thrown out of a family event

[singlestacksig]

did you at least have a BBQ rig?

 

[Birds Away]

Getting thrown out of a family event is on my bucket list.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Getting thrown out of a family event is on my bucket list.

There are some I would like to be thrown out of...

 

[Valvestate]

There are some I would like to be thrown out of...

Hang out with your wang out. DONE.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Hang out with your wang out. DONE.

That's what people say OCers do anyway

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ok so maybe all of us aren't wife killers. I'm just tired of the repeated reference to cops that have done something wrong, especially when it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Unless I'm mistaken, Drew Peterson isn't a convicted wife-killer; he's an ACCUSED wife-killer - so far. I'd have expected you to point that out, if only for consistency.

Neither has Bissard been convicted of the crimes with which he's been charged - yet - so I guess he's still "innocent until proven guilty" as well.

 

[Mr. Habib]

There are some I would like to be thrown out of...

Fortunately, I got thrown out of that entire family.

 

[perry]

2.5 hours at a family event sounds like enough. You should have thanked the guy for getting you outta there

 

[Denny347]

For some reason many citizens and LEOs themselves believe that they are a special class of people.

 

[DaddyFixSemi]

2.5 hours at a family event sounds like enough. You should have thanked the guy for getting you outta there

Normally I would agree with you on this but, the wife wanted to stay for the dancing and other things. So like most married men I just sucked it up and said yes to the wife about going so.

 

[Ted]

Ok so maybe all of us aren't wife killers.

I never made the reference that all cops, most cops, or even a significant number of LE are criminals. If you look to my posts, you will note that I go out of my way about such.

I'm just tired of the repeated reference to cops that have done something wrong,

If you're tired of the repeated reference, and took exception to mine, then I suggest that you're more the problem.

especially when it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

My post was on point. The pictorial example provided a recent, high profile example that LEOs are people, and just as capable of the commission of misconduct and/or serious crimes.........with or without a firearm, just like anybody else, to include the OP.

The busybody who objected to the OP's carrying of a handgun, likely didn't question the Deputy Sheriff's likely possession of a firearm....and more than likely for the fact that he didn't trust anybody with a firearm that didn't also have a badge.

Police have enforcement and investigative power, with authority to carry firearms, but they don't have special authority past their police powers.
If the person who rented the property generally objected to firearms being on site, then even a police officer not engaged in official duties has the choice of disarming, or departing. The fact that he was a police officer is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Somehow I believe if the OP knew his rights to OC that he also knows his rights to CC and chose for himself.



It is very relevant to the discussion at hand. For some reason many citizens and LEOs themselves believe that they are a special class of people that are entitled to more rights and an average citizen. Specifically relevant here is the "ability" to carry a firearm when others cannot.

Many LTCH holders such as myself see this as a very serious issue. Why are cops trusted with firearms when others are not? There are misconceptions that cops know the laws better (I can easily disprove that as a fact), that they are trained better, that they obey the laws better (I wager no better than the average LTCH holder).

Besides those reasons (which are often false) there should be no reason that a LEO should feel or have the ability to carry where others cannot, especially on private property where they possess no more rights than anyone else.

Now this can be entirely a none issue for the present discussion, we won't know until the relationship of the LEO and the party organizers is known or what the organizers feelings were on the matter but speaking on the broad sense, it is relevant IMO.

Absolutely correct, and from my perspective, the off-duty deputy was in the wrong, as was the original busybody (who will now crow that he was right, because the LEO backed up his position. ) The issue I think Frank and other LEOs take with what you said above is that while they do enforce the law (and sometimes the heckler's veto,) they don't write the laws in place, i.e. no guns on school campuses unless you have the metal shield, etc. That line of thinking falls apart both in the aforementioned heckler's veto, when those who do so try to enforce what they think the law should be and at the point some claim to be espoused by former President Andrew Jackson, speaking of Chief Justice John Marshall: "He's made his decision, let him enforce it." (Jackson never actually said this.), that being that without the executive branch, of which police are the largest part, a law will sit idle and be a dead letter. Case in point, the proverbial "spitting on the sidewalk", enacted to limit the spread of TB; it may still be on the books, but it's not enforced. The point is that if police chose to not enforce that law, all of us could go wherever we wanted without fear of legal retribution for the "crime" of being armed. I'm not getting into the depths of police choosing which laws to enforce, but suffice it to say that it happens all the time. Personal opinion: Enforce mala in se, leave mala prohibita alone, and we'll be a much happier and freer society, and yes, I know it will never happen.

I understand the premise of your arguement, Ben. But IIRC, in Indiana, Sworn Officers, even "Off Duty", retain their police powers under the law, and therefore should be armed.

Not wishing to get into the "No Duty to protect" arguement, but you know as well as I, that there are Many more good cops than bad and that the good ones will step up to assist, protect, and serve no matter what clothing they happen to be wearing at the time.

As above, Steve. I don't argue that a police officer, on- or off-duty should be able to be armed. Where I think Ben is coming from, and I echo it, is that we, the non-LEO citizens, are never "off-duty"; crime, especially violent crime, can happen anywhere, even (especially?) at family gatherings, and as such, WE should be armed.

Just curious, why didn't you two have the busy body go get the person or people who actually rented the facility to see what their opinion was? Instead, it seems to me that the deputy (or Sheriff) at first was happy to agree with you and explain the law to nosy-butt, then sided with said nosy-butt, and decided, himself, first that you "should" leave your gun in the car, then switched to "I'm the boss here" and "either put it in your car or leave"!
Personally, I would probably have told Nosy-Butt and Deputy Bossman that I understood and respected their "OPINION" (which is all it was), but unless the person in charge of the event or the happy (?) couple asks me to leave, I'll just stay here and talk to my new friend, "Frank"!

Ever heard the saying, "The first liar tells the truth."? I'd guess that if the busybody had gone to get whoever rented the facility, by the time the renter got back, s/he'd likely have been convinced that someone there with a gun needed to be disarmed or gone. (In no way am I calling the OP a liar, that's just how the saying goes, meaning whoever tells the story first, depending on what facts are offered and in what order, frames the decision.)

Hang out with your wang out. DONE.

???

Or did you mean "Rock out with your Glock (or Koch) out?"

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Compuvette]

2.5 hours at a family event sounds like enough. You should have thanked the guy for getting you outta there

I take back everything I said. I'm with this guy.

 

[jgreiner]

At my family gatherings, if you AREN'T carrying, they toss you out.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Absolutely correct, and from my perspective, the off-duty deputy was in the wrong, as was the original busybody (who will now crow that he was right, because the LEO backed up his position. ) The issue I think Frank and other LEOs take with what you said above is that while they do enforce the law (and sometimes the heckler's veto,) they don't write the laws in place, i.e. no guns on school campuses unless you have the metal shield, etc. That line of thinking falls apart both in the aforementioned heckler's veto, when those who do so try to enforce what they think the law should be and at the point some claim to be espoused by former President Andrew Jackson, speaking of Chief Justice John Marshall: "He's made his decision, let him enforce it." (Jackson never actually said this.), that being that without the executive branch, of which police are the largest part, a law will sit idle and be a dead letter. Case in point, the proverbial "spitting on the sidewalk", enacted to limit the spread of TB; it may still be on the books, but it's not enforced. The point is that if police chose to not enforce that law, all of us could go wherever we wanted without fear of legal retribution for the "crime" of being armed. I'm not getting into the depths of police choosing which laws to enforce, but suffice it to say that it happens all the time. Personal opinion: Enforce mala in se, leave mala prohibita alone, and we'll be a much happier and freer society, and yes, I know it will never happen.



As above, Steve. I don't argue that a police officer, on- or off-duty should be able to be armed. Where I think Ben is coming from, and I echo it, is that we, the non-LEO citizens, are never "off-duty"; crime, especially violent crime, can happen anywhere, even (especially?) at family gatherings, and as such, WE should be armed.

Right on the Money, Bill.

At my family gatherings, if you AREN'T carrying, they toss you out.

I tried that crap but nobody listened to me!

 

[donnie1581]

Since it was your wife's cousin's anniversary, you should have had your wife ask her cousin if they minded you were carrying; if they said no then you should have told everyone else to get bent and mind their own business. After all it was the cousin's anniversary and therefore their party so I don't see why anyone else would have any say so on the matter.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Since it was your wife's cousin's anniversary, you should have had your wife ask her cousin if they minded you were carrying; if they said no then you should have told everyone else to get bent and mind their own business. After all it was the cousin's anniversary and therefore their party so I don't see why anyone else would have any say so on the matter.

Are you talking beforehand or once the deputy said something?

 

[Ted]

Since it was your wife's cousin's anniversary, you should have had your wife ask her cousin if they minded you were carrying; if they said no then you should have told everyone else to get bent and mind their own business. After all it was the cousin's anniversary and therefore their party so I don't see why anyone else would have any say so on the matter.

So long as it was her cousin that actually rented the building.

 

[donnie1581]

Are you talking beforehand or once the deputy said something?

the deputy was off duty, and if he wasn't the one that rented the building then he wouldn't have any say whether the OP had to remove his weapon from the property or remove himself.

 

[longbow]

You don't have a liberal cousin who is a teacher up in Chicago, do you?