Man hot over gun permit

[adymond]

That misses the point. Give the deputy the same benifit of the doubt you insist a self described verbally "abusive" jackass gets. That case you mentioned is absurd, but again she is required to make a co-pay and the office staff felt threatened enough to call the police. Is that acceptable behavior? I am so tired of people making excuses for idiots acting poorly. If she wants to she can still OC correct? How does limiting her ability to CC infringe on her right to bear arms? I may be way off the mark, but I think the spirit of the second ammendment is more broad than CC and does not really apply to CC. So long as I can purchase and bear arms my second ammendment right stands. I prefer to CC, but I still have the option to OC. I am personally not comfortable with OC (call me spineless or whatever, but I don't feel comfortable OC), but it is always an option. Unless I am mistaken we can always OC by right. Just because I choose a different option does not by default make the other option a right. There is no slippery slope here. I retain the right to bear arms, but I have the privlage of CC because I follow the rules set out regulating that privlage.

[tmg19103]

The point is the woman got her LTCF back on appeal even though she was verbally abusive while carrying a concealed pistol with a LTCF. The Commonwealth Court ruled that does not make you a danger to public safety.

I thought this was a pro-gun, and thus a pro-rights forum?

Seems everybody support the ability of the government to take away your ability to carry (which is a right if you read the PA constitution) with the slightest provocation and at the whim of the Sheriff.

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of Pennsylvania.

[adymond]

Stop with the ignorant you don't think like I do so you must be anti-gun rights. Read what people said. If you behave inappropriately there are consequences. Also I have asked a few times if having your LTCF revoked would revoke your right to OC. I haven't seen a response to that yet. OC is a right. I don't know that CC is a right. Seems if you need a license or permit it might not be a right. But you don't need any such thing for OC.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by adymond

Stop with the ignorant you don't think like I do so you must be anti-gun rights. Read what people said. If you behave inappropriately there are consequences. Also I have asked a few times if having your LTCF revoked would revoke your right to OC. I haven't seen a response to that yet. OC is a right. I don't know that CC is a right. Seems if you need a license or permit it might not be a right. But you don't need any such thing for OC.

There is no law against what you call "behaving inappropriately" (I guess you mean "inappropriately" in your personal opinion) and there should be no need to supress all normal human emotion at the risk of being branded as a danger to the public.

Show me a cop who has never gotten angry on duty while carrying a gun. I doubt there are lots of them. Is every cop who has ever gotten angry a danger to the public? I'd hope not.

The people walking around with flat affects who never display any real emotion are the ones you actually need to look out for. Maybe in your shiny, happy world no one ever gets a little exercised but in the real world with real people, it's to be expected, even if undesirable.

Getting a little angry or upset is far different from getting threatening. Are you saying you can't tell the difference?

[adymond]

I'll throw that question back at you. Are you saying that acting threatening enough for a doctor's office to call the police is just getting a little angry or upset? Is calling yourself abusive and being escorted from the sherif's office only a little upset. Come on. And how about responding to the repeated question. Sorry the spelling isn't perfect, but the question of OC vs CC rights is what I am trying to talk about here. Jim Main is still able to OC after verbally abusing a clerk. He is not able to CC. Should we really be defending him for actions he admits were abusive? Can you tell the difference? Getting a little angry while in possesion of a weapon is not the issue. Berating a clerk for acting in accordance of the law is as is berating the deputy after they have explained the regulation and excalating it to the point that he was escorted out of the building.

[tmg19103]

Originally Posted by adymond

I'll throw that question back at you. Are you saying that acting threatening enough for a doctor's office to call the police is just getting a little angry or upset? Is calling yourself abusive and being escorted from the sherif's office only a little upset. Come on. And how about responding to the repeated question. Sorry the spelling isn't perfect, but the question of OC vs CC rights is what I am trying to talk about here. Jim Main is still able to OC after verbally abusing a clerk. He is not able to CC. Should we really be defending him for actions he admits were abusive? Can you tell the difference? Getting a little angry while in possesion of a weapon is not the issue. Berating a clerk for acting in accordance of the law is as is berating the deputy after they have explained the regulation and excalating it to the point that he was escorted out of the building.

