Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Coweta Police Chief doesn't like open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449

    Coweta Police Chief doesn't like open carry

    From Coweta American... not available online. I'm not even sure where to start with this FUDD 'o licious collection of bovine fecal matter. He's added banks and public parks to the list of prohibited places, told us basically that we are morons (or Wyatt Earp) and we are all gonna lose our guns. The only thing he missed was being shot first in a robbery.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Coweta American Open Carry.jpg 
Views:	199 
Size:	95.0 KB 
ID:	9421

    transcript:
    By Christy Wheeland, News Editor

    "Will you carry that weapon open or concealed?"

    That is the question that will be answered by many who now hold concealed-carry permits once a new law goes into effect Nov 1 allowing their weapons to be carried openly.

    Coweta Police Chief Derrick Palmer said carrying a weapon is a right, and as law enforcement officers, "we will work with the piblic within the statutes of the law."

    "The law has not changed as far as qualifications, training and background information that has to be done to obtain a permit to carry a firearm." Palmer said. "This just makes it lawful to carry it (weapon) in open view to the public. No matter what our opinion is, the governor has signed this into law."

    "We have dealt with people with permits for concealed weapons, and we will handle it in the same way for people carrying openly. If they step outside of the guidelines of the law, we will deal with them accordingly," he added.

    The police chief said with the new law, he does not expect a massive amount of people displaying their firearms.

    "They will keep them concealed, and keep that tactical advantage and security," Palmer said. "The majority of people who have a permit get it so they can carry a gun in their car, purse or briefcase. They didn't get a permit to carry it on their side and walk around like Wyatt Earp."

    Coweta Police Lieutenant Donnie Krumsiek said many will be uneasy at first when they see others carrying a firearm that is open, citing vulnerability from a safety aspect.

    He said safety can be enhanced by paying attention to weapon retention.

    "If you are going to carry a weapon accessible to the general public, make sure you can retain it and not let the bad guy get a hold of it," he explained. "If a bad guy comes in, gets in an altercation and sees you standing there with a weapon, now it's gone from hand-to-hand combat to him trying to get a weapon. If you don't know how to retain that weapon, or the gun owner doesn't know how to, it could become a deadly situation."

    Palmer said that all those with carry permits should be very conscious of their own weapons.

    "They don't want the weapon to be taken away from them and used against them. That defeats the purpose," he noted.

    Despite the new law, businesses and corporations have a right to restrict weapons being carried into their facilities, concealed or not.

    Weapons are not allowed in banks, on school property, at sporting events, in arenas or on city property including parks.

    The police chief reminds that when a resident asks for a concealed carry permit, a local background check is conducted. If there is a local report, it is listed in the paperwork. Information is then submitted to Wagoner County and placed into the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation database.

    OSBI officials make the determination whether or not a permit application is declined.

    The officers assured if authorities see someone with a weapon or receive a call, they will investigate the individual and ensure that he or she is in compliance with the law.
    Last edited by okiebryan; 10-19-2012 at 05:55 AM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Weapons are not allowed in banks, on school property, at sporting events, in arenas or on city property including parks.
    Is this old law or the sheriff's opinion of how life in his county ought to be?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member okiephlyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    420
    Sounds like a small town cop that hasn't really read or studied the Oklahoma Self Defense Act (SDA). Too bad for him. A little reading could go a long way. I live about a half mile from the Coweta city limits and frequent "his" Walmart often. Not looking forward to it, but at some time we will probably meet.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Is this old law or the sheriff's opinion of how life in his county ought to be?

    stay safe.
    After carefully reading the story, it does not appear to be a quote from anyone, simply the authors own words. I have sent an email to the author about this but don't expect to hear anything back as this article was written back in May.

    I even offered for OKOCA to answer questions or do an interview about open carry.

    We will see.
    I am not a lawyer and nothing I say should be accepted as legal advice

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coweta,_Oklahoma

    Small town, for those not familiar with Oklahoma and the Tulsa area.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Morris
    Posts
    5
    First post here... but... It never ceases to amaze me how many LEO's aren't aware of the law. As a criminal justice student looking at OHP, I take pride in self study and the desire to learn. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for them either. It goes beyond OC in Oklahoma, it's been extended to suppressors, AOW's, SBR's etc. You name it, I've dealt with uninformed officers. I don't expect them to read 1733 page by page (like I have) but at least try and learn. If they don't even know the basics of where we can carry and when, how do they know the details on how to handle a legal open carrier without violating 1733, Section 1290.8 subsection B? (Page 33, second paragraph) Just a thought.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    It should be against the law for a law enforcement officer to give a personal opinion.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  8. #8
    Regular Member mlr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    It should be against the law for a law enforcement officer to give a personal opinion.
    I have no problem with an officer having a personal opinion. The problem comes if he choose to ignore the law because of his opinion. As long as the officer knows that the law takes precedence over his opinion there should not be a problem.

    Michael

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr View Post
    I have no problem with an officer having a personal opinion. The problem comes if he choose to ignore the law because of his opinion. As long as the officer knows that the law takes precedence over his opinion there should not be a problem.
    I didn't say "having a personal opinion." The problem is when on duty and in uniform, they are giving people their opinion. That's not their job. Those opinions are wrongly being given the weight of an officer of the law, and influencing not only those who are considering a legal activity, but also those who observe such legal activity.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  10. #10
    Regular Member mlr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I didn't say "having a personal opinion." The problem is when on duty and in uniform, they are giving people their opinion. That's not their job. Those opinions are wrongly being given the weight of an officer of the law, and influencing not only those who are considering a legal activity, but also those who observe such legal activity.
    Ah okay, gotcha. Yes it is not the police job to offer judicial opinions on the intent or meaning of a law.

    Michael

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by okrebel92 View Post
    First post here... but... It never ceases to amaze me how many LEO's aren't aware of the law. As a criminal justice student looking at OHP, I take pride in self study and the desire to learn. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for them either. It goes beyond OC in Oklahoma, it's been extended to suppressors, AOW's, SBR's etc. You name it, I've dealt with uninformed officers. I don't expect them to read 1733 page by page (like I have) but at least try and learn. If they don't even know the basics of where we can carry and when, how do they know the details on how to handle a legal open carrier without violating 1733, Section 1290.8 subsection B? (Page 33, second paragraph) Just a thought.
    I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are psychologically unsuited to be a police officer.

    A successful police officer can never have any doubts about whether he's right; any glimmer of self-doubt is the "go" signal to escalate the situation to gain compliance.

    I wish I was kidding.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Johnson City, TN
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I didn't say "having a personal opinion." The problem is when on duty and in uniform, they are giving people their opinion. That's not their job. Those opinions are wrongly being given the weight of an officer of the law, and influencing not only those who are considering a legal activity, but also those who observe such legal activity.
    I'll have to slightly disagree with you. I don't think a person's 1st amendment right to free speech should end just because they are in uniform at the time.

    However, I don't have a problem with requiring law enforcement officers to qualify their remarks and let people know "this is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the law."
    "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Morris
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are psychologically unsuited to be a police officer.

    A successful police officer can never have any doubts about whether he's right; any glimmer of self-doubt is the "go" signal to escalate the situation to gain compliance.

    I wish I was kidding.

    What in gods name are you talking about?
    First of all, it's amazing that you have the arrogance to give someone a psych eval and state they are "unsuited for police work" based on a single half paragraph post on how some officers are uninformed. With no knowledge of who I am, what I do for a living, nothing at all. But hey, thanks for the completely irrelevant input of how a police officer can't have any doubts. How did you even get that I myself was doubtful? And "Go" signal to escalate the situation? Explain to me how escalating a situation will control it. You show assertiveness and maintain composure and professionalism to control the situation not violate a law and escalate it. If the individual is being compliant and gives all required documents and doesn't act in a hostile manner, no "escalation" is needed. You must not have taken the time to read the paragraph... i'm seeing a pattern here. Finally, just because i'm a new member here doesn't mean you automatically know more. Step out of your bubble sometime and check your ego, your post count means nothing. Not a good first impression of what this forum is like. Final note, I've contributed in OKOCA discussions on facebook and okiebryan is a stand up person.

