CoRoMo
Member
Posted by daniel1113
...the idea that all laws should be followed for no other reason than they exist.
Are there any laws that you advise someone not follow?
Posted by daniel1113
...the idea that all laws should be followed for no other reason than they exist.
No, the officer is justified in drawing his firearm if he's REASONABLY concerned for his safety.The officer is justified in drawing his firearm if he is concerned for his safety.
Until recently, Ohio CCW law FORBADE you to conceal your firearm in a vehicle. Are you saying I should NOT have obeyed that LAW???keep your weapon CONCEALED
Are there any laws that you advise someone not follow?
No, it is not false; you are wrong. FAIL.ravonaf said:That's false. He was clearly carrying openly otherwise the officer would not have seen the firearm.
We are not Germany. We have the US and Washington Constitution that guides our laws. None of the laws in this situation are unconstitutional. You might believe they are, but the courts have decided otherwise. Washington courts very jealously guard civil rights in this state.Every single thing the Germans did during WW2 was legal under German law. Are you advising that people do no have basic human rights?
We are not in Nazi Germany. If you disapprove of the laws where you live, you have 3 options:Every single thing the Germans did during WW2 was legal under German law. Are you advising that people do no have basic human rights?
Every single thing the Germans did during WW2 was legal under German law. Are you advising that people do no have basic human rights?
None of the laws in this situation are unconstitutional.
Really? You just had to Godwin the thread?
We are not in Nazi Germany. If you disapprove of the laws where you live, you have 3 options:
1-Move
2-Lobby to have the laws changed
3-Civil disobedience to have the laws changed*
If you choose to break the law, that is your choice, and you understand the consequences. We will not support you or feel show you much sympathy.
*That doesn't mean pick and choose which laws to follow. That means intentionally breaking a law, intentionally being arrested, and challenging the constitutionality of the law in court.
Laws broken: Brandishing, Assualt with a deadly weapon, unlawfully detaining the OP.For all of you claiming that the LEO acted illegally or violated a Constitutionally protected right, please be so kind as to reference exactly which law (and cite your source) or which amendment was violated.
My guess: No takers.
There is no law that says I have to hand in my guns. Don't use fictitious laws to justify breaking real laws.I'm sure you will be first in line to hand in your firearms when the law says you should. There's right and wrong and then there's the law. The 2 aren't always the same.
I thought you played tuba!trickyrick said:and this one time, at band camp, i stuck a flute in my .....
There is no law that says I have to hand in my guns. Don't use fictitious laws to justify breaking real laws.
Those are the laws that are broken, IF the officer simply saw the gun and proceded to point a gun and detain the OP. However, based on the attitude of the OP and the intentional ambiguity of the cercumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the officer didn't simple do this because he saw a gun, but because the OP motioned toward the gun while he was reaching toward his wallet. Because of that, the officer's actions would have been completely justified, because he had reason to suspect that his life was in danger, and if that is the case, the OP is lucky to be alive.