Punisher84

Definitely agreed. I may have come across heavy handed. If I did I apologize. You seem to have got what I was pointing at though.

I have a bit of credit debt and I did buy 2 guns on credit, but most of mine resulted from necessity spending. I worked for the evil empire (FedEx) for a few years and they cut my hours in half after 2 years of having the same hours, so my credit cards got used for groceries and gas. Nothing outrageous, but still more than I'd like as I'm not a line of credit fan myself. I can't fathom 5k of debt for guns though. If you have to have debt it outta be out of necessity. I.E a house, car, etc.

It depends on the guard/officer. There are certain places firearms are just not needed for security work. Of course the case can usually be made for proper training of said guards/officers. I work proprietary unarmed for an undisclosed company/location right now and carry every thing except a firearm and trust me...I'm far from defenseless. I wouldn't mind being armed, but you can get by. Guards/Officers in the security field tend to be few and far between that can actually employ good sense in a confrontation and having an untrained person with an exposed firearm in a "law enforcement" role is bad news. I digress though.

As an employee or guard? As an employee yes. As a guard you're going to be held to a somewhat higher standard, but fear for your life is fear for your life.

I read an article once by Mas Ayoob about 2 guys who got into it outside a movie theater and the permit holder bumped the other guy out of the way, but hit him with his hip that had his gun on it. The guy called the cops and said hey the crazy guy ht me with his gun and threatened to kill me. Agg. assault. The guy got off, but spent alot of time and money doing it. Hate that its happening to you, but this is definitely an argument for cool tempers and concealed meaning concealed.

He would have to get licensed with the state to employ someone inside the company as any type of security. He'd actually be better off just letting you carry if it's not against any company policy with the new castle doctrine extending to businesses. Unless he wants you making arrests etc. Then he should either change your job function or hire an outside company.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

:D

I think we can probably all sum this thread up very simply by saying the following: There are cops who don't know the law and treat people like crap "because they can" and that is wrong. There are permit holders who have neither the common sense or integrity to have a pellet gun let alone a CCW badge (shudder) and a gun. Rabbi and I will never agree on anything and if we do I hope your bug-out bag is ready because the world is over. and all in all this has been a spirited discussion and has had alot of different viewpoints, but at least no one called anyone names

Only time I ever removed from the holster was when I carried in my Blackhawk. I have low sports car seats and the thing would jam up into my side. The shoulder rig is the Miami Classic and it's the horizontal. I'm liking it so far. Conceals awesome under a bowling type shirt.

The exchange is based on part of the argument. Why not notify before. Now I need you to step out here and talk to me on my terms, because I've seen a weapon and don't know you. No cuffs, no beatings, just need to see your hands a bit better. If you stay in the car and aren't supposed to have it you might freak and try to drive away running me over or causing a wreck. The way you are pointing out what the law requires is not as noble or right as you make it. You're taking something small that is not a hassle and blowing it up into the entire breakdown of the constitution and don't give me that "it starts small crap." I also do not think everyone is a criminal, but the sad part is there are alot out there and I'm not going to be complacent or assume everyone is innocent and peace loving either. Second guessing what you do on a battlefield or on the streets gets you or your partner killed. I'm not living with that so I guess the first person I come across that has a permit and wants to be an ass and "fight the glorious fight" is just gonna have to really dislike that 6'3 Irish ******* cop that took 5 more minutes of his time to make sure he was a-ok to have the gun. Then sent him on his way home, knowing me probably with an apology.

I bought a shoulder rig for long trips to avoid adjusting and reholstering while getting out at gas stations etc, but for short trips I either sit it on the passenger seat covered up, between the seat and console or on my hip.

Fallguy, Great last two posts. That pretty sums up how I feel. It's a choice, but it doesn't need to be us vs. them. Like I said earlier, when I get out on the street I may very well end up letting someone go and talking guns rather than writing a ticket, but I'm also going home at the end of the shift. Someone stated earlier about a holstered firearm causing suspicion. Criminals can wear holsters to. So can people who may be taking a plunge off the deep end. Plain and simple I just want to know what I'm dealing with at a stop. No unpleasant surprises. I think that is a more than fair thing to want. Anyway I think I've said what needs to be said from my end. My horse wants to quit being beat before it's all the way dead.

To go back about 3 pages, Towerclimber, I wasn't clear and I apologize I don't mean ANY gun. I'm talking about a scenario like this: Officer: Sir can I see your license and registration? Civilian: Yessir. (hands it over.) Officer: Thank you sir. Know why I pulled you over? Civilian: No sir. *shifts in the seat and exposes gun* Officer: Sir keep your hands where I can see them and step out of the vehicle... That kind of scenario. Something simple to avoid by being upfront about it. Just because you don't have to by law doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I agree with alot that's been said, but there are statements that are speckled with LEO distrust, fear, and I dare say hatred. I'm not counting Voldemort's statements because well he's Voldemort, but Fallguy, Rabbi, etc. you make such a big deal about rights and all the rest, but I don't see either of you putting your neck out for what's right either. Fallguy you used to be a reserve officer right? You can understand the nervousness that you get walking up to a car with back-up 5 minutes away if there's trouble. I'm not talking about searching, no-knock warrants, or anything other than give me a good excuse why showing a LEO your permit with your DL and insurance card is a bad idea. This is a simple discussion that has been blown out of proportion and taken to extremes. Regardless of what Rabbi apparently thinks, not all cops are jack-booted stormtroopers hell bent on the destruction of your individual freedoms and rights. That's congress' job. Relax people. Fight the guys in the shadows, not the boys in blue.

I think all LEOs at least know there are legally armed civilians in the state and others and no one is accusing them of breaking the law. Nor did I ever advocate or suggest throwing someone to the ground and cuffing them. That is a prejudiced statement. All LEOs are voluntary. I'm reserve. Voluntary as it gets, doing it for free. I expect no one to give up their rights, but I expect to be complied with. If you don't want to offer the info voluntarily fine, but if I pull you over for speeding and run your license and it pops back you have a permit I'm not gonna worry to much about it if I see a gun, but if I don't know you have a permit and ask and you say no and you have one. We're probably going to be having a conversation at the rear of your vehicle for a moment. Then that person can go on a forum and talk about how this dick cop pulled them over and DEMANDED to see their gun and infringed all up in dey rights. Then I'll go home or to the range and thank God that it was just a civilian who was carrying and it all worked out and not someone who would have shot me.

The first part is true, but I don't fully understand how that's relevant. The law is not in debate. The debate (on my end) is centered on why you would not want to put an officer at ease if they asked for your permit. If you don't want to answer other questions then that is your right, it may not always be the best road to take, but it is your right assuredly. I agree there are cops who love to flaunt their power and display authority. The problem is looking at an entire group of people, because of narrow views or looking at the 10% that show up on the news or on the wrong side of the courtroom. The problem I find with alot of permit holders is the sense of entitlement and the God complex alot of them get. I think everyone should be able to defend themselves, but the attitude of " I have a gun. I took 3 eight hour shooting classes. I wear a 5.11 vest! I am able to take care of myself better than any stupid ole' 5 minute response time cop!" is sad. As Tower put it, it's an us against them attitude and it's not helping anyone. I can see it's something we won't agree on because I don't even agree with some of my co-workers about it. Even in the gun world you have anti and pro.

That's pretty much hitting the nail on the head. I think LEOs fall into 2 categories those who are and those who wish they were. To put it simply you wear the uniform, don't let the uniform wear you. LEOs that are always ready to bust heads and make big issues out of little things don't last long usually, but good cops who love the job and actually remember what protect and serve means just wanna go home at the end of shift. The problem is when an unknown person intentionally or accidentally introduces an unverified weapon into a situation, the situation chages drastically.

You're missing the point. Think about it rationally. You say don't ask me I'm not doing it. Why? To prove a point? To feel macho and like you got one up on a LEO? If the officer doesn't ask and never sees it and the conversation goes no further, don't worry about it, but if they ask and you say no and you are carrying and they see it, they're going to react differently, because now you have lied about carrying a weapon. The incident in Knoxville is not up for comparison, if you're referring to the Wal-mart open carry incident. That LEO was out of line and didn't know the law. I'll also tell you how departments view complaints from people that have egos and don't cooperate with officers with clean records. Ball up some tissue and throw it in the trash can. There went your complaint. You're lumping every cop on the street together, which either means you think you're to cool for school, or you really hate cops. There are some great cops out there, just like there are stupid permit holders.

Did you even read my post? Nevermind, I forgot...

I'm gonna take it alot of you have never been in a LEO position? I agree about civil rights etc., but there is a difference between standing up for your rights and doing something dumb and causing a stir. I am one of the biggest pro 2A guys I know. I work at a shooting range/gun shop, am an NRA member, member of this forum since it's inception, and proud permit holder, but i tell you now, when i get on the streets in a few months and I ask someone if they are carrying and they tell me no or refuse to answer and I see a gun it's gonna be a different ballgame. It is not an effort or infringement to hand over your permit and put the officer at ease. We deal with the worst society has to offer everyday and have to be ready for the worst. I don't know you. So guess what I'm gonna do when I see your gun without you telling me you have a legal right to carry it? I'm gonna respond in a manner that ensures my safety. I'm getting married in a few months and guess what? I'm going home every night. So if that means Rabbi gets cuffed up until i verify why he has that gun and where his permit is, well to bad. I'll apologize and maybe he'll understand that not all cops want to put a boot to his neck and piss on his rights. We just wanna go home at the end of the day.

I been gone for awhile, but yea I'm starting to paint a picture.

So you have 8 pages of thread of people debating language barrier and you never thought it pertinent to say she does speak English? Take the dang course in English and get over it. That's just silly. That's the only thing I can think to say. Wow.

Those crap signs at the Zoo and malls where is says prohibited items are : Baggy Pants, green hair, Keyboard Neck-Ties, Skateboards, Firearms, Knives, and Smoking Indoors are not legal and the most they can ask you to do is leave. Now, if you refuse to leave you can be charged with Criminal trespass and maybe Disorderly Conduct.

I don't see a problem with anyone coming to the country legally and wanting to own a firearm and carry it, but I think they should have to learn English. I think we are placating people by doing things in other languages. It's not a sawed off attitude of some trailer park hillbilly, but the opinion of someone who has traveled. People in other countries are only moderately accommodating of someone who does not speak the local language, if at all. I agree with everyone who has said you do not need verbal commands to make a self-defense case. That's nit-picking, but I think being able to understand the legalities of self-defense, communicating with instructors, lawyers, and potentially the police are good reasons to know English. It's all going to generally make it easier to speak with someone about your firearm purchase, holster, etc. I do know that the 4473 has to be filled out by the actual buyer and some ranges require the person be able to at least read/understand a waiver and range rules and be able to converse with Range safety officers to an extent.

None taken. I agree from your standpoint. While I do trust my friend and am familiar with his knowledge, I understand your hesitancy. I think regardless of what it means it's at least a viable defense at any rate. It seems odd they would afford more protection to permit holders, but take away an act that afforded them protection from prosecution if they acted in defense of life.Roscoe, I went back and read your post again and it's a little clearer now. I get what you're saying now is that it is still a defense to be raised per the statute.