No photographs allowed

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...

I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.

Usually? Oh, a ****ing wiseguy. You're just bellyaching like Sisker did
because your nose is out of joint.

You don't know someone's history or interests, or what risk you are running
of getting that camera shoved up your ass.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

tony cooper writes:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:32:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Many gun people feel that it's a security issue to avoid being publicly
known as gun people; they feel it makes them more likely to be burgled
if people know they have guns in the house, guns being highly desirable
in the black market. This may factor in to the reaction you were
getting.

With open-carry permissable about everywhere in Florida, it's hard to
believe that some gun owners are shy. The NRA recently bought off the
Florida legislature in order to permit open-carry in public parks and
to stop individual cities from passing gun laws. The only gun laws
allowed in Florida must be state laws.

Is it? I remember reading about Florida being one of the states where
if your shirt-tail blew up exposing your gun, it made you a felon.
Maybe they've changed it since then, though; that would be smart. I was
very happy that Minnesota allows both open and concealed carry on a
carry permit, precisely because it avoids criminalizing minor flaws in
concealment. But that's unusual.

I'm VERY sympathetic to state-wide preemption. Anything less leads to a
patchwork of rules that's impossible to actually carry in. Which is the
goal of a lot of people, of course; but it's not my goal. I hate all
the back-door ways to block things that they can't muster the votes to
simply reject. But then, the two basic positions on this are "the
presence of guns makes things less safe" and "allowing law-abiding sane
people to carry guns makes things safer", and I'm solidly in the second
group.

(I haven't had that reaction from anybody at ranges I've been shooting
at, myself, though. Sometimes with lots of people who didn't know me.)

The "Cowboy Shooters" group, who are gun owners, welcomed being
photographed. Not only are they gun owners, but they each have at
least three guns (pistol, rifle, shotgun) to compete, most had more
than three with them, and one assumes some modern guns at home.

Yes, I know of the CAS, and that competitions are three-gun.

I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.

That's about where I am on that part. On principle I should not
photograph people who don't want to (at least in recreational
circumstances; if it's a real news story it's something else); but if
they **** me off enough I may not be nice about it.

Savageduck writes:

In April of this year Florida implemented an Amendment which still
bans "open carry" in Florida, but protects legal gun owners with valid
concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits if they inadvertently expose
their concealed weapon, and those engaged in, or going directly to and
from legitimate shooting events. You cannot drive in your car with a
gun on your belt.
It has been referred to as "open carry lite".
http://opencarry.org/fl.html

Ah, thanks. I remembered older articles on the problem of minor
concealment mishaps ("wardrobe malfunctions" :-) ) being criminalized.
I'm glad they at least sort-of fixed it.

But what's this about not being able to carry in my own car? That's
absurd.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:37:48 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

tony cooper writes:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:32:08 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Many gun people feel that it's a security issue to avoid being publicly
known as gun people; they feel it makes them more likely to be burgled
if people know they have guns in the house, guns being highly desirable
in the black market. This may factor in to the reaction you were
getting.

With open-carry permissable about everywhere in Florida, it's hard to
believe that some gun owners are shy. The NRA recently bought off the
Florida legislature in order to permit open-carry in public parks and
to stop individual cities from passing gun laws. The only gun laws
allowed in Florida must be state laws.

Is it? I remember reading about Florida being one of the states where
if your shirt-tail blew up exposing your gun, it made you a felon.
Maybe they've changed it since then, though; that would be smart. I was
very happy that Minnesota allows both open and concealed carry on a
carry permit, precisely because it avoids criminalizing minor flaws in
concealment. But that's unusual.

The NRA is extremely active in Florida under Marion Hammer (former
President of the NRA and now a lobbyist in Tallahassee). There are so
many legislative changes in Florida regarding guns, I can't keep track
of which are proposed and which have passed.

Rarely does legislation not pass when endorsed by the NRA, but one
bill making it no longer illegal to have a gun on a college campus was
recently defeated, but only after a legislator's child was killed on
campus by a mishandled gun.

I'm VERY sympathetic to state-wide preemption. Anything less leads to a
patchwork of rules that's impossible to actually carry in.