  14. #14
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by okrebel92 View Post
    What in gods name are you talking about?
    First of all, it's amazing that you have the arrogance to give someone a psych eval and state they are "unsuited for police work" based on a single half paragraph post on how some officers are uninformed. With no knowledge of who I am, what I do for a living, nothing at all. But hey, thanks for the completely irrelevant input of how a police officer can't have any doubts. How did you even get that I myself was doubtful? And "Go" signal to escalate the situation? Explain to me how escalating a situation will control it. You show assertiveness and maintain composure and professionalism to control the situation not violate a law and escalate it. If the individual is being compliant and gives all required documents and doesn't act in a hostile manner, no "escalation" is needed. You must not have taken the time to read the paragraph... i'm seeing a pattern here. Finally, just because i'm a new member here doesn't mean you automatically know more. Step out of your bubble sometime and check your ego, your post count means nothing. Not a good first impression of what this forum is like. Final note, I've contributed in OKOCA discussions on facebook and okiebryan is a stand up person.
    Hey, man... I appreciate the vote of confidence, but the post you are referring to was DRIPPING with sarcasm. Go read it again.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Nascar24Glock View Post
    I'll have to slightly disagree with you. I don't think a person's 1st amendment right to free speech should end just because they are in uniform at the time.

    However, I don't have a problem with requiring law enforcement officers to qualify their remarks and let people know "this is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the law."
    We are agreeing that the point is that officers are currently giving their personal opinions under the color of their uniform, knowingly giving that authority to the opinion.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Morris
    Posts
    5
    T an
    Quote Originally Posted by okiebryan View Post
    Hey, man... I appreciate the vote of confidence, but the post you are referring to was DRIPPING with sarcasm. Go read it again.
    Well, I didn't see it that way. However if it was sarcasm and I miss read it thinking it was an attack, I'd like to apologize for my response.

  17. #17
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by okrebel92 View Post
    T an
    Well, I didn't see it that way. However if it was sarcasm and I miss read it thinking it was an attack, I'd like to apologize for my response.
    I've been here a long time. I assure you it wasn't a personal attack. We see people being violated (civil rights) here on a regular basis, so there's a healthy dose of cynicism on this board.

    What he said to you, I actually saw as a backwards compliment. You aren't like the typical officer we hear about on here, so you must not be cop material...get it? Having said that, I work in the wrecker business (as you may know) and I see all kinds of cops. They let their guard down when I'm on scene and the BG is in the backseat of the cruiser. I've seen the best, the worst, and everything in between. I have to stay out of fights in which I don't have a dog at stake, lest I go out of business. But I totally understood what he meant.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by okiebryan View Post
    I've been here a long time. I assure you it wasn't a personal attack. We see people being violated (civil rights) here on a regular basis, so there's a healthy dose of cynicism on this board.

    What he said to you, I actually saw as a backwards compliment. You aren't like the typical officer we hear about on here, so you must not be cop material...get it?
    This is exactly what I intended. Sorry for the misunderstanding, okrebel92.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by okrebel92 View Post
    What in gods name are you talking about?
    First of all, it's amazing that you have the arrogance to give someone a psych eval and state they are "unsuited for police work" based on a single half paragraph post on how some officers are uninformed. With no knowledge of who I am, what I do for a living, nothing at all. But hey, thanks for the completely irrelevant input of how a police officer can't have any doubts. How did you even get that I myself was doubtful? And "Go" signal to escalate the situation? Explain to me how escalating a situation will control it. You show assertiveness and maintain composure and professionalism to control the situation not violate a law and escalate it. If the individual is being compliant and gives all required documents and doesn't act in a hostile manner, no "escalation" is needed. You must not have taken the time to read the paragraph... i'm seeing a pattern here. Finally, just because i'm a new member here doesn't mean you automatically know more. Step out of your bubble sometime and check your ego, your post count means nothing. Not a good first impression of what this forum is like. Final note, I've contributed in OKOCA discussions on facebook and okiebryan is a stand up person.
    I didn't have an opinion until I read your response. Now, I have raging questions regarding giving a gun and authority to someone this thin skinned.....

    I, too, am seeing a pattern here.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 10-25-2012 at 07:56 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Nascar24Glock View Post
    I'll have to slightly disagree with you. I don't think a person's 1st amendment right to free speech should end just because they are in uniform at the time.

    However, I don't have a problem with requiring law enforcement officers to qualify their remarks and let people know "this is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the law."
    I disagree with you here. This issue is effectively the same as how I'm unable to partake in certain activities while in my military uniform. It doesn't matter if I state "this is MY opinion and not that of the military" or not. By being in uniform it gives the appearance that the military is supporting something through my actions. I see the same thing here in regards to these officers basically leveraging their position to give their "opinion" more weight and the potential backing of the law (also known as "color of law" which is illegal). If someone of the law is not qualified to speak on it then they should NOT be simply giving their "opinion" on the matter and such statements should come through official channels that are qualified to speak on the matter.

Posting Permissions

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