-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
OC folks, check out this police encounter....
- Thread starter MMatt30
- Start date
Nor do I pretend to be one.
The Supreme Court has ruled that no one is guaranteed police protection therefore I don't depend on the police for protection.
"AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFTEY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW."
This is completely illogical. For example, should a policeman stop every motorist they see in order to ascertain whether or not they have a license to drive their vehicle? On another note... If there are policemen stationed every 100 yards, should the person be forced to lye on the ground every 100 yards and be subjected to the whims of the police?
I'm not for OC just for the sake of OC or to prove a point. I prefer to have the element of surprise on my side.
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONALBE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW."
This is completely illogical. For example, should a policeman stop every motorist they see in order to ascertain whether or not they have a license to drive their vehicle? On another note... If there are policemen stationed every 100 yards, should the person be forced to lye on the ground every 100 yards and be subjected to the whims of the police?
I'm not for OC just for the sake of OC or to prove a point. I prefer to have the element of surprise on my side.
That gives me a little more context. Thank you, sir.
Was it someone on this forum with this signature: A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone - or something to that affect? I thought that was a good one.
The caption for the video says it was an abortion clinic. The men were "peaceably assembled" - which is their way of skewing the law to get around a protest permit.
The asshole shooting the video is just that, and does no favors to people trying to maintain their OC rights. The situation was under control when the douschbag with the video camera decided to instigate an issue against the police officer. He approached as an arrogant bastard as if to say, "hey officer scumbag, you can't touch me ha ha ha ha ha." What an ass. Like a little child sticking their hand in their sibling's face saying, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, na na na boo boo."
The idiot behind the camera was just trying to prove a point on video and didn't have any intellectual argument to combat the officer's request. At the very least, the officer could've busted his ass for "obstructing an officer during an investigation", as they were actively investigating a group of dumbasses protesting (or "peaceably assembling") outside an abortion clinic. Call me cynical, but if you're protesting with a gun on your hip, you're asking for trouble, and there's nothing peaceful about it.
You can't stretch the "peaceably assemble" clause to justify protesting and loitering. If that were the case, there wouldn't be "No Loitering" signs outside of business, because loiterers would simply have to say, "I'm not loitering, I'm 'peaceably assembling'."
It is asses like this guy who give states all the ammunition they need to strike down OC privileges/rights.
If you're being investigated and you fail/refuse to provide identification, you CAN be detained, and this ass-clown SHOULD HAVE been detained. You say the officer needed reasonable suspicion? How about a jerk-off loitering outside an abortion clinic with a video camera and a gun? In this day and age the officer could've easily "reasonably suspected" that the men were there to shoot up the clinic with their firearm(s) and get it on camera.
We need to keep in mind that sometimes officers should be allowed to STOP a crime BEFORE it happens rather than wait for the idiot to KILL somebody ON CAMERA and then arrest him. That doesn't mean sacrificing our right to bear arms, but if the guy can't give a good reason why he is loitering outside a medical clinic with a gun on his hip, then detain his ass and grill him until he provides sufficient reason to believe that he wasn't there to cause trouble.
The asshole shooting the video is just that, and does no favors to people trying to maintain their OC rights. The situation was under control when the douschbag with the video camera decided to instigate an issue against the police officer. He approached as an arrogant bastard as if to say, "hey officer scumbag, you can't touch me ha ha ha ha ha." What an ass. Like a little child sticking their hand in their sibling's face saying, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, na na na boo boo."
The idiot behind the camera was just trying to prove a point on video and didn't have any intellectual argument to combat the officer's request. At the very least, the officer could've busted his ass for "obstructing an officer during an investigation", as they were actively investigating a group of dumbasses protesting (or "peaceably assembling") outside an abortion clinic. Call me cynical, but if you're protesting with a gun on your hip, you're asking for trouble, and there's nothing peaceful about it.
You can't stretch the "peaceably assemble" clause to justify protesting and loitering. If that were the case, there wouldn't be "No Loitering" signs outside of business, because loiterers would simply have to say, "I'm not loitering, I'm 'peaceably assembling'."
It is asses like this guy who give states all the ammunition they need to strike down OC privileges/rights.
If you're being investigated and you fail/refuse to provide identification, you CAN be detained, and this ass-clown SHOULD HAVE been detained. You say the officer needed reasonable suspicion? How about a jerk-off loitering outside an abortion clinic with a video camera and a gun? In this day and age the officer could've easily "reasonably suspected" that the men were there to shoot up the clinic with their firearm(s) and get it on camera.
We need to keep in mind that sometimes officers should be allowed to STOP a crime BEFORE it happens rather than wait for the idiot to KILL somebody ON CAMERA and then arrest him. That doesn't mean sacrificing our right to bear arms, but if the guy can't give a good reason why he is loitering outside a medical clinic with a gun on his hip, then detain his ass and grill him until he provides sufficient reason to believe that he wasn't there to cause trouble.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's a good point, also. If you run into 10 cops while walking through the city, otherwise just minding your own business, are you going to get proned out 10 times, with your weapon taken, unloaded, etc?
Maybe they can give you a pass that says "I've already been checked out for the day" that you can show to the next cop that wants to harass you.
I need one of them passes!
Yeah, is there a place we can sign up for one of them!@!
