Knives vs guns when entering police dept

Centermass said:
Are you aware most courthouses and police stations occasionally deal with matters concerning non-law abiding folk?
Click to expand...
So do gas stations, grocery stores, and every street you ever walk or drive on. Let's just ban knives completely....
Submit to their fear.
 
Centermass said:
Are you aware most courthouses and police stations occasionally deal with matters concerning non-law abiding folk?
Click to expand...
Duh ! :rolleyes: Nope ?

But if a police station can't deal with that , what Earthly good are they ? :confused:

There's nobody out front of my house or most regular people's business'e or homes to disarm potential threats .

Why should government facilities be specially protected ?
 
Last edited:
Some years back I flew to Thailand. There was security but small pocket knives were still OK. I had to change planes at Narita airport in Japan. Even though I had flown all the way from LA (?) to Narita and didn't get out of the airside, they had an additional security check for the ongoing flight. Knife can't go onboard.

I explained and pleaded ... the knife is a nice Japanese-made slip joint made in Seki. So they took it and sent it on in a box and I met up with it at the baggage claim in Bangkok. They were really nice about it. (I did swipe one of the disposable butane lighters that they kindly provided in the smoking lounge and carried it on. Payback.)
 
DocJD said:
Duh ! :rolleyes: Nope ?

But if a police station can't deal with that , what Earthly good are they ? :confused:
Click to expand...
Oh, good. Then you must be aware the courthouse is the place those people eventually end up after the police may have dealt with them, among a bevy of other folks there for other high-tension circumstances which can become very unsafe very quickly for everyone inside, not just the security/cops.

Unlike the gas station, grocery store, or public street D dryflytrout , the courthouse exists SPECIFICALLY to ultimately address non-law abiding people, and that’s a big difference. No one WANTS to be there, whether you’re a defendant, or on jury duty.

Lessee, you have defendants answering for their crimes, the families of said defendants who may be emotional about their relative’s trial/sentence, the victims of said crimes about to face their attacker(s) on the stand, future exes embroiled in nasty divorce proceedings, people applying for and answering to restraining orders, messy custody matters underway, people paying tickets for traffic violations which they may be upset about, boyfriends, girlfriends, and family members trying to smuggle contraband to their loved ones, etc etc etc. Perhaps these issues don’t apply to you, but they certainly exist. The security processes are not there to inconvenience you. And, since it’s impossible to know why every person is there or what their intentions may be, screening for weapons, actual or potential, is a good idea in the greater interest of everyone inside.
Causing a scene and arguing with security/bailiffs over the legitimacy of your contraband item(s) as an “aha” moment won’t likely be well received by the staff OR anyone else there who might feel your actions are creating an unsafe situation.
 
DocJD said:
Why should government facilities be specially protected ?
Click to expand...
The original intent , at least for the USA , was for the government to literally "serve and protect" the citizen / taxpayers .

Not for the law abiding citizens to be subject or subservient to the government , in any way !
 
Centermass said:
Oh, good. Then you must be aware the courthouse is the place those people eventually end up after the police may have dealt with them, among a bevy of other folks there for other high-tension circumstances which can become very unsafe very quickly for everyone inside, not just the security/cops.

Unlike the gas station, grocery store, or public street D dryflytrout , the courthouse exists SPECIFICALLY to ultimately address non-law abiding people, and that’s a big difference. No one WANTS to be there, whether you’re a defendant, or on jury duty.

Lessee, you have defendants answering for their crimes, the families of said defendants who may be emotional about their relative’s trial/sentence, the victims of said crimes about to face their attacker(s) on the stand, future exes embroiled in nasty divorce proceedings, people applying for and answering to restraining orders, messy custody matters underway, people paying tickets for traffic violations which they may be upset about, boyfriends, girlfriends, and family members trying to smuggle contraband to their loved ones, etc etc etc. Perhaps these issues don’t apply to you, but they certainly exist. The security processes are not there to inconvenience you. And, since it’s impossible to know why every person is there or what their intentions may be, screening for weapons, actual or potential, is a good idea in the greater interest of everyone inside.
Causing a scene and arguing with security/bailiffs over the legitimacy of your contraband item(s) as an “aha” moment won’t likely be well received by the staff OR anyone else there who might feel your actions are creating an unsafe situation.
Click to expand...
No , I do not accept this viewpoint .

The police and courthouse should serve the people , not the reverse .

The police and public officials are paid to assume the risk of governance , not to be especially insulated from risk .
 
DocJD said:
No , I do not accept this viewpoint .

The police and courthouse should serve the people , not the reverse .

The police and public officials are paid to assume the risk of governance , not to be especially insulated from risk .
Click to expand...
It seem to have been forgotten that the USA was conceived to be totally different from the preceding models of European government which was strictly form the top down . The king was absolute power by right from God .

The USA was supposed to be "by the PEOPLE , and FOR the people " .

Somewhere , this has been forgotten . Maybe a reminder is needed .
 
DocJD said:
No , I do not accept this viewpoint .

The police and courthouse should serve the people , not the reverse .

The police and public officials are paid to assume the risk of governance , not to be especially insulated from risk .
Click to expand...
My viewpoint has NOTHING to do with protecting the building or the government, just everyone inside.

But, if I understand you correctly, the risk of governance is just allowing any armed individual unchecked into any place of justice? Gotcha.

Your viewpoint is myopic, that the reason you can’t just bring anything in is to hassle you or infringe on your rights. Maybe you want to explain it all to the rape victim who’s scared to death to be there, but brave enough to show. Or the family of the murder victim who have to listen to the horrible things the guy sitting ten feet away from them did to their relative in graphic detail, while his family is just across the aisle, mad at the cops for arresting their son, and mad at them if he goes to prison forever. Maybe explain it to the attorneys who have to prosecute or defend all manner of people, knowingly under much opposition from the other side. You know, protecting the constitutional rights of both victims AND defendants by offering a fair trial? This is what happens in the courthouse, serving the people. It would be just swell if everybody acknowledged their social contract to live at liberty without adversely affecting another. If they did, maybe we wouldn’t need courthouses, but that’s not gonna happen. As such, since it’s been established people break the law, additional decorum is needed in that place where breaches of the social contract are addressed. No one going there wants or expects it to have to be shootout at the OK Corral when some angry person doesn’t get their way. And they shouldn’t have to.

As stated, there are lots of people in the courthouse at any one given time, it’s not just “the gubmint”, and they deserve protection for having to be there, too, since they are participating in the system you seem to want to support. Actually, they deserve protection there MORE than anyone else. Sorry that’s so inconvenient for you.
 
I was in a smaller county sheriff's office recently, and they buzzed me through to speak with one of the officers back in his office. We had a conversation for about 6 or 8 minutes, and I left. There were no metal detectors, and of course I didn't carry my pistol, although I do have a concealed carry permit. I did have my Kizer Sovereign pocket knife with the clip and end of the scales shining out of my pants pocket. Nobody said anything, maybe they didn't notice? I doubt anyone would have said anything if they did see it. Of course I wouldn't try that in a larger jurisdiction, or one in a state that I didn't reside in.
 
DocJD said:
This is SO precious . :p

So the assumption here seems to be that you are gonna take down a cop shop / court house with a ring . o_O

This kind of crap is beyond ridiculous , IMO . :mad::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

This is just pure police state BS . The founders would have been horrified .
Click to expand...
I live in the United Socialist State of Illinois unfortunately. Its like that all over. I actually had a bouncer once attempt to take my pocket knife from my pocket with out asking. I wasn't even in the bar yet, I was waiting in line to get it in with my GF. He came up from behind and tried to grab my pocket, but I felt him coming and block his hand. Almost got in a fight over it. It was a bar I'd never been to, and they have a not weapons of any kind policy as I guess it gets rowdy. We were meeting people there, and I reluctantly had to walk the mile back to my car and leave it there as I didn't trust them to "hold on to" my $300 TSF Beast until I left.
 
J85909266 said:
My take on the topic is: Everyone is looking for a reason to be outraged and judge you.
Click to expand...
The guard wasn't outraged or judging him- he explained the situation and OP did the right thing.
It might have been more helpful if he explained why they don't take custody of knives, but that's not really his job.

