babiker911
New member
Agree 100% and well stated!!
-
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.
-
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.
Open Carry Arrest
- Thread starter okiebryan
- Start date
Agree 100% and well stated!!
Glock 1st fan
Regular Member
While I agree that activist do seek attention one important thing to keep in mind guys. When you roll the dice with an attempt to change the way government looks at things you have to be prepared for consequences. Look at for example the Occupy movement which in their mind they see the right to gather in a park after curfew as their rights. While it may be and it may not be those who stood up for what they believe have now been stained with a police record and an arrest record. Nothing to date has changed for them and now when they apply for jobs and so forth they have to disclose their arrest records.
As in this case I dont know much about whats going on to be honest but I can tell you guys when you challenge firearm laws and prove to be wrong you risk never being able to have a carry permit again. If you work as a LEO or a security officer you very well risk your career. Depending on how serious of a law you break you may even get put in the category of never being able to buy a firearm.
I know for a fact that things change because people stand up for what they believe but just know when it comes to firearms its not a matter of protesting sleeping in a park or equal rights. Your attempting to gain more rights while using a device that good or bad only has one design in mind and thats to kill. Yes it may be to defend you and I am all for it but you have to choose wisely how you go about making a statement when it comes to firearms. Otherwise you risk everything in a slight hope something will change.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you saying that we should only protest when it is "safe" to do so?
Protesting a violation of rights involves being willing to accept the consequences. Was it Davey Crockett who said something along the lines of "Be sure you are right, then go ahead"? Werll, Davey, sometimes the only way to find out if you are right or not is to go ahead.
stay safe.
okiebryan
Regular Member
He hasn't been charged as of yet. However, if he is eventually charged, I'm guessing that he will be charged with TITLE 21 § 1277 UNLAWFUL CARRY IN CERTAIN PLACES
A. It shall be unlawful for any person in possession of a valid handgun license issued pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry any concealed or unconcealed handgun into any of the following places:
1. Any structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public;
[snip]
If that is what they charge him with, and if he is convicted, it's a $250 misdemeanor, with a $250 administrative fine to OSBI, and is not a revocable offense.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person in possession of a valid handgun license issued pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act to carry any concealed or unconcealed handgun into any of the following places:
1. Any structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public;
[snip]
If that is what they charge him with, and if he is convicted, it's a $250 misdemeanor, with a $250 administrative fine to OSBI, and is not a revocable offense.
Last edited:
I never disclose my arrests. I can't recall how many times I've been arrested. (Arrest is not the same as booked and charged)
http://www.diogenesllc.com/crimeinfowhenhiring.pdf
I think you mean to say detained. When actually arrested for something I believe you get booked and charged.
-jakeus
Motofixxer
Regular Member
I think you may be misinformed. Maybe this will help.
DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)
ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Arrest vs Detained
Lets understand that the two words have some overlapping meaning; thus context is important.
For example, when discussing a police encounter, the word detained can be used. When seized and transported to a magistrate where a formal accusation is made, the word arrest is customary.
Lets understand that the two words have some overlapping meaning; thus context is important.
For example, when discussing a police encounter, the word detained can be used. When seized and transported to a magistrate where a formal accusation is made, the word arrest is customary.
Perhaps someone may be arrested and then not booked or charged.... Ok. I just found it hard to believe that someone wouldn't know how many times they've been arrested. If they said they didn't know how many times they've been detained I could certainly believe that.
Three Tiers of Police/Citizen Encounters (Investigative Detentions):
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uEv7u7jGYSM
-jakeus
KBCraig
Regular Member
We can avoid the nuanced distinction by using "seized", which is the word used by SCOTUS in 4A case law such as Mendenhall.
Any time a person reasonably believes he is not free to go, he has been seized per purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
(I know Citizen knows this; I'm just repeating it for the larger crowd.)
Every traffic stop in Texas is legally an arrest, from the moment the lights start flashing until the driver is told he's free to go. Other states may have the same statutory or case law.
I find it very easy to believe that someone has no idea how many times he's been "arrested".
All these nuanced distinctions are merely attempts to waffle out of 4A and 5A rights, creating excuses so that police may do things they would not be permitted to do if they acknowledge it was a full custodial arrest.
Last edited:
ethansisson
New member
Charge is filed. It doesn't state what it is, though.
http://www.oscn.net/applications/os...=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2937742&db=Oklahoma
http://www.oscn.net/applications/os...=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2937742&db=Oklahoma
Last edited:
FireHawk911
Regular Member
This case is shady to me.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Odd how the law abiding citizen, who is unlawfully accosted by LE, is the one who is risking everything. It would have been more clear, Sir, to simply state that "You OC, expect to be hassled by LE and rightly so if you are not circumspect and appropriate."
You place the burden upon the citizen to be circumspect and appropriate, where as you place no such burden upon LE to be circumspect and appropriate. Considering that LE is sworn to uphold the law and not their policies or opinions.
Your views on this topic, Sir, are anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
Glock 1st fan
Regular Member
Nope quiet the contrary. I am very supportive of Liberty and as well Pro-Citizen. What I am not for is when a law is passed that allows someone to take baby steps towards the true heart of the matter which is constitutional carry some knuckle head comes along and demands to jump ahead of the process and screw every thing up.
