Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Some FNG question

  1. #1
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28

    Some FNG question

    I've devoured all I can on Missouri statutes, local statutes, the do's and don't's of open and concealed carry, and a lot of advice you all of provided. I've read about 15 pages back in the forum so far soaking in as much as I can.

    I have a big problem with over 90% of the open carry videos on YouTube, not because they're are posted, but because more often than not, it seems as if the OCer is trying to bait the responding LEO(s), and once baited, develops a massive attitude with the LEO(s). That said, I'm well aware they are within their rights, and it's about those rights I have a question about.

    I know that when asked, I don't need to present ID for being stopped for open carrying. My question is, why shouldn't I? It hasn't happened to me yet, but in most of these videos, what seems to be a 10+ minute encounter could have easily been turned into a 3-5 minute encounter being presenting ID and being polite, i.e., not adopting standoffish attitude.

    I'd like to see your guy's opinions. Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    hannibal
    Posts
    5
    i completely agree, i have thought many times about bringing up this very issue, i see no problem with cooperating and being respectful, also if there is a call about a "man with gun" doesnt law enforcement have to answer the call and gather sufficient evidence to determine that the man with the gun is not a felon or some crazy flaked out drug addict, if you are waking around open carrying then you shouldn't be surprised if you are stopped, and when you are stopped maybe you should conduct yourself in a respectful manner, because after all you are the reason the officer is talking to you

    just my 2cents

  3. #3
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    My only problem is that you are reinforcing the idea that OCing is strange and wrong and the cops have the right to stop and demand papers from someone OCing. OCing is, and should be viewed as, a legal and normal activity. We should not be validating the idea that it is a suspicious activity and indicative of an impending crime.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    hannibal
    Posts
    5
    you make good points, and i agree with you, and if OC'ing becomes the norm then i think most of the problems will go away, but right now open carrying is the exception and not the rule,

    i never see anyone OC'ing in Hannibal and so when someone looks out their window and see's someone OC'ing it is unusual, and so, they react sometimes by calling 911

    i wish open carry was a normal activity for everyone or at least most people, but im not sure that is going to happen, i personally conceal carry because i want to avoid contact with the police

    1 more point, the original poster commented on the youtube video's about open carry, i agree with him most of the time the guys in the video's are combative and rude and they do bait the LEO's and im not sure these types of police encounters help the open carry cause

  5. #5
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I've heard others say the same thing.
    IMHO you can't bait someone to do something wrong unless the desire to do wrong is present. Imagine, if you will, how this baiting may have come about.
    Which do you think is more probable: #1 someone thinks "I wonder if I could get a reaction out of some cop if a flaunt my firearm.." or #2 "I'm going to carry a camera and a firearm down to this certain area because I have heard cops illegally harass people who are completely legal and want to see if I can catch this harassment on film.." If the second is the more probable, I for one applaud this exposure of a wrong action.
    I believe you feel these people are being rude to the cops because you are conditioned to believe they are the ultimate, unlimited authority. I'm not trying to be harsh toward you at all but this is a way a police state can evolve. The cops take more authority then has been given them. If we are completely compliant and submissive every time one of them exceeds their authority then this confirms this authority, and they take more.

    Do you think cops should be able to stop anyone for any reason and demand identification to check to see if they may be wanted by the state?
    Why should this change if you're legally carrying a firearm?

  6. #6
    Regular Member CornfedinOhio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    I've heard others say the same thing.
    IMHO you can't bait someone to do something wrong unless the desire to do wrong is present. Imagine, if you will, how this baiting may have come about.
    Which do you think is more probable: #1 someone thinks "I wonder if I could get a reaction out of some cop if a flaunt my firearm.." or #2 "I'm going to carry a camera and a firearm down to this certain area because I have heard cops illegally harass people who are completely legal and want to see if I can catch this harassment on film.." If the second is the more probable, I for one applaud this exposure of a wrong action.
    I believe you feel these people are being rude to the cops because you are conditioned to believe they are the ultimate, unlimited authority. I'm not trying to be harsh toward you at all but this is a way a police state can evolve. The cops take more authority then has been given them. If we are completely compliant and submissive every time one of them exceeds their authority then this confirms this authority, and they take more.

