The Direction of Law Enforcement

[wichaka]

I will tell you what does fit: constantly gripping your weapon, taking your weapon out of it's holster and pointing it at someone...uncovering a covered weapon for the purpose of intimidating someone...

I find those that constantly check the status of their weapon, are the folks who usually do not practice enough, or have less than adequate gear for the street.

Don't skimp on either.

 

[davemata]

I find those that constantly check the status of their weapon, are the folks who usually do not practice enough, or have less than adequate gear for the street.

Don't skimp on either.

Any chance you'd care to suggest a good retention style holster? I've got an m&p that needs a home.

 

[wichaka]

Outside or inside the pants?

 

[wichaka]

For outside, look at the Safariland 6377

For inside, the field is fairly open, but retention will be a bit lacking. Look at anything made by reputable holster makers; Sparks, Davis Leather Co., 5-Shot etc.

 

[Misterbill]

Any chance you'd care to suggest a good retention style holster? I've got an m&p that needs a home.

Dave, PM me. We've got a really nice Kydex OWB concealment holster for our MP9c that was dirt cheap. It's not a "retention" holster in that it is only draw angle and pressure held, but it's a badass holster. I'll try to get the make and model to ya.

Unless you're open carrying, I think retention holsters for civilians are way over-rated. If you're going to OC, even the traditional thumb-break leather holsters work fine for the most part, or as someone already mentioned, look to the Safari land thunb-break kydex models. Just stay FAR away from the trigger-finger-break variety like SERPA.

 

[davemata]

Dave, PM me. We've got a really nice Kydex OWB concealment holster for our MP9c that was dirt cheap. It's not a "retention" holster in that it is only draw angle and pressure held, but it's a badass holster. I'll try to get the make and model to ya.

Unless you're open carrying, I think retention holsters for civilians are way over-rated. If you're going to OC, even the traditional thumb-break leather holsters work fine for the most part, or as someone already mentioned, look to the Safari land thunb-break kydex models. Just stay FAR away from the trigger-finger-break variety like SERPA.

Will do. Was looking for something to OC when I'm out fishing or hiking.

Wichaka - thanks, will check. I'm going to head to a wally world today that is doing a gun accessories sale, 1 cent over cost for anything in stock or special order. Hmmm. Figure if they can special order a decent holster, why not, otherwise I might get a new scope if one looks good.

I'll check your recs for concealed holsters.

 

[Misterbill]

Will do. Was looking for something to OC when I'm out fishing or hiking..

Fishing or hiking why bother with retention? Are you worried the bears will disarm ya?

 

[davemata]

Fishing or hiking why bother with retention? Are you worried the bears will disarm ya?

Only in SF...
Don't want to get the pistol hung up on something and have it fall out.

 

[Misterbill]

Only in SF...
Don't want to get the pistol hung up on something and have it fall out.

Dave, Note to you: Don't Open carry in SF. Also, don't carry in a crappy holster. (uncle mikes). Those are about the only ones where i will fall out on ya.

 

[davemata]

Dave, Note to you: Don't Open carry in SF. Also, don't carry in a crappy holster. (uncle mikes). Those are about the only ones where i will fall out on ya.

Ask me about Starbears in SF sometime.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I agree with your perspective, I have watched along time people saying its ok for the government to do what they are doing as they mean well. Do you know there is a permit for just about everything on the planet. I find some things amaze me, you have to have a permit to just about d everything.
One that makes me laugh is you have to have a permit to burn in the county? I always found that hysterical.
If I wan to burn a pile of twigs more the 6x6x3 I have to have a permit. This permit does not change anything.
The fire department does not sit on standby why I burn in my burn barrel, yet they put a permit on it.
There are millions but that one is pretty funny to me whats next a permit to build a pond, sarcasm yes here to dig a whole that will collect rain water on a ranch needs a permit . Gees !

Sorry for taking a bit to get back & thanks for the backup. If it helps to know where I'm coming from though, in my opinion, this thread and this website is an opportunity to solve problems if people want to use them that way. I'm trying to avoid the usual mode of dealing with rights infringement "policy" problems. Meaning that it doesn't get us down the track towards actually fixing the things people complain about all the time if the go-to solution to the problem is to just complain about them on some website. When you get down to it, the rights infringement complaints we keep reading so much about, is a sign that people feel like they don't have power to stop or control the problem themselves. So the only way to vent the frustration pressure they feel inside is to spend their time complaining and making sarcastic jokes about the futility of doing anything about it.

But as Wichaka himself said in post #130, "knowledge is power" and then again in post #106 "...some people don't know, what they don't know...". I'm making use of both of these things in my posts, because some people (most people actually) don't know that there are game-changing laws that are just sitting there waiting to arm Citizens with knowledge that gives them the lawful power they need to put a stop to the things they waste so much time and energy just simply complaining about. Confining our modes of "dealing" with problems to endless circles of complaints, based on beliefs and presumptions that have never been questioned, guarantees that we will never be an audience to information that can potentially help us make those problems go away for good.

I am proposing that the combination of laws and Constitutional provisions I am putting out in my posts and thread " 'Licensing' of rights" is exactly that kind of information. It's just that there is so much to write in each post, to give the necessary context for these laws to make sense that way, that it seems people have a hard time staying focused long enough to see the points I'm trying to make. But the fact still remains: "knowledge is power" and lack of it is powerlessness.

So if "powerlessness" fairly describes the endless cycles of futile complaining about ever-increasing abuse of power, and if that futile complaining revolves around what people think they already know about the law, then the reality of the day is that the "knowledge" Citizens commonly accept as "the law" is getting them no where. And maybe, the laws I am putting out there can provide a much different mode of problem solving. One that completely takes away the premise that "rights" can simply be interfered with or stepped on by nothing more than administrative regulations. If government doesn't have that premise to stand on, it doesn't have any grounds to apply those kinds of laws against our rights. So it's simply a numbers game of getting Citizens on the same page about this "knowledge" through education, so they can unite behind it and use it to wield their political pressure to put a stop to it once and for all.

 

[Jammer Six]

That was amusing...

Talk about not knowing what you don't know.

The constitution was designed specifically to avoid "once and for all". By design, nothing can be done permanently.

All rights are regulated except one. That's a good thing, and the authority comes directly from the constitution (v. 2.0).

 

[CounterOfBeans]

That was amusing...

Talk about not knowing what you don't know.

The constitution was designed specifically to avoid "once and for all". By design, nothing can be done permanently.

All rights are regulated except one. That's a good thing, and the authority comes directly from the constitution (v. 2.0).

Hmmm...."amusing". Well let's see.

When you say, in reference to the Constitution, that "by design,nothing can be done permanently", by that do you mean that the Republic form of government that is made a "Guarantee" (Article 4, Section 4), is just a temporary fix till something else comes along? Do you mean that the Legislative branch provided for by Article 1, or the Executive branch provided for by Article 2, or the judicial branch created by Article 3 are fleeting flights of fancy? Do you mean the framers were just joshin' when they made the US Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" within its sphere of operation? Do you mean that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 didn't provide for 10 square miles to be set aside as a "permanent" location for the seat of the federal government....you know the one, that place called Washington DC?

Amusing indeed. So I've been biting my tongue for a while now, just awed at the things you have been saying to people with precious little sign of humility or courtesy, aside from Wichaka. And well, I gotta say my poor tongue just didn't do anything to deserve the abuse. I'm not sure what to make of someone who so enthusiastically and repeatedly butchers his own credibility, but it has been a privilege being in the audience of your rock-skipping, drive-by wisdom performances on this thread. Your penchant for squandering the opportunity that this thread provides, for people who actually want to have a good faith, civil meeting of the minds, is matched only by your talent and passion for grandstanding as someone who knows what they're talking about, while faithfully offering nothing to prove it besides vague, "cuz-I-say-so" assertions and condescending jabs that help you believe your own pseudo-intellectualism. It's as if you have some kind of obsessive compulsive urge to jedi-mind-trick people into believing that your scholarship from the cosmos closes the need for any more inquiry on whatever matter is on the table. Hell, someone oughta name a university after you.

