'The' Gun Thread (Page 38)

Up until recently I'd been doing most of my runs in the early morning (so dark) along a relatively lightly (at that time of day) traveled road.  I also live in the "country" so I have open desert on both sides of the road.  I also often trail run in semi-remote locations and sometimes in areas of high illegal activity.  It makes my husband (and myself for that matter) feel better that I can protect myself.  Now that my runs are changing to after work when it is still light, I don't feel the need to carry as frequently because it is easier to pay attention to what is around me - certainly doesn't diminish the threat potential as I'm still in a rural area.  Plus on the shorter (yay taper!) runs, I goad the hubby into coming along.  

And, 25 lbs ago, I was never bother by the weight of the gun (the PPS is abt 19oz).  I did notice it on longer runs, my gait would change a bit as the run went on to compensate for the tiny difference in weight.  But, now it is either the changed body shape or the size of the shorts (which I purposely bought small to begin with) that is causing issues.  I'd really like something around 10oz or lighter.  

Yeah, i've seen both types even in law enforcement. One of the instructors in my CCW class was a police officer and he bragged about carrying 24/7 and even slept with his guns.  During the day he always had his glock and a backup gun on his ankle on duty and just swapped out the waistband glock when he shifted to off duty.
I have another buddy who is similar to LB who has no desire whatsoever to carry when off duty.

When I was younger I carried a gun a bit more...but never really liked it.  Once I found myself surrounded by kids for much of the day that was pretty much it.  Having carried a gun for nearly 30 years at work, I worry about my own complacency with a pistol.  My work gun stays at work,  every other gun I own stay in a safe.

I am glad to know there are law abiding folks who are diligent about having a gun with them......I'm always for evening the playing field.  It's just not for me.

SHOCKING! Might want to read the entire post...

Police locked down an entire city and went in with full force, with armored vehicles and combat gear,

all to search for an injured 19 year old kid...

WHO set BOMBS off that killed three people and injured 100's more; then Executed a MIT Police officer. 

... who turned out to be cowering in someone’s back yard.

Other than the follow on frisk I see nothing wrong here... I guess we should "TRUST" the person that answered the door when he said he's not here....

(L169_CIFR90c78ea1bfde23f8362146490691426a.jpg)

I heard they were looking for a guy who went crazy with fonts.

Been known to happen... Back to guns....

Funny observation....  I see in the "Boston overreaction" thread some people that think the new precautions are a silly overreaction, but yet they feel that Gun Control will somehow accomplish something.

The constitution is for the best of times and it's for the worst of times.  I certainly recognize the special situation in this case, and as I mentioned if the police came to my door under these circumstances I would let them search, without my consent, but it doesn't change the fact that it's illegal (IMHO).

Should we as a country do as Bloomberg says and change our laws to allow the authorities to violate any/all of our constitutional rights as long as there's a special situation?  If so, who gets to decide what those special situations are?

I'm not trying to argue with you, but there's the real side of this where there's a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, and then there's the constitution.  I think it creates an interesting legal and constitutional situation.

One that has been addressed numerous times at all levels of the court system.  There is no new ground here.

I'm not necessarily sold on that.  I know the police can search without a warrant If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, but the police must still have probable cause to search an individual residence.

I read several reports, including one from the ACLU where they were saying the home searches were voluntary, to get over this legal hurdle.  However, as more first hand reports and video come out the "voluntary" part of the search seems to not be so apparent.

Eh.....we don't need to argue it because it doesn't matter what we think....ultimately it matters what the SC says.  I've been on only one of those deals.....searching for a guy who had shot two Police Officers....similar situation....a defined area that we had cordoned off.....we searched EVERYTHING.  Four people brought suit......nothing came of it. 

I agree it's unusual.....but so is a murderer on the loose and trapped in a defined area......an exigent circumstance, no?

So LB...

If you were a cop in Watertown and I was a resident and I either refused to answer the door or opened it and told you to get lost then closed it, what do you think would have happened to me?

Genuinely curious. I believe in that situation I would either not answer the door or tell them to go away, but I wonder what might happen to me if I did. I know I would most likely prevail in court 3 months later, but that doesn't do me much good with a boot in my back today. 

We would come in.  I doubt you'd prevail in court....but who knows?  In every case of an "exigent circumstance" search that I've been involved in the court ruled in our favor......or, actually, the City's favor.

