PDA

View Full Version : Pittsburgh Police and Open Carry



joshs1ofakindxj
04-17-2012, 06:20 PM
Whether you agree with open carry or not, it is sad that PGH Police are not up to speed on open carry and no duty to inform:

Discussion: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/170197-surrounded-pittsburgh-police-recorded.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqyfHTAhWOI&feature=player_embedded

The_War_Wagon
04-17-2012, 07:49 PM
MOST LE it seems in the bigger cities especially, seem nominally clueless about the LTCF laws. Have you seen any of that ol' boy from Philthy's problems on PAFOA the last few years? :shock:

I grew up in NC - L-O-N-G an open carry state, much like PA (from Colonial times!), but up until the 1980's, OC was NEVER an issue there (homogenous culture). It wasn't until the anti-gun Yankee sorts (present company excepted) began moving there en masse, and all began crapping their britches over people with <<<GASP!>>>, FIREARMS! :roll:

It took NC LONGER to get CCW passed than it did PA (although they had castle doctrine sooner), but it came about mainly becaused of transplanted nanny-staters, who didn't want to SEE open carry, even though open carry is still legal there, too.

I've been in Pittsburgh 10 years now, so I don't know what its like there now for folks who OC. I gotta believe, LE there is MORE used to seeing OC than they are here, but then, LE is a YOUNG man's endeavor. Kids are indoctrinated EVERYWHERE these days, that "ALL guns are 'bad/eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil' guns." :retard: Maybe they're JUST as oblivious now, too. :oops:

In MY line of work, "discreet" is considered a virtue, so I CCW, and have my valid PA LTCF. I empathize with OC folks though. I think if I WERE to OC, I might even have some laminated cards made up, quoting the exact PA statutes on the matter, just to hand to every cop who hassled me. Extra work on MY part, yeah, but maybe it would cut the hassle to a minimum when it comes... :-?

BUZZINHALFDOZZEN
04-17-2012, 08:36 PM
Anyone on here ever been hassled like that?

DMG
04-17-2012, 08:38 PM
Sad to say but police don't really know or care about the laws in this country.

Azzy
04-17-2012, 08:40 PM
You know, all departments in PA got their MPOTEC (http://www.lildobe.net/PAFOA_Docs/MPOTEC_OC_Update_2009.pdf) paperwork some time ago. And after the Philly lawsuit (http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/02/14/federal-lawsuit-over-philly-open-carry-incident/), you would think the AG's office would be up to speed.

What colossal ignorance.

ridgerunner97
04-17-2012, 09:48 PM
Who was the uppity whore that was running her yapper in the initial contact, i'd like to knock the taste out that dumb bitch's mouth, makes all officer's look like a bunch of dumb asses. God if I was the shift supervisor on that shift i'd be having a long talk with every officer that responded to that scene. There are dipshit's in every profession. I can't stand ignorance in any job. Thing is, they don't cover some of the finer points of laws etc. enough in schooling I feel. I am a CRJ major and have taken a HELL of a lot of classes with some great instructor's and professors, and have never touched upon no duty to inform, or carry laws for the most part. It is something that needs to be taught I feel...

Azzy
04-17-2012, 09:51 PM
Anyone on here ever been hassled like that?

Only once, by a Sgt in the Castle Shannon PD office (not in a court facility or other prohibited place) when I came in to report stolen property. He stared at me like I had tits growing out of my waist, and proceeded to go on much in the same way, and I told him according to the uniform firearms act of Pennsylvania, he could not make up his own rules in a muninciple building, to which he started to flip through law book type things (like reference cards) looking for how I was in the wrong.

After a few more minutes of me pointing out him being in the wrong, I decided to go lock it in the rental car, voicing my discomfort and disagreement with doing so, and filed my report. He asked if I ever had trouble with it, and before that, I never did. been open carrying (depending on how i dress) for the better part of 3 years now.


I am a CRJ major and have taken a HELL of a lot of classes with some great instructor's and professors, and have never touched upon no duty to inform, or carry laws for the most part. It is something that needs to be taught I feel...

It has been touched on, it was mandatory training for all PA police departments in 2009. They either have let that training lapse, or there is a culture of ignorance to the law that has been passed down the ranks on the subject.

Super Scout
04-17-2012, 10:06 PM
It seemed to me at the beginning of the recording the cop was just asking for ID. Not really a big deal hell you can't even pay your water bill with out showing photo ID. I hate laws, but if people keep getting a hard on about open carry, cops and the people doing it. They will pass a law banning it soon enough.

Bill
04-17-2012, 10:18 PM
Sad to say but police don't really know or care about the laws in this country.

And most auto shops are filled with dope fiends and crack heads... I guess I am not the only one that can throw around random BS general statements. I mean, if we are going to sterotype based on profession then lets do that.

Oh, and Dave... I can edit too...

Azzy
04-17-2012, 10:20 PM
The recording was started a minute or so after the initial confrontation, so says the guy who made it.

and a great reason for not offering ID, especially since the guy is from out of town:


One reason for not unnecessarily giving your ID is to avoid having your name mentioned in the incident report. It goes against you in your "permanent record" (the one that was started when you were in kindergarten) and will forever reside in their searchable database.

So, what happens the next time you need to renew your LTCF? Will those reports, written to show only the officers in a good light, come back to haunt you?



Many places still have an illegal character clause that will prevent them from renewing a LCTF. on the other hand, some Sheriff's offices have mobile units to bring the firearms licensing division to public events :D

DixieJeeper
04-18-2012, 12:43 AM
<CJRS major LEO background,

In VA you are only required to provide ID when asked. They have a "walker ID" anyone over 18 must have it.

That being said, I am not up to speed on PA law... If this was Va all they would have to have done is provide their DL to the cop by the letter of the law. You aren't required to answer shit passed that thanks to the 5th admendment. You can look at them and literally say nothing. I mean nothing and let it play out for open carry and hopefully someone up the command staff catches on before you go to the pookie.

However when stopped myself after I left LE... I always say- officer I have a CC permit, I am open carrying today as allowed by Article I sec. 13 of the VA consitition and 18.2-308 of the VA code as ammend. I understand for the concern, and will cooperate with your investigation. Never had a problem but VA is FAR more gun friendly

But playing it cool but firm is alright and better...

joshs1ofakindxj
04-18-2012, 08:02 AM
In PA there is no duty to inform and no duty to provide an LTCF while OC on foot, so as long as I have to stop at a stop sign and wear pants in public, I don't have to self identify either. Also, LEOs in PA (arguably) have no expectation of privacy while performing their duties in public, so audio recording like the one in the OP is permissible, but it is usually required that you inform all parties that they are being recorded.

It's a simple matter of following the rules on both sides, and it's related to "innocent until proven guilty". Fundamentally, Joe six pack walking down the street with his 6 shooter on his hip is in the legal right in PA, and should not be harassed or stopped by a LEO unless he breaks the law. If a LEO starts to harass you on an issue, get out your phone, and call 911, and tell them a man with a gun in a blue outfit is threatening you. :D

As long as more people ARE doing it, I doubt you will see legislation against it, unless the politicians decide to go against there constituents on a 2A issue, which is a guaranteed career shortener for a politician.

And ya, Bill is one of the good guys!

The guys that were down there have some big balls for OCing outside Consol on a game night.

OverkillZJ
04-18-2012, 08:14 AM
I have no disrespect for police in general, but the only bad experiences I've ever had were with Pittsburgh officers, on both a professional and personal level.

OverkillZJ
04-18-2012, 08:19 AM
One note on the second half: I agree with the officers in the second half, they stated he was within his rights, but people would flip out a bit and call in a lot of false alarms. That's true. The issue is more with the general population. He had a carry permit and was fishing for a problem.

Mykal
04-18-2012, 08:30 AM
If I do not have a CCWP and I open carry am I fishing for a problem?
I dont know if these guys were or not. Who cares if they were? That makes them stupid. It doesnt make them criminals.

OverkillZJ
04-18-2012, 08:32 AM
Fishing and being down town in a major city in a crowd before a Pens game with a firearm being flashed around are very different.