    Do you think cops should be able to stop anyone for any reason and demand identification to check to see if they may be wanted by the state?
    Why should this change if you're legally carrying a firearm?
    I think the MWAG call should go like this,
    Dispatch, Ok he has a gun. What's he doing with it? Is it pointed at any one? Is it holstered?
    Caller answered, it's holstered and I am afraid.
    Dispatcher, thanks for reporting a legal activity. We will not be responding to your fears. We respond to crimes.


    Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.

  7. #7
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by CornfedinOhio View Post
    I think the MWAG call should go like this,
    Dispatch, Ok he has a gun. What's he doing with it? Is it pointed at any one? Is it holstered?
    Caller answered, it's holstered and I am afraid.
    Dispatcher, thanks for reporting a legal activity. We will not be responding to your fears. We respond to crimes.


    Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.
    Very good. What would they do if people stated calling in MWAG every time they saw a cop? I'm sure charges would be filed against the callers. What is the real difference? I have the same right to carry a gun that a cop does.

  8. #8
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by CornfedinOhio View Post
    I think the MWAG call should go like this,
    Dispatch, Ok he has a gun. What's he doing with it? Is it pointed at any one? Is it holstered?
    Caller answered, it's holstered and I am afraid.
    Dispatcher, thanks for reporting a legal activity. We will not be responding to your fears. We respond to crimes.


    Tapatalk does not require a sobriety test to post.
    I agree with this 100%, but most sheep unfortunately aren't going to react in this manner. Point and example, last night at QuikTrip, some blonde bimbo shouted, "OMG! That guy has a gun!"

    Bitch, if I was a bad guy, chances are you wouldn't know I had the gun until it was too late.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Richland Mo
    Posts
    5

    My 2 or 3 cents

    I agree, why shouldn't you present ID to the LEOs when asked? Where is the harm? Now before anyone starts comparing this to Nazi Germany again, think about this. Is the second amendment really a right, was it written with the thought of people carrying side arms? I think no, if it was, everyone would carry including felons. To me it is a privilege that law abiding citizens have. Do you have to present your ID when asked????? No you don't but like stated previously, why not when it will get you out of there in 2-3 minutes vs. 30 or more. Until SOCIETY, not LEOs, accepts the fact that it is perfectly legal, which will require more people to OC, then you will continue to get MWG calls against you. Just accept it until those who call the LEOs understand this. The LEOs are simply doing their jobs and if they didn't, there would be other forums stating that LEOs were not doing their jobs. It is a lose lose situation for them so cut them some slack.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by woodja72 View Post
    I agree, why shouldn't you present ID to the LEOs when asked? Where is the harm? Now before anyone starts comparing this to Nazi Germany again, think about this. Is the second amendment really a right, was it written with the thought of people carrying side arms? I think no, if it was, everyone would carry including felons. To me it is a privilege that law abiding citizens have. Do you have to present your ID when asked????? No you don't but like stated previously, why not when it will get you out of there in 2-3 minutes vs. 30 or more. Until SOCIETY, not LEOs, accepts the fact that it is perfectly legal, which will require more people to OC, then you will continue to get MWG calls against you. Just accept it until those who call the LEOs understand this. The LEOs are simply doing their jobs and if they didn't, there would be other forums stating that LEOs were not doing their jobs. It is a lose lose situation for them so cut them some slack.
    Are you a troll?

    Privilege?....Really?

    Please consider reading these two documents.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A01023.HTM

    The first rule of law enforce is (or should be) 'do not break the law'.

    The second rule of law enforcement is (or should be) 'do not violate the rights of the citizenry'.

    By the way, I suspect that there are many felons who currently carry a firearm, contrary to the law, and many felons who do not.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by woodja72 View Post
    I agree, why shouldn't you present ID to the LEOs when asked? Where is the harm? Now before anyone starts comparing this to Nazi Germany again, think about this. Is the second amendment really a right, was it written with the thought of people carrying side arms? I think no, if it was, everyone would carry including felons. To me it is a privilege that law abiding citizens have. Do you have to present your ID when asked????? No you don't but like stated previously, why not when it will get you out of there in 2-3 minutes vs. 30 or more. Until SOCIETY, not LEOs, accepts the fact that it is perfectly legal, which will require more people to OC, then you will continue to get MWG calls against you. Just accept it until those who call the LEOs understand this. The LEOs are simply doing their jobs and if they didn't, there would be other forums stating that LEOs were not doing their jobs. It is a lose lose situation for them so cut them some slack.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Are you a troll?

    Privilege?....Really?

    Please consider reading these two documents.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A01023.HTM

    The first rule of law enforce is (or should be) 'do not break the law'.

    The second rule of law enforcement is (or should be) 'do not violate the rights of the citizenry'.

    By the way, I suspect that there are many felons who currently carry a firearm, contrary to the law, and many felons who do not.
    Thank you for being kind to the troll.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W_Guy View Post
    I've devoured all I can on Missouri statutes, local statutes, the do's and don't's of open and concealed carry, and a lot of advice you all of provided. I've read about 15 pages back in the forum so far soaking in as much as I can.

    I have a big problem with over 90% of the open carry videos on YouTube, not because they're are posted, but because more often than not, it seems as if the OCer is trying to bait the responding LEO(s), and once baited, develops a massive attitude with the LEO(s). That said, I'm well aware they are within their rights, and it's about those rights I have a question about.

    I know that when asked, I don't need to present ID for being stopped for open carrying. My question is, why shouldn't I? It hasn't happened to me yet, but in most of these videos, what seems to be a 10+ minute encounter could have easily been turned into a 3-5 minute encounter being presenting ID and being polite, i.e., not adopting standoffish attitude.

    I'd like to see your guy's opinions. Thanks in advance.



    I would like to point out that since you live in KC you may be required to "identify" yourself. While it is true that statewide there is no requirement to provide ID(i.e. a physical state issued ID card) in KC it required that if an officer feels that you "may have committed, are committing, or may commit a crime" you are required to "identify" yourself.

    Police force--officers of state--powers to arrest (Kansas City).
    84.710. 1. The members of the police force appointed in pursuance hereof are hereby declared to be officers of the state of Missouri and of the city for which such commissioners are appointed.

    2. They shall have power within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof to arrest, on view, any person they see violating or whom they have reason to suspect of having violated any law of the state or ordinance of the city. They shall have power to arrest and hold, without warrant, for a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, persons found within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof charged with having committed felonies in other states, and who are reported to be fugitives from justice. They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going. When stopping or detaining a suspect, they may search him for a dangerous weapon whenever they have reasonable ground to believe they are in danger from the possession of such dangerous weapon by the suspect. No unreasonable force shall be used in detaining or arresting any person, but such force as may be necessary may be used when there is no other apparent means of making an arrest or preventing an escape and only after the peace officer has made every reasonable effort to advise the person that he is the peace officer engaged in making arrest. 3. Any person who has been arrested without a warrant may be released, without being taken before a judge, by the officer in charge of the police station whenever the officer is satisfied that there is no ground for making complaint against him, or when the person was arrested for a misdemeanor and will sign a satisfactory agreement to appear in court at the time designated.

    emphases added

    This statue is specific to KC
    Last edited by SavageOne; 06-22-2012 at 09:17 PM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by pastor View Post
    i completely agree, i have thought many times about bringing up this very issue, i see no problem with cooperating and being respectful, also if there is a call about a "man with gun" doesnt law enforcement have to answer the call and gather sufficient evidence to determine that the man with the gun is not a felon or some crazy flaked out drug addict, if you are waking around open carrying then you shouldn't be surprised if you are stopped, and when you are stopped maybe you should conduct yourself in a respectful manner, because after all you are the reason the officer is talking to you

    just my 2cents

    With respect, I think you have a misconception of what law enforcement is actually meant to be. It is not illegal to be a "man with gun". The idea that it is LE's job to come verify that I am not a felon is ridiculous. If a person is committing a crime and is arrested and during subsequent search is found to be a felon and and in possession of a gun, that is a different story(though it shouldn't be). Stop and ID's force the individual to prove they are not a felon and that they are simply exercising a lawful right. This is the opposite of how our system is meant to work. If the officer can develop RAS(without detaining the citizen) that the citizen is in violation of the law, then by all means stop the person and investigate. If not leave the citizen alone to go about their business in peace.

    Should the police stop and check ID of every man walking in a park with a child or teenager? How do we know that that man is not a convicted sex offender? How courteous would you be if you were simply taking a walk in the park with your child or grandchild or just a young friend, and were stopped by an officer and asked to prove you are not trying to molest the youth?

