LEO responds positively to OC

[VidGuy]

Well, its a good thing I am far from average then isn't it?

LOL, I suppose it is...

 

[Rookie]

Yeah, I'll admit I'm a little dense at times. I understand the whole federal thing, but the state thing still confuses me. Believe me, I'm trying to understand.

Using your federally insured financial institution example (assuming you're talking about FDIC), I decide that today would be a good day to rob a bank. I get stopped by local police on my way out of the bank. I start yelling that this is a federal matter and they have no authority. I'm still getting arrested, so what allows them to arrest me? Are they arresting me for something completely unrelated to what the feds are going to nail me with?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Yeah, I'll admit I'm a little dense at times. I understand the whole federal thing, but the state thing still confuses me. Believe me, I'm trying to understand.

Using your federally insured financial institution example (assuming you're talking about FDIC), I decide that today would be a good day to rob a bank. I get stopped by local police on my way out of the bank. I start yelling that this is a federal matter and they have no authority. I'm still getting arrested, so what allows them to arrest me? Are they arresting me for something completely unrelated to what the feds are going to nail me with?

Exactly...robbing a bank is a violation under both state AND federal law. The FBI will charge you under federal law. IMPD will charge you under the laws of the State of Indiana.

The FBI will NOT be enforcing Indiana law, and IMPD will NOT be enforcing federal law.

 

[Rookie]

I get the bank example now. You're getting two for the price of one. I always assumed you were getting charged the same way.

I'm still a little lost about NFA. Indiana law states that it's illegal unless you're exempted. So how is a local officer to know you're exempted unless you have the tax stamp to prove it?

IC 35-47-5-10 Applicability of statutes relating to machine guns Sec. 10.
The provisions of section 8 or 9 of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to any of the following:
(1) Members of the military or naval forces of the United States,National Guard of Indiana,or Indiana State Guard,when on duty or practicing.
(2) Machine guns kept for display as relics and which are rendered harmless and not usable.
(3) Any of the law enforcement officers of this state or the United States while acting in the furtherance of their duties.
(4) Persons lawfully engaged in the display,testing,or use of fireworks.
(5) Agencies of state government.
(6) Persons permitted by law to engage in the business of manufacturing,assembling,conducting research on,or testing machine guns,airplanes,tanks,armored vehicles,or ordnance equipment or supplies while acting within the scope of such business.
(7) Persons possessing,or having applied to possess,machine guns under applicable United States statutes. Such machine guns must be transferred as provided in this article.
(8) Persons lawfully engaged in the manufacture,transportation,distribution,use or possession of any material,substance,or device for the sole purpose of industrial,agricultural,mining,construction,educational,or any other lawful use.
As added by P.L.311-1983,SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000,SEC.5; P.L.123-2002,SEC.45

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I get it now. You're getting two for the price of one. I always assumed you were getting charged the same way.

It is most likely that ONLY the feds will charge you.

If you rob a convenience store in front of an FBI agent, he'll grab you, but only as an armed citizen.

You'll be charged locally, because robbing a convenience store is not a federal offense.

 

[AlterEgoJason]

Carrying around an MP5 is just asking to be stopped. And I think checking him out is justified.

I'm all for open carry, but this was done just to provoke a response.

Imagine what the response would be if there had been a shooting a few blocks away and the cops see this douchebag...

He'd be eating some pavement.

I agree completely. They were clearly looking for a confrontation and to get it on camera. What they ended up catching was a polite LEO who assessed the situation, checked the firearm and thank them twice for exercising their right to the 2nd.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Discussion going on facebook if anyone wants to join in:

Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More

 

[Bunnykid68]

Discussion going on facebook if anyone wants to join in:

Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More

I just found that a few minutes ago. Good fun

 

[DC47374]

I get the bank example now. You're getting two for the price of one. I always assumed you were getting charged the same way.

I'm still a little lost about NFA. Indiana law states that it's illegal unless you're exempted. So how is a local officer to know you're exempted unless you have the tax stamp to prove it?

You are presumed innocent....unless proven guilty. Not presumed guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You are presumed innocent....unless proven guilty. Not presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Yeah, right. Sounds good in theory.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Just becauae you can do something, doesnt always mean its a good idea.

People who are carrying like the guy taping with the video camera rolling are just trying to get stopped by the police just to see how it goes down.

Again let me say I am not for making it illegal to carry a rifle or whatever else you want, but when you strap on a rifle like that with the camera rolling you know what you are doing and its not just trying to go on a leisurely stroll.

And?

 

[Dirtebiker]

Uh...actually it matters very much what's legal. If it's legal you can do it without interference from government agents. If you look like a nut it doesn't matter one damned bit.

If I'm allowed to interfere with your rights because of my personal opinion that you "look like a nut" exercising them, or if I support the government doing the same, then we can kiss them goodbye.

Who appointed you to decide what looks "reasonable?"

