well he vetoed it...

[1shot(bob)]

I don't think you have to have blind faith in anything.

That said, I find it a little persuasive when just about all of the Supreme Court Justices agree.

When a person has devoted his/her life to a topic and chosen to do it as a profession and has successfully done so for years, I take their opinion much more seriously than someone on the internet whose experience I don't know.

When my doctor tells me I need to take Lipitor and the benefits of the Lipitor are greater than the risks and the other doctors I talk to agree, I take the Lipitor.

I don't go to the internet and take the opinion of a bunch of unqualified people who tell me how dangerous it is to take Lipitor.

Michael Brown

I find no comfort in what the current, or most past, SC decides. These judges were placed there because of the political agendas of presidents and a congress that wants their will done, not their ability to correctly interpret the COTUS.

Most of these judges devoted their lives to perpetuating their agenda. They have mostly toed a party or idealogical line. I have NO confidence in them to do the right thing even though they sometimes do IMO.

If my doctor prescribes me Lipitor and it does my body more harm than good, I am smart enough to stop taking it. I'm also smart enough to use whatever resources at my disposal to make my determinations on what is right and wrong. A college degree or a lifetime experience doesn't make anyone worthy of my blind obedience.

 

[marvinvwinkle]

It appears to be the opinion of a lot of a lot of folks more educated in constitutional law than myself, that firearms can be regulated to some degree.

Where that degree is appears to be the rub.

IMO, folks who believe the constitution has no limits have a superficial understanding of constitutional law.

Speech can be regulated but is generally protected. The searching of a person or property can occur but has built in protections.

Why the second amendment would be any different, I don't know.

That said, I generally agree with the notion that the second amendment has been eroded more than others although I don't see this veto as being an example of that.

Michael Brown

I do agree that the veto does not erode the 2nd Amendment. It just maintains the erosion. If it had been signed it would have stopped and replaced some of the erosion, both gradual and overt. There was a time when individuals helped with keeping our society secure, by assisting the local law enforcement, but that was eroded over time to where all the responsibility was placed on the shoulders of the LEO, now times have changed again where the LEO needs the assistance of the local citizens, but there is a reluctance to accept that help. I submit that the training you advocate is to train the average person to assist the LEO and protect themselves. That is the rub. If the the Gov had signed the bill society would have been safer, but there were some it appears in the public safety field that don't want their turf infringed.

 

[Michael Brown]

You, as a police officer, are allowed to carry places and times that I am not allowed to do so. Open carry or not, my rights in this area are different (less) than yours.
Power and responsibility have nothing to do with this topic.

And I fully support your right to carry in all the same places and times that I can as an off-duty officer.

However this particular bill does not affect any of those. If a bill hits our legislature that does affect those, it will have my full and un-wavering support.

However unless this bill has a section that relates to peace officers, I still may not open carry out of uniform, off-duty.

If the issue is OPEN carry and the argument is that police officers carry openly, then I'd say responsibilities bear directly on the discussion.

Chalk my posts up to anything you want. I don't want to open carry because LEOs do. I want to open carry because it is my inalienable right to do so, and currently that right is being denied me.

This is where the disagreement really occurs.

I say your rights are not being denied you; You say they are.

IMO the inalienable individual right is that of personal protection and I do not believe that is being infringed by requiring that an individual conceal a pistol from view.

Michael Brown

 

[buckeye]

Just one very little thing regarding the "plain language" of the Constitution:

Given that such a large percentage of the population was not literate at the time...

The Authors knew that wouldn't be the case forever. Surely they had lawyers and legal writers at their disposal, but chose not to employ them. The plain language is one of many gifts they gave their future.

 

[Michael Brown]

I do agree that the veto does not erode the 2nd Amendment. It just maintains the erosion. If it had been signed it would have stopped and replaced some of the erosion, both gradual and overt. There was a time when individuals helped with keeping our society secure, by assisting the local law enforcement, but that was eroded over time to where all the responsibility was placed on the shoulders of the LEO, now times have changed again where the LEO needs the assistance of the local citizens, but there is a reluctance to accept that help. I submit that the training you advocate is to train the average person to assist the LEO and protect themselves. That is the rub. If the the Gov had signed the bill society would have been safer, but there were some it appears in the public safety field that don't want their turf infringed.

I think this is very well thought out.

I think we have to accept that the world is not like it was once; It was better in many ways and far worse in others.

The world will never be as it was again and IMO wishing for the past is not productive. I feel we are better served looking for solutions that will affect the world as it is now and I simply do not agree that open carry achieves that in any meaningful way.

Citizens assisting law enforcement now has a much smaller niche than it used to for the better and the worse.

Every one of us (both you and I) is responsible for that to some degree however the denial of accountibility has crept into even our generally self-reliant culture (i.e. conservative, gun culture) and we tend to try to shift the blame to everywhere except ourselves, with our most popular target being the government that WE elected.

I don't agree that society would have been safer via open carry but I will also stipulate that I don't know that it WOULDN'T be safer.

What I do know is that I am not any safer personally by carrying a pistol openly than by concealing it.

Michael Brown

 

[tRidiot]

Mr. Brown, I'd like to ask you if you've ever seen an individual who was deterred from committing a violent act simply by being in the presence of a very large and intimidating individual? Perhaps they refrained from committing said act until the intimidating individual left the premises or they even left to find another venue in which to commit their act?

