There’s that COTUS word again.

 

[Ghost1958]

The 2A forbids infringement on "the right of the people to keep (own/posses) and bear (carry) arms." It does not forbid laws which govern employment i.e. brandishing and pulling the trigger.



Agreed. I think maybe you read a bit more into my post than I meant to be there.

As to your school example.

Im on the armed security team at church.
Now. In my state, a person can pull into the parking lot get out with a rifle, walk toward the church and legally he is breaking no law until one of us tell him to leave, he tries to breach the locked doors or aims or fires at the church.

By gun regulations I am meaning regulations on what type of weapon may be owned and carried.
Where it may be carried
How or when it may be carried.
Who outside of jail may possess a firearm, BC, FFL, permits to carry.

A law saying one cannot fire that weapon in a specific place except for defense of self or others isn't the type of regulation I am talking about. I should have been clearer.