WaGuns.org

Powderman wrote:I was going to post a lengthly reply, but I don't think it will do any good.

I will say this much: The TASER is worn that way to get it out of the way. You would probably be surprised how tight the fit can be in the front seat of a modern patrol unit.

Drop legs suck . Anyone who has tried to run in one knows it will wrap its self around like 20 times rub your leg raw. Im not talking about running to the vending machine like most of the " Operators " that wear them . If I did not have to go far like just into a bld they are ok. If you need to travel or run with it forget it . I have spent big $ trying different ones My two cents in drop legs

Marine3%er wrote:

Powderman wrote:I was going to post a lengthly reply, but I don't think it will do any good.

I will say this much: The TASER is worn that way to get it out of the way. You would probably be surprised how tight the fit can be in the front seat of a modern patrol unit.

Drop legs suck . Anyone who has tried to run in one knows it will wrap its self around like 20 times rub your leg raw. Im not talking about running to the vending machine like most of the " Operators " that wear them . If I did not have to go far like just into a bld they are ok. If you need to travel or run with it forget it . I have spent big $ trying different ones My two cents in drop legs

But it makes you look cool in front of your family at the range.

Oh please. I check out my neighbor with a mounted scope while she is in the shower almost every morning. How the hell else does the government think I am supposed to do it? Just knock on her door and ask to watch? That wouldn't go over well at all! Stupid liberals.

Spotting scope works better.

More magnification, high definition.

That's what they all say, anyway.

RENCORP wrote:Spotting scope works better.

More magnification, high definition.

That's what they all say, anyway.

Yeah, the new ones can transfer the image to the screen of your I phone or tablet and they dont fog up as fast.

PMB wrote:

mancat wrote:Everything else aside, I do see multiple houses in the background. Someone was obviously watching you. There is bound to be someone who will freak out in today's Washington if they see you doing scary gun stuff.

Looks like you may have to pick a different spot if you don't want this busybody calling 911 every time.

I lean the other way on this... The OC picnic/bbq and get to know the local LE. After the FOIA and a sit down chat with the leader of the folks who illegally detained Sam, they should react differently to MWAG calls.

Let the busybody neighbor go crazy or move.

I agree with Mike here. After gaining some logical resolution to this with the Sheriff's Dept. I would be out in the yard with a rifle every freaking day! Let that neighbor call til they are blue in the face so the newly educated Sheriff can respond "We've been over this sir/ma'am, your neighbor is not doing anything illegal. Please stop calling."

Why should the OP have to change his behavior because of an idiot neighbor?

My answer, this is a correct conclusion.

Anzac answer " Why are you terrorizing the neighbors ? Do you have a permit for open carry ? 594 would have prevented this. LEO's know exactly what they are doing, and should be obeyed, no matter what. "

I'm back.

Is there a video version?

Video didn't turn out unfortunately... I am waiting on the FOIA currently to see what was really reported and to see if the dispatcher might have attempted to influence their response.

WAGunRights wrote:Video didn't turn out unfortunately... I am waiting on the FOIA currently to see what was really reported and to see if the dispatcher might have attempted to influence their response.

Is it a FOIA or a public disclosure request?

Generally LE take what they are told over the radio with a grain of salt. They know they have to go and investigate what is actually going on. RP's only provide one side of the story.

That's the kinda shit that happens with you live in an anti-gun State like Taxington.

This is one of the problems I have with hiring philosophy. Pre-hire testing has questions about the candidates gun ownership and it seems to slant against candidates who are gun owners or collectors. I can think of a bunch of different ways to have handled this call, but that's a Monday morning QB move.

No_Regerts wrote:This is one of the problems I have with hiring philosophy. Pre-hire testing has questions about the candidates gun ownership and it seems to slant against candidates who are gun owners or collectors. I can think of a bunch of different ways to have handled this call, but that's a Monday morning QB move.

What jurisdiction has those kind of questions?

And that is weirdly opposite of my own interactions, most of the deputies I know are gun guys "here take a look at the new AR I built!!!"

ANZAC wrote:

No_Regerts wrote:This is one of the problems I have with hiring philosophy. Pre-hire testing has questions about the candidates gun ownership and it seems to slant against candidates who are gun owners or collectors. I can think of a bunch of different ways to have handled this call, but that's a Monday morning QB move.

What jurisdiction has those kind of questions?

And that is weirdly opposite of my own interactions, most of the deputies I know are gun guys "here take a look at the new AR I built!!!"

County guys and small town PDs are your gun ownership allies. Big city PDs or the state aren't as gun friendly. When I tested for Portland, there were lots of gun related questions. These departments also tend to attract city people who aren't as gun friendly in general. You should see these clowns shoot!

No_Regerts wrote:County guys and small town PDs are your gun ownership allies. Big city PDs or the state aren't as gun friendly. When I tested for Portland, there were lots of gun related questions. These departments also tend to attract city people who aren't as gun friendly in general. You should see these clowns shoot!

ok, these guys are Kitsap.....