Posted on 04/23/2009 6:09:30 PM PDT by SJackson
They’ll have your profile in every squad car if it’s up to thaem.
No, it is not.
You don't suppose that the cops are going to be arresting each other, do you? That is because they presume that another uniformed officer is justified in carrying his weapon openly on his hip. All the cops have to do is recognize that every law-abiding citizen is justified in carrying his weapon openly on his hip also.
It's really not that complicated. Just treat every law-abiding citizen with the same consideration that you would a uniformed cop.
It's about time that the cops started recognizing who is the master and who is the servant.
NO the obnoxious one is you,you eliteist twit.
The transformation that you have described is, unfortunately, only cured by massive suffering. The cost may be paid many generations from now in the blood of our descendants, when the loss of liberty, typically tolerated for temporary security, fails to even put food on the table.
There is a third possiblity; they may be in the right place at the right time to stop the person he describes in alternate one- the one that starts shooting random people.
“An armed society is a polite society” I find that whether you are at the gun club or in a part of the woods where half the people are carrying firearms that this is a very true statement.
Actually some places had very strict local firearms laws- many towns did not allow you to carry in town in any fashion. Other than that I imagine they waited to see if you were up to no good or not. What a concept.
“In Virginia, two young men collected a total of $25,000 in settlements from the City of Norfolk”
Was that for carrying guns openly or something else?
They probably already do and most of the profiles are probably pretty close to the drivers of the squad cars. A LOT of them are former military and conservative. At least the ones I've met in Arizona.
And some places (towns or establishments) required you to check your gun at the door, or town limits. You were free to pick them back up on your way out.
We're going to spend a weekend with some friends in Milwaukee next month. I could use a bit of extra cash and don't mind going through both the Wisconsin State Courts and the Federal Courts.
I think it would be kind of cool to have a former big city Police Chief mowing my lawn and cleaning my pool for me. Not to mention I could find a use for a few hundred thousand extra dollars...
L
He’s not obnoxious for exercising his Federally-protected constitutional right, his state-protected constitutional right. Too bad if you have a personal problem with someone exercising a constitutional right. Nobody says you have to carry.
That’s like saying voters are obnoxious simply for voting. That’s like saying Christians are obnoxious simply for going to church. That’s like say, well, columnists such as this putz are obnoxious simply for writing.
What an utter idiot.
There is pre-emption law in the WI state constitution. Local govts cannot make laws that deprive citizens of their state constitutionally-protected rights.
WI needs Concealed Carry Law.
Open carry harassment. One of them was a "black man with a gun." It appears that $10,000 and $15,000 is what they offer when they just detain you, rather than "put you on the ground" (assault & battery), so I expect that a settlement from these guys will be much higher. Another fellow won a settlement from Gonzalez, Louisiana's police department.
Check out http://www.opencarry.org/
Well, it’s “Hear, Hear!!”, and is used (usually in conjuction with desk-thumping) to cheer on a point made during a speech in most Parliaments and many other legislative bodies.
It’s a civilized cheer for a speech, as opposed to whistles and hoots.
And that was the first manifestation of the difference between the urban and rural environments. It was taken as a plain truth back then that everyone had the right to carry a gun when out on the trail, as there were so many potential hazards. However, it might not be a good idea to have a saloon full of drunken brawlers with guns when they came into town for some R&R. Hence, the Sheriff might keep everyone’s guns in his office while they had a good time.
This police chief seems to lack the minimum IQ needed for the job. He's admitting that "serious offenders" already have access to guns. Presumably he realizes that he and his "troops" are not presently free to "take down" people who they recognize as having previous criminal convictions just for walking down the street with no visible weapons. But somehow he imagines that allowing open-carry will increase the ability of "serious offenders" to go about the city in possession of guns. Does he actually not get what the baggy-saggy pants fashion is about?
It is also the author’s federally-protected Constitutional right to view open-carry in supermarkets and while mowing one’s lawn as “obnoxious”, and to share that view with the general public. He is simultaneously recognizing that there’s no rational basis for outlawing this form of “obnoxiousness”.
His approach is more likely than yours to convert people who oppose the attorney general’s position, into people who support it. He’s writing for a college audience, and it’s certain that a majority of Wisconsin college students think people who open-carry in situations where there’s no particular threat are “obnoxious”. He’s telling them, “Yes, fine, I hear you, that’s what I personally think of them too. But here’s why you still shouldn’t be opposed to the AG’s recently pronouncement that open-carry is perfectly legal.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.