Pages

 

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity The Six Fingered Con Man

Jump to bottom

25 comments

1 1Peter G1  Jul 3, 2014 9:50:22am

It allows pinheads to behave like pre-pubescent siblings riding in the backseat of a car on an extended vacation. With one young idiot maintaining his right to hold his finger a millimeter from his sibling’s eye while chanting I’m not touching your eyeball..Nah na na na nah na. So there.

Anybody planning a vacation to the great state of Georgia? Ooh and here’s a great joke: How do you tell an AR-15 armed open carry idiot from an Aurora or Sandy Hook style mass murderer? Count the number of bullet holes in your kids. Anything greater than zero is a mass murderer.

2 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 3, 2014 11:20:07am

And the cops can’t ask people if they have a permit.

npr.org

Georgia Carry is a gun rights group that backed the new law. John Monroe, a lawyer for the organization, says opponents are overreacting to the part of the law that prevents asking a gun owner to show a permit.

“They’re basically crying Chicken Little over something that’s not that big a deal,” Monroe says.

He says gun permit holders should be treated just like drivers, who can’t be stopped by police who just want to check their drivers’ licenses without reason.

“Local authorities are blowing this ‘detain for a license’ thing way out of proportion,” Monroe says. “It’s already a violation of the Constitution to stop somebody just to see if they have a license.”

That is so bizarre that he sees this as a non-problematic position.

3 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 3, 2014 12:01:14pm

re: #2 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

And the cops can’t ask people if they have a permit.

npr.org

That is so bizarre that he sees this as a non-problematic position.

Changes like this (if it had to happen, assumed just for the moment) need lead time. Legislature to State Atty to local DA’s, and of course briefings/training for the Police. Public education on the matter. Until all that happens confusion is going to be a factor. Ugh. This needed to phase in over time the sudden change seems to have bred unnecessary issues. Heck the whole law was unnecessary but we are where we are.

Day to day CCW rules need to be consistent across a state at least.

LAPD cops barely know how to deal with a California resident with a gun and CCW. It’s not friendly by and large. Kinda like a photog covering police activity, or worse.

4 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 3, 2014 12:26:06pm

re: #3 Rightwingconspirator

Changes like this (if it had to happen, assumed just for the moment) need lead time. Legislature to State Atty to local DA’s, and of course briefings/training for the Police. Public education on the matter. Until all that happens confusion is going to be a factor. Ugh. This needed to phase in over time the sudden change seems to have bred unnecessary issues. Heck the whole law was unnecessary but we are where we are.

Day to day CCW rules need to be consistent across a state at least.

LAPD cops barely know how to deal with a California resident with a gun and CCW. It’s not friendly by and large. Kinda like a photog covering police activity, or worse.

Surely you can understand why the reaction of a policeman to someone with a gun isn’t going to be ‘friendly’ by and large? The person with the gun is making their day harder.

Anyway, on the list of three things above that this law did, I didn’t notice the “Cops can’t ask you for your gun license”, which seems a rather large oversight.

The article seems badly organized and I can’t really find any point to it.

5 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 3, 2014 2:40:56pm

re: #4 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

When CCW is common, it’s not the same suspicion or hostility as where it’s very rare. Just getting a speeding ticket is not necessarily friendly but a professional way to keep the officer safe and the CCW holder under no special hostility has long been accomplished in rural areas.

Also, there is no good reason to think of a CCW as making a person more of a threat (by way of intent to harm anyone) than an ordinary person. presumption of hostile intent should only go so far.

6 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 3, 2014 2:50:23pm

re: #5 Rightwingconspirator

When CCW is common, it’s not the same suspicion or hostility as where it’s very rare. Just getting a speeding ticket is not necessarily friendly but a professional way to keep the officer safe and the CCW holder under no special hostility has long been accomplished in rural areas.

Oh, so you don’t just mean ‘not friendly? And I’m really fine with, really really fine with cops exercising ‘suspicion’ of people who are carrying around guns. Maybe they’re a CCW holder. Maybe they’re someone who doesn’t actually have a CCW.

I’ve rarely had interactions with cops I’d call ‘friendly’. Most of the time, however, I’d call them ‘professional’, and that’s the attitude I prefer from a cop, really. As long as they’re being professional, what’s the problem?

Also, there is no good reason to think of a CCW as making a person more of a threat (by way of intent to harm anyone) than an ordinary person. presumption of hostile intent should only go so far.

But they have no idea if the person has a CCW license or not. And people who don’t have CCWs but are carrying around guns anyway aren’t going to be acting like mustachio-twirling villains or skulking around: if you’re in an area where guns are super-common, and the police checking people’s permits is something that’s discouraged, why wouldn’t criminals take advantage of that laxity and carry around guns without worrying about the cops stopping them?

7 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 3, 2014 2:56:05pm

re: #6 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

My point would be that professionalism beats hostility. Suspicion would be based on available evidence right? And BTW when a cop runs your ID he can see not only a CCW if you have it but a list of the guns registered in your name. If you are the registered owner of the vehicle good chance he knows all about your permit & registered guns before he even turns the red lights on. That’s one of the great reasons to have universal registration.

Are you a person that thinks police should be able to demand ID in public without cause? I’m not. With cause they can do they please within the rules which would include seeing the license to drive or carry.

So again lets not exaggerate the reality on the ground of CCW. Let’s just understand there is in fact ways to have CCW and officer safety in public interactions. Clear rules, procedures for the CCW holder, and professionalism from the cops. Nothing extrordinary here.

8 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 3, 2014 3:03:32pm

re: #7 Rightwingconspirator

My point would be that professionalism beats hostility.

Who the hell would ever argue otherwise? I sure didn’t.

Suspicion would be based on available evidence right?

No, I’m totally fine with it being a gut feeling.

And BTW when a cop runs your ID he can see not only a CCW if you have it but a list of the guns registered in your name. If you are the registered owner of the vehicle good chance he knows all about your permit & registered guns before he even turns the red lights on. That’s one of the great reasons to have universal registration.

This seems like it’s supporting the idea of a cop being able to stop someone with a gun and ask to see their ID and CCW license. Is it?

Are you a person that thinks police should be able to demand ID in public without cause? I’m not. With cause they can do they please within the rules which would include seeing the license to drive or carry.

If the person is carrying a gun, yes, because guns are used a lot for killing people.

So again lets not exaggerate the reality on the ground of CCW. Let’s just understand there is in fact ways to have CCW and officer safety in public interactions. Clear rules, procedures for the CCW holder, and professionalism from the cops. Nothing extrordinary here.

You didn’t address this. Can you please?

People who don’t have CCWs but are carrying around guns anyway aren’t going to be acting like mustachio-twirling villains or skulking around: if you’re in an area where guns are super-common, and the police checking people’s permits is something that’s discouraged, why wouldn’t criminals take advantage of that laxity and carry around guns without worrying about the cops stopping them?

9 goddamnedfrank  Jul 3, 2014 3:03:36pm

re: #5 Rightwingconspirator

When CCW is common, it’s not the same suspicion or hostility as where it’s very rare. Just getting a speeding ticket is not necessarily friendly but a professional way to keep the officer safe and the CCW holder under no special hostility has long been accomplished in rural areas.

Here’s why this is stupid, both the guy driving the car and the guy carrying a gun are ostensibly operating under a permit issued by the state. Refusal to identify oneself or show the permitting document for the carried firearm absolutely should be a crime, the ubiquity of ccw holders and car drivers notwithstanding.

§ 16-11-36. Loitering or prowling

(b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object.

So under one law ccw holders are basically guaranteed to raise reasonable police suspicion while on the other police are prevented from even asking for the ccw permit.

Changes like this (if it had to happen, assumed just for the moment) need lead time. Legislature to State Atty to local DA’s, and of course briefings/training for the Police. Public education on the matter. Until all that happens confusion is going to be a factor. Ugh. This needed to phase in over time the sudden change seems to have bred unnecessary issues. Heck the whole law was unnecessary but we are where we are.

Day to day CCW rules need to be consistent across a state at least.

LAPD cops barely know how to deal with a California resident with a gun and CCW. It’s not friendly by and large. Kinda like a photog covering police activity, or worse.

It’d be nice if you didn’t pepper your insights with false equivalences. A ccw holder who can’t actually conceal their firearm, or someone engaging in open carry is going to manifestly put any reasonable police officer on edge about their safety and the safety of others. No photographer is going to do that, when police harass photographers it’s because they fear documentation and scrutiny of their actions and behavior as public servants on public property, which is never justified.

The problem with the Georgia statute isn’t the lack of a phase in, or an inability to educate the police and the public, or of statewide consistency. The problem is that the law itself is deeply, intrinsically flawed.

10 goddamnedfrank  Jul 3, 2014 3:10:46pm

re: #7 Rightwingconspirator

And BTW when a cop runs your ID he can see not only a CCW if you have it but a list of the guns registered in your name.

This is a massive assumption on your part. The Georgia law doesn’t allow the cops to compel an ID card from a pedestrian they see carrying, the person could identify themselves verbally by name and address to satisfy the law. The person’s carry permit could be issued by another state and the cop still couldn’t compel them to present it.

11 goddamnedfrank  Jul 3, 2014 3:16:56pm

re: #7 Rightwingconspirator

Are you a person that thinks police should be able to demand ID in public without cause? I’m not. With cause they can do they please within the rules which would include seeing the license to drive or carry.

A cop can pull over any driver without cause and demand to see your driver’s license because that person’s right to operate a vehicle is contingent on the possession of that license.

A cop seeing someone carrying a gun should be able to make the same assumption, that the right of that person to carry that weapon stems from a valid license.

The right of an unarmed pedestrian to be in public doesn’t stem from the carrying of a piece of paper. A cop can stop them and demand that they identify themselves, but they can do so verbally. It’s weird the way you conflate these logically and legally very different activities.

12 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 3, 2014 3:46:59pm

re: #9 goddamnedfrank

It’s only a false equivalence if you take it further than I meant, as in just the general attitude of a cop that hates & disputes the law allowing the activity in front of him.

As I have said I don’t like this law. My objection is just as the writer indicates. Both sides are misrepresenting it and it’s consequences. I’d prefer more clarity than hyperbole and chose a moment to say so.

re: #11 goddamnedfrank

Can you show me the code on that lack of a need for any probable cause to stop a car? This link, not specific to my state says probable cause is required.

Whatever the letter of the law my personal though is that they should. What kept you cop from looking up my license via my plate to see if my license is valid? Or if I have a CCW or guns in my name? Assuming driving my own car of course.

But once again this all off my point. A clear non hyperbolic look at the Georgia law beats clickbait. You guys disagree with that, hey opinions vary.

13 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 3, 2014 3:56:33pm

re: #8 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

If the person is carrying a gun, yes, because guns are used a lot for killing people.

You didn’t address this. Can you please?

People who don’t have CCWs but are carrying around guns anyway aren’t going to be acting like mustachio-twirling villains or skulking around: if you’re in an area where guns are super-common, and the police checking people’s permits is something that’s discouraged, why wouldn’t criminals take advantage of that laxity and carry around guns without worrying about the cops stopping them?

Not quite sure what you think police should be doing with people that have displayed zero suspicious or illegal behavior. If it’s just a guy on the street, not at all sure he has an obligation to produce ID. It would be best if the CCW law requires verbal disclosure for any and all official L.E. encounters. It would be unsurprising for the conflict between CCW and unarmed public requirements to have been missed.

Why would criminals not take advantage….

Criminals already take advantage of the cops not stopping people without cause. i don’t see how the law plays into this at all. I may well have misunderstood you on this point.

Before we drill this down any further may I point out my point here is a call fort a clear look at the law rather than a hyperbolic one? And I have stated I don’t like the law so asking me to defend it at all or in any way is well off the mark.

14 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 3, 2014 4:13:40pm

re: #13 Rightwingconspirator

Not quite sure what you think police should be doing with people that have displayed zero suspicious or illegal behavior. If it’s just a guy on the street, not at all sure he has an obligation to produce ID.

I’m amazed that something so common-sensical is suspect to you.

Criminals already take advantage of the cops not stopping people without cause. i don’t see how the law plays into this at all. I may well have misunderstood you on this point.

It’s pretty simple: If the cops can stop and check CCWs, then criminals are less likely to carry concealed weapons around in general. They still will use weapons, of course, but just carrying them around wouldn’t be as easy. If you’re saying ‘this is already the case’, then yet again, I’m naive and didn’t realize how amazingly lax our gun laws are.

Before we drill this down any further may I point out my point here is a call fort a clear look at the law rather than a hyperbolic one? And I have stated I don’t like the law so asking me to defend it at all or in any way is well off the mark.

You appear to like the bit about nobody being able to ask for the CCW license just fine, right? Or are you saying that’s not really part of this law, that was just already the case?

Why is having to show an ID such an onerous burden for gun owners to put LE at their ease?