So I decided to do my homework and give myself a tour of your posts on this thread, to see if maybe I was jumping to conclusions about you. After all, maybe you cited all your sources of authority early on and have merely been riding on them without further reference. Below is a sample of what I found:

In post #69, you announced yourself with the words:

"What I am is a Citizen, (note the capital) who takes his responsibilities as such
quite seriously."

Well, I am certainly glad to know that you are a....."C"itizen.... (yes I know what that means....do you?), but.....if I am going to take that seriously, you should know that the law presumes that you know the law,.....you know the drill:

"ignorance of the law is no excuse"

There is no problem with having an opinion and expressing it. That's just free speech. But if your opinion comes in the form of asserting to others what the law means, then that's a little different. Because if, as a "Citizen", you do take your responsibilities "quite seriously", then you should know that in a nation based on the "rule of law", there is no room for the "rule of fiat", i.e. "rule of decree", or "because I say so", or "take my word for it". I'm sure you can support me on that.

If you ARE going to put yourself out there as a sage amongst fools for what the law means, that means you are claiming to speak with the authority that comes from reading the law or case law. It means you know what you're talking about and can provide support for it. THAT means if you can provide support, you have a civic responsibility to back up your claims so others can benefit from your education in order to make informed decisions about whether or not they want to adopt your perspective. Some call this common courtesy too. The funny thing is, is that you do seem to grasp the importance of being able to learn from others who can AND DO cite law or case law. You're even a come off as being a little giddy about it:

(#136) "Thanks, Wichaka. I'm going to track down the citation." ......Go Jammer go!

But at the same time, after having looked up all 38 of your posts on this thread, guess what.... to my complete and dumbfounded surprise.....none of them (0, zero) contain any reference by you to any law or case law. So much for "Talk about not knowing what you don't know." Which, considering that you provide no, none, 0, zero support for your claims, it is also funny for the following reasons:


1) You put yourself on some mystical high ground for being more informed than everyone else about the law, and then shoot spit wads at those you have sentenced to unworthiness:

(#251) "I see a basic lack of education throughout this thread. I was once one of you, and finding out how our system is
designed and how to pull the levers was one of the best decisions I ever made."


(#276) "When it becomes clear that the source of such noise does not understand the difference and the reasons for that
difference, I put ‘ignorance' beside the name, stop listening, and move on.

It's not a crime not to know. But it does eliminate your opinion from consideration, and is therefore worth learning."


(#266) "RB87, you should read points before you try to answer them, and
you should read cases before you copy and paste the citations.

The sources you are using for your "information" are leading you astray. Best of luck."


(#328) "All rights except one are regulated. That's a done deal, and one can't
escape it-- the legal authority is in the constitution. [wrap it up everybody, time to go home]

Licenses are merely a convenient, cheap way to carry out some of those regulations.

To point to a tiny part of one amendment to the constitution and blindly scream that "it's a right! A right!" is to
ignore an extremely large body of law. [Oh, do tell]

The law is not a smorgasbord. One does not pick and choose that which one likes." [Some don't pick any at
all]

(#351) "The point I keep trying to make is that laws and rules are different
for civilians and police. [Piercing insight]



2) You appoint yourself as people's legislative construction counselor, while offering nothing to help them see the light of how you conjure your legal conclusions:

(#54) "When you hear dogma, read it and think about it from all directions before you adopt it or repeat it." [Take it from you right?]


(#386) "Shootfirst, at least two of your assumptions are simply not correct." [Very helpful]



3) While holding other people's feet to the fire for showing their legal-support cards:

(#134) "That's interesting. I'd like to read about it, if you have a source, please."

