• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Openly carrying sidearm causes concerns

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Scotteq said:
the police have to investigate when they receive a complaint


Why do NONE of you assholes acknowledge this?

Oh Yeah - because to do so would invalidate your arguments, and you're too busy being dicks.
Click to expand...

Because there's nothing to "investigate". Carrying a firearm is NOT a crime, Maine is not a stop and identify state. The "field investigation" didn't need to be anything more than "There's the guy ...nope, doesn't appear to be committing a crime, let's go get some donuts".
 
Scotteq said:
Haa haa haa


A book isn't a fucking Firearm. Stop being stupid.
Click to expand...

You're the only one being stupid as both are civil liberties and should not warrant compliant nor response to compliant unless one is using it inappropriately.
 
Infohawk said:
You may not agree with the Supreme Court but gun ownership can be regulated. A licensing scheme is legal. Checking ID is obviously going to be part of this scheme.
Click to expand...

That would be fine, if you needed a license to open carry. No license, no scheme, there's nothing to check, running his ID is not necessary to insure he was within his rights.
 
xj0hnx said:
Because there's nothing to "investigate". Carrying a firearm is NOT a crime, Maine is not a stop and identify state. The "field investigation" didn't need to be anything more than "There's the guy ...nope, doesn't appear to be committing a crime, let's go get some donuts".
Click to expand...



And how do you know you even have the correct guy until you at least talk to him?

You don't.


How do you explain to your boss that you didn't bother to even speak to the guy who appears to be the man someone lodged a firearm related complaint against?

You don't - You talk to the guy so you never have to say that to your boss. The appropriate answer for your LT is "We spoke to him and determined he didn't do anything wrong.."

Just that in this case, the guy was a RL Troll, didn't cooperate, and made the interview take a LOT longer than it had to.
 
Infohawk said:
You may not agree with the Supreme Court but gun ownership can be regulated. A licensing scheme is legal. Checking ID is obviously going to be part of this scheme.
Click to expand...

Yeah its bullshit but you have a point. "Shall not be infringed" means just that to me.
 
Zebo said:
You're the only one being stupid as both are civil liberties and should not warrant compliant nor response to compliant unless one is using it inappropriately.
Click to expand...


How the f*ck do the police know that until they talk to the guy?

All they had is a complaint about a 'man with a gun'. The least they should do is talk to the guy.
 
Scotteq said:
Just that in this case, the guy was a RL Troll, didn't cooperate, and made the interview take a LOT longer than it had to.
Click to expand...

Absolutely was a troll. Legality aside, my question remains. What is the point of open carry? You're not going to be allowed in a store or baseball game or workplace. So what are you doing other than trying to troll people?
 
Scotteq said:
How the f*ck do the police know that until they talk to the guy?

All they had is a complaint about a 'man with a gun'. The least they should do is talk to the guy.
Click to expand...

This country is crazy. I've been to Switzerland during shooting festivals, whole town comes out, guns strapped on backs in super market, on the way to shoot, etc no one gives a fuck. Here we piss our pants. OMG it's a gun!!
 
xj0hnx said:
Because there's nothing to "investigate". Carrying a firearm is NOT a crime, Maine is not a stop and identify state. The "field investigation" didn't need to be anything more than "There's the guy ...nope, doesn't appear to be committing a crime, let's go get some donuts".
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. Indeed, every single poster maintaining that there was no good and legal reason for the cops to have demanded and received the ID's of those two culture warriors are completely and utterly wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your utter ignorance of the law is no damn excuse, either.
 
Zebo said:
This country is crazy. I've been to Switzerland during shooting festivals, whole town comes out, guns strapped on backs in super market, on the way to shoot, etc no one gives a fuck. Here we piss our pants. OMG it's a gun!!
Click to expand...



Sorry - Some citizen made a call to the police, and the police investigated the call. That's all that happened.

Contrary to John's assertions - I've listened to the tape three times now, and I do not hear any "harassment". The police were polite and professional the whole time, despite the nature of the gentleman they were speaking to.
 
Infohawk said:
Absolutely was a troll. Legality aside, my question remains. What is the point of open carry? You're not going to be allowed in a store or baseball game or workplace. So what are you doing other than trying to troll people?
Click to expand...

So using Constitutional right is trolling now, nice. No wonder this country is fucked up.

I don't carry open or concealed but I respect their rights.
 
Perknose said:
You are incorrect. Indeed, every single poster maintaining that there was no good and legal reason for the cops to have demanded and received the ID's of those two culture warriors are completely and utterly wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your utter ignorance of the law is no damn excuse, either.
Click to expand...


Thank You.

All I've been trying to say is the Police did have the right to talk to the guy, and that presenting an ID would have made the encounter a LOT smoother.
 
Scotteq said:
And how do you know you even have the correct guy until you at least talk to him?
Click to expand...

