Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: If they were all like this....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    25

    If they were all like this....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt7ma...eature=related

    He admits that it is a right and ID does NOT have to be shown .

  2. #2
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by XD4ME View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt7ma...eature=related

    He admits that it is a right and ID does NOT have to be shown .
    He over-reacted quite a bit. He had no RAS to seek an encounter, meanwhile REAL criminals were possibly walking by while his attention was distracted stopping a LAC. As long as the citizen wasn't doing anything illegal (he was walking his dog), there's no reason to stop him.

    AND it is not illegal in any state that I'm aware to be mildly intoxicated while carrying a weapon (after all he was walking, not staggering) - I noticed he inserted 'brandishing' which is not what was happening. He is intentionally vague here, conflating 'carrying' with brandishing. Too bad this officer doesn't know, doesn't abide by the law and is busy, busy, busy stopping law-abiding citizens engaged in the VERY suspicious act of dog walking. I'd have liked the questioner to have him cite the law that it's illegal to walk and OC having had a couple drinks (say at his house prior). There is none.

    /rant

    The real and proper answer would be to say 'it's not illegal to OC a firearm while engaged in a perfectly legal activity, so I would probably have just walked by and wished him a nice day, it's all I have cause to do. During that time I might observe him and finding no actionable conduct, no staggering, minding his own business, I would have then gone on my way, on the look out for actual criminal activity.'
    Last edited by sawah; 06-01-2012 at 09:38 AM.
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  3. #3
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by XD4ME View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt7ma...eature=related

    He admits that it is a right and ID does NOT have to be shown .
    He admits that in front of a camera. He would probably be different to the guy walking his dog as he says he would. He would, most likely, "ask" for ID but fail to inform the OCer that ID is not required.

    Some people aren't legally allowed to own pets, he failed to mention that he would see if the dog walker is a prohibited person in that sense.

    To me, that officer seemed to be talking a politician's game. "Yea, they have every right. I would ask for ID to make sure that they do, though." Most restricted people don't OC. OCing is close to meaning that they are a law abiding citizen, as most criminals do not want the added attention/chance of an LEO encounter.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    If a cop sees a person engaged in such an activity, he knows before he does ANYTHING that this is a non-starter, he'll learn nothing, make no arrests, and waste his time and the LAC's time. He's walking a dog. Criminals don't OC and walk dogs in the park. He should know that.

    As his superior or a testing agent, I'd have serious doubts about his ability to discern what is a suspicious activity if he stopped this person, and questioned him, and I'd have asked what his RAS was to allow him to do so. If you don't ask the hard questions in an interview, what's the point? Evidently, the interviewer/questioner had no understanding of the law which is unfortunate.
    Last edited by sawah; 06-01-2012 at 09:57 AM.
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  5. #5
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    As his superior or a testing agent, I'd have serious doubts about his ability to discern what is a suspicious activity if he stopped this person, and questioned him, and I'd have asked what his RAS was to allow him to do so. If you don't ask the hard questions in an interview, what's the point? Evidently, the interviewer/questioner had no understanding of the law which is unfortunate.
    An officer, like every other human being, doesn't need RAS to "talk" to someone. Detaining them and/or asking for ID is another thing, but just talking is anyones rights.

    Of course, it is anyones rights to say that they don't want to talk and go about their business.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    He over-reacted quite a bit. He had no RAS to seek an encounter, meanwhile REAL criminals were possibly walking by while his attention was distracted stopping a LAC. As long as the citizen wasn't doing anything illegal (he was walking his dog), there's no reason to stop him.

    AND it is not illegal in any state that I'm aware to be mildly intoxicated while carrying a weapon (after all he was walking, not staggering) - I noticed he inserted 'brandishing' which is not what was happening. He is intentionally vague here, conflating 'carrying' with brandishing. Too bad this officer doesn't know, doesn't abide by the law and is busy, busy, busy stopping law-abiding citizens engaged in the VERY suspicious act of dog walking. I'd have liked the questioner to have him cite the law that it's illegal to walk and OC having had a couple drinks (say at his house prior). There is none.

    /rant

    The real and proper answer would be to say 'it's not illegal to OC a firearm while engaged in a perfectly legal activity, so I would probably have just walked by and wished him a nice day, it's all I have cause to do. During that time I might observe him and finding no actionable conduct, no staggering, minding his own business, I would have then gone on my way, on the look out for actual criminal activity.'
    No fire water in your system here in NC while carrying a firearm.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by merc460 View Post
    No fire water in your system here in NC while carrying a firearm.
    A citation would be helpful.

    Here in Virginia it is against the law to be "intoxicated" when in possession of a concealed firearm, or when hunting (which generally involves long guns but may include open carry of a handgun), but the only place in the law that defines "intoxicated" is the motor vehicle section when discussing the amount over which one must be to be guilty of operating under the influence. Since walking does not involve the operation of a motor vehicle we are at a loss for an explanation of the term "intoxicated" - no case law and a whole lot of interwebz expert opinion on what some folks think it would mean if they were the judge in front of whom a case would be brought for adjudication. And you know how much authority and confidence can be placed in opinions of that sort.

    We have a law against hunting if under the influence "to a degree that impairs his ability to hunt ...." - but then I've seen cold stone sober hunters who seemed to have an impaired ability to hunt.
    18.2-285. Hunting with firearms while under influence of intoxicant or narcotic drug; penalty.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt wildlife with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow in the Commonwealth of Virginia while he is (i) under the influence of alcohol; (ii) under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree that impairs his ability to hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow safely; or (iii) under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree that impairs his ability to hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow safely. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conservation police officers, sheriffs and all other law-enforcement officers shall enforce the provisions of this section.
    We have carrying concealed while under the influence, which lists a few crimes that are prima facia evidence of being "under the influence - yet only one quantifies the amount of alcohol by blood volume that qualifies as "under the influence.
    18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.
    ... J1. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of 46.2-341.24. Upon such conviction that court shall revoke the person's permit for a concealed handgun and promptly notify the issuing circuit court. A person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be ineligible to apply for a concealed handgun permit for a period of five years.



    So, if NC has resolved the matter legally, a citation to show how would be appreciated.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    The Oklahoma law seems to be much like the VA law:

    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols in any circumstances while under the influence of beer, intoxicating liquors or any hallucinogenic, or any unlawful or unprescribed drug, and it shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols when under the influence of any drug prescribed by a licensed physician if the aftereffects of such consumption affect mental, emotional or physical processes to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior. Any person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.

    Any person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section after having been issued a concealed handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall have the license suspended for a term of six (6) months and shall be subject to an administrative fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00), upon a hearing and determination by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that the person is in violation of the provisions of this section.
    I read through the applicable case-law, but all of them involved people who were obviously "under the influence" of something. Which then leads me to wonder if it would be legal for me to have a drink with dinner as the law that allows me to carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol doesn't ban me from consuming alcohol (but it does expressly ban police officers and private investigators who are working).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by merc460 View Post
    No fire water in your system here in NC while carrying a firearm.
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    A citation would be helpful.
    It is unlawful for the permittee to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol, or
    at any time while the permittee has remaining in his or her body any alcohol or controlled
    substance previously consumed. However, a permittee does not violate this law if a controlled
    substance in his or her blood was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate
    amounts. N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-415.II(c).

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    RSMo - 571.010. Definitions.

    As used in this chapter, the following terms shall mean:

    (11) "Intoxicated", substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body;

    RSMo - 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

    1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

    (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;
    Seems fairly reasonable.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •