Alarming new trend with some CCWs

[Unistat]

Couple issues with this statement. First off, "Known criminals" are in jail. If they aren't in jail, they're innocent, or rehabilitated...

If that is true why are criminal records kept? Why do convicted felons have certain rights curtailed? Why are there Third Strike-type laws?

For the purpose of this discussion a "known criminal" is someone that has been convicted of a crime that prohibits them from owning and carrying a gun, hence the need for the "gun sherpa."

 

[tbutera2112]

i know a guy who is a drug dealer and a gangbanger and he has his CCW permit.....just because someone doesnt have a record, doesnt mean they arent into bad stuff...just means they are good enough to not get busted

 

[HD Fboy]

After training, reading, paying money, taking tests, etc I, as a lawful CCW licensed individual enters an establishment unarmed and feels threatened. So, I leave, go to my car, get my gun and return. Really??

Let me state for the record if I was unarmed in a place where I sensed danger and I escaped (with any family/friends I had with me) under no circumstances would I return. Why in the world would you put yourself back into the line of fire like that?????

IMO anyone who does return to said location, armed is not looking to defend themselves. If said individual got into an altercation following these events and that exchange resulted in said individual shooting another individual i believe they would have difficulty escaping arrest. Hard to argue that when you re entered the establishment armed you didn't become the aggressor.

IMO if a LEO witnesses this type of exchange and stops it he has done his job.

 

[InkEd]

The fact that the person had a ccw is irrelevant to behavior and actions committed. Basically, all that it does is prevent him/her from being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. However, if they KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY hand it to a felon (or anyone) to be used for an illeagal activity they can be charge with accessory to whatever crimes are committed. Which is a more serious crime anyway.

 

[SaxonPig]

I sincerely doubt this is a "trend." Maybe a few isolated incidents. It's long been known that the old ladies will sometimes carry for their biker BFs. But they are robots who do as they are told without question. Anyone packing on behalf of a felon is breaking the law and is asking for a felony conviction. If murder results they are guilty, too.

Most gang bangers and violent criminals don't worry about gun laws, anyway. They carry despite laws against doing so. If murder doesn't worry them why should a gun law?

Sounds like a typical Brady Bunch scare tactic press release, to me.

 

[lemaymiami]

I read most of the above posts and feel the need to point out a couple of things that go beyond the right to keep and bear arms... and the privelege of carrying concealed.

First things first -- if you gathered together any group of 100 individuals and sort them out any way you want... 100 doctors, 100 car mechanics, 100 priest or rabbis, 100 cops, 100 construction workers, or don't sort them at all... At least one or two (occasionally more) are probably doing things they shouldn't be doing. Some of them will keep it minor others are into the stuff of nightmares. That also includes folks that have passed all the requirements to legally carry concealed. Anyone that thinks I'm exaggerating might consider that for many years I dealt with every level of society as a cop (and was lied to by many that I met... good guys, bad guys, the clueless, and the sharpies...). By the time I left police work I didn't trust the folks I worked for, the folks I worked with, etc. I found I probably had more in common with people I met in back alleys than the ones you'd never find in back alleys.... In the fifteen years since I 'retired' I've mellowed a lot but you never forget the basics. That sort of stuff is how people behave - even when it's going to cost them...

Now for the fun part... bad guys will get access to guns if they want them. They'll steal, beg, borrow,etc. Anyone that helps in that process ought to have trouble sleeping at night. The best reason not to do that sort of stuff (even if it's a family member, best friend, or lover) is that when really bad stuff happens and the guy or gal is in custody and going down hard.... they'll hand up their own mothers to stay out of jail. The guy or gal that handed, lent, gave them the gun they used will be the first one they'll give up. I've seen it happen.

One last thought and a true story.... I automatically figure an experienced bad guy won't be the one carrying the gun if they're smart (and prison is nothing but a school...). Whenever I had one in front of me I always paid attention to their buddies, girlfriends, family members because one of them was probably the one holding if they were up to no good. Many years ago one of my snitches told me about a late night scene at a topless/bottomless (and taste-less) bar where there was a short fight. The kid who got beaten left, then came back with a bat to settle up. All around the bar bikers (it was that kind of place) went into their boots, or into their girlfriend's purses to come up with guns.... The young man with the bat made his apologies and backed out very, very quietly. Everyone present put their guns away and went back to business as though nothing had ever happened... just another hot, Florida moment.

You ought to remember that most cops (or those like me that made it into another life style) never saw any good moments involving guns when they were working. We all knew that lots of good people owned, carried, and never ever were a problem. We just never got to deal with many of them. All I ever dealt with were the other kind....

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Sam1911: Quote:
You tell me the legal difference between putting my carry piece in my pocket and leaving it there all day OR leaving it in my car, but retrieving it when I sense that the area I'm in has become more dangerous. If I don't have a duty to retreat, then my claim of self-defense is valid either way.
Quote:
However, I do have concerns about ANYONE leaving the scene of a fight, then going to get a gun and returning to the fight scene with his buds.
I think this is an important point here. You may not have a duty to retreat from an area. You may have the lawful right to arm yourself. However, leaving the scene of "trouble" (like a fight), arming yourself, and retuning to the scene of ongoing or expected trouble steps beyond lawful self-defense. It certainly may put you into the role of a mutual combatant who's justification for the use of lethal force has evaporated.

"No duty to retreat" is not the same thing as "Hey, let's get a gun and go back for another round."

Also, giving someone else a firearm when you KNEW or had reason to know that they intended to use it in the commission of a crime (whether or not they are a prohibited person already) isn't exactly a legally sound idea. If the police observe you handing a gun to someone who then takes it into a bar and shoots someone in a bar fight, you could definitely be charged with aiding and abetting that felony assault with a deadly weapon or murder. It would be extremely hard to fight a charge of being an accomplice to that crime, if you were present at the scene of a fight, left to get a gun, and gave that weapon to one of the combatants to use in continuing the violence.

Good post.




Also, as it appeared he was returning to re-start the fight that he was involved with earlier it would disorderly conduct and he could have been charged with that. All of them could have been arrested for disorderly conduct in the first place, the only difference is this time he would have had his gun on him.

 

[Mike1234567]

I would never loan a firearm to anyone... not even to a good friend. I might sell one to him/her for $1 with a signed receipt and (hopefully) they'll sell it back to me for $1 when they no longer need it. Provided I, in good intent, try to ensure he/she can legally possess a firearm then I should be indemnified if something goes awry.

However, I would expect the firearm to somehow become "lost" or "stolen"... just human nature in my experience. But that's another subject.

 

[Cryogaijin]

If that is true why are criminal records kept?

Extensive records of your finances are kept as well, doesn't make you a tycoon or a debtor.

Guilty until proven innocent is what the antis want to label legit firearms owners, no reason for us to stoop to the same arguments.

Honestly I'm in favor of ex-felons getting their right to keep and arm bears after a probationary period.

 

[lemaymiami]

I'll second that Cryo... as long as their rights are earned back with years of good behavior.

Prisons turn out bad guys, period. Anything that might help to bring a felon back to daylight is worth considering. I'd go for the right to vote being restored after three years trouble free, the right to own firearms after five years, etc. I'm not talking automatically either. It would be a good idea to really look at them before full restoration. I know that lots will oppose this but people change over time (mostly) and I think we'd be smart to encourage good change. I don't like what prison does (folks inside get taught all the wrong stuff and it really shows when you deal with them as a cop once they're outside again).

 

[Unistat]

Extensive records of your finances are kept as well, doesn't make you a tycoon or a debtor.

Guilty until proven innocent is what the antis want to label legit firearms owners, no reason for us to stoop to the same arguments.

Honestly I'm in favor of ex-felons getting their right to keep and arm bears after a probationary period.

Well then, I see we're not going to agree on much with regards to this particular dicussion. I can respect your sincere and honest difference of opinion.

 

[Old krow]

I see an issue with immediately walking back into a bar after I have been in a fight, with or without a gun. I agree that I have the legal right to defend myself, the problem that I have with it is knowingly taking a chance where Physics might trump my rights to self-defense.

I'm sort of confused though. Was the CCWer with the gang members or was he part of the other half?

In either case, I wasn't there, everyone lived through it, so I am reluctant to say much about the judgement of the LEO that was there, but, here's a question:

What would happen if the CCWer, no matter which side he was on, was killed on the way home? He hadn't broken a law had he? A better question might be, was he charged with anything? If he was disarmed, no law broken, no arrest, and one of the opposition decided to continue the fight on the way home, his means of self-defense were taken from him that he previously had until his gun was unlawfully taken away from him. That seems like a disaster waiting to happen for someone.

Edit: Just saw where they could have been charged with Disorderly Conduct.

 

[Aaron Baker]

Also, as it appeared he was returning to re-start the fight that he was involved with earlier it would disorderly conduct and he could have been charged with that. All of them could have been arrested for disorderly conduct in the first place, the only difference is this time he would have had his gun on him.

Ahh. Now we see what kind of cop you are, as if it wasn't already clear. Lawyers have another name for "disorderly conduct." We call it "contempt of cop." Because any time you do something that a cop doesn't like and he can't find another charge to fit, it's disorderly conduct.

"Appearing to return to an area that was earlier the scene of a fight he was involved in" is not disorderly conduct and never will be. You could charge someone with that charge, but they would never be convicted of it.

But, again, the point is that despite all the "would have/could haves" that you're throwing around, no one was charged with a crime. You deprived a citizen of his property without charging him or anyone else with a crime.

"No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law."

Shame on you. Don't you believe in our Constitution?

Aaron

 

[MikeNice]

Grizz, as all of the current cases are still pending comments can not be made about them.

Pending what? If there have been people charged with some crime for doing so that is a matter of public record. A news article would be fine.

A report number and agency name would work as well. Once a report has been written and submitted to the records department it is considerred public information most often.

 

[MikeNice]

However, it's who he was with and the act he was most likely about to commit that is unusual for most CCW'ers.

The act he was most likely about to commit? So he did absolutely nothing. He didn't shoot anybody. He didn't pass off a gun to anybody. Yet he is the sign of a new trend in CCWers passing guns to criminals and/or acting as strawmen?

Really your leap of logic holds enough fallacies to be mind boggling. I work for the police department. I'm glad you're not one of my officers.

All parties should have been orderred from the scene. The scene should have been secured long enough to make sure they were gone and didn't come back. Then it should have been on about busines as usual. You don't disarm a man legally carrying when he hasn't actually ben involved in a crime.

My question is, why didn't anybody talk to the manager or club security to see why they didn't call the cops? A large fight with mutiple parties should be called in. Otherwise it looks like the club condones the action and is making itself a problem fo the neighborhood.

Why wasn't anyone arrested for fighting. Even mutual combat can land both parties in jail for the fight. It can also lead to drunk and disorderly, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct and public intoxication charges. Instead the police disarm a CCWer that has comitted no crime and send the parties back in to the night. They are left free to go home and collect all kinds of weapons to escalate the scene at another location or even at the same location.

Brilliant work guys.

 

[brickeyee]

It actually sounds like a bunch of hysteria dreamed up to oppose CCW by the 'unclean' (as in not LE or their chosen).

Without a single reference to something publicly available it sounds like BS.

 

[evan price]

News Flash:

Criminals are doing illegal things.

Thanks for the breaking news.

Now back to your regularly scheduled THR session...

 

[rori]

Seems to me that the ccw holder is violating the law just by giving a person he knows to be a felon a gun. Other than that IMHO if I can get to my car to get my gun then I would much rather get in the car and drive away as fast as I can and not kill or wound anyone or get killed myself. Believe me you don't want to be in the situation of having to justify assaulting someone with a gun much less killing him. Shooting is a very last resort not the first option by any means.

 

[Cap'n Jack Burntbeard]

Although my first instinct is that this is a troll thread, I'll give this supposed police officer the benefit of the doubt, at least for a minute anyway.

So let me get this straight:
A man is indirectly involved in an altercation, you don't arrest him because he apparently did nothing wrong, he leaves the establishment, arms himself which you stated is legal, he then attempts to return to said establishment to enjoy the rest of his night out, at which point you decide it would be a swell idea to forcibly disarm him and confiscate his property without due process?

Either you are simply here to troll us, or you are a shining example of why people often take a very dim view of law enforcement.

 

[357 Terms]

Did this happen in Canton Ohio ?

 

[Art Eatman]

Not every member of a gang has a criminal record. We know from published information that "gaming the system" is now occurring. Gang members are joining the military for one enlistment term in order to get the training and come home and then act as instructors to their fellow gang members.

It seems evident from the opening post that a similar sequence is now occurring with CHLs. A non-record gang member goes through the licensing process and then the gang takes advantage of laws as they are written. Again, gaming the system, which is set up with the assumption that good guys will always act like good guys.

 

[Zundfolge]

Alarming new trend?

I call shenanigans ... prior to this thread I'd never heard of such a thing, let alone it being a "trend".

The only thing that stops me from crying "troll" is that the OP has been around here a long time and I don't remember reading any other silliness posted by them.

 

[Kliegl]

Be careful man, shenanigans might be too strong a word for here. I got a comment deleted for saying *IT*.

 

[MikeNice]

It seems evident from the opening post that a similar sequence is now occurring with CHLs.

How? Please point out where a gang member recieved a gun from a CHL holder or where anyone did anything illegal after the fight.

 

[we are not amused]

I have a friend whose son-in-law is in Law Enforcement, and he is always telling me what the latest scare stories are being passed along among Law Enforcement types. Most of them are so outrageous and unbelievable I thought he was pulling my leg, only when I checked with a couple of Law enforcement acquaintances, did I find out the stories were real. Well, perhaps real is the wrong term, the stories were obviously exaggerated, if not outright fakes, but they were being passed around by cops and being believed by at least some of them. What were the stories? Almost any outrageous, paranoid and conspiratorial story that could be invented. And when asked for details, it was always, "can't say any more, it is under investigation."

Take the current example, why would a CCW permit holder pal around with a bunch of gang members, and loan them weapons? If the gang member was caught with that weapon, and it could be traced to the CCW owner, I would think some very embarrassing and legally troublesome questions would be asked.

For that matter, some of the things I have been accused of by Law Enforcement officers, lead me to believe that their judgment of who is or is not violating the law is questionable at best.