F350
Regular Member
Is that not the very definition of "deprivation of rights under law"? 18 USC 242 is a criminal federal law.
And since this was a uniformed and ARMED LEO there is automatically the threatened use of a dangerous weapon....
-
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.
Detained by Royal Oak police officer while open carrying
- Thread starter shawnixon
- Start date
Is that not the very definition of "deprivation of rights under law"? 18 USC 242 is a criminal federal law.
And since this was a uniformed and ARMED LEO there is automatically the threatened use of a dangerous weapon....
Tucker6900
Regular Member
That's simply a stop and ID statute. In every state, LEO's have a right to stop somebody (Seize them) based on reasonable suspicion, but unless the state has a specific statute, the person stopped does not have the legal obligation to provide their name. For example, my state has no such statute, so when I terry stop somebody they are not REQUIRED to provide their name to me, although in my experience, about 95% or more WILL provide their name and.or ID.
However, if a state allows people to carry firearms (whether or not they require a permit to do so), an officer seeing somebody carrying does NOT give them reasonable suspicion to stop that person, unless they have RS that the person is a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from carrying.
IIRC, some states have specific statutes authorizing officers to stop and ID people they see carrying a firearm, but that would be authorized by statute, not by RS.
Our dispatch frequently receives calls from people who call in cause they see some guy carrying a handgun (in a holster). As policy, we do NOT contact the firearms carrier because that would be harassment. We will either contact the complaining party in person or explain to them over the phone that carrying a firearm in open view is a protected activity in WA state and if he doesn't like that they can leave the area but we will take no enforcement or investigative action.
I wish more people in WA state open carried. I very rarely see people doing so, but I see it more often now than I did a decade ago, so it appears to be becoming a more popular activity
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Hey! Great point!
In recent years, I'm pretty sure there was a SCOTUS decision regarding drug dealing and guns. The government strenuously argued that mere possession of a gun while engaged in illegal drugs business constituted use. I have this vague recollection that SCOTUS might have upheld that gun charge conviction.
If true, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the cop merely possesses dangerous weapons while depriving rights, then that should constitute use.
Ten years for each dangerous weapon. Lets see: a gun, a back-up gun, a collapsible baton, a tazer, a pocket knife (if a cop can seize it under Terry v Ohio then it must be a dangerous weapon, no?)...
If he commits a rights deprivation inside the cruiser, and he has a rifle or shotgun in the car, add another ten years.
Heh, heh, heh. Put that **stard away for sixty years right there.
ETA: Hang on a second. There's more. Police academies trains cops to be very alert and careful because handcuffs can be a dangerous weapon when cuffing someone; a single cuff, when the other is affixed to the arrestee's wrist, can be swung with the open shackle embedding into the cops face or eye. So, add another dangerous weapon to the use list for rights-depriving cops--handcuffs. We're up to seventy years at this point.
Last edited:
Not sure what purpose is served walking down the street with a long gun other than, yea, it's your right. You had a side arm correct? So you were already exercising your right, the long gun was worn simply for shock value which I feel does more harm to the Open Carry movement. I have a CPL, I open carry and conceal carry my Glock at different times so I get it but the long gun is overkill and unnecessary to prove your point in my humble opinion. Just my .02 cents.
DetroitBiker
Regular Member
But..But.. it's his rights Silly Sally.... Que the usual die hards to flame you in 3...2...1
I agree with this. Open carrying a long gun (unless you are walking back to your car from hunting or whatnot) even if it is a perfectly legal form of open carry in your jurisdiction... is way more in your face than OC'ing a handgun. It's the same with a average joe as it is with a cop. People look twice when they see a cop deployed with a rifle vs. a handgun and it eates more of the "jackbooted govt. thug" appearance. Don't get me wrong, there is a time and place where deploying with a rifle is justified but whether you are a cop or a average joe, you are portraying a different image OC'ing a rifle vs. a handgun.
I believe that attitude and respect goes a long way. I want to promote open carry and I don't think open carry of long guns helps achieve that goal. I think it's harmful to the goal -which is getting more people to open carry, getting more jurisdictions to allow open carry, and getting more acceptance of open carriers by the general public as well as law enforcement.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
FLAME ON! Just kidding, seriously though, if something is legal so be it. Remember not long ago the usual crowd of ONLY TACTI-COOL CCers said the exact same thing about the lawful open carry of a pistol... careful slippery slope... ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! :dude:
Last edited:
Just because something is legal does not mean it's prudent, best practice or optimal to do it.
Imo, carrying in a manner that is more likely to harm the cause than help the cause is a bad decision.
Do I really need to list some of the activities one can engage in that are perfectly legal but a bad idea?
It's perfectly legal for a fat guy with a hairy back to walk around downtown Seattle clothed only in a speedo.
Doesn't mean it's a good idea
Read a recent case where somebody was charged with (and iirc the charges were upheld) Rendering Criminal Assistance for refusing to divulge who had shot her. Granted, it wasn't obstruction, but it was an example where not answering a question got somebody in hot water. Also, iirc this wasn't her refusal in the field, it was after she was subpoena'd, but I'd have to look it up.
The simplest way to think about it (apart from the ID stuff) is that you can never be compelled to provide testimony that incriminates you. In THE FIELD (vs in court pursuant to subpoena) you cannot get in trouble for refusing to answer questions. There is probably some exception I am missing, so let me say in ALMOST every case, that's true just to cover my butt.
This is of course distinguishable from being a party to a collision or a traffic stop, where you are required to divulge your name.
The stop and ID stuff is spot on, though. Unless your state has a statute requiring it, you are not required to divulge your name during a terry stop. Ime, the overwhelming (95%+) people that I terry stop do provide their name, fwiw.
I had a case oonce where I asked the guy's name and he said "I don't want to tell you". I asked him "why?" . He said "because I think I have a warrant."
Lol, duh.
Last edited:
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
Well by your logic then YOU should not carry a pistol, correct? You could hurt yourself or someone else. When one decides what is right for others who are not violating the law that person becomes their own little tyrant. I think we have enough of those, don't you?:uhoh:
That is not by "my logic" at all.
Again, carrying a pistol is not the same thing as carrying a rifle, in terms of walking around in public. That is true for LEO's and everybody else.
What the heck does hurting oneslef have to do with my point? Nothing
I'm not "deciding for others". I'm offering my opinion, just like you have done in plenty of threads. My OPINION is that if you are a fat guy with a hairy back, you shouldn't walk around downtown Seattle in a speedo.
hth
Another opinion of mine is that if you want to help the open carry cause vs. potentially harm it, it's better to OC a handgun than a long gun, in an urban area specifically.
So spare me the high and mighty rubbish. Offering one's opinion about a topic is not "deciding for others".
People make their own decisions. Offering one's opinion on their conduct does nothing to diminish their autonomy as free citizens.
Again, spare me
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
Opinions are like @$$holes everyone got one, some just stink more than others. You are a LEO correct? Let's hope you never let your opinions factor into your job. Your point is based on FALSE reasoning, one cannot support rights & legal firearm carry only for those that "do it the way I like"; rights just don't work that way. Let me point out - often the people that need a firearm for protection the most are often those of lesser means. A used Marlin 60 is much more attainable for them then a $600 Glock/M&P etc.. Then we have younger people between the ages of 18-20 who cannot buy a pistol from a FFL, and most private sellers will not sell to them. What do they carry... a rape whistle, I guess? You get awful hostile when someone doesn't subscribe to your views...not a good sign Sir. Be well and be safe in all you do and hope that you never need the assistance of a citizen who only owns a long arm to save your a$$. They wouldn't do so because taking it into the public is against current trends right? Shall not be infringed means just that...oh I know, spare you all that mamby pamby rights talk...
Open carrying a weapon is open carrying it does not matter if it is a long gun or a pistol.
You have a serious inability to comprehend what you read.Opinions are like @$$holes everyone got one, some just stink more than others. You are a LEO correct? Let's hope you never let your opinions factor into your job. Your point is based on FALSE reasoning, one cannot support rights & legal firearm carry only for those that "do it the way I like"; rights just don't work that way. Let me point out - often the people that need a firearm for protection the most are often those of lesser means. A used Marlin 60 is much more attainable for them then a $600 Glock/M&P etc.. Then we have younger people between the ages of 18-20 who cannot buy a pistol from a FFL, and most private sellers will not sell to them. What do they carry... a rape whistle, I guess? You get awful hostile when someone doesn't subscribe to your views...not a good sign Sir. Be well and be safe in all you do and hope that you never need the assistance of a citizen who only owns a long arm to save your a$$. They wouldn't do so because taking it into the public is against current trends right? Shall not be infringed means just that...oh I know, spare you all that mamby pamby rights talk...
I never said I do not support the RIGHT to carry a long gun, just like I never said I do not support the RIGHT to be a fat hairy downtown speedo wearer. I also support the RIGHT to use hate speech (which we are rather unique in protecting)
It doesn't therefore follow that I think it's a GOOD PRACTICE TO DO SO.
You can't grok the distinction between supporting a right, and ALSO thinking there are good and not so good ways of exercising same
If anybody's "hostile" , it's you. I am certainly not hostile. You are the one who keeps misrepresenting my position and making up stuff like I;m trying to be the "decider" for somebody else and other such rubbish.
Here.,.. read what I am WRITING, not what you are making up.
I support the RKBA. I support constitutional carry , believe it should be the law in every state.
I support the right to carry a long gun or a handgun openly.
Get it?
However, as a matter of PRACTICE, I think carrying a long gun openly especially in an urban area (it's fine walking in a hunting area), is a poor practice, and is more likely to harm than help the OC cause.
It's that simple. I never said I don't support the RIGHT to do X. I said I think it's suboptimal in the quest to achieve the goal of universal constitutional carry and OC'ing.
hth
So, I would appreciate it if when replying to me, you could respond to what I am saying and not what you are inferring without cause.
It most definitely does matter in terms of public perception. Do you honestly think Joe Public views these two things with the same emotional as well as intellectual response?
1) John carrying a handgun in aholster
2) John OC'ing a long gun (in a sling or whatnot)
If you think the PUBLIC views them the same way, you are simply wrong. They create different impressions for most people. That's my opinion.
They are most definitely not the same in terms of appearance or people's perception.
Imnsho open carrying a rifle in an urban area does not help promote the OC'ing cause.
Period . Full stop.
People can do what they want, but it doesn't therefore follow that the decision they make is a good one.
Also, from a tactical standpoint, incrementalism is the way to go imo. It worked for legalizing marijuana (first medical, now full legalization... at least in WA). It works, in general.
But in any discussion contrasting incrementalism with "full purity" you will hear the same arguments.
I am taking the side of the incrementalist and saying that it's a heck of a lot easier to get people to accept OC handgun than OC longgun.
Last edited:
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
Ok - you think it will cause harm to "our" cause. So be it. It is legal correct? I think people who drive cars with funny blue/red lights on top violate more traffic laws than the average driver, thus defeating the be a safe driver concept. Should we do away with all police cars because I think their drivers set a bad example? And in this case we're talking about people who are actually breaking the law not obeying it. I don't want to debate you. I just want you to think about what you "think" vs what is. Do I open carry a long gun daily no, would I if it was my only option, why yes of course I would. How about you PALO?
Yes, you are finally acknowledging what I said.
I'll set aside the personal crap you are slinging and reiterate that imo the best way to promote OC is to be a good ambassador for the cause. Simple stuff such as not OC'ing if you just field dressed a deer and haven't showered in three days, for example.
Appearances matter. To the public they matter a lot.
And open carrying a rifle appears qualitatively different to many people than OC'ing a handgun. It is certainly true when cops transition to long gun for whatever reason, and it's true for non-cops as well.
The claims that I was deciding for others, etc. I am glad that you are not continuing to hop down that ridiculous bunny trail you were laying, and have stopped misrepresenting my position.
I never once commented on the legality of carrying a long gun OC. That has nothing to do with my point.
I am sure there are many reasonable people reading this thread who will grok my point, so whether you do or not, meh... doesn't really matter.
But I'll state it one more time: IMNSHO and IME being a good ambassador for OC means being approachable, clean (not smelly), well behaved (not boisterous, not drunk... note in my state it's not illegal to be drunk and carrying a firearm but it's VERY bad policy. Note there is no specific statute addressing it, although some could get creative and claim it violates our brandishing statute since it would "warrant alarm" if you saw a fall down drunk guy carrying, but I digress), polite, and in terms of HOW one carries OC'ing a handgun is preferred.
Period. Appearances matter.
I'll let the false claims about my position rest and I'm glad that you've come around, all the personal stuff you just slung at me notwithstanding.
I think most people will recognize that OCing a long gun in an urban area is more likely to harm our cause than help it.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
@ PALO - Wow! Nice way to slime the character of anyone who LGOC's - nicely tied together with drunk, smelly etc in the dribble above. You make your points via opinion that's ok. As long as it clear it's opinion. You conveniently ignore the examples I gave where LGOC may be the only choice available to someone for protection. I don't say it is the easiest way to carry, but if it's all you have then I say do what you must to protect yourself & loved ones.
Simple as that. You also ignore that what you say about LGOC was said about us (pistol OCers) a short time ago. Those Nay Sayers were wrong, and as time passes, it becomes more evident that they were.
ETA - if I didn't know better I'd think I was being trolled here.
Simple as that. You also ignore that what you say about LGOC was said about us (pistol OCers) a short time ago. Those Nay Sayers were wrong, and as time passes, it becomes more evident that they were.
ETA - if I didn't know better I'd think I was being trolled here.
Last edited:
@ PALO - Wow! Nice way to slime the character of anyone who LGOC's - nicely tied together with drunk, smelly etc in the dribble above. You make your points via opinion that's ok. As long as it clear it's opinion. You conveniently ignore the examples I gave where LGOC may be the only choice available to someone for protection. I don't say it is the easiest way to carry, but if it's all you have then I say do what you must to protect yourself & loved ones.
Simple as that. You also ignore that what you say about LGOC was said about us (pistol OCers) a short time ago. Those Nay Sayers were wrong, and as time passes, it becomes more evident that they were.
ETA - if I didn't know better I'd think I was being trolled here.
Again, you respond to your fantasies, not what I said.
I haven't ignored anything. And I never drew any kind of equivalence between rifle carriers and smelly people, the POINT was that appearances matter. Even if the conduct is legal does not mean it's a good idea. Your fantasy about me tying them together is just that. I didn't refer to LGOC who were smelly. I referred to smelly carriers, whether HGOC or LGOC they are both suboptimal if they smell.
As for your last point, people are free to LGOC or not. But imnsho, people who LGOC , specifically in an urban area are more likely to harm than help our cause. That is regardless of whether it's that person's only option. People are still free to make their choices. If you don't have the freedom to make bad choices, you don't have freedom at all (or 99% of hollywood weddings, but I digress)
As for my impugning the CHARACTER of LGOC?
Get real
Last edited: