• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 interactions with officers

ekoesling

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
1
Location
Wisconsin
Hello all! First post, and first day reading about the laws around open carry. I have hit most of the stickies and have seen some good info. I listened to several audio recordings of interactions and have seen several videos and came away from most of them with a few simple questions around interactions with police officers confronting those who open carry.

Let me first start off by saying that while I own several guns and am an advocate for our right to bear arms, I also am a realist and pretty much agree that things like fully automatic weapons being completely unnecessary for day to day protection. So I guess what I am saying, is I am not a completely staunch any-gun anywhere kind of person, but I very much appreciate and expect to be able to take a semi automatic handgun of any kind with me pretty much anywhere whenever I want (which, we all know we can't do). Anyway, to the question...


I hear so many of these audio recordings going something like this:

Police officer: What is your name
MWAG: [Says nothing]
-Repeat above several times
Police officer: Law abiding citizens are allowed to have guns, I need to verify you are a law abiding citizen tell me your name
MWAG: [Says nothing]
Police officer: Do you understand that law abiding citizens are allowed to possess a firearm?
MWAG: Hugh?, Okay
Police officer: Repeats, and adds that he doesn't know who the MWAG is


I think you get the gist.

Now, I get that your best course of action is to remain silent, less to defend against etc. But at the end of the day, if it is our right as law abiding citizens to carry a firearm, and I am a law abiding citizen, why should I not just cooperate and provide my name, so they can verify that I am a law abiding citizen and go on with my life, instead of making the cops mad about something that's completely avoidable? Now, if I was not a law abiding citizen, then hell ya, I would keep my mouth shut, but the fact here is that I am , and none of the MWAG's in the recordings were criminals either.

I guess I get it at the end of the day, its all about our "rights" and if we give an inch, they take a mile type thing, but it is a huge hassle, makes a scene and I am sure whoever I am with at the time if something like that went down wouldn't exactly appreciate the scenario either.

So my question is, who here has been stopped, gone the route where they are compliant and also the route of "saying nothing" and which turned out better.... I imagine the compliant route is less stressful for everyone.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Hello all! First post, and first day reading about the laws around open carry. <snip>

So my question is, who here has been stopped, gone the route where they are compliant and also the route of "saying nothing" and which turned out better.... I imagine the compliant route is less stressful for everyone.

Thoughts?
A reasonable and rational citizen, who goes about visibly armed with a properly holstered handgun, bears a responsibility to be aware of the laws that affect OC (or that there are no laws for OC), and CC for that matter. Only a cop can make a non-event a event if that citizen is law abiding.

A non-confrontational approach to any cop interactions, where your OC'd handgun is likely the only reason for the interaction, is the first key to not being subject to "the ride." Recording the interaction is vital to "beating the rap." LACs are usually not required to interact with a cop if they are not mandated to do so under the laws of their state. Know this/these laws too.

I have had two interaction, several years ago, both were short, less than one minute in one, and less than five minutes in the other. On both occasions I supplied only the information required under the law. I did not speak one word in the first, and "educated" in the second.

The second interaction was a cop quizzing/lecturing me about OC in my front yard (he was driving by and saw me OC while doing yard work). "No law against that" was my only substantive response after the "no" to a ID request. The cop made a good choice and went about his business elsewhere.

Every interaction is unique and your approach should be predicated on what you perceive as the cop's attitude. The "side of the road' is not the place to try a (your) court case. It is my experience that the vast majority of cops are well trained and professional. They'll know a crime is in progress, or a criminal (alleged) is in their midst, act accordingly and within the confines of the law. These cops rarely stop you unless they have a department policy that compels them to do that which they would not ordinarily do if they were to casually see a armed citizen.

Welcome to OCDO.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Welcome to OCDO ekoesling .

Moved this to the Wisconsin sub-forum because laws and circumstances vary significently from state to state.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
First, why should we not be able to own full autos? Do you know what the 2A is?
Second, if police say they need to verify you are a law abiding citizen, ask them what crime you've committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit. If he can't say, start to walk away. However, if he detains you further, keep your mouth shut.

[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"But how do I know you're a law abiding citizen?" is NOT the same thing as "I can reasonably suspect you are violating XXX criminal code."

Just because a woman has a vagina doesn't mean it's reasonable to suspect she is a prostitute nor that a man with a penis is necessarily a rapist.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
First, why should we not be able to own full autos? Do you know what the 2A is?
Second, if police say they need to verify you are a law abiding citizen, ask them what crime you've committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit. If he can't say, start to walk away. However, if he detains you further, keep your mouth shut.

[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]

Velkomen to the blog. I agree with Protias. During the revolutionary war, we were not armed with bows and arrows, but guns that matched British guns most of the time.
 

Franky

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
271
Location
popple butte
First, why should we not be able to own full autos? Do you know what the 2A is?
Second, if police say they need to verify you are a law abiding citizen, ask them what crime you've committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit. If he can't say, start to walk away. However, if he detains you further, keep your mouth shut.

[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]

You probably should read the post again. The new poster never said yay or nay about a person's RIGHT to own a fully automatic weapon.

As for the rest of your post's advice were they your actions at the chinese restaurant x amount of years ago?
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
SNIP...Let me first start off by saying that while I own several guns and am an advocate for our right to bear arms, I also am a realist and pretty much agree that things like fully automatic weapons being completely unnecessary for day to day protection. So I guess what I am saying, is I am not a completely staunch any-gun anywhere kind of person, but I very much appreciate and expect to be able to take a semi automatic handgun of any kind with me pretty much anywhere whenever I want (which, we all know we can't do).

Welcome to OCDO ekoesling. I understand that statist propaganda can rub off on even the most Freedom-loving individuals from all the exposure.:)
The-Original-Assault-Rifle....jpg
I'd counter the "need" argument with "you don't NEED to express your opinion on "social media" because it is really unnecessary to expressing yourself when you can already interact face-to-face with neighbors, just like you don't NEED a car that goes faster than 65 MPH since the first cars usually topped out at around 20 MPH and worked out fine, and you don't NEED a computer, since technically everything was once done using paper and pen." See what that sounds like?:rolleyes:

Sorry if I come off as a bit aggressive; I'm not trying to be.:)
Now, I get that your best course of action is to remain silent, less to defend against etc. But at the end of the day, if it is our right as law abiding citizens to carry a firearm, and I am a law abiding citizen, why should I not just cooperate and provide my name, so they can verify that I am a law abiding citizen and go on with my life, instead of making the cops mad about something that's completely avoidable? Now, if I was not a law abiding citizen, then hell ya, I would keep my mouth shut, but the fact here is that I am , and none of the MWAG's in the recordings were criminals either.

I guess I get it at the end of the day, its all about our "rights" and if we give an inch, they take a mile type thing, but it is a huge hassle, makes a scene and I am sure whoever I am with at the time if something like that went down wouldn't exactly appreciate the scenario either.

I bolded the part that shows you've been indoctrinated with the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" mentality, also known as "guilty until proven innocent".

Not good:(. The way you try to defend it is also indicative of a spread of this statist propaganda within your being.
I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on Tv, but I had similar exposure to statist propaganda and similar symptoms some years back. I'd recommend a constant purging of the toxic statist propaganda elements from your body and your surroundings, trying to limit your exposure via touch, sight, or airwaves.:lol:
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
SNIP...Let me first start off by saying that while I own several guns and am an advocate for our right to bear arms, I also am a realist and pretty much agree that things like fully automatic weapons being completely unnecessary for day to day protection. So I guess what I am saying, is I am not a completely staunch any-gun anywhere kind of person, but I very much appreciate and expect to be able to take a semi automatic handgun of any kind with me pretty much anywhere whenever I want (which, we all know we can't do).

You probably should read the post again. The new poster never said yay or nay about a person's RIGHT to own a fully automatic weapon.

Read again. He implies that since he deems them "unnecessary for day to day protection" that they should not be carried around. What would be wrong with me wanting to carry around a rifle capable of select fire up to, and including, "full auto"?
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
Welcome to OCDO ekoesling. I understand that statist propaganda can rub off on even the most Freedom-loving individuals from all the exposure.:)
View attachment 11509

He didn't say the "need" to own; just the "need" to carry one during your daily activities. And to me, it's a good point: when confronted with a criminal, just how useful IS a rifle? Not very. Sure, it might be a hell of a deterrent, but it's not really practical.

Now, in defense of our liberties against government oppression: of course they are useful. As has been pointed out, having comparable arms to what the government would use against us will help keep us from being overrun.

To the OP: the fact is that you don't HAVE to identify yourself to an officer if you are not committing a crime. However, like you, I would probably be inclined to ID just because a little - and I do mean a little - cooperation would probably go a long way toward the encounter being cordial rather than confrontational. It comes down to we all have a choice on how we want to handle the situation. I myself would prefer to be a good ambassador for the cause than to try to show a cop how much smarter I am than he is. I think in the long run it'll make things easier not only for me, but also for the next open carrier that officer encounters.

BTW, have you EVER seen/heard of a bad guy open carrying? No, they hide their weapons. So the cops should already reasonably suspect that we are good law-abiding citizens. But I don't think being stubborn and confrontational is going to help reinforce that.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
He didn't say the "need" to own; just the "need" to carry one during your daily activities. And to me, it's a good point: when confronted with a criminal, just how useful IS a rifle? Not very. Sure, it might be a hell of a deterrent, but it's not really practical.

Now, in defense of our liberties against government oppression: of course they are useful. As has been pointed out, having comparable arms to what the government would use against us will help keep us from being overrun.

