"I Think Feedom Should Come with Small Amount of Responsibility"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

For responsible and respectful discussion:

http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2012/03/if_you_like_ohios_concealed_ca.html#incart_mce









.

[elleng]

1. Freedom DOES come with responsibility,

and I argue more than a SMALL amount of it. When a kid, we'd say, 'Its a free country.' Right, you CAN do many things, but SHOULD you?

'Known as House Bill 422, Maag's proposal would no longer require gun-carrying motorists to promptly notify police officers during a traffic stop that they are carrying guns, or mandate that they keep their hands in plain sight.

Since the Ohio legislature passed a conceal carried law in 2006, about 265,000 Ohioans have earned permits to legally carry guns. The law has not turned the Buckeye State into the Wild West, as some gun-control activists predicted.

Maag's bill, which is co-sponsored by Republican State Rep. Andrew Thompson of Marietta, will make the streets a bit more wild, as least for drivers and for cops.

Maag and supporters of the bill argue the changes are needed to protect the rights of law-abiding permit holders.

From whom?

Cops.

That's right. Cops are the problem.

Maag and supporters of the new legislation point to Canton Police Officer Daniel Harless, who lost his mind last June during a traffic stop when William E. Bartlett, a legal permit holder, tried to quickly alert Harless that he had a gun. Harless, who didn't let Bartlett finish his first sentence, verbally threatened him and arrested him.

Harless' traffic stop, caught on dashboard camera, was outrageous and went viral on YouTube. But it was an aberration. And we don't need a law to deal with Harless. His own department fired him.'

Thanks.

[Chuuku Davis]

12. How many times was Harless investigated for misconduct?

And the PD did nothing at all.
It was not an isolated incident.

[pipoman]

2. A little disingenuous, no?

I don't have a problem with Ohio's law that allows citizens to carry a concealed firearm.

We know from all of your previous posts that you, in fact do, have a problem with concealed carry.

[ileus]

3. streets a bit more wild, as least for drivers and for cops.....do these people really buy

into the BS they spew? What a dumbass anti-2A writer.

[COLGATE4]

4. What possible objection do you have to

the proposition that, when a driver carrying a firearm is stopped by the cops (s)he is required to immediately advise them of its presence in the vehicle?

[mvccd1000]

5. Why?

Should you also inform them that you're a registered voter, or that you have a cup of hot starbucks coffee?

1) If I'm not mistaken, police are trained to approach EVERY traffic stop as if there could be a gun; what difference does confirming it make? How does this improve officer safety if they're already operating under the premise that you have a gun?

2) Carrying a gun is a perfectly legal activity (if you're not a prohibited possessor). Why should I have to report to the police that I'm engaged in an activity that is not illegal? What other legal activities would you have people report?

Fortunately, I live in a state where such silliness is not codified in law. Oddly enough, we don't have a rash of CCW holders sneaking out their pistols that they kept hidden from police and opening fire. Perhaps the same non-events will take place in Ohio.

[COLGATE4]

7. If you don't see the difference between

informing the cops you have a gun and that you have a cup of Starbucks, I can't help you. One thing is the presumption that a person in a traffic stop may have a weapon - it's quite another to know that they do. If you know ahead of time, it greatly increases your vigilance, it shapes your response and permits you to secure the weapon before anything else. Seems like a very small price to pay for stopping a cop from being killed, but that's just me.

[DonP]

9. Any examples of a cop being shot by a CCW at a traffic stop?

Your comment makes less than no sense.

You're saying that if a cop knows there is a licensed CCW person in the car they will be more cautious than if they don't know?

Cops are taught to approach every traffic stop as if there was an armed and dangerous person in the vehicle, that's how they stay alive.

Assuming, that because there was no official record of a CCW permit somehow makes it more safe is just counter to all logic.

I'm sure you can provide a few examples of why a CCW in a car is dangerous to officers, right?

[BiggJawn]

26. Who's going to kill a cop? The permit holder?

A law-abiding permit holder is going to get in a gunfight with a cop.
Whatever the fuck FOR?

This is nothing more than one of those "the law-abiding don't need it and the criminal won't heed it" laws.

I'm a LAW ABIDING permit holder, remember? What does the cop have to fear from me?

At that moment, I think I'd be the one shitting in my pants wondering how long I have to live...

[PavePusher]

6. Criminals or those with criminal intent will not obey this law (how else?)....

and if one has no criminal intent, how is "officer safety" enhanced by the announcement?

[COLGATE4]

8. If a person doesn't obey the law

and the cop find the gun, I can guarantee you the response is going to be dramatic. Aside from chest-beating what possible damage does it do to you to let a cop know you're carrying?

[PavePusher]

11. It cheapens a Constitutional Right.

If I am not breaking a law, or endangering/obstructing others, my exercise of my Rights is not pertinent to a police officer. As stated elsewhere, what other Rights do I have to inform the police that I am exercising? Why should this be a law? Why do you want to invent a new crime out of whole cloth? What effective good does this accomplish?

[COLGATE4]

18. You know, we've been through

this before on a previous thread. You seem to believe that because something is a Constitutional right that there are no strings attached to it, and that a person is free to exercise that right in any way or fashion that (s)he sees fit. That may be fine theory, but not practice. In practice all our Constitutional rights can be and in fact are limited by regulations passed by the government to promote the public welfare. It is no infringement upon your right to carry a gun to require you to advise a cop of its presence. It's fine to state your opinion that you disagree with the law, but your disagreeing with it doesn't make it a Constitutional issue.

[PavePusher]

22. No, I have not said anything like that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Meanwhile, you are still dodging the question. What is the point of this requirement? How does it help officer safety?

[COLGATE4]

28. This is what you posted:

"If I am not breaking a law, or endangering/obstructing others, my exercise of my Rights is not pertinent to a police officer". In other words, having to inform the police officer you've got a weapon in the car is not pertinent, since you're exercising your right to carry a gun. Isn't that a complaint about having to do something that you believe is not pertinent???

[PavePusher]

29. What you claimed I said:

"You seem to believe that because something is a Constitutional right that there are no strings attached to it, and that a person is free to exercise that right in any way or fashion that (s)he sees fit."

I said nothing resembling that.

Now, please answer the question posed to you in posts 5, 6, 9, 11, 22, 23, and 26: How does the requirement to notify help ensure officer safety?

[iverglas]

31. actually

What is the point of this requirement? How does it help officer safety?

it helps public safety, as you cannot help but be aware.

There are risks present if a police officer discovers a firearm on a person or in a vehicle while conducting a search, or just on a quick visual inspection. The officer has no way of knowing whether the person with the firearm is a threat, and the circumstances could be such that the officer feels at risk, either already or once the firearm is discovered.

Who knows why someone would want that situation to arise when it is so easily avoidable?

Not that a police officer should never feel at risk when the person concerned has a permit to carry a firearm, but at least they would be forewarned of the presence of the firearm in the situation.

editing to add my actual point ...

Where a police officer feels at risk - or feels there is a potential risk to the public - they may take action that could put the person concerned, members of the public or themself in danger, in order to avert the perceived risk.

I guess to some people that's just the price of promoting their own interests (whatever their interests in not disclosing their permit status might actually be).

Unsurprisingly.

[DonP]

17. "what possible damage does it do to you to let a cop know you're carrying?"

About the same as requiring a "simple photo ID" to allow you to vote.

I'm assuming you have no problem with that either, if you are going to be consistent in your application of logic.

[COLGATE4]

19. Actually, I don't have a problem with it

unless it's being done with the intention of excluding certain people from exercising their otherwise legal right to vote.

[spin]

27. I don't have to inform a police officer that I am carrying a weapon...

or have one in the car in Florida.

However when I was pulled over for an expired license tag in Florida and asked by the officer for my driver's license, I also handed him my concealed weapons permit.

He merely glanced at it and made no comment. We had a polite conversation and he informed me on just where to go to get my license tag renewed. All ended well as he acted in a very professional manner and didn't overreact to the fact that I might be carrying. I had my snub nosed .38 in a holster in my pants pocket.

Of course Florida has had shall issue concealed carry since 1987 and most of the police have absolutely no problem with the law. They are not worried about honest citizens who carry but they are are concerned about armed criminals.

A criminal with a felony record for a violent crime is unlikely to inform a police officer that he is packing heat even if the law requires it.

edited for coherency

[Remmah2]

10. Small amounts of responsibility?

All in life comes with great responsibility.

[DWC]

14. Every "FREEDOM" ie "RIGHT"

Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

carries with it an equal and off setting "RESPONSIBILITY".

Without that balance, a "FREE Society" can not long exist.

Semper Fi,

[COLGATE4]

20. Absolutely right, Marine.

Semper Fi

[MicaelS]

15. It's the law in the State of Texas

And I have no problem with it here. I like this video with Massad Ayoob.

Tips When Stopped By Police

[shadowrider]

16. As good as that info is, my opinion

is that 90% of what happens rests solely with WHO stops you. Every cop is different. Some will be understanding, some simply won't and will over-react such as the Canton knucklehead.

[COLGATE4]

21. And you're absolutely right. But the fact

that one knucklehead behaves inappropriately like the jerk in Canton did doesn't invalidate the larger idea that the law is attempting to protect the lives of cops who do a really dirty job day in day out.

[PavePusher]

23. How does this requirement to notify "protect the lives of cops"? n/t

[shadowrider]

24. One knucklehead. He got caught. There are plenty more out there like him.

Police are already trained to always expect a weapon. They could also ASK when approaching the vehicle if there are weapons inside. The law-abiding will answer honestly. The bad guys will come out shooting making the asking of the question moot.

[aikoaiko]

25. mark naymik is benighted. Does a police officer ever assume someone is not armed at traffic stops?

The answer is no. Not unless they have searched them.

[iverglas]

30. in fact, no right "carries" any responsibility

The rights we are talking about are all rights to non-interference in the conduct of our own affairs.

No one has any responsibility to exercise their rights in any particular way, or not to exercise them in any other particular way.

The entire idea is meaningless anyway. What if someone exercises a right in an irreponsible way? So? What's the remedy? None.

Saying that rights come with responsibilities is just meaningless, I'm afraid.

In fact, all rights come with the limits on their exercise that can be demonstrated to be justified, according to the standard a society applies.

Sanctions may be applied to people who transgress those limits, where the limits are clearly stated in laws.

If someone is "irresponsible" in the exercise of a right, about all anybody can do is shake their finger and say "tsk, tsk".

Of course, that may be how some people would prefer it to work.