You're within your rights to be a dick, but it's your choice to exercise those rights. I don't see how they are criminals - they were never forced to show ID and were sent on their merry way. This isn't a bid deal.

Carry permits are easy to get, problem solved.

Mykal
04-18-2012, 08:41 AM
Fishing and being down town in a major city in a crowd before a Pens game with a firearm being flashed around are very different.

You're within your rights to be a dick, but it's your choice to exercise those rights. I don't see how they are criminals - they were never forced to show ID and were sent on their merry way. This isn't a bid deal.

Carry permits are easy to get, problem solved.

There really isnt a difference as far as Im concerned since Im legal to OC while doing both. I dont think they were flashing it around.
Completely agree with the rights to be a dick though I dont think they were being dicks because they were open carrying.
They are not criminals but were treated as such. They were told to self identify for no reason and produce papers.
Educate L.E.O. Problem solved. I dont need a carry permit to carry. I shouldnt need to hide my lawfully carried weapon just to make "you" feel safe when you go down town.

My opinion is way different and Ill just leave it at that.

joshs1ofakindxj
04-18-2012, 08:46 AM
If I do not have a CCWP and I open carry am I fishing for a problem?
I dont know if these guys were or not. Who cares if they were? That makes them stupid. It doesnt make them criminals.

I think the only stupidity shown was by the LEOs who showed their ignorance of the law. I don't think these guys were fishing for trouble, unless they have deep pockets and lots of vacation time at work. They were exercising their rights, and I don't call people who exercise their rights and become familiarized with the law stupid.

Like I said, you don't need a LTCF to OC in PA. If the breeze were to pick up and the wind blew your shirt over your weapon partially you could, arguably, be concealing and need an LTCF. As soon as you get in a car, or jump on a motorcycle, or any other vehicle of transportation, then you need an LTCF. If there is a state of emergency, or you are in a city of the 1st class, like Philadelphia, again you need an LTCF to OC or CC.

Also, in PA we have a License to Carry a Firearm, not a Concealed Carry Weapons Permit. Our LTCF is further reaching than a CCWP by definition, but that isn't worth arguing about, just sayin'.

Edit: I think your first question that I quoted was a real question, but now I think not.

joshs1ofakindxj
04-18-2012, 08:49 AM
There really isnt a difference as far as Im concerned since Im legal to OC while doing both. I dont think they were flashing it around.
Completely agree with the rights to be a dick though I dont think they were being dicks because they were open carrying.
They are not criminals but were treated as such. They were told to self identify for no reason and produce papers.
Educate L.E.O. Problem solved. I dont need a carry permit to carry. I shouldnt need to hide my lawfully carried weapon just to make "you" feel safe when you go down town.

My opinion is way different and Ill just leave it at that.

They were probably doing the same thing I do when I OC...nothing, just going about my business and blowing kisses to all the pretty girls.

Unfortunately, this city street confrontation seems to be the way to educate some LEOs, I just hope it doesn't leave a bad taste in their mouths for the next time they meet an OCer and they know he is doing nothing wrong.

joshs1ofakindxj
04-18-2012, 08:57 AM
The issue is more with the general population.

I believe when someone OC's, they should be an ambassador for the firearm community. Act properly, be polite, make conversation and inform people about the law, and above all, keep calm and carry on.

If someone wants to ask me about OC I usually have an ice breaker, like on black friday when the manager or head cashier at Walmart in Jeannette got a twisted, shocked look on her face when I told her, "Yes, that is a real gun." and, "I'm carrying it because of the sales!" and every other customer and cashier in ear shot started laughing, the situation was diffused and a confrontation avoided.

Moments like that are a step towards getting the majority of the population in step with OC and the public display of firearms. You won't get everyone, which is why I say "majority".

OverkillZJ
04-18-2012, 09:20 AM
Yes, you have the right to open carry - but large crowds in a city are already a stressful situation, especially for the police. Of course you can exercise your rights, and that is your choice, but I feel it far more productive to remove the need for such a confrontation in the first place. Just conceal it. Big deal. I realize that most of you other pro gun guys won't agree with me on that, but I don't care. You need to understand that most folks aren't comfortable around firearms like you are. Maybe I'm just more a polite guy, I just don't see the need to put yourselves in situations where you're most likely going to cause drama. F drama.

The guy was fishing for a problem. You can hear him joking about it at the end of the video. Drama queen with a gun. Not a big-man ambassador of open carry.

Azzy
04-18-2012, 09:29 AM
So a choice of dress and standing up for a right makes for a drama queen? To me the fact that my firearm is showing or not is more due to what my clothing choices for the day are.

Guy just had a pretty stressful situation, and handled himself well, and educated some officers that should have known better about the limits of their authority.

DixieJeeper
04-18-2012, 09:43 AM
VA has a law to require to identify due the large gang problems in NoVa.

I agree with Josh AND Matt.... It is within their right to go down to the consol engery center and be on the public areas on nonprivate are with a OC. It is also witin their right to not identify due to PA law. There obviously was at least one officer (male possibly the K9 officer it sounds like) who knew what was going on and was cool, the other officer wasn't expereenced enough or perhaps ignorant to the uniform gun law in PA.

That being said I understand and support what they were doing- excercise your rights (1st/2nd/5th etc.) or they will be lost through gradual attrition.

Which is what they were doing- but it was at a pens game and you know there were alot of yuppies that have never even been in the same room as a gun, that would/did freak when they got out to the game and ran into them- which causes multiple calls for service.

As side note/story:

There was a guy in Richmond that OC'd on the bus to work downtown everyday. One day someone new on the bus called 911- (Richmond at this time was in the midst of a turn around from the murder capital of the US to a pretty decent city with a low crime rate.) The officers responded enforce as it was described by later news accounts as a man waving that had a "gun out" (LEO/Dispatch interpretation as brandishing and waving)

LE stopped the bus and had ERT outside and around the bus.. they entered the bus and by this time everyone on the bus just about was freaking out- my wife said. When they relalized there was no threat they pulled everyone off the bus. The OC guy was a cool cat, identifiied and withint a few minutes was let back on the bus with the gun. The 911 caller freaked out and the cops pulled her back off the bus and gave her a SCHOOLING my wife said about the difference between legally carrying and "waving a gun around" like she told the 911 dispatcher. They also reiforced it was ok to call 911 when in doubt but don't exgerate. Guy was on the bus OC'ing till the day we moved out of Richmond. It made the local and regional news too

Muzikman
04-18-2012, 09:44 AM
I do have to agree with Matt on this. Yes, it's your right, but is it a right that is needed to be exercised at that time and place? And the cops are right about one point, you are going to draw a lot of attention and you are going to cause people to call 911 and you are going to waste the police's time since they have to respond.

I am pro gun, I am an NRA Lifer, but just like many things in life, you have to think about others some times. In today's world, people are cautious about guns. There are just too many crazies out there willing to shoot up an office or school full of people. When someone see's someone with a gun, they get concerned, they don't know your intentions. With the number of school shootings these days, someone with a gun around campus is going to draw attention. And I'll be honest, I think it's the police's responsibility to investigate. Can you image in someone called 911 to report someone walking around Duquesne with a gun, the cops don't respond and that person walks into building and start firing away?

What is the harm in concealing it? You still have it on you, you are still protecting yourself and you don't draw the attention to yourself. Problem solved.

DMG
04-18-2012, 09:57 AM
I think the point of OC'ers is to let the public get used to the fact that 99.9999% of the time an armed person is not about to commit a crime and to remind ignorant police of our rights.
Matt and Jason, there are people out there that don't see the need for us to drive lifted trucks. They are dangerous, etc. It is our right and it doesn't matter if it upsets anyone else.

Mykal
04-18-2012, 10:12 AM
I dont have a CCWP or LCTF. I dont have an option to conceal. I dont do it to draw attention, make a statement, educate anyone or just because I can.
I can legally get one. I dont need one since I am legally allowed to open carry.

Azzy
04-18-2012, 10:14 AM
But only as long as you are walking from your home. to legally transport in a vehicle, you would have to unload, case, and be on your way to one of the few restricted points of destination as in the PA Uniform Firearms Act.

So unless you only go out on foot, you would be breaking the law.

