Close... But the REAL question would be "Couldn't this be avoided if businesses just allowed Licensed firearm owners in without a hassel? That way there would be no "guessing" involved. In all honesty I wouldn't even mind going to the security desk everyday to check in and show them my LTCH. In fact, July 1st I am going to the Vanderburgh Civic Center to change a name on my water bill and I will do just that very same thing.Couldn't this be avoided if business just publicaly posted there policies and did not assume everyone entering there facility to be able to read minds?
Couldn't this be avoided if business just publicaly posted there policies and did not assume everyone entering there facility to be able to read minds?
You guys will burn me for this I'm sure.
Some of the problem I see is the officer was doing his job wanting to see a permit. If you had a permit just show him that you are legal and get it over with. He was being nice about it.
What if an unlicensed dumb a*** comes in to the hospital and his gun goes off in the next room, goes through the wall and hurts you son Colt. You would sue the hospital for all you could because of a situation like this. And because the cop saw you and did nothing, your his responsibility. So rather than to make a fuss. Just show your permit and leave. It keeps all the legal bad stuff off the cops responsibility.
It's kinda like a lawman catching you driving drunk, gives you a break, and follows you home. Then after you get home you get back in your car and go back to the bar. On the way you hit and kill someone. Then you tell your attorney because the family of the deceased is suing you that a cop took you home earlier. Bingo the cops job and and financial responsibility is on the line because he gave someone a break. And it come back to bite him in the A**.
SO NOW YOU ARE COMPARING ME TO A DRUNK DRIVER? WTF? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THREAD IT WAS, HELL MAYBE THIS ONE, BUT SOME GUY WAS TELLING EVERYONE HOW TO CARRY AND WHERE AND WHY. TURNS OUT THE GUY HAS NEVER CARRIED A GUN IN PUBLIC AND DOES NOT HAVE HIS LTCH.You guys will burn me for this I'm sure.
YEP
Some of the problem I see is the officer was doing his job wanting to see a permit.
DID YOU EVEN READ ANY OF IT BEFORE JUMPING TO YOUR ESTEEMED CONCLUSIONS? GO BACK AND REREAD THE FIRST COUPLE OF PAGES AND GET BACK WITH ME ON THAT -1 FOR READING COMPREHENSION.
If you had a permit just show him that you are legal and get it over with.
NO ONE IN INDIANA HAS A PERMIT AND I SHOWED HIM THE INSTANT HE ASKED, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED I AM NOT A JEDI MIND READER. IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT HE DID NOT ASK TO SEE MY "PERMIT" (LTCH) UNTIL AFTER HE DETAINED AND THREATENED ME.
He was being nice about it.
SAYS WHO???
What if an unlicensed dumb a*** comes in to the hospital and his gun goes off in the next room, goes through the wall and hurts you son Colt.
SO ALL UNLICENSED GUNS "GO OFF" ON THEIR OWN WITH ARMOR PIERCING HEAT SEEKING INCENDIARY DEPLETED URANIUM NUCLEAR TIPPED WARHEADS THAT PREFER DEFENSLESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN?
You would sue the hospital for all you could because of a situation like this.
YOU DON'T KNOW ME OR WHAT I WOULD DO IN ANY SITUATION, WAIT, ARE YOU THE MIND READER EVERYONE KEEPS MISTAKING ME FOR?
And because the cop saw you and did nothing, your his responsibility. So rather than to make a fuss. Just show your permit and leave. It keeps all the legal bad stuff off the cops responsibility.
EXPLAIN TO ME USING MY OWN WORDS WHERE I AM THE ONE WHO MADE THE FUSS, I CHOSE OPTION #2 OF THE ORIGINAL GUARDS OPTIONS GIVEN TO ME, IF THEY WOULD HAVE LET ME CARRY OUT THAT REQUEST NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
It's kinda like a lawman catching you driving drunk, gives you a break, and follows you home. Then after you get home you get back in your car and go back to the bar. On the way you hit and kill someone. Then you tell your attorney because the family of the deceased is suing you that a cop took you home earlier. Bingo the cops job and and financial responsibility is on the line because he gave someone a break. And it come back to bite him in the A**.
