USCG on the Ferry

[EMNofSeattle]

Wrong.

No, right. Because if authority is required one can be prosecuted for not having it, you're dictator, what charges do these evil doers face.

Do they authority to breathe while on duty too? Authority to stop at a cafe? Need a special license to put on a hat? Or chat with the other guy?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, right. Because if authority is required one can be prosecuted for not having it, you're dictator, what charges do these evil doers face.

Do they authority to breathe while on duty too? Authority to stop at a cafe? Need a special license to put on a hat? Or chat with the other guy?

Clearly the only authority needed is that of their CO or their installation commander, and that's based off of military regulations. I'm sure there's a federal law that allows this, I have neither the time nor inclination to find it, the military being authorized to carry firearms is implicit in the constitution.

So I say. What authority is required from a legal standpoint to openly carry a handgun in
Washington? Answer, none. What authority does the coast guard have? Being in the military. That's all I need to know. When the coast guard starts violating your rights while riding the ferry get back to me. In the meantime, coasties carrying guns on a ferry are a non issue.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You, obviously, have never been in the military. While on duty they do, actually, require authority to stop at a cafe, and they do need special permission to wear a hat that is not in compliance with the uniform regulations. Maybe you should refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about.

When I am in uniform I must comply with uniform and other regulations and I cannot just carry a firearm because it is legal for me to do so in the civilian world. I must be specifically authorized to carry a firearm that is issued to me - which for about 99% of my 30 year military carrer I have not be authorized to do simply because my job did not require it. Engaging in activities that are prohibited by regulations and/or which required specific authorization to do (such as carrying a firearm in uniform) may result in anything from a written counseling "don't do that again" all the way up to Court Martial including impriosonment - even though no civilian law was violated.

But what relevance does that have to someone not in the service riding the ferry? The answer is none. It's none of my business if the soldier/sailor/coastie on the ferry with a gun has the proper papers from his CO. It's none of my business if they stop for lunch somewhere, that's entirely an issue between them and their commander. So asking "what authority does the coast guard have to carry". They need none from anyone on this forum unless we have a poster who happens to be a CG admiral in Seattle.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I'm sure there's a federal law that allows this...

What authority is required from a legal standpoint to openly carry a handgun in
Washington? Answer, none. What authority does the coast guard have? Being in the military. That's all I need to know.

You are sure there is a Federal law that ALLOWS the activity.

You then state that no authority is required, because they are military.

That's 98% sad. You get 2 points for at least implying that Federal law must 'allow' government employees to take action -- or they are prohibited from taking the action. You lose 98 points because your position is logically inconsistent.

Think of it like prison. You go into prison and you (should) temporarily lose the ability to exercise some of your Rights, being employed by the government should be no different. It's what was designed to help keep our country free and safe, oh well so much for that.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You are sure there is a Federal law that ALLOWS the activity.

You then state that no authority is required, because they are military.

That's 98% sad. You get 2 points for at least implying that Federal law must 'allow' government employees to take action -- or they are prohibited from taking the action. You lose 98 points because your position is logically inconsistent.

Think of it like prison. You go into prison and you (should) temporarily lose the ability to exercise some of your Rights, being employed by the government should be no different. It's what was designed to our country free and safe, oh well, so much for that.

I could probably find out, except I'm not the one throwing a fit about the coast guard carrying guns.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I could probably find out, except I'm not the one throwing a fit about the coast guard carrying guns.

The fact a law may exists granting a government worker a 'right' doesn't make it Constitutional, morally right, or respectful of our inalienable Rights.

 

[Primus]

The fact a law may exists granting a government worker a 'right' doesn't make it Constitutional, morally right, or respectful of our inalienable Rights.

So your saying a coastie carrying a gun on the ferry is unconstitutional, immoral, and somehow disrespectful of your inalienable rights?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_pro2a]

So your saying a coastie carrying a gun on the ferry is unconstitutional, immoral, and somehow disrespectful of your inalienable rights?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Are they part of the US Military?

 

[Primus]

Are they part of the US Military?

By name only. They fall under homeland not DOD. The ONLY "branch" that doesn't fall under DOD. The reason they are considered "military" is because the navy can and does take their assets to use in conflicts.

Again, of they are..... how was them carrying a gun immoral, unconstitutional, yada yada yada?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_pro2a]

By name only.

Yes, it's an interesting loophole (or 'end run').

 

[Primus]

Yes, it's an interesting loophole (or 'end run').

Still not an answer to how two gentleman wearing a uniform and carry the same type of gun in the same manner you or I can carry it is somehow immoral, unconstitutional, and affects you in ANY way.

I guess they unalienable rights when their yours but no longer a right for them unless its granted by some authority?

But oh wait.... right to bear arms is a natural right that is unalienable and simply enforced by to constitution.

So again.... sounds like these guys have the right legally and morally to carry said guns whether they are in a dominos uniform or a coastie uniform.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Still not an answer to how two gentleman wearing a uniform and carry the same type of gun in the same manner you or I can carry it is somehow immoral, unconstitutional, and affects you in ANY way.

I guess they unalienable rights when their yours but no longer a right for them unless its granted by some authority?

But oh wait.... right to bear arms is a natural right that is unalienable and simply enforced by to constitution.

So again.... sounds like these guys have the right legally and morally to carry said guns whether they are in a dominos uniform or a coastie uniform.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

A prisoner still possesses all their inalienable Rights. Their ability to exercise them has been temporarily curtailed. Once their sentence is up they ought to fully regain their ability to exercise ALL their inalienable Rights.

A government employee is supposed to be in the same position.

And AFAIK Domino's Pizza can prohibit their employees from carrying firearms. Don't like it? Find a different job.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A prisoner still possesses all their inalienable Rights. Their ability to exercise them has been temporarily curtailed. Once their sentence is up they ought to fully regain their ability to exercise ALL their inalienable Rights.

A government employee is supposed to be in the same position.

And AFAIK Domino's Pizza can prohibit their employees from carrying firearms. Don't like it? Find a different job.

So joining the coast guard is like going to prison?

 

[Primus]

A prisoner still possesses all their inalienable Rights. Their ability to exercise them has been temporarily curtailed. Once their sentence is up they ought to fully regain their ability to exercise ALL their inalienable Rights.

A government employee is supposed to be in the same position.

And AFAIK Domino's Pizza can prohibit their employees from carrying firearms. Don't like it? Find a different job.

Lots of words and some red herring/straw man action but no answer to simple question.

1) they aren't prisoners.
2) we have no idea of their employer allowed them to carry said guns. The assumption is they are allowed to by their CO. Good assumption. If you want to say "we citizens employ them" ..... cool. They are supposed to have guns. You don't guard the coast with super soakers.

Again........How is these guys carrying guns, which is legal to do in said state , immoral, unconstitutional, or have any affect on any of your inalienable rights?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

So joining the coast guard is like going to prison?

Depends on the specific job you have while in the CG.

Again, your ignorance, self inflicted at this point, is a detriment to your position.

Those two Coasties may have had authorization to go about in public while armed. If they are GI guns they must have authorization. Of course, they could have lifted the gats just to pack heat and look all official and the like.

Now, do you have/hold a "civic" duty to "see something, report something"? Ya got a cell phone? A crime could be being committed before your very eyes. Heck, they could be ready to snap and start dropping innocent civilians at any moment.

Take the cop mentality to heart and be a good citizen and make the call. If those two Coasties are on the up-n-up all will be good, no? A little inconvenience for the safety of all is tolerated these days. What's the big deal? What, you don't want kids to be safe? Ya got something against kids?

Whether or not a couple of Coasties were following orders, or not, while packing a GI pistol is a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So, it seems like what you are saying is that the civilian need not be concerned about what authority the military is acting under until such time as it actually affects that civilian in some way?

I must disagree. I say that the civilian must always be concered about what authority the military is acting under in order to prevent their actions from affecting the civilian.

By doing what? Tattling on their CO? Posting a thread on OCDO? If you're in uniform, carrying a gun under orders are you supposed to provide some civilian a copy of your orders on demand.? What is it we civilians should do to hold you accountable?

 

[OC for ME]

By doing what? Tattling on their CO? Posting a thread on OCDO? If you're in uniform, carrying a gun under orders are you supposed to provide some civilian a copy of your orders on demand.? What is it we civilians should do to hold you accountable?

Ah, good point.

Well, ya got a phone don'tcha? Call a cop. A little inconvenience is not too much to ask to make sure the q-munity is safe.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Ah, good point.

Well, ya got a phone don'tcha? Call a cop. A little inconvenience is not too much to ask to make sure the q-munity is safe.

I don't think the community is in any danger from people in the military carrying. The state patrol would laugh their asses off if you actually made a complaint on such silly grounds

 

[Primus]

Ah, good point.

Well, ya got a phone don'tcha? Call a cop. A little inconvenience is not too much to ask to make sure the q-munity is safe.

I hope this is tongue in cheek.

Where is the outrage about tying up leos on legal activity? Or how about can't stop and and demand papers for carrying anyways? Or how about gives citizens bad impression if people who are carrying are hassled by police.

Is it ok because someone else is getting hassled?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

I don't think the community is in any danger from people in the military carrying. The state patrol would laugh their asses off if you actually made a complaint on such silly grounds

Wait wouldn't this be a case of charging the caller with false reports? Or a chance to educate the caller that OCing that pistol is legal?



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk