[griffin81]

I agree that he has the right to carry his firearm and I myself have no problem with that I actually look up to him for it. But, if a officer ask for my ID at any point and I know I've done nothing wrong I will show them my id, out of respect for there position. I would not allow myself to be harassed by them. But I also would not want to give them a reason to feel as I was being a prick about the situation.

play the victim, be the victim

[silverado113]

I found out years ago that the quickest way to attract attention to yourself is to open carry. Some of it is good attention and some of it not so good. He wanted to attract attention to himself and his beliefs and I commend the young man at least he has a good cause which is more then some kids these days can say. Personally I don't like to open carry because of the attention that comes with it. I think a majority of cops either don't like OC or don't know the laws for OC.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by mountainman13

This is an example of why I am opposed to open carry. It causes problems too often. I'm all for concealed.

Should all our rights be limited in the interest of not causing problems? Or is it just 2A that you think should be limited?

[bkt]

Originally Posted by partdeux

Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non-concealed firearm is generally legal. Officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.

Somebody should suggest that cops actually read this.

Reality being what it is, cops don't exist to enforce the law so much as "keep the peace" even if they have to break the law to do it. Not all cops and not all the time, but we're seeing more and more examples of overzealous cops either on power trips or erring on the side of caution at the expense of people's rights.

[UrbanNinja]

I'm sure most of you have read about this situation before, or youmay have heard this audio.

YouTube

YouTube

[mountainman13]

Originally Posted by bkt

Should all our rights be limited in the interest of not causing problems? Or is it just 2A that you think should be limited?

I think the secong amendment should be expanded. But as things sit with all the ignorance in our society I believe concealed carry should be the norm. What is the purpose of open carry beyond giving the bg a heads up that you're armed?

[bkt]

Originally Posted by mountainman13

I think the secong amendment should be expanded. But as things sit with all the ignorance in our society I believe concealed carry should be the norm. What is the purpose of open carry beyond giving the bg a heads up that you're armed?

The decision to carry concealed or open should be left to the individual. There are no restrictions on how we may bear arms in 2A.

How would you expand the second amendment?

[mountainman13]

By simplifying the laws nation wide. Country wide reciprocity and stand your ground as well as castle doctrines. If the laws weren't such a mess then I would consider open carry as an option. But as things stand even if I could open carry I wouldn't. Simply to avoid issues such as these. The difference between open and concealed carry is not worth getting shot by an ignorant police officer over.
And I can't argue with you. It should be an individuals decision and it isn't laid out in the second amendment. And I wish it weren't an issue. But as things stand it is.

[rjd3282]

Originally Posted by mountainman13

By simplifying the laws nation wide. Country wide reciprocity and stand your ground as well as castle doctrines. If the laws weren't such a mess then I would consider open carry as an option. But as things stand even if I could open carry I wouldn't. Simply to avoid issues such as these. The difference between open and concealed carry is not worth getting shot by an ignorant police officer over.
And I can't argue with you. It should be an individuals decision and it isn't laid out in the second amendment. And I wish it weren't an issue. But as things stand it is.

It's only an issue because too many people are afraid to make it an issue. So you wouldn't get shot to protect your constitutional rights? I wouldn't tell that to too many veterans or active duty people.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by mountainman13

By simplifying the laws nation wide. Country wide reciprocity and stand your ground as well as castle doctrines. If the laws weren't such a mess then I would consider open carry as an option. But as things stand even if I could open carry I wouldn't. Simply to avoid issues such as these. The difference between open and concealed carry is not worth getting shot by an ignorant police officer over.
And I can't argue with you. It should be an individuals decision and it isn't laid out in the second amendment. And I wish it weren't an issue. But as things stand it is.

The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, not to state governments. It would be great if the SCOTUS would acknowledge 2A, in its present form, were incorporated against the states like 1A is, but for political reasons that probably won't happen soon.

I disagree that we shouldn't push back against ignorant LEOs and others. That's exactly what we need to do right now. The alternative is tacit approval of and acquiescence to their heavy-handed tactics.