Missouri with concealed carry, no permit required

[Whitebread]

Terry stops are not illegal.

Good luck with yalls endeavors.

JR1572

I understand that, but you said they would be if we were constitutional carry.

 

[JR1572]

I said their legality would be in jeopardy. Meaning they could be made illegal.

JR1572

 

[MOTOR51]

I understand that, but you said they would be if we were constitutional carry.

He explained to you why that would happen. What don't you understand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whitsend]

It will also allow criminals without felony convictions to carry concealed also.

JR1572

So what you are saying is, it allows those who are not prohibited from keeping and bearing arms to keep and bear arms.
I'm not sure what the problem is here?

 

[DAVE_M]

So what you are saying is, it allows those who are not prohibited from keeping and bearing arms to keep and bear arms.
I'm not sure what the problem is here?

I'll ask you the same question...

So you're cool with young Dindu Nuffins carrying his piece around without the police being able to stop him?

 

[whitsend]

I'll ask you the same question...

So you're cool with young Dindu Nuffins carrying his piece around without the police being able to stop him?

How would constitutional carry prevent police officers from stopping someone who they reasonable believe has or is about to commit a crime? (it won't)
Constitutional carry wouldn't affect Terry stops. In Terry vs. Ohio the officer observed suspicious activity and reasonably believed a crime was about to be committed. I find that to be a good standard.
Take your tin foil off. Constitutional carry won't take away an officer ability to stop someone for suspicious activity.

Police should not be able to stop me/you just because I/you are carrying a gun. If they can stop Dindu, Derpie, or Bubba just for carrying a gun, then they can stop you or me for just carrying a gun.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

 

[DAVE_M]

then they can stop you or me for just carrying a gun.

And I have no problem with this. If I'm not breaking a law, what does it matter? The single instance where I've had an interaction with LEO while carrying, was when I was involved in a car accident and I let the officer know I was carrying. Other than that, I go about my daily business and have no problems. Must be my white privilege.

Did you read anything JR posted?

 

[sliguns]

then they can stop you or me for just carrying a gun.

And I have no problem with this.

 

[whitsend]

Did you read anything JR posted?

I read everything he posted in this thread. And I just went back and read it again to make sure I hadn't missed anything.

IANAL, but I see no evidence that constitutional carry would have any bearing on Terry vs. Ohio.
While Terry and Chilton where ultimately charged with carrying a concealed weapon, that is not the reason they were stopped and frisked.
They were stopped because of suspicious activity and they were frisked for officer safety, constitutional carry would have no bearing on either of these events.

 

[Hattrick 22]

Gun community vs. Gun culture....

 

[DAVE_M]

Worried somebody is gonna find your medical marijuana?

Edit -

I have to ask a random question. Do you have a CHP?

Gun community vs. Gun culture....

I wouldn't say it's this vs that, but there are more than enough folks on Bayoushooter that won't get a CHP, because they feel it is an infringement on their rights. Infringement or not, I like having the ability to walk around without a single person knowing I have a gun.

 

[Hattrick 22]

I bought my permit (lifetime) so I wouldn't have to pay for another every 5 years I still have to take the class to keep it current. However, I do feel that I am paying for something I shouldn't have to. That's all I really have to say about that.

 

[Whitebread]

I said their legality would be in jeopardy. Meaning they could be made illegal.

JR1572

So now you want to argue semantics?

He explained to you why that would happen. What don't you understand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know you tell me. I say terry stops are bad after the opinion is given that they may be in jeopardy, you ask what don't I understand. Maybe you can help me to at least understand what you think don't understand. Is that understandable?

 

[Whitebread]

And I have no problem with this. If I'm not breaking a law, what does it matter? The single instance where I've had an interaction with LEO while carrying, was when I was involved in a car accident and I let the officer know I was carrying. Other than that, I go about my daily business and have no problems. Must be my white privilege.

Did you read anything JR posted?

