Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: Police cant require proof of permit of OCer?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Meriden, CT
    Posts
    74

    Police cant require proof of permit of OCer?

    I realize this may catch me some heated responses, but i'm really curious as to people's thoughts on this. I've seen a couple posts here regarding the belief that LEOs cannot legally demand an OCer to show their permit. In the Wethersfield PD memo regarding OC, it says at the bottom that officers can require one show their permit if OCing. I spent a few hours searching the net for case law that supports or denies such a requirement, but i couldn't come up with anything.

    The LEO side of me agrees with the notion that police ought to be able to require that someone open carrying show a permit. After all, the law says that someone may carry as long as they have a permit, so how is a LEO supposed to be able to determine if they are in compliance with that law without asking for a permit? I understand that there are people on the board who strongly disagree with this and would refuse to show a permit upon request. From what I gather from the forum the understanding is that LEO cannot demand a permit, and if such demand is not complied with, LEOs have no grounds to arrest for interfering.

    The problem is, if LEOs are not allowed to require proof of permit, LEOs are forced to assume that someone open carrying is permitted. As you can imagine, we don't really go on assumptions in LE, but proof (like assuming a car is registered, or proving it by showing the registration.)

    Like i've said elsewhere on the forum, I work as a LEO in a large inner-city environment where there is drug and gang activity. Gunshots are fired literally every day somewhere in the city (not always resulting in a person struck), and we had somewhere in the ballpark of 150 persons shot last year (non-fatal.) Obviously we had double-digit fatalities too from gun violence. So gun violence is definately a problem for us and the public we serve. Now hypothetically speaking, lets say that the gang members in the city catch wind of the open carry law, and that LEOs can't ask to see a permit. So they start open carrying their illegal stolen guns, and we as LEOs are just supposed to ignore it and assume they have a permit? That's the part I can't wrap my brain around.

    I think some people on this forum limit their viewpoint on this from the side of "i'm a law abiding citizen exercising my right, and LEOs have no right to check my statuts", but step back for a moment and look at it from a LEOs perspective. LEOs are not supposed to profile, but for one having that viewpoint, you are forcing LEOs to size up a person OCing by looking at the way they are dressed, how they walk/carry themselves, how their hair is cut, and what they are driving, and make a snap judgement of either A) law abiding citizen, or B) potentially dangerous person.

    So, what are your thoughts on this law enforcement dilemma?

    Also, is anyone aware of any documentation/case law that specifically addresses whether or not a LEO can demand a permit? Or, are you aware of any case where a LEO demanded a permit of an OCer, aside from any other crime occuring, and refusal resulted in an interfering arrest? Is anyone aware of documentation specifying that a LEO cannot require/demand proof of permit?


    And before anyone slays me on a personal level, please rememeber that I support the 2nd Amd and open carry for permittees. However, I wouldn't be a very good cop if I didn't have an interest in protecting the public from gun-toting thugs who collectively commit numerous homicides every year in CT.

  2. #2
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193
    Does CT require a permit to open carry? Because a lot of states do not require any permit to carry openly. Hence the hesitation from most to oblige to any LEO requests.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid View Post
    The problem is, if LEOs are not allowed to require proof of permit, LEOs are forced to assume that someone open carrying is permitted. As you can imagine, we don't really go on assumptions in LE, but proof (like assuming a car is registered, or proving it by showing the registration.)
    So, you'd rather assume that OCers are breaking the law (no license/permit/permission slip) until they can prove they're not?

    It's called Reasonable Suspicion leading to Probable Cause for an arrest (and a detainment is an arrest in motion). For the motor vehicle example, you can't just stop people willy-nilly to check their license/registration status - you need to observe a motor vehicle offense (speeding, failure to yield, etc.) before effecting a detainment of the vehicle operator. Is OCing any different? You need a license to drive a car. In Connecticut, you need a license to carry a firearm. Why can you not assume one is unlicensed but assume the other is not?
    Last edited by Statkowski; 08-03-2012 at 07:48 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Meriden, CT
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    So, you're assuming that OCers are breaking the law (no license/permit/permission slip) until they can prove they're not?

    It's called Reasonable Suspicion leading to Probable Cause for an arrest (and a detainment is an arrest in motion). For the motor vehicle example, you can't just stop people willy-nilly to check their license/registration status - you need to observe a motor vehicle offense (speeding, failure to yield, etc.) before effecting a detainment of the vehicle operator. Is OCing any different? You need a license to drive a car. In Connecticut, you need a license to carry a firearm. Why can you not assume one is unlicensed but assume the other is not?
    Very valid point.

    Maybe the registration example is a bad one, because your correct, a LEO has to have a m/v violation to stop you to see your reg. How about this...a street side vendor, like a hotdog stand, has to openly display a permit to vend because in the view of public safety (from eating bad food), the state requires a permit posted. Based on your position, one could argue that a hotdog stand not displaying a permit should be assumed to be permitted to distribute food. So then I could sell you hotdogs that I bought in a NYC flea market and have been sitting in my trunk for a week unrefrigerated, with no permit. And if a LEO asks for a permit, I would refuse based on the grounds that he is assuming i'm breaking the law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Meriden, CT
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by CCinMaine View Post
    Does CT require a permit to open carry? Because a lot of states do not require any permit to carry openly. Hence the hesitation from most to oblige to any LEO requests.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

    CT requires a permit to carry. Its the holders choice to carry open or concealed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    You are looking at this from the wrong angle.

    Whether or not you can detain an individual and ask for their ID revolves around Terry v Ohio. As you know, without RAS of a crime, you may not detain someone. Therefore whether or not they are required to show a permit is not an issue.

    The carry of a firearm is not RAS of a crime without some other significant factor.

    You do not have the ability to stop every car on the road and check whether or not they have a license, and by state law, there is actually a requirement to furnish a license upon being stopped. No such statute exists for a permit.

    As far as arresting for 'interfering', you are not going to have much luck there. Anyone competent in the courtroom is going to get that thrown out as no one has physically interfered with your duties, particularly because refusing an unlawful order is not a 'physical' resistance and also because you are not in the performance of your duties when you are not in the confines of RAS under Terry.

    This is not authoritative for Connecticut, but it gives you a good idea how things will go in the correct case in Connecticut: http://www.examiner.com/article/fede...-carrying-guns

    I would venture a guess to say that no officer wants to be on the losing end of that case.

    As for the rest of the question:

    a) Do you really think someone without a permit is going to be carrying openly? Why would a person up to no good not conceal their firearm so they at least stand a chance of getting away?

    b) Do you really care? If someone is carrying a firearm without a permit and causing no one any harm, what is the big rush to do anything about it?
    Last edited by Rich B; 08-03-2012 at 08:08 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Meriden, CT
    Posts
    74
    a) Do you really think someone without a permit is going to be carrying openly? Why would a person up to no good not conceal their firearm so they at least stand a chance of getting away?
    One would assume you're right. When I was in college for criminal justice, the teacher told us that during one semester he actually had a "high-ranking" member of a gang enrolled in criminal and constitutional law classes. The student told him flat out he was taking the classes to learn how to beat the cops at the law. So the possibility exists that persons who would carry a firearm with ill-intent would learn of the law, and OC freely knowing an officer could not challenge him on the gun. Street thugs don't always plan when and where they plan on shooting someone...many times people are shot in the city over arguments or disrespect. The point is, they carry guns on them at all time. I do think that if they knew they could OC freely and not get challenged by LEOs, they would OC, partly because it would alleviate the "suspicious behavior" one unconsciously exhibits when one is concealing an illegal gun and is afraid of being caught. I think it would be a sense of freedom for them.

    b) Do you really care? If someone is carrying a firearm without a permit and causing no one any harm, what is the big rush to do anything about it?
    Of course i wouldn't care if I saw said OCer in the suburbs riding bikes with his kids. But again, you're coming from the view point of a law abiding citizen who is OCing while grocery shopping or buying gas. Many "citizens" in the inner city carry guns to settle disputes or take out rivals. Just because at the moment I see them walking down the street doesn't mean that two minutes after I turn the corner, they shoot up someones house. And honestly i'm not making that up, because I have personally heard the gunshots ring out when I'm 3 blocks away from where I just drove through.

    You're asking me to judge someone by their appearance and make assumptions. So a clean cut guy in the suburbs OCing with a holstered gun is OK, but a thug-looking guy in the inner city OCing by tucking a unholstered gun in his waist band is not OK. That's profiling, which i'm not supposed to do. Would it be unreasonable to demand a permit from the thug looking guy?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    It is illegal to drive a car on public highways without having in one's immediate possession a valid license.

    Can you pull over just anyone you see driving to make sure they are properly licensed? Why not, isn't it the very same principle?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Meriden, CT
    Posts
    74
    Rich B....I checked out that article, and it's pretty on point with my question. I don't have time now but i'd like to read the full court opinion....

    In that article the guy was handcuffed, stripped of his gun, and the whole 9. I'm talking about merely stopping an OCer and requesting to see the permit. No frisking, no handcuffing, no sitting in a cruiser....

    I realize that "unconsentually" stopping someone to talk is considered a seizure. It just seems like a reasonable one to me.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Meriden, CT
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    It is illegal to drive a car on public highways without having in one's immediate possession a valid license.

    Can you pull over just anyone you see driving to make sure they are properly licensed? Why not, isn't it the very same principle?

    As i told the other above poster, i realize using m/v was a bad example. Please see above regarding the hotdog stand example....

  11. #11
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Now on the practical end, if your concern as an officer is what the person might be up to, why not just walk up, make casual and consensual contact and have a conversation?

    I would suggest by having a friendly conversation with an OCer, you might accomplish the following:

    1) Make a fairly accurate judgment of whether this person is in a violent or 'altered' state of mind.
    2) Make a friend of the OCer and potentially have another armed person who will be 'on your side' out there. An extra set of eyes and ears is always good when SHTF.
    3) Have a good reputation among citizens and OCers of being good peace officers with nothing to hide or fear from armed citizens (the definition of a 'good cop', right?)
    4) Kill some time by having a friendly conversation with someone who shares a potential hobby/interest with you.

    A detainment and demand is likely to accomplish:

    1) Making people more skeptical of the police as a whole (or at least your department). You see a lot of that here since a lot of our encounters have been less than desirable.
    2) Bad odds of the person showing an ID, potentially making your effort pointless.
    3) A hit on your reputation. I make sure to go as public as possible with bad actors. I encourage others to do the same.
    4) A complaint lodged with IA in your record. (Yeah, we realize nothing will likely come of it. IA complaints rarely find anything against police in these cases)
    5) A possible civil suit. This is the kind of thing 1983 federal civil rights deprivation lawsuits were meant for.
    6) Possible criminal charges. The FBI does investigate these things and sometimes does the right thing. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investig.../color_of_law/

    From a risk/benefit aspect, I think one is superior to the other. Especially since we all know that a permit means nothing, nor do any answers to any questions we might give you. There is nothing specifically to stop a sociopath or psychopath from possessing a firearm, possessing a permit, talking sweet to any LEO, etc. And detaining them and letting them go after shaking them down for their permit does not guarantee anything with regards to whether or not they will walk away from your detainment and go commit some heinous act. That is just the nature of the reality we live in.
    Last edited by Rich B; 08-03-2012 at 08:38 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid View Post
    You're asking me to judge someone by their appearance and make assumptions. So a clean cut guy in the suburbs OCing with a holstered gun is OK, but a thug-looking guy in the inner city OCing by tucking a unholstered gun in his waist band is not OK. That's profiling, which i'm not supposed to do. Would it be unreasonable to demand a permit from the thug looking guy?
    No, quite the opposite. I am telling you that your job is to assume everyone is innocent unless presented with some kind of evidence to the contrary.

    I don't want you hassling ANYONE because they have a firearm.



    Like I said, it makes zero difference if the guy is a gang banger or not. If you don't have evidence that he is in the commission of a crime, about to commit a crime or has already committed a crime, I expect for him to be left alone. Does that make a LEO's job more difficult? Absolutely.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  13. #13
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid View Post
    I realize that "unconsentually" stopping someone to talk is considered a seizure. It just seems like a reasonable one to me.
    That has no bearing on the law. Terry v. Ohio and Hiibel is pretty clear that you need RAS to detain someone.

    Under the law, there is very little differentiation between you taking my ID from my pocket by force or by demanding my ID under threat of arrest (duress).
    Last edited by Rich B; 08-03-2012 at 08:46 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    This is an example of an officer being denied the ability to check my permit: http://withregardstorights.com/post/...nin-to-do.aspx

    Nothing ever came of that issue, the officer wasn't exactly polite, but he never tried to detain me, he only requested and did nothing when he was denied.

    I couldn't really complain my rights were violated, but it was an unnecessary and rude encounter. The officer would have gotten more information from me with a simple question: "Do you have a permit for your unconcealed firearm?". Instead, because he was rude, he got nothing. I would much rather have a friendly conversation with an officer, but rude demands don't get that started very well.

    Just some food for thought.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    By the way, Wikipedia has good articles on both the Terry case and the Hiibel case if you are interested. A little quicker reading than the actual full decisions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_...ourt_of_Nevada

    From Terry:

    What is reasonable?
    The Court assessed the reasonableness of the police activity here by comparing it to activity that would ordinarily require a warrant. “... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.” In a situation where the police obtained a warrant, they would have brought these facts and inferences to the attention of a judicial officer before embarking on the actions in question. Post hoc judicial review of police activity is equally facilitated by these facts and inferences.
    The Court also emphasized that the standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate. Moreover,
    And simple " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." — quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)
    The reasonableness inquiry takes into account the "nature and extent of the governmental interests involved", including the general interest in crime prevention, the officer's specific concern for his own safety, the citizen's interest in his own privacy and dignity, and the extent to which the particular search in question intruded upon those interests. "Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime."
    Even searches that start out as reasonable may "violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of their intolerable intensity and scope." Thus, the scope of the search must be justified by the circumstances that led the police to undertake it in the first place.
    Last edited by Rich B; 08-03-2012 at 09:01 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  16. #16
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    This is always a debatable issue it seems.

    I'm going to side with the law here. If LEO cannot stop a motorist simply to determine they have a DL then they should not be permitted to stop an OCer (or CCer for that matter) simply to determine if they have their permit.

    The burden of RAS is still on the LEO.

    I'm really glad I'm not a cop TBH. Its one of the most difficult jobs in America and my hat's off to those who serve with honor and integrity.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Here is my standard answer: Why, do you suspect that I have committed a crime? If the answer is no (or anything other than yes), then say "I don't have time to speak with you, goodbye", turn around and walk away. If he stops you then you are being detained unlawfully.

    If you sit there and start arguing or talking further to the cop to "educate" him, then the contact will continue as consensual.

    Policemen only have powers granted to them by the legislature; the legislature in CT has not granted them the authority to stop & ID or stop & check out your permit.

    I don't sit there and talk with a policeman ... nothing to be gained only to lose.
    And this goes with any police contact; traffic stops, casual stops, requests for information regarding a crime that was committed by someone else, other investigations. The law has made it impossible and unwise to talk to the police without putting your own liberty in jeopardy. And remember: anything a cop tells you can be a lie so just assume they are lying to you at all times.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I could be wrong regarding CT law, but in Missouri every food vendor whether it be on a street corner or a full service restaurant is required, as a condition of being issued their license, to conspicuously display their license to serve food to the general public.

    A drivers license and carry permit are exactly the same, one gives permission to drive on public roads, the other gives permission to carry a firearm for self defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid View Post
    <snip> Of course I wouldn't care if I saw said OCer in the suburbs riding bikes with his kids. But again, you're coming from the view point of a law abiding citizen who is OCing while grocery shopping or buying gas. Many "citizens" in the inner city carry guns to settle disputes or take out rivals. Just because at the moment I see them walking down the street doesn't mean that two minutes after I turn the corner, they shoot up someones house. And honestly I'm not making that up, because I have personally heard the gunshots ring out when I'm 3 blocks away from where I just drove through.
    It seems like your 'beat' would lend itself to law abiding citizens needing to OC. But, if they do you presuppose their ill intent and act according to your experiences of dealing with law breakers. Your experiences have jaded your view of the citizenry and so all citizens are law breakers based on their attire and location. That is profiling. Unfortunate, guilty until proven innocent.

    You're asking me to judge someone by their appearance and make assumptions. So a clean cut guy in the suburbs OCing with a holstered gun is OK, but a thug-looking guy in the inner city OCing by tucking a upholstered gun in his waist band is not OK. That's profiling, which I'm not supposed to do. Would it be unreasonable to demand a permit from the thug looking guy?
    Who OCs by shoving their gat in their waist band. Most folks consider that CC.

