For those wary about OC

[Titanium_Frost]

Never in the history of INGO has there been a poster spouting more useless gibberish than you. None of it even makes any sense, let alone useful and never funny.

I take that back, you DID say ONE thing funny before.

Wear a balaclava and a black trench coat to make a real fashion statement.

*** HEADLINE NEWS***

Man armed with an AK-47 brought down by 3 armed citizens. It turns out they were all, including the victim, participants in an online forum known as . The shooters say they felt threatened by the aggressive appearance of the victim. Of the 37 hits on the victim, 25 were from Glocks, 5 from Rugers, Sigs, and Walthers, 6 from S&W's and one from a Cz 75 (pre)B. Most were 9mm, but the one stopping shot was from a .45. Though the victim got off no shots, all in all, 700 rnds were fired. All were reloads. The shooters, remarkably, cleaned up after themselves (shell casings). 27 bystanders were wounded and taken to Wishard hospital where 3 are expected to live. All weapons were confiscated when the Metropolitan police arrived on the scene. One shooter locked himself in his car and kept shouting "am I being detained officer?"Overheard were the terms 'second amendment rights' and 'zombie apocalypse.' Possible arrests are pending.

 

[ATM]

It does not matter that they used it in regards to ID, the term now has a definition in federal law and that is what it means...

I doubt the definition assigned to "official purposes" in the REAL ID Act would have any standing outside of that section.

Several other acts maintain differing definitions to the same general term and none could be applied across the board as a universal definition for the entire Federal Code.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I doubt the definition assigned to "official purposes" in the REAL ID Act would have any standing outside of that section.

Several other acts maintain differing definitions to the same general term and none could be applied across the board as a universal definition for the entire Federal Code.

That wasn't how I took it, but IANAL and my hopes were up pretty high when I went searching for a legal definition of "official purposes."

It appears to not be defined yet so the first guy arrested who is willing to make a case out of it will likely get the job of having the courts decide what it means.

Any volunteers besides Sig?

 

[findingZzero]

Originally Posted by Titanium_Frost

W TF?
See what I did there? Brilliant!
Oh Snap!UH UH. No you di'int. You di'int just say that....

I take that back, you DID say ONE thing funny before.

Well, TF which is it?
If I can **** off just one member, than I feel like I've done my job.
If you don't understand something, just ask.
You are soooooo judgemental.
Is there a rule against gibberish?
I spend a lot of time getting my gibberish just right.
If you don't love me, don't read me.
Who pissed in your wheaties? Oh, that was me.....

 

[ATM]

That wasn't how I took it, but IANAL and my hopes were up pretty high when I went searching for a legal definition of "official purposes."

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.

Carrying on commercially operated airline flights, in federal buildings and in nuclear power plants would be nice, though.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Well, TF which is it?
If I can **** off just one member, than I feel like I've done my job.
If you don't understand something, just ask.
You are soooooo judgemental.
Is there a rule against gibberish?
If you don't love me, don't read me.
Who pissed in your wheaties? Oh, that was me.....

No rule against gibberish that I know of, that's why I didn't report you to a Mod for a Banhammer surprise.

If I hated you THAT much I would just click 'Ignore' and not worry about it.

No one pissed anywhere near me and I don't eat wheaties.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.

Carrying on commercially operated airline flights, in federal buildings and in nuclear power plants would be nice, though.

I believe all of those are within our grasp...

ETA: You won't find me TOO close to a nuclear reactor if I can help it

 

[griffin]

Saying that surprise is not taught as a defense is idiotic. Implying that 'armies' do not employ or value surprise is beyond ignorant. And the idea that we're using an AMBUSH scenario as proof that the element of surprise isn't important is PARTICULARLY rich.

RIF. The poster said surprise in a "defense" situation. An ambush is offensive in nature.

Surprise is employed in offensive situations. You plan on sneaking up on someone and using your sidearm in an offensive situation?

 

[iChokePeople]

RIF. The poster said surprise in a "defense" situation. An ambush is offensive in nature.

Surprise is employed in offensive situations. You plan on sneaking up on someone and using your sidearm in an offensive situation?

Surprise is used in both offensive and defensive operations.

Me, I don't plan on using my sidearm in anything but a range situation, but it's certainly plausible, depending on where you draw the offensive/defensive line. Say you're in a gas station, a couple of BGs come in to rob the place, you are CC'ing. You may choose to do nothing, at first, just be a good witness. At some point, the encounter's tone changes and you decide you have to stop it, including using your gun. You may do exactly as you desribed -- move into a better position, choose/create an opportunity, draw and perforate the bad guys. At what point did it become offensive? You decide, but yes, I can certainly see a plausible encounter for a civilian that ends in taking advantage of the gun and the element of surprise.

As to an ambush being an offensive operation, it's all matter of how you draw the lines. If my patrol is being followed, comes to an opportune spot, and sets in a very hasty defense that hides us until the enemy walks into our kill zone, was it a hasty defense or an ambush? Was it offensive, or defensive? Gotta split hairs awfully thin to take much of a side in many situations. When Josh Chamberlain, in a prepared defense, had his men fix bayonets and charge, did surprise play a part? Was it offensive of defensive? In answering the offensive/defensive question, consider both from the perspective of the 20th Maine and of the Union forces in general.

On a modern battlefield, offensive and defensive can be pretty fluid and hard to define.

In any case, using a military ambush, on uniformed soldiers in a combat zone (presumably) as evidence of the right way for a civilian to carry a gun in everyday life is... well, quite a stretch. For SWAT/LEOs who barge into hostile situations where people are waiting to kill them, pretty good, pretty fair. For most of the rest of us, it just doesn't constitute a valid, logical argument.

As I've said before, I don't care in the least if you strap an AK over your back and wander the mall. My only interest is in pointing out the illogical arguments used to support either side of the debate. I think it's a GOOD thread, with some reassurance that it's just fine to OC -- it is. I only jumped in over one specific statement, and I pledge to do the same when I see illogical or silly statements against OC or for CC. I'll be an equal-opportunity logic-checker.

 

[findingZzero]

No rule against gibberish that I know of, that's why I didn't report you to a Mod for a Banhammer surprise.

If I hated you THAT much I would just click 'Ignore' and not worry about it.

No one pissed anywhere near me and I don't eat wheaties.

HEY, I YAM WHUT I YAM.....

 

[Classic Liberal]

Good post.
The only negative encounter I have ever experienced while OC'ing is with LEO -- some of them just don't appreciate and/or respect the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I doubt the definition assigned to "official purposes" in the REAL ID Act would have any standing outside of that section.

Several other acts maintain differing definitions to the same general term and none could be applied across the board as a universal definition for the entire Federal Code.

That's my view pretty much, he defined "official purposes" for the REAL ID Act. He didn't set the definition for any other use.

That wasn't how I took it, but IANAL and my hopes were up pretty high when I went searching for a legal definition of "official purposes."

It appears to not be defined yet so the first guy arrested who is willing to make a case out of it will likely get the job of having the courts decide what it means.

I can't find it at the moment but I'll keep looking, I know there was a guy charged last year or perhaps the year before for carrying in a post office. He was originally charged under 18 USC 930, carrying in a federal facility. But it determined that it wasn't applicable to the post office, so they amended the charge to the CFR title 39 232.1 that I posted earlier. I'll continue to look and see what happened. I think he was either found guilty or plead, but I'm not positive and wouldn't bet either way.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That's my view pretty much, he defined "official purposes" for the REAL ID Act. He didn't set the definition for any other use.



I can't find it at the moment but I'll keep looking, I know there was a guy charged last year or perhaps the year before for carrying in a post office. He was originally charged under 18 USC 930, carrying in a federal facility. But it determined that it wasn't applicable to the post office, so they amended the charge to the CFR title 39 232.1 that I posted earlier. I'll continue to look and see what happened. I think he was either found guilty or plead, but I'm not positive and wouldn't bet either way.

I am waiting patiently.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I am waiting patiently.

I don't think this is the one that I remember but it could be. It involves a postal worker in a post office parking lot. But he was charged under the regulation being discussed. He didn't use an "official business" argument, but a 2nd amendment one. He lost.
FindACase™ | United States v. Dorosan

 

[CPT Nervous]

Apples, you clearly do not look or taste like oranges, so you are wrong and probably not even fruit.

Both sides use some pretty ridiculous arguments and comparisons. This is one of them. Saying that surprise is not taught as a defense is idiotic. Implying that 'armies' do not employ or value surprise is beyond ignorant. And the idea that we're using an AMBUSH scenario as proof that the element of surprise isn't important is PARTICULARLY rich.