LMAO that is an awesome burn. I really didn't know that (I don't watch TV at all)
(Psst.... TF.... Oprah's not on TV anymore.)
Titanium_Frost
Re-read the post for your sake. Like you ask. If you would have presented it at first (volunteered) it. Things would have went much smoother. I like your honesty. But a little thought on yours and the officers part, would have been a much smoother chat. So far with my experiences with the public, I've never had threaten or get loud. Most people cooperate and go on there way with no hassle.
And Yes, Oprah had her last show. finally no more Oprah on TV. I thought that was funny.
On the OVWI, I was just trying to get you to understand the responsibility the officer has, and what he is trying to protect. Everyone in the hospital. This instance is one of the reasons I think we should CC always.
Who is the member who was giving carry advice that has never carried?
No problem, I love a GOOD discussion about this stuff. Sorry about your friend, was he killed? That is a very good point, and one I take seriously every time I OC, but at the hospital, I was trying to CC. I had an officer sized 1911 in a IWB Galco copy of the Supertuck with a tshirt over that. I believe what happened is I reached down to move my wife's purse for the nurse and my shirt came up over the grip. Because in the NICU you have to where hospital gowns over your clothes I did not feel my shirt come up and so I sat there for who knows how long with my gun sticking out accidentally. In fact, I was wearing the same gun in the same holster for days while we were laboring and I helped deliver my son into the world while there was a .45 strapped to my side. Not a prouder moment in my life.I have lots of experience in this area and was just trying to make it easier for you the next time you encounter a LEO.
I had a friend LEO in NY that OC always. He was in a bar as it was being robbed. The bad guys said for everyone to hit the floor. When he did, his shirt rose up making his gun visible. The next thing he heard was a bang and a sharp pain. The bad guy said he shot him because he had a gun. If it was CC. He might never have been shot.
I carried a gun for 34 years and been in law enforcement for 13 years.
Just trying to help you some. Meant no harm.
Who is the member who was giving carry advice that has never carried?
Here is the excerpt. I believe he was talking to finity and referring to Bill's posts at the same time....Talking about gun accident rates in an irrelavant manner doesn't make them irrelavant. An idiot with a gun is just as dangerous to himself and others as a violent criminal.
I don't carry, yet. I have been the military as a weapons tech and have been trained with them. And I am also pro-gun. But I'm not a thug about it either...
Nice job quoting only the part of my post you thought proved your point. What I said was, "I respect their rights. I respect my own more, and as is so often stated, their rights to "swing their fist" ends at the tip of my nose. My gun on my hip does not infringe on their property rights. Their choice to disarm me if I'm there to see my newborn DOES infringe on my safety. I'll leave if I'm asked to, but I will certainly voice my opposition to their policy, because that also is MY right."
To reiterate, my gun on my hip does not infringe anyone's rights. A tin star security geek with more arrogance than intelligence demanding my gun because he thinks he has authority to do so is going to be disappointed because he IS infringing on rights.
You're not going to convince me of the correctness of your opinion by insulting either my morals, my ethics, my patriotism, or my choice of username. I've already said I respect their rights: To continue to do so, I have to consider myself first. Rights are an individual, not a collective thing. If I am asked to leave, simple matter, I'll leave. That's not infringing on anyone's rights.
For a guy who's never carried other than when he was ordered or given permission from someone he called a "superior" to do so, you have no business "calling out" anyone and you certainly have no right to start calling thug and hypocrite. My values are in correct priority. I take care of myself and my family first. Kinda like when you're on a plane and they tell you to put your own oxygen mask on first before anyone else's... because you can't help them if you're already unconscious or dead.
I respect their rights. I respect my own more
I suppose if I did what they instructed, that would make me selfish, self-centered, hypocritical or deserving of some other insult from you.
I find your attitude contemptible.
Bill
It's also my Right to "cite" that the sky is green, Sarah Brady is a staunch pro-gun supporter & that I'm a hard-line conservative.
But just because I say it doesn't make it so, no matter how many times I say it.
Where?