I have no problem interacting with police. I regularly walk up to them shake their hand, shoot the sh!t, ect . I rarely go oh by the way I've got a gun wanna see? We can measure them and see who's is bigger.

My problem only comes with unwanted contact. Never had it except for speeding. But I don't necessarily object to the stop so much as I do the stupid laws. Occasionally the method of patrolling but that relates more the the level of danger created to make a traffic stop. That's neither here nor their.

If you decided to terry stop me because I have a bulge in my pants or under my shirt or I'm a one man OC parade that's not ok that's an infringement of my fifth amendment if the reason you stopped me was you suspected me of exercising my second amendment. Or any other protected right. Maybe the terry stop is from my excercising the first amendment and you didn't like my Hillary for prison sign. The terry stop was a bad thing for freedom and as previously pointed out constitutional carry won't prevent the terry stop it would however make them less productive.

Forgive me if I don't blindly support any group without forming my own opinion. The ideals of freedom are bigger than police, or stoners, or getting gang bangers off the street, or keeping people safe. It's our inheritance from generations long past who fought kings, zhars and despots to win and defend it.

 

[MOTOR51]

So now you want to argue semantics?



I don't know you tell me. I say terry stops are bad after the opinion is given that they may be in jeopardy, you ask what don't I understand. Maybe you can help me to at least understand what you think don't understand. Is that understandable?

I get it. You think terry stops violate your rights and argue with people that actually have experience. What's not to understand. After reading some of the comments I really understand some people believe there shouldn't be laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MOTOR51]

I have no problem interacting with police. I regularly walk up to them shake their hand, shoot the sh!t, ect . I rarely go oh by the way I've got a gun wanna see? We can measure them and see who's is bigger.

My problem only comes with unwanted contact. Never had it except for speeding. But I don't necessarily object to the stop so much as I do the stupid laws. Occasionally the method of patrolling but that relates more the the level of danger created to make a traffic stop. That's neither here nor their.

If you decided to terry stop me because I have a bulge in my pants or under my shirt or I'm a one man OC parade that's not ok that's an infringement of my fifth amendment if the reason you stopped me was you suspected me of exercising my second amendment. Or any other protected right. Maybe the terry stop is from my excercising the first amendment and you didn't like my Hillary for prison sign. The terry stop was a bad thing for freedom and as previously pointed out constitutional carry won't prevent the terry stop it would however make them less productive.

Forgive me if I don't blindly support any group without forming my own opinion. The ideals of freedom are bigger than police, or stoners, or getting gang bangers off the street, or keeping people safe. It's our inheritance from generations long past who fought kings, zhars and despots to win and defend it.

See, now there shouldn't be a speed limit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whitebread]

I get it. You think terry stops violate your rights and argue with people that actually have experience. What's not to understand. After reading some of the comments I really understand some people believe there shouldn't be laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No if the terry stop was "triggered" by your urge to investigate a constitutionally protected right then it should be illegal. I still find "reasonable suspicion" to be a very vague "catch-all" kind of thing. In my opinion it gives you more leeway than it protects my fifth amendment, but Supreme Court upheld it.

 

[Whitebread]

See, now there shouldn't be a speed limit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not necessarily but I find many to be intentional revenue producers and not safety guidelines.

 

[DAVE_M]

Not necessarily but I find many to be intentional revenue producers and not safety guidelines.

Next time you are on an interstate exit, show those revenue producers how smart you are, and take it at about 120 mph.

 

[Whitebread]

I love how some of you guys make people who truly do believe in freedom and truly to have a set of values the believe in out to be anti-cop, anti-government.

I have a set of core values and I stick to them I don't care if you are a democratic, republican, police, stoner, gang banger, whatever if you are wrong your are wrong. I support the police especially in difficult times like we have been through here but my appreciation for you doing your job does not extend past my core values. I'm as friendly and as easy going guy as you would ever hope to pull over, but I have limits as to what if find to be right and wrong. You don't get to make those values for me that's what despots do.