Video: Cop's expert open carry response goes viral

Saw this tidbit in the comments..

AND what about the FACT that all who practice OC [ except the LEO's ] do not practice weapon retention.

Click to expand...

I do, and I'm positive other OC'ers do.. Also being proactive in being more aware of their surroundings.

Why would a LEO assume that ONLY other LEOs practice weapon retention? Closed minded?

VW_Factor said:

Saw this tidbit in the comments..



I do, and I'm positive other OC'ers do.. Also being proactive in being more aware of their surroundings.

Why would a LEO assume that ONLY other LEOs practice weapon retention? Closed minded?

Click to expand...

They think they are the only true gun owners. Therein is their ignorance. They need to get off their self made pedestals
before they are knocked off by reality. They sem to think they are the ultimate judge, jury and executioner.

+1
Sometimes, the only way you can convince people to do something, is to convince them that they are special and the only one's capable of doing that job.

How one mistakes a .22 long rifle carbine with a fake suppressor with a 9mm SMG is beyond me. I could tell as soon as it came into view on a fuzzy video. Officer Nork couldn't back down from his "Authoritah" and admit he was looking at a sub-$500 .22 and not a +$10,000 SMG. <sniggersnort>

Not perfect...

He still didn't do this right. He shouldn't have contacted the person, at the most he could have done a drive-by to make sure the weapon wasn't in-hand and being pointed at people and so on. Still, his response was much better than most I've seen, and I pray that when I have my first contact with Spokane police it goes this smoothly.

What gets me is all the comments of how we are nuts with a "Everyone look at me! Look how tough I am!" attitude. It's hard to tell if they are trying to be ignorant to the truth or are just stupid.

A reasonable person would not know the difference between a 9mm MP5 and its .22LR knockoff.

There are two sides to that.

A fully automatic MP5 is per se unlawful unless tax has been paid on it, under not only federal law, but STATE law.

The problem comes in when they ASK for the tax stamp/paperwork, which you're not required (and are instructed NOT to) give out, as they're private TAX documents. It would be akin to an officer demanding to see your 1040.....

So..

A reasonable person wouldn't know if it was full/semi, and the officer determined that it was semi, and that was the end of it.

I think the officer handled it perfectly, and left those numbnuts looking to start ****, with their jaws on the floor.


Now, the same could be said about an AR15....... Or a Glock 17/22 (Glock 18 facsimile)

Since full auto weapons are lawful in Oregon where was the RAS to even stop the guy. The guy clearly states he does not consent the Cop clearly states he needs to check to see if the weapon is full auto. Unlawful detention IMHO unless there is an Oregon law that says they can inspect full auto weapons when seen on the street.

TechnoWeenie said:

"...I think the officer handled it perfectly, and left those numbnuts looking to start ****, with their jaws on the floor..."
"...Now, the same could be said about an AR15....... Or a Glock 17/22 (Glock 18 facsimile)..."

Click to expand...

Forgive me if I've snipped too much or taken you out of context, please.

True, the officer did politely cut them off, but did he accomplish anything?
Did he take an unlawful weapon off the street?
Did he take a criminal to jail?
Did he issue a citation for illegal behavior?
Did he prevent the citizens from further pursuing their lawful activity?
Did he make any change in their future activities?

The two citizens got exactly what they wanted, a wasted response.
Tomorrow they'll do the same thing again but the conversation will probably go like, "Okay, now This time, you carry the gun and I'll make the phone call." When they do that enough times, the officers and departments will get tired of playing the game and stop responding to hysterical complaints about non-illegal behavior.

Regarding the AR16 and Glock-22.
ANY semi-automatic firearm can be made to fire full-auto, given the right mechanical modifications. Heck, the Colt Model 1895 "potato digger' machinegun came about because someone figured out how to make a fully automatic lever action rifle.
Given the superficial resemblance, the officer is arguing that law enforcement has a responsibility to stop anyone carrying an AR15, AK-Clone, AR-180, HK-91/93, FN FAL, or any of a dozen other rifles that are based off of military designs. Even a lowly Ruger Mini-14 isn't safe as it could be a AC-556.
The standard isn't that something "could possibly be" the standard is that "this particular item is" and that standard didn't exist.