Who knows, maybe payments will be made and settlements reached....there are lots of ways this can go.  One thing I can tell you without a doubt.....not a single Officer up there has anything to worry about.  The test is reasonableness.....and there are way more people who think they were reasonable than those who don't.

Like I said, I'm just offering my experiences.  I'm not arguing in favor of or against what happened....it just happened, the courts decide.

Okay, so to add to the hypotheticals... If the cops did come in against my wishes as you said they probably would. If I were to sit on my couch with a loaded AR while they went through my house what would happen? Would I be disarmed and cuffed in my house for officer safety after they force entry?

You know, we can "hypothetical" all day.....but I can tell you that you won't be sitting anywhere near me with a loaded AR-15 if I am searching your house. Whether or not you got cuffed or how you came to not have your AR in your hands will 100% be up to you.  You can either hand it over and we'll all be friends and be out of your hair in a minute....or.......it just gets progressively dumber.

I saw it was mentioned a couple pages about.  Not sure if it was addressed...  But I have been thinking on it.

"What if" they search the house and it was clear of the suspect, but they found a kilo of coke on the coffee table (why you would leave that out if you know there is a house to house search going on).

I know if they arrested the guy right on the spot that it would probably get thrown out.  The search was for the suspect but any other crime was not part of that scope so it would be considered not admissible?  no?

Not to say they wouldn't take out the little old notebook and schedule a revisit.  But could they even get a warrant later to search for the kilo if the basis of the warrant wasn't "legal" in the first place?

Curious to me.

Was purely hypothetical, just wanting to know what standard procedure is for officers.

Just always strikes me as wrong in this situation that cops can come to your door with M4s, force armed entry but then not be comfortable with the resident being armed. Seems odd to force your way into a place that you may not be legally entitled to be in then dictate how the legal owner of that place act or what they can hold. I guess I just don't understand the mentality of cops who think they should be trusted without question but every citizen is a criminal in their eyes and is a lethal threat to them. If the cop can be trusted to hold an M4 why can't the resident be trusted to hold an AR, in their own house?

Obviously the hypotheticals can get out of hand quick, but as I said, it seems wrong to me for the police to violate the 4th and 2nd amendments based on wide open "exigent circumstances". 

ETA: Not to pile on, but this is exactly what they did in New Orleans only they added on taking everyone's weapons with them and not giving them back. 

Now what if that situation happened again and they announced exactly what they were doing and told everyone to expect their knock. Does a resident have a shoot out with police to protect their 2nd amendment or do they become criminals and hide them to protect it or do they nullify the constitution and hand everything over to the regime? Just worries me that we are already this far that one 19 year old kid can cause the rights of so many to be trampled, it seems like it won't take much more for a situation like this to get even worse. 

Perhaps that is why some don't want civilians having 30 round magazines...

Well this is out of hand and with no soultion to be had...

 I would say if you did not get SHOT you would be disarmed and secured/detained...

FYI, this is NOT a 19 year old KID he is a TERRORIST/MURDERER!

Agreed

This could pretty quickly get out of hand as a topic because, admittedly, it's a big deal to enter someone's residence without a warrant.

Like I said, the courts decide. 

No matter what opinions get thrown around here, I've been on alot of warrantless searches....I haven't ended up in court yet....so I would say that you could hypothetically sue and win a large hypothetical settlement.

A kilo is a fair amount of coke......but I wouldn't assume it would be thrown out of court. 

Personal use amounts nobody cares about in a situation like what happened in Boston....at least that's been my experience.

Don't mean to pick on things but this is one thing that is driving me nuts about this whole deal. The "terrorist" label takes thing to a ridiculous level IMO. Okay you say he is a murderer, he killed 3 people. There are plenty of people in plenty of places that have killed more than 3 people, but you don't see weeks of round the clock coverage and 20 blocks being shut down and swat teams going door to door. 

Heck a fertilizer plant in Texas killed 14 people, much more than this kid and injured many more but you barely hear anything about it and I haven't seen any call for new regs on fertilizer. Where is the call to ban fertilizer or to arrest the guy at home depot that buys 5 bags instead of a government mandated 2 bags? Where are the cops going door to door searching for stashes of fertilizer?

I guess my point is I hate how the word terrorist works everyone up into a frenzy so that LEO's can do whatever they think the need to do regardless of legality, congressman are calling for stripping the murderer or all legal rights, and people are willing to hand over their freedoms and rights to prevent another 3 people from dying. 

Yes loss of life is sad for the people connected to those people, but a little perspective is a good thing IMO.