OC question / State park Concealment

[IronSight]

@IronSight:

I'm just telling you what he told me. How many times have we heard that cops don't know the law? If he's wrong, then he's wrong. I'm not saying he's right. If there is no law, then what do you expect the cops to do? Look the other way?

Actually, yes.

If a person is observed carrying a firearm, openly or concealed, there is still no reasonable suspicion established that that person is doing so illegally. While any officer is free to engage in a mere encounter with someone observed to be carrying, it is quite a stretch to suggest that the sight of a firearm alone is equal to suspicion of a crime in progress.

If you would like to assert that it is, please bring up some relevant case law on that subject. I could suggest a starting point, but I'd like you to have do to your own homework on the matter.

It is part of their job to look for suspicious activities. Concealing a handgun is a crime if the person doesn't have a LTCF, so it's their job to investigate it. Just because a person is trying to OC, and by accident their handgun becomes concealed... how does a cop know that? To them, the person has been CC'ing it all the time. Like it or not, that just seems to be the way it is.

Again, you are equating the mere act of carrying a firearm as being suspicious, yet you aren't providing any facts as to equate why it would be suspicious. A police officer has no more suspicion that someone carrying a firearm is doing so illegally then he does that someone driving a car is doing so illegally.

There is no firearms exception to the fourth amendment.

If you want to argue with the cops, go for it, it's no skin off my teeth. I don't give a flying screw; I have my LTCF, all of my handguns are legally owned, and I have nothing to hide. If a cop wants to stop me because my handgun is printing (OWB holster) under my t-shirt, so be it, I really don't care other than the 5-10 minutes wasted that it will take for him/her to check if my LTCF is valid.

You may have nothing to hide, but that shouldn't disparage the rights of others to be completely secure in their own person and possessions. You don't have to care, honestly, as you're free to waive away your rights as often as you wish.

Plenty of Pennsylvania residents, some members of this forum, have had firearms seized despite being completely legal and having nothing to hide. That certainly cost them more than just five to ten minutes of their time.

[JTokash]

I seem to get this feeling that you like to argue with me. This is now the second time you have flat out gone one-on-one with me where everything I say is scrutinized and disputed.

What's your deal? Do you just like to argue to make yourself feel smart? Is this personal? Do I make you horny baby (in my best Austin Powers voice)? I'm serious, get off my ass.

[IronSight]

I seem to get this feeling that you like to argue with me. This is now the second time you have flat out gone one-on-one with me where everything I say is scrutinized and disputed.

What's your deal? Do you just like to argue to make yourself feel smart? Is this personal? Do I make you horny baby (in my best Austin Powers voice)? I'm serious, get off my ass.

What, do you just wish to go unchallenged on anything and everything you ever say?

You'll notice that I debate things on this board with people all the time, as do others with other people. Such is the nature of an internet forum.

And when an internet forum has limited membership, there tends to be crossover and sometimes the same people go at it again and again.

Occasionally I get proven wrong, considering I'm human. The points I've made here in response to your posts, however, have been made by others in response to similar posts by other people as well. You can choose to address those points, or you can choose to wrongly think that somehow this is personal and that you're being targeted. Sorry buddy, but you're not so special that I go on the lookout for your posts just to criticize and/or correct them.

[DonM55]

What's your deal? Do you just like to argue to make yourself feel smart? Is this personal? Do I make you horny baby (in my best Austin Powers voice)? I'm serious, get off my ass.

A quote from you on another thread says it best: (just drop the equally)


"I have a big mouth and would have to retort in some sort of equally asshole-ish manner."

[JTokash]

What, do you just wish to go unchallenged on anything and everything you ever say?

You'll notice that I debate things on this board with people all the time, as do others with other people. Such is the nature of an internet forum.

And when an internet forum has limited membership, there tends to be crossover and sometimes the same people go at it again and again.

Occasionally I get proven wrong, considering I'm human. The points I've made here in response to your posts, however, have been made by others in response to similar posts by other people as well. You can choose to address those points, or you can choose to wrongly think that somehow this is personal and that you're being targeted. Sorry buddy, but you're not so special that I go on the lookout for your posts just to criticize and/or correct them.

Debate is one thing, but if you look back at everything you have said to me it's contradictory to what I have said. Addressing your contradictory posts would be like pissing in the wind... and I don't like the smell of piss on my boots. Here, I'll settle it: you're right and I'm wrong.

A quote from you on another thread says it best: (just drop the equally)


"I have a big mouth and would have to retort in some sort of equally asshole-ish manner."

Care to explain it to me how I'm being an asshole when I'm just asking this guy to get off my case? Maybe you don't take offense to being contradicted at every instance, but I do.

[IronSight]

Debate is one thing, but if you look back at everything you have said to me it's contradictory to what I have said. Addressing your contradictory posts would be like pissing in the wind... and I don't like the smell of piss on my boots. Here, I'll settle it: you're right and I'm wrong.



Care to explain it to me how I'm being an asshole when I'm just asking this guy to get off my case? Maybe you don't take offense to being contradicted at every instance, but I do.

Oh goodie; let's recap shall we.

Here is my first post in response to one of yours.

Even though I'm currently faculty at PSU, I spent the last few years here as a grad student. I can say without doubt that I'd prefer CC on campus, but the mentality of the average college student is roughly that of a 10 year old so I'm not sure I'd trust many of them with guns. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for the idea, but I think that college kids anymore are too immature on average to hold the responsibility of using a lethal weapon in a defensive situation. Most would pull out their cell phones and hope the campus rent-a-cops would come to the rescue rather than having a fellow classmate, staff, or faculty member stop a criminal in his (or her) steps.

I think it would be a good idea if, in addition to obtaining a LTCF, the students/staff/faculty would need to pass some sort of training given by local or campus cops. If that was the case, then the university itself would know if the persons wanting to CC on campus could be trustworthy and capable of proper defensive use of a handgun.

I see an issue here that arises all too often; that issue is the stereotype of what constitutes a "college student" these days. It's no surprise that this stereotype is embodied by the college kids that typically make the evening and morning news, since the news is by and large negative and drunken students causing trouble makes good press.

The problem is, by and large this stereotype is unfounded. I've lived in student housing, I've lived in a fraternity house, and I've commuted to college, and by and large drunken behavior, argumentative behavior, fist fights or violent behavior of another kind, are all behavior types that fall well below the normal level. I really have yet to see any definitive study showing whether or not a college campus is actually more dangerous, violent, or alcoholic than any other similarly populated area, and yet it's the belief many people hold.

I've seen students arrested for felonies, I've seen others given a break for the same exact crime who've had the matter handled "administratively". I've even worked on a bus from 10pm to 3am Friday and Saturday nights monitoring student behavior while shuttling them between the University of Miami and Coconut Grove, a very popular clubbing area, and I've even done so on Halloween. Fights are not normal, and arguments are just like they are anywhere else and usually brief without escalating to violence.

So not only is this stereotype just flat out wrong, it also embodies exactly the opposite type of student who would get a license to carry. It's patently obvious, and there are statistics that bear it out, that license and permit holders from the various states are more law-abiding. So in reality, when you're talking about those who would, if allowed, carry on campus, you're only talking about a small subset of the general student population; the stereotypical college student everyone seems worried about just doesn't fit into this category.

It's insulting to suggest that the average mentality of a college student is equivalent to that of a 10 year old. The statement is, by default, illogical in many respects. I have no doubt in the post quoted above it was nothing more than intentional hyperbole, but let's please leave that sort of thing out of legitimate discussion since it's simply distracting.

The rent-a-cop comment is also off base on many campuses, where the local police force consists of sworn and legitimate officers. I have discussed it before, and seen it firsthand, that these officers often handle college students with "kid gloves" and pass off the problem to the University/College, but they are legitimate officers of the law and deserve some respect.

We also have to remember that in most cases when a violation of law is occurring it's not a bad thing for a student or faculty member to call the police rather than attempting to deal with the criminal themselves. When I monitored buses (the bus had a nickname, btw, "the drunk bus") it truly was an "observe and report" job, even if the problem wasn't a criminal one. I doubt anyone on these boards would step into the middle of a crime in progress unless absolutely necessary, and I think that mindset is found in college students as well.

Universities should not be worried about the responsibility level of those already allowed to carry firearms off campus. The simple act of being a non-prohibited person and being capable of getting a license is more than enough demonstration a person of any age level needs to go through to prove themselves to be law-abiding. To suggest otherwise implicates that you are perfectly fine with registries and training requirements for all citizens, as if license holders are a group of people that need to be watched and monitored and as if they would snap at any moment and turn into criminals. Such a suggestion is absurd, yet it is exactly the one that you make. It's an emotional suggestion, one that is not supported by facts or reason.

There are absolutely no factual studies to support the belief that allowing concealed carry on campuses would make colleges & universities less safe. The only arguments that are made to support that position are exactly the same as those raised to oppose every other pro-gun bill I've ever seen. You argue that it would turn regular arguments into shoot-outs, that people can't be trusted and aren't responsible enough to handle deadly weapons, and that if it were to be allowed the process would need to be more stringent and more strict than for anywhere else. None of these arguments are supported by facts or logic, just anecdotes and hyperbole, and they've been soundly proven wrong time and time again by real-world situations and events.

Phil Goldsmith of Ceasefire PA wants us to answer the question, "What will we answer when someone asks one day what were we doing between the Virginia Tech massacre and the next one?" If you are ever asked that question will you answer by stating that you supported policies that leave college students defenseless in the face of mad men and criminals based on emotion and hyperbole, or will you be stating that you fought for their basic rights to have the tools needed to defend themselves and their lives if necessary?

Think about that question for just one minute.

Oh, hey, guess what ... that's the only post of yours outside of this thread I can find where I responded to one of your posts, at all.

Obviously, out of my 2000 posts all I'm doing is following you around the board to stay "on your case".

Oh, and just to point out the obvious (emphasis added):

Debate is one thing, but if you look back at everything you have said to me it's contradictory to what I have said.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

de·bate
[dih-beyt]
noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

[JTokash]

This thread is starting to remind me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Having opposing viewpoints is one thing, but simple contradiction is another. If no law exists regarding the definition of what is considered concealing a handgun, and I just tell you what a good friend told me years ago, who happens to be a veteran officer, and I also prefaced this with the fact that I realize that not all cops know the law.... then you simply saying I'm wrong has no basis. If there WAS IN FACT A LAW and I said something incorrect, then you could say I'm wrong and you would be right, but in this case no one can be right because there's no damn law, just contradictory viewpoints with you simply saying that I'm wrong. If you really want to "debate," you'll just be wasting your time because, honestly, I really don't care about matters where there's no right or wrong.

All I was trying to do is to provide some information to help the OP based on what an officer said can be done. Whether what the cops do is right or wrong, THAT is open to debate, but just saying that I'M wrong is no real debate. Like it or not, that's up to you, I'm just telling you what was told to me.

[DennisH82]

Lighten up Francis

[IronSight]

This thread is starting to remind me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Having opposing viewpoints is one thing, but simple contradiction is another. If no law exists regarding the definition of what is considered concealing a handgun, and I just tell you what a good friend told me years ago, who happens to be a veteran officer, and I also prefaced this with the fact that I realize that not all cops know the law.... then you simply saying I'm wrong has no basis. If there WAS IN FACT A LAW and I said something incorrect, then you could say I'm wrong and you would be right, but in this case no one can be right because there's no damn law, just contradictory viewpoints with you simply saying that I'm wrong. If you really want to "debate," you'll just be wasting your time because, honestly, I really don't care about matters where there's no right or wrong.

All I was trying to do is to provide some information to help the OP based on what an officer said can be done. Whether what the cops do is right or wrong, THAT is open to debate, but just saying that I'M wrong is no real debate. Like it or not, that's up to you, I'm just telling you what was told to me.

I could cite half a dozen court cases right now about reasonable suspicion to back up my viewpoints expressed here.

I have a feeling though that you don't actually care. Although I love how you are attempting now to discredit what I've posted by asserting that what I've stated has no basis without any evidence to support your assertion.

Here's a hint: read Terry v Ohio first, then we can move on to discussing recent cases that have expanded upon it.

[jshwak]

So I guess there is really no definitive answer on this problem..

maybe I should just stick with the P3AT instead..