• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Video: Cop's expert open carry response goes viral

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

Funny that people like to label others as extreme for holding the same viewpoints as the founders.

Yes our freedom and liberties are constantly being eroded away with this type of thinking.

I will not sacrifice liberty for safety. I am not a sheep that needs a sheep dog to watch after me, and make sure I am doing everything the almighty state requires.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.

Correct, in the 18th Century the term militia meant 'the whole body of the public, capable bearing arms' which in practical terms of the time mean white, property owning men ages 16-45. Well-regulated meant in 18th Century terms that those men were responsible for training themselves, having powder, and ball themselves.
 

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
The cop screwed up by the numbers and they are praising him for doing so. lets go through this one step at a time.

1.in order to make a lawful terry stop an officer has to have RAS that a crime is being commited or about to be commited, in this case he would have to have some understanding that the person in question was
A.actually carrying an automatic weapon
b.was not in possession of paperwork that legally allowed him to carry said weapon.

Since he has no way of knowing either of these things he is absent RAS to make a stop, infact at most he could drive by and see if there was a crime taking place.

This is further expanded upon due to the case of deberry VS US that specifices LEOs cannot stop someone for peacable open carry of a firearm where it is legal to do so as grounds for instituting a terry stop. this is a violation of the 4th ammendmant as such the officer in this video made an illegal detention, an illegal search and seizure of private property.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Funny that people like to label others as extreme for holding the same viewpoints as the founders.

Yes our freedom and liberties are constantly being eroded away with this type of thinking.

I will not sacrifice liberty for safety. I am not a sheep that needs a sheep dog to watch after me, and make sure I am doing everything the almighty state requires.

Plus a gazillion.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
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.

Yes, but being lucky enough to live in Lewis County, we just don't have that problem with LEOs, anywhere I've been in the county...had a few bizarre looks from tourists out in the east county area sometimes, but LEOs, never.
 

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
Correct, in the 18th Century the term militia meant 'the whole body of the public, capable bearing arms' which in practical terms of the time mean white, property owning men ages 16-45. Well-regulated meant in 18th Century terms that those men were responsible for training themselves, having powder, and ball themselves.

Current federal law says the militia is "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States"...same as the old days.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Funny that people like to label others as extreme for holding the same viewpoints as the founders.

Well, to be fair they did have extreme views.

In fact, they were revolutionaries. They committed armed rebellion against their lawful government.

Extreme. :)
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Funny that people like to label others as extreme for holding the same viewpoints as the founders.

Yes our freedom and liberties are constantly being eroded away with this type of thinking.

I will not sacrifice liberty for safety. I am not a sheep that needs a sheep dog to watch after me, and make sure I am doing everything the almighty state requires.

I dunno, the "founders" were diverse political group, remember those "founders" put down a popular rebelion, imprisoned former continental army vets in debtors prisons, established a central bank, passed sedition laws to arrest critics of the government, kept an entire racial minority enslaved, so to recap, we have Washington and Hamilton, who established a central bank, forced states to subisidize each others war debts, established a whiskey tax and use the military to put down an uprising against said tax. Adams passed the alien and sedition acts, Thomas Jefferson was an unapologetic slave owners, who also got passed anti-european embargoes that limited who citizens could do business with and wrecked the young U.S. economy. Madison established a professional military. I can't nessecarily say with certainty that all of the founding fathers would be on your side. and they were far from perfect
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
After watching the video, reading the relevant Oregon Revised Statutes and then watching the video again, I believe that the officer had RAS for the detention and subsequent investigation to see if a law was being broken. It was reasonable for him to suspect that the weapon might be automatic and to then pursue the questioning he did.

Oregon law states that the possession of an automatic weapon is unlawful. The law then goes on to state that the possession of the appropriate federal registration is an affirmative defense to culpability for that possession. The exonerating statutory language does not contain words such as "does not apply," thereby stating that the statute is inapplicable in the circumstance where the federal paperwork is available to the weapon carrier (such as RCW 9.41.270(3) provides when a carrier is in his place of abode or fixed place of business or in the defense of self or others). The Oregon statute says that the possession is unlawful by the mere possession and that possession of the appropriate federal paperwork is an affirmative defense to that culpability (the possessor cannot be convicted of the crime). This is a subtle, but crucial distinction.

The responding officer concluded that no law was being broken and, as such, terminated the detention. He didn't demand ID (although, I believe that he lawfully could have done so). He didn't overstep his authority by demanding the appropriate federal paperwork prior to determining if the weapon was automatic or not.