Cops aren't stopping everyone walking out of Home Despot with yellow 6-volt lanterns, yet two were used as IED's earlier this year in Arizona.
Cops aren't seizing every AR15 being sold at WalMart to check if they're fully automatic M4's instead.

redboneshadow said:

They need to get off their self made pedestals

Click to expand...

Careful now. More than just "Cops" have self made pedestals.

Maybe even a few here on this Forum.

I was at a neighbors property yesterday, and a Lewis County Sheriff came by to do a follow-up. I was OC as usual, and he didn't make a single comment, sideways look, or impart an opinion either way. Now, that was a true professional.

Orphan said:

Since full auto weapons are lawful in Oregon where was the RAS to even stop the guy. The guy clearly states he does not consent the Cop clearly states he needs to check to see if the weapon is full auto. Unlawful detention IMHO unless there is an Oregon law that says they can inspect full auto weapons when seen on the street.

Click to expand...

166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]

this is what we should be looking at law wise.

Fallschirmjäger said:

The two citizens got exactly what they wanted, a wasted response.
Tomorrow they'll do the same thing again but the conversation will probably go like, "Okay, now This time, you carry the gun and I'll make the phone call." When they do that enough times, the officers and departments will get tired of playing the game and stop responding to hysterical complaints about non-illegal behavior.

Click to expand...

And is that a bad thing? Training police agencies to investigate whether a crime has been committed before making an arrest, and becoming aware that not all MWAG calls are about crimes is a good thing, right?

VW_Factor said:

166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]

this is what we should be looking at law wise.

Click to expand...

The more extreme members of the forum would disagree with you, probably insisting that doing so would presume guilt and violate due process. I personally don't think such a law would be constitutional (Washington state or federal), since the state constitution doesn't specify what an "arms" is, and the federal mentions militia who would be fairly useless without military-grade weapons.

But a law phrased in such a way to allow an officer to check to see if a crime is being committed before taking stronger action is a good, common sense compromise to the laws we do have, leaving aside constitutionality.

Difdi said:

And is that a bad thing? Training police agencies to investigate whether a crime has been committed before making an arrest, and becoming aware that not all MWAG calls are about crimes is a good thing, right?



The more extreme members of the forum would disagree with you, probably insisting that doing so would presume guilt and violate due process. I personally don't think such a law would be constitutional (Washington state or federal), since the state constitution doesn't specify what an "arms" is, and the federal mentions militia who would be fairly useless without military-grade weapons.

But a law phrased in such a way to allow an officer to check to see if a crime is being committed before taking stronger action is a good, common sense compromise to the laws we do have, leaving aside constitutionality.

Click to expand...

My understanding was always that the first part of the second amendment "A well-regulated militia, being nessecary to the security of a free state"

See I always thought the term "well regulated militia" was applied in the sense that a free state needs to keep a state militia (which today would be the national guard) and maintaining a military force of some sort was nessecary for the security of the country. The second part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" states that the citizenry shall have the right to bear arms to preserve liberty in the event that standing army or "militia" was acting unconstitutionally. At least I've heard it explained once that way before.

So first part applies to military and government forces, the second part of the 2A applies so that if the military becomes an arm of an unconstitutional government there would be some means to resists was the original intent of the 2A.

If I'm not mistaken, the National Firearms Law also prohibits the possession of explosives as destructive devices.
Does that give a law enforcement officer the authority to stop and investigate everyone carrying one of these-

because it looks EXACTLY like one the 6-volt lanterns used in the Arizona bombings in May of this year?



Does it give an officer who spots this a child with a chunk of modeling clay in his hands the authority to stop and investigate whether or not it's really a block of explosives?


What if the officer spots one of these at a second-hand store?

He can't "function test" it without pulling the pin, so does that mean he should confiscate any and all of them he comes across just in case it's really one of these in disguise?

To the eye, the only difference between that and one of these is the paint....



I think most people would agree that those pictures are a lot more similar to each other than

is to

Fallschirmjäger said:

If I'm not mistaken, the National Firearms Law also prohibits the possession of explosives as destructive devices.
Does that give a law enforcement officer the authority to stop and investigate everyone carrying one of these-

because it looks EXACTLY like one the 6-volt lanterns used in the Arizona bombings in May of this year?



Does it give an officer who spots this a child with a chunk of modeling clay in his hands the authority to stop and investigate whether or not it's really a block of explosives?

What if the officer spots one of these at a second-hand store?

He can't "function test" it without pulling the pin, so does that mean he should confiscate any and all of them he comes across just in case it's really one of these in disguise?

To the eye, the only difference between that and one of these is the paint....

I think most people would agree that those pictures are a lot more similar to each other than

is to

Click to expand...

Example #1, no it wouldn't, becuase it's not illegal to carry a spotlight around, however it is illegal to carry a full auto mp-5 around in Oregon without proper paperwork which must be presented to the officer or the court if it is full auto.

Example #2, if you "open carry" your detonator along with detonation device next to your "modeling clay" then I would say that reaches above RAS to Probable cause to conduct a felony stop and prone ya out. however, if you do get your hands on c-4 you'd find it quite useless because it needs a certain voltage and tempurature administered into the explosive to detonate it, C4 cannot be detonated by gunshot, fire, or shock so therefore even if you did possess C4 it's unlikely you could use it without strictly controlled devices to go with it.

Example #3 if you take your complaint dept hand grenade off of it's stand and are carrying on a belt, I'm certain that would be RAS to confiscate and place you under arrest until its status as a dud can be confirmed.

Seems to me if you want to stop every body out there because any semi could be a full and unless I check it out how would I know.

Most of all ARs look like their full auto counter part untill one looks at the selector. All M1as look like a M14, M1 carbines look like M2 carbines.

Full autos are legal with proper paper work unless the LEO has PC that the guy doesn't have it I see no reason for the stop

The LEO needs more training in how to reconize a semi from a full. It s very hard to do unless one handles them even then unless one opens them up to look that the inner parts one might no be able to tell. then with out test fireing it could be hard.

No it looks bad is just an excuse to make the stop.

Granted he was fairly nice on the stop but then he was skateing on thin ice.

EMNofSeattle said:

Example #1,
...
Example #2,
...
Example #3

Click to expand...

Pardon, but I couldn't help but notice that you had to change each and every one of the scenarios in order to answer. That's kinda frowned upon in debates.
The ONLY thing the guy in the video was doing was 'carrying', and in each of the scenarios I postulated it was for merely 'carrying.'

ok, so merely carrying

does carrying a spotlight give police authority to stop you? probably not

does carrying a block of modeling clay give police authority to stop you? not by itself, and plastic explosives practically are modeling clay without detonators anyway

does carrying a dummy grenade give police authority to stop you?

no question in my mind and you'll probably recieve a massive response and ordered on the ground with shotguns and patrol rifles too, and if you're unlucky enough that none of the officer know what a "real grenade" is supposed to feel like or function like you're getting locked up until they can find someone who knows how to tell without pulling the pin. and even then you may face charges.

Does carrying a full auto look alike give police authority to stop someone? well we've already argued that one to death on another thread. you obviously think not, but your examples aren't nessecarily a straight comparison

EMNofSeattle said:

My understanding was always that the first part of the second amendment "A well-regulated militia, being nessecary to the security of a free state"

See I always thought the term "well regulated militia" was applied in the sense that a free state needs to keep a state militia (which today would be the national guard) and maintaining a military force of some sort was nessecary for the security of the country. The second part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" states that the citizenry shall have the right to bear arms to preserve liberty in the event that standing army or "militia" was acting unconstitutionally. At least I've heard it explained once that way before.

So first part applies to military and government forces, the second part of the 2A applies so that if the military becomes an arm of an unconstitutional government there would be some means to resists was the original intent of the 2A.

Click to expand...

Militia simply means the arm bearing public.

There is no first and second part of the 2A it is one statement meant that we the people are meant to keep and bear arms.