Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: While driving home.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    53

    While driving home.

    While I was driving home yesterday from work at about 3:45pm I heard a call come out on the Scanner. Dispatcher said that there was a guy with a hand gun walking into Gateway Fred Meyer. The call was very specific about the truck and the gentleman that got out of the car. Portland Police started rolling to the scene. Still no crime. As they start arriving caller says that the guy is leaving, business as usual. One Officer gets the brains to ask why are we going to the scene is there an altercation or what is happening? The call taker reported to the dispatcher that the guy got out of his car and placed his weapon into his holster. I presume it was in a glove box or something. Gun was never "brandished." Police Officer asks, did he look menacing? No response 2 seconds later another officer states he has pulled him over in the parking lot. So I'm thinking WTH you have no reasonable articulated suspicion of a crime and its all over the radio that you don't; why pull him over? Oh that's right you need his ID for your report... Next 2 minutes go by 10-4 he's got a permit... You wasted how long just to go get his ID? Why does the dispatcher not know to ask these questions before they get to harassing a guy who chooses not to leave his gun in the car like a good responsible owner should?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by BadMoon Risin68 View Post
    While I was driving home yesterday from work at about 3:45pm I heard a call come out on the Scanner. Dispatcher said that there was a guy with a hand gun walking into Gateway Fred Meyer. The call was very specific about the truck and the gentleman that got out of the car. Portland Police started rolling to the scene. Still no crime. As they start arriving caller says that the guy is leaving, business as usual. One Officer gets the brains to ask why are we going to the scene is there an altercation or what is happening? The call taker reported to the dispatcher that the guy got out of his car and placed his weapon into his holster. I presume it was in a glove box or something. Gun was never "brandished." Police Officer asks, did he look menacing? No response 2 seconds later another officer states he has pulled him over in the parking lot. So I'm thinking WTH you have no reasonable articulated suspicion of a crime and its all over the radio that you don't; why pull him over? Oh that's right you need his ID for your report... Next 2 minutes go by 10-4 he's got a permit... You wasted how long just to go get his ID? Why does the dispatcher not know to ask these questions before they get to harassing a guy who chooses not to leave his gun in the car like a good responsible owner should?


    Why would leaving it in the car make him a "good responsible owner?" I mean are you trying to say that the school is some magical safe place that crime doesn't happen and as such he wouldn't need his gun? Because history would prove that false. Or maybe you're scared of "offending" the sheep? Because personally I'm not overly worried about that when it comes to the safety of myself and my family.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    [/b]

    Why would leaving it in the car make him a "good responsible owner?" I mean are you trying to say that the school is some magical safe place that crime doesn't happen and as such he wouldn't need his gun? Because history would prove that false. Or maybe you're scared of "offending" the sheep? Because personally I'm not overly worried about that when it comes to the safety of myself and my family.
    He was being sarcastic.

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    So what did the officer tell the victim was the reason he was pulled over? If that had been me and he said anything like "I stopped you because you were seen with a gun" well......we'd have had a problem because he's just admitted that he had no legal authority to pull me over and he's not going to get any ID, permit, vehicle papers, NADDA. And that's going to piss him off and I'd probably have gone for a ride in his vehicle.

    Grrrr this stuff really pisses me off.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    [/b]

    Why would leaving it in the car make him a "good responsible owner?" I mean are you trying to say that the school is some magical safe place that crime doesn't happen and as such he wouldn't need his gun? Because history would prove that false. Or maybe you're scared of "offending" the sheep? Because personally I'm not overly worried about that when it comes to the safety of myself and my family.
    I read that twice, and it still seems straight out of left field.

    As I read the OP's post, he didn't want to leave his gun in the car (as a responsible person) because if the car were broken in to while he was away, a criminal would then have his gun.

  6. #6
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironbar View Post
    I read that twice, and it still seems straight out of left field.

    As I read the OP's post, he didn't want to leave his gun in the car (as a responsible person) because if the car were broken in to while he was away, a criminal would then have his gun.
    i Agree with that interpretation of the post as well.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    [/b]

    Why would leaving it in the car make him a "good responsible owner?"
    I leave a gun in my car all the time ...

    There are zillions of guns out there..if they get the one in my car don't worry...I can get another.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by BadMoon Risin68
    Why does the dispatcher not know to ask these questions before they get to harassing a guy who chooses not to leave his gun in the car
    +1
    Here in SE WI we have a monthly OC meet-n-greet at a Starbuck's. We've invited the local LEOs, and once in a while they show up to say hi. They're pretty laid back about us.

    One time, one of the coffee gals told me (as she was selling me something yummy & overpriced) that the police had called to ask if our group was meeting there today, & if the SBX folks were OK.

    Apparently someone called police from the parking lot to say there was a guy with a gun ... eventually admitted it was in a holster on his waist & he was drinking coffee.