To the OP: the fact is that you don't HAVE to identify yourself to an officer if you are not committing a crime. However, like you, I would probably be inclined to ID just because a little - and I do mean a little - cooperation would probably go a long way toward the encounter being cordial rather than confrontational. It comes down to we all have a choice on how we want to handle the situation. I myself would prefer to be a good ambassador for the cause than to try to show a cop how much smarter I am than he is. I think in the long run it'll make things easier not only for me, but also for the next open carrier that officer encounters.

BTW, have you EVER seen/heard of a bad guy open carrying? No, they hide their weapons. So the cops should already reasonably suspect that we are good law-abiding citizens. But I don't think being stubborn and confrontational is going to help reinforce that.

No need for a rifle? Really? I guess those in that Aurora, CO theater wouldn't have wanted a rifle... :rolleyes:
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
ekoesling said:
... at the end of the day, if it is our right as law abiding citizens to carry a firearm, and I am a law abiding citizen, why should I not just cooperate and provide my name, so they can verify that I am a law abiding citizen and go on with my life, instead of making the cops mad about something that's completely avoidable?
It is not my job, nor an obligation upon me, to make the officer's life easier.
I do not have to prove I am not breaking a law.
It is the officer's job to prove that I am doing something illegal.

I am protected by the Constitution against being required to provide any evidence which could be used against me... and some officers are pretty good about twisting completely legal and innocent actions or statements. (Heck, some make things up out of whole cloth. There's even a word for the most extreme form: testilying. I've had that used against me.)

If I am doing nothing illegal, then it's the officer's fault the interaction happened, and if they get mad about someone exercising their civil rights, they need to re-read the oath they took, esp. the part about upholding the laws (and sometimes there's something about defending the Constitution).

See Delaware v. Prouse, 1979
"random traffic stops conducted for the purpose of checking driver licenses violate the Fourth Amendment"
http://www.caselaw4cops.net/cases_new/delaware_v_prouse.html

Since it's illegal to stop someone doing something which requires a license just to check to see if they have a valid license, it's also illegal to stop someone doing something which does not require a license to check to see if they have permission to do it.

it is a huge hassle, makes a scene and I am sure whoever I am with at the time if something like that went down wouldn't exactly appreciate the scenario either.
You're not the one making a scene. You were peacefully and lawfully going about your day. The officer caused the problem, and should be the one embarrassed (including by his forgetting established case law such as Delaware v. Prouse).

Now, if one were carrying openly in a place where only licensees are allowed to possess a usable firearm (the most common example in WI being in the "gun-free" school zone), the officer would have reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime, and a defense to that is having a carry license, so you would have to show your ccl & DL.

I imagine the compliant route is less stressful for everyone.
No, only less stressful for the officer.
You'll still end up arrested, booked, charged, groped, have your property stolen, just the same as if you kept your mouth shut except to ask why you were being detained, or ask for your lawyer.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
As soon as you answer a cop's questions you are in trouble.

Cop: You did not kill that guy?
U: Correct.
Cop: Bob, get the car up this guy just answered Yes to my question about killing the guy.
U (to self): freaking hey, I should have not said anything
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Here's another useful case.
Stufflebeam v. Harris (8th Cir. 2008)
The Court held: Police could not arrest a passenger in a vehicle simply because he did not comply with the officer and show identification.
The officer needs reasonable suspicion that the passenger is engaged in criminal conduct before compelling him to show identification.

The Court stated, "...arresting Stufflebeam, a passenger not suspected of criminal activity, because he adamantly refused to comply with an unlawful demand that he identify himself. No reasonable police officer could believe he had probable cause to arrest this stubborn and irritating, but law abiding citizen."

http://www.caselaw4cops.net/cases_new/stufflebeam_v_harris_06_4046_8cir_2008.html
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
Tell me, where would they have kept their rifles while seated? A rifle is cumbersome in daily, non-military life. And in a dark theater it wouldn't be seen to have a deterrent effect.

While anyone there would have taken a rifle over nothing in that instance, I don't think you can really tell me that it would have been BETTER than a handgun.

Now, I would never tell someone that they couldn't carry a rifle if they wanted. But I think they are wholly impractical for when you're out in public.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Tell me, where would they have kept their rifles while seated? A rifle is cumbersome in daily, non-military life. And in a dark theater it wouldn't be seen to have a deterrent effect.

While anyone there would have taken a rifle over nothing in that instance, I don't think you can really tell me that it would have been BETTER than a handgun.

Now, I would never tell someone that they couldn't carry a rifle if they wanted. But I think they are wholly impractical for when you're out in public.

You asked if a rifle would have been superior, I doubt there is many here that would believe otherwise. You did not ask if a handgun is more convenient to carry. The 2A says nothing about practical or impractical, those are arguments antis make.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
A Ferrari is "impractical" for a go-to-market car, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold, driven, nor coveted.

I care not what a man carries for protection, so long as he carries. And as Benjamen Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

I'll bet the police that responded to the theater shooting carried an AR or three. Any takers?
 
Last edited:
Top