15 goddamnedfrank  Jul 3, 2014 4:32:17pm

re: #12 Rightwingconspirator

It’s only a false equivalence if you take it further than I meant,

No, it’s not. Your intent doesn’t set the bounds of the conversation, despite your repeated childish attempts to assert otherwise.

as in just the general attitude of a cop that hates & disputes the law allowing the activity in front of him.

How do you square this “in general” view of police acting in contempt of the law with your position that retired cops should always be considered as having good cause for a ccw permit?

As I have said I don’t like this law. My objection is just as the writer indicates. Both sides are misrepresenting it and it’s consequences. I’d prefer more clarity than hyperbole and chose a moment to say so.

Can you show me the code on that lack of a need for any probable cause to stop a car? This link, not specific to my state says probable cause is required.

Probable cause is definitely required for a search of the vehicle. In the real world if a cop follows someone around long enough they can find articulable suspicion for a stop, even if all they assert is that they didn’t have a clear view for seatbelt compliance.

Whatever the letter of the law my personal though is that they should. What kept you cop from looking up my license via my plate to see if my license is valid? Or if I have a CCW or guns in my name? Assuming driving my own car of course.

Again this is you conflating the car stop with the stop of a pedestrian who’s carrying a gun. The cop has no way of ascertaining the ID of the pedestrian without asking him for it.

But once again this all off my point. A clear non hyperbolic look at the Georgia law beats clickbait. You guys disagree with that, hey opinions vary.

This is just another dodge of the issue raised, that under the GA law cops can’t ask for a ccw holder’s permit, which is ridiculous inasmuch as it makes ascertaining compliance with the law difficult to near impossible.

16 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 3, 2014 8:25:53pm

re: #15 goddamnedfrank

This is just another dodge of the issue raised, that under the GA law cops can’t ask for a ccw holder’s permit, which is ridiculous inasmuch as it makes ascertaining compliance with the law difficult to near impossible.

So I’m being childish to define what I meant with the comment. Uh huh.

Then I point out that I’m not here to defend the law, yet you continue to post as if I do.

Talking past one another so moving on.

17 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 3, 2014 8:32:10pm

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

You always announce that you’re ‘talking past’ people and decide to ‘move on’. Frank made a bunch of valid points and asked good questions. He’s not talking past you.

18 goddamnedfrank  Jul 3, 2014 9:11:56pm

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

So I’m being childish to define what I meant with the comment. Uh huh.

Yeah, you frequently respond to people’s valid arguments and examples with some variation of “that’s not what I’m talking about.” You also rarely if ever express these limitations to your intent in advance, where they might actually be useful and instructive. Instead those talking to you are just supposed to honor this thin, ex post facto dodge instead of expecting a thoughtful response.

It’s really tiresome.

19 goddamnedfrank  Jul 4, 2014 1:15:10am
For the purpose of this chapter, the fact that any person shall be found in the possession of a trap, fishing tackle, or other device of any description whatsoever used for the purpose of taking wild animals, wild birds or fish in the natural habitat of such animals, birds, or fish, or in the possession of dead bodies of wild birds, wild animals or fish within the field, in the forests or on the public highways or on the waters of this state, shall be prima facie evidence that such person is or has been hunting, trapping, or fishing.

This kind of law is fairly common and immediately understandable, though I can’t find one for Georgia. If a game warden sees you hiking with a fishing rod strapped to your backpack they’re well within their rights to demand to see your fishing permit. The mere possession of the tackle is frequently considered evidence enough of the regulated activity and that’s all they need to issue the demand.

Now let’s go back to the officer who observes a pedestrian in possession of a handgun at a local bar. How is the observed possession itself not prima facie evidence that such a person needs to have a permit to go along with it? The officer in the city shouldn’t need to have any real suspicion of wrongdoing before they can demand to see that permit, just like game wardens aren’t usually required to have articulable suspicion of poaching prior to initiating a demand for a hunting / fishing permit.

20 goddamnedfrank  Jul 4, 2014 1:18:33am

Double post deleted.

21 Dark_Falcon  Jul 4, 2014 9:07:46am

re: #17 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

You always announce that you’re ‘talking past’ people and decide to ‘move on’. Frank made a bunch of valid points and asked good questions. He’s not talking past you.

It’s also the at-times ugly tone that Frank takes, Obdi. His writing is at those times pretty hostile and at such times I for one prefer to disengage or ignore him. I can hardly fault RWC for doing likewise.

22 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 4, 2014 2:31:18pm

re: #14 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

With or without the Georgia law, which again I point out goes too far…
For a CCW guy on the street he gets the same civil protections as the rest of us along with the laws that go with CCW. With some cause, sure hit him up for ID or the CCW. But like the act of driving is not cause to stop you the act of walking CCW would not be either.

Frank makes points that ask me to defend the law and I’m not it’s beside my point. That’s the talking past part.

23 Rightwingconspirator  Jul 4, 2014 2:47:52pm

re: #18 goddamnedfrank

Yeah, you frequently respond to people’s valid arguments and examples with some variation of “that’s not what I’m talking about.” You also rarely if ever express these limitations to your intent in advance, where they might actually be useful and instructive. Instead those talking to you are just supposed to honor this thin, ex post facto dodge instead of expecting a thoughtful response.

It’s really tiresome.

What’s tiresome and demotivating to reply is being characterized as childish for expressing honest views. What does that add to a controversial moment? I make a specific point about understanding the reality rather than the deceptions (pointed out as both sides not just critics of the law) about that new law in particular. When I’m misunderstood, I try to add some clarity as above so you could see what I’m trying to express to you.

I don’t get why my point about hewing to the language of this new law by way of evaluating it is controversial at all. If my objections to the hyperbole are not shared, I can understand that disagreement.

It’s not epic huge expansion in CCW and it is not guns everywhere. It’s a modest expansion that should have been left alone. Plenty of people don’t like CCW, so each and every change will get the two pronged microscope. One from the proponents one from the critics. Both will go hyperbolic and leave deliberate misunderstandings that serve their view as best they can. Yeah well as a guy that tries to take on the task of rational discussion for certain defensive rights I damn well do object to the hyperbole and the resulting misunderstandings. Whether I like that law or not, i want the public view to resemble reality.

Obviously not the most popular position to try and present.

You bet I say “that’s not what i’m talking about” sometimes. You may have seen an exchange i had with a poster here about a gun in a defensive use. A “pill in a drink” rape scenario was thrown out and yeah I quickly pointed out that was not what I was talking about. I had shown a specific violent attack in public, where a guy with a gun might interrupt a violent attack. I went on to point out if I saw a guy drop a substance in a woman’s drink my weapon of choice would be my voice stepping up load and clear about what I saw. So sure drag stuff in totally unlike what I have pointed out and sure i’ll speak to sorting that out.

Last reason i’ll cite to justify stepping back-How many comments back and forth are these particular gun debate moments really worth? If we can’t make our respective points well enough in a couple dozen comments maybe it’s not gonna happen and it’s a great time to step back and leave it for next time.

24 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jul 4, 2014 6:10:07pm

re: #22 Rightwingconspirator

With or without the Georgia law, which again I point out goes too far…
For a CCW guy on the street he gets the same civil protections as the rest of us along with the laws that go with CCW. With some cause, sure hit him up for ID or the CCW. But like the act of driving is not cause to stop you the act of walking CCW would not be either.

I understand this is your position. What I’m asking is why you have such an extreme position. Why, if a law enforcement officer wants to stop someone with a gun and make sure that person is legally carrying, is that such a high bar? Why is it so onerous?

I get you feel it’s onerous, but honestly, why? There’s a ton of things, including drinking and buying cigarettes, that’ll get you to have to show ID, why the hell is ‘carrying around a weapon’ not serious enough to you to give the cops some kind of discretion?

Frank makes points that ask me to defend the law and I’m not it’s beside my point. That’s the talking past part.

But you are defending some parts of the law, like the one forbidding cops and others from verifying the CCW license. RIght?

What about the law don’t you like?

25 goddamnedfrank  Jul 4, 2014 6:28:35pm

re: #22 Rightwingconspirator

For a CCW guy on the street he gets the same civil protections as the rest of us along with the laws that go with CCW. But like the act of driving is not cause to stop you the act of walking CCW would not be either.

The person driving has to have a license plate visible on their car. You mentioned this upthread, that nothing stops the cop from looking up their plate to see if the owners license is valid. Unfortunately a person carrying a gun doesn’t have to wear visible tags proving that they’re carrying legally, that’s where the driving analogy fails. This is a fundamental difference between the guy driving a car and the pedestrian with a gun, the cop can ascertain if the car is legally possessed or has been officially declared stolen without asking to see the registration.

It’s crazy that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious public safety impact this has.


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
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 92 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 259 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1