Florida cities are now busily revising local laws, mostly to no longer
make it illegal to have a gun a city park or laws about taking a gun
into a public building.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:39:45 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

You cannot drive in your car with a
gun on your belt.

But what's this about not being able to carry in my own car? That's
absurd.

You may not "open car carry" in Florida. A person 18 or older to may
possess a concealed firearm in their car, without a license, if the
firearm is "securely encased". "Securely encased" means in a glove
compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun
case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed
box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for
access.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2011-09-12 11:39:45 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Savageduck writes:

In April of this year Florida implemented an Amendment which still
bans "open carry" in Florida, but protects legal gun owners with valid
concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits if they inadvertently expose
their concealed weapon, and those engaged in, or going directly to and
from legitimate shooting events. You cannot drive in your car with a
gun on your belt.
It has been referred to as "open carry lite".
http://opencarry.org/fl.html

Ah, thanks. I remembered older articles on the problem of minor
concealment mishaps ("wardrobe malfunctions" :-) ) being criminalized.
I'm glad they at least sort-of fixed it.

But what's this about not being able to carry in my own car? That's
absurd.

That is Florida and its version of open carry. I believe it has
something to do with Florida drawing a narrow line between "concealed"
and "open" carry. Their interpretation has a non-CCW gun owner,
walking in plain sight from his car to a shooting event with his gun
clearly visible on his hip he is OK. If he has the gun on his hip while
sitting in a car it is concealed from the casual observer and now
requires a CCW.

So if you do not have a Florida CCW permit you can walk to wherever you
are engaged in legal shooting, be that to a range or legal hunting,
with your gun on your hip in open carry. Don't wear a jacket or a shirt
which will cover it, or you are back in CCW territory.

In California a gun on the hip, uncovered is consider open carry, but
must be unloaded. That has led to some of the strange scenes in San
Francisco Starbucks with groups of open carry protagonists sipping
coffee while wearing unloaded handguns. California has specific laws
for transportation of firearms in vehicles which would mean that any of
these California open carry protagonists would not be able to carry
their guns on their hip legally without a CCW.

Personally as a retired LEO I have 50 state CCW privilege.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...afety-act.html


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/12/2011 7:47 AM, dadiOH wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
Someone pulled that on me today. I took my grandchildren to a
shooting range where a group of "Cowboy Shooters" meet once a month.
We spent a couple of hours watching these hobbyists fire six-shooters,
rifles, and shotguns with genuine or replica frontier-era weapons.

Nice group of people. Several took the time to explain what was going
on to my six and seven year-old grandchildren, showed them their
weapons, and one even allowed the boys to dry fire his six-shooter.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...fGQnLTS-X3.jpg

Some good shots of the grandchildren today, but nothing that isn't
just a snapshot. Mostly, the view is the back of people. Not too
good standing in front of them since they are using live ammo.

The shooting is scored on time minus misses, so the person standing
behind this shooter is timing him.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...fLmj27p-X3.jpg

In another area was a group of people taking instruction on modern
small weapons from an instructor. I took a couple of snaps and the
instructor came over and said "No photographs allowed".

My answer was the short form: "Bull****". I was far behind them with
a 200mm lens and out of ear range of the shutter click, so I wasn't
disturbing anything.

The instructor got shirty with me and said it was against the law to
take a photograph of someone without their permission. This made me
laugh. He had an NRA patch on his shirt, so I asked him how he would
feel if I started making up laws about guns. He just turned and
walked away.

The subject matter wasn't interesting, so I left after just a couple
of snaps. What gets me the most is the hypocrisy of the instructor.
There is no group in this country that spends more time, energy, and
money to ensure that their right to pursue their own hobby is not
abridged than gun owners who are in the NRA. Yet, this guy wanted to
deny me my right to pursue my own hobby.

The little would-be tyrant:

Regardless, if someone doesn't want there picture taken I think their wishes
should be respected. YMMV


I completely agree with you. So does Tony. IIRC somewhere in this thread
he said he would not take someone's picture if asked not to. In this
case I understand the NRA guy ws tell him no pictures of anybody was
allowed.

Where Tony Cooper and I disagree is that I will ask, implicitly or
explicity. In the case of a child I will not shoot without asking the
supervising adult if it is OK.

