Pages

Jump to bottom

40 comments

1 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 6:33:21am

+1 to the court, just hoping it holds up and engenders sensible regulation. D.C. gun policy is a stain on our rights and reason.

2 William Barnett-Lewis  Jul 28, 2014 6:54:37am

Emily Miller is reporting via Twitter that as of last night, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has instructed her force not to arrest anyone legally able to carry a firearm. This shows that Chief Lanier is, at minimum, unwilling to be found in contempt. Note the broad extent of the order: no arrests of gun owners who can legally carry a gun in D.C. or any state. With 30 states having open carry without a permit, and over 11 million concealed carry permits valid in the United States, that’s a lot of people who may now legally carry in out nation’s capital.

3 Charles Johnson  Jul 28, 2014 9:58:53am

This is a horrible decision and it will lead to more gun-related deaths.

Every time a judge makes a wrong-headed decision like this, America reverts further back to the Wild West.

4 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 11:14:07am

re: #3 Charles Johnson

That’s one possibility, but an avoidable one. There is a sensible way to have a regulated CCW permit process. Nobody wants anarchy on this.

Legally it’s a natural follow on the the ruling about the 2nd as an individual right. As I see it CCW can be regulated pretty strictly, including areas it would not apply. Including a requirement for use of force instruction and exams. I don’t support “shall issue”. “Good cause and good character” is the start to a workable solution IMHO. Look to California (not Arizona) for a hint of how to find a reasonable path.

5 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 12:09:23pm

re: #4 Rightwingconspirator

Can you please detail your objection to a police officer being able to verify if a weapon is being legally carried?

And by ‘detail’, I mean to explain why you’re objecting: How it unduly burdens the gun owner, and how else a police officer can verify that a weapon is legally carried.

6 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 12:25:28pm

re: #5 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Can you please detail your objection to a police officer being able to verify if a weapon is being legally carried?

And by ‘detail’, I mean to explain why you’re objecting: How it unduly burdens the gun owner, and how else a police officer can verify that a weapon is legally carried.

Heh, one Page or two?

7 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 12:31:32pm

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

Whatever, as long as you actually give an answer. Which, so far, you haven’t.

8 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 12:49:09pm

re: #7 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Whatever, as long as you actually give an answer. Which, so far, you haven’t.

Baloney. You don’t like the answers.

9 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 12:58:29pm

re: #8 Rightwingconspirator

Baloney. You don’t like the answers.

No, you haven’t actually answered the question of what harm comes to a person who is asked to show a license for a gun they’re carrying is.

10 William Barnett-Lewis  Jul 28, 2014 1:13:10pm

re: #5 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Harm doesn’t matter. Burden doesn’t matter. The police are required to have probable cause before they can stop someone about a possible gun.

That’s why “stop and frisk” is unconstitutional - they did not have probable cause to stop those men.

You are not required to show a license to talk about the government in public but you are required to have a license to get to the place you wish to talk if you want to go by driving an automobile.

That’s the difference.

11 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 1:58:47pm

re: #10 William Barnett-Lewis

Harm doesn’t matter. Burden doesn’t matter. The police are required to have probable cause before they can stop someone about a possible gun.

I am saying “Why is that a good policy, wouldn’t it be better to allow cops to verify a gun’s legality.”

That’s why “stop and frisk” is unconstitutional - they did not have probable cause to stop those men.

Stopping someone for no reason (other than race) and stopping someone because they have a gun and you want to verify its legality are not equivalent things. This is completely common-sense obvious.

You are not required to show a license to talk about the government in public but you are required to have a license to get to the place you wish to talk if you want to go by driving an automobile.

You are required to show a license if you use sound enhancing equipment. However, this seems like it’s just another “2nd amendment” defense, and not an actual argument as to why this should be so. Why is it an undue burden for someone to have to show a license for a gun they are carrying in public?

12 danarchy  Jul 28, 2014 2:33:02pm

re: #11 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

I am saying “Why is that a good policy, wouldn’t it be better to allow cops to verify a gun’s legality.”

