maverick1125 said:
how can you be part of the problem if the problem hasn't started yet.
It appears that the OK OC org is trying to be what's called
proactive (
seeing a potential problem & taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen) instead of what's called
reactive (
waiting until the problem happens, then trying to stop it from happening again).
maverick1125 said:
when they get the man with a gun call they WILL check it out because it is their duty to make the public feel safe.
Nope. It's their job to protect the public at large. Has nothing to do with making people feel safe, or protecting any particular person (even one who's called 911 for help - see
Warren v. District of Columbia).
maverick1125 said:
Since it is written in the law that they CAN check for your CL and DL why would they not?
Because it's established case law (see
Delaware v. Prouse, decided by SCOTUS in 1979) that absent RAS of a crime it's illegal to stop someone simply to check for a license to perform an activity.
SCOTUS said:
Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
That ruling is why officers are now trained to lie when they pull you over to check your license & registration. (They'll make up something about a light being out, or swerving, even when you both know it didn't happen & the light is fine.)
maverick1125 said:
It's in their best interest to check you out then [sic] to not check you out.
Since it's illegal for them to "check you out", & likely to result in 1983 suits, & criminals don't carry openly, they have no RAS of a crime to support a stop/search/seizure/frisk.
So I'd say it's in their best interest to do no more than drive by & look to see that the person has a properly holstered pistol.
maverick1125 said:
I'm for the required training and background checks to get a permit. While going through the CC class there were people in the class that had no business handling a gun.
What other civil rights are you willing to turn into privileges?
Please post a picture of your training certificate & license which allow you to speak your mind here.
[Yes, that's a bad example, as this is a private site & your 1A rights don't apply here... but it's the closest we have.]
Please show us the multitude of problems caused by citizens in states which don't require gov't interference in order to OC, or even cc... problems which could have been prevented by training the
citizens.
I know of plenty which could be prevented by training the LEO involved. But hey, don't they already have training? Aren't they supposed to know the laws they're hired to enforce? Aren't they supposed to know how safely to handle the firearms they're issued to do their jobs?
maverick1125 said:
how are you going to make sure everyone at the event that OC is doing so legally?
If someone is carrying openly, even the FBI says it's highly unlikely (as in, close enough to be called zero chance) that that person is a criminal.
Here's a site with links to the chapters in the
FBI report. It was published in AUG06 & is titled "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers".
They did interviews with federal felons to find out the background, the beliefs, of those who had attacked police. IIRC, it's in chapter 4 where they say that none of the criminals carried openly, & only 1 occasionally used a holster.
Surely our highly-trained officers are professionals who keep up with research in their field, right? So this federal study published almost 6 years ago has certainly made its way into every LEA in the nation by now, giving them no excuse to harass citizens who are OC.
maverick1125 said:
Since it will be legal for LEO to check each and every person OCing it's a losing battle to think you won't be stopped and checked at some time or all the time.
When people think like this, the police have already won.
When people stand up for their rights & (figuratively) kick the police in the shins when they try to do something wrong, our rights are preserved.
maverick1125 said:
it cost them nothing to check your ID
Except the cost of trying to defend against the lawsuits & paying out the damage awards.
Federal civil rights suits can be expensive for the wrongdoers.
maverick1125 said:
yet if they had the chance to check and not do it because that person "looked" legal then if something were to happen to the person who called it in then the PD would be sued.
Not successfully.
Read the Warren v. DC link above.
Despite the egregious and flagrant disregard for their "duty to protect", the police were not successfully sued by the victims of their misconduct.
Similar rulings have been issued across the country.
The police have NO duty to protect you, & you have no recourse when they fail to do so,
unless you're in custody.
MSG Laigaie said:
i found this in my file...
One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You could do this by saying "Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.
I believe it was
Citizen here on OCDO who recommends:
"
Why am I being detained?"
Because if you have to ask, you
are being detained.
Make them give you a reason or tell you they're not detaining you.
Once you have their admission that they are detaining you, your 4A & 5A rights are even more in force.
And if they admit they're not detaining you, LEAVE.