Federal judge rules that concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

[W1nds0rF0x]

Maybe I'm confused, but how is this wrong? It is a crime to conceal a weapon without a permit. And last I checked, there is no way to tell if someone has a permit, unless you detain them. Half an hour seems a little bit long, though, but what's the issue?

It is wrong in that after producing a permit to carry said wepon concealed they should have excused themselves rather than continuing to harrass him and apparently hold him for thirty minutes, then forcing him to go to some enclosed place before allowing him to leave. How can you possibly defend that as being right?

 

[charlie12]

I would like to see the number on how many CHP holders have been busted CC a stolen gun.

 

[Manimal]

I would like to see the number on how many CHP holders have been busted CC a stolen gun.

Legally CC a gun that they know is stolen? I bet...ZERO, ever.

 

[tunatuk]

It is wrong in that after producing a permit to carry said wepon concealed they should have excused themselves rather than continuing to harrass him and apparently hold him for thirty minutes, then forcing him to go to some enclosed place before allowing him to leave. How can you possibly defend that as being right?

I hope I'm wrong, but the way that post reads is as if you are more or less calling me an idiot. Just the tone of it in my head comes across that way. Anyway, I disgress, as I don't really care much one way or the other. But, onward with your question:

Yes, it is wrong. He has been lawfully detained at that point. When you are detained by LEO, you are "in custody" until you are released. And nowhere did I say if it is right or wrong. I have simply been stating what is LEGAL, reasonable, and just. As we all know if something is just, it does not always mean right.

 

[Hitman]

The crime is requiring a permit, to exercise your rights!

ding..ding..ding..

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

I hope I'm wrong, but the way that post reads is as if you are more or less calling me an idiot. Just the tone of it in my head comes across that way. Anyway, I disgress, as I don't really care much one way or the other. But, onward with your question:

Yes, it is wrong. He has been lawfully detained at that point. When you are detained by LEO, you are "in custody" until you are released. And nowhere did I say if it is right or wrong. I have simply been stating what is LEGAL, reasonable, and just. As we all know if something is just, it does not always mean right.

I'm not even going to delve into how you came up with me making a personal attack, as much as I've complained about it. Anyway, I did not mean to imply it was illegal, but legal and right are not necessarily interchangeable. No they did not break any laws by detaining him for 30 minutes. What they did still was not right. Why did they need to hold him? What did it accomplish? If you see someone in the act of concealing a firearm, and you detain that person and they produce an ID that says they are a reserve officer in Jefferson parish, are you going to then take that person to a "secure location" and hold them for up to thirty minutes to check their criminal background??

Now same scenario, and the ID is a La. CC permit. Any difference in the way you treat them? And why? If the were YOU that were in a different city, or even not and it were a Gonzales CP officer and instead of just turning you loose upon seeing your commission they decided to make you sit there for even 15 minutes while they check your criminal background and run the serial number on your weapon to see if it were stolen, it IS lawful, but would you still consider it right? Or would you feel like the COP you were dealing with was being a hardass jerk??

 

[Manimal]

it cannot be reasonable or just if it's "wrong", just sayin.

 

[tunatuk]

I'm not even going to delve into how you came up with me making a personal attack, as much as I've complained about it. Anyway, I did not mean to imply it was illegal, but legal and right are not necessarily interchangeable. No they did not break any laws by detaining him for 30 minutes. What they did still was not right. Why did they need to hold him? What did it accomplish? If you see someone in the act of concealing a firearm, and you detain that person and they produce an ID that says they are a reserve officer in Jefferson parish, are you going to then take that person to a "secure location" and hold them for up to thirty minutes to check their criminal background??

Now same scenario, and the ID is a La. CC permit. Any difference in the way you treat them? And why? If the were YOU that were in a different city, or even not and it were a Gonzales CP officer and instead of just turning you loose upon seeing your commission they decided to make you sit there for even 15 minutes while they check your criminal background and run the serial number on your weapon to see if it were stolen, it IS lawful, but would you still consider it right? Or would you feel like the COP you were dealing with was being a hardass jerk??

To be honest, I don't know why they held him. I wasn't there, so I don't know any of the other factors that are involved in this situation. And where did I ever say that this is exactly how I'd handle a situation like this?? If you read one of my other posts, you'd see how I handle situations involving someone with a gun.

I handle guns pretty much just like I handle every other aspect of my job. I know I'm going to come into contact, and I'm just smart about it. In order for a gun to go off, it has to be handled. If I, or anyone involved in stop/detention, doesn't need to handle the gun, I leave it be.

And what I was answering in my previous post in respect to what is wrong, was if he would have "excused himself" during this incident. He was legally detained, and you can't just get up and leave from that. It is up to your detainer (the police, in this case) when you get to leave.

it cannot be reasonable or just if it's "wrong", just sayin.

In a utopian world.

 

[flamatrix99]

The crime is requiring a permit, to exercise your rights!

Concealed Carry is not a right it is a privledge like driving.

 

[sraacke]

Concealed Carry is not a right it is a privledge like driving.

Yep. Open Carry is a right.

 

[Manimal]

It's been made a privilege by laws and case laws. We can still own Black Powder Cannons, Felons can use Black Powder Rifles & Revolvers legally.

The Right has been Infringed, and selectively made a privilege.

In some states, like Alaska, the Right to Bear Arms has not been -as- infringed on & a person needs no permit to carry concealed.

Montana & Tennessee seem to be leading the way back to the Rights-as-defined through effectively telling the Fed Gov to eff off, concerning gun laws.

 

[Manimal]

As far as the "Utopian World" comment...that's a cop out. People need to just admit that sometimes they are Wrong just because they want to be, or because they don't like or accept what is Right...

If my 3yr old nephew can answer "Why were you being bad" with "Because I want to be", then grown ups should be able to as well.

You don't kill some hostage & the hostage taker and say "In a utopian word we would have saved the innocent lady, but the criminal will not hurt anyone else."

That doesn't make it OK...Or Right, it's Wrong.

 

[tunatuk]

I am saying not all of the laws are reasonable or right. there are some things that are illegal that most would deem should be legalized, and vice-versa.

 

[Manimal]

I am saying not all of the laws are reasonable or right. there are some things that are illegal that most would deem should be legalized, and vice-versa.

Gotcha, I agree.

 

[Geardo]

Concealed Carry is not a right it is a privledge like driving.

LOL!!! You have been Brainwashed by the System!

 

[Nolacopusmc]

LOL!!! You have been Brainwashed by the System!

Hi MEM....missed ya buddy.

 

[Summit_Ace]

Concealed Carry is not a right it is a privledge like driving.

I would be interested in hearing your constitutional argument to back up that statement.

 

[Summit_Ace]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in plain sight, shall not be infringed. unless the people wish to conceal their arms they must ask the government to grant them that privilege.