| Author | Post |
|---|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 04:03 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Thundar wrote: Interceptor_Knight wrote: Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
Because we are Americans. There is a 4th Amendment. We do not loose our 4th Amendment rights because we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.
I think you SHOULD state your name (1) out of an abundance of caution, (2) to make sure the police records record their interaction with you by name, and (3) it makes you look reasonable to the general public.
In other words, for self-interested purposes, state your name.
I agree with Mike, for self interst purposes but don't think the police have the right to force someone to give up his name when he wasn't engaged in any wrong doing.
You guys have my support if I had the air fair I would join you guys in a picnic...or public gathering of your choice open carrying of course.
Last edited on Fri Sep 11th, 2009 04:05 pm by sudden valley gunner
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 04:18 pm |
|
Ahhh, But giving your name while having a fire arm in your possession is non the less Gun Owners Registration......is it not?
I do understand the point of simply giving your name, but looking at the big picture, do you not believe the police would or could do more with your name then simply put it in their report?
While your point is well taken and simply giving your name in the purpose of self interest is a valid argument, then what about the registration argument?
|
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 633 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 05:13 pm |
|
Here is your chance to show your support.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=31345&forum_id=57
See you there tomorrow
|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 06:16 pm |
|
Maybe not the best time for the answer, but I'll ask anywas...
Does anybody know if it was Frank's gun that was discharged to shoot the raccoon? A link would be very helpful, too!
|
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 07:03 pm |
|
gollbladder13 wrote: Maybe not the best time for the answer, but I'll ask anywas...
Does anybody know if it was Frank's gun that was discharged to shoot the raccoon? A link would be very helpful, too!
Frank's Gun was a Firearm, not a BB gun.
|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 07:27 pm |
|
Yeah, I saw that was posted, but has this information been confirmed other than just by a poster?
|
Parabellum
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 07:34 pm |
|
Thundar wrote: Interceptor_Knight wrote: Would someone please remind me why giving your name is a bad thing????
Because we are Americans. There is a 4th Amendment. We do not loose our 4th Amendment rights because we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.
I could be wrong, but it is the 5th Amendment that is being exercised when refusing to speak to officers. Right against Self incrimination = 5th. Right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures = 4th.
|
AaronS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
gollbladder13 wrote: Yeah, I saw that was posted, but has this information been confirmed other than just by a poster?
Trust me, Frank carries a .45 ACP. His gun looks brand new. It is real nice, and real loud. If he had taken any shots with his sidearm, everyone would know it.
|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 09:38 pm |
|
AaronS wrote: gollbladder13 wrote: Yeah, I saw that was posted, but has this information been confirmed other than just by a poster?
Trust me, Frank carries a .45 ACP. His gun looks brand new. It is real nice, and real loud. If he had taken any shots with his sidearm, everyone would know it.
Maybe so, but if the only information given to the officers was shots fired, I can see where they are coming from wanting to talk to him...
Now, if the caller specifically said a BB gun, that's a whole nother story...
Last edited on Fri Sep 11th, 2009 09:51 pm by gollbladder13
|
AaronS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 09:46 pm |
|
| I am still thinking that the full truth has yet to come out. The voice recording should tell us a bit more. The real drag is that Frank is a very nice man.
|
gollbladder13
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 09:54 pm |
|
In my mind, the real drag is either the police are lying or the posters here are, or a combination of the two.
I respect both parties (Frank and the police), and wish this situation never had happened, because I worry this will put a bigger gap between gun owners and police, a gap that should not exist in the first place...
|
SD26
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 10:19 pm |
|
gollbladder13 wrote: In my mind, the real drag is either the police are lying or the posters here are, or a combination of the two.
I respect both parties (Frank and the police), and wish this situation never had happened, because I worry this will put a bigger gap between gun owners and police, a gap that should not exist in the first place...
The burden of proof lies with the government.
Sure, there's a lot of third party information coming out, and I do admit some skepticism after the TV story yesterday on the gentleman's part. However, with the changing official story, I've certainly now become substantially more skeptical of the police.
If there's a gap, it was generated by the action of the officers involved. An individual is the earth's ultimate minority. He has rights. Police must protect those rights.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
SD26 wrote: gollbladder13 wrote: In my mind, the real drag is either the police are lying or the posters here are, or a combination of the two.
I respect both parties (Frank and the police), and wish this situation never had happened, because I worry this will put a bigger gap between gun owners and police, a gap that should not exist in the first place...
The burden of proof lies with the government.
Sure, there's a lot of third party information coming out, and I do admit some skepticism after the TV story yesterday on the gentleman's part. However, with the changing official story, I've certainly now become substantially more skeptical of the police.
If there's a gap, it was generated by the action of the officers involved. An individual is the earth's ultimate minority. He has rights. Police must protect those rights.
Unfortunately most police would either have to resign or arrest each other for individual rights to be protected.
|
SD26
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
N6ATF wrote:Unfortunately most police would either have to resign or arrest each other for individual rights to be protected.
Hence, the problems within the United States. Is it integrity or ignorance?
|
Glockface
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 29th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 11:02 pm |
|
| This was on channel 4 news tonight.The man arrested is going to hire an attorney and the coppers think they were set up!
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 11:04 pm |
|
SD26 wrote: N6ATF wrote:Unfortunately most police would either have to resign or arrest each other for individual rights to be protected.
Hence, the problems within the United States. Is it integrity or ignorance?
Ignorance is a well-honed ACT to use as a defense, if immunity isn't in play (and it almost always is).
Jack Bauer: Our government has no integrity!
I concur.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 11:08 pm |
|
http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11111060
RACINE (WKOW) -- Weapons rights supporters are fired up about the arrest of a Racine man who was openly carrying a holstered gun on his porch Wednesday.
Frank Hannan-Rock, 52, was jailed on a charge of obstructing, after he allegedly refused to answer officers' questions. Police wanted to know more information about shots that were fired at raccoons while children were playing nearby.
Police later determined Hannan-Rock was not the man responsible for shooting the raccoons.
A number of "open carry" rights supporters sent angry emails to the Racine police department.
Police said everything would have been made much easier if he had simply cooperated with their investigation initially.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 11th, 2009 11:13 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11111060
RACINE (WKOW) -- Weapons rights supporters are fired up about the arrest of a Racine man who was openly carrying a holstered gun on his porch Wednesday.
Frank Hannan-Rock, 52, was jailed on a charge of obstructing, after he allegedly refused to answer officers' questions. Police wanted to know more information about shots that were fired at raccoons while children were playing nearby.
Police later determined Hannan-Rock was not the man responsible for shooting the raccoons.
A number of "open carry" rights supporters sent angry emails to the Racine police department.
Police said everything would have been made much easier if he had simply surrendered all his civil rights and prostrated himself in front of them initially.
Fixed.
Last edited on Fri Sep 11th, 2009 11:13 pm by N6ATF
|
hugh jarmis
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12th, 2009 12:58 am |
|
In my mind, the real drag is either the police are lying or the posters here are, or a combination of the two.
The facts are not in dispute. The police have already admitted to the things you are questioning.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 12th, 2009 01:03 am |
|
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/images/uploads/AB605PH.doc from 2000 PPA hearings
|
Current time is 12:21 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   |
|
