Cincinatti Police chief on Open Carry of Firearns

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I believe this is the guy on the Phoenix University commecial.

"Many people worry when they see someone openly carrying a gun. Officers can expect to receive calls when this happens. But, openly carrying a firearm, by itself, is not illegal. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer about seeing someone with a gun in public is probably not enough to support an investigative detention. In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual. If the individual is doing nothing else that arouses suspicion, simply wearing a gun will not justify a detention.

It is important to note, open carry by itself also would not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses. If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm—and doing nothing else— the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support a charge."

Memorandum for Officers.

I understand and support the right, but from a tactical standpoint it is the height of stupidity. You lose the element of suprise, you draw all kind of unwanted attention to yourself, possibly provoking a confrontation. I alwasy see people that do that as needing some kind of ego boost, because it is certainly can't be supported in with safety and self defense arguments from any credible source.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

they gotta protect the republicans from the nutty left-wing america haters.

Republicans can't protect and defend themselves? They need big gubmint to do that? What a crowd!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So I guess the lessons here are:

• The Republican Party actually is in favor of gun bans when it comes to protecting their own
• Romney's request for Secret Service protection meant giving up any say on the level of protection
• The Secret Service can supersede a governor's authority
• The Secret Service can ignore the 2nd Amendment

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I believe this is the guy on the Phoenix University commecial.

"Many people worry when they see someone openly carrying a gun. Officers can expect to receive calls when this happens. But, openly carrying a firearm, by itself, is not illegal. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer about seeing someone with a gun in public is probably not enough to support an investigative detention. In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual. If the individual is doing nothing else that arouses suspicion, simply wearing a gun will not justify a detention.

It is important to note, open carry by itself also would not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses. If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm—and doing nothing else— the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support a charge."

Memorandum for Officers.

Open carry is fairly useless IMO. Sure, it may prevent the person carrying from being a victim (not useless to that person) but what is far more effective is concealed carry and the more liberal the issuance of permits, the better. Themore potential carriers of firearms the lower the crime rate. It is not important that everyone carry a gun, only that everyone CAN. This is why Vermont has such a low crime rate, everyone CAN carry a gun. Not everyone does, they do not need to because no one knows who is and who is not. This means the liberal gun hater walking in Burlington at 2am enjoys a crime free neighborhood because I am carrying a concealed handgun, even if they are too stupid to know it. Ignorance is bliss.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[DaveE 178]

So going from your totally BS statement of 7.4 miles, to inside the venue itself is nit picking. Remember you're the guy who stated 7.4 miles.

Second, if you show up with a gun, they can't do squat, even the Secret Service says all they can do is turn you away.

Yes, the secret service can override a governors authority when it comes to how they protect a public official. They did say that anything outside the actual venue is Tampa's issue.

Link please to where it says that Republicans favor gun bans to protect their own? Why do I have the feeling that it is just more BS because the Secret Service imposed a restriction. Also, this was about the Cincinatti police chief until you highjacked it into your normal Republican bashing.

Edited August 29, 2012 by DaveE

[DaveE 178]

Open carry is fairly useless IMO. Sure, it may prevent the person carrying from being a victim (not useless to that person) but what is far more effective is concealed carry and the more liberal the issuance of permits, the better. Themore potential carriers of firearms the lower the crime rate. It is not important that everyone carry a gun, only that everyone CAN. This is why Vermont has such a low crime rate, everyone CAN carry a gun. Not everyone does, they do not need to because no one knows who is and who is not. This means the liberal gun hater walking in Burlington at 2am enjoys a crime free neighborhood because I am carrying a concealed handgun, even if they are too stupid to know it. Ignorance is bliss.

I agree, I never OC. Some folks do it just to prove a point, and some folks are attention hogs and love to film police encounters, (like this guy)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So going from your totally BS statement of 7.4 miles, to inside the venue itself is nit picking. Remember you're the guy who stated 7.4 miles.

Second, if you show up with a gun, they can't do squat, even the Secret Service says all they can do is turn you away.

Yes, the secret service can override a governors authority when it comes to how they protect a public official. They did say that anything outside the actual venue is Tampa's issue.

Link please to where it says that Republicans favor gun bans to protect their own? Why do I have the feeling that it is just more BS because the Secret Service imposed a restriction. Also, this was about the Cincinatti police chief until you highjacked it into your normal Republican bashing.

Re-read the post - "gun free zone within a perimeter of the convention." That means no guns in or around the convention center. Is the perimeter a 2 mile radius? 5 mile radius? Doesn't matter because it doesn't change the point. So nitpicking over how large of a perimeter it is, is dodging the real argument here.

Second, Romney is NOT an elected official. He's a candidate, but still a private citizen. While it is understandable for him to seek protection, he does have say in the level of protection the Secret Service provides for him.

The RNC is a private venue. Romney's a private citizen. There's no law that says the Secret Service must be there or that they must have the final say on whether to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

So again, on what authority does the Secret Service have to ban guns? (What happened to upholding the Constitution?)

Edited August 29, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[웃 910]

The more potential carriers of firearms the lower the crime rate. This is why Vermont has such a low crime rate, everyone CAN carry a gun.

Keep telling yourself that. Your entire state is smaller than the population of Detroit. :.WACKO:

"Republican attorney general candidate Jack McMullen, a Burlington businessman who did not face a primary opponent, said he would focus his campaign on helping reduce the amount of crime in Vermont.

He held a brief news conference at the home of a supporter in Burlington's south end, a quiet middle-class neighborhood that has been hit by a rash of property crimes in recent months apparently driven by drug users in need of money.

McMullen, who is trained as a lawyer but is not admitted to the Vermont bar, said the escalation of crime is happening so fast in some areas it hasn't been reflected yet in official statistics. And he said it's not just in the Burlington area.

''We don't come to Vermont to experience the Bronx all over again,'' McMullen said.

He said he would get Vermont's 14 different state's attorneys together to find a unified approach to combatting crime.

His focus would be getting violent criminals off the streets while getting young, nonviolent offenders into drug treatment programs that have been shown to be more successful at lower cost than jailing offenders."

http://www.boston.co...3wSP/story.html

Edited August 29, 2012 by ☠

[Ban Hammer 13,206]

Re-read the post - "gun free zone within a perimeter of the convention." That means no guns in or around the convention center.

that should go over real well with secret service and fbi agents.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Given the Conventions have violated the 1st Amendment in the past, why should the 2nd Amendment issue be such a surprise.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Re-read the post - "gun free zone within a perimeter of the convention." That means no guns in or around the convention center. Is the perimeter a 2 mile radius? 5 mile radius? Doesn't matter because it doesn't change the point. So nitpicking over how large of a perimeter it is, is dodging the real argument here.

Second, Romney is NOT an elected official. He's a candidate, but still a private citizen. While it is understandable for him to seek protection, he does have say in the level of protection the Secret Service provides for him.

The RNC is a private venue. Romney's a private citizen. There's no law that says the Secret Service must be there or that they must have the final say on whether to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

So again, on what authority does the Secret Service have to ban guns? (What happened to upholding the Constitution?)

Given the results of "gun free zones" I would say someone is plotting to kill all the delagates.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Keep telling yourself that. Your entire state is smaller than the population of Detroit. :.WACKO:

"Republican attorney general candidate Jack McMullen, a Burlington businessman who did not face a primary opponent, said he would focus his campaign on helping reduce the amount of crime in Vermont.

He held a brief news conference at the home of a supporter in Burlington's south end, a quiet middle-class neighborhood that has been hit by a rash of property crimes in recent months apparently driven by drug users in need of money.

McMullen, who is trained as a lawyer but is not admitted to the Vermont bar, said the escalation of crime is happening so fast in some areas it hasn't been reflected yet in official statistics. And he said it's not just in the Burlington area.

''We don't come to Vermont to experience the Bronx all over again,'' McMullen said.

He said he would get Vermont's 14 different state's attorneys together to find a unified approach to combatting crime.

His focus would be getting violent criminals off the streets while getting young, nonviolent offenders into drug treatment programs that have been shown to be more successful at lower cost than jailing offenders."

http://www.boston.co...3wSP/story.html

Property crimes do not involve firearms. You are safe walking the street here.

The crime rates are "per capita" which is beyond the comprehension of some people. If low population is the key to low crime, why it be addressed with a firearms law?

You are quoting a candidate in an electioon for Attorney General who is advertising himself.

Give me the name of a state that would not exchange crime rates with Vermont.

[jasonofape 17]

I think we should all go back to strapping a 6 shooter to our leg just like the days of the wild west. No automatics.... just revolvers..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Given the Conventions have violated the 1st Amendment in the past, why should the 2nd Amendment issue be such a surprise.

Well, it is a private venue, so just like a restaurant can ban guns, they can ban them at the RNC. But that's beside the point. Why would the Republican Party and its leaders, who've taken a stand that they are for protecting citizen's 2nd Amendment rights to the utmost, not ensure that those attending the RNC would be able to exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm? Using the excuse that Secret Service made them do it, or even suggesting that it was done for security reasons, is incredibly inconsistent with their message. And so far, they've been fumbling over their key messages, like the slogan, "We Build It!" in a convention center that was built with public money. While some might think I'm just out for blood against the Republicans - all I'm trying to show is that if the party is really sincere about protecting the 2nd Amendment, or doing away with government interference - two big issues being talked about by the speakers at the convention, they're not doing a good job with living the message they are trying to sell.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well, it is a private venue, so just like a restaurant can ban guns, they can ban them at the RNC. But that's beside the point. Why would the Republican Party and its leaders, who've taken a stand that they are for protecting citizen's 2nd Amendment rights to the utmost, not ensure that those attending the RNC would be able to exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm? Using the excuse that Secret Service made them do it, or even suggesting that it was done for security reasons, is incredibly inconsistent with their message. And so far, they've been fumbling over their key messages, like the slogan, "We Build It!" in a convention center that was built with public money. While some might think I'm just out for blood against the Republicans - all I'm trying to show is that if the party is really sincere about protecting the 2nd Amendment, or doing away with government interference - two big issues being talked about by the speakers at the convention, they're not doing a good job with living the message they are trying to sell.

I'm pretty sure that past conventions forced people in public spaces to only protest in "1st amendment zones".