Voters may see guns at polling places

[TacticalAdvantage]

http://www.liveleak.com//view?i=589_1345502474#comment_page=1 this is a video that Illustrates my point, At NO TIME did the Police Officer violate any ones Rights, yet the OC activist kids were complete asses for NO other reason except that they WANTED to be asses. This cop knew his business, and respected the 2nd Amendment rights that these OC Activists were exercising. So I am not making excuses for anyone, simply stating a fact. Guns are for Self Defense, NOT Activism

 

[hotrodpc]

Guns should be carried for personal defense, not Activism.

I don't think anyone could have said that any better. That ought to be your quotable quote and in your siggy and I just might.

I can't agree more. I think some people will open carry just because they can and to say, because I have the right to. Some people just have little dicks and that will make them feel big. I guess if carrying open adds a couple more inches, I would do it too. :rofl:

I'm not a big fan of the open carry, but at the same time, I'm glad it exists for particular reasons. I will continue to conceal unless I have a reason for open carry, and even then it maybe only partial open. It might be that I wore a sport coat or jacket on a cold morning and it warmed up and I take the jacket off. I won't have to worry about getting swarmed by 10 cops in a Walmart as I checkout because another customer seen my gun under my shirt when I reached up on the top shelf to get an item. Yeah, that happened and you'd have thought I robbed a friggin bank at 1am.

 

[cce1302]

http://www.liveleak.com//view?i=589_1345502474#comment_page=1 this is a video that Illustrates my point, At NO TIME did the Police Officer violate any ones Rights, yet the OC activist kids were complete asses for NO other reason except that they WANTED to be asses. This cop knew his business, and respected the 2nd Amendment rights that these OC Activists were exercising. So I am not making excuses for anyone, simply stating a fact. Guns are for Self Defense, NOT Activism

I didn't see any reference to that in the article posted in the OP.

 

[oppo]

http://www.liveleak.com//view?i=589_1345502474#comment_page=1 this is a video that Illustrates my point, At NO TIME did the Police Officer violate any ones Rights, yet the OC activist kids were complete asses for NO other reason except that they WANTED to be asses. This cop knew his business, and respected the 2nd Amendment rights that these OC Activists were exercising. So I am not making excuses for anyone, simply stating a fact. Guns are for Self Defense, NOT Activism

This is not what the thread is about. This is not someone simply going about their day with a pistol on their hip. That said, I will play along a little. If I have a NASCAR flag on my truck, should I be stopped and my vehicle searched for open containers? If I drive a camaro or mustang, should I be stopped and my vehicle checked for illegal modifications? By the officer's own words, he shows that he did not have a reasonable suspicion that the weapon in question was an automatic.


I do believe you should pick your battles and that this particular one was one which does more harm than good. I also believe that the law is the law and it applies to everyone equally or it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[TacticalAdvantage]

By the officer's own words, he shows that he did not have a reasonable suspicion that the weapon in question was an automatic.

actually, by the Officers own words, he DID have reasonable suspicion in that the firearm had the appearance of Fully Auto weapons used by his police force. No one walks around the streets with a weapon that looks like a Fully auto MP5 unless that person is TRYING to provoke an encounter with the Police, which is the basis of my point about Guns being for DEFENSE, NOT Activism

 

[oppo]

By the officer's own words, he shows that he did not have a reasonable suspicion that the weapon in question was an automatic.

actually, by the Officers own words, he DID have reasonable suspicion in that the firearm had the appearance of Fully Auto weapons used by his police force. No one walks around the streets with a weapon that looks like a Fully auto MP5 unless that person is TRYING to provoke an encounter with the Police, which is the basis of my point about Guns being for DEFENSE, NOT Activism

You didn't listen to everything said. He said that weapon wasn't made until after the end of new automatic weapons being available to civilians. Therefore, they were never available to civilians. Only the semi-automatic version was. Because of that, it is not reasonable to assume the individual had an automatic.

 

[TacticalAdvantage]

You didn't listen to everything said. He said that weapon wasn't made until after the end of new automatic weapons being available to civilians. Therefore, they were never available to civilians. Only the semi-automatic version was. Because of that, it is not reasonable to assume the individual had an automatic.