Mykal
04-18-2012, 10:24 AM
In WV (Where I live) you can OC in a vehicle without restriction.
When I travel into PA or through I unload and case it until Im at my destination.
If (which I try to avoid at all costs) I travel to Md (insert other restrictive states here) I leave it at home.

OverkillZJ
04-18-2012, 10:26 AM
Traveling through MD is sketchy with a firearm to say the least. I lock and separate, but still has me nervous.

Mykal
04-18-2012, 10:34 AM
I dont even want to get into the conversation I had with the Md State Police about carrying in a vehicle.

Deadman 94 xj
04-18-2012, 11:47 AM
Woman's movement in the 60's and 70's. A VERY respectable cause.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/mehungy/000tyra_banks_bra_burn_2_big.jpg

BUT, lets face it, sometimes the bra is better left on.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y82/iwalkintherain/DSCN0225.jpg


My point? Use your judgment. I didn't watch the OP but I've got an idea. The reality is that there is a place for everything and that's because people are stupid. People being stupid is the NUMBER 1 reason for many issues today, especially when it comes to rights being taken away.

Control of the masses. The world caters to idiots. Big brother steps in and does all it knows how to do... What the hell else is new.

I respect those that exercise their rights but to think you're going to do it in downtown pittsburgh, a place where shootings occur at random quite a few times a year, and not get any special attention from the people in charge of cleaning up those shootings, is a bit naive. Again, stupid people ruining it for the rest of us.

But hey, if you're willing to go out of your way to do what's within your rights even though it runs against the "norms", more power to you. A line must be drawn somewhere right?

I agree with the right to OC and think its sad whenever ANY right gets taken away, but I also feel that there is a bit of common sense that must be involved and I can think of a handfull of people I know personally that I'm glad aren't armed.

DixieJeeper
04-18-2012, 03:24 PM
Great post except for the androgynous/boy in the second row center of the picture.... I mean not everyone is a looker in the top picture.. but there are redeming qualities to all (boobs) but thats sorta sketch. ohh and good points too I agree.

Bill
04-18-2012, 03:38 PM
I am a huge advocate of the 2nd amendment, I also think that there is a time and a place to carry a firearm. OC is legal, that doesn't mean that it isn't going to have law enforcement providing you with a little more attention because you may choose to do it. Hell, if someone is practing their right to open carry they are certainly going to be on my radar while in my presence. It is a safety issue from the law enforcement officers position. You have no idea what the guys intentions are. You have no idea what he is up to, or why he would take the stance of OC vs. the traditional concealed carry approach that is much more socially acceptable.

I carry all the time. The only time you see me with a visibly exposed firearm is when I am working. If I am not in uniform, but still working with an exposed firearm, then my badge is right next to my holster. Why? To prevent the panic associated with the random "guy with a gun" as seen by the public. I agree that while OC is legal, it isn't necessarily smart. It causes attention to be drawn to the person wearing the firearm. Most of them have the drama queen thing going on anyway. They walk around screaming "Look at me, I'm exercising my right to carry a gun!" Like I said, drama queens. Why not just take the time to get the permit to concealed carry and do just that? The whole point of having the firearm is self protection at that point. While granted, it may make the bad guy think "I don't want problems with him, he has a gun." It may also make the bad guy just walk up and shoot the guy OCing and take the risk to himself out of the equation. The dynamic is levels upon levels deep.

pittim
04-18-2012, 03:50 PM
I am a CRJ major and have taken a HELL of a lot of classes with some great instructor's and professors, and have never touched upon no duty to inform, or carry laws for the most part. It is something that needs to be taught I feel...

Yup, I've never taken a class that deals with those types of subjects either. It might be because a lot of the students here don't intend on being a LEO after graduation, so the university doesn't seem a need for the class, especially since I'm sure that it is taught in the academy.

tjblair
04-18-2012, 03:57 PM
I grew up in a state that doesn't have OC or CC. So when I moved out west it took me some time to get used to people OCing. But now I don't give it a second glance. I notice it, But I do not go running to the phone to call the cops. Why can the police, or 911 operator not just explain that OC is legal? You don't see people calling the cops to report every person that walks out of a bar, thinking that tey may get in to a car. Unitl they get in to a car or become disorderly. they have done nothing wrong

Deadman 94 xj
04-18-2012, 04:03 PM
Great post except for the androgynous/boy in the second row center of the picture.... I mean not everyone is a looker in the top picture.. but there are redeming qualities to all (boobs) but thats sorta sketch. ohh and good points too I agree.


I agree. Boobs speak clearly. I figured it would help get my point accross to the hard -o-hearing.

To touch on my comment about "stupid" people...I'd like to add to that, that more dangerous than being stupid is being self-righteous, self-intitled, spoiled little bratts. People always assume they're so special. It drives me nuts.

You've got people performing sex changes? "I felt like I was born a man... Well you weren't! Suck it up! But people are so damn self-intitled that they now go out and buy body parts...WTF? That's just an example but it shows how important people thing they are.

People get what they want, period, and when they don't they whine and complain about it until they do. Conservatism doesn't stand a chance...there has to be a line drawn somewhere. You keep crossing that line because something doesn't quite sit right with "your" panties so you cross it, and keep crossing it, until the sanctity of what ever it was in the first place is lost forever. Damn cry babys.

Rant off. Not talking about anyone here.

Deadman 94 xj
04-18-2012, 04:05 PM
I grew up in a state that doesn't have OC or CC. So when I moved out west it took me some time to get used to people OCing. But now I don't give it a second glance. I notice it, But I do not go running to the phone to call the cops. Why can the police, or 911 operator not just explain that OC is legal? You don't see people calling the cops to report every drunk thinking that he may get in to a car.

Jeff, you ever drive on 376 east, throught the squirl hill tunnels? People act like there was never a hole blown through it and they have to slow down to figure out another way over the mountain... THAT is the general public.

Super Scout
04-18-2012, 05:00 PM
Today at work I had about 15 phone calls about a mysterious man walking the grounds of the School in full camo. Being in charge of maintenance I get called when no one else knows what to do. So I went and talked to the guy and all is fine.

Point being people panic, we live in a time where the goverment tells us to be alert, and report anything that troubles them... Its perfectly legal for me to buy certain things used in making a bomb, certian pesticides for instant or cleaners. But I could have the cops question me if I were to buy all those in huge amounts. Want to open carry fine, go for it. But don't start bitching when you are questioned by police, because legal as it is. People are still going to be concerned esp out in public around Consol.

Its like the kids who dress like assholes with white paint on their face and piercings all over, they love to be different. But bitch and moan when someone else beats the hell out of them for dressing funny.

DMG
04-18-2012, 07:02 PM
And most auto shops are filled with dope fiends and crack heads... I guess I am not the only one that can throw around random BS general statements. I mean, if we are going to sterotype based on profession then lets do that.

Oh, and Dave... I can edit too...

I tried to play this off a little more politely. Start your own thread if you want to discuss mechanics. Start it in a different forum, though.

Ronin152
04-18-2012, 08:21 PM
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has defined three types of police-citizen interaction: a mere encounter, an investigative detention, and a custodial detention. A mere encounter between police and a citizen need not be supported by any level of suspicion, and carries no official compulsion on the part of the citizen to stop or to respond. An investigatory stop, which subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute an arrest, requires a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. A custodial search is an arrest and must be supported by probable cause. In order for the reasonable suspicion standard to be met, an officer must identify specific and articulable facts which demonstrate that criminal activity may be afoot. This is an extremely low standard and an officer could say something like "based upon my experience this is a high crime area and the person was wearing gang colors." I think the officers were completely warranted in detaining the guys because they were trespassing on Consol Energy Center property.

The bottom line is that this guy is a complete jackass. What do you expect is going to happen when you carry a gun openly post 9/11 at a major event? Like someone else mentioned, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

OverkillZJ
04-18-2012, 08:23 PM
I'm out with Bill and DMG right now. They're working out their issues. I'm getting ready to take cover.

joshs1ofakindxj
04-18-2012, 08:34 PM
^hahahaha

tjblair
04-18-2012, 08:35 PM
^take video

DMG
04-19-2012, 08:16 AM
^take video

I open carried so he tazed me. Then I left the lug nuts loose on his jeep so his wheels came off and he hit a bus full of orphans. So nothing unusual or worth videotaping.

tjblair
04-19-2012, 08:17 AM
HaHa nice!

OverkillZJ
04-19-2012, 12:50 PM
i open carried so he tazed me. Then i left the lug nuts loose on his jeep so his wheels came off and he hit a bus full of orphans. So nothing unusual or worth videotaping.

lmfao

Wrecker
04-19-2012, 12:59 PM
I open carried so he tazed me. Then I left the lug nuts loose on his jeep so his wheels came off and he hit a bus full of orphans. So nothing unusual or worth videotaping.

I heard there was canle light, soft music and you 2 drove off in a Suby station wagon at the end of the night.

2002wranglerX
04-19-2012, 01:58 PM
But you can vote for Obama without ID :)


It seemed to me at the beginning of the recording the cop was just asking for ID. Not really a big deal hell you can't even pay your water bill with out showing photo ID..

2002wranglerX
04-19-2012, 02:00 PM
Woman's movement in the 60's and 70's. A VERY respectable cause.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/mehungy/000tyra_banks_bra_burn_2_big.jpg

.

is that tyra banks?

Deadman 94 xj
04-19-2012, 02:34 PM
is that tyra banks?


I think it is. She's like a mutant. Looks the same even back in the 60's.

Mutant Banks.

BUZZINHALFDOZZEN
04-19-2012, 02:35 PM
is that tyra banks?

I think so.

I don't get this picture, they're protesting bras, but they're wearing bras? Women are confusing

Deadman 94 xj
04-19-2012, 02:36 PM
Women are confusing

Understatement of the year! lol

Bird_Flu
04-21-2012, 10:33 PM
I heard there was canle light, soft music and you 2 drove off in a Suby station wagon at the end of the night.

Pffft, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

abrzrkr
04-22-2012, 09:06 AM
I grew up in a state that doesn't have OC or CC.What state is that?

tjblair
04-22-2012, 09:18 AM
Illinois

abrzrkr
04-22-2012, 09:20 AM
I thought OC was a constitutional thing and only the right to conceal was regulated at the state level?

Bill
04-22-2012, 11:51 AM
Each state enacts additional regulations as it sees fit. There are several states out there that prohibit OC.

Bellyup0389
04-22-2012, 08:19 PM
The only part that everyone missed here is....

Yes you can audio record police while they work, but and this is big....

You can not record public or it's a felony. So one citizen says hi to a buddie passing by and don't know you just recorded him. Felony with a gun..... Five years min.

notmYJ
04-24-2012, 02:03 AM
The only part that everyone missed here is....

Yes you can audio record police while they work, but and this is big....

You can not record public or it's a felony. So one citizen says hi to a buddie passing by and don't know you just recorded him. Felony with a gun..... Five years min.

IIRC, The courts have determined that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, such as a street, concert, mall or other public venue. It is with this comment that I implore you to find case law and/or statute to back up your statement.

I listened to the audio. I really found no problem with what happened. He had an interaction with the police (as he should have expected), some officers learned something, he didnt get a ticket and walked away with his gun.

As for people refering to other states laws, who gives a damn. The topic at hand happened in PA. PA laws are all that matter for this topic. As to OC, yeah I do it. I tuck my shirt behind the holster, if I coat on, its concealed. If its warm it out in the open. Its a comfort thing, I dont like sweating against leather on my hip and I find IWB holsers un comfortable. I know the possibilities of being questioned, but I also know my rights. I think that is the biggest difference between people who dont carry or even people who ONLY carry concealed and people who OC. Generally, the OC people know their rights better than many attorneys, police, and DA's.

I have had a few encounters with police while OC. Most recently was in Castle Shannon, around midnight in my jeep. I was stopped by their DOT guy aka "Commercial Vehicle Enforcement" because my tires stick out (no flares on the front and factory flares on the rear). I was OC and knew he would see it when I went to get my registration out of the glove box, so I informed him when he walked up to the window that I had it, and handed him my LTCF (Its a License To Carry a Firearm. NOT a Concealed carry license, CWP, CCW, etc). He said, "OK, I'll make you a deal, you don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine". I laughed and said, "Deal". I didnt get a ticket, but he did see the humor in that I didn't even try to cover the tires, he mentioned that usually people are just a bit past legal, butI had over half the tire un covered in the front. He asked me to cover them, or keep it in the woods. We had a laugh, he gave my stuff back and that was the end.

I have OCing for a while and have found that 99% of the people don't even notice and many of the police dont care. At getgo in bethel park at midnight, I can walk in OCing an XD40, get a sandwich and a drink, walk past 4 cops twice, BS with the employee for a min and walk out and nobody says a thing. Talked to a WashCo Sherrif in my front yard last week while OCing and he didn't say a word or even give it a second look. I have walked the south side while OC, and the cultural district downtown and never had a single problem.

Agree with it or not, everyone can make your own choices and do as YOU see fit. As long as YOU are comfortable with YOUR choices, then I am happy for you. Just don't try to make ME live the way YOU think I should. Even GOD himself can't mess with freewill. So long as what you are doing is within the limits of the laws, I could give a damn less what anyone here does. In fact, I would like to see more people in this country take responsibility for themselves and make their own damn decisions, and quit trying to control everyone else because "they know better". **** that. Do what you want, and worry about you and your own. You see a guy with a gun pointing it at people or raping someone, drop him by any means necessary and move on with your life. If your doing something legal and someone else doesnt like it, to bad. There is no right to feel warm and fuzzy inside when you leave the house. You want to be warm and fuzzy inside, take some Ecstasy.

/rant

Guess which person in this pic is me...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/regalracer1979/Jeep/IMAG1002.jpg

joshs1ofakindxj
04-24-2012, 08:35 AM
^hear, hear!

Deadman 94 xj
04-24-2012, 12:04 PM
IIRC, The courts have determined that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, such as a street, concert, mall or other public venue. It is with this comment that I implore you to find case law and/or statute to back up your statement.

I listened to the audio. I really found no problem with what happened. He had an interaction with the police (as he should have expected), some officers learned something, he didnt get a ticket and walked away with his gun.

As for people refering to other states laws, who gives a damn. The topic at hand happened in PA. PA laws are all that matter for this topic. As to OC, yeah I do it. I tuck my shirt behind the holster, if I coat on, its concealed. If its warm it out in the open. Its a comfort thing, I dont like sweating against leather on my hip and I find IWB holsers un comfortable. I know the possibilities of being questioned, but I also know my rights. I think that is the biggest difference between people who dont carry or even people who ONLY carry concealed and people who OC. Generally, the OC people know their rights better than many attorneys, police, and DA's.

I have had a few encounters with police while OC. Most recently was in Castle Shannon, around midnight in my jeep. I was stopped by their DOT guy aka "Commercial Vehicle Enforcement" because my tires stick out (no flares on the front and factory flares on the rear). I was OC and knew he would see it when I went to get my registration out of the glove box, so I informed him when he walked up to the window that I had it, and handed him my LTCF (Its a License To Carry a Firearm. NOT a Concealed carry license, CWP, CCW, etc). He said, "OK, I'll make you a deal, you don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine". I laughed and said, "Deal". I didnt get a ticket, but he did see the humor in that I didn't even try to cover the tires, he mentioned that usually people are just a bit past legal, butI had over half the tire un covered in the front. He asked me to cover them, or keep it in the woods. We had a laugh, he gave my stuff back and that was the end.

I have OCing for a while and have found that 99% of the people don't even notice and many of the police dont care. At getgo in bethel park at midnight, I can walk in OCing an XD40, get a sandwich and a drink, walk past 4 cops twice, BS with the employee for a min and walk out and nobody says a thing. Talked to a WashCo Sherrif in my front yard last week while OCing and he didn't say a word or even give it a second look. I have walked the south side while OC, and the cultural district downtown and never had a single problem.

Agree with it or not, everyone can make your own choices and do as YOU see fit. As long as YOU are comfortable with YOUR choices, then I am happy for you. Just don't try to make ME live the way YOU think I should. Even GOD himself can't mess with freewill. So long as what you are doing is within the limits of the laws, I could give a damn less what anyone here does. In fact, I would like to see more people in this country take responsibility for themselves and make their own damn decisions, and quit trying to control everyone else because "they know better". **** that. Do what you want, and worry about you and your own. You see a guy with a gun pointing it at people or raping someone, drop him by any means necessary and move on with your life. If your doing something legal and someone else doesnt like it, to bad. There is no right to feel warm and fuzzy inside when you leave the house. You want to be warm and fuzzy inside, take some Ecstasy.

/rant




Fair enough. The Oprah show is over. :(

Bellyup0389
04-24-2012, 04:35 PM
I will look it up, and get back to ya.

Thanks for "making me work". Without gettn paid , yet again.

fYI. I only post gun stuff when I Know. I am right, no guessing here.

I can't look it up on my I pad, it's on my work computer.

Doty152
04-24-2012, 07:17 PM
I will look it up, and get back to ya.

Thanks for "making me work". Without gettn paid , yet again.

fYI. I only post gun stuff when I Know. I am right, no guessing here.

I can't look it up on my I pad, it's on my work computer.

Cue long post:

§ 5703. Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic
or oral communications.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is
guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept,
or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to
intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;

(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose
to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or
oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing
or having reason to know that the information was obtained
through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral
communication; or

(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents
of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence
derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that
the information was obtained through the interception of a
wire, electronic or oral communication.
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.)

§ 5704. Exceptions to prohibition of interception and
disclosure of communications.

It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall
be required under this chapter for:

(1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent
or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication
service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a
wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that
communication in the normal course of his employment while
engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the
rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights
or property of the provider of wire or electronic
communication service. However, no provider of wire or
electronic communication service shall utilize service
observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or
service quality control checks.

(2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any
person acting at the direction or request of an investigative
or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic
or oral communication involving suspected criminal
activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes
enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing
interception of wire, electronic or oral communications),
where:

(i) (Deleted by amendment).

(ii) one of the parties to the communication has
given prior consent to such interception. However, no
interception under this paragraph shall be made unless
the Attorney General or a deputy attorney general
designated in writing by the Attorney General, or the
district attorney, or an assistant district attorney
designated in writing by the district attorney, of the
county wherein the interception is to be made, has
reviewed the facts and is satisfied that the consent is
voluntary and has given prior approval for the
interception; however, such interception shall be subject
to the recording and record keeping requirements of
section 5714(a) (relating to recording of intercepted
communications) and that the Attorney General, deputy
attorney general, district attorney or assistant district
attorney authorizing the interception shall be the
custodian of recorded evidence obtained therefrom;
(iii) the investigative or law enforcement officer
meets in person with a suspected felon and wears a
concealed electronic or mechanical device capable of
intercepting or recording oral communications. However,
no interception under this subparagraph may be used in
any criminal prosecution except for a prosecution
involving harm done to the investigative or law
enforcement officer. This subparagraph shall not be
construed to limit the interception and disclosure
authority provided for in this subchapter; or
(iv) the requirements of this subparagraph are met.
If an oral interception otherwise authorized under this
paragraph will take place in the home of a nonconsenting
party, then, in addition to the requirements of
subparagraph (ii), the interception shall not be
conducted until an order is first obtained from the
president judge, or his designee who shall also be a
judge, of a court of common pleas, authorizing such
in-home interception, based upon an affidavit by an
investigative or law enforcement officer that establishes
probable cause for the issuance of such an order. No
such order or affidavit shall be required where probable
cause and exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes
of this paragraph, an oral interception shall be deemed
to take place in the home of a nonconsenting party only
if both the consenting and nonconsenting parties are
physically present in the home at the time of the
interception.
(3) Police and emergency communications systems to
record telephone communications coming into and going out
of the communications system of the Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Agency or a police department, fire department
or county emergency center, if:
(i) the telephones thereof are limited to the
exclusive use of the communication system for
administrative purposes and provided the communication
system employs a periodic warning which indicates to the
parties to the conversation that the call is being
recorded;
(ii) all recordings made pursuant to this clause,
all notes made therefrom, and all transcriptions thereof
may be destroyed at any time, unless required with regard
to a pending matter; and
(iii) at least one nonrecorded telephone line is
made available for public use at the Pennsylvania
Emergency Management Agency and at each police
department, fire department or county emergency center.
(4) A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral
communication, where all parties to the communication have
given prior consent to such interception.
(5) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or
communication common carrier acting at the direction of an
investigative or law enforcement officer or in the normal
course of its business, to use a pen register, trap and trace
device or telecommunication identification interception
device as provided in Subchapter E (relating to pen
registers, trap and trace devices and telecommunication
identification interception devices).
(6) Personnel of any public utility to record telephone
conversations with utility customers or the general public
relating to receiving and dispatching of emergency and
service calls provided there is, during such recording, a
periodic warning which indicates to the parties to the
conversation that the call is being recorded.
(7) A user, or any officer, employee or agent of such
user, to record telephone communications between himself and
a contractor or designer, or any officer, employee or agent
of such contractor or designer, pertaining to excavation or
demolition work or other related matters, if the user or its
agent indicates to the parties to the conversation that the
call will be or is being recorded. As used in this paragraph,
the terms "user," "contractor," "demolition work," "designer"
and "excavation work" shall have the meanings given to them
in the act of December 10, 1974 (P.L.852, No.287), referred
to as the Underground Utility Line Protection Law; and a one
call system shall be considered for this purpose to be an
agent of any user which is a member thereof.
(8) A provider of electronic communication service to
record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was
initiated or completed in order to protect the provider,
another provider furnishing service toward the completion
of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that
service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of the
service.
(9) A person or entity providing electronic
communication service to the public to divulge the contents
of any such communication:
(i) as otherwise authorized in this section or
section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or
use of contents of wire, electronic or oral
communications or derivative evidence);
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or
any addressee or intended recipient of the communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose
facilities are used, to forward the communication to its
destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the
service provider and which appear to pertain to the
commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a
law enforcement agency.
A person or entity providing electronic communication service
to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents
of any communication (other than one directed to the person
or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission of
that service to any person or entity other than an addressee
or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of
the addressee or intended recipient.
(10) Any person:
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic communication
system configured so that the electronic communication
is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is
transmitted:
(A) by a station for the use of the general
public, or which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles
or persons in distress;
(B) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil
defense, private land mobile or public safety
communication system, including police and fire
systems, readily accessible to the general public;
(C) by a station operating on an authorized
frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur,
citizens band or general mobile radio services; or
(D) by any marine or aeronautical communication
system;
(iii) to engage in any conduct which:
(A) is prohibited by section 633 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1105, 47 U.S.C.
§ 553); or
(B) is excepted from the application of section
705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
§ 605(a)) by section 705(b) of that act (47 U.S.C.
§ 605(b)); or
(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic
communication the transmission of which is causing
harmful interference to any lawfully operating station,
to the extent necessary to identify the source of the
interference.
(11) Other users of the same frequency to intercept any
radio communication made through a system which utilizes
frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the
provisions or use of the system, if the communication is not
scrambled or encrypted.
(12) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or
any person acting at the direction or request of an
investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire
or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities
where the officer or the person is a party to the
communication and there is reasonable cause to believe that:
(i) the other party to the communication is either:
(A) holding a hostage; or
(B) has barricaded himself and taken a position
of confinement to avoid apprehension; and
(ii) that party:
(A) will resist with the use of weapons; or
(B) is threatening suicide or harm to others.
(13) An investigative officer, a law enforcement officer
or employees of the Department of Corrections for State
correctional facilities to intercept, record, monitor or
divulge any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a
facility under the following conditions:
(i) The Department of Corrections shall adhere to
the following procedures and restrictions when
intercepting, recording, monitoring or divulging any
telephone calls from or to an inmate in a State
correctional facility as provided for by this paragraph:
(A) Before the implementation of this paragraph,
all inmates of the facility shall be notified in
writing that, as of the effective date of this
paragraph, their telephone conversations may be
intercepted, recorded, monitored or divulged.
(B) Unless otherwise provided for in this
paragraph, after intercepting or recording a
telephone conversation, only the superintendent,
warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden
or other chief administrative official or his or her
designee shall have access to that recording.
(C) The contents of an intercepted and recorded
telephone conversation shall be divulged only as is
necessary to safeguard the orderly operation of the
facility, in response to a court order or in the
prosecution or investigation of any crime.
(ii) So as to safeguard the attorney-client
privilege, the Department of Corrections shall not
intercept, record, monitor or divulge any conversation
between an inmate and an attorney.
(iii) Persons who are calling in to a facility to
speak to an inmate shall be notified that the call may
be recorded or monitored.
(iv) The Department of Corrections shall promulgate
guidelines to implement the provisions of this paragraph
for State correctional facilities.
(14) An investigative officer, a law enforcement officer
or employees of a county correctional facility to intercept,
record, monitor or divulge any telephone calls from or to
an inmate in a facility under the following conditions:
(i) The county correctional facility shall adhere
to the following procedures and restrictions when
intercepting, recording, monitoring or divulging any
telephone calls from or to an inmate in a county
correctional facility as provided for by this paragraph:
(A) Before the implementation of this paragraph,
all inmates of the facility shall be notified in
writing that, as of the effective date of this
paragraph, their telephone conversations may be
intercepted, recorded, monitored or divulged.
(B) Unless otherwise provided for in this
paragraph, after intercepting or recording a
telephone conversation, only the superintendent,
warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden
or other chief administrative official or his or her
designee shall have access to that recording.
(C) The contents of an intercepted and recorded
telephone conversation shall be divulged only as is
necessary to safeguard the orderly operation of the
facility, in response to a court order or in the
prosecution or investigation of any crime.
(ii) So as to safeguard the attorney-client
privilege, the county correctional facility shall not
intercept, record, monitor or divulge any conversation
between an inmate and an attorney.
(iii) Persons who are calling into a facility to
speak to an inmate shall be notified that the call may
be recorded or monitored.
(iv) The superintendent, warden or a designee of
the superintendent or warden or other chief
administrative official of the county correctional system
shall promulgate guidelines to implement the provisions
of this paragraph for county correctional facilities.
(15) The personnel of a business engaged in telephone
marketing or telephone customer service by means of wire,
oral or electronic communication to intercept such marketing
or customer service communications where such interception
is made for the sole purpose of training, quality control
or monitoring by the business, provided that one party
involved in the communications has consented to such
intercept. Any communications recorded pursuant to this
paragraph may only be used by the business for the purpose
of training or quality control. Unless otherwise required
by Federal or State law, communications recorded pursuant
to this paragraph shall be destroyed within one year from
the date of recording.
(16) A law enforcement officer, whether or not certified
under section 5724 (relating to training), acting in the
performance of his official duties to intercept and record
an oral communication between individuals in accordance with
the following:
(i) At the time of the interception, the oral
communication does not occur inside the residence of any
of the individuals.
(ii) At the time of the interception, the law
enforcement officer:
(A) is operating the visual or audible warning
system of the law enforcement officer's vehicle
authorized by 75 Pa.C.S. § 4571 (relating to visual
and audible signals on emergency vehicles) or is
clearly identifiable as a law enforcement officer;
(B) is in close proximity to the individuals'
oral communication;
(C) is using an electronic, mechanical or other
device which has been approved under section
5706(b)(4) (relating to exceptions to prohibitions
in possession, sale, distribution, manufacture or
advertisement of electronic, mechanical or other
devices) to intercept the oral communication, the
recorder of which is mounted in the law enforcement
officer's vehicle; and
(D) informs, as soon as reasonably practicable,
the individuals identifiably present that he has
intercepted and recorded the oral communication.
(iii) As used in this paragraph, the following words
and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in
this subparagraph:
"Law enforcement officer." A member of the
Pennsylvania State Police or an individual employed as
a police officer who holds a current certificate under
53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 21 Subch. D (relating to municipal police
education and training).
"Recorder." An electronic, mechanical or other
device used to store an oral communication on tape or
on some other comparable medium.
(July 10, 1981, P.L.227, No.72, eff. 60 days; Dec. 23, 1981,
P.L.593, No.175, eff. 60 days; Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115,
eff. imd.; Sept. 26, 1995, 1st Sp.Sess., P.L.1056, No.20, eff.
60 days; Dec. 19, 1996, P.L.1458, No.186, eff. 60 days; Feb.
18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff. imd.; June 11, 2002, P.L.367,
No.52, eff. imd.)
2002 Amendment. Act 52 added par. (16). 1998 Amendment. Act 19 amended the intro. par. and pars.
(2), (5) and (9) and added par. (15). 1996 Amendment. Act 186 amended par. (2) and added par.
(14). 1995 Amendment. Act 20, 1st Sp.Sess., added par. (13). Cross References. Section 5704 is referred to in sections
5702, 5706, 5720, 5721.1, 5742, 5747, 5749, 5782 of this title.

Source (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/PDF/18/18.PDF)

I will state that I did not read this word for word. From my reading, it looks like Bellyup is right. However, (and I couldn't find it above) I did read on a couple other pages that it is acceptable to record when there is no expectation of privacy, such as outside of a Pens game.


(http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/PDF/18/18.PDF)

Ronin152
04-24-2012, 10:53 PM
Even more significantly, almost ten years before Agnew, (https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1998180733&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that secretly recording a police officer in the performance of his duties did not violate the Wiretap Act. See Commonwealth v. Henlen, 522 Pa. 514, 564 A.2d 905, 906 (1989) (https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1989145032&pubNum=162&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_pp_sp_162_906).

In 1998, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained the elements of a Wiretap Act violation as follows:

[I]n order to establish a prima facie case under the Wiretap Act for interception of an oral communication, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) that he engaged in a communication; (2) that he possessed an expectation that the communication would not be intercepted; (3) that his expectation was justifiable under the circumstances; and (4) that the defendant attempted to, or successfully intercepted the communication, or encouraged another to do so.

DixieJeeper
04-24-2012, 11:18 PM
Bellyup039 Ha-- :) I know you usually don't work anyhow... just like me.

I think we have about covered it:

OC is legal and it is debatable if it promotes the gun enthusiast hobby and the the 2nd admendment awarness.
Field Interviews (FI) arent arrests
Dependant on the FI reason and the events leading up to the FI it may be better to smooth the situation over by identifiing yourself even if you are not required to provid such information
There are benifts to OC vs. CC

I think we default to those who have experence in the matter regarding the elements of the crime of wiretapping. Much like photos the recording/wiretap laws reall rely heavily on the expectation of privacy. When you are walking around the consol arena you have no reasonable expectation of privacy to yoru conversations being made on a public thoughfare. Therfore, photo/recording is permitted. There is another matter if the material may be resued or used in court.. again there really is SO much more to all of that I say we let that dog lay on the floor. It is pretty pasionate about our positions.

scott out. :)

Bellyup0389
04-25-2012, 02:09 PM
Woof! You mean i dont have to look up all that jaz.

Sleep. dog, sleep.

Personally, I like it when others open carry. I know who to watch when the Sh... Hits the fan. Cause if they aren't smart enough to have "the element of suprise" on their side. It's on my side.

joshs1ofakindxj
04-25-2012, 02:18 PM
I don't think I like what you're implying.

pittim
04-25-2012, 04:55 PM
I don't think I like what you're implying.

It sounds like he's implying that people that OC are all stupid criminals.

Either that or that he himself is a criminal and knows who to draw down on first.

Wrecker
04-25-2012, 05:45 PM
He means what I feel also. When you open carry, you are the first to be a target for the bad guys. They are going to go after the person they know has the gun first. While the guy who is concealed, has the element of time. I wont be forced to act till I feel the time is right for me.

ridgerunner97
04-25-2012, 07:45 PM
^ Agreed. There is a time and a place. 99% of the time I have a firearm and guess what nobody knows but me, and I like it that way.

I'm not getting into Mere encounter, Investigative detention etc. I just had a whole semester of investigation.