Now I am not referring to any case but thats a general statement. Like when you earn your position at a job everyone expects to make good pay but you cant be a manager just in off the street. You have to prove yourself and thats what O.C. is. We proved with concealed carry we could be responsible. Now they passed the open carry and again its time to prove we can be responsible. Going up against the system and letting every one say "See I told you so!" Is not supportive to the cause.
So back up a little and breathe. No one here is ant-Citizen. I am in fact pro firearm. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to point more out to the general public!
hermannr
Regular Member
I do believe that is why ths guy made sure that elections was only using this place, and not paying anything to lease it.
Please do keep us informed as to how this goes.
Robert318
Regular Member
So every time you get pulled over they read you your rights aka right to remain silent etc and is implied as soon as the lights start flashing! Post a link and a quote to that code of law that states that. Otherwise I am going to call BS on that one.
Being detained (seized) even if cuffed is not even remotely the same as being arrested which not only involves hand cuffs but includes finger printing and booking and placed in a jail cell. If you get those two different actions confused and can't remember the number of times you have been arrested then you have had one too many stiff drinks, or been arrested numerous times.
Glock 1st fan
Regular Member
Not every traffic stop is a stop for a violation of law. There are many reasons you may be stopped including but not limited to suspicion of a crime. Your driving for say a blue pontiac and one that looks just like it was used in a bank robbery. They can stop you to determin if it were you or not. In this case you are not under arrest for anything.
You could get stopped to let you know of an impending hazard. For example you hit something in the road and damage your car somehow that you can not see you may be stopped to prevent an accident. In that case no arrest has not been made. Now traffic offenses that are offenses can result in jail time including but not limited to doing 1 mile over the speed limit. However this rarely happens because our jails would be full of speeders. the citation is not proof you broke the law its only a summons you sign under law that you will appear in court to dispute it or accept the charges. (With the option to pay the fine and skip court)
Just an FYI
KBCraig
Regular Member
You may want to revisit Miranda v. Arizona, and the six tests of admissability. The notion that police have to read you your rights when you're arrested is a product of TV cop shows -- bad TV cop shows -- and bad internet lawyers.
If you aren't free to ignore the flashing red and blue lights and continue on your way, then you have been seized, regardless of the reason.
Let's see what the law of the land says:
"A person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave, and as long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would require some particularized and objective justification."
United States v. Mendenhall
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that if a reasonable person believes they are not free to disregard the police and leave, then that person has been seized per the Fourth Amendment. Not just Mendenhall, but also Terry, Martinez-Fuerte, and others.
"Arrest", "detention", "custody", etc., are weasel words that try to avoid invocation of 4A protections, but your rights kick in the moment you're not free to go on your way.
From pulling you over to warn of a hazardous condition, to cuffed and printed and thrown in a cell, all are 4A "seizures". Not all invoke Miranda and 5A/6A rights, but all are seizures.
Robert318
Regular Member
Do you just like to argue?
There is your miranda vs arizona, and just incase you missed it here is a couple reqoutes
That means you have to be read your miranda rights before questioning while in custody or they cant use it in court unless you choose to waive your right to remain silent and not just from some tv cop show or bad internet lawyer.
Weasel words, really? Not weasel words but words in a dictionary.
Notice the synonyms, arrest, detain, and seize all have the same meaning.
Also the 4A guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Note the word "unreasonable" and an officer doing his duties not only as an officer but as a person to keep people safe from impending danger or keep drugs and unlawful weapons off the street or pulling you over for speeding, tail light out, or a low tire, etc., is not unreasonable. Understandably just as there are good and bad citizens there are good and bad cops, were are all people and non are immune from making bad decisions or actions.
And did you miss this part of the United States v. Mendenhall?
see the founded upon objective justifacation part. So keep in mind that just because you may be seized doesnt necassarily mean its not justified therfore not violating your 4A rights. Im not saying it doesnt happen but I am saying people like to blow things out of perportion.
And as for the 5A
Note: be a witness against your self and also in miranda that anything the person says can and will be used against that person in court and therefore you dont have to wait for them to read you miranda before you have the right to remain silent and if you talk they can and will use it against you so just keep your mouth shut no matter how right you think you are or how wrong you think they are. Just be respectfull regardless of who is wrong and say only whats necessary for your safety and compliance with law aka here is my permit and yes I have a loaded weapon on me,etc.
Also if you will reread what I wrote previously I was not disputing the being seized part but was disputing the arrest part. And upon my own further review I see the synonyms of arrest and can see how you determined a traffic stop to be an arrest regardless of law or code. However when we see that on the SDA application that when they say arresting agency they are not talking about a mere traffic stop alone but are talking about an arrest that had a charge and or conviction, dispositions, dismissals,etc., for an offence listed in the preceding questions. So we see that in some instances words can be vague, broad and or misinterpreted so try not to be so quick to argue but try to constructively and respectively correct their error.
Last edited:
Yes, please don't be so quick to argue. I stated a fact that I can not remember how many times I've been arrested, seized, whatever. I have not had too many drinks, I have been seized, arrested numerous times.