http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt7ma6XChpI&feature=related
He admits that it is a right and ID does NOT have to be shown .
He admits that it is a right and ID does NOT have to be shown .
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
If they were all like this....
- Thread starter XD4ME
- Start date
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:
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
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.
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:
09jisaac
Regular Member
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.
merc460
Regular Member
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.
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.
So, if NC has resolved the matter legally, a citation to show how would be appreciated.
stay safe.
Aknazer
Regular Member
The Oklahoma law seems to be much like the VA law:
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).
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).
merc460
Regular Member
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).
OC for ME
Regular Member
Seems fairly reasonable.