Open Carry...*gasp*

[JTH]

However, I don't think a LEO is targeted solely to steal their firearm. If the attack occurred with no provocation, I believe the officer most likely was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. Even more likely of a theory, the officer’s gun was taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody for an unrelated (alleged) rime.  If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again?  Do they change policy so all LEO must carry concealed? Not that I've seen. I want to prioritize my defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.

I don't believe I ever said that the LEO was targeted specifically for their gun, and I do believe that I said that one of the reasons that they had to fight more often for their guns was that they had to close with the criminals to cuff them.

And I also don't believe that I ever said that being targeted specifically so that someone could take your gun was the priority issue. 

Edited to add:

If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again?

They do a lot more weapons retention training, and get better retention holsters---because again, carrying concealed would be useless for a uniformed police officer. 

As such, the decision to carry concealed for someone who must be instantly recognizable as a law enforcement officer, is a separate one from the decision normal citizens should make. 

The weapons retention training, and a good retention holster, on the other hand, is a good thing for anyone open carrying for any reason.

[JTH]

So I am guessing said town will be in Canada then? If you start a town in the good 'ol USA you still are subject to the constitution. Requiring training is infringing on 2A. Last I looked, they hadn't removed that part, at least not yet ...

Buck, are you even reading what I'm writing?

The second amendment is about people's rights to keep and bear arms.  My joke commentary about a fictional town ordinance has nothing to do with people's rights to keep and bear arms.  (As I've said.)  It has to do with people's ability to buy land from me to live in that area.    Nothing in anything I've said stops people from buying or owning firearms. 

Quite the contrary, if you want to live in this fictional town, adults MUST demonstrate basic gun-handling safety and accuracy, which means that they all must have access to firearms for at least basic practice.  (I'm sure I'd add a clause for exceptions like Kennesaw did, of course.)

And, as I've said, part of it is similar to the town ordinance in Kennesaw, GA, which has been in effect for years, and has worked perfectly well. 

You can keep trying to make this a "mandatory training to own guns is wrong!" situation, but it isn't.  And your comments about how this is against the 2nd amendment and how it wouldn't be allowed in the U.S. is---incorrect.

[00BUCK]

Personally, I'd love to start a town in Nebraska in which a local ordinance is that everyone older than 10 has to take a  firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly (using any gun, don't care what) at a 7-yard target demonstrating basic accuracy and safe gun handling, and where open carry in town is actively encouraged.

Nothing in anything I've said stops people from buying or owning firearms.

I beg to differ, your quote makes training and qualification mandatory. If they don't take the training or they don't qualify yearly then they are breaking your ordinance. Your ordinance infringes on 2A, plain and simple.

And it is against 2A unless you are of the NRA and gun hater mindset that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean much, which I am certainly not. It's only legal to impose restrictions like this because spineless lawmakers ignore the true meaning of 2A. And the NRA, as spineless as they are, went along with it. Try putting your little utopia in Alaska or Texas and see what kind of reception you get.

[Mudinyeri]

No, actually.  And I don't consider these "above average" criminals, either. 

You obviously associate with a higher caliber of criminal that I do.

[JTH]

I beg to differ, your quote makes training and qualification mandatory. If they don't take the training or they don't qualify yearly then they are breaking your ordinance. Your ordinance infringes on 2A, plain and simple.

What about that has to do with whether or not they can keep and bear arms?  You see, THAT is what the second amendment is about.  Let's see here-----yep: 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So---if people want to LIVE in this town, they have to (at some point in time in their life, after the age of 10) take a safety class.  And, each year, prove that they can handle firearms safely with a base level of accuracy. 

As none of that has anything to do with owning firearms, keeping firearms, or bearing firearms, , but instead about being able to live in the town that I created in fiction, I'm rather curious as to what part of the 2nd amendment you think it is infringing?

And it is against 2A unless you are of the NRA and gun hater mindset that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean much, which I am certainly not. It's only legal to impose restrictions like this because spineless lawmakers ignore the true meaning of 2A. And the NRA, as spineless as they are, went along with it. Try putting your little utopia in Alaska or Texas and see what kind of reception you get.

Hm.  Have you actually read what I've written, yet? 

Again:  This fictional ordinance would not regulate or affect in any way the ability of any person to own, possess, or bear firearms in any fashion.  I'm sorry you aren't understanding that, but that doesn't make what you are saying true.

Just for the sake of my curiosity---have you read Kennesaw's city ordinance regarding firearms?

Have you or your children taken a Hunter Safety class?  Do you consider that "infringing"?

I also find your disparaging remarks, offhand derogatory commentary, and general attitude pretty rude, so I'm thinking I'm done with the part of this discussion that includes you.  If you aren't going to bother to actually read what I've written, but instead post things that don't actually apply, I see no reason to continue this part of the conversation.

[JTH]

You obviously associate with a higher caliber of criminal that I do.

Pretty much just the ones who were in the State Penitentiary when I worked there. 

[Mudinyeri]

Pretty much just the ones who were in the State Penitentiary when I worked there. 

Them penitentiary boys is hi-falutin'.

[MissMichella]

Them penitentiary boys is hi-falutin'.

Bahahaha!  For some reason this comment cracked me up.

The ones I know that did hard time for violent crime (not that I regularly associate with violent criminals, it's just a small city) waited to bust out their thug life until when they knew someone wasn't armed.  The hardcore guys saw it as an minor obstacle they would rather avoid, the more minor criminals saw it as a high risk.  There are always exceptions, though.

[00BUCK]

Personally, I'd love to start a town in Nebraska in which a local ordinance is that everyone older than 10 has to take a  firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly (using any gun, don't care what) at a 7-yard target demonstrating basic accuracy and safe gun handling, and where open carry in town is actively encouraged.

Again:  This fictional ordinance would not regulate or affect in any way the ability of any person to own, possess, or bear firearms in any fashion.  I'm sorry you aren't understanding that, but that doesn't make what you are saying true.

Yes I've read it. Preclusion of training and qualifying to be able to live in Never-Never land, and gun ownership beyond that is up to the individual. To me its all the same - forced training is just plain wrong, no matter how you spin it. Luckily for me there are other fantasy worlds to live in.

[bullit]

OO Buck.....

Luckily for me there are other fantasy worlds to live in.

....does that include Dungeons and Dragons   (You know I'm just bustin' your chops )

[wusker]

I see no reason to continue this part of the conversation.

about the only thing you two are arguing about, I agree on.

[GreyGeek]

A town that required gun AND ammunition ownership is not new.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
 
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.
 
The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."
 
Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."
 
"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."
 
In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.
 
Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.
 
"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

I'd call that law a rousing success!

Nelson, GA., more recently, did the  same thing:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0402/Georgia-city-requires-gun-ownership-in-all-households-after-new-ordinance

The ordinance in the city of Nelson, Georgia — population 1,300 — was approved Monday night and goes into effect in 10 days. However, it contains no penalties and exempts anyone who objects, convicted felons and those with certain mental and physical disabilities.
...
Fears of a government crackdown on gun sales have prompted a few communities around the United States to "require" or recommend their residents arm themselves, reflecting a growing divide in the wake of the Newtown massacre.
...
Police Chief Heath Mitchell noted that the city doesn't have police officers who work 24 hours a day and is far from the two sheriff's offices that might send deputies in case of trouble, so response times to emergency calls can be long. Having a gun would help residents take their protection into their own hands, he said.

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished.  A group that thinks its wisdom exceeds that of officials elected by a majority of the community has sued Nelson, GA.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/georgia-town-sued-over-law-requiring-gun-ownership/
The Brady Center's argument is exactly like that of OOBUCK's.

The Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a federal lawsuit against the town of Nelson, about 50 miles north of Atlanta, claiming the law is unconstitutional. The suit contends the Second Amendment doesn't require anyone to have a gun, and government cannot require citizens to arm themselves.

I'm not a lawyer but I wonder why the Brady Center thinks it has any standing to file this lawsuit.  The law exempts anyone who doesn't want to own a gun, felons and folks with mental problems, so the Brady Center's contention that it "forces" people to buy guns is bogus.

[00BUCK]

OO Buck..... ....does that include Dungeons and Dragons   (You know I'm just bustin' your chops )

HA! Good one sir, good one!

[SS_N_NE]

I wonder why the Brady Center thinks it has any standing to file this lawsuit.

Much like any other lobby. They have the money to push legal issues to the point of financial concern. If the money burden becomes great enough, it can force change.
Unfortunately our legal system lets lawyers and judges get paid for anything someone might dispute. It is win/win for the legal end of things...they win no matter what happens to others involved. That expense is enough to break individuals and entities.

[AWick]

I know I'm a little late to the party on this discussion as I just recently joined the forum and have been trying to catch up on topics and the culture around here.

I thought that in this discussion I would add that even if you are open carrying that it would be beneficial to take a CHP class and get your permit. Not only for the override of Omaha and other city ordinances but also so that you learn the laws and situation lessons for the use of force statutes for NE. Should you ever have to deploy your firearm it would also help you have an additional defense of being more trained than the average citizen in use of force scenarios.

 I also see your point as far as being a small female with a "don't even try it buddy" warning on your hip verses an attacker thinking "what an easy target, no way is SHE armed"

[mrkermit]

I think OC is perfectly fine but you're going to fluster to henhouse within any city limit/high population zone.  If you're willing to be getting talked to by authorities (not necessarily detained) and judged on your mental fitness at any given time then go for it.  Be polite.  I just don't view OC or the threat of gunplay as a realistic deterrent to those who wish to commit violent crime since they're all in anyway. 

The weapons retention training, and a good retention holster, on the other hand, is a good thing for anyone open carrying for any reason.

This is probably the wisest statement concerning OC but probably one of the most forsaken.  Training is hard to come by and awfully expensive depending on where you go but is the most necessary.  Most folks will think in their mind that "I would do this or that" when they have actually done nothing in preparation.  When the situation actually arises, they will then fall back upon what they truly know -- nothing.  Convincing people to get this kind of training/gear to prep them for OC is along the same lines as telling people they should exercise at least thirty minutes daily.  It's just a fairy tale;  big boy rules just don't work with 95% of the population.

Great discussion.

[fishguy]

The Columbus Chief o' Police has stated that anyone open carrying in Columbus will be "detained and questioned."  Whatever that amounts to, I don't know, but you have been warned. 

I can see the educational part of it, but I can also see it panicking the sheep as well.  Furthermore, I believe it gives an opportunity for someone who dislikes "those damn NRA types" to call in a "man with a gun" call and jazz it up a little maybe.   And last but not least, I believe concealed gives me an advantage and more flexibility should I ever find myself in a bad situation. 

So I go concealed.

I'm not so sure they can do that without some type of cause... It is legal to open carry in Nebraska. However, this state is kind of lame to firearms somewhat. Maybe I'm wrong. In Texas, open carry would probably be more acceptable than here is the point I am trying to make. I don't see myself open carrying ever. I have seen a couple people do it. Not for me, but to each their own...

[Dan W]

In Texas, open carry would probably be more acceptable than here is the point I am trying to make.

Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas

[NE Bull]

Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas

REALLY?  Whodda thunkit!

[fishguy]

Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas

Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas

I'm not so sure they can do that without some type of cause... It is legal to open carry in Nebraska. However, this state is kind of lame to firearms somewhat. Maybe I'm wrong. In UTAH, open carry would probably be more acceptable than here is the point I am trying to make. I don't see myself open carrying ever. I have seen a couple people do it. Not for me, but to each their own...

FIXED?