    Many will say "Why shouldn't I simply provide ID, if I have nothing to hide". The simple answer is because the police shouldn't be asking, unless they have serious belief otherwise. In most cases they are simply casting the widest possible net and seeing what they find. That is not true police work, it is the lazy man's approach
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by woodja72 View Post
    I agree, why shouldn't you present ID to the LEOs when asked? Where is the harm? Now before anyone starts comparing this to Nazi Germany again, think about this. Is the second amendment really a right, was it written with the thought of people carrying side arms? I think no, if it was, everyone would carry including felons. To me it is a privilege that law abiding citizens have. Do you have to present your ID when asked????? No you don't but like stated previously, why not when it will get you out of there in 2-3 minutes vs. 30 or more. Until SOCIETY, not LEOs, accepts the fact that it is perfectly legal, which will require more people to OC, then you will continue to get MWG calls against you. Just accept it until those who call the LEOs understand this. The LEOs are simply doing their jobs and if they didn't, there would be other forums stating that LEOs were not doing their jobs. It is a lose lose situation for them so cut them some slack.

    The Second Amendment is the codification of what is recognized by Common Law, as the "right of self defense". It was a way for our Founding Fathers to state the belief that all human beings have a right to protect their existence. It encompasses all "arms" as being the tools used for that protection.

    You might be interested to know that until 1968. It was the "Gun Control Act of 1968" that made it illegal for felons or even those indicted of felony crimes to posses firearms. Are you aware of what is required to be a felon? All that is required is that you be convicted of a crime that has a sentence of over 1 year. You don't even have to serve the time, even if they suspend the sentence, you are a felon. Then, the government gets to take away your right protect yourself and your family, your right to vote for the leaders of your government, and the right to assemble with who you chose. FOREVER Oh, there are some states that let you earn back those rights that are suppose to be endowed in all by their Creator, but they make it long and hard. Prior to 1968 it was not nationally accepted that being a felon would prohibt someone from owning a firearm. I beleive if you have paid your "debt" to society, you should be given all your rights back.

    Don't think that all felonies are heinous crimes either. In MO if someone writes a bad check or checks equaling $500 they will be charged with a felony. I suppose we should be grateful, until 2003 it was only $175.

    One final point, whether "SOCIETY" accepts my exercise of my rights, is not the point. They are still my rights, and as long as my exercise does not hurt anyone or directly prohibit someone from exercising their rights, society's acceptance of it is immaterial. What societies may or may not accept is too meandering, rights are not.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 06-22-2012 at 09:20 PM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  15. #15
    Regular Member S&W_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I would like to point out that since you live in KC you may be required to "identify" yourself. While it is true that statewide there is no requirement to provide ID(i.e. a physical state issued ID card) in KC it required that if an officer feels that you "may have committed, are committing, or may commit a crime" you are required to "identify" yourself.




    emphases added

    This statue is specific to KC
    Thanks for the clarification on that, Savage.
    "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams

    "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    hannibal
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    With respect, I think you have a misconception of what law enforcement is actually meant to be. It is not illegal to be a "man with gun". The idea that it is LE's job to come verify that I am not a felon is ridiculous. If a person is committing a crime and is arrested and during subsequent search is found to be a felon and and in possession of a gun, that is a different story(though it shouldn't be). Stop and ID's force the individual to prove they are not a felon and that they are simply exercising a lawful right. This is the opposite of how our system is meant to work. If the officer can develop RAS(without detaining the citizen) that the citizen is in violation of the law, then by all means stop the person and investigate. If not leave the citizen alone to go about their business in peace.

    Should the police stop and check ID of every man walking in a park with a child or teenager? How do we know that that man is not a convicted sex offender? How courteous would you be if you were simply taking a walk in the park with your child or grandchild or just a young friend, and were stopped by an officer and asked to prove you are not trying to molest the youth?

    Many will say "Why shouldn't I simply provide ID, if I have nothing to hide". The simple answer is because the police shouldn't be asking, unless they have serious belief otherwise. In most cases they are simply casting the widest possible net and seeing what they find. That is not true police work, it is the lazy man's approach
    i appreciate your concerns and i agree with them in principle, and with all due respect, i think the analogy of walking with my granddaughter is a bit if a stretch, to answer your question no i would not like to be stopped while walking with her, but you can surely see that walking a kid in the park and open carrying a firearm are two completly different things

    playing Frisbee or walking in the park are normal everyday things, in other words these are things people see everyday and view as normal activity

    someone walking in the park open carrying is not a normally observed activity, so elderly people (or maybe most people) almost automatically feel anxious or nervous and call 911

    i dont necessarily think this is good or something they should do but the fact is - they do make the call, and the idea that the police shouldn't respond is another part of this discussion that i dont understand, suppose they dont respond or they dont determine the individual is legally carrying, and 10 minutes after the call the "man with gun" turns out to be a gang member or a meth-head who is tweeked out and kills the next person they pass in the park

    i think in our society today calls need to be taken seriously and the police need to verify that there is no threat, and ill be honest i dont know how they do this without asking for ID

    at the start of this post i said "wouldnt it be easier, faster, and better to assist the LEO and show your ID because open carrying is what put you and the officer face to face anyway"

    i also said i conceal carry to aviod encounters with law enforcement. i respect your rights to not show your ID and to stand up for what you think is right, i was just speculating it might be eaiser....

    thank you and i hope i didnt offend anyone, im just expressing my opinion

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    hannibal
    Posts
    5
    it sure doesnt take long to remember why i almost never get involved in these posts

    gunshot, all i can say is it's not me you need to convince, until open carrying becomes more popular, until it becomes a normal thing to see, you are going to have these calls made and responded to

    if i offend you by saying "there is nothing wrong with being polite showing ID and moving on" then im not sure what to say, sorry i guess

    you can be as confrontational as you want to be, more power to you, but you are not helping the open carry cause

    i am all for the 2nd amendment and civil rights, and i respect your opinion, i just disagree about how a MWG call should be handled

    best thing we can all do to help open carry, is to get more people to do it, and i dont know if there will ever be enough people doing it to make it "normal"

    enough said

  18. #18
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by pastor View Post
    if you are waking around open carrying then you shouldn't be surprised if you are stopped........after all you are the reason the officer is talking to you
    Quote Originally Posted by pastor View Post
    i personally conceal carry because i want to avoid contact with the police
    Quote Originally Posted by pastor View Post
    you can be as confrontational as you want to be, more power to you, but you are not helping the open carry cause
    Yeah gutshot, if you want to actually help the cause follow the example above. Blame OCers for the negative police interactions, and don't OC at!

    Quote Originally Posted by pastor View Post
    enough said
    On this I do agree sir.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by pastor View Post
    <snip> i think the analogy of walking with my granddaughter is a bit if a stretch, to answer your question no i would not like to be stopped while walking with her, but you can surely see that walking a kid in the park and open carrying a firearm are two completly different things <snip>
    When the issue is RAS/probable cause to initiate a stop, a MWAG, in Missouri, is neither RAS nor probable cause, let alone illegal (where OC is not illegal), if the OCed firearm is the only thing that is not 'normal' about the citizen.

    Quote Originally Posted by pastor View Post
    <snip> i think in our society today calls need to be taken seriously and the police need to verify that there is no threat, and ill be honest i dont know how they do this without asking for ID <snip>
    No, LE needs to follow the law, just as we citizens are expected to follow the law. If LE does not witness/observe/see a threat when they see the OCing citizen then there is no threat in the eyes of the law. You presume a citizen OCing, by simply OCing, is a threat until determined otherwise by LE. This is the same irrational view held by hoplophobes and the anti-gun crowd.

    When LE responds to a MWAG here in Missouri they are responding to investigate a legal activity where no other criminal activity can be observed before LE makes contact with the citizen who is OCing. LE is not available to respond to real criminal activity when LE illegally detains a lawfully OCing citizen. This, you say, bolsters your point about providing ID to let LE get about the business of policing real crime as quickly as possible. I say that the contact should never occur. LE should do a drive by, if LE does not witness any criminal activity, keep on driving.

    Your choice to accommodate LE, to relieve LE of the burden to follow the law, is why LE expects the citizen to be compliant contrary to the citizen's best interests, contrary to the law.

    Your viewpoint, and the reliance of LE on your viewpoint by the citizenry hinders the efforts to normalize OC in Missouri.
    "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
  •