How not to open carry

so a couple of users lately have stated some things that just show really being too extreme, someone was saying that there's nothing suspicious about filming people late at night while wearing masks, and of course there's always the "well they aren't breaking any laws by doing.... x, y ,z" or "proactive enforcement is unconstitutional"

to those types, I have one question, would want this fellow walking around town, you would feel completely ok seeing this guy hiking around... wherever...



See now would it be reasonable to presume an individual like this is up to no good? just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it can't be used as RAS for a terry stop.

Most people here don't do stuff like this, and the founders of the website don't seem to encourage this sort of thing, although I can't speak for them, however IMO and it's been said before, people who push the limits to provoke responses are only undercutting the very rights that they claim to be exercising. kind of like the guy in Oregon several months ago walking around town with an MP-5 or someone here who get detained while carrying two pistols, a walking cane and an AR.


EDIT I'll take my pic with a better camera and repost it later

EMNofSeattle said:

so a couple of users lately have stated some things that just show really being too extreme, someone was saying that there's nothing suspicious about filming people late at night while wearing masks, and of course there's always the "well they aren't breaking any laws by doing.... x, y ,z" or "proactive enforcement is unconstitutional"

to those types, I have one question, would want this fellow walking around town, you would feel completely ok seeing this guy hiking around... wherever...

See now would it be reasonable to presume an individual like this is up to no good? just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it can't be used as RAS

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone ever said that an officer has to personally witness an illegal act in order to have RAS to conduct a Terry stop. If they have, then they would have been completely wrong.

However, an officer must have Reasonable Articulate Suspicion that a crime is "afoot."

Someone walking down the street at 1 a.m. would not lead someone to believe that a crime is afoot -- unless of course there were aggrevating circumstances. It would not stand scrutiny if an officer stated the reason he stopped someone was because they were walking down the street late at night.

If that same person was walking down the street, acting suspicious and wearing a ski-mask when it is 70 degrees outside then it would constitute RAS to conduct a stop.

I cannot see the picture you have loaded onto the post, so I cannot comment on it.

KYGlockster said:

I don't think anyone ever said that an officer has to personally witness an illegal act in order to have RAS to conduct a Terry stop. If they have, then they would have been completely wrong.

However, an officer must have Reasonable Articulate Suspicion that a crime is "afoot."

Someone walking down the street at 1 a.m. would not lead someone to believe that a crime is afoot -- unless of course there were aggrevating circumstances. It would not stand scrutiny if an officer stated the reason he stopped someone was because they were walking down the street late at night.

If that same person was walking down the street, acting suspicious and wearing a ski-mask when it is 70 degrees outside then it would constitute RAS to conduct a stop.

I cannot see the picture you have loaded onto the post, so I cannot comment on it.

Click to expand...

Oh just for an example I posted a picture of myself (in my house) wearing a ski-mask, a gore tex woodland cammo jacket, while carrying a radio and revolver on a gunbelt and an AR with all sorts of gadgets on a tactical sling.

just to make a hyperbole example, some people seem to want to push the limits and scare people and that's destructive to the gun rights movement.

I'll retake the pic with a better camera and re-post it later.

Looks to me like you just were at the movie Psycho, and are now taking precautions in the bathroom.

If you were walking down the street just like you are in the picture then I believe it would justify RAS. Would I stop you? No, not unless I felt strongly that you were doing something illegal. But, I do believe the courts would accept an officer's word that he believed a crime may have been afoot if you were stopped dressed as you are in the picture.

The guy that was stopped for carrying two revolvers should not have been stopped.

The guy carrying the "fake" MP5 should not have been stopped either. Neither of these individuals were committing a crime, nor were they acting like they were about to or like they had already done so. Carrying a firearm that looks like an NFA item should not constitute RAS to conduct a stop unless the officer has REASON to believe the firearm is an actual NFA item that is illegal to possess without the proper tax stamp. The officer could have got close enough to tell the difference, or could have simply asked without depriving someone of their rights. It is simple to discern between the two, especially by looking at the magazine.

In California it would be illegal to walk around like that so I would expect an LEO to stop you.

EMNofSeattle said:

so a couple of users lately have stated some things that just show really being too extreme, someone was saying that there's nothing suspicious about filming people late at night while wearing masks, and of course there's always the "well they aren't breaking any laws by doing.... x, y ,z" or "proactive enforcement is unconstitutional"

to those types, I have one question, would want this fellow walking around town, you would feel completely ok seeing this guy hiking around... wherever...

See now would it be reasonable to presume an individual like this is up to no good? just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it can't be used as RAS for a terry stop.

Most people here don't do stuff like this, and the founders of the website don't seem to encourage this sort of thing, although I can't speak for them, however IMO and it's been said before, people who push the limits to provoke responses are only undercutting the very rights that they claim to be exercising. kind of like the guy in Oregon several months ago walking around town with an MP-5 or someone here who get detained while carrying two pistols, a walking cane and an AR.


EDIT I'll take my pic with a better camera and repost it later

Click to expand...

There used to be a time where me walking around at night as a brown skinned fellow was considered suspicious.

I'm pretty sure its used as RAS for many Terry stops to this day.

Glad to know you approve...

I love agitators. They are the reason we have freedom...

Just saying.

/sarcasm

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Ca Patriot said:

In California it would be illegal to walk around...

Click to expand...

No need to get more specific...

Anonymouse said:

There used to be a time where me walking around at night as a brown skinned fellow was considered suspicious.

I'm pretty sure its used as RAS for many Terry stops to this day.

Glad to know you approve...

I love agitators. They are the reason we have freedom...

Just saying.

/sarcasm

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

But that was just good proactive police work, you shouldn't be in certain neighbors, its suspicious........(mega sarcasm),

EMNofSeattle said:

so a couple of users lately have stated some things that just show really being too extreme, someone was saying that there's nothing suspicious about filming people late at night while wearing masks, and of course there's always the "well they aren't breaking any laws by doing.... x, y ,z" or "proactive enforcement is unconstitutional"

Click to expand...

1. Who are you or anyone to decide what is "too extreme" ? use of subjective words like this bugs me, because way too many people like yourself rely on these definitions provided by whom? Tyranny throughout the ages has used this demagoguery to keep people in line for ages. (I recognize the owners of this site can decide what is put on their private property though).

2. Your suspicion or a cops suspicion does not trump peoples rights. Now the courts have watered down the 4th and have given cops leeway with RAS, but this is not as low of a standard as you think.

3. IF they are not breaking the laws by doing x, y, z then why are saying they should be stopped, I thought you were against "loopholes"?

4. I still contend proactive law enforcement is unconstitutional, you have not shown me this authority granted in the constitution, just because you like it doesn't mean its right.

to those types, I have one question, would want this fellow walking around town, you would feel completely ok seeing this guy hiking around... wherever...

See now would it be reasonable to presume an individual like this is up to no good? just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it can't be used as RAS for a terry stop.

Click to expand...

My opinion personally is until he does something illegal, it really doesn't concern me other than keeping an eye out.

Most people here don't do stuff like this, and the founders of the website don't seem to encourage this sort of thing, although I can't speak for them, however IMO and it's been said before, people who push the limits to provoke responses are only undercutting the very rights that they claim to be exercising. kind of like the guy in Oregon several months ago walking around town with an MP-5 or someone here who get detained while carrying two pistols, a walking cane and an AR.

Click to expand...

Again with the subjective use language to demonize opinions that don't fall in line.. I can give you a long list of people who "pushed the limits" and won greater freedoms for society. So Rosa Parks shouldn't have road that bus if she didn't like that system or she should have just sat where she was expected too?

Free speech isn't just to say state approved or socially approved things, it is there so that you can't stop our use of words to express ideas you find "extreme".

But to address your misleading Topic, no I don't think we should OC that way.

Discussion of open carry of rifles will not be discussed on this forum. This forum is only about the open carry of pistols/handguns and only those pistols/handguns of which the moderator approves.

