California Cops Call For Open Carry Ban

[ak keep the second]

Thank God we live in Indiana!!!

 

[jbombelli]

You wouldn't be sorry if someone murdered them, but you don't hate them yet? You haven't thought this through.

There are many people who I have no respect for, at many levels in society, but I don't wish to see any of them murdered. I wish to see them change their ways and repent of their wrongdoing.

Now, if they've done something worthy of the death penalty, then I'm all for that, but it must be properly done and carried out by a government entity.

I've thought it through plenty. I'm just trying not to have things come across as "I hate all cops" because that isn't true. I just hate the ones that want to stand on my neck and make me a victim.

I used to think like you... that they might someday change. But 25 years of banging your head into the same wall gives you a pretty bad headache. They've never changed for the better, and they never will. In fact, they just take a little more, and a little more, and a little more as time goes on. And the best part? They think they're doing me a favor. So as far as I'm concerned, that's it for them. If I end up on the jury of some cop killer, and I find out that cop supported gun control, guess what I'm going to do?

Sorry if people don't like that, but I don't like people trying to take my rights from me.

 

[Hotdoger]

You wouldn't be sorry if someone murdered them, but you don't hate them yet? You haven't thought this through.

There are many people who I have no respect for, at many levels in society, but I don't wish to see any of them murdered. I wish to see them change their ways and repent of their wrongdoing.

Now, if they've done something worthy of the death penalty, then I'm all for that, but it must be properly done and carried out by a government entity.

They support the criminals by harassing and trying to deny rights to the law abiding citizen. They bring the consequences of thier support for the lawless instead of the law abiding on themselves.

 

[Hornett]

What a ridiculous law!
The ONLY way the cops can tell if someone is legal is by fiddling around, checking their weapon, cycling the action, and probably painting bystanders in the process.
No wonder the cops hate it. What a pain.
This is Kalifornia at it's best, doing what it is really good at, removing rights.

 

[Protest]

They support the criminals by harassing and trying to deny rights to the law abiding citizen. They bring the consequences of thier support for the lawless instead of the law abiding on themselves.

I never disagreed with any of that. I disagree with rejoicing over the murder of someone else. Notice I said murder, not death penalty.

 

[rambone]

All I can say is... if any of those cops calling for a ban gets killed, I won't shed a single tear for them. I might even drink to their killer(s).

That would make it easier for their ban to happen.

We'll see pretty swift nullification to our rights if there is ever open fighting in the streets. Let's pray for peace.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am a police officer in Indy. I don't agree with their sentiment, however I've been trying to come up with a serviceable argument for their stance. The only thing I can come up with is maybe they are trying to keep the number of "person with a gun" calls down. I would have to think that in their rights-dimished/wussified/uber-liberal communities, seeing someone with a gun, in a hoslter or not, would be a threatening sight and could result in a lot of calls.

From my experience, it is an odd feeling to talk to someone with an exposed pistol. The majority of my experiences have been good, leading somehow or another back to INGO. It is the officer's experience and training that leads them to be on alert for threats to them. It is their common-sense however, that defines the threat. I think if more officers used some common sense in establishing their criteria for the percieved threat, their response would not be as negative.

Unfortunately, I think the Bendrx might be on to a part of it. Most encounters we have with guns on the street are that they and the person using them do pose a credible threat to officer and citizen safety - i.e., just used in a robbery or pointed in our direction - I believe it does cause a little bit of a false sense of security in knowing that at least if a bad guy has one that's under a shirt or jacket, it may take them another second to draw and present in ur direction, and maintaining good control of a suspects hands prevents them from drawing first. All in all, police duty holsters are good keeping the weapon IN IT, not so good at getting out. I think a lot of officers would be worried that the other guy can clear leather faster than he can!

A serviceable argument? There isn't one. The easier, more Constitutional answer is to have your dispatcher screen the calls better if you're worried about needless calls for MWG, especially in states that do NOT require a state-issued permission slip to carry. As was pointed out upthread, the easiest answer is "Ma'am, carrying a firearm is not an unlawful act. There aren't many criminals who will advertise the fact that they're armed... most of them want to surprise their victims with that knowledge. If the person you're calling about is just looking at the green beans/just buying some nachos/just walking down the sidewalk with her husband and kid, they're committing no crime, but making a false report to police IS a crime."

