[mountainman13]

I won't take a bullet for a losing battle. We do need to fight back. But it needs to be done the right way. Occurrences like this might teach a couple of officers (likely not) and they create a ton of bad press and turn people off to the issue. Fights like this need to be done in the courts. That's why support so many gun advocacy groups. And don't think this kind of thing doesn't piss me off and that I wouldn't stand and fight at the right time. I dare someone to come to my house and try and confiscate my weopons wrongfully.

[rjd3282]

It's only a losing battle because people won't stand up for their rights. It's already been to court, the supreme court ruled that 2a is about the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

[bkt]

Originally Posted by mountainman13

I won't take a bullet for a losing battle. We do need to fight back. But it needs to be done the right way. Occurrences like this might teach a couple of officers (likely not) and they create a ton of bad press and turn people off to the issue. Fights like this need to be done in the courts. That's why support so many gun advocacy groups. And don't think this kind of thing doesn't piss me off and that I wouldn't stand and fight at the right time. I dare someone to come to my house and try and confiscate my weopons wrongfully.

But it's OK if an officer draws down on you on the street without cause, forces you to kneel in the dirt, and disarms you?

What does "wrongfully" mean? Does it mean that you were in the wrong? Does it mean you broke a law but the law violates your innate rights? Or does it mean whatever some dumb-ass cop says it means?

Look, I get what you're saying. You have to choose your battles. But encouraging others to not rock the boat by doing what they may legally do is only kicking the can down the road. Pretty soon, we'll have to deal with a much larger and much worse problem.

[Millwright]

Another example of "contempt of cop" consequences !

I suspect had the gentleman acceded to the officer's ID request the whole thing might not have been escalated to its current status ! He could have also politely requested the responding officer have his superior respond to the scene in order to resolve the legal situation at hand. Not all street cops are familiar with the nuances of gun law. Most of what they get at "stand up" is directed at the more mundane aspects of patrol and departmental objectives. >MW

[rjd3282]

Originally Posted by Millwright

Another example of "contempt of cop" consequences !

I suspect had the gentleman acceded to the officer's ID request the whole thing might not have been escalated to its current status ! He could have also politely requested the responding officer have his superior respond to the scene in order to resolve the legal situation at hand. Not all street cops are familiar with the nuances of gun law. Most of what they get at "stand up" is directed at the more mundane aspects of patrol and departmental objectives. >MW

So ignorance of the law is no excuse for us but it's ok for leo's?

[partdeux]

Originally Posted by Millwright

Another example of "contempt of cop" consequences !

I suspect had the gentleman acceded to the officer's ID request the whole thing might not have been escalated to its current status ! He could have also politely requested the responding officer have his superior respond to the scene in order to resolve the legal situation at hand. Not all street cops are familiar with the nuances of gun law. Most of what they get at "stand up" is directed at the more mundane aspects of patrol and departmental objectives. >MW

While I understand this young man truly understood his rights, he is after all only 18. He was going up against an experienced bully and may not have kept it deescalated.

Like I said, I know his attorney and he's good.

BKT,

There are a couple of cases that are making it through the system that the 2nd amendment org is tracking. This is why it is so very important for us to put aside our individual conservative beliefs and pull together to ensure that bambam is defeated in 2012. SCOTUS can not go to bambam.

[kycol]

Ok I hope I don't draw too much flack for this but here goes. I do open carry a lot and never had a problem. But if I was ever stopped by a police officer I would have no problem surrendering my weapon while we sorted things out. I would have no problem showing my I'd and waiting while he checks to see if I have any open warrants or that I am no felon. You know if some busy body ******* ignorant of the law calls the police they have a duty to respond and check out the situation. What if they tried to stop me and check me out and I refused and they moved on the ten minutes latter I broke into a housed held some at bay, shot and raped some one what to you think the out come would be when that person who called in is on the nightly news saying I called the cops and they did nothing.

[primer1]

Originally Posted by rjd3282

So ignorance of the law is no excuse for us but it's ok for leo's?

D%$n good point!

[primer1]

Originally Posted by kycol

Ok I hope I don't draw too much flack for this but here goes. I do open carry a lot and never had a problem. But if I was ever stopped by a police officer I would have no problem surrendering my weapon while we sorted things out. I would have no problem showing my I'd and waiting while he checks to see if I have any open warrants or that I am no felon. You know if some busy body ******* ignorant of the law calls the police they have a duty to respond and check out the situation. What if they tried to stop me and check me out and I refused and they moved on the ten minutes latter I broke into a housed held some at bay, shot and raped some one what to you think the out come would be when that person who called in is on the nightly news saying I called the cops and they did nothing.

I believe it is a state law in Ohio police do NOT have a duty to respond to a call, not sure about Michigan. Supposedly this stemmed from a busy night and not enough Leos to cover all calls. One more reason for gun rights, including open carry.

[partdeux]

Originally Posted by primer1

I believe it is a state law in Ohio police do NOT have a duty to respond to a call, not sure about Michigan. Supposedly this stemmed from a busy night and not enough Leos to cover all calls. One more reason for gun rights, including open carry.

That has been ruled in several courts, and IRC even SCOTUS. LEO are NOT required to respond.