    I appreciate every day what LEOs do. I don't have the temperament and sense of humor to be nice to idiots, unlike the vast majority of LEOs, which makes me uniquely unqualified to be a LEO....20 years in the military is to blame.

    But, regardless of dress or location, a properly holstered firearm is not a reason to make contact (I do believe there is case law to support my contention) with a law abiding citizen. And yes, that citizen is law abiding until they do something that is not law abiding whether you like that concept or not.

    Many thanks for your service, stay safe.
    "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

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Expat View Post

    I'm really glad I'm not a cop TBH. Its one of the most difficult jobs in America and my hat's off to those who serve with honor and integrity.
    "Most difficult job"? Its a pretty nice job. I could list many many jobs that are harder. You have been brainwashed my friend. Not saying that they are lazy ... just that there are harder jobs.

    And "honor and integrity" - I would say most people perform their job duties in such a manner, so that means nothing special.

    Police departments are just one big tax machine .. we have to many policemen and they get paid way to much IMO. People watch to many movies.

    If the job was hard, the voluntary resignation rate for the job would be high ... I don't see this.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    It is illegal to drive a car on public highways without having in one's immediate possession a valid license.
    Can you pull over just anyone you see driving to make sure they are properly licensed? Why not, isn't it the very same principle?
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid View Post
    As i told the other above poster, i realize using m/v was a bad example. Please see above regarding the hotdog stand example....
    I still feel that it's an irrelevant example -
    a) Hot dog vendor's offerings, if not properly prepared, can make consumers ill or possibly kill buyers.
    b) Hot dog vendor is engaged in a business.
    A lawfully armed citizen is neither engaged in business with the public nor offering to the public any wares.

    Honestly, I think you'd be better off using a marriage license as an example.
    People are required to have those still, right? Who has the authority to demand to see one of those?

    Now, as most of us know, the open carry of handguns doesn't require a license in the great majority of states. That being the case, what is Officer Friendly even going to ask for?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-03-2012 at 10:25 AM.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post

    A drivers license and carry permit are exactly the same, one gives permission to drive on public roads, the other gives permission to carry a firearm for self defense.
    Food vendors are required by law to show their license. So its different as they are engaged in commerce.

    And I don't think I need "permission" to take measures for my own self protection nor to travel on public roads.

    On the issue of requiring to show your permit to carry; in CT, they don't have the authority to just ask for no reason. Maybe your state is different.

    Everybody in this country is covered under our constitution. White people, black people, people who have not committed crimes, people who have committed crimes. We have the right to free movement, are free to assemble, etc and unless a policeman can articulate a reason to stop you then we are free to decline any contact an go along our merry way. It is a very basic core right of our freedoms. Once exceptions are made to this then we are no longer free. First its because you are carrying a gun; then its because the color of your skin; then its simply because you are on this sidewalk; then its simply because you are breathing.

  22. #22
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid
    I've seen a couple posts here regarding the belief that LEOs cannot legally demand an OCer to show their permit.
    It depends on the state law.

    In the Wethersfield PD memo regarding OC, it says at the bottom that officers can require one show their permit if OCing. I spent a few hours searching the net for case law that supports or denies such a requirement, but i couldn't come up with anything.
    Good for you! Have you tried asking the city attorney for the citations? Surely s/he was the one giving the legal conclusions upon which that memo is based.

    the law says that someone may carry as long as they have a permit, so how is a LEO supposed to be able to determine if they are in compliance with that law without asking for a permit?
    Do you have evidence that they don't have a permit?

    From what I gather from the forum the understanding is that LEO cannot demand a permit, and if such demand is not complied with, LEOs have no grounds to arrest for interfering.
    "Interfering"? Would that be like obstructing?
    Here in WI we have a Supreme Court ruling (1995) that says:
    "No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.
    Henes v. Morrissey"

    I think you'd have to prove that your initial demand for ID was lawful, was part of an investigation of a crime, in order for someone remaining silent (not showing ID) to somehow be obstruction.