--
Peter

On 9/12/2011 11:23 AM, tony cooper wrote:

snip
I did make the point, though, that if someone asks me not to
photograph them I usually comply. Not always. If they ask with
attitude as this guy did, then it's another story.


Sorry Tony I misunderstood what you said.
Here in NY, especially in come of the ethnic neighborhoods some people
get really upset at the sight of anyone with a camera. Attitude or not,
I just don't think it's right to make someone uncomfortable, just for my
own pleasure.


--
Peter

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:43:42 -0500, Rich wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote in
:
: : It was especially aggravating to have a NRA member try to constrain
: : my rights.
:
: I don't think he'd see it as a "your rights"/"my rights" situation.
: It's just that the NRA is used to getting its way. You don't have any
: rights that interfere with that objective.
:
: Bob
:
: Yawn. Liberal jab noted.

You can "note" whatever you like. But you'd better not get on the bad side of
the NRA.

Bob

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:59:35 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/12/2011 7:47 AM, dadiOH wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
Someone pulled that on me today. I took my grandchildren to a
shooting range where a group of "Cowboy Shooters" meet once a month.
We spent a couple of hours watching these hobbyists fire six-shooters,
rifles, and shotguns with genuine or replica frontier-era weapons.

Nice group of people. Several took the time to explain what was going
on to my six and seven year-old grandchildren, showed them their
weapons, and one even allowed the boys to dry fire his six-shooter.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...fGQnLTS-X3.jpg

Some good shots of the grandchildren today, but nothing that isn't
just a snapshot. Mostly, the view is the back of people. Not too
good standing in front of them since they are using live ammo.

The shooting is scored on time minus misses, so the person standing
behind this shooter is timing him.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...fLmj27p-X3.jpg

In another area was a group of people taking instruction on modern
small weapons from an instructor. I took a couple of snaps and the
instructor came over and said "No photographs allowed".

My answer was the short form: "Bull****". I was far behind them with
a 200mm lens and out of ear range of the shutter click, so I wasn't
disturbing anything.

The instructor got shirty with me and said it was against the law to
take a photograph of someone without their permission. This made me
laugh. He had an NRA patch on his shirt, so I asked him how he would
feel if I started making up laws about guns. He just turned and
walked away.

The subject matter wasn't interesting, so I left after just a couple
of snaps. What gets me the most is the hypocrisy of the instructor.
There is no group in this country that spends more time, energy, and
money to ensure that their right to pursue their own hobby is not
abridged than gun owners who are in the NRA. Yet, this guy wanted to
deny me my right to pursue my own hobby.

The little would-be tyrant:

Regardless, if someone doesn't want there picture taken I think their wishes
should be respected. YMMV


I completely agree with you. So does Tony. IIRC somewhere in this thread
he said he would not take someone's picture if asked not to. In this
case I understand the NRA guy ws tell him no pictures of anybody was
allowed.

Where Tony Cooper and I disagree is that I will ask, implicitly or
explicity. In the case of a child I will not shoot without asking the
supervising adult if it is OK.

In this particular case, the instructor was in the middle of a class.
I wasn't about to go up and ask him. I would have got nothing but
backs of the class members from my position because they were facing
the instructor.

However, you are right in that I shoot a lot of candids and do so
without asking even though I could. I'm not going to get a candid
shot if I ask.

Quite often the subject sees me. There's either no reaction a
favorable reaction 99% of the time. With bikers, I get a thumbs up or
a wave. What I'm looking for in a candid is subject with some
character.

I've been waved off a few times when the subject has seen me raise the
lens. I don't take the shot. I was warned off once when I saw a
group of bikers stopped at a rest stop on the way to Daytona. I got
out of the car with my camera, and a guy from the group ambled over
and pointed out Warlocks don't like their pictures taken. I got back
in the car.

I rarely take photos of children. For this one, I asked the mother
and offered to email her a copy:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...01-30-5-X3.jpg

Also asked before taking this one the same day:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...1-30-02-X2.jpg


I didn't ask for this one, but the child's face isn't really visible.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...3-07-01-X3.jpg

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida