Philly police arrest man carrying.

Right.. don't address my point and then spout more ridiculous blanket statements.

It's not all about you. Sometimes police officers might have other more pressing issues in mind - like their safety and the public's safety.

So, are you all assuming that it's right to treat gun owners like criminals?

In a country where we HAVE AN EXPLICIT; CONSTITUTIONAL RKBA?

They have no reason to expect a given gun owner will be a criminal. People who choose to carry shouldn't be humiliated by law enforcement. We have a right to carry, but that right means crap if we can be harassed by cops for exercising it.

edited 18th May '11 4:03:35 AM by SavageHeathen

Hey, I'm not even American. I don't really care how you treat people who carry guns. Your anti-police statements bother me, is all.

Loni Jay: Image a speeding control, and that you have to get out of the car, kneel, and get put on handcuffs, the cops THEN searches your car, and THEN checks your ID.
You are advocating it.

That's... not quite the same. I'm hardly posing a threat to the police, now am I?

By your logic, you could.
The cop must be safe you know? Even if it violates common sense.

Me holding a gun is quite a different threat level to me standing empty-handed.

You would be surprised by the amount of daggers, weapons and firearms one can hide.
Even better: Nothing is stopping you from hitting the guy properly, most likely knocking him uncouncious in the process.
Hence: The assumption of somebody with a strapped gun being more lethal is silly. You are going to be within arms range anyhow to even fetch the permit to read it, for a few seconds.
So please: Consider what you are advocating. Words meaning something.

Savage: You have been very unreasonable the whole thread.

edited 18th May '11 4:20:55 AM by TuefelHundenIV

The authorities violating people's liberty/privacy/dignity is something that I'm not particularly reasonable about.

The systematic, deliberate harassment of gun owners (after all, they might stop an open carrier everyday, perhaps many times in a given day), is a blatant attempt to revoke RKBA via police dickery. Officer safety is the preferred buzzword for fishy searches, general cop dickery and degrading treatment.

That's why I'm against officer safety: I view the privacy and dignity of the common man to trump any safety considerations by the police. I think the privacy/dignity concerns on part of the civvies trump an officer's claim to complete safety. People should not be forced to act submissive by any thug with a badge and an attitude.

I'm fine with cops being safe, as long as nobody's liberty/privacy/dignity is compromised in return. I view such compromises as unacceptable. I think it's better for a cop to risk harm (after all, it is a risky job and they signed up willingly) than to have an innocent person being degraded or harassed (after all, they didn't choose to get in that mess on the first place).

@Loni: Carrying a gun is different from holding it. You're young and an Aussie: You see losing RKBA as a non-issue. For many Americans, RKBA is a big deal.

edited 18th May '11 4:58:10 AM by SavageHeathen

@Savage Heathen: You're wrong on a great any things:

That just reeks of stupidity; it's ok for somebody else to get killed so your "rights don't get violated"?

Sucks to be you. it's not about power, it's practicality; if an individual is on there knees with their hands behind their head, it's much more difficult for them to make a hostile action without you(the officer) noticing it.

There are much more worse things that you could have done to you than getting cuffed and having to kneel; getting beat, locked in a cage and not fed for a week comes to mind.

So, on the off chance a person might attack an officer, it's OK to make everybody who exercises his rights kneel, of all things?

From the POV of any outside observer, police procedure demands the greatest amount of degradation/humiliation/submission from the public that it's currently feasible for them to get. It's disgusting.

Police officers shouldn't force passersby to show submission if it is at all avoidable. Dignity is important: If there was a slightly more risky but way less degrading way to disarm a person, it should be done that way. I'm sure there is.

Nobody here sees being forced to kneel before a police officer, which is a gesture of utter submission, horrifying?

edited 18th May '11 5:13:37 AM by SavageHeathen

No. It does not. I can think of loads of things more degrading that a police officer could do to you beyond making you kneel and put your hands on your head.

It isn't about submission or dignity.

Kneeling is degrading? Hope you never go to SERE school.

You sign up for SERE school. In a sense, you get what you bargained for/you knew what you were getting into.

You do not choose to be harassed by a JBT.

edited 18th May '11 5:23:10 AM by SavageHeathen

Choose? No, but certain acts, or forms of dress make your more susceptible to a search. People with CCW permits know this, and as a general rule; try to comply to the best of their ability.

You're OK with discretionary searching of people? 'Cause I'm not OK with that at all. There should be VERY stringent criteria before a cop is allowed to even consider a search on anybody. It's better not to do a necessary search than to do an even remotely suspect one.

Sure, a person carrying should be grounds to check his CCW permit, not for a full-blown search. Privacy'n'all.

You shouldn't give up your right to privacy in order to exercise you right to keep and bear arms, Kino. Probable cause used to be required before a search could take place: However, you're apparently fine with gun owners/carriers waiving their Fourth Amendment Rights in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

It's Orwellian.

edited 18th May '11 5:30:30 AM by SavageHeathen

I'm with the pragmatists here.

If my job was keeping the peace, seeing someone openly wearing a firearm would make me paranoid until I had it all cleared up. All the officer has to do is disable the civilian's capacity to do harm while he checks the papers. Then again, I'm not particularly pro-gun (nor anti-gun).

A gun is a big issue, too. I believe in the right to bear arms, for a certain definition of "arms". It would be nice if everyone was responsible enough to own firearms, but that privelage can and does get abused. This isn't a close-combat weapon; you can shoot someone from a pretty damn fair distance with it. Depending on the gun, it could easily go beyond the boundaries of "self-defense". Even a semi-automatic pistol is pushing some boundaries. There's one hell of a lot of killing capacity at the whim of a trigger and some basic training.

In a country where it's legal to own firearms, I understand wanting a firearm yourself to prevent an imbalance of civilian power. But I don't see why you'd need more than, say, a single-action revolver.

I'm not trying to prove a point about gun ownership, I'm trying to see it from the perspective of someone who has to deal with this shit from time to time.

edited 18th May '11 5:36:46 AM by MadassAlex

Who said anything about giving up my right to privacy? If police have suspicion to search an individual, let them do your job; if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about.

That's what all the fascists say. Innocent don't have nothing to fear from surveillance. It's bullshit.

Suspicion is not grounds for a search. Probable cause is. The Fourth Amendment is there for a reason, even though cops don't like it.

edited 18th May '11 5:33:44 AM by SavageHeathen

Yes, because seeing an individual openly carrying a firearm in the middle of a city isn't suspicious.

Can anyone else imagine Savage getting into this situation and then shooting the cop when he asks him to kneel? Because scarily enough I can.

Seriously dude, I hope you never have to deal with the police. Or maybe you're just a troll, whatever.

Dude, don't temp my imagination.

Reasonable suspicion? Yeah, sure. Grounds to stop the guy and check the permit, if it's required.

Just exercising your rights cannot constitute probable cause, and RKBA is a right.

They don't know if a person openly carrying has papers or not; that's why they detain them and then check for papers. If they have the permits, then they get released and everyone goes about their busniess.

No big deal.