Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-21-2011, 01:04 PM #1
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
Duty to inform in Ohio

Here's where we're at so far with this one:

Officer: Suspended with pay while an investigation is underway - department issued an apology of his conduct.

Driver: Charged with misdemeanor (up to six months jail time, fine, and loss of ccw) for failure to inform the officer of a concealed weapon.

The problem here is that watching the video - before the officer starts flipping his lid, threatening to cave in heads and execute people, etc., the driver is never approached and apparently attempts to inform the officer that he has a concealed carry permit when he is told to "shut your mouth". Disobeying an officer is also an arrestable offence, so the driver kept his mouth shut. He notified the officer at the first opportunity from what I can see.

I see this as a real problem with "duty to inform" laws - they give LE too much power over the individual. I don't think this guy deserved to be treated the way that he was - you can even see his permit in his hand as he's getting out of the car as ordered, and yet he's threatened with execution for it. Furthermore, it appears as if the cop didn't take many precautions that could have deescalated the situation ahead of time such as speaking with the driver first or running the plates (you can hear the operator advise that the driver is a ccw holder when the plates are finally run). Maybe we can get some insight from somebody who is on the force here, but it appears as though in this situation the officers negligence contributed to the "wrongdoing" of the suspect.

I have the utmost respect for law enforcement and understand the dangers they face so I tend to give them a great deal of leeway when people start freaking out about this youtube video or that one. In this case although I believe that the officer acted irrationally I think that it shows that the law of duty to inform is fundamentally flawed and unfair to those who wish to carry in order to protect themselves. Heres the dash cam:

__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 07-21-2011, 01:08 PM #2
Matt.is.back2011
 
 
Matt.is.back2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Ban all guns except for government specified militias as it is stated in the constitution and this wouldn't be a problem.

(Prepares for flame-war)
__________________
THE OHIO STATE
Class of 2011

Last edited by Matt.is.back2011 : 07-21-2011 at 01:14 PM.
Matt.is.back2011 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 01:21 PM #3
Swerve22
 
 
Swerve22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Concord NH
 has been a member for 10 years
You mean except for government specified "people" as it is stated in the Constitution?
__________________
Butthurt Conservative.

www.gunfacts.info
Swerve22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 01:40 PM #4
garrettmoore
 
 
garrettmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
Ban all guns except for government specified militias as it is stated in the constitution and this wouldn't be a problem.

(Prepares for flame-war)

Good idea, then the only people that would have them would be criminals.

Smart.
garrettmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 01:52 PM #5
Matt.is.back2011
 
 
Matt.is.back2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettmoore View Post
Good idea, then the only people that would have them would be criminals.

Smart.
Right, so then by your logic police officers and the national guard are criminals?

You seem to be missing about three steps between outlawing guns to the always popular 'zomg, criminals will run teh streetz!' talking point you have deployed so quickly. And you did this all while providing no argument to the original claim, "if guns were outlawed, THEN the situation between the policeman and the citizen could have been avoided." You also failed to address the second point swerve and I were discussing, which was an interpretation to the 2nd amendment.

Impressive really; you are the one who is SMART
__________________
THE OHIO STATE
Class of 2011
Matt.is.back2011 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 02:15 PM #6
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
Ban all guns except for government specified militias as it is stated in the constitution and this wouldn't be a problem.

(Prepares for flame-war)
Your reading comprehension is lacking...
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 02:19 PM #7
garrettmoore
 
 
garrettmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
Right, so then by your logic police officers and the national guard are criminals?
Not so much. My point is, if you outlaw firearms, the only people who are going to pay any attention to that law are going to be law-abiding citizens. Thus, the only people that will retain firearms are going to be criminals since they obviously don't follow the law (aside from government officials).

There are many drugs that are illegal, yet people posses them all the time. What makes you think firearms would be any different?

Last edited by garrettmoore : 07-21-2011 at 02:29 PM.
garrettmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 02:23 PM #8
Matt.is.back2011
 
 
Matt.is.back2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
Your reading comprehension is lacking...
For which part? The article that was posted, or my proposed interpretation of the Constitution for this thread?
__________________
THE OHIO STATE
Class of 2011
Matt.is.back2011 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 02:31 PM #9
Wade4LIFE
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
I don't blame the guy for carrying in that neighborhood. The cop was a huge ****** about everything as well.
Wade4LIFE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 02:40 PM #10
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
For which part? The article that was posted, or my proposed interpretation of the Constitution for this thread?
The constitution part. Quote it, part by part, and dissect it. We'll discuss afterwards. Cool?



I find it humorous that it is perfectly acceptable for the police officer to talk to him with a loaded gun on his hip, but unacceptable for the citizen to talk to the officer with a loaded gun on the citizen's hip.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 02:58 PM #11
Matt.is.back2011
 
 
Matt.is.back2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I'm perfectly aware of what Amendment two states, and it can be interpreted in two ways, which was my point of posting what I did. I can see the merit in both mainstream interpretations (the one that the supreme court and conservatives claim, and the one other which has been studied by professors, historians, and lawyers that interpret it as I did in my OP)

for context:

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
My point still stands: if guns were only to be permitted by a well regulated militia (IE: Police and National Guard), this issue would not have occured.
__________________
THE OHIO STATE
Class of 2011
Matt.is.back2011 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 03:04 PM #12
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Police are not militia, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 and all that.


Honestly, I am upset with the "NRA's" recent "victory". Incorporation is not a good thing.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts

Last edited by barrel roll : 07-21-2011 at 03:06 PM.
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 03:43 PM #13
ladd_17
bA What?!?
 
ladd_17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Nasti 'Nati
ladd_17 is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
ladd_17 plays in the APPA D3 division
ladd_17 is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
My point still stands: if guns were only to be permitted by a well regulated militia (IE: Police and National Guard), this issue would not have occured.
Let me know how that's working out for Mexico.

Furthermore, brush up on some history about who and what a 'well-regulated militia' was understood to be during the time when the Constitution was written.
__________________
ladd_17 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 04:54 PM #14
corporationpaintball
too legit to quit
 
corporationpaintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Burlington, VT
Annual Supporting Member
corporationpaintball is a Moderator
corporationpaintball is BST Legit
corporationpaintball donated to help Peyton Trent
corporationpaintball supports our troops
corporationpaintball is one of the top 250 posters on PbNation
corporationpaintball is Boss
Let's keep this thread on track... I'm glad I live where I live, cops don't pull stuff like this- everybody has guns and nobody gets murdered with them (cop or otherwise).
__________________

Old Feedback (+20/-0) | New Feedback (+37/-0)
Annual Supporting Member Council Elite
corporationpaintball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 05:14 PM #15
Overbear
#2 Anti Stim Club Member!
 
Overbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Leandro, CA
Overbear is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
I'm perfectly aware of what Amendment two states, and it can be interpreted in two ways, which was my point of posting what I did. I can see the merit in both mainstream interpretations (the one that the supreme court and conservatives claim, and the one other which has been studied by professors, historians, and lawyers that interpret it as I did in my OP)

for context:



My point still stands: if guns were only to be permitted by a well regulated militia (IE: Police and National Guard), this issue would not have occured.
Someone here is full of fail and lies, no reputible professor or historian would state such, as all of them would have read many of the articles and papers put forth by the very framer of the 2nd amendment. (that would be Thomas Jefferson)

Regardless of your straw man argument, the cop was in the wrong...PERIOD. He should be fired, then put up on charges of harassment and terrorist acts. (the same as you or I would be brought up on if we said teh same exact things to a LEO)
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man - Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is, two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
A republic is, two sheep and a wolf voting on dinner.
A constitutional republic is, voting on dinner is expressly forbidden and the sheep are armed.

Armed gays don't get bashed - www.pinkpistols.org

ssgaR: 'faith is the path of least resistance'."

Rapier7: Don't be a douche
Overbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 06:15 PM #16
Matt.is.back2011
 
 
Matt.is.back2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overbear View Post
Someone here is full of fail and lies, no reputible professor or historian would state such, as all of them would have read many of the articles and papers put forth by the very framer of the 2nd amendment. (that would be Thomas Jefferson)

Regardless of your straw man argument, the cop was in the wrong...PERIOD. He should be fired, then put up on charges of harassment and terrorist acts. (the same as you or I would be brought up on if we said teh same exact things to a LEO)
My comment about historians and professors came from the here http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD, which I found through here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...d_bear_arms.22

Just so we are clear that i am not pulling things 'out of thin air,' for lack of a better term.