That being said, take the picture again without the rifle and then it's free for discussion.

So with the rifle, do to the fact your hand is on the 'pistol grip' it would be construed, in Washington, as carrying in such a way ... so as to intimidate.

Now without the rifle presuming you can keep your hands off the weapons until they are needed, then I see no problems with going for a walk dressed like that, it's getting chilly outside.

EMNofSeattle said:

so a couple of users lately have stated some things that just show really being too extreme, someone was saying that there's nothing suspicious about filming people late at night while wearing masks, and of course there's always the "well they aren't breaking any laws by doing.... x, y ,z" or "proactive enforcement is unconstitutional"

to those types, I have one question, would want this fellow walking around town, you would feel completely ok seeing this guy hiking around... wherever...

See now would it be reasonable to presume an individual like this is up to no good? just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it can't be used as RAS for a terry stop.

Most people here don't do stuff like this, and the founders of the website don't seem to encourage this sort of thing, although I can't speak for them, however IMO and it's been said before, people who push the limits to provoke responses are only undercutting the very rights that they claim to be exercising. kind of like the guy in Oregon several months ago walking around town with an MP-5 or someone here who get detained while carrying two pistols, a walking cane and an AR.


EDIT I'll take my pic with a better camera and repost it later

Click to expand...

I walk around with two pistols and a cane~~so what? If that scares someone that is their problem not mine, and it is not RAS!

PS I also wear glasses~~cue scary music...:uhoh:

EMNofSeattle said:

so a couple of users lately have stated some things that just show really being too extreme, someone was saying that there's nothing suspicious about filming people late at night while wearing masks, and of course there's always the "well they aren't breaking any laws by doing.... x, y ,z" or "proactive enforcement is unconstitutional" ....................


...........See now would it be reasonable to presume an individual like this is up to no good? just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it can't be used as RAS for a terry stop............

Click to expand...

In the video to which you are referring the "officers" did much more than a simple terry stop, it was more like a "felony stop".

At least one "officer" threatened to kill at least on of the individuals. (when one points a firearm at another, in my book they are threatening to kill that person)

Had the "officers" simply walked up to the individuals and engaged them in conversation to investigate the situation that would have been reasonable. Immediately threatening their lives was not reasonable.

END_THE_FED said:

In the video to which you are referring the "officers" did much more than a simple terry stop, it was more like a "felony stop".

At least one "officer" threatened to kill at least on of the individuals. (when one points a firearm at another, in my book they are threatening to kill that person)

Had the "officers" simply walked up to the individuals and engaged them in conversation to investigate the situation that would have been reasonable. Immediately threatening their lives was not reasonable.

Click to expand...

+1

END_THE_FED said:

In the video to which you are referring the "officers" did much more than a simple terry stop, it was more like a "felony stop".

At least one "officer" threatened to kill at least on of the individuals. (when one points a firearm at another, in my book they are threatening to kill that person)

Had the "officers" simply walked up to the individuals and engaged them in conversation to investigate the situation that would have been reasonable. Immediately threatening their lives was not reasonable.

Click to expand...

Which video did I reference? The Oregon and MP-5 incident was nothing like what you described.

EMNofSeattle said:

Which video did I reference? The Oregon and MP-5 incident was nothing like what you described.

Click to expand...

When you mentioned filming people while wearing masks I thought you were referring to the video posted in this thread..... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...s-shotgun-in-kids-face-for-video-taping-video

If I am wrong, please accept my apology.

END_THE_FED said:

When you mentioned filming people while wearing masks I thought you were referring to the video posted in this thread..... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...s-shotgun-in-kids-face-for-video-taping-video

If I am wrong, please accept my apology.

Click to expand...

Well I did in fact reference the California incident that CA patriot put up, so in the interest of fairness you were right.

I also didn't read the part where you stated in your opinion that drawing down on the subject constituted a threat, I was back and forth listening to that vid trying to find where the officer said he was going to kill them, then I re-read your post. obviously I didn't read yours correctly, it is I who owes the apology.

