LEOs wetting themselves over OC...

okiebryan · Sep 26, 2012

This is an article about the Utah Legislature reworking their laws in order to clarify the legality of OC and to stop the "contempt of cop" charges. The comments are interesting. At least there is one who is talking some sense.

Police One article

Fuller Malarkey · Sep 26, 2012

Check the comments section. The prevailing police attitude towards open carry is disturbing.

Brimstone Baritone · Sep 27, 2012

Fuller Malarkey said:
Check the comments section. The prevailing police attitude towards open carry is exactly what we're used to.

Fixed that for you.

I always wonder, especially when it's cops spewing this garbage, why they carry openly if it's so "tactically unsound". Why don't army infantry carry their rifles concealed? Why don't beat cops carry their service weapons concealed? Why haven't all these police officers lobbied to get the way they carry changed, so that it's more "tactically sound"?

Because what's good for the goose is apparently verboten for the gander.

Citizen · Sep 27, 2012

I can't see the comments.

Maybe somebody who can see them can get a screen shot for posterity and to help convince those who think the police are just wonderful fellows heroically serving and protecting.

skidmark · Sep 27, 2012

Without bothering to click the link and read, I know the proper response is: Again?

stay safe.

DWCook · Sep 27, 2012

That article and pretty much all the comments were straight up hog wash. The comment tactical advantage, that had me laughing. I seriously was hoping for some valid/justified reasons since police officers are posting on that only, but all I read was hog wash and crying.

OC for ME · Sep 27, 2012

The comments were rife with spelling, syntax, and grammatical errors. The limited respect I have for cops has dropped another notch.

Fuller Malarkey · Sep 27, 2012

For those who can't access the commentaries on Police-1:

Posted by gr8gator1 on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 09:51 AM Pacific Report Abuse

I agree that open carry is stupid, if for nothing else but the tactical advantage you give up by broadcasting yourself as "billy badass" in the esteemed words of smeared1. That said, any open carry laws should have Implied Consent written into them...You wanna carry openly, fine, have at it...but, you are also agreeing that law enforcement can check you out to find out if you're a convicted felon or not....If you want "privacy", then carry concealed...

Posted by jcboston69 on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 07:20 AM Pacific Report Abuse

"People who open carry basiclly is showing their right to. but that is really dangerous. "

Why is it dangerous when they do it but not when we do it?

"Most want to also confront the police. "

There's a few activists now...a few brave ones who want to make a point. That's ok, as long as we handle it correctly. But they're just trying to make sure people understand it's their right, and if more people exercise that right, it will be commonplace and accepted and not as scandalous as it appears to be right now.

"These folks will be the first person shot in a robbery. "

Really? So you're a bad guy and you walk into a bank full of people with guns and start shooting them? Good luck with that.

I get it. You don't like open-carry. So don't do it.

Posted by bluegoose21 on Sunday, September 23, 2012 08:05 AM Pacific Report Abuse

Can anyone explain why it is necessary to open carry.

Posted by rodneyt45 on Sunday, September 23, 2012 07:48 AM Pacific Report Abuse

Bottom line is, opean carry is here with us and nothing we can do except try to convince our state congress persons to change it. Or educate people about the dangers of it. I haven't met any of our locals carrying open but if I do, I will handle it as a professional and with the constraints of my state's law. At the end of the contact I will point out the realities of open carry that we all here agree with. Only in TV does the good buy win most of the time in a quick draw against a guy with a weapon pointed at you. Yes, I know, there are some out there that can do it. Just a few compared to the rest of the population, and I bet those people wouldn't carry open.

Posted by scaatylobo on Sunday, September 23, 2012 05:39 AM Pacific Report Abuse

I was a LEO instructor in D/T and firearms.

I see that officers that were trained,often [ WAY too often ] have their gun taken from their holster.

That is reason enough for me to not like OC at all.

I am a VERY firm backer of the 2nd Amendment and life time N.R.A. member,so its not about being armed at all.

I also question what a movie theater would look like if a few hundred movie goers decided to carry their long gun into the theater - silly and dangerous.

Concealed carry serves many purposes,the least of which leaves it to the perp to decide if he/she is risking their life by attempting a crime when there is the very real possibilty that all in the AO are armed.