    So the calltaker officer told the guy that's legal, & it's probably this group that meets there once in a while, but he'd look into it. Then he called SBX. Took maybe 10 seconds to determine that it was us (about 60 of us), the SBX folks were just fine, thank you, and very very busy.

    We FOIA'd the audio of the call, & it's up on YouTube, with similar audio from another city that didn't turn out quite so well (for the citizens or the officers involved... the city got sued, the citizens got tickets, which were eventually dismissed).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironbar
    As I read the OP's post, he didn't want to leave his gun in the car (as a responsible person) because if the car were broken in to while he was away, a criminal would then have his gun.
    +1 It took me a second reading, but that's the way I read it too.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    Help! There are 2 guys minding their own business! Send someone quick!
    I stopped stocking for the zombie apocalypse. I now stock for the liberal apocalypse.

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasjayhawk View Post
    Help! There are 2 guys minding their own business! Send someone quick!
    Which one is wearing the Nike's and red flannel shirt?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by BadMoon Risin68 View Post
    While I was driving home yesterday from work at about 3:45pm I heard a call come out on the Scanner. Dispatcher said that there was a guy with a hand gun walking into Gateway Fred Meyer. The call was very specific about the truck and the gentleman that got out of the car. Portland Police started rolling to the scene. Still no crime. As they start arriving caller says that the guy is leaving, business as usual. One Officer gets the brains to ask why are we going to the scene is there an altercation or what is happening? The call taker reported to the dispatcher that the guy got out of his car and placed his weapon into his holster. I presume it was in a glove box or something. Gun was never "brandished." Police Officer asks, did he look menacing? No response 2 seconds later another officer states he has pulled him over in the parking lot. So I'm thinking WTH you have no reasonable articulated suspicion of a crime and its all over the radio that you don't; why pull him over? Oh that's right you need his ID for your report... Next 2 minutes go by 10-4 he's got a permit... You wasted how long just to go get his ID? Why does the dispatcher not know to ask these questions before they get to harassing a guy who chooses not to leave his gun in the car like a good responsible owner should?
    The following are not directed at towards the OP. I quote him to place my comments in the proper context.

    Ask who, what question? If the who is the driver of the truck and the question is "does he have a permit/who is he", then a stop by LE is required. The issue: the citizen was stopped.

    It can be inferred that the citizen is not adverse to complying with extra legal demands made by LE.
    "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

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The following are not directed at towards the OP. I quote him to place my comments in the proper context.

    Ask who, what question? If the who is the driver of the truck and the question is "does he have a permit/who is he", then a stop by LE is required. The issue: the citizen was stopped.

    It can be inferred that the citizen is not adverse to complying with extra legal demands made by LE.
    While to get the information a "stop" may be required, I don't see where it is LEGALLY PERMISSABLE!!!!! Without RAS or stronger, the stop was an infringement of his rights!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  13. #13
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    [QUOTE=OC for ME;1883155]
    Ask who, what question? If the who is the driver of the truck and the question is "does he have a permit/who is he", then a stop by LE is required. The issue: the citizen was stopped.

    QUOTE]

    Random stops to check license compliance is not legal... US Supreme Court in Prouse V Delaware.

    If a person is in the store with a pistol, even if a license is required, and not doing anything illegal...the only possible reason would be for a random license check...completely unnecessary, and illegal.

    If a person that was in the store left in a vehicle, and LE knows this, unless there was something "Illegal" (reasonable suspician that a crime had been committed or was being committed) there is no legal reason to stop the vehicle.

    NO: There is NO stop "required" in the senario presented. There is no requirement to supply ID or any other thing,

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    While to get the information a "stop" may be required, I don't see where it is LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE!!!!! Without RAS or stronger, the stop was an infringement of his rights!
    I completely agree. However, I'm quite confident that the LEO who stopped the citizen would be able to articulate his justification for initiating the stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Ask who, what question? If the who is the driver of the truck and the question is "does he have a permit/who is he", then a stop by LE is required. The issue: the citizen was stopped.
    Random stops to check license compliance is not legal... US Supreme Court in Prouse V Delaware.

    If a person is in the store with a pistol, even if a license is required, and not doing anything illegal...the only possible reason would be for a random license check...completely unnecessary, and illegal.

    If a person that was in the store left in a vehicle, and LE knows this, unless there was something "Illegal" (reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed or was being committed) there is no legal reason to stop the vehicle.

    NO: There is NO stop "required" in the scenario presented. There is no requirement to supply ID or any other thing,
    See my response to Citizen above. To lawfully stop a citizen while that citizen is on foot is a high bar to hurdle for a LEO. However, that bar is lowered significantly when a citizen gets behind the wheel. All a cop has got to claim is that the citizen "seemed to be driving erratically."
    "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

Posting Permissions

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