Stopping someone for no reason (other than race) and stopping someone because they have a gun and you want to verify its legality are not equivalent things. This is completely common-sense obvious.

If the police know you have a gun, meaning they can see it, then they already can stop you because that is no longer concealed carry. If they are stopping you because that lump under your jacket may be a gun, then they are guessing, and they have no reason to stop you.

13 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 2:36:46pm

re: #12 danarchy

If the police know you have a gun, meaning they can see it, then they already can stop you because that is no longer concealed carry. If they are stopping you because that lump under your jacket may be a gun, then they are guessing, and they have no reason to stop you.

Why is that not a reason? That seems entirely like a reason to me. They suspect that this person has a gun, and I want to verify that they’re carrying it in a licensed way.

So to be clear, everyone is absolutely fine with the cops stopping anyone who is openly carrying a gun and checking their permit? We’ve at least reached that incredibly low bar?

14 danarchy  Jul 28, 2014 2:53:08pm

re: #13 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Why is that not a reason? That seems entirely like a reason to me. They suspect that this person has a gun, and I want to verify that they’re carrying it in a licensed way.

So to be clear, everyone is absolutely fine with the cops stopping anyone who is openly carrying a gun and checking their permit? We’ve at least reached that incredibly low bar?

You are basically saying the police have the right to stop anyone they want because they might have a gun. A lump in a jacket could be any number of things. If they see a lump in your jacket do they have the right to frisk you? Because if they have the right to frisk you, you have given the police the right to search anyone they want any time because “I thought he had a gun.”

If they search someone for a gun because apparently a lump is probable cause and they find something else illegal, say a bag of weed is that admissible? I fail to see how it is any different than allowing random stop and frisk.

15 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 3:01:29pm

re: #14 danarchy

You are basically saying the police have the right to stop anyone they want because they might have a gun.

I’m not, actually, talking about ‘rights’, I’m talking about what would be reasonable. I think it’s reasonable, if a police officer thinks that someone is armed, for them to verify that person is legally carrying a gun, yes. I don’t think that it’s right to stop anyone because they think they might have a gun wedged in their buttcrack, but for an articulable reason, and limit the search to only, only the gun.

A lump in a jacket could be any number of things. If they see a lump in your jacket do they have the right to frisk you? Because if they have the right to frisk you, you have given the police the right to search anyone they want any time because “I thought he had a gun.”

Police already have the right to frisk anyone who think think is acting ‘erratically’. They can already say ‘I thought he was drunk’. If you are presuming police malfeasance than this would change nothing, cops can already stop and frisk who they want by giving a number of unprovable justifications.

If they search someone for a gun because apparently a lump is probable cause and they find something else illegal, say a bag of weed is that admissible? I fail to see how it is any different than allowing random stop and frisk.

Again, what I’m saying is not for the person to present their gun, but to present their gun permit. If they do not, in fact, have a gun permit and don’t have a gun, it would be easy enough for them to show the absence of a gun. Finally, no I don’t want anything else found during the search to be admissible.

So to be clear, everyone is absolutely fine with the cops stopping anyone who is openly carrying a gun and checking their permit? We’ve at least reached that incredibly low bar?

16 goddamnedfrank  Jul 28, 2014 5:05:08pm

re: #12 danarchy

If the police know you have a gun, meaning they can see it, then they already can stop you because that is no longer concealed carry.

Not in Georgia.

SECTION 1-10.
Said article is further amended by adding two new Code sections to read as follows:

“16-11-137.
(a) Every license holder shall have his or her valid weapons carry license in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, or if such person is exempt from having a weapons carry license pursuant to Code Section 16-11-130 or subsection (c) of Code Section 16-11-127.1, he or she shall have proof of his or her exemption in his or her immediate possession at all times when carrying a weapon, and his or her failure to do so shall be prima-facie evidence of a violation of the applicable provision of Code Sections 16-11 through 16-11-127.2.

(b) A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.

Do you see how that works? You absolutely need to have either a license or proof of exemption to be legally allowed to carry a gun in public, but the fact that you in fact are carrying a gun in public isn’t reason enough for a cop to stop you and investigate whether or not you in fact actually possess such proof.

It’s fucking insane, and people here have been defending it as some kind of right to go about your business visibly carrying a gun without being questioned about it.

re: #10 William Barnett-Lewis

Harm doesn’t matter. Burden doesn’t matter. The police are required to have probable cause before they can stop someone about a possible gun.

This is not about what an officer “thinks,” it’s about what they can plainly see - a firearm. i.e. if it prints clearly under your clothes, if your jacket opens up and they can see it. It’s clinical goddamned insanity for a cop to need some other reason to stop a person who incontrovertibly IS in possession of a firearm to inquire about the legal status of their possession.

However let’s say you’re right and it’s about a “possible gun.” Why should the cop need any other reason to stop that person and ask them if their suspicion is correct? I’m not saying that the person needs to submit to a search, to show whether or not they are in fact carrying, but they should be able to answer that simple question. The cop’s suspicion in that scenario would be based on some articulable suspicion that the person was carrying a firearm. If they say no and the officer’s suspicion isn’t very high, if they cannot see the gun or make out the plainly obvious outline of a gun then they’d have to let the person go. But if the person answers yes, that they are carrying a gun, then they should be required to produce proof of their legal right to do so.

Also note that the above law isn’t restricted to concealed carry at all. In Georgia permits are issued as a “Weapons Carry License,” and cover both open and concealed carry. So if a cop there sees a pedestrian walking down the street openly carrying a handgun in an external belt holster they can’t demand to see that person’s license without having some other, entirely unrelated reason to stop them.

(g) Notwithstanding Code Sections 12-3-10, 27-3-1.1, 27-3-6, and 16-12-122 through 16-12-127, any person with a valid weapons carry license may carry a weapon in all parks, historic sites, or recreational areas, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-3-10, including all publicly owned buildings located in such parks, historic sites, and recreational areas, in wildlife management areas, and on public transportation; provided, however, that a person shall not carry a handgun into a place where it is prohibited by federal law.

Frankly, it’s irritating to see people treat this like there’s some horrible slippery slope principle in play, and that it will inevitable lead to a random stop and frisk police state. The issue is really simple, if you are in possession of a gun then you need to have a permit. What exactly is the harm done in actually needing to show that permit on demand if a police officer can reasonably determine that you do in fact have a gun on you?

17 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 7:11:30pm

re: #16 goddamnedfrank

A gun license to carry does not change ones status under the law apart from adding the ability to carry concealed legally, unless it’s a statutory requirement for the permit. A condition of having it. Like you have to carry one of the listed guns (here in Ca)

A lump under a coat is not probable cause in the absence of any other evidence of anything being wrong. Is that so revolutionary or reactionary? I don’t see it if so. i just don’t.

18 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 7:16:15pm

re: #17 Rightwingconspirator

A gun license to carry does not change ones status under the law apart from adding the ability to carry concealed legally, unless it’s a statutory requirement for the permit. A condition of having it. Like you have to carry one of the listed guns (here in Ca)

Who is talking about changing anyone’s status under the law?

A lump under a coat is not probable cause in the absence of any other evidence of anything being wrong. Is that so revolutionary or reactionary? I don’t see it if so. i just don’t.

The presumption isn’t that anything is wrong, it’s that the person is carrying a gun and needs a permit to do so, and so they should be ready to show that permit to law enforcement.

You have yet to cite an actual harm from this. Can you explain what harm comes from showing a gun permit?

19 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 7:19:16pm

re: #18 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Who is talking about changing anyone’s status under the law?

So a person with a CCW is no more subject to being stopped without cause than you or I?

20 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 7:32:43pm

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

So a person with a CCW is no more subject to being stopped without cause than you or I?

Right. If a person with or without a CCW is carrying a gun, they’re just as likely to get stopped. It’s the behavior—carrying a gun—which creates the reasonable expectation.