(#388) "Now all you need is some case law that agrees with you." [I gave it to you in #410 didn't I? Haven't heard peep one back from you on that]



4) You even have the audacity to be offended when someone dares to call BS on your position that "it's the law" qualifies as an argument:

(#371) "Originally Posted by dmancornell: "By the way, ‘it's the law' is not a valid argument, that's just a
mantra chanted by idiot statists who cannot give any logical explanations for the moral cowardice."

"I see-- so, since "it's the law" won't fly, we should let illegal immigrants in, since there's certainly no racism or other "moral" reason not to?

Sometimes this board amuses me... [there goes that amusement thing again]

The law if and only if it's convenient, cheap, and what we want after a few beers."


Now don't be a hater, but how old are you? Are you on meds? Have you run out? You've taken gratuitous liberty in your posts to announce and insinuate how other people don't measure up to your pre-emminence on legal learnedness, so you are in no position to be put off when the medicine you get in the form of feedback, is the medicine you need. It's a shame too, to watch other people use up their valuable time and energy (kinda like me right now) to swat at the gnats of ignorance and vanity that hatch onto this thread from your keyboard.

But don't get me wrong, I'm partly to blame here too for being masochistic enough to even let my eyes land on words that sit to the right of that badge logo you use. I just thought that wasting a little of my time to take a survey of your posts would be helpful, because with any luck, maybe having you see your remarks presented back to you will help you see how juvenile and offensive many of them are, and that maybe you will start being more graceful with your bedside manner in the future. I have to admit though, I'm a little skeptical. I'd love to see you prove me wrong.

 

[davemata]

Why do you think I put Jammer on ignore?

He doesn't add anything to the discussion, aside from being a source of smug derision, and comments akin to, "You've got nothing," like he was trumpeting during the beginning of Nov. Just ignore him and you won't end up wasting your time with a post he's only going to ignore or puke on.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Why do you think I put Jammer on ignore?

He doesn't add anything to the discussion, aside from being a source of smug derision, and comments akin to, "You've got nothing," like he was trumpeting during the beginning of Nov. Just ignore him and you won't end up wasting your time with a post he's only going to ignore or puke on.

Mmm hmm. 10-4. I just figured that making an itemized public dosier of his childishness might help him get onto a more constructive path or on to another one altogether. We'll see.

 

[Squidly]

Mmm hmm. 10-4. I just figured that making an itemized public dosier of his childishness might help him get onto a more constructive path or on to another one altogether. We'll see.

Don't count on it. He's like a seagull. He swoops in, takes a crap and flies off to do the same elsewhere.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Don't count on it. He's like a seagull. He swoops in, takes a crap and flies off to do the same elsewhere.

I likes myself a good analogy. That one's a gem.

 

[hermannr]

Fishing or hiking why bother with retention? Are you worried the bears will disarm ya?

Hej Bill!

My hunting holster is a complete coverage holster...the bottom of the butt is about all that is not covered, and the cover flap is snap secured..Ross Leather.

Why? To protect the pistol from the weather, brush, falling out by being snagged on something, faling out if I fall off the horse...I do not want my very expensive Colt revolver damaged because it contacted anything in the environment.

It's not people grabbing your carry when you are hunting...it is all those other things.

For my everyday carry I have an OWB Alessi leather holster for my CZ85. Very Comfortable.

 

[hermannr]

Dave, Note to you: Don't Open carry in SF. Also, don't carry in a crappy holster. (uncle mikes). Those are about the only ones where i will fall out on ya.

OK Bill...what do you mean by SF? San Fran? or state forest? I won't even go San Fran. I OC in the Loomis state forest all the time.

I will double down on "don't use a crappy holster"

 

[MountainBear]

Don't count on it. He's like a seagull. He swoops in, takes a crap and flies off to do the same elsewhere.

Gentlemen. Most of you know which side of this debate I fall on. I've never made a secret of it. That being said, this has been a useful thread where a sort-of reasonable debate has gone on. At the very least is has given an LEO a chance to answer questions in a respectful forum.

Please do not ruin it by personal attacks. If you don't like his ideas, attack them, not him.