    The problem is, if LEOs are not allowed to require proof of permit, LEOs are forced to assumethat someone open carrying is permitted.
    Even the FBI says that criminals don't carry openly & rarely use holsters.
    [Here's PDFs of the study... IIRC the "criminals don't OC" conclusion is in ch 4.]
    So it's probably safe to assume that the person you see carrying openly is not a criminal.
    Now, if there are other indications that you have come to know are generally associated with criminal activity, those give you RAS to check the person out, esp. since they might have a probation condition saying they're not allowed to possess firearms.


    hypothetically speaking, lets say that the gang members in the city catch wind of the open carry law, and that LEOs can't ask to see a permit. So they start open carrying their illegal stolen guns, and we as LEOs are just supposed to ignore it and assume they have a permit? That's the part I can't wrap my brain around.
    It gets a bit harder, but you can still articulate your reasonable suspicion that a person has/is/will commit a crime. Do they show colors? Do they sag their pants? Are they in a known high-crime neighborhood? If they're not using a holster, that could be a marker. (It's certainly a safety concern!)

    you are forcing LEOs to size up a person OCing by looking at the way they are dressed, how they walk/carry themselves, how their hair is cut, and what they are driving, and make a snap judgement of either A) law abiding citizen, or B) potentially dangerous person.
    Which is what you do with everyone you meet.
    Or should be.

    Also, is anyone aware of any documentation/case law that specifically addresses whether or not a LEO can demand a permit?
    Is anyone aware of documentation specifying that a LEO cannot require/demand proof of permit?
    “The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    Miller v. U.S.

    “Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment.”
    Delaware v. Prouse (1979)
    [So stopping someone for doing another activity which requires a license, if it does in your jurisdiction, would similarly be illegal.]

    “The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances.”
    WI v. Kiekhefer (1997)

    “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 (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 (1993)

    I support the 2nd Amd and open carry for permittees.
    It's a start. It'd be nice if you left off that last part, about rights only being for people with gov't permission... because then they're not rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid
    I do think that if they knew they could OC freely and not get challenged by LEOs, they would OC, partly because it would alleviate the "suspicious behavior" one unconsciously exhibits when one is concealing an illegal gun and is afraid of being caught. I think it would be a sense of freedom for them.
    I think they'd have to change a bleep of a lot more in order not to be suspicious.
    Dress, mannerisms, where they hang out...

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth
    I don't sit there and talk with a policeman ... nothing to be gained only to lose.
    If I know the person & we're just having coffee, that's one thing. But if it's someone trying to use his job-given powers to make my life difficult, no.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid View Post
    I


    And before anyone slays me on a personal level, please rememeber that I support the 2nd Amd and open carry for permittees. However, I wouldn't be a very good cop if I didn't have an interest in protecting the public from gun-toting thugs who collectively commit numerous homicides every year in CT.
    But you can only perform your job activities as the legislature has determined. The law is that you have no authority to demand a permit to be presented if that's all you observe. Detaining someone for just a refusal now puts you in the position of breaking the law. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So use judgement when you want to detain someone ... the probability of you getting sued is much higher for people who carry v. general population in respect to unlawful detainment. So you should welcome being "slayed" here rather in court. You posted the thread looking for information ... hopefully you have more information than you had before regarding your desire or need to make an informed decision when you will ask someone for their permit.

    Better to ask ! I have avoided misinterpretations of statues by posting here as well. Some amount of flaming is inevitable ... it is the internet, right?
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-03-2012 at 12:25 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    This is a good thread with great information and views.

    I do believe the only permit that should be required for OC in all states should be the Constitution, more specific the 2A. That being said we need to get you state changed as it is a right and shouldn't require a license to do something covered under the Consitution.

    Do you have to get a permit or license to use your 1A rights?

    Do you have to get a permit or licnese to us your 4A rights or can the cops just search you if you are not a pemit holder?

    Do you have to get a permit or license to remain silent under 5A or can the goverment/LE require you to answer any question if you don't have a license?


    I could go on but the idea is the same, why is it only the 2A that requires anything special in any state?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyykid View Post
    One would assume you're right. When I was in college for criminal justice, the teacher told us that during one semester he actually had a "high-ranking" member of a gang enrolled in criminal and constitutional law classes. The student told him flat out he was taking the classes to learn how to beat the cops at the law. So the possibility exists that persons who would carry a firearm with ill-intent would learn of the law, and OC freely knowing an officer could not challenge him on the gun.
    It's been reported that street gangs recruited youngsters and made them live straight and low-profile, so they could join the military and learn valuable skills about weapons, explosives, and tactics. Being low profile means staying low profile; the clean carrier can't engage in criminal activity, or they would quickly be a prohibited person.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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