But to reiterate, the ‘harm’ is that the person is stopped and has to show a permit? That is the extent of the harm that the person experiences?

21 goddamnedfrank  Jul 28, 2014 7:37:58pm

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

So a person with a CCW is no more subject to being stopped without cause than you or I?

If their gun is actually concealed then no. If a person carrying concealed isn’t actually printing then there’s no reason for them to be concerned. However the Georgia law applies equally to open carry. If the cop can tell you’re carrying then you aren’t carrying concealed anymore. When people carrying openly can’t be stopped without some other articulable cause it gives cover to felons who want to carry openly. The law itself hamstrings the officer, deliberately giving them no simple way to determine compliance even as it demands proof of compliance be carried.

22 goddamnedfrank  Jul 28, 2014 7:46:10pm

re: #20 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Right. If a person with or without a CCW is carrying a gun, they’re just as likely to get stopped.

I disagree, though I guess it all hinges on the term concealed. In my mind it means nobody can tell you’ve got a gun on you. The gun isn’t printing through clothing and isn’t visible to the naked eye. The way it should work is if you are in fact carrying and a cop come up, states their suspicion and demands to see your permit then you have two choices: A.) You can hope that the cop is actually uncertain or bluffing to execute a search for something else and choose to lie to them, which is stupid if you’re carrying legally, or B.) You can simply show them the required proof and not be a d-bag about public safety.

23 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 7:55:43pm

re: #22 goddamnedfrank

I disagree, though I guess it all hinges on the term concealed. In my mind it means nobody can tell you’ve got a gun on you. The gun isn’t printing through clothing and isn’t visible to the naked eye. The way it should work is if you are in fact carrying and a cop come up, states their suspicion and demands to see your permit then you have two choices: A.) You can hope that the cop is actually uncertain or bluffing to execute a search for something else and choose to lie to them, which is stupid if you’re carrying legally, or B.) You can simply show them the required proof and not be a d-bag about public safety.

Oh, what i meant is that it’s carrying the gun around in a way that a cop can detect that gets you stopped, not having a CCW. And yeah, I agree that it makes sense for those who carry guns to accede to a simple request to see the permit, and I really don’t see how that harms them, beyond using up a small amount of their time.

24 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 8:01:40pm

re: #20 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Right. If a person with or without a CCW is carrying a gun, they’re just as likely to get stopped. It’s the behavior—carrying a gun—which creates the reasonable expectation.

But to reiterate, the ‘harm’ is that the person is stopped and has to show a permit? That is the extent of the harm that the person experiences?

I defined the harm as I saw it from what you had said already. As long as the stop is within the law as we understand it for cause, I see no harm. If it were a condition of the permit to be subject to inquiry at any time so be it.

25 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 8:37:29pm

re: #21 goddamnedfrank

I am not defending the Georgia law today.

26 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 28, 2014 9:11:37pm

re: #24 Rightwingconspirator

I defined the harm as I saw it from what you had said already. As long as the stop is within the law as we understand it for cause,

The ‘harm’ from what I said is that they have to show their permit. That is the sum total of the ‘harm’ , and again, the ‘cause’ is that they are carrying around a gun. Which is a completely reasonable ‘cause’ to verify that the person is, indeed, a legal carrier of that gun.

27 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 28, 2014 9:50:08pm

re: #26 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

The cause being a permitted activity. Okay. I get your point.

28 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 3:36:51am

re: #27 Rightwingconspirator

The cause being a permitted activity. Okay. I get your point.

The cause being carrying the gun, because the police officer has no clue, at all, if the person actually has a permit until they verify it. Unlike with a car, where an officer can quickly establish that the car is not stolen, is properly licensed, etc. from a distance. The police officer, seeing a gun, can have a completely reasonable desire to see that it’s being legally carried.

One thing I don’t get about the resistance to this is that I would have thought that CCW holders and responsible gun owners in general would embrace something that allowed them to demonstrate their good citizenship and willingness to show empathy and common sense. Since the harm is so very minimal, why isn’t it something that you’re championing as a way for gun owners to present a positive image of themselves and show that you’re not taking a ‘not one inch’ position, but are willing to understand the concerns of LEOs and members of your community and take this very limited, very reasonable step?

