What do you think the outcome of this will be?

Not enough details...way too mich information missing to pass judgment here. Was the restaurant posted? Did the officer ask the man to leave? Was restaurant management involved seeing as how it was private property? If gun were not allowed why did the officer tell him he might need to cover up?

thebigsd said:

Not enough details...way too mich information missing to pass judgment here. Was the restaurant posted? Did the officer ask the man to leave? Was restaurant management involved seeing as how it was private property? If gun were not allowed why did the officer tell him he might need to cover up?

Click to expand...

Signage does not carry the weight of law in Kentucky.

Nerfplz said:

Signage does not carry the weight of law in Kentucky.

Click to expand...

Regardless, I am curious.

Who knows but I'm interested to find out. The LEO told him to cover it up...what if the guy didn't have a CCDW? Entrapment??? I don't see how the LEO had the authority to enforce a store rule about no guns. But this guy did screw up on a few things IMHO. First, he needs to learn to ask that very important question when confronted with this type of situation "am I being detained or am I free to go?"

You can assert your rights but yelling at the LEO will only help them make a DC charge stick. Plus arguing with LEO is about like arguing with a woman...their mind is made up and you're not going to change that. I'm glad the guy didn't just curl up and give in, but he probably could have handled the situation a little better. And by the sound of it his family probably really didn't help. The story quoted him as saying "I don't have to" to the LEO. He failed the attitude test.

As the old saying goes "if it felt good to say you probably shouldn't have said it." Do I agree with the arrest, No. Do I feel if the OC'er had done a few things different that he may have walked away? Maybe.. Do I feel a civil suit coming on? Hope so :lol:

I agree that to much information is missing to make a full judgement, but just reading the article (take it for what it's worth) the guy probably didn't ask the right questions or say the right things. And if the manager did ask him to leave but he refused I believe he would have also been charged with trespassing but as far as we know he was not. That leads me to believe that this was a LEO vs. OC'er situation.

I am also curious as to why the LEO told him to cover it if no guns were allowed period. Maybe the LEO doesn't know that when you conceal it that it's still there.

Nerfplz said:

http://www.wdrb.com/story/19319955/man-arrested-at-louisville-arbys-after-refusing-to-hide-firearm

Click to expand...

From what is written, that being kind of sketchy...IMHO the charges will be dropped. What happens beyond that will be interesting indeed. Sounds like he had mom for backup. Did he handle it well? No, did the officer handle it well? no. The police officer appeared to be acting on his own, not as a representitive of the restaraunt, in which case he was totally out of line.

As far as I know, Arbey's is a "state law" place of business...I think the interviewed Arbey's employee does not/did not/know what they were talking about. Concealed only? Never heard of that...no carry?...yes, state law? yes, but never concealed only.

It appears the officer informed him it was store policy that unconcealed handguns were not allowed. Presuming that management had conveyed that information to the officer it suggests he might have been committing trespass. While signs may not carry legal weight actual notice appears to have been given.

If the guy did not have a CCDW then he should have informed the officer, who would then need to revise his instruction from "cover it up" to some other action.

Mommy and aunt did him no good by getting into their own argument with the LEO - and they need to go buy a lottery ticket because their luck seemed to be the only thing standing between them and being arrested for obstruction/interfering.

What I'm still trying to get an understanding of is why the ANG dood became involved in subduing our OC hero - if his assistance was not specifically ordered by the LEO then he at least technically committed assault & battery, kidnapping, probably impersonation of a police officer, and at least one federal count of deprivation of civil rights.

(Why do I bring this up. you ask? Because unless Ossifer Friendly specifically orders you to assist in an arrest he is attempting to effect you do not receive the protections that might be available under citizen's arrest laws. Ossifer Friendly could charge you with obstruction/interference - and most likely would if your unsolicited help resulted in either the BG getting away or Ossifer Friendly getting hurt. Restraining someone's freedom by force without authority of law is one of the elements of kidnapping. Being in the ANG, even if you are an ANG MP, does not give you any authority to act and if you were acting as a member of the ANG you were violating the Possee Commitatus Act.)

stay safe.

I have read a few of these instances where LEOs have taken it upon themselves to tell an OCer "cover that up" without any initial request from the owner of the business. If this is the case isn't it an unlawful order?

Some of the comments on that page are making me cringe.

Couldn't he sue the Army National Guard member who "assisted with his arrest"?

MainelyGlock said:

Some of the comments on that page are making me cringe.

Couldn't he sue the Army National Guard member who "assisted with his arrest"?

Click to expand...

If you think the comments on the page are cringe worthy read the Facebook comments on the story. Here is the link https://www.facebook.com/WDRBNews/posts/252422204879290

I believe the charges will be dropped, and he will have a great federal suit to deal with if he has the funds. The gentleman from the National Guard was conducting himself as an employee of the government (not some guy willing to help), and would be violating the Possee Commitatus Act. If the man was not asked by the LEO for assistance then he can be criminally charged and sued in civil court. If the OC'er was not asked by management to leave the resteraunt then the OC'er will also have a claim against the officer and the department who employed such an idiot. It is obvious the officer had no idea what he was talking about, because state law states how someone must be informed by management that they are not welcome to be charged with CT. The fact that they charged him with menacing and official misconduct is a joke, and will not hold water at all. It seems from the story the officer was demanding him cover his firearm just because he noticed it exposed. This will be a winner for the man carrying, becaue we have court precedent in KY that states no one can question our right to openly carry a firearm. This man was harassed because he was exercising a right and that is all there is to it.

Nerfplz said:

If you think the comments on the page are cringe worthy read the Facebook comments on the story. Here is the link https://www.facebook.com/WDRBNews/posts/252422204879290

Click to expand...

"I'd rather carry my gun, a cop is too heavy!"

Hahahaha. Couldn't get much further than that without suffering an aneurysm.

Wow the comments on the article are horrible. These people have no idea what it means to be arrested for not violating the law! They seem to think the officer's actions were justified because the man was "causing a scene." The man was not causing a scene, the officer made the problem! I have left numerous comments as Defytyranny85, and I would appreciate some help! One guy said he believed open carry was great, but that he felt the officer was doing what was necessary to prevent the situation! When did it become OK for us to be arrested for doing nothing wrong?

KYGlockster said:

Wow the comments on the article are horrible. These people have no idea what it means to be arrested for not violating the law! They seem to think the officer's actions were justified because the man was "causing a scene." The man was not causing a scene, the officer made the problem! I have left numerous comments as Defytyranny85, and I would appreciate some help! One guy said he believed open carry was great, but that he felt the officer was doing what was necessary to prevent the situation! When did it become OK for us to be arrested for doing nothing wrong?

Click to expand...

I have read all your comments and could not have said it better myself.

---

Nerfplz said:

I have read all your comments and could not have said it better myself.

Click to expand...

Thank you. It really gets under my skin when people act so ignorant of our civil liberties and rights. If it was any one of the people making the ignorant comments that was in the same situation (even for a different reason) they would understand then! These people need to be educated, and hopefully by placing links to the statutes and such we can get the truth out! This was a GROSS violation of the man's rights.

KYGlockster said:

---

Thank you. It really gets under my skin when people act so ignorant of our civil liberties and rights. If it was any one of the people making the ignorant comments that was in the same situation (even for a different reason) they would understand then! These people need to be educated, and hopefully by placing links to the statutes and such we can get the truth out! This was a GROSS violation of the man's rights.

Click to expand...

What upsets me most is that no one has even asked why the confrontation occurred in the first place. If the incident was inside of an Arby's and was initiated by them it would follow with a charge of criminal trespass. I am also very bothered by soldiers assisting in peacetime arrests.

I wonder if he's a member here, but I doubt it since he hasn't posted about it.

Nerfplz said:

What upsets me most is that no one has even asked why the confrontation occurred in the first place. If the incident was inside of an Arby's and was initiated by them it would follow with a charge of criminal trespass. I am also very bothered by soldiers assisting in peacetime arrests.

Click to expand...

Absolutely right. It is rather sad how many people don't understand why this is such a big deal. I suppose as long as the TV works and their favorite show is on nothing else matters!

http://www.wdrb.com/story/19319955/man-arrested-at-louisville-arbys-after-refusing-to-hide-firearm

"Helms was arrested and charged with menacing and disorderly conduct." Not for open carry.
"Unconcealed firearms are not allowed inside the restaurant, according to an employee of the Arby's." An Arby's employee is such a good source of info. Open carry is 100% legal in KY, that officer need to be schooled, and his dept should get sued by the guy. His Aunt, and mother I think made it worse. Also if the guy did not have a concealed permit, the cop was breaking the law telling him to cover up. The customers were not alarmed till the cop went into stupid mode.