Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Chattanooga Shootings

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Chattanooga Shootings

Old 6th Aug 2015, 01:17
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 306
I used to take breakfast in a San Antonio restaurant frequented by law enforcement types of various persuasions. I noticed that the Drivers License Examiner packed a .357. I thought "Jeez, I'd hate to fail this test" Seemed a bit OTT to me.

After an excellent landing etc...
Flash2001 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 01:55
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,584
Potentially his own weapon if it was open carry and not a requirement of the job.
West Coast is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 02:04
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
Very unusual to see any .gov people carrying a 357 Magnum nowadays. Usual issue is a semi auto pistol but variations are allowed as long as the user qualifies in periodic training with his own toy. I have seen some "none front line" people still using snubby revolvers but they are usually carried concealed.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 02:59
  #384 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
Originally Posted by BOING View Post
Very unusual to see any .gov people carrying a 357 Magnum nowadays. Usual issue is a semi auto pistol but variations are allowed as long as the user qualifies in periodic training with his own toy. I have seen some "none front line" people still using snubby revolvers but they are usually carried concealed.

.
The S/W 357 Magnum was the standard issue weapon when I was with the Marshal Service. Now one could chose to carry a different weapon, but had to qualify on any weapon they carried.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 09:05
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by BOING View Post

RGBs point about keeping skills polished is valid but I see difficulties. Since there is no aptitude selection of the people to be trained some people will need more training than others to pass a standardised test. This would imply a large number of qualified instructors and training facilities. I think things would rapidly get complicated in the implementation of standardised firearm training for everyone.
I could probably list hundreds of activities where training has made things safer, pick any sport or past time and you will find a governing body whose main aims are to regulate and keep things safe for all to enjoy.

I doubt if Wilber or Orville had a PPL or if Henry had a driving licence but nowadays driving and flying are as regulated as it gets so why would it be any different with guns, are they that sacrosanct?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 11:54
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
Outstanding suggestion, not sure what the punishment with your 'lot' for a negligent/accidental discharge was but in my RAF time in Northern Ireland it was a months salary. Despite plenty of training it still happened, what you suggest would go along way to decreasing the US annual gun shot accidental death/injury figures
During my stint in Uncle Sugar's Army if you accidentally discharged your weapon there was certainly hell to pay. To include an Article 15 of the UCMJ which is a non-judicial form of punishment: loss of rank, docking of pay, etc.

Then again, we had one troop during a training cycle who freaked out after pulling the pin on his frag grenade and instead of tossing it over the berm, allowed it to slip out of his hand landing at his feet. It was only the quick reaction of someone else on the line who whisked him off and out of danger, that he was allowed to live. However, his punishment landed him outside of the Army, to never do damage again.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 12:01
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 306
Boing & C P

This was in 1986.

After an excellent landing etc...
Flash2001 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 19:32
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: A warm pub
Posts: 1,208
The majority of people in many parts of the US like guns, guns are legal in those places. Their choice, their business.

The majority of people in my country fear guns, so guns are heavily restricted, no handguns, no semi autos. Only bolt action rifles (only if you're a competion shooter, and you must leave it in the safe in your gun club, cannot bring it home), and non pump action/automatic shotguns are also allowed, but must be kept locked in a safe in your home. Police can and do drop by regularly unannounced to check this is being complied with. Again you must either be a livestock farmer protecting your animals or a member of a gun club to qualify for a licence. (Anybody can drop in anytime to fire either type of weapon for a fee under supervision, same as the US). We're happy with this.

Guns legal in parts of US, Illegal here. Both populations happy, democracy wins.

Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 6th Aug 2015 at 19:50.
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 22:11
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
My guns are in a safe, but if a cop knocks and asks to see my safe; he'd better have a warrant that shows he proved to a judge that there was probable cause to believe mine weren't stored in accordance with the law. Just sayin'

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 23:06
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
..or he will legitimately be refused entry until he has a warrant.

Don't be polemically obtuse, John. You are normally good enough to present evidence for your opposing views, and I think we all respect that.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 23:23
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
I would expect GF would take them to court afterwards. Let's await his response.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 23:41
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: A warm pub
Posts: 1,208
I think you either wave the requirement for a warrant being required to let the cops into your home as part of the licensing process here, or you'll have it (the licence) revoked if you refuse. The reason for the safe being a requirement here is to prevent a burglar from making off with a gun if they get in your home while you're out.

Also there's individuals known as "keepers of the peace" here that can sign search warrants for sufficient reasons, government appointed average joes with normal jobs, so a judge isn't always required. i expect wanting to check somebody is storing their gun as per the law is reason enough for a warrant to be granted.

Forgot to mention you can also hunt dear/birds etc here with guns, but only at certain times of year, in certain places with the required licences. Onerous I suppose but it's the way most people want it. That way hillwalkers etc know not to go venturing out during hunting season, just in case.
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 00:22
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Sometimes you just have to laugh!

Bounty hunters get the wrong house!!
Bounty Hunters Mistakenly Raid Phoenix Police Chief - NBC News

Last edited by John Hill; 7th Aug 2015 at 00:34.
John Hill is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 01:24
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Your 4th amendment rights are not waived in the US simply because you legally hold weapons. It's nog "implied consent" as it is for drinks driving rule. The cops do not have the authority to do random checks on gun owners here--we're treated as responsible adults, not criminals.

there's individuals known as "keepers of the peace" here that can sign search warrants for sufficient reasons, government appointed average joes with normal jobs, so a judge isn't always required. i expect wanting to check somebody is storing their gun as per the law is reason enough for a warrant to be granted.
Really, REALLY? They just appoint people and give them that authority? What police state is this? Second, probable cause for a search requires the police to have evidence of a crime, not just a desire to look in someone's house in case there is a crime. Man, House, Castle, you should know the Magna Carta.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 03:08
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
Can't remember the specifics or if its still valid on a few things.

1) We have/used to have people called JP's (Justices of the Peace) that could sign off on certain things, thought that could involve minor things for the police as well (sure some one will correct me). They generally weren't just "appointed". You had to satisfy particular criteria to enable you to serve in such a roll.

2) Gun cabinates are required by law in Western Australia. I'm not sure, but I thought they where allowed to do spot visits to ensure compliance here.

3) You need a license for specific hunting of animals, not for vermin.
rh200 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 04:43
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
GF, Justices of the Peace (JPs) are appointed or elected in many countries of the world. Even the US has them but I guess you did know that.
John Hill is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 07:39
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
My guns are in a safe, but if a cop knocks and asks to see my safe; he'd better have a warrant that shows he proved to a judge that there was probable cause to believe mine weren't stored in accordance with the law. Just sayin'

GF
Two thoughts spring instantly to mind.

1. What have you got to hide that would make you not want to let a cop in to see that you are doing every thing in accordance with the law? Perhaps what you have to hide should preclude you from ever having a gun.

2. As good old Jim says those guns are not much use to you as a form of protection locked away in a safe
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 14:42
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 73
Posts: 111
SFFP
Two thoughts spring instantly to mind.
Perhaps you should stop to think before you comment.

Your first point. There is absolutely no reason why, in a free society, the police should have access to anyone's home over any matter unless they can convince a judge that this is necessary, ie get a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. Private intrusions not acting in the color of governmental authority are exempted from the Fourth Amendment.
Game over.

Your second point.
Very short sighted and visionless. As I mentioned previously you really should not take your one-liners from comedians. Well chosen guns are an excellent investment as I have found personally and no one says that guns stored in safes need to be for active use. Guns fall into the category of "one off" antiques.

.
BOING is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 14:58
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
What have you got to hide that would make you not want to let a cop in to see that you are doing every thing in accordance with the law?
Um, because we here in the United States don't live in the Soviet Union?
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 15:12
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.