EMNofSeattle said:

Well I did in fact reference the California incident that CA patriot put up, so in the interest of fairness you were right.

I also didn't read the part where you stated in your opinion that drawing down on the subject constituted a threat, I was back and forth listening to that vid trying to find where the officer said he was going to kill them, then I re-read your post. obviously I didn't read yours correctly, it is I who owes the apology.

Click to expand...

No apology necessary.

EMNofSeattle said:

so a couple of users lately have stated some things that just show really being too extreme, someone was saying that there's nothing suspicious about filming people late at night while wearing masks, and of course there's always the "well they aren't breaking any laws by doing.... x, y ,z" or "proactive enforcement is unconstitutional"

to those types, I have one question, would want this fellow walking around town, you would feel completely ok seeing this guy hiking around... wherever...

See now would it be reasonable to presume an individual like this is up to no good? just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it can't be used as RAS for a terry stop.

Most people here don't do stuff like this, and the founders of the website don't seem to encourage this sort of thing, although I can't speak for them, however IMO and it's been said before, people who push the limits to provoke responses are only undercutting the very rights that they claim to be exercising. kind of like the guy in Oregon several months ago walking around town with an MP-5 or someone here who get detained while carrying two pistols, a walking cane and an AR.

EDIT I'll take my pic with a better camera and repost it later

Click to expand...

Situation/location dependent. I have dressed just like that (not that cheesy camo pattern by the way ) and gone in for coffee on the way to do some hunting.

In a urban setting I certainly expect to be stopped regardless of the legality of stop. That is what cops do. Outside of urban areas, the burbs, I expect the same treatment from LE, regardless of the legality of the stop. That is what cops do.

In the country, I expect to be stopped by LE simply because that cop on that day is likely jealous that he ain't dressed like me, stopping for coffee, on the way to do some hunting. I have never, ever, been stopped by any LEO when dressed like that.
I guess that those LEOs just assumed that I was not a threat based on the totality of the circumstances :shocker:.

Their urban/burbs counterparts may learn a thing or two if they were to spend a week or two out in the country with the local deputy.

Just this past Thanksgiving I stopped in for a coffee at a cross roads C-store. I was on my four-wheeler on the way to a tree stand, I own a large farm. A local deputy (didn't know this one) noticed the XD on my right hip, my bolt action rifle on my left shoulder (not leaving a $1200 gun and scope on the four wheeler), and a camo face mask covering my face (high 20s that morning). All he wanted to know was if I had seen any nice bucks the last couple of days, he has only seen does. I guess folks out in the country are just a bit weird about guns and masked men.

OC for ME said:

Situation/location dependent. I have dressed just like that (not that cheesy camo pattern by the way ) and gone in for coffee on the way to do some hunting.

In a urban setting I certainly expect to be stopped regardless of the legality of stop. That is what cops do. Outside of urban areas, the burbs, I expect the same treatment from LE, regardless of the legality of the stop. That is what cops do.

In the country, I expect to be stopped by LE simply because that cop on that day is likely jealous that he ain't dressed like me, stopping for coffee, on the way to do some hunting. I have never, ever, been stopped by any LEO when dressed like that.
I guess that those LEOs just assumed that I was not a threat based on the totality of the circumstances :shocker:.

Their urban/burbs counterparts may learn a thing or two if they were to spend a week or two out in the country with the local deputy.

Just this past Thanksgiving I stopped in for a coffee at a cross roads C-store. I was on my four-wheeler on the way to a tree stand, I own a large farm. A local deputy (didn't know this one) noticed the XD on my right hip, my bolt action rifle on my left shoulder (not leaving a $1200 gun and scope on the four wheeler), and a camo face mask covering my face (high 20s that morning). All he wanted to know was if I had seen any nice bucks the last couple of days, he has only seen does. I guess folks out in the country are just a bit weird about guns and masked men.

Click to expand...

Well remember RAS is heavily fact dependent.

camo with a rifle and a mask on a cold day in hunting season in a rural or forested area or in a business near such an area wouldn't constitute RAS, it's obvious you're hunting. now depending upon your state you might be subject to warrantless search, in Washington Fish and Wildlife officers and DNR enforcement officers can search you without your consent to check your hunting license and see if any poached animals are on you. At least that's what I was told in hunters ed, I have no idea about the case law backing this up, I'll look it up if I ever go hunting. but a local sheriff's deputy can reasonably infer you're hunting with those circumstances.


if you're in the middle of a suburban subdivision miles from the forest, or in a downtown city area.... I'm almost certain officers can stop you and it would be ruled reasonable...

Rural area
rifle=he's hunting or hiking
mask=it's cold outside, he's going to be out for a few hours looking for an elk
pistol=who cares? everyone owns guns here

urban area
Rifle="hmmm what's this guy up to"
mask=he doesn't want witnesses to be able to ID him or he's wanted and hiding his identity
pistol=in combination with mask and rifle... do we have another James Holmes on the loose?

just sayin' I think the urban/rural differences in attitudes are reasonable... to an extent.

While I do own that black mask, I prefer to use a two-piece set up, I have a stocking cap that goes on my head, and a mask that only covers my lower face, so if it's a cold day I'll do that so I can lower it when entering a building or if stopped by police.

EMNofSeattle said:

Well remember RAS is heavily fact dependent.

camo with a rifle and a mask on a cold day in hunting season in a rural or forested area or in a business near such an area wouldn't constitute RAS, it's obvious you're hunting. now depending upon your state you might be subject to warrantless search, in Washington Fish and Wildlife officers and DNR enforcement officers can search you without your consent to check your hunting license and see if any poached animals are on you. At least that's what I was told in hunters ed, I have no idea about the case law backing this up, I'll look it up if I ever go hunting. but a local sheriff's deputy can reasonably infer you're hunting with those circumstances.


if you're in the middle of a suburban subdivision miles from the forest, or in a downtown city area.... I'm almost certain officers can stop you and it would be ruled reasonable...

Rural area
rifle=he's hunting or hiking
mask=it's cold outside, he's going to be out for a few hours looking for an elk
pistol=who cares? everyone owns guns here

urban area
Rifle="hmmm what's this guy up to." Nothing illegal about this, but, it is a bolt action (sniper rifle) vs. one of those evil black assault rifles. Further investigation is required.
mask=he doesn't want witnesses to be able to ID him or he's wanted and hiding his identity. It is cold outside and many folks are wearing masks of one type or the other, they too are trying to hide their identity, further investigation is required, they too may be armed, better call in a lot of back up.....Aurora?
pistol=in combination with mask and rifle... do we have another James Holmes on the loose? Hmmm, wearing RealTree camo (my personal favorite by the way), in the city of all places, walking to who knows where, better follow to see where, YIKES!!! A monster 3500HD GMC dually, with a RealTree camo paint job, and huge 86 point deer antlers on the hood. OK this dude is most likely going hunting.

But.....BUT, I better investigate anyway. I mean, c'mon, he does have a pistol, likely loaded with one of those "hicap" mags loaded with "cop killer" bullets, a big sniper rifle, his face is covered to hide his identity, and is wearing camo. Yepper, I better nab this guy real quick just in case he decides to make a "pit stop" at the nearest movie theater then flee into the mountains.

just sayin' I think the urban/rural differences in attitudes are reasonable... to an extent.

While I do own that black mask, I prefer to use a two-piece set up, I have a stocking cap that goes on my head, and a mask that only covers my lower face, so if it's a cold day I'll do that so I can lower it when entering a building or if stopped by police.

Click to expand...

See above in blue.

Good points. Do any hunters live in the urban areas of WA? Would they be inclined to be dressed as I was and transit to/from a vehicle in cold weather? Maybe even stop off for a cup of Joe on the way to deer camp?

Maybe the vehicle is a motorcycle. Unless riding a scooter and being visibly armed is unlawful in WA.

I agree, your average beat cop on the streets of a big city, even the burbs, would likely be very interested in a chap like me, on my way to deer camp, on my motorcycle. In spite of what he sees with his own eyes.