How would any of you of handled this?

[spyder]

Here's the dictionary definition of civilian:

1. A person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

Just letting you know.

Also, that definition would mean that all the Nat. Guard and Reserve personell would be considered civilians, not military, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

ETA: The Oxford American Dictionary defines a civilian as anyone not serving in the armed forces. Says nothing about police, or fire departments, and makes no distinction between those on active-duty or reserve status.

I'm pretty sure the National Guard and the Reserve fall under either military, or naval (National Guard) in my quote.

You know it's funny. The higher up the ranks, or, I don't know how to put this right now (not trying to offend anyone). I'll explain in a different way... My friend, a Ranger, was a Ranger, thinks a talk like this is retarded. He sees it as he went and chose to do something, now he's back, and he doesn't think any highly of himself than anyone else. None of this "civilian" crap (basically just thinking you're better than everyone because you serve, or served) is of any importance, and is actually annoying to him and most other respected military guys. We've had this talk before. He's had that talk many times, and many of the guys he served with and still talks to, have had those talks. They discuss the maturity level of some in the armed forces, and the need to stand out with stupid descriptions like that (the basic attitude involved) is one of their biggest things that pisses them off.

Now I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers or anything(really I'm not), I'm just pointing out the military guys I've been around, and where I get my view points from. Trying to separate yourself like that though (again I'm used to modest and humble guys) bugs me. It's the "I'm better than you" attitude that goes with it. As some of those guys are like my "brothers from another mother" so to speak, I've taken to their way of thinking.

[mcantar18c]

That "better than thou" attitude that goes with that separation is exactly why it irritates the hell out of me when I hear/see people use "civilians" to refer to the people that aren't cops when talking about LE situations... especially when the one doing it IS a cop.

As for the military side of it... right now, I am not a civilian, and there IS a distinction. My job is not a job but a lifestyle, I can't go home whenever I want to, I even have to live by different laws than a civilian does (UCMJ), and so on. When I get out, I will no longer be on this side of the fence. I will be a civilian, just like you. Am I "better" than a civilian? I don't know, that's not for me to decide.

Your quote specifies it as "on active duty with a military, naval ... organization." the DoD has a clear separation between Active Duty personell and those in the Army Nat. Guard or the Army/Navy/AF/USMC Reserve. Different pay levels, benefits, funding, etc. They're all considered military, but only active duty are active duty.

[Squeeze]

I would've never had to "handle" anything because I carry my f**king firearm CONCEALED as it should be. That is all.

[Birddog1911]

I carry concealed 99% of the time, but I see no reason to say "as it should be". This is still supposed to be a free country, and a free state, and I'll carry open, should I so choose.

[wctriumph]

[QUOTE=Flatline;515069]I don't know what the laws are in Oregon, but here that could be considered brandishing a weapon if citizens are calling in concerned for their safety that a man is walking with a gun. It would would not hold up in court, but would be enough for an officer to stop you, take your weapon to protect their safety, and run a NCIC search.

This guy is walking around in broad daylight with a gun on his hip in a manner or place that it would not be considered normal (hence the phone call to the police from the public) and had a video camera, a list of court proceeding, and some statutes that benefit his side only ready for when he was contacted by the police.

This guy was clearly being an ass and trying to cause some type of legal or civil issue with the police department.
Once again I don't know about Oregon, but here an officer can detain and transport a person for failure to provide identification.


Move on, nothing to see here. Rejoin your occupy group.

TEA

[palepainter]

Honestly, I was more impressed with how the officer handled him self than the guy carrying. I probably would have given the guy my ID just to ease him with knowing that I am not a felon and am in my rights to open carry.

[BlasterBob]

If that "open carry " guy lives in the Portland area, he'd better make damn sure that he NOW complies with ALL traffic ordinances when he is driving in that city..

[bradbn4]

Always nice to have popcorn handy to enjoy these threads. . .

Only time I can see myself open carrying is while hunting or at one of those special BBQ events with friends.

I am in the group of folks that think it's better when packing to be concealed versus open carry. I would give a "-1" to the cop for gun on how he handled the loaded firearm. I would give a +1 to the guy for the good references to case law. One of the points that the guy gave was the reference that open carry in that area was not considered brandishing.

[spyder]

I would've never had to "handle" anything because I carry my f**king firearm CONCEALED as it should be. That is all.

.....Just wondering if I should drag this thread out now.....

[asmo]

It could have been a whole hell of a lot easier for all of them. I see the guy as an educated jack ass personally. Why the hell would you be a dick and give the cops a hard time when all they are doing is their job responding to some retards complaint? It wasn't the cops fault!

I believe that argument was used by many of the regimes that committed war crimes as well. "I was just doing my job".

I'm sure that if we would all just do what the cops say, regardless of the legality, it will all work out better for everyone. After all, cops are perfect in judgement at all times, right?