You make a good point. If he is so abusive and such a danger that he can't get a LTCF, why not take his guns away? The guys too much of a danger to have a LTCF, but he can still own legally own firearms and OC? Sounds more than a little hypocritical to me.

There a thousands of criminals running around Pennsylvania illegally carrying firearms and everybody is up in arms about a guy who can legally own firearms and who can legally OC having a LTCF because he had a bad day at the Sheriff's office - and when the case law supports him having a LTCF?

If this guy is such a danger, what's to stop him from carrying concealed anyway and going on a rampage?

My take - this is a "shall issue" state and if you don't have any diability that prevents you from owning a firearm, you shall be issued a LTCF.

But wait, the guy is a danger in your OPINION. Ohhhh. How can anybody feel safe for even a second given the thousands fo felons currently walking around with illegally concealed and illegally owned firearms?

Like I said - is this a gun-rights forum or the Brady Campaign? The Brady people like to chip away at our rights one small step at a time, so why not do it for them? That seems to be the theme fo this thread.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by adymond

I'll throw that question back at you. Are you saying that acting threatening enough for a doctor's office to call the police is just getting a little angry or upset?

If the person didn't have a gun, I don't believe they would have called the police. I think the office staff paniced because the lady was in her car in the lot (making some phone calls -- innocent enough) but they thought she might come back. When the sheriff figured all of that out, he should have just dropped it. The fact that someone calls the police tells me nothing -- NOTHING (as in nothing) about the person's behavior. People dial 911 all the time to report OCers who are doing absolutely nothing that could be even remotely perceived as threatening. So what does the fact the police were called tell you about how the woman behaved? Yup, nothing. Anyone who can push three buttons on a phone can dial the police. Doesn't make them experts in character analysis or threat assessment.

Is calling yourself abusive and being escorted from the sherif's office only a little upset. Come on. And how about responding to the repeated question. Sorry the spelling isn't perfect, but the question of OC vs CC rights is what I am trying to talk about here. Jim Main is still able to OC after verbally abusing a clerk. He is not able to CC. Should we really be defending him for actions he admits were abusive? Can you tell the difference? Getting a little angry while in possesion of a weapon is not the issue. Berating a clerk for acting in accordance of the law is as is berating the deputy after they have explained the regulation and excalating it to the point that he was escorted out of the building.

It's hard to tell how escalated it really was because it was the gov't folks who decided to escort him out. If he was acting in a criminal manner they should have escorted him to a cell. The fact that they didn't tells me that it wasn't "that bad." The guy got hot and wouldn't let up, they didn't feel lilke dealing with him, so they threw him out. The same thing might have happened had he stood there calmly repeating himself but they were done listening to his song. The point being, the fact that they threw him out tells me nothing about how angry he appeared but has a lot more to do with how subjectively annoying the deputy decided the guy was. Being annoying is not dangerous.

And tell me what is the usual penalty for "berating" a clerk? If he had no LTCF to take, there would have been no consequences; zero. All I'm getting at is he was treated differently because he has the LTCF -- it gave the sheriff a way to punish him for something that should not be subject to punishment. He pissed the sheriff off and the sheriff was able to take revenge. That's not appropriate any more than berating clerks. If the guy should lose his LTCF then the sheriff should lose his badge. Given his position and the fact that the sheriff also carries, a personality trait that leads him to seek revenge in that way makes him extremely dangerous to the public.

Looking at it from another angle, as you say, the guy can still OC. So if he's so darned dangerous and unstable, shouldn't he be in a mental institution with no guns? In reality, he's not dangerous, just stubborn and obnoxious. That is still not a crime and there should be no gov't penalty involved.

I'm not obnoxious, but I don't want to walk on eggshells around gov't employees either. One wrong step or a smile not quite bright enough and I lose my LTCF? I view what happened to this guy as just as arbitrary.