Deadman 94 xj
04-26-2012, 08:25 AM
Agreed again. That has always been the basis of my point whenever I jump into these discussions. *I* wouldn't OC because *I* don't like the attention. There ARE times when the attention can benefit a situation and OC'ing will bring a certain level of authority to an otherwise civil situation. In other words, OC'ing in an environment where shit has not hit the fan just yet, can prevent shit from flying in the first place.... great.

I grew up around firearms but I actually learned to respect a fire arm in the military. When I say respect, I mean fear, because respect and fear are one and the same in my book. I have alll kinds of experience firing different types of fire arms. I qualified expert on the SAW :) Loved that machine. I only mention that to give a little background.

Because of that respect, I will admit that when I see a civilian OC'ing or one of my friends, my first instinct is to punch them in the face. No I don't say anything and no I don't cause a scene or anything, its just something personal I feel. I know that sounds harsh but its because I feel threatened. Its a normal reaction I think but then some will say that somehow makes me a liberal...lol. My point is, I'd imagine the bad guys probably feel the same way. I live in Braddock, work and down pittsburgh, and lived in the Northside before this...I've never felt the need to OC and I don't usually carry. That's my choice though, not anybody elses. I'd imagine if I OC'd on a daily basis I'd have a lot more stories to tell.

In my opinion, CC'ing gets the job done. OC'ing creates headaches, unless you're in a combat situation of course.

Wrecker
04-26-2012, 08:29 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LIBERAL! LIBERAL! LIBERAL!

GET HIM..........








I kid.

Super Scout
04-26-2012, 08:30 AM
^You bleeding heart liberal pinky commie !!!!!!!

Always knew you liked dudes.

Deadman 94 xj
04-26-2012, 08:32 AM
Jerks...

I try to be serious for once!

I forgot the :040:


Seriously though, it all goes back to the boobs. Think about it.

Super Scout
04-26-2012, 08:37 AM
These kind ?
http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t492/NikayeOwO/olosdhjfgigalol.jpg

Or these kind ?

http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p628/amzingstarz224/yeeahyuh039.jpg

Deadman 94 xj
04-26-2012, 08:40 AM
LOL! Both! ...in this case.


...and FU for posting that first pic.

Bellyup0389
04-28-2012, 12:28 AM
He means what I feel also. When you open carry, you are the first to be a target for the bad guys. They are going to go after the person they know has the gun first. While the guy who is concealed, has the element of time. I wont be forced to act till I feel the time is right for me.

EXACTLY. You said it correctly. I alway's have my 45 on me. But no one except people who read websites and know me will know that. Gives me the element of suprise when the BAD guy's start something. They dont know a 45 is comin there way.
And that's how i want it. If everyone Concealed their carry, THEN the BAD guys wouldnt know who to shoot first, Would they? If the BAD guy's know (someone) has a gun, cause they can see it, The BAD guy's will go after them first.

MY BET is the BAD guy's are not open carrying, And that gives them the element of suprise in what ever bad intentions they have planned.

Wrecker said it very well. Thanks for clarifying my thoughts. (I hate typing on a i pad) and therefore i cut it short, when i do.

and Pittim, I am the exact Opposite of a criminal. :)

joshs1ofakindxj
04-28-2012, 03:23 PM
^ I guess that makes sense in a few wild west 711 qwick-e-mart fantasy shoot outs

Mykal
04-28-2012, 03:27 PM
Hahahaha

pittim
04-28-2012, 04:31 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/528820_346553865410692_268330443233035_943643_2064 949_n.jpg

OC FTW!

DMG
04-29-2012, 01:59 PM
EXACTLY. You said it correctly. I alway's have my 45 on me. But no one except people who read websites and know me will know that. Gives me the element of suprise when the BAD guy's start something. They dont know a 45 is comin there way.
And that's how i want it. If everyone Concealed their carry, THEN the BAD guys wouldnt know who to shoot first, Would they? If the BAD guy's know (someone) has a gun, cause they can see it, The BAD guy's will go after them first.

MY BET is the BAD guy's are not open carrying, And that gives them the element of suprise in what ever bad intentions they have planned.

Wrecker said it very well. Thanks for clarifying my thoughts. (I hate typing on a i pad) and therefore i cut it short, when i do.

and Pittim, I am the exact Opposite of a criminal. :)

You make it sound like you get in shootouts with "BAD GUYS" every day. Heres a free hint: Bad guys know how to pick out cops. You all have a look to you. They shoot you first, if they are looking for trouble. But usually, "BAD GUYS" take the path of least resistance and are deterred by armed people or cops. That is why they are bad guys, if they were interested in working at something they would have day jobs.

pittim
04-29-2012, 02:59 PM
But usually, "BAD GUYS" take the path of least resistance and are deterred by armed people or cops. That is why they are bad guys, if they were interested in working at something they would have day jobs.

Agree. Criminals that commit crimes around the general public with firearms aren't smart.

When someone is open carrying, the "BAD GUY" knows that there is an armed person that will take matters into their own hands, thus increasing their chances of them (BAD GUY) getting shot. Plus, the "BAD GUY" might think that if there is one citizen with a gun, there could also be more. Thus the element of surprise is negated.

When someone is concealed, the "BAD GUY" will be more likely to carry out what they had planned since to them it is safer.

Bellyup0389
04-29-2012, 09:09 PM
Interesting school of thought.
I quit, you win, keep on open carry, I will keep on concealed, we will all eventually have one and all will be better off in the long run.

I open carry at work, along with AT Least one concealed, and an AR15. Every day, so it's like wearing my wrist watch and American express card.

Happy open carry.

DMG
04-29-2012, 09:21 PM
Interesting school of thought.
I quit, you win, keep on open carry, I will keep on concealed, we will all eventually have one and all will be better off in the long run.

I open carry at work, along with AT Least one concealed, and an AR15. Every day, so it's like wearing my wrist watch and American express card.

Happy open carry.

I wonder how different law enforcement would be if you didn't open carry? Or carry at all? The gun on your hip sends a message to the people around you.

Bellyup0389
04-30-2012, 11:40 PM
did you seriously go there?

I think the uniform does more then the open carry gun on my hip. enough allready. let this go. It's never gonna end.

Azzy
05-01-2012, 01:07 AM
Interesting school of thought.
I quit, you win, keep on open carry, I will keep on concealed, we will all eventually have one and all will be better off in the long run.

I open carry at work, along with AT Least one concealed, and an AR15. Every day, so it's like wearing my wrist watch and American express card.

Happy open carry.

Hey, i go about the day the same way. not usually with the AR, but the rest the same. And Im not a cop.

:)

Everyone needs to go have a drink and not worry about the random shootouts in 7-11.

DMG
05-01-2012, 09:09 AM
did you seriously go there?

I think the uniform does more then the open carry gun on my hip. enough allready. let this go. It's never gonna end.

Its a legit question. I visited England and did not see a single cop with a gun. In the Dominican some of them had MP5s patrolling Santo Domingo. And I guess we are somewhere in the middle.

Deadman 94 xj
05-01-2012, 09:48 AM
People in places that are assumed to be unarmed are ruthless. Seriously.

This thread is retarded though, also serious.

Super Scout
05-01-2012, 12:10 PM
Tom, the use of the word "retarded" offends me.

Bellyup0389
05-01-2012, 07:45 PM
Its a legit question. I visited England and did not see a single cop with a gun. In the Dominican some of them had MP5s patrolling Santo Domingo. And I guess we are somewhere in the middle.

I might be wrong here, but my understanding about England cops is... They don't carry guns at all.

Uniform and hidden gun, I bet you get the same results, the only reason we have our guns in plain site is faster draw.

And as far as open carry, I understand our soldiers carry very big guns out in plain site, and
"bad guys" still take them on. Refer to Iraq war for more details on that.

Dmg, do yourself a "solid" and conceal it every time. Less hassles, and when the big one comes on our land, we can all open carry.

BUT..... If everyone challenges the right to open carry, some non-right winger, will find some reason to get their panties in an uproar, the will get in politcal office, and lobby to abolish it, and they will win, then we all loose.

Mykal
05-01-2012, 08:01 PM
And as far as open carry, I understand our soldiers carry very big guns out in plain site, and
"bad guys" still take them on. Refer to Iraq war for more details on that.

