cassandrasdaddy said:
pats not even hip on va law vis a vis an alcohol related conviction.
I'm curious -- have you ever, I mean
ever, said anything on here that was correct? Or even used correct punctuation?
§ 18.2-308...
E. The following persons shall be deemed disqualified from obtaining a permit:
...
9. An individual who has been convicted of a violation of § 18.2-266 or a substantially similar local ordinance or of public drunkenness within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, or who is a habitual drunkard as determined pursuant to § 4.1-333."
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308
FYI, § 18.2-266 is the statute on drunk driving.
Jeff White said:
What do you personally know about people who commit crimes? How many years experience do you have in LE or corrections? Are you a criminologist? Sociologist? Time to put up or shut up Patrick. Let's see the creds that give you more of an understanding of the people who commit crimes then me.
I wasn't aware I needed to give credentials to express an opinion here.
There are no permits in Illinois, of course he didn't have a permit. The relevance here is that if he had a gun, permit or not he could have shot me and I'd never have seen it coming. If you are naive enough to trust everyone then that's your problem.
I've been used or scammed enough times already that no, I don't trust anybody until he proves he is trustworthy -- repeatedly. So yes especially in the case of police, I fully understand you have to regard everybody with suspicion. You don't know who you're dealing with. What I am saying is confirming somebody has a permit ought to markedly reduce that suspicion in your mind, at least insofar as fear of a violent confrontation. CHP holders are NOT violent people.
And if you want statistics to prove that, I say just count the number of permit holders in this country. There's your statistic. You can have neither violence, alcohol, nor mental health history and get these permits.
Even if you take the weapon I'm carrying,
InTune is absolutely right, what if the guy has another gun in the car? In fact, I personally often do carry a second gun in the car simply because my carry piece is not easily reachable sitting down. My understanding is, in a simple traffic stop, you
do not automatically have cause to search my person or my vehicle. Nor would you receive my permission. I'm sorry if that offends you. It's tough being a cop in a free society. I commend you for doing such a difficult job.
Of course if police ask me if I am armed, I guess I would answer truthfully. But honestly -- and I address this not just to Officer White but to everybody -- I don't see that in a simple traffic stop, where I am otherwise compliant, the police have the right to disarm me. Imagine this: I'm not in my car but walking down the street and I'm jaywalking, so a cop stops me and starts writing a citation. I'm fully cooperative. Does he have the right to disarm me? Strictly speaking, I would think not. He cannot search or seize at that point. Now if I'm held at gunpoint and ordered to disarm, I guess I won't have a choice will I? Whether I will in fact disarm if requested is another matter...but I do not believe I am required to.
I've got a solution to your problem. If you don't want to be stopped and disarmed, DON'T BREAK THE LAW.
Minus the disarming, in another thread I have said the exact same thing before. I'm 25 and I've been driving since I was 16. I still have not been stopped. I just don't speed. That's doesn't mean I won't ever be stopped however. It might be difficult to concede, but I believe sometimes police do make mistakes. (As do drivers.)
You cease being a law abiding citizen when you break the law.
Except that you don't ultimately decide whether I broke the law, but a court.
That's why I would be referred to as a "suspect." Until then I am no criminal. You have to respect people even if you don't trust them. I'm sure you do, but I'm just saying it.
Aha! The elitism shows up again.
Elitism? I didn't demand to see credentials for the right to post a comment and then tout my 22 year experience. I think it's clear who the elitist is.
And maybe that's part of the problem. I should have noticed earlier you were from Illinois. I mean, you've worked 22 years enforcing the law in a state where
everybody who has a gun is a criminal (Which is also, by the way, the same law they have in North Korea, Russia, and the People's Republic of China). I know, you don't make the laws you just enforce them. But 22 years of guns = criminals can be a hard mindset to break. I don't expect to break it overnight.
The fact is, carrying a gun is no proof somebody is violent or has violent tendencies. Merely that he is self-responsible.
My point is that his CCW permit was not a registered non-criminal card. It turned out he was a criminal after all. So just how do you suppose an officer is supposed to tell the difference between a "registered non-criminal" and one who shouldn't have been issued "registered non-criminal" credentials? Do you actual registered non-criminals have any special identifying marks? Maybe a little halo above your head? How about a special aura about you?
No, I figured the "special aura" was reserved for cops.
I never said a permit was a registered non-criminal card. I said it was "the closest thing" to one.
I guess you're right, you can never let down your guard completely. All I'm saying is 1) CHP holders as a class, have no history of violence. Again, I'm no "expert", but I gather violent people tend to have histories. Like that guy. And 2) Out in free America, police have to obey the constitution. If you don't have the right to search and seize, you don't have the right to disarm. Some may disagree. Whether I in fact would voluntarily disarm...I honestly can't say. Depends whether I feel like a federal lawsuit that day I guess. Anyway, I'm sorry I had to break it to you. I do wish all police safe work. But you're in Illinois, where only criminals can carry guns. So confiscate away.
EDIT: In addition I want to reiterate that anytime a loaded gun is drawn, the danger level to both parties goes up. So I hope I am never asked to do so. That's it.
dalepres said:
You know what? All of those darn well better be registered non-criminals. That is the purpose of the back ground check law - and those background checks are performed by law enforcement. Are you saying that law enforcement is not doing their job?
Now that's pretty good.