Posted by santuro on Sunday, September 23, 2012 04:49 AM Pacific Report Abuse

@rodney: Thanks for response. Well, we have to agree to disagree. You said that I wouldn't stop a dude that is driving right and give me no PC or reasonable suspicion. Same with the dude carrying an assault rifle on his shoulder at the Wal-Mart. If he doesn't do anything else wrong, I can't tauch him. And if he is in fact a felon, all I can do is live him alone while he is smiling and breaking the law right in front of me. You don't see the glitch in the system? Open carry law makes almost impossible for us to enforce the felon in possession of a firearm law. So far, we, cops, go around back and forth talking semantics. That in itself is a proof that the law is faulty. Open carry is the problem, not the solution. And the military situation has no application here. I too, been in the military since I was 17 yoa. Tactically, an individual holding a rifle on his shoulder is less able to defend himself against an assailant than a dude with empty hands. I can demonstrate to you that in a town full of open carry people, I can just walk around and fill up my trunk with weapons taken away from everybody. And a bad guy only needs one gun. He will find an older person that carry a gun and lives under the false sense of open carry security, take his gun, maybe even kill him, and go about his criminal business. Very easy for felons that can not get a firearm to just rob people of their open carried guns anywhere, anytime

Posted by Smeared1 on Saturday, September 22, 2012 09:31 AM Pacific Report Abuse

On another note, I think that any private business should be able to prohibit open carry withing their business. Who is the State to tell a private business owner what they should and shouldnt allow in their business.
Posted by Smeared1 on Saturday, September 22, 2012 09:26 AM Pacific Report Abuse

I'll stand up for peoples right to be stupid, or maybe ignorant would be the better term. I for one, having been trained in the Military and out understand that the element of surprise is as critical as the violence of action. I'll take any edge I can get in a gunfight. If I was a bad guy and walked into a store with my weapon concealed intent on robbing the store, the first guy Id shoot in the back of his head would be the open carry dumbass standing there thinking he is billy badass.

Posted by santuro on Friday, September 21, 2012 03:03 PM Pacific Report Abuse

@rodneyt45: I am not against 2nd Amendment. I am all for it. But as a tactical officer, and also based on my military background and old fashion common sense, open carry is dangerous and tactically unsound. Going to Wal-Mart with wife and children to buy groceries while carrying an AK-47 on the shoulder just looks stupid, to say the least. It also becomes a liability. Why? Because there is a big practical glitch in the whole thing, and if you are a LEO, please enlight me with the solution: Let's say it is legal for you to walk down the street while openly carrying a firearm. A cop can not even approach you because then you will complaining that your rights have been violated, isn't it? So, what if you are a felon? How the cop can establish that you are not breaking the law right in his presence? Just don't feel offended. Give me a solution to this scenario. Thank you. If you would say that felons won't be stupid to carry openly because they know that they can't have weapons, then you are naive. They will cxarry, and not out of stupidity, but because they are smart and know how to capitalize on owr mistakes. And open carry law is a mistake, unless you are a rancher living in the open country. That was the law designed for originally.

Posted by georgetime on Friday, September 21, 2012 01:35 PM Pacific Report Abuse

Open carry in today's society is just plain stupid. Period. The whack jobs who insist on it are making everything harder for the smart gun owners who realize concealed is the best option, for a multitude of reasons. "Overzealous" police officers? Who are the first people these politicians are going to try to crucify when someone openly carrying a rifle or handgun opens fire in, oh I don't know, a crowded theater, for example? That's right, the COPS. I'm SO GLAD I live in a state where open carry is illegal. Too many nutjobs trying to prove a point tying up too many resources.

These comments really came from Po-leece One. They halfe axcess to spel cheak.

carolina guy · Sep 27, 2012

one of the comments

Gotta love the attitude of the "order maintenance" officers (aka LEO) towards the general public:

Posted by gr8gator1 on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 09:51 AM Pacific
I agree that open carry is stupid, if for nothing else but the tactical advantage you give up by broadcasting yourself as "billy badass" in the esteemed words of smeared1. That said, any open carry laws should have Implied Consent written into them...You wanna carry openly, fine, have at it...but, you are also agreeing that law enforcement can check you out to find out if you're a convicted felon or not....If you want "privacy", then carry concealed...

Perhaps we could make their "jobs" easier by tattooing all felons with a scarlet "F" on the forehead??

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 27, 2012

At least one seems to understand one of the many "why's" of OC.

jcboston69 said:
"...For those of you who say, "I'm pro-2nd Amendment, but I don't think people should be allowed to carrying openly," what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand? Forcing someone to conceal his weapon is infringing, however so slightly, on his right to bear arms.

