Tweet
I'm posting because in no small measure various reports here that the CRPA had been "fixed," and was now working with CGF and others to be a bit more pro-gun than they had been in the past.
I was disappointed to read their article in the Firing Line, page 17, "Re: Open Carry Report from Thousand Oaks Street Fair." I agree with the writer's "unloaded open carry is bad," sentiment based on the "it attracts negative attention and freaks some people out," (with the recently enacted legislation as case in point), but I strongly disaprove of the author's FUD:
"This is why the cop who encountered our open carry hero examined the gun further. In my mind he did not go far enough and should have searched the person as well as his wife for a possible loaded magazine. The presence of a loaded magazine whould have shed an entirely different ligth on the matter."
So here we have an op-ed piece, from an ostensibly pro-gun organization, advocating to go beyond the 4th amendment violation known as the (e) check to provide a search for a loaded magazine, which prior to the new law going into effect is legal! If the officer did violate their 4th amendment rights, found a loaded magazine, what would Mr. Hamilton advocate at that point in time? Arrest him?
I guess this is in response to a prior article, and in fairness I didn't see it, but still, I find it unconscionable that the CRPA would be lending itself to an anti-individual rights stance around the 4th amendement like this.
Dissapointed, CRPA. What "good work," have they done recently such that they deserve my support (as opposed to the CGF, etc)?
I was disappointed to read their article in the Firing Line, page 17, "Re: Open Carry Report from Thousand Oaks Street Fair." I agree with the writer's "unloaded open carry is bad," sentiment based on the "it attracts negative attention and freaks some people out," (with the recently enacted legislation as case in point), but I strongly disaprove of the author's FUD:
"This is why the cop who encountered our open carry hero examined the gun further. In my mind he did not go far enough and should have searched the person as well as his wife for a possible loaded magazine. The presence of a loaded magazine whould have shed an entirely different ligth on the matter."
So here we have an op-ed piece, from an ostensibly pro-gun organization, advocating to go beyond the 4th amendment violation known as the (e) check to provide a search for a loaded magazine, which prior to the new law going into effect is legal! If the officer did violate their 4th amendment rights, found a loaded magazine, what would Mr. Hamilton advocate at that point in time? Arrest him?
I guess this is in response to a prior article, and in fairness I didn't see it, but still, I find it unconscionable that the CRPA would be lending itself to an anti-individual rights stance around the 4th amendement like this.
Dissapointed, CRPA. What "good work," have they done recently such that they deserve my support (as opposed to the CGF, etc)?
Comment