I'm just curious, because I have...

 

[neverjeg]

While the "point" seems to have been resolved, I would remind that the Supreme Court could not agree on what the Second Amendment said splitting their vote 5-4 (Heller) down party lines. If they (the educated judges) can't follow one broken sentence and agree on what it means then there is no hope for the rest of us and we all are at the whim of the judge we draw.

I support open carry. I will not open carry. But, with the Oklahoma wind and items on the top shelf, it will bring some relaxation.

 

[SBD]

Wow. What a discussion. Both parties make good points however, and forgive me if this has been covered, but as the law is currently written there is a major hole that would allow ideal wielding individuals to frame mischief by law. That in and of itself be an infringement of a some freedom. I for one wanted the law signed to keep individual(s) or a LEO from causing me grief over an accidental reveal. The truth is that it will happen just as sure an a motorcycle rider will eat pavement, gravel...etc at some point. No matter how careful they are. Secondly I would like to see off-duty LEOs carrying openly. When I walk into a convenience store and see 2 or 3 individuals with a holstered weapon and a badge attached to it I feel much safer because I know it is a deterrent to someone with ill intent - generally speaking. I personally don't want to carry open except in situations where it is convenient like hiking, fishing and hunting. Right now the way the law reads I could get run up for wearing a side arm when I am at our local shooting hole because it isn't a recognized range, it isn't hunting season...etc. In my personal experience, at some point in time and given the opportunity law enforcement (individual LEO, department or DA) WILL misapply or use "the letter of the law" to force their personal agenda, feelings, ideal...etc upon a civilian. The open carry modification should stand if only to protect those who are trying to obey the law. So let LEOs and SDA permit holders carry open or modify the law so that a reveal doesn't cost someone a whole lotta money aside from having the fact that they are a LEO or SDA holder be put into public record. Yes your anti neighbor would know because the record of the fine would be placed in the local paper which negates the other law that was passed to protect your license information from being public.

Sorry for the wandering post. I ain't no writer.

 

[Michael Brown]

Mr. Brown, I'd like to ask you if you've ever seen an individual who was deterred from committing a violent act simply by being in the presence of a very large and intimidating individual? Perhaps they refrained from committing said act until the intimidating individual left the premises or they even left to find another venue in which to commit their act?

I'm just curious, because I have...

Certainly and I believe it to be one of the most reliable means of deterring criminal assault.

HOWEVER, I have also witnessed otherwise predatory-appearing targets get victimized because they were in fact sheep dressing like sheepdogs.

I do not regard the mere possession of a weapon as much of a deterrent, since I've spent the last 15 years of my life seeing cops get assaulted on a regular basis by armed or unarmed assailants without any concern whatsoever for the officer being armed. It also explains why I am not discomforted in the slightest when I find that someone is in possession of a lawfully concealed pistol. The gun itself doesn't mean anything to me; the guy or gal behind the gun means a GREAT deal to me.

There are many officers that I serve with for whom the gun is just a danger to themselves and others. Their gun is just a nuisance to me. But give me a couple of guys I know I can count on, and while I'd prefer that they were armed, I'd rather they watch my back unarmed than be saddled with some of my incompetent colleagues armed to the teeth.

As someone who has studied the profession of arms for all of my adult life, I regard suprise as one of the most effective tactics available to anyone in a fight.

As a uniformed officer, I am denied a certain element of suprise by the nature of my job. When I did not have this encumberance as a plain clothes officer, I found my confrontations to be much more one-sided in my favor due to the element of suprise.

So, while some may believe that the presence of a weapon to be a deterrant in and of itself, my experience tells me that this is not to be relied upon and can be more of a hindrance than a help.

My take. If the veto is overridden, everyone will get to make their own decision and live with the benefits and consequences.

Michael Brown

 

[jbarnett]

Wow. What a discussion. Both parties make good points however, and forgive me if this has been covered, but as the law is currently written there is a major hole that would allow ideal wielding individuals to frame mischief by law. That in and of itself be an infringement of a some freedom. I for one wanted the law signed to keep individual(s) or a LEO from causing me grief over an accidental reveal. The truth is that it will happen just as sure an a motorcycle rider will eat pavement, gravel...etc at some point. No matter how careful they are. Secondly I would like to see off-duty LEOs carrying openly. When I walk into a convenience store and see 2 or 3 individuals with a holstered weapon and a badge attached to it I feel much safer because I know it is a deterrent to someone with ill intent - generally speaking. I personally don't want to carry open except in situations where it is convenient like hiking, fishing and hunting. Right now the way the law reads I could get run up for wearing a side arm when I am at our local shooting hole because it isn't a recognized range, it isn't hunting season...etc. In my personal experience, at some point in time and given the opportunity law enforcement (individual LEO, department or DA) WILL misapply or use "the letter of the law" to force their personal agenda, feelings, ideal...etc upon a civilian. The open carry modification should stand if only to protect those who are trying to obey the law. So let LEOs and SDA permit holders carry open or modify the law so that a reveal doesn't cost someone a whole lotta money aside from having the fact that they are a LEO or SDA holder be put into public record. Yes your anti neighbor would know because the record of the fine would be placed in the local paper which negates the other law that was passed to protect your license information from being public.

Sorry for the wandering post. I ain't no writer.

That is most of my reasons also. I am not going to open carry.
Not being able to open carry if I want to is infringing on my rights.