Also, I don't really think it is a straw-man arguement; more of a different way to look at it to provoke thought and discussion, which it did.

That being said, i agree with corporationpaintball. The thread is about police excessive use of force in conjunction with 2nd amendment rights, so we should focus on that.
__________________
THE OHIO STATE
Class of 2011
Matt.is.back2011 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 07:14 PM #17
Wango_Tango
AH MOTHERLAND!!!!
 
Wango_Tango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NYC
Wango_Tango is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Just from watching the video, he had plenty of opportunities to tell the cops. Obviously he wasn't fully certain of what to do because it was his first time in that situation, but ignorance isn't an excuse. That being said, the cop still overreacted.
__________________
"Originally posted by §Galactus§if i had a horse, i would put armor on it. and i would wear armor, and ride around collecting taxes and tributes from the serfs."

"Originally posted by §Galactus§You should sig me again. That way, when everyone looks at your signature, they would be like "Holy **** that dude is so awesome he got sigged twice" It would be espically awesome if you sigged this post. So that people who read your sig will be confused as well as amazed


I know, right?
__________________
Wango_Tango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 08:38 PM #18
mnp8nt
There is only Zuul
 
mnp8nt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Land O Drunken Reporters
mnp8nt is playing at Living Legends III
mnp8nt owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
mnp8nt supports Team VICIOUS
mnp8nt is an NCPA player
mnp8nt is Legendary
mnp8nt is attending Decay of Nations VII
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
Also, I don't really think it is a straw-man arguement; more of a different way to look at it to provoke thought and discussion, which it did.

That being said, i agree with corporationpaintball. The thread is about police excessive use of force in conjunction with 2nd amendment rights, so we should focus on that.
Your intrepreptation is little more then revisionist and an improper view of history. Don't Tread on me.

By the way did you miss this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

While a number of authors, lawyers and historians have advocated the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms, the courts have disregarded this viewpoint by pointing out that the term to bear arms also has a private component. In District of Columbia v. Heller the majority pointed out that:


Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” ....

Supreme Court Cases


The primary U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases include Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897); United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed.

__________________
The system is down.
mnp8nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 10:55 PM #19
Spock
Live Long and Bluster
 
Spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE PA
Spock is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011 View Post
Right, so then by your logic police officers and the national guard are criminals?
As evidenced by this video, at least one of them is.
__________________
"Once I make someone die, and they see me....they can't change their mind." -- God

Originally posted by matt00iconoclast:
"there are variables outside of physics that will affect the flight of the ball"
Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 11:09 PM #20
Matt.is.back2011
 
 
Matt.is.back2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnp8nt View Post
Your intrepreptation is little more then revisionist and an improper view of history. Don't Tread on me.

By the way did you miss this:
If you took even a passing glance at the entire section, you would notice that it was a point, counterpoint paragraph. You posting the reciprocal of the one I posted isn't really proving your point, it's just showing the opposite way to interpret the Amendment. Way to make a solid argument though broooo Don't treadz on mai libertiez!!!

And there is nothing revisionist about having a different interpretation of something that is highly vague and written 200 years ago. Revisionist would imply I am revising the original document; i'm not, I'm just stating another viewpoint that lawyers, professors, and historians have all previously studied and condoned.

Also, I never stated that I actually support this version, just that I can see the merit in it.
__________________
THE OHIO STATE
Class of 2011
Matt.is.back2011 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 11:13 PM #21
mawnky
animalpaintball.com
 
mawnky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Texas...... that or hell
 has been a member for 10 years
mawnky plays in the PSP
mawnky owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
mawnky supports Pev's Paintball
Alright let's see where to start with this one... I did see that he did have a good size window in which he could have stepped in and said hey this is what's up. Now, that being said I do believe he did have full intention of letting the cop know that he was armed legally. On top of that the officer in my opinion really did over react. I understand why he would want to know about guns on a traffic stop seeing as how in the first 5 months of this year i believe it was, officer deaths were up 40%. There were things he really should not have said as they were kind of over the top, and the guy was behaving and not being an ******* about everything. Personally I would have given him a bit of a hard time scared him a little about the whole duty to inform while he sat in the back of my car, then more than likely let him go.
__________________
FACTORY CERTIFIED EGO TECH
EGO TUNE UPS AVAILABLE <---PM ME FOR DETAILS AND SPECIALS
mawnky is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump