maverick1125 said:
All this talk and pounding your chest on the internet is all good and fun until reality sets in and you are standing there in cuffs demanding your rights only to find out the cop is planning to make stuff up to make himself look good and you bad since it's their word against yours.
It's happened to me several times.
That's one reason to have a recorder,
and to have a couple good lawyers - one for criminal defense, one for the civil rights violations.
Yes, those dedicated, trustworthy, honest, upstanding citizens employed as LEO lie & cheat & steal.
(
Not all of them, no, but they all wear the same uniform, so how do you know which is which when they approach you?)
Heck, a video I made of the denial of an open records request by the PD proved in no uncertain terms that the sworn statements from their employees were lies. Wonder where I can learn about what their punishment for perjury was?
bellyfat said:
if open carry becomes commonplace then; some criminals may resort to open carry just to throw the cops off.
Hasn't happened elsewhere.
Criminals have other problems they can't hide from police, giving RAS for a stop no matter if they're OC or not, so why attract attention? They want to hide, like the cockroaches they are.
bellyfat said:
how inconveiniant is it to show your permit?
no different than showing your drivers licence in a traffic stop.
Since it's illegal to stop a car just to check a driver's license, it's illegal to stop someone OC just to check a carry license.
Simply being armed does NOT provide RAS of a crime. [
see below]
If the driver did something that could result in a ticket or arrest, it's legal to also demand a license.
If the armed citizen did something that could result in a ticket or arrest, it's legal to also demand a license.
And even if it were OK, how many times a day is too many?
If every stop "only" takes 10 minutes, and you're stopped at the bank, at the grocery, at the pharmacy, at the restaurant where you're eating dinner, at the movies after dinner, that's nearly an hour.
All by different cops, none of them know you, either they don't know you were stopped before or they don't care or they're targeting you because they don't like LACs.
It's just as unreasonable to do to someone who's exercising a Constitutionally-protected civil right as it is to do to someone who's driving in a legal manner.
*****
"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S. , 230 F 2d 486. 489
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
Wisconsin v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2052.
“Selective prosecution when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution."
County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97−0642.
"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
Here's an essay which discusses why police can't stop someone simply for carrying.
"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000)
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993)