29 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 5:57:44am

re: #28 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

The cause being carrying the gun, because the police officer has no clue, at all, if the person actually has a permit until they verify it. Unlike with a car, where an officer can quickly establish that the car is not stolen, is properly licensed, etc. from a distance. The police officer, seeing a gun, can have a completely reasonable desire to see that it’s being legally carried.

One thing I don’t get about the resistance to this is that I would have thought that CCW holders and responsible gun owners in general would embrace something that allowed them to demonstrate their good citizenship and willingness to show empathy and common sense. Since the harm is so very minimal, why isn’t it something that you’re championing as a way for gun owners to present a positive image of themselves and show that you’re not taking a ‘not one inch’ position, but are willing to understand the concerns of LEOs and members of your community and take this very limited, very reasonable step?

A positive image is far more based on behavior with the gun day to day than indulging in an exercise of less than equal protection under the law. I do get LEO concerns and that’s why there is a procedure when stopped of divulging the gun and permit. Safe compliant handling and behavior during the encounter.

if the cop sees the gun it’s a violation of concealment and therefore probable cause to see what else is wrong. A stop without cause is unacceptable and should be to you as well. Can’t wait for how your idea works out for black men in the south with a bulge under a jacket that’s not a gun.

This is more about police powers than ccw. You simply view that so very strictly as to deserve a different level of probable cause than the rest of us and I strongly disagree. So call me out for having this position anytime, I’m not bothered at all.

One can hope it won’t take near a hundred comments in two pages to do so.

30 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 6:16:13am

re: #29 Rightwingconspirator

A positive image is far more based on behavior with the gun day to day than indulging in an exercise of less than equal protection under the law. .

Behavior with the gun day to day includes showing a permit to a LEO, and again, it is not less than equal protection. A person with or without a license who is carrying a gun is treated the same.

if the cop sees the gun it’s a violation of concealment and therefore probable cause to see what else is wrong. A stop without cause is unacceptable and should be to you as well. Can’t wait for how your idea works out for black men in the south with a bulge under a jacket that’s not a gun.

The cop can already stop that black man for a long list of other unprovable reasons. And again, the stop is because the LEO thinks that the person has a weapon. That is not without cause.

But can I take from this that you absolutely support LEOs being able to check someone with a visible weapon? You’ve granted that, now?

This is more about police powers than ccw. You simply view that so very strictly as to deserve a different level of probable cause than the rest of us and I strongly disagree. So call me out for having this position anytime, I’m not bothered at all.

The rest of ‘us’? Who is ‘us’?

One can hope it won’t take near a hundred comments in two pages to do so.

Why does it annoy you and upset you so much to have a civil discourse about this topic, which is complicated and important? You always act as though this is just some unbelievable waste of your time. It’s really, really insulting.

The fucking irony of it is that what I am doing is attempting to make sure that you and other responsible gun owners get to keep those rights. What you are doing is the most inevitable path to severely increased restrictions on gun rights.

31 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 6:17:07am

And please answer whether you’re now saying you’re okay with a LEO stopping someone carrying openly to verify that they’re licensed and the gun is legal.

32 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 2:26:09pm
One can hope it won’t take near a hundred comments in two pages to do so.

Why does it annoy you and upset you so much to have a civil discourse about this topic, which is complicated and important? You always act as though this is just some unbelievable waste of your time. It’s really, really insulting.

If I were truly annoyed or upset the conversation would have ended. But you have a habit of turning issue discussions into marathons. You are renowned for it here and it’s characteristic unique to you and your style here.

For example when you asked me for a justification apart from the 2nd for a gun in the home i said “self defense”. It was a good answer in principle to provide what you asked. After a cheap shot at my grammar (that’s not an answer its sentence fragments” That’s a generally well understood phrase. But no… you needed so many more words to establish boundaries of a common term That was needless and time consuming. You had an answer, but somehow again unique to you-it needed all this explanation. Dude that’s what dictionaries are for.

Nobody else here finds it appropriate to drill and drill and question endlessly. Been blogging here since ‘08 and that’s a little weird of you. So many unnecessarily critical comments.

You are a rather severe gun skeptic. I’m making an effort to hang in the marathon list of challenges and questions. It’s so un needed. Calling for more training for a guy with a gun at home than a cop gets illustrates this well, it’s an excursion into the unreasonable zone that would surely (whatever your intent) serve more as a home defense gun disincentive than safety boost.

33 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 2:38:25pm

re: #32 Rightwingconspirator

If I were truly annoyed or upset the conversation would have ended. But you have a habit of turning issue discussions into marathons. You are renowned for it here and it’s characteristic unique to you and your style here.

It’s always astonishing to me that wanting to go into something in detail and at length is in some way, shape, or form a negative.

For example when you asked me for a justification apart from the 2nd for a gun in the home i said “self defense”.

I asked for an argument.

It was a good answer in principle to provide what you asked. After a cheap shot at my grammar (that’s not an answer its sentence fragments” That’s a generally well understood phrase. But no… you needed so many more words to establish boundaries of a common term That was needless and time consuming. You had an answer, but somehow again unique to you-it needed all this explanation. Dude that’s what dictionaries are for.

You can’t use a dictionary to define something as complex as self-defense and say that that’s your argument for gun rights. A definition is not an argument. The ‘sentence’ fragments thing was not a shot, cheap or otherwise at your grammar, it was saying that you can’t make an argument just by saying ‘self-defense’.

For example, may countries have laws that allow self-defense but don’t allow guns. So, self-defense, while it can be the starting point of a position of private gun ownership, is not synonymous with it. This is why you can’t just say ‘self-defense’, but have to make an actual argument. Self-defense can be the start of that argument, but it not the end of that argument.

Nobody else here finds it appropriate to drill and drill and question endlessly. Been blogging here since ‘08 and that’s a little weird of you. So many unnecessarily critical comments.

This isn’t going to work. You’re not going to make me feel bad about trying to treat the serious issue seriously and at length. I’m completely fine with the fact that I like to actually fully discuss an issue, that I answer people’s questions as forthrightly and completely as I can, and that I also want full and complete answers from other people. If that’s weird, I’m fine with weird.

You are a rather severe gun skeptic. I

No I am not. You say this sort of shit over and over, but I don’t want gun bans, all I want is for people who want to have guns to have and demonstrate the training to use the gun for the purpose they have it for. That is not an extreme position. Please stop framing me as some sort of wildly anti-gun person.

I’m making an effort to hang in the marathon list of challenges and questions. It’s so un needed. Calling for more training for a guy with a gun at home than a cop gets illustrates this well, it’s an excursion into the unreasonable zone that would surely (whatever your intent) serve more as a home defense gun disincentive than safety boost.

Instead of saying that it’s unneeded, actually make an argument that responds to what I said. A cop and a person defending themselves at home are not in comparable situations, and therefore it is unlikely that that training would be completely the same as what is necessary to defend yourself at home. But again, we don’t have to dispute this: We could test it. That’s what I want. I could be wrong, and then I could be proved wrong.

Why would requiring people to get training and pass a test demonstrating competence at using a gun for home defense disincentive gun ownership? Do you mean for people who wouldn’t be able to past the competency test?

If you spent less time criticizing me for asking questions and asking you to make an argument instead of just stating a position, I’d ask a lot fewer questions. In this post, for example, you’ve just reasserted that police training is sufficient for home defense, while not addressing, at all, the points that I raised: That police train for extremely different situations than using a gun in self-defense at home.

And please answer whether you’re now saying you’re okay with a LEO stopping someone carrying openly to verify that they’re licensed and the gun is legal.

I’d like to remind you that when you asked me about the carry ban, I responded to you immediately, fully, and forthrightly.

34 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 3:24:04pm

Thanks I think we have completed this cycle of TL;DR

Edit okay the marathon continues

35 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 29, 2014 3:30:18pm
Instead of saying that it’s unneeded, actually make an argument that responds to what I said. A cop and a person defending themselves at home are not in comparable situations, and therefore it is unlikely that that training would be completely the same as what is necessary to defend yourself at home. But again, we don’t have to dispute this: We could test it. That’s what I want. I could be wrong, and then I could be proved wrong.

“Completely the same” is a unreasonable expectation or requirement. That police academy level of training has shown itself to be adequate. Cops are just people with training and a desire to serve.

Home defense is actually relatively easy as compared to the street or store. It’s just a shame you have not been to enough tactical training or practiced enough yourself to see it for yourself.

Go take a thorough class that meets POST training. I have. You then tell me all about the parts you find inadequate.

See lots of home defense gun owners shoot a lot anyway, lots of practice for sport or for hunting season.

36 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 29, 2014 3:40:27pm

re: #34 Rightwingconspirator

Thanks I think we have completed this cycle of TL;DR

Edit okay the marathon continues

Do you get that TL;DR is used to mock people who don’t spend the time to read articles, who want bite-sized, buzzword news?

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

“Completely the same” is a unreasonable expectation or requirement. That police academy level of training has shown itself to be adequate. Cops are just people with training and a desire to serve.
.

If it has shown itself to be adequate, then why not just confirm this by testing? What’s the problem with that?

Home defense is actually relatively easy as compared to the street or store. It’s just a shame you have not been to enough tactical training or practiced enough yourself to see it for yourself.

This is directly contrary to what other firearms instructors and police have told me. To be clear; They have said it is different, very different, and that you can’t compare the two.

Go take a thorough class that meets POST training. I have. You then tell me all about the parts you find inadequate.

Again, if the training is adequate, then they could pass a test of home-defense skills with no problem, so why object to it?

You are just dodging this completely straightforward question, right? You’re just refusing to answer?

And please answer whether you’re now saying you’re okay with a LEO stopping someone carrying openly to verify that they’re licensed and the gun is legal.

37 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 7:41:12am
This is directly contrary to what other firearms instructors and police have told me. To be clear; They have said it is different, very different, and that you can’t compare the two.

I’d happily address that in detail. Let’s reign in the comparison to what I actually proposed.

Two men go for police academy training for their guns and use of force. Both men finish the training successfully.

Both men go to work. Then home. They face a threat at home. They both rely on their training and the confrontation happens.

Only one of the men is a cop, the other a guy that took the same gun/legal training and tests.

How different are their situations?

And do please keep in mind I carefully pointed out that as a minimum standard to start with. And that the training and practice must continue.

38 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 9:41:07am

re: #36 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Do you get that TL;DR is used to mock people who don’t spend the time to read articles, who want bite-sized, buzzword news?

Really?

Traditionally, the phrase too long; didn’t read (abbreviated tl;dr or simply tldr) has been used on the Internet as a reply to an excessively long statement. It indicates that the reader did not actually read the statement due to its undue length.[2

It seems yours is not the only use of the term.

39 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 9:41:42am

oops dbl post

40 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 30, 2014 9:51:25am

Obdi, could you forward the Home Defense Test” you refer to so much to me so I see exactly how that is supposed to be given and graded in your view? The academy does test firearm skills so what more test do you want? Last time I looked all the actual shooting fundamentals of fast accurate shots are the same at home as anywhere else.

Position, grip, trigger control, breath control, and sight picture.

Feel free to show this to your instructor contacts. Especially any of them that may be teaching the NRA’s very extensive home defense classes. “Personal protection in the home” is the class title IIRC.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Detroit Local Powers First EV Charging Road in North America The road, about a mile from Local 58's hall, uses rubber-coated copper inductive-charging coils buried under the asphalt that transfer power to a receiver pad attached to a car's underbelly, much like how a phone can be charged wirelessly. ...
Backwoods Sleuth
3 days ago
Views: 186 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4