Now if you pay attention... a civilian may purchase fully automatic firearms, even an MP5, but to have them, one must have Identification, and a CLASS III STAMP... did you hear that part? And the kids admitted that the officer had a reasonable suspicion

 

[oppo]

Now if you pay attention... a civilian may purchase fully automatic firearms, even an MP5, but to have them, one must have Identification, and a CLASS III STAMP... did you hear that part? And the kids admitted that the officer had a reasonable suspicion

Yes civilians can own automatics but only ones registered prior to 1986. Anything made since then, which the officer stated the weapon was, is only available to law enforcement or the military. Unless a local law enforcement agency had an automatic mp5 come up missing, it is not reasonable to assume the weapon in question is anything other than a semi-auto.

 

[TheFuzz]

Ok, care to explain how I or any other officer could tell the date of manufacture simply by appearance alone? Machine guns are legally AND illegally bought and sold all the time. It's careless of the officer to assume that the gun ISN'T fully automatic without checking. What would happen if it was a machine gun, then those two walked into a local business and shot the place up, killing a bunch of people? What would the headlines be then?

The reasonable suspicion requirement details that an officer "must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed". There are any number of defensible positions that the officer could take in regards to that contact.

1. They are walking around carrying weapons; not hosltered handguns, but slung rifles that appear to be automatic weapons. A contact with them is completely warranted to determine their intentions and find out what they are doing. Also bear in mind that this call was initiated by a concerned citizen that called in to report them walking around with guns; this contact was based on that complaint, reasonable suspicion aside.

2. The guns they were walking around with looked like AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. The officer stated that based on his training and experience, visually they appeared to be identical to the fully automatic MP5's that his department SWAT team uses, and he could not ascertain without physically inspecting the gun if the guns they were carrying were full auto or not. The subject stated that the gun was only a .22 and not fully automatic, and offered no tax stamp or other documentation. The officer, in the course of due diligence, removed the weapon from his person to inspect it, and confirmed that it was in fact a .22 and semi-auto only.

3. Once that was confirmed, the subject was given back his gun, advised that he was no longer being detained, and was thanked for his cooperation. The contact was no more intrusive than necessary for the officer to ensure that no criminal action was taking place, in this case the possession/carry of a possible illegal fully automatic weapon.

No offense, but if you don't understand the nature of the laws where you live, up to and including constitutional law, then that's on you. A person's ignorance doesn't automatically make the police officer wrong.

 

[hotrodpc]

I didn't even watch that video until I seen the thread went Off-Topic and turned into an argument, but that's what Mods and Admins are for. The thread can be split and have 2 on topic threads.

Soooo I"ll play too. Those punk ass kids are arrogant pricks and without doubt, it was obvious they were simply trying to stir up shit with the police force. Again, we don't like more "gun laws", but that obviously wasn't a carry type self defense gun and it's pricks like that who will end up causing more "gun laws". These guys KNEW exactly what they were doing, and did it on purpose. They also KNEW it would end up in an encounter with police as it did. And that is NOT called a Search & Seizure, and it's not even called a Search. Nothing was Searched for, it was in plain site. IMO, that was less of a violation of constitutional rights than a sobriety checkpoint.
I'd give that cop an A+ the way he handled that, and if every cop in the US acted in same manner, especially dealing with a punk who was on a mission to piss off a cop and get treated badly, then we wouldn't have near the problem we do with average citizens not liking cops.

 

[hotrodpc]

I guess I was typing my response when Fuzz posted so I didn't see his response before I posted, but I'll add, not only are illegal firearms bought and sold daily, does anyone know how easy it is convert certain guns to full auto? Simple as making a couple parts about the size of a quarter, if you can't find someone to sell them to you and drilling a couple holes in the receiver.

 

[ViperJeff]

I must say, it was fun reading the variety of different opinions. Please continue, this is a fun discussion. I try not not add emotion to posts, it just makes it easier for me to see a point. For what it's worth, I will always lean towards concealed, however, when it comes right down to it. It will be the environment that I'm in that will help me decide whether I open or conceal carry. Even with what has been discussed, I know it will be my choice and how I will respond to any situation that arrises from my choice of carry. Every person I talk to that has an issue with guns I offer to go to the range with. That puts it back in their court to decide if its something they want to be scared of or to learn. I try not to stand on a soap box and be right all the time.

Back to the OP....

I personally wouldn't be surprised to see someone open carry anywhere. I work right next to the Sheriff's Department and see people in civilian clothes open carry every day. Sometimes you see the badge and sometimes you don't. Now on the other hand, if i saw someone with a gun tucked in their waist band of there local school gym shorts I would be a bit more worried. I would venture to say that the vast majority of people who try and stay legal use some kind of holster and for the most part thugs do not.

(note i did not use everyone)

So where I live, I walk in to the local school and the guy in front of me has a gun on his hip........

Probably wouldn't give it a second thought

Why?

He isn't waiving it around in a reckless manner

I know not everyone will see it the same as I and if given the opportunity, I will be happy to talk guns with any one

Vj

 

[hotrodpc]

Carrying on school grounds is illegal here, so anyone voting on a school campus would not be carrying legally unless they were LE.

But at some place where it is legal to carry and happens to be a polling location, I'd expect there will be someone carrying, ONLY to be like the asshats in that police video. Just because they can.

 

[ViperJeff]

Just a note:

I wasn't speaking to the legality of the OP question

Just what my frame of mind would be




I actually will be doing my Voting at the County Complex where I work. Although guns are not illegal, they are not encouraged and if you do bring one, they would prefer you stop by and let the Sheriff's Department know you are carrying to prevent any misunderstanding. With that, there are still places inside the complex that don't allows guns (ie the court rooms).

I am currently doing some extensive learning on gun carry in Utah. Until I know beyond a question, I will question and continue to learn. Private Property vs State Property vs County Property vs City Property and the list goes on.

Reading is good and the questions raised are even better. I know what I learn for my area is most likely different from others. I can't take anyones word for anything when it comes to gun law, so I look them up (knowing that everything on the internet is the truth... right?).

I bought the gun laws for my state, and I must say, it's a boring read but worth the time

 

[oppo]

Nobody is debating these guys were fishing for trouble so why does everyone keep feeling the need to repeatedly point that out?

The fact that a concerned citizen called in legal behavior means what exactly? It means nothing.

The firearm looked like what it is. Based on the argument of what it could have been, I guess we need to search everyone with a cell phone or keys in their pocket because it looks like it could be an illegal or illegally carried weapon. It is the same argument. Could potentially be and reasonable are not the same thing.

Speaking of shooting ourselves in the foot and being worried about new laws, what is this "assault weapons" mess being spoken of? That is just lining up with the anti gun crowd. A firearm is a firearm. It is only a weapon if it is used as one. Is a marlin 9mm carbine an assault weapon?

I guess next time I drink tea from a styrofoam cup an officer needs to remove it from me to make sure there is no alcohol in it?

Why would he have a tax stamp for a semi-auto? That makes no sense unless it was an SBR or suppressed, in which case, he would have needed it.

The bottom line is that jackasses or not, they weren't breaking any laws and there was no reason to assume the firearm was full auto.

As far as the officer approaching them and asking questions, he can talk to anyone all he wants. That is entirely different than detaining someone and removing their property.

 

[oppo]

Carrying on school grounds is illegal here, so anyone voting on a school campus would not be carrying legally unless they were LE.

But at some place where it is legal to carry and happens to be a polling location, I'd expect there will be someone carrying, ONLY to be like the asshats in that police video. Just because they can.

The bottom line is that legal is legal. I could argue that someone shouldn't drive an SUV for a status symbol when a small car will do what they need but they aren't breaking any environmental laws.

The point is that even for just purposes of debate, bad mouthing legal behavior such as wearing a pistol where one is allowed to carry a pistol, we are arguing against the very laws that make it legal to carry a pistol and that is a slippery slope to be traded upon carefully.

 

[Arckadian]

It is true that "Assualt Weapon" is a term that can be defined by how you use a weapon. By itself a weapon is a weapon is a weapon, but coming from the military I can see it the other way too. I think that an Automatic weapon can be viewed as an assult type weapon as it is designed for one thing.... sprayin LOTS of bullets in a very fast amount of time. Generally your average citizen does not need that much firepower unless the zombies are decending.... Now in those terms I can accept the Assault Weapon term being used.

Having said that however weapons like that need a class 3 and a tax stamp, so getting one is not something to be taken lightly as it is highly regulated. But for the officer to assume that the weapons those guys had are not automatic weapons just based on how they appear from a distance would be naive and potentially dangerous. The police have a very tough job and few people relieze that they risk their lives daily. A simple traffic stop for a broken tail light could end their life just easily as a gun fight with the hoods.

You need to really consider that making the assumption that all is well is not something that the officer can do UNTIL they have reviewed the situation and looked at the weapons themselves. The citizen that called the police was all the officer needed to be able to go and talk to those men. The officer in that video may not have wanted to go. He may have been worried about a confrontation starting and possibly having to defend himself.... But in the end he was just doing his duty and doing what WE the citizens pay him to do.

If you called the police and they never showed up what would you do? If you called the police and they said "Sorry we are on a lunch break call back in a hour." what would you do? They are there to protect and serve and people getting mad about them doing their job is just plain stupid. I am not a cop, and I can not say I have met a great many. But some of the ones I have met are just as human as the rest of us and just like me when I joined the military are doing their duty. To me, they are no different than our fighting men and women in the military and indeed many of them are in the service or have been.

 

[ViperJeff]

Well, I have family members that work in the county jail. Lets just say that some people get arrested because of what they do after the cops show up not because of what they did to get the visit in the first place

 

[TheFuzz]

!

Oppo, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. You're citing a bunch of examples about RS that have no background info. Would a reasonable and prudent person believe that a person drinking a beverage out of a cup is drinking alcohol? Not necessarily. Would a reasonable and prudent person believe that a person drinking a beverage out of a cup, stumbling around, slurring their words is drinking alcohol? Yes, that would be reasonable. Police officers have to take into account the totality of the circumstances they are faced with, which is never a simple black and white proposition.

Those two were walking down the street with a weapon that looked like a suppressed MP5. There was reasonable suspicion there for that contact. What you're failing to realize is that the kind of gun itself doesn't matter; it only mattered in that case to give the officer probable cause to remove the weapon from his person to inspect it. Even if they were walking down the road carrying a Ruger 10/22, a simple contact would STILL be justified to ask them their intentions, determine their mindset, and to find out if anything fishy was going on. If they say "oh we're just exercising our 2A rights walking down to the range", hey that's cool, have a good day. However, if they say "Well...Sir MonkeyFist the Demon God has commanded me to walk down to this street corner and kill all non-believers", well, then we have a problem! It's called investigating, man. That's how we catch bad guys - it doesn't mean we're trampling on peoples rights for asking questions. If you don't believe there was at least reasonable suspicion there, then unfortunately your perception of how law enforcement is supposed to function is a little clouded, as is your knowledge of the law.

If you think that a citizen calling in doesn't matter, let me ask you this: how else do you think cops receive about 90% of the calls they go on? Just because a concerned citizen calls something in doesn't mean that enforcement action will be taken - it's simply the first step in allowing the police to investigate (there's that word again!) whether or not a crime has been committed. We can't just ignore calls that come in because it might not be criminal activity; it might be or it might not be. Take DUI reports for example. Are we not going to investigate one just because the person may not be drunk? That's why we investigate, and if all is well, then no enforcement action is taken. Just like what happened with that contact.

Now, if the officer had acted differently or that contact ended in an arrest or something else inappropriate for the situation, then my opinion would be different regarding the outcome - but not the contact.

Regarding tax stamps, you need to read up on that as well. They aren't just for SBR's and supressors. They're for legally transferred machine guns too, among other things. My point in bringing that up is that while they SAID that the guns weren't fully automatic, guess what? People lie! All the time! My point was that they didn't offer one up, so if the gun did in fact turn out to be an MP5, it would be more likely that they were in possession of an illegal machine gun rather than one legally purchased.

 

[oppo]

My point is very simple. According to the officer's own statement, full auto mp5's would never have been sold to civilians at all. Based on that, it is not reasonable to assume this gun would be full auto. Also, not having a tax stamp, as you mentioned, is in no way at all an indication of this gun being an automatic. I realize you need a tax stamp for an auto. I also realize that there is no reason to have one for a semi unless it is a SBR or suppressed. The only thing that would be reasonable is to assume that a fake suppressor could be a real one but that wasn't what he checked.

Again, I have no problem whatsoever with him approaching anyone, at any time, for any reason to talk to them. That is a very different thing than detaining someone, giving them orders, or taking possession of their property for any length of time.


Now, back to the concerned citizen. I understand checking out a call but when a citizen calls in because they saw something legal, that still means nothing. What if a citizen called that they saw someone playing softball at the park? There are cities now that will not respond to MWAG calls anymore because open carry is legal and someone calling in because they saw a gun means nothing.


Oh, as for police just not showing up. I have had that happen. I was shot at on my property and the 911 operator not only heard the shots but heard them hitting the house. Ft Worth PD did not show up for over an hour. After they got there, they did nothing and this was in town. On the other hand, I can't even begin to count the number of times I have been pulled over for random inspections on 820. Once, it was 7 times in a row, all clean. I have friends and family in law enforcement and mom is a recently retired judge. I spent 10 years working for a city. There are a lot of LEO's out there that are great people and I suspect the officer in the video is one of them but I have very little faith in the system. That is getting off the point though.