I agree with everything except " if it's legal you can do it without interference from government agents."
We, who have been stopped and disarmed for legally carrying a firearm know that a government agent can and will interfere with your rights!

 

[Dirtebiker]

*sigh*

All I'm saying is that I'm an average guy, with average standards on what is reasonable and unreasonable in a public setting. Standards that reflect society at large, and not necessarily standards that reflect hard-core gun rights activists.

Then why am I here? Because I want to know what's legal and not legal, what gun shops have good merchandise and prices, and gun safety.

I just have a little different opinion on what should be done in public, that's all. I'm not looking for more gun restrictions or laws.

I'm just saying that when you accept the responsibility to carry, have some sense about you, and respect those around you. Don't go looking for a fight, because I'm sure you'll get it.

You were doing good till your last paragraph!
The fact that someone carries a gun, be it a holstered handgun, or a slung long gun, has NO bearing on his sensibilities or his respect for others!

And who wants to pick a fight with the disrespectful, senseless,maniac with the gun?!

 

[VidGuy]

Dirtebiker, let me ask you this...

Let's say you really want to push the envelope on your right to carry. So you dress up in fatigues and body armor, strap some mags to you, and sling an AR over your shoulder. Then you go strolling by a couple of banks on your way to get a Starbucks across from the police station.

Do you think that would be a good idea?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Hell no! Starbucks is way overpriced. Find a nice Baskin Robbins or Dunkin Donuts

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Dirtebiker, let me ask you this...

Let's say you really want to push the envelope on your right to carry. So you dress up in fatigues and body armor, strap some mags to you, and sling an AR over your shoulder. Then you go strolling by a couple of banks on your way to get a Starbucks across from the police station.

Do you think that would be a good idea?

I'll take a stab at this...

It depends. It depends on what your goal is (if you even have one).

If your goal is to get to the end of your journey with as little interference as possible (no LEO interaction, no public stares, to talking to strangers etc) then this would not be a good idea. But the same can be said for wearing a pink tutu, or having a 14" blue mohawk. Attention is attention, some people want it, some people get it no matter what they do, and some people abhor it.

If your goal is to test the boundaries of what is considered normal or what you are free to legally carry then it would be a great idea. You need to attract as much attention as possible and push the envelope to do it.

If your goal is just to be yourself and you enjoy playing army and dressing up in gear that makes you look like a life size GI Joe and it is legal, why not? We all get our jollies off in different ways.

 

[VidGuy]

I guess I wasn't clear...

Do you think an average person would have any reason to be alarmed seeing the person I described?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I guess I wasn't clear...

Do you think an average person would have any reason to be alarmed seeing the person I described?

No you weren't for now you have ENTIRELY switched gears to how people are supposed to react to something they see.

I am not a psychiatrist and I do not have a degree in psychology. what rational people decide about other people is purely subjective and unable to be rationalized by a third party such as you or myself.

Let me turn it around, what would YOU feel? I'm pretty certain I know the answer...

 

[VidGuy]

If I saw someone as I described, I would have no reservations about calling the cops to check him out, nor would I be concerned about how it impacts his constitutional right to carry.

Why?

Because a normal person doesn't walk around in fatigues, full body armor, mags strapped, and an AR slung over his shoulder. Anyone doing this is either mentally unstable, up to something, or just plain stupid. All good reasons to check him out.

Any time you stray from societal norms, you'll draw attention to yourself. Dressing like described will bring negative attention to yourself.

If you do it because you're mentally unstable, you should get checked out.
If you do it because you want to provoke a reaction, then you'll get all the reaction you could ever want.
If you do it to see how far you can push your Second Amendment rights, well, good luck with that.

It's like yelling "FIRE!" in a theater.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

If I saw someone as I described, I would have no reservations about calling the cops to check him out, nor would I be concerned about how it impacts his constitutional right to carry.

Why?

Because a normal person doesn't walk around in fatigues, full body armor, mags strapped, and an AR slung over his shoulder. Anyone doing this is either mentally unstable, up to something, or just plain stupid. All good reasons to check him out.

Any time you stray from societal norms, you'll draw attention to yourself. Dressing like described will bring negative attention to yourself.

If you do it because you're mentally unstable, you should get checked out.
If you do it because you want to provoke a reaction, then you'll get all the reaction you could ever want.
If you do it to see how far you can push your Second Amendment rights, well, good luck with that.

It's like yelling "FIRE!" in a theater.

No actually it isn't even close. Yelling "Fire!" in a theatre could be a great idea... If there was actually a fire. Otherwise it is a CRIME unlike carrying a rifle or dressing up like a GI Joe.

You continually equate the logic of a decision based on what "normal" is. Let me tell you, normal changes.

60 years ago girls wearing the clothes out in public that they do now would be ostrecised.

130 years ago it was perfectly normal to carry your rifle around town, hell 20 years ago and even still in some areas rifles and shotguns were a common sight in the back window of pick ups.

So give me a better reasoning than an undefined term that changes constantly.