Your MWG calls would drop like a bloody rock.

You do raise an interesting point, though, that I'd like to address: You describe it as an "odd" feeling to talk to someone with an exposed pistol. Do you get that same feeling talking to other uniformed officers? Would that feeling you describe experiencing be a bit of intimidation? That's a similar feeling that the rest of us who don't wear badges get when talking to some officers. I can say that I've stood and talked with people from this very board, walked with them as we picked up a couple of things at Walmart, etc. while they were OCing, and I have been more uncomfortable talking with uniformed officers than I was those times. (especially considering the point I read in the "gunfacts.info" pdf, that armed citizens are more accurate and have fewer erroneous shots than do police officers. In fairness, citizens know who the criminal is. You guys have to guess and pray you guess correctly.) No insult is intended here, so please don't take any: the thought that crosses my mind is "When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." Given the choice of one or the other, I would choose the latter, however with all the choices on the table, I'd prefer that no discomfort was even present, let alone perceived.

I never disagreed with any of that. I disagree with rejoicing over the murder of someone else. Notice I said murder, not death penalty.

If I may jump in here...There are quite a few people, some in our government at every level, for whom I would not weep if this was to happen to them. I would never seek, endorse, call for, or promote the idea of any harm befalling them, but I also would not shed a tear for the end of their abuse of their offices, much as I shed no tears for the mass murderers at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Trolley Square mall, the mall in Lincoln, Neb., or the church in Colorado Springs.

By this, I simply mean that I would not mourn them, and that is a far, far cry from bloodthirst.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[semperfi211]

I don't know if a certain percentage of cops or just a few ranking cops need to be against open carry to say " California Cops Call for Open Carry Ban." Do they speak for all, most or some California cops? I wonder how many really feel that way. I have a friend that I served in the Marines with that is a CHP in Orange County. I will send him a e mail asking him how he and his fellow officers really feel.

 

[Protest]

If I may jump in here...There are quite a few people, some in our government at every level, for whom I would not weep if this was to happen to them. I would never seek, endorse, call for, or promote the idea of any harm befalling them, but I also would not shed a tear for the end of their abuse of their offices, much as I shed no tears for the mass murderers at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Trolley Square mall, the mall in Lincoln, Neb., or the church in Colorado Springs.

By this, I simply mean that I would not mourn them, and that is a far, far cry from bloodthirst.

Blessings,
Bill

I must have explained myself extremely poorly. I don't mourn the death of anyone who has committed atrocities. Eric and Dylan saved us money and time by offing themselves. Same for the loser that murdered those Amish girls a couple years ago. Nope, they'll get no tears from me.

However, to say, as jbombelli did, "I might even drink to their killer(s)." would be a call for the murder of police officers. I don't support that. Do you support murdererous vigilantes wandering the streets looking to kill anyone that takes away one of our rights?

 

[Gpfury86]

I would agree that the officer in that video handled being taped well, but you could also distinctly tell that he did not care for them exercising their right to openly carry unloaded. He asked them "do you guys plan on carrying like this in other parts of the city or at other events" as if kind of hinting that they would be hassled. That's what I felt from it anyway....

 

[smoking357]

And what is their number one issue with the empty gun open carry in California? The same one we hear from police chiefs all over the place. Officer safety. If the job's so dangerous that law abiding people are a threat to the safety of the enforcers then someone needs to change professions. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of political appointee cops and union thugs bringing this up. Many in the rank and file in many places (California not being one of them) seemingly support gun rights, you'd think their bosses would get it, too. Unfortunately, they don't and all too often support anti-gun policy.

via Ibabuzz.com

More at the source.
I truly pity the denizens of California.

Officers aren't employed to keep themselves safe. They're employed to put themselves at risk for the benefit of my life, liberty and property. They're only entitled to "come home at night" if diligently protecting my life, liberty and property left them alive at the end of the shift.

Please quit exalting the "rank-and-file" cop. The Rodney King cops were "rank and file." The cop who executed the person on the BART platform was a "rank and file" cop. The East Palo Alto cop who blogged about getting to execute open carriers was "rank and file."

 

[Denny347]

Officers aren't employed to keep themselves safe. They're employed to put themselves at risk for the benefit of my life, liberty and property. They're only entitled to "come home at night" if diligently protecting my life, liberty and property left them alive at the end of the shift.

Please quit exalting the "rank-and-file" cop. The Rodney King cops were "rank and file." The cop who executed the person on the BART platform was a "rank and file" cop. The East Palo Alto cop who blogged about getting to execute open carriers was "rank and file."

Your property is not worth my life. Not sure if your life is worth my life. However, but my number one goal IS to come home to my family at night WHILE getting the job done that it entrusted to me. Please do not make it sound as if I am cannon fodder for you to keep you stuff intact, or your life for that matter. We are indeed paid to take risks, but calculated ones. We are not bullet sponges.
As for the reference to "rank and file" officers...what it your point? Using 3 examples to prove what? Seems to be a small sample size to prove anything about CA officers as a whole.

 

[Grux]

My brother lives out there. I would be saying the same thing he is right now... "Looks like I will have to carry illegally"

 

[mrjarrell]

Officers aren't employed to keep themselves safe. They're employed to put themselves at risk for the benefit of my life, liberty and property. They're only entitled to "come home at night" if diligently protecting my life, liberty and property left them alive at the end of the shift.

Please quit exalting the "rank-and-file" cop. The Rodney King cops were "rank and file." The cop who executed the person on the BART platform was a "rank and file" cop. The East Palo Alto cop who blogged about getting to execute open carriers was "rank and file."

There's certainly no "exaltation" in my words. Note I said "many rank and file" not all. The fact is that there are cops who are for the 2nd amendment and many who aren't (or are with caveats that invalidate their support). I am far from a supporter of the enforcers, but I do recognise that there are some who are doing a good job and they don't go out of their way to be thugs. I'm willing to bet Denny's a nice enough guy. Unfortunately, I think guys like him and others, (outside of INGO), are in decline.

 

[mrjarrell]

My brother lives out there. I would be saying the same thing he is right now... "Looks like I will have to carry illegally"

Many people who live, or lived, in California carry or carried without permission. It's saved numerous lives in the decades since Reagan banned carrying.

 

[Gpfury86]

Im not gonna talk bad about any police force/officer even though there's always some bad apples, but all things aside I would not want to have the job and appreciate them for wanting to aid in the protection of our lives... I think that officers should realize though with good law abiding citizen armed it is only making officers safer. I don't know why an officer would want to disarm citizens, the only thing I can think of is that maybe they feel like if there are less people armed and open carrying it makes them feel more powerful or something??? An officer should never feel challenged by a normal armed citizen we are all on the same side...

 

[Roadie]

Officers aren't employed to keep themselves safe. They're employed to put themselves at risk for the benefit of my life, liberty and property. They're only entitled to "come home at night" if diligently protecting my life, liberty and property left them alive at the end of the shift.

Please quit exalting the "rank-and-file" cop. The Rodney King cops were "rank and file." The cop who executed the person on the BART platform was a "rank and file" cop. The East Palo Alto cop who blogged about getting to execute open carriers was "rank and file."

You do know that the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, right?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip. Not sure if your life is worth my life. snip.

I'm quite certain of the answer to that one. No matter how many disagreements you and I have had, I'm have no problem forming an opinion who's life is worth more

 

[Bill of Rights]

...However, to say, as jbombelli did, "I might even drink to their killer(s)." would be a call for the murder of police officers. I don't support that. Do you support murdererous vigilantes wandering the streets looking to kill anyone that takes away one of our rights?

With respect, I disagree. I wouldn't "drink to" a killer, but to do so would not be calling for the murder of police officers. In context, it would be telling someone that they did a good job by removing (yes, by killing) someone who did not bear true faith to his oath.

Even so, I don't support it, no, not if there are other ways to remove that threat to society (and the simplest, least harmful way to do that would be to remove that person's authority to violate the rights of others under cover of law.)

Of course I don't "support murderous vigilantes wandering the streets looking to kill" anyone, and your phrasing alone makes it clear to me that you know this. Neither, however, do I support those who would place their personal safety over and above the rights they have sworn to defend. You cannot defend the law nor even enforce the law by breaking the law. I support the removal of gluteal jesters from positions of power when they begin abusing those powers.

I mean no sarcasm by asking if that makes my position more clear. I hope it does.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsx1043]

A serviceable argument? There isn't one. The easier, more Constitutional answer is to have your dispatcher screen the calls better if you're worried about needless calls for MWG, especially in states that do NOT require a state-issued permission slip to carry. As was pointed out upthread, the easiest answer is "Ma'am, carrying a firearm is not an unlawful act. There aren't many criminals who will advertise the fact that they're armed... most of them want to surprise their victims with that knowledge. If the person you're calling about is just looking at the green beans/just buying some nachos/just walking down the sidewalk with her husband and kid, they're committing no crime, but making a false report to police IS a crime."

Denny can back me up on this. I agree with you fully, however, dispatchers often do not get quality information from complainants and it is often up to us to validate the call. Dispatch may get a quick call and hang up and no answer on the callback. They have to dispatch an officer. Dispatchers are not out on the street and cannot make that judgement call, nor do they have the time to educate the caller on the law. Until YOU have answered those calls and found a serious violent felon standing in a school parking lot with dope in his pocket and his Taurus .40 tucked in his pants while he's shaking down kids, please reserve judgement.

You do raise an interesting point, though, that I'd like to address: You describe it as an "odd" feeling to talk to someone with an exposed pistol. Do you get that same feeling talking to other uniformed officers? Would that feeling you describe experiencing be a bit of intimidation? That's a similar feeling that the rest of us who don't wear badges get when talking to some officers. I can say that I've stood and talked with people from this very board, walked with them as we picked up a couple of things at Walmart, etc. while they were OCing, and I have been more uncomfortable talking with uniformed officers than I was those times. (especially considering the point I read in the "gunfacts.info" pdf, that armed citizens are more accurate and have fewer erroneous shots than do police officers. In fairness, citizens know who the criminal is. You guys have to guess and pray you guess correctly.) No insult is intended here, so please don't take any: the thought that crosses my mind is "When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." Given the choice of one or the other, I would choose the latter, however with all the choices on the table, I'd prefer that no discomfort was even present, let alone perceived.

It IS an odd feeling to talk to someone with a gun. Now, common sense prevailing, no I do not feel "intimidated" or "uncomfortable" around other officers or even around good citizens exercising their 2A rights. However, getting dispatched to a trouble with a person call where the person at the center of the dispute has a firearm, even still in the holster, does raise the hair on the back of your neck quite a bit. It all goes back to our Officer Safety training. I don't take offense to your point of view, I just hate seeing all cops painted as a jack-booted thugs cruising around looking for good upstanding citizens to violate their rights. As I said earlier, in many cases, officers only have their training and experience to rely on. Given that we deal with the law in every interaction we have, there will be times where interpretation is key. The individual officer, in most cases, pays careful attention to each and every arrest that they make, so as not to violate those rights. I know I can't afford an attorney for a false arrest lawsuit, along with all the guys I know and work with.

The problem here, as I said before, is not the enforcement. It's the law itself. Don't hate the cops because of bad legislation. The cops are doing doing what the court tells them. And remember who runs the courts - liberal judges.

Also, I don't have to "pray, and pray I guess correctly who the bad guy is." It's simple - it's the person violating the law. I would also be curious to see the numbers involving civilian-civilian vs. LE-civilian uses of force. My gut tells me there are more police action shootings than civilian self-defense shooting each year.

Im not gonna talk bad about any police force/officer even though there's always some bad apples, but all things aside I would not want to have the job and appreciate them for wanting to aid in the protection of our lives... I think that officers should realize though with good law abiding citizen armed it is only making officers safer. I don't know why an officer would want to disarm citizens, the only thing I can think of is that maybe they feel like if there are less people armed and open carrying it makes them feel more powerful or something??? An officer should never feel challenged by a normal armed citizen we are all on the same side...

Gpfury86 - I am with you 100%. I go with the notion "An armed society, is a polite society."