I think that, given the circumstances and his conduct, the officer did exactly what the law allows him to do in order to properly perform his duties without violating the rights of the carrier. I do not agree with those who believe that his responsibilities were limited to a less intrusive contact.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"... It was reasonable for him to suspect that the weapon might be automatic and to then pursue the questioning he did. .."
It's not what something might be, it's suspicion that something is.

Otherwise
- anyone carrying a full size Glock in a holster on their right hip Might Be carrying a Glock-18 instead.
- anyone carrying a 1 pound block of modeling clay Might Be carrying a pound of C4 or Semtex.
- anyone carrying a 6-volt lantern Might Be carrying an improvised explosive device.
- anyone with an old 35mm film canister Might Be carrying cocaine or marijuana inside it instead of film. (That one has actually been to court, and RAS was NOT found just because some 35 mm film canisters had been used to carry dope.)

If such a case were ever to make it to court I imagine a competent attorney could tear him a new one in short order.
"Officer Nork, you stated you have experience and training in recognizing automatic firearms?"
"Yes, extensive training on them."
"Well, I'm just an old country lawyer and know nothing about them so I had to look up what an MP5 was.
Is it true that an MP5 is a fully automatic, 9mm submachine gun with a 9 inch barrel?"
"Yes, that's true."
"I saw that they are selling for ten- to fifteen-thousand dollars; when you can find one for sale, that is. Would you explain to the court, Officer Nork how with your extensive training and experience you mistook a Five Hundred dollar, twenty-two long rifle chambered, semi automatic carbine with a 16-inch barrel for a Fifteen Thousand dollar, 9-millimeter chambered, fully automatic machine gun with a 9 inch barrel?"
"They looked sorta the same, and they were both black. Everyone knows black rifles are teh evil."

c.f. ABNER v. STATE and COLLINS V. STATE,
Differing opinions at STATE v. ROBINSON and KING v. STATE, but note that both depended on "totality of the circumstances" and not mere sight of something that Might Be.
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Except it was not an MP5, and the differences are obvious (and visible without physical inspection).
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Otherwise
- anyone carrying a full size Glock in a holster on their right hip Might Be carrying a Glock-18 instead.
- anyone carrying a 1 pound block of modeling clay Might Be carrying a pound of C4 or Semtex.
- anyone carrying a 6-volt lantern Might Be carrying an improvised explosive device.
- anyone with an old 35mm film canister Might Be carrying cocaine or marijuana inside it instead of film. (That one has actually been to court, and RAS was NOT found just because some 35 mm film canisters had been used to carry dope.)

The fundemental flaw in your arguments is that your examples involve devices or methods of carry that are illegal and hidden in a legal item or resemble a legal item.

The carbine in question is built to resemble an illegal and highly regulated class of weapon. interesting you didn't include the grenade example again, if you're carrying a dummy that resembles a live hand grenade that would certainly be lawful to conduct a check on the grenade.

likewise if you carry "black rifles" around getting stopped and searched on that basis may be a possibility. especially since nearly everyone knows about the semi-auto AR-15s so it's unlikely one of them could be considered RAS, but since Semi-auto MP-5 clones are next to non-existent comparatively speaking in the firearms world (as in i'm sure you ask any group of ten gun owners if they own one and maybe 1 or 2 might) it just might. and the Monetary value of an NFA registered MP-5 is irrelevant as a court argument. it can be stolen from a police/national guard armory, from a NFA licensee, assembled from the legal kit items and an illegally modified reciever. just because the market value is too high for your average criminal doesn't mean a criminal can't own one, considering they tend not to buy them in our market....
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"...(L)ikewise if you carry "black rifles" around getting stopped and searched on that basis may be a possibility. (E)specially since nearly everyone knows about the semi-auto AR-15s so it's unlikely one of them could be considered RAS, but since Semi-auto MP-5 clones are next to non-existent comparatively speaking in the firearms world (as in i'm sure you ask any group of ten gun owners if they own one and maybe 1 or 2 might) it just might. and the Monetary value of an NFA registered MP-5 is irrelevant as a court argument. (I)t can be stolen from a police/national guard armory, from a NFA licensee, assembled from the legal kit items and an illegally modified reciever. just because the market value is too high for your average criminal doesn't mean a criminal can't own one, considering they tend not to buy them in our market...."

I'm fairly sure there are more MP5 clones out there in the wild than there are actual MP5's in the wild that were only imported legally for about a year. I've seen two clones this year and exactly zero real MP5's since the one I was familiarized with in '88. Just because one 'could have' been stolen, or 'could have' been illegally constructed, or 'could have' been stolen from an NFA licensee, doesn't provide Officer Friendly with a reasonable articulable suspicion that one was.


From the outside, can you visually differentiate between a semi-auto AR15 and one equipped with a "Drop In Auto Sear"?
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
"...(L)ikewise if you carry "black rifles" around getting stopped and searched on that basis may be a possibility. (E)specially since nearly everyone knows about the semi-auto AR-15s so it's unlikely one of them could be considered RAS, but since Semi-auto MP-5 clones are next to non-existent comparatively speaking in the firearms world (as in i'm sure you ask any group of ten gun owners if they own one and maybe 1 or 2 might) it just might. and the Monetary value of an NFA registered MP-5 is irrelevant as a court argument. (I)t can be stolen from a police/national guard armory, from a NFA licensee, assembled from the legal kit items and an illegally modified reciever. just because the market value is too high for your average criminal doesn't mean a criminal can't own one, considering they tend not to buy them in our market...."

I'm fairly sure there are more MP5 clones out there in the wild than there are actual MP5's in the wild that were only imported legally for about a year. I've seen two clones this year and exactly zero real MP5's since the one I was familiarized with in '88. Just because one 'could have' been stolen, or 'could have' been illegally constructed, or 'could have' been stolen from an NFA licensee, doesn't provide Officer Friendly with a reasonable articulable suspicion that one was.


From the outside, can you visually differentiate between a semi-auto AR15 and one equipped with a "Drop In Auto Sear"?

No, you cannot. on the other hand that may well be used as an argument for conducting "function checks"
If the OCer in this video feels his rights were violated he needs to take the the department to court and have a definitive ruling conducted on the matter. or have the department submit a request for an Attorney General review. We've heard from a forum member who appears to be an attorney and I've spoken with a friend who is an attorney. so the attorneys seem to think that RAS did exist for such a search. if bar certified lawyers think there is substance to the detention then it's time to take the argument before a judge. as of now there appears to be nothing blatantly illegal about Ofc Nork's search
 

Damiansar-15

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
199
Location
Mercer Island, WA
BS on the LEO

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO legislation which would abrogate them.
- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

I think this cop knew this guy was carrying a semi-auto, but wanted to leverage an Unconstitutional State law incorrectly and harass him by forcing a function test. I think this guy has mentioned on another video that this is a H&K .22LR (http://www.hk22rimfire.com/index.php?page=mp5-a5 ) The LEO has had ****** training if he can’t tell a real MP5 and a fake HK $475 knock-off. The selector markings are flaming red/white on both sides and show semi-auto only pictograms. A 5 second glance, standing 7 meters away, while talking with the guy would have shown this to be a semi-auto only. Yes, the LEO presented a professional tone to carry out a perceived authority, but I think it was done in a Statist fashion to try to put a normal guy in his place. Many Liberal Fascists don't like this guy walking around promoting freedom and 2nd Amendment rights, and I bet a fair chunk of change that a lot of brainstorming went into how they could harass this guy and get him to move to a different community.
I agree with the other posting members who believe this Oregon ordinance regarding full-auto arms would basically give LEOs free reign to stop, detain, seize, search, harass, etc...Anyone carrying firearms would then be subjected to search/seizures to ensure compliance with some poorly written Unconstitutional ordinance.
Please note that it is also illegal to drive without a driver’s license on Oregon public roads, but LEOs cannot stop people to check for a driver’s license when they drive down the street safely. US v Deberry states that firearms where legally able to carry, cannot by themselves be considered RAS/probable cause for a stop. If you have the Federal paper work, they are LEGAL, if you don’t then they are illegal in Oregon. Pretty simple, especially since they guy can’t produce something for which paperwork does not exist, e.g. no Federal stamp for semi-autos…
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO legislation which would abrogate them.
- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

I think this cop knew this guy was carrying a semi-auto, but wanted to leverage an Unconstitutional State law incorrectly and harass him by forcing a function test. I think this guy has mentioned on another video that this is a H&K .22LR (http://www.hk22rimfire.com/index.php?page=mp5-a5 ) The LEO has had ****** training if he can’t tell a real MP5 and a fake HK $475 knock-off. The selector markings are flaming red/white on both sides and show semi-auto only pictograms. A 5 second glance, standing 7 meters away, while talking with the guy would have shown this to be a semi-auto only. Yes, the LEO presented a professional tone to carry out a perceived authority, but I think it was done in a Statist fashion to try to put a normal guy in his place. Many Liberal Fascists don't like this guy walking around promoting freedom and 2nd Amendment rights, and I bet a fair chunk of change that a lot of brainstorming went into how they could harass this guy and get him to move to a different community.
I agree with the other posting members who believe this Oregon ordinance regarding full-auto arms would basically give LEOs free reign to stop, detain, seize, search, harass, etc...Anyone carrying firearms would then be subjected to search/seizures to ensure compliance with some poorly written Unconstitutional ordinance.
Please note that it is also illegal to drive without a driver’s license on Oregon public roads, but LEOs cannot stop people to check for a driver’s license when they drive down the street safely. US v Deberry states that firearms where legally able to carry, cannot by themselves be considered RAS/probable cause for a stop. If you have the Federal paper work, they are LEGAL, if you don’t then they are illegal in Oregon. Pretty simple, especially since they guy can’t produce something for which paperwork does not exist, e.g. no Federal stamp for semi-autos…

Where does DeBerry say that? DeBerry involved a man carrying a concealed pistol in Illinois. Deberry has ONE LINE stating that an officers stop of Anthony Deberry MAY not have been lawful in other states that authorize CCW. that's hardly a definitive ruling and it's only binding on the 7th circuit anyway (oregon is in the 9th)

No machine guns are not legal per se in Oregon, they are ILLEGAL in Oregon, and having a tax stamp from the ATF is an affirmative defense. you can be arrested and charged with carrying a machine gun, but the charges may be dismissed or a nor guilty verdict rendered when you have proven you've obeyed federal law.

When it comes to driving a car, driving a car is legal with having a license. driving a vehicle is presumed to be lawful. carrying an automatic weapon is presumed to be UNLAWFUL. that's the difference. Again there is no ruling that 4th amendment violation even occured, and I've heard from actual attorneys that the search in this case may in fact meet legal muster. If the OCer even has standing to sue (which is questionable at best) he'd be better served to sue under the Oregon constitution because the 4th amendment is not that strong a protection believe it or not.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Where does DeBerry say that? DeBerry involved a man carrying a concealed pistol in Illinois. Deberry has ONE LINE stating that an officers stop of Anthony Deberry MAY not have been lawful in other states that authorize CCW. that's hardly a definitive ruling and it's only binding on the 7th circuit anyway (oregon is in the 9th)

No machine guns are not legal per se in Oregon, they are ILLEGAL in Oregon, and having a tax stamp from the ATF is an affirmative defense. you can be arrested and charged with carrying a machine gun, but the charges may be dismissed or a nor guilty verdict rendered when you have proven you've obeyed federal law.

When it comes to driving a car, driving a car is legal with having a license. driving a vehicle is presumed to be lawful. carrying an automatic weapon is presumed to be UNLAWFUL. that's the difference. Again there is no ruling that 4th amendment violation even occured, and I've heard from actual attorneys that the search in this case may in fact meet legal muster. If the OCer even has standing to sue (which is questionable at best) he'd be better served to sue under the Oregon constitution because the 4th amendment is not that strong a protection believe it or not.

Not surprised that you would ignore the significance of Deberry, the justice made it quite clear that the presence of a firearm in a state where it is legal is NOT RAS for a Terry Stop. This ruling has been accepted as case law to open or concealed carry. Not only that the phone call was not valid because the caller was NOT a so called expert as the officer claimed he was. So if the officer was unable to tell by looking up close, a caller claiming such by visual at a distance is invalid. I could report a illegal alien just because someone looked Hispanic, there would be NO RAS to stop and ask for papers. Even though there would be much more likely of a illegal alien, then a illegal full auto, which there so far is no evidence of any illegal NLA firearm being found on an open carrier. The officer was a polite idiot!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I dunno, the "founders" were diverse political group, remember those "founders" put down a popular rebelion, imprisoned former continental army vets in debtors prisons, established a central bank, passed sedition laws to arrest critics of the government, kept an entire racial minority enslaved, so to recap, we have Washington and Hamilton, who established a central bank, forced states to subisidize each others war debts, established a whiskey tax and use the military to put down an uprising against said tax. Adams passed the alien and sedition acts, Thomas Jefferson was an unapologetic slave owners, who also got passed anti-european embargoes that limited who citizens could do business with and wrecked the young U.S. economy. Madison established a professional military. I can't nessecarily say with certainty that all of the founding fathers would be on your side. and they were far from perfect


True that they did not live up to the ideals they sold we the people on. But we need to hold them to their end of the bargain. The principles still stand. And we need to stand up for liberty regardless of the seeming hypocrisy of those who proposed some great fundamental principles of liberty to live by.

Should a child smoke because his parents do even though his parents instruct them on how bad it is for their health?

Jefferson is my favorite founder, he was an imperfect man though, and a political beast at times. But he had a grasp for what was right even if he often didn't live up to his own expectations.
 
Last edited:
Top