J85909266 said:
I will disagree with the common sentiment here. Carry your knife anyway. Carry you largest, most favorite knife right in there. If they get upset and won't work with you, fine. Make an issue anyway. Cause a stress and problems in their day because you want fair treatment. You want them to lock your knife up in the box and give it back to you because that is their job. Make them do it, or at least make them wish they did. This is freedom type stuff. Never tuck your tail for the government or scared, offended people.
Click to expand...
This is bad and overly confrontational advice. Principles are great but always require judicious execution; which is sincerely lacking in this post.
Expressing disapproval for the rules to the person who merely enforces them will not get the results that J85909266 is advocating for.
Make enough of a ruckus and one might find themselves cooling off in the clinker.

My advice is always to comply and then take it up with the authorities later if your rights have truly been violated.
Discretion is truly the better part of valor.
 
Centermass said:
My viewpoint has NOTHING to do with protecting the building or the government, just everyone inside.

But, if I understand you correctly, the risk of governance is just allowing any armed individual unchecked into any place of justice? Gotcha.

Your viewpoint is myopic, that the reason you can’t just bring anything in is to hassle you or infringe on your rights. Maybe you want to explain it all to the rape victim who’s scared to death to be there, but brave enough to show. Or the family of the murder victim who have to listen to the horrible things the guy sitting ten feet away from them did to their relative in graphic detail, while his family is just across the aisle, mad at the cops for arresting their son, and mad at them if he goes to prison forever. Maybe explain it to the attorneys who have to prosecute or defend all manner of people, knowingly under much opposition from the other side. You know, protecting the constitutional rights of both victims AND defendants by offering a fair trial? This is what happens in the courthouse, serving the people. It would be just swell if everybody acknowledged their social contract to live at liberty without adversely affecting another. If they did, maybe we wouldn’t need courthouses, but that’s not gonna happen. As such, since it’s been established people break the law, additional decorum is needed in that place where breaches of the social contract are addressed. No one going there wants or expects it to have to be shootout at the OK Corral when some angry person doesn’t get their way. And they shouldn’t have to.

As stated, there are lots of people in the courthouse at any one given time, it’s not just “the gubmint”, and they deserve protection for having to be there, too, since they are participating in the system you seem to want to support. Actually, they deserve protection there MORE than anyone else. Sorry that’s so inconvenient for you.
Click to expand...
I could see an actual security need if there is a special known threat , but not to be routine SOP .

The trouble is that the same logic of disarming everyone who is not in law enforcement "for the protection of the innocent "has been used to try to extend this control to the whole nation .

Then , one day , we'll finally notice we've become the helpless / harmless subjects of a police state . That would be really "inconvenient " .

Freedom requires risk .
 
Just remember that cops are humans too. He might have been having a bad day or he might have just been a jerk. That’s unfortunate but it’s allowed to a certain degree. I suspect he COULD have let you put your knife in the locker, but his inner Darren was showing…
 
scdub said:
Just remember that cops are humans too. He might have been having a bad day or he might have just been a jerk. That’s unfortunate but it’s allowed to a certain degree. I suspect he COULD have let you put your knife in the locker, but his inner Darren was showing…
Click to expand...
The cops at the street level are not generating policy , so I hold them blameless . They have my absolute support !

A good honest cop , to my mind is a true hero . :cool::thumbsup::thumbsup: Holding the line in a degenerating environment .
 
A couple of years ago I had to be in another big city for business, and I had a good sized fixed blade knife that I had sold on the exchange packaged up and ready to be shipped. I checked and found that there was a post office in the downtown area a few blocks from my meeting so after my meeting I walked over to the post office. It was in an old building, I went into the lobby and there is the metal detector with a couple of guys standing there. They weren't busy so I asked them why the metal detector. Turns out it was some form of government building and happened to contain the post office with no other way to get to the post office without going through the rest of the building. They said they were screening for things like knives. I told them they really wouldn't like what was in the box I was carrying, a post office flat rate box all sealed up and addressed, and I would take it back home and mail it elsewhere the next day. It was a friendly discussion, no problems on either side.
 
DocJD said:
The cops at the street level are not generating policy , so I hold them blameless . They have my absolute support !

A good honest cop , to my mind is a true hero . :cool::thumbsup::thumbsup: Holding the line in a degenerating environment .
Click to expand...
For the" bent" cop , prosecutor , and judge , I have little sympathy . These are are oath breakers of the worst sort .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top