Read that again. Surprise is not taught as a defense against attack.

Surprise is an offensive tactic. I surprise you, catch you off guard. That's offensive. After you've been attacked, surprising your attacker is ridiculous. They already have the upper hand. Before you get all high and mighty, read the posts you comment on. Then, before you post, understand what was said. You look silly now.

 

[CPT Nervous]

That wasn't how I took it, but IANAL and my hopes were up pretty high when I went searching for a legal definition of "official purposes."

It appears to not be defined yet so the first guy arrested who is willing to make a case out of it will likely get the job of having the courts decide what it means.

Any volunteers besides Sig?

Are you volunteering me?

Why don't we just do an OC post office visit. Get like 15 OCers to go mail a letter. See what happens...

 

[iChokePeople]

Surprise is an offensive tactic. I surprise you, catch you off guard. That's offensive.

And you believe that after that point, you can't be surprised? Or that I/the defender couldn't have lured you into an attack on my squad purely to surprise you when the rest of my battalion pops out of their hides? Curious -- in your world, what do you call it when the 'defender' does something that the 'attacker' didn't anticipate that... hmm... not "surprises", as that seems to get your panties all knotted up... how about "does something unexpected that alters the course of the battle"?

After you've been attacked, surprising your attacker is ridiculous. They already have the upper hand.

That statement is ridiculous. That's never been true, but is even less true on a modern "battlefield" than in years past.

And then there's still the issue of how it does or does not apply to the issue at hand, unless you also believe that a civilian in plain clothes with a gun could not employ surprise in a social situation. Maybe you do believe that. If so, then you should clearly OC.

The guy with the bear spray in the current robbery thread -- he didn't surprise the robbers? Clearly he didn't read the part of the instructions where it says "they already have the upper hand". Not fair. Not fair at all.

 

[griffin]

Never mind, I got sidetracked.

 

[CPT Nervous]

And you believe that after that point, you can't be surprised? Or that I/the defender couldn't have lured you into an attack on my squad purely to surprise you when the rest of my battalion pops out of their hides? Curious -- in your world, what do you call it when the 'defender' does something that the 'attacker' didn't anticipate that... hmm... not "surprises", as that seems to get your panties all knotted up... how about "does something unexpected that alters the course of the battle"?



That statement is ridiculous. That's never been true, but is even less true on a modern "battlefield" than in years past.

And then there's still the issue of how it does or does not apply to the issue at hand, unless you also believe that a civilian in plain clothes with a gun could not employ surprise in a social situation. Maybe you do believe that. If so, then you should clearly OC.

How do you visualize a mugging going down. The BG at 30 feet away, making threats? The point here is that by OCing, you deter the majority of attackers. Most criminals want a quick buck, not a fight or a murder charge. If someone is right up on you with a knife to your neck, drawing from concealment will likely worsen that scenario. Someone who wants a compliant victim will not choose a man with a gun.

The people that will attack an OCer are rare. If you feel better CCing, that's fine. I prefer to stop the threat before it becomes a real life physical threat. If you think it's better to stop the threat once you're on your back getting your head smashed in by using surprise tactics, that's fine, too.

You're still failing to mention how surprise is defensive. Luring someone to attack you, so you can attack them, is still offensive. Also, if you think it is better to lure someone to attack you than deter them from attacking you, you may want to rethink that.

It would be like having a "No Guns" sign on a business, when in reality, all the employees are armed. It will be robbed, but you can surprise the robber with your guns, which may lead to a shoot out.

OR, you could put up an "Armed Personnel on the Premises" sign. That would deter most criminals.

Why wait until the threat is physical, and poses danger to you, to act?

Everyone can see I'm armed. Everyone who would victimize me will have to weigh that into their equation. Do you risk your life to find out how much cash I'm carrying?

 

[ATM]

...what do you call it when the 'defender' does something that the 'attacker' didn't anticipate that... hmm... not "surprises", as that seems to get your panties all knotted up... how about "does something unexpected that alters the course of the battle"?

A defender defending or counterattacking, while possibly unanticipated, shouldn't be regarded as anything beyond gross underestimation on the part of the attacker if it catches them off guard.

If an attacker is "surprised" by their victim fighting back, it's not generally because the victim employed some advantage of concealment, it's more likely because the attacker became complacent and negligent in his "job", most likely from feasting on too many sheep.