No where did I say they couldn't talk to him if they liked, though they shouldn't have to as he isn't committing a crime. And that kind of helps make my point, HOW do they know they've got the right guy? Right guy for what? What if the guy they stop isn't even the guy that was complained about, but another guy, minding his own business, carrying a firearm? See the point? There's no crime taking place, so there's nothing to "investigate".

How do you explain to your boss that you didn't bother to even speak to the guy who appears to be the man someone lodged a firearm related complaint against?
Click to expand...

You tell your boss that there was no crime taking place, just some guy walking to the store.
 
Scotteq said:
Thank You.

All I've been trying to say is the Police did have the right to talk to the guy, and that presenting an ID would have made the encounter a LOT smoother.
Click to expand...

Those Maine cops not only had the legal right to demand ID, they had a legal DUTY to do so.
 
Perknose said:
You are incorrect. Indeed, every single poster maintaining that there was no good and legal reason for the cops to have demanded and received the ID's of those two culture warriors are completely and utterly wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your utter ignorance of the law is no damn excuse, either.
Click to expand...

No YOU are incorrect. Indeed every single poster maintaining that there was a good and legal reason for the police to have detained and forced to show their papers of this two law-abiding citizens are completely, and utterly wrong.

Wrong. wrong. wrong.

Your utter ignorance of the law is no damn excuse, either.

Sorry Perky, your personal bias against firearms (bring on the claims of "ZOMG but I own the firearmz tooo!!!") doesn't just magically make you right.

If this guys were stopped and detained, and forced to show ID because they were handing out pamphlets for their democrat rally, you would be crying bloody murder and you know it.
 
xj0hnx said:
No where did I say they couldn't talk to him if they liked, though they shouldn't have to as he isn't committing a crime. And that kind of helps make my point, HOW do they know they've got the right guy? Right guy for what? What if the guy they stop isn't even the guy that was complained about, but another guy, minding his own business, carrying a firearm? See the point? There's no crime taking place, so there's nothing to "investigate"..
Click to expand...

OH

MY

GOD


- How can you possibly eliminate the guy from consideration if you don't even talk to him??

- How can you determine if there was a crime if you don't talk to him

and

- When you do talk to him - how can you eliminate him from consideration when he' acting like an asshat and not answering any questions?


Sorry - The only thing you have is some dumbass semantic~based argument over the length of the conversation and whether or not you consider it appropriate.

Thanks for wasting our time. You're just as much a Jackass as the idiot in the recording.
 
Last edited:
Zebo said:
So using Constitutional right is trolling now, nice. No wonder this country is fucked up.

I don't carry open or concealed but I respect their rights.
Click to expand...

I'm open to other possibilities. Let's hear them. What else was this guy doing except setting up a youtube video and scaring other people? I just don't see how open carry is practical in any way in everyday life. Once again, you simply can't go to any real destinations except maybe your fellow gun nut friend's house.
 
Scotteq said:
Snipped for stupid formatting
Click to expand...

There's nothing to "eliminate him for consideration" for, that's the entire fucking point. There was no crime taking place, there is nothing to "investigate". If the complainer had called and said "there's a man brandishing a firearm, running around like a maniac." then fine, investigate away, find the crazy and lock him up, but a man walking down the street wearing a gun in a place where open carry is completely legal is NOT A FUCKING CRIME no crime, no reason to detain. Now, if you want cops to just be able to stop any law-abiding citizen, and question them, and force them to show them their papers because golly gee, they could be committing a crime, then that's a different story enjoy your police state, I'll continue to be against it.
 
Last edited:
Papers please! Whittle away little by little that's how keep people in jail 7-9 years no trail, bug you phone w/o warrants and so on. Bill of Rights is not worth paper it's written on between left and right authoritarians.
 
xj0hnx said:
There's nothing to "eliminate him for consideration" for, that's the entire fucking point. There was no crime taking place, there is nothing to "investigate". If the complainer had called and said "there's a man brandishing a firearm, running around like a maniac." then fine, investigate away, find the crazy and lock him up, but a man walking down the street wearing a gun in a place where open carry is completely legal is NOT A FUCKING CRIME.
Click to expand...


A CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT *IS* A REASON TO INVESTIGATE


That is the entire fucking point.
 
Infohawk said:
I'm open to other possibilities. Let's hear them. What else was this guy doing except setting up a youtube video and scaring other people? I just don't see how open carry is practical in any way in everyday life. Once again, you simply can't go to any real destinations except maybe your fellow gun nut friend's house.
Click to expand...

Your acceptance is not a requirement for people to exercise their rights.
 
xj0hnx said:
A citizens complaint does not mean that a crime is taking place.
Click to expand...


But it damned well *DOES* give the Police cause to investigate whether one has taken place.

..and in this case, an extended interview, since the individual wouldn't answer even the simplest questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top