The only reason this is even a discussion is BECAUSE the Second Amendment has been eroded to the point where weapons are almost taboo, and this is just a step in the process of towards banning all firearms. People ooh, ahh, and gasp when they see a man without a badge carrying a weapon. This is hyper-sensitization towards weapons, because many people don't even know it's legal to own and carry guns, so they assume no one should have them. Making open carry the norm again is the only way to make sure that the carrying of weapons, concealed or otherwise, continues to be acceptable in society. No one questions a cop carrying openly, and there really is no good reason for that same attitude to not be extended to the general public..."

-Emphasis by me.

davidmcbeth · Sep 27, 2012

The law is not needed .. there should be case law to the law's point. But the true colors of government employees are shining through quite well; and this is Utah, a gun friendly state.

At least one cop sees an advantage to OC and I guess he is happy with cops OCing .. just does want poor lowly regular citizens OCing.

mwaterous · Sep 27, 2012

Come on, this isn't grade school. There are some people that can articulate just fine in person but have a huge problem with written; this is not always directly their fault, but a huge issue with our public education system.

I'm curious if there's any historical evidence from "the wild west" of how many of our famous cowboys were disarmed by unarmed citizens? I'm wondering if there's any evidence from anywhere of people being strategically disarmed? Thinking a retention holster is your first line of defense is as silly as thinking open carry loses you a major tactical advantage. I know how to use my blackhawk, so I also know how to use yours.

That being said, I'm going to devils advocate myself. One officer made an excellent point; what happens when it gets so commonplace that reports of a "man with a rifle" go quiet and people with bad intent can walk around undeterred? Now before all the LEO haters jump me for even suggesting one may have a point, I'm not saying we give up any other rights; if you're a law abiding citizen, and you get asked how your day is going by a LEO who is curious if you're a law abiding citizen or not, what is so wrong with saying, "Not bad officer, how about yours?". You can be happy that he's doing his sworn job to keep people safe, WHILE also being happy that you didn't give him/her your name, or any reason to detain you.

Ken56 · Sep 27, 2012

I was asked one time by someone why do I carry 'like that'. I told him because a concealed weapon is the tool of the criminal. He had no come back to that.

OC for ME · Sep 27, 2012

mwaterous said:
<snip> if you're a law abiding citizen, and you get asked how your day is going by a LEO who is curious if you're a law abiding citizen or not, what is so wrong with saying, "Not bad officer, how about yours?". You can be happy that he's doing his sworn job to keep people safe, WHILE also being happy that you did give him/her your name, or any reason to detain you.

Beyond the cordial greeting aspect, what does the cordial greeting accomplish other than you are greeted by a seemingly nice person. How does the cordial greeting confirm to that LEO that you are a LAC? I'm a little dense at times, you'll need to throw me a bone on this one.

carolina guy · Sep 27, 2012

Since when did it become "ok" to want people to ask permission to exercise their rights?

Fuller Malarkey · Sep 27, 2012

mwaterous said:
Come on, this isn't grade school. There are some people that can articulate just fine in person but have a huge problem with written; this is not always directly their fault, but a huge issue with our public education system.

I'm curious if there's any historical evidence from "the wild west" of how many of our famous cowboys were disarmed by unarmed citizens? I'm wondering if there's any evidence from anywhere of people being strategically disarmed? Thinking a retention holster is your first line of defense is as silly as thinking open carry loses you a major tactical advantage. I know how to use my blackhawk, so I also know how to use yours.

That being said, I'm going to devils advocate myself. One officer made an excellent point; what happens when it gets so commonplace that reports of a "man with a rifle" go quiet and people with bad intent can walk around undeterred? Now before all the LEO haters jump me for even suggesting one may have a point, I'm not saying we give up any other rights; if you're a law abiding citizen, and you get asked how your day is going by a LEO who is curious if you're a law abiding citizen or not, what is so wrong with saying, "Not bad officer, how about yours?". You can be happy that he's doing his sworn job to keep people safe, WHILE also being happy that you did give him/her your name, or any reason to detain you.

Are you recovering from a serious head injury? Where I'm at, an IRC [ICR stands for Incident Complaint Report] is filed in house on me each and every time I'm approached and interact with a cop, and can and will be used in attaining search warrants and developing probable cause. Here, an ICR involving a weapon can turn your next traffic stop into a felony take down for "officer safety". All for responding to a cop on a fishing expedition. Not cool when you have kids in the car or a client. Or in front of your peers. Family.
A cop approaching you falls into the same category as Mr. Hand Grenade after the pin has been pulled....he is not your friend. Distance is good.

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 27, 2012

mwaterous said:
(snipped for clarity) "...That being said, I'm going to devils advocate myself. One officer made an excellent point; what happens when it gets so commonplace that reports of a "man with a rifle" go quiet and people with bad intent can walk around undeterred? Now before all the LEO haters jump me for even suggesting one may have a point, I'm not saying we give up any other rights; if you're a law abiding citizen, and you get asked how your day is going by a LEO who is curious if you're a law abiding citizen or not, what is so wrong with saying, "Not bad officer, how about yours?". You can be happy that he's doing his sworn job to keep people safe, WHILE also being happy that you did give him/her your name, or any reason to detain you.

If enough people are walking around with slung rifles that a bad guy walking around with a slung rifle isn't odd enough to be cause for concern, then there are enough Good Guys walking around with slung rifles for me not to worry about the one bad guy.
Officer Friendly engaging someone with "How's your day, citizen?" isn't going to tell Officer Friendly Anything about said citizen's adjudicated status as either a felon or non-felon. The only thing it might tell him is the citizen's current state of mental funk or if the individual understands conversational English.

Officer Friendly is looking to do his job
Officer Friendly is looking for criminal intent
Officer Friendly is looking to put someone in jail
Officer Friendly is looking at You.

And that is the Only reason Officer Friendly wants to know your name; to see if he can put you in jail or not.

davidmcbeth · Sep 27, 2012

mwaterous said:
I'm going to devils advocate myself. One officer made an excellent point; what happens when it gets so commonplace that reports of a "man with a rifle" go quiet and people with bad intent can walk around undeterred? Now before all the LEO haters jump me for even suggesting one may have a point, I'm not saying we give up any other rights; if you're a law abiding citizen, and you get asked how your day is going by a LEO who is curious if you're a law abiding citizen or not, what is so wrong with saying, "Not bad officer, how about yours?". You can be happy that he's doing his sworn job to keep people safe, WHILE also being happy that you did give him/her your name, or any reason to detain you.

I would not be happy answering every policemen's series of non-ending questions all day just because I OC. You want to spend 1-2 hrs every day doing this? There's a cop on every street corner.

"Bad intent" does not matter Bad Actions do and this is shown by the bad actions. Police are not mind readers.

"what is wrong with saying "not bad, how about yours"? What business is it of a cop on how my day is going? And if I want people to know my name, I'll wear a name tag, thank you very much.

I would not feel happy if every cop I crossed stopped me and did his standard 20 questions quiz .. I would be very perturbed.

Reports of man with rifle? They can certainly observe such a person without harassing or bothering him, right? Seems like the cop does not know how to do police work.

Good post, as most people have the viewpoint "what's the harm?". I think I have outlined what the harm is.

twoskinsonemanns · Sep 27, 2012

mwaterous said:
what happens when it gets so commonplace that reports of a "man with a rifle" go quiet and people with bad intent can walk around undeterred?

What does it matter? That guy with bad intent can just hide his weapon now. What difference does it make if he can openly carry it?

Just curious, are you a cop?

mwaterous · Sep 27, 2012

twoskinsonemanns said:
What does it matter? That guy with bad intent can just hide his weapon now. What difference does it make if he can openly carry it?

Just curious, are you a cop?

I'll respond to your post, because I can respect that you generally debate from an open minded pov as opposed to some of the jackals who will be all over this thread... first off, no I'm not a LEO. Second, there was a grievous typo in that last post; I meant to say, "Didn't give your name", not "did". I am not advocating that anyone give up their rights, or the belief that you should just cordially answer any question posed simply because there is no apparent animosity. I think you should keep your name to yourself and exercise your rights to the fullest extent.

There are a large amount of people here though that do the open carry movement a huge disservice with their blind hatred of anything LEO. So I'm musing. I don't think they should have the right to check the ID of any one simply because they are carrying a weapon; but I do think they should show up at the scene of any reported MWAG, each and every time, no matter how commonplace it gets. That could be as simple as driving by. That could be as intense as observing the person in question for a few moments before approaching them to see if they run or do something stupid. If that approach consists of "How goes?", "Great officer, yourself?" and the person in question chooses to end it there, the officer would be in the wrong to continue pressing the situation. Is it really that painful to be asked how your day is going?

LEOs wetting themselves over OC...

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member