You're serious? There is a difference between an American thug and a a person raised to believe they are being attacked and acting to protect their home land, heritage and religion.



Dmg, do yourself a "solid" and conceal it every time. Less hassles, and when the big one comes on our land, we can all open carry.

BUT..... If everyone challenges the right to open carry, some non-right winger, will find some reason to get their panties in an uproar, the will get in politcal office, and lobby to abolish it, and they will win, then we all loose.

Right...

Bellyup0389
05-01-2012, 11:23 PM
No, I wasnt serious. I was trying to do my little part to end this reidiculos thread.

I guess, I am just tired of wanna be attorneys trying to tell me that the law is on their side, when I know its not.

To put it simply,

The law prohibits just about anything that sounds wrong. There is a law somewhere, having to do with something, that makes whatever, you can/may do, that may sound like, it might be wrong, to someone else.

Our wonderfull laws just keep on comin, they never go away. And all the challenges just make the attorneys more money making more laws. It never ends.

So With that I am ending my involvement in this thread.. Have fun flame on. I wont be typing on this one, any time soon.

Lots of luv,, See ya on the trail. ( and some I might even see their gun on the trail) :)

DixieJeeper
05-01-2012, 11:53 PM
Yea pretty much I agree- the use of "retard" offended me.. :)

We all got our collective panties in a bunch on this one.... we are all pretty much gun lovers here unless there are some commie pinkos hiding in our midst.

It comes down to your own decsion to OC vs CC.... its your right.. do as you wish.. as with ever choice and path in life it will have repercussions in each way.

For the record; its the man/woman in uniform behind the badge or the BDU's that protray confidence, control and command not the gun in my eyes. BUT you HAVE to have tools at your disposal to enforce your command presence.

All the command presence is worthless when met with the dregs of society and huligans. Thats why "bobbies" (UK police) now DO have specialized units that DO cary guns. Guess taking away guns from everyone but the criminals didn't work out so well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

I actually subscribe to a number of trade publications still from that realm of my life and it seems as the pendullum is swining towards more equipping officers in the UK to control the dregs of society.

I also do agree with Bellyup039... when the big one hits.. (hopefully not in my or my daughter's lifetime) it won't matter we will all pull together like revolutionary minute men.. or its going to be like the reality TV version of the walking dead.. either way OC vs CC will be a mute point.

DMG
05-02-2012, 12:29 AM
I might be wrong here, but my understanding about England cops is... They don't carry guns at all.

Uniform and hidden gun, I bet you get the same results, the only reason we have our guns in plain site is faster draw.

And as far as open carry, I understand our soldiers carry very big guns out in plain site, and
"bad guys" still take them on. Refer to Iraq war for more details on that.

Dmg, do yourself a "solid" and conceal it every time. Less hassles, and when the big one comes on our land, we can all open carry.

BUT..... If everyone challenges the right to open carry, some non-right winger, will find some reason to get their panties in an uproar, the will get in politcal office, and lobby to abolish it, and they will win, then we all loose.

I am about done with this thread, after this:
I only OC in the woods but I respect the rights of others to OC anywhere it is legal and reasonable to do so. For someone to not OC (or do or not do anything for that matter) because they are worried about upsetting someone who may try to make your action illegal is really not what this country is about.

I can't help that supect that one of the reasons LEOs are so quick to hassle OC'ers is that a gun equals power to a lot of people and people with power do not like to share power or be on the same level as the rest of us.

joshs1ofakindxj
05-02-2012, 06:54 AM
When people tell me I shouldn't do something that is legal...

http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/when-people-you-dont-know-tell-you-their-problems.gif

Super Scout
05-02-2012, 07:12 AM
^ nsfw !!!!!!!!







HEHEHEHEHE

HoodRN
05-02-2012, 08:44 AM
I am about done with this thread, after this:
I only OC in the woods but I respect the rights of others to OC anywhere it is legal and reasonable to do so. For someone to not OC (or do or not do anything for that matter) because they are worried about upsetting someone who may try to make your action illegal is really not what this country is about.

I can't help that supect that one of the reasons LEOs are so quick to hassle OC'ers is that a gun equals power to a lot of people and people with power do not like to share power or be on the same level as the rest of us.

Dave, perhaps you should say "some" LEOs. I'm an LEO, I work for the PGC. Most, if not all, of my field contacts are armed. Better armed than me in fact. As long as we are still a society of laws, power isn't coming from the barrel of a sidearm, it's coming from the law. I'm in the field to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. I make it a point to stay up to speed on PA statutes so that I have less of a chance of looking as foolish as those officers did on tape. That being said, the most potent weapon you possess is not in a holster, it's between your ears. I have witnessed open carrying for no other reason than to generate a confrontation with police. These guys are not carrying for protection, or even sports (hunting), they are carrying to make a "statement". IMHO, these guys are not helping the cause of gun ownership/right to carry. Any publicity they generate is usually negative (with the non gun owning public). One well publicized incident in another part of the state led to a lawsuit by an OCer against local police who had arrested him after an OC "event". As far as I know, his suit went nowhere, and he has become much less of an "activist". As others have said, OC is legal in PA, and most LEOs that I know have no problem at all with it. However, there will always be a small minority that insist on "poking the skunk". Unfortunately, they will continue to get all of the attention.

DixieJeeper
05-02-2012, 09:17 AM
as a former LEO I have seen what HoodRN is talking about..

you can have an officer who lacks general commonsense who misshandles a FI and takes what WOULD BE a controlled situation into a 10-13 rumble.

The whole reason is that he failed to use his/her noodle.... had nothing to do with the gun on his/her hip you can suprisingly escalate a situation very quickly by by mishandling the situaition. The abilty to properly be situaitonally aware and promote proper and senseable policiing are the key tools for a smart officer... whats on your duty gear are just tools to that end.

DMG
05-02-2012, 10:32 AM
This makes sense.


Dave, perhaps you should say "some" LEOs. I'm an LEO, I work for the PGC. Most, if not all, of my field contacts are armed. Better armed than me in fact. As long as we are still a society of laws, power isn't coming from the barrel of a sidearm, it's coming from the law. I'm in the field to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. I make it a point to stay up to speed on PA statutes so that I have less of a chance of looking as foolish as those officers did on tape. That being said, the most potent weapon you possess is not in a holster, it's between your ears. I have witnessed open carrying for no other reason than to generate a confrontation with police. These guys are not carrying for protection, or even sports (hunting), they are carrying to make a "statement". IMHO, these guys are not helping the cause of gun ownership/right to carry. Any publicity they generate is usually negative (with the non gun owning public). One well publicized incident in another part of the state led to a lawsuit by an OCer against local police who had arrested him after an OC "event". As far as I know, his suit went nowhere, and he has become much less of an "activist". As others have said, OC is legal in PA, and most LEOs that I know have no problem at all with it. However, there will always be a small minority that insist on "poking the skunk". Unfortunately, they will continue to get all of the attention.

beat1078
05-02-2012, 04:42 PM
Ok. I get to be post 100.
Lets all get a beer and work on a Jeep or other approved offroad vehicle.

DMG
12-16-2018, 12:27 PM
...

Dave, perhaps you should say "some" LEOs. I'm an LEO, I work for the PGC. Most, if not all, of my field contacts are armed. Better armed than me in fact. As long as we are still a society of laws, power isn't coming from the barrel of a sidearm, it's coming from the law. I'm in the field to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. I make it a point to stay up to speed on PA statutes so that I have less of a chance of looking as foolish as those officers did on tape. That being said, the most potent weapon you possess is not in a holster, it's between your ears. I have witnessed open carrying for no other reason than to generate a confrontation with police. These guys are not carrying for protection, or even sports (hunting), they are carrying to make a "statement". IMHO, these guys are not helping the cause of gun ownership/right to carry. Any publicity they generate is usually negative (with the non gun owning public). One well publicized incident in another part of the state led to a lawsuit by an OCer against local police who had arrested him after an OC "event". As far as I know, his suit went nowhere, and he has become much less of an "activist". As others have said, OC is legal in PA, and most LEOs that I know have no problem at all with it. However, there will always be a small minority that insist on "poking the skunk". Unfortunately, they will continue to get all of the attention.