I must have missed that. Please quote where he said that it is not the hospital's Right to ban guns from their property.
What the heck is up with this new trend in saying that debating a topic is somehow a "personal attack"?
I didn't attack you. I simply used your words & logic to point out the flaws in your stated position.
Agreed, but that's a far cry from the idea that "many would have been no better off, and might have made the situation worse, if they did have one. Since useing a gun requires a level of skill and bravery that many do not have."
That is an anti-gun elitist "only one" attitude that is not borne out by the facts.
The vast majority of gun-owners throughout history have had no formal training to attain that supposedly illusive "skill & bravery" but nonetheless have been successful in defending themselves with those guns.
While it obviously is better to practice & even get formal training I won't go so far to say that without that formal training that they would "make the situation worse" for themselves.
Since you seem to think that lack of training is the leading cause of gun accidents then could you please direct me to a major study (not put out by a group with an overtly anti-gun agenda) that supports your contention that most accidents occur in the "untrained" group?
As far as I know there has been no study that points to the fact that people without "training" are more dangerous to others than those WITH "training".
Cops are trained but yet they kill & injure more innocent people every year than non-LEO's.
Indiana doesn't require any training to get a LTCH but there is nothing that shows we are more at risk from gun accidents than states that DO require training & in some instances we are SAFER than in training required states.
Accidents don't TYPICALLY occur because of lack of training. They occur because of stupid unthinking decisions. Those can be made by trained individuals just as easily as those with no training at all. Sometimes those people with training are the WORST offenders because they think that "I'm the only one in this room qualified to handle this weapon" BANG!!!...Ow... They get complacent.
Then before you do carry I would insist that you please report to the nearest "skill & bravery" assessment center so that someone other than YOU can decide whether you meet the required standards to be able to defend yourself or your family.
You see, that seems to be a problem. Those who demand others get training before being "allowed" to carry a gun for their defense are those who have decided that "everyone else is dangerous with a gun but I'm not".
Well...who say's? You? If you can't take my word that I'm not dangerous don't expect me to take your word that you aren't either.
Then that brings us to our next dilemma...
Who gets to decide what those standards of "skill & bravery" are? You may think that those "standards" are a "no-brainer to you and me" but I'll guarantee you that if someone like Sarah Brady was put in charge of setting those "standards" that NO ONE (well, except her & Josh Sugarman ) would be allowed to own, much less carry, a gun for self-defense.
Don't get me wrong here...
I have stated a similar thing in another thread about BWW's.
In a perfect world I would agree that to carry onto someone else's "PUBLIC" (i.e. not strictly private, i.e. open to the public for business) property knowing that they don't want you to is not in keeping with the strict letter of "shall not be infringed".
The problem is we don't live in a perfect world.
Does the company have the right to inspect my undergarments before they allow me onto their property?
Do they have the right to demand me disclose my bank account or SS information before they allow me onto their property?
In a perfect world, probably, but not in the real world.
I don't know of any reasonable person who would think that a company can violate your privacy as a condition of allowing you the benefit of buying a loaf of bread or even getting medical care. Why should they also be able to deny you the Right of self-defense as a condition of entry, either?
On the other hand, there is a limit though.
If your actions are a disruption to the smooth operation of the business then they can ask you to stop or make you leave. Just like in the BWW's thread.
Carrying concealed against the owners wishes is not a disruption. Neither is carrying a banana when there is a "no bananas" sign. Once the banana or gun is revealed it can be, though. At that point you have no recourse to complain about the actions by the owner in making you leave. You knew you were taking a chance & you lost. Just leave.
OTOOH, if the owner doesn't tell you or make it known in some way what the "rules" are then getting crappy with YOU is not "right" either. It goes both ways.
Now we're back to the real world.
The property owner has the Right to control his property. Bill has the Right to self-defense & carry the tool that he feels is the most effective means toward that end.
Rights aren't absolute.
When two Rights conflict you have to compromise & balance those two conflicting Rights.
Carrying a concealed gun into a "no guns" business is a reasonable compromise, IMHO. Bill still gets to effectively defend himself if necessary & the business is not disrupted. To me, that's a win-win.