Heard this? Hunters to hand over guns on demand

[Loshali]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2162247/posts

I posted it in another section yesterday but I think it should have gone here. Not sure how to delete the other one.

[cudalyon]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2162247/posts

I posted it in another section yesterday but I think it should have gone here. Not sure how to delete the other one.

I am in the middle of the road on this one. It all depends on the officers intent when asking for the gun. If he is wanting to confiscate the gun, then of course I have a problem with that. What I do not have a problem with is an officer asking me for my weapon when he confronts me for personal saftey reasons. Their job is hard enough without having to worry about confronting people who are as well armed or more so than them.

[Big_Saw]

I am in the middle of the road on this one. It all depends on the officers intent when asking for the gun. If he is wanting to confiscate the gun, then of course I have a problem with that. What I do not have a problem with is an officer asking me for my weapon when he confronts me for personal saftey reasons. Their job is hard enough without having to worry about confronting people who are as well armed or more so than them.

I disagree, with a qualifier....Joe Public has just as much of a right to be armed while speaking to a peace officer (or anyone else, for that matter) as that PO has to carry his. If a law has not been broken, the assumption should be made that "Joe" is a law-abiding citizen in legal and proper possession of a firearm, and therefore is Constitutionally protected in doing so....

Any scenario where a LEO forcibly disarmes a citizen who has not comitted a crime is a direct violoation of the 2nd and the 4th, and should be treated as such. Arguing that it makes everyne 'feel safer" is a one-sided point. The unarmed man now feels naked, helpless, and accused....he has been made impotent by another, well-armed man who has the authority of govt. force to back him up.

[cudalyon]

I disagree, with a qualifier....Joe Public has just as much of a right to be armed while speaking to a peace officer (or anyone else, for that matter) as that PO has to carry his. If a law has not been broken, the assumption should be made that "Joe" is a law-abiding citizen in legal and proper possession of a firearm, and therefore is Constitutionally protected in doing so....

Any scenario where a LEO forcibly disarmes a citizen who has not comitted a crime is a direct violoation of the 2nd and the 4th, and should be treated as such. Arguing that it makes everyne 'feel safer" is a one-sided point. The unarmed man now feels naked, helpless, and accused....he has been made impotent by another, well-armed man who has the authority of govt. force to back him up.

I personally think that if you are armed, and approached by any LEO for any reason, you should let them know that you are armed if it is not in plain sight, and then offer to sit it down out of courtesy. (if you go to remodel someone’s house, and they walk around with a shot gun the whole time, that can be a little uncomfortable, and they have done nothing wrong) It is all about respect for the job they have to do. Just my own opinion.

[Big_Saw]

I personally think that if you are armed, and approached by any LEO for any reason, you should let them know that you are armed if it is not in plain sight, and then offer to sit it down out of courtesy. (if you go to remodel someone’s house, and they walk around with a shot gun the whole time, that can be a little uncomfortable, and they have done nothing wrong) It is all about respect for the job they have to do. Just my own opinion.

Oh, I agree that any approaching LEO should be made aware of your carry status, but asking (forcing, because if you say "no" you'll be charged with something) a law-abiding citizen to disarm is, IMHO, improper and illegal, and if people (lawful carriers) would stand up for themselves 'en masse', like they seem to be doing in NH, perhaps there would be a change in attitudes from both sides.....

Legal carriers would be more willing to give LEOs the benny of the doubt, and LEOs might endeavor to be more aware that just because you're armed doesn't mean your an imminent threat to society.

Back when this country was truly free, men and women walked everywhere with their armaments firmly in-hand, not only to be ready in defense, but as a deterrent towards those who might wish to do them harm.

Only when the PC bast*rds in govt. began the movement to legislate away the right of the average citizen to openly display the ability to defend himself, did we start seeing a real rise in per capita violent crimes.

Criminals know that...that's why the smarter ones live in the most liberal communities...they know they're safe, or at least better armed.

If I were king :rolleyes: - I would repeal all legislation banning open carry in every State in the union for a period of 5 years, just as a study.....wonder how many folks would be getting mugged in New York then.....wonder how many thugs I'd be able to line the Potomac with.

It's a hard issue, with hard consequences either way....but I'd rather see it my way, I guess.

[TheLastMountainMan]

Oh, I agree that any approaching LEO should be made aware of your carry status, but asking (forcing, because if you say "no" you'll be charged with something) a law-abiding citizen to disarm is, IMHO, improper and illegal, and if people (lawful carriers) would stand up for themselves 'en masse', like they seem to be doing in NH, perhaps there would be a change in attitudes from both sides.....

Legal carriers would be more willing to give LEOs the benny of the doubt, and LEOs might endeavor to be more aware that just because you're armed doesn't mean your an imminent threat to society.

Back when this country was truly free, men and women walked everywhere with their armaments firmly in-hand, not only to be ready in defense, but as a deterrent towards those who might wish to do them harm.

Only when the PC bast*rds in govt. began the movement to legislate away the right of the average citizen to openly display the ability to defend himself, did we start seeing a real rise in per capita violent crimes.

Criminals know that...that's why the smarter ones live in the most liberal communities...they know they're safe, or at least better armed.

If I were king :rolleyes: - I would repeal all legislation banning open carry in every State in the union for a period of 5 years, just as a study.....wonder how many folks would be getting mugged in New York then.....wonder how many thugs I'd be able to line the Potomac with.

It's a hard issue, with hard consequences either way....but I'd rather see it my way, I guess.

I agree with you on that one. In Missouri we are not required by law to tell an officer (at a traffic stop, or something along those lines) we are caring. He will know, or asume that you are when he/she runs your drivers lisence and it comes back that you have a CCW permit.

[sd allen]

Alot of them(leo's)are just a bunch of chicken chit sumbiches any how.Guess I was born 200 years too late.

[Big_Saw]

Alot of them(leo's)are just a bunch of chicken chit sumbiches any how.Guess I was born 200 years too late.

I wouldn't say alot of them...I know over 60 local LEOs personally, at least 20 intimately, and there are really only a select few that I give absolutely no creedence to....the rest are good men and they try to be good cops, with their own minds....not sheep cops.

[Big_Saw]

Most of the time it's really not the LEO who's at fault...it's his political superiors, and the bullsh*t that gets drummed into his head in training....it's the same crap our trainers pushed on us in basic....everyone's an enemy until you've proven otherwise....until then, act accordingly.

The friggin' popos are trained to be as nervous around us as we are around them.....it's bound to escalate.

[ryantx23]

Ok,

As a LEO, I'm going to butt in here and interject my opinion to you guys....

In Texas any concealed weapons holder if armed and approached by an Officer has to make the Officer aware that he or she is armed and has a CHL. That Officer as a condition of the CHL statute has the right to disarm the CHL holder if they deem it necessary. Now, there is usually NO reason for the Officer to disarm the person. I'd give the LEO's the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I'm all for CCW, CHL and even open carry. I think things would be much safer if everyone was on the same playing field. If the majority of people were armed, criminals would think twice before committing a crime. I know that if I were fighting for my life on the side of the road, I'd be more then happy to have an armed citizen stop and help me!

Every citizen worth his or her salt has a duty to bear arms if you ask me...