• 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.

Raleigh PD stance on Open Carry

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

yonder wrote:
NC Law does permit "open carry" in non-restricted places and as such, it is permitted within Raleigh. I would hope our officers are well-informed, but since we have over 740 sworn officers, I will not make that guarantee. I will venture a guess that if you do decide to "open carry", as an agency we will receive numerous calls from citizens and you will have quite a bit of interaction with our officers. Captain Hardy
Code:
Maybe Captain Hardy needs to be reminded that ignorance of the law is not excuse. So the 740 sworn officers, need to be informed.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
I'm going to play devils advocate here.:p

SNIP
The devil got beat on this one over two centuries ago, starting with the Fourth Amendment, and then all thecase law since then.
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
I'm going to play devils advocate here.:p
I'll play. :)

The Capt. and his officers have to investigate the calls and/or complaints.
Actually not quite true. The Capt. and his officers have to investigate criminal calls and complaints (actually in most places they don't even have a legal duty to respond to THOSE complaints). The mere act of OC'ing is not a criminal offense, thus no investigation need be performed. The first question a 911 operator needs to ask when they get a call of "There's a MAN WITH A GUN!!", is... "What is he doing with it".

But let's go with your proposal that they *have* to investigate every call they get. Ok, then the proper investigation would be to quietly and unobtrusivley observe. When they see that the "man with a gun" is just going about his business then investigation over, move on.

So, even going by your assumption of them having to investigate every call they get, it still doesn't equal a stop and question.
They do not know before hand if the person with a open carry weapon is or is not a convicted felon or just a innocent citizen practicing OC.

They don't need to know if the person is a convicted felon. It's not pertinant to the situation. Besides the fact that if the person WAS a convicted felon I can with 99% certainly guarantee that he's hiding his firearm, not carrying it in a holster openly. And only if they KNOW the person is a convicted felon may the stop and question.

I'd have to ask the person a few questions and then leave it at that..
Just so as long as you accept the fact that the person has no legal requirement to answer any of your questions and can just turn around and walk away, I don't have a problem with the attempt. If you escalate it beyond that, then you are violating the civil rights of the person you have approached.

Of course if a LEO approaches in a friendly way and starts a conversation, I am more than happy to talk guns with them.

Remember the Law Enforcement Officer wants to go home at the end of his/her shift and everybody that has a gun is not legal.
Wanting to go home at the end of their shift is no excuse for harassing a lawful citizen and violating their civil rights. (Terry v. Ohio)
 

Pa. Patriot

State Researcher
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,441
Location
Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

I concur.
I don't think that an LEO has to ask me any questions to see I am not breaking any laws. So why on earth would I answer them? If they see me OC'ing and I'm not threatening anyone or acting suspicious then go on your way. Asking me Q's at that point is nothing more than unnessary at best and harassment at worse.

Nothing to see here, move along! :)
 

kenpofan

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
22
Location
Greater Metro Reidsville, North Carolina, USA
imported post

it appears that I made a mistake..

I thought you'd want to see the other side of the discussion..but it appears thatyou either don't know the law .In NC you are required to give your name and ID when so asked, or you don't think the Officer has a reasonable reason to check the ID of a person for his and /or the communities safety.

Iam afraid that I mistook thissite for people who want to practice OC.

I would imagine that with the relative novelty of doing so,you'd understand the fact that LEO's would want to ascertain who,what and possibly why a person was wandering around with a gun on the hip.

Of course I made a mistake..

I apologize for bothering you with another perspective and only wish you the best.
 

jeepinbanditrider

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
203
Location
Mineral Wells, Tx., ,
imported post

If you guys think it's okay to let cops get away with little things here and ther when it comes to civil rights and OCing, ya'll need to go look in the Virgina forum on the OC boards.
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
it appears that I made a mistake..

I thought you'd want to see the other side of the discussion..but it appears thatyou either don't know the law .In NC you are required to give your name and ID when so asked, or you don't think the Officer has a reasonable reason to check the ID of a person for his and /or the communities safety.

Iam afraid that I mistook thissite for people who want to practice OC.

I would imagine that with the relative novelty of doing so,you'd understand the fact that LEO's would want to ascertain who,what and possibly why a person was wandering around with a gun on the hip.

Of course I made a mistake..

I apologize for bothering you with another perspective and only wish you the best.
Great reply! You asked to play devil's advocate, I countered with my perspective. Yet that makes ME unwilling to see the other side? Sounds to me like it's YOU that refuses to see the other side. You seemed to have shown your true colors... You aren't interested in different perspectives, you just attack those who propose alternatives. Illuminating...
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
...In NC you are required to give your name and ID when so asked...
Okay, please quote the section of the code that requires ID be produced while one is just walking in public.

We'll anxiously await your reply.
 

jeepinbanditrider

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
203
Location
Mineral Wells, Tx., ,
imported post

You know no matter what any cop ever says I still don't see why there is a cause for alarm when a man or woman is OCing in a FREAKIN' HOLSTER.

I also get tiredof the "for the safety of myself and the community" lines. How is my weapon in a damn holster going to jump out and shoot someone.:X


I have to assume from your line of thinking and your posts that you are most likely a LEO. How many "bad guys" or gang bangers have you arrested that carried a weapon OPENLY IN A HOLSTER?

I'm also interested in seeing this law that requires me to ID myself to you when you start asking me questions.
 

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
it appears that I made a mistake..

I thought you'd want to see the other side of the discussion..but it appears thatyou either don't know the law .In NC you are required to give your name and ID when so asked, or you don't think the Officer has a reasonable reason to check the ID of a person for his and /or the communities safety.

Holding flag, please site where you are required to give ID when asked. A few months ago, a search only showed Neveda has having a requirement.

I would like to add NC to my list of places. If you cannot site, then I believe you are also a vicitim of that common misconception.
 

kenpofan

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
22
Location
Greater Metro Reidsville, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Yes..I am.



Forgive the lack of case law stated ,but the US Supreme Court ruled on 06/22/2004 that the State of Nevada vs Larry Hiibelswas constitutional..

Its called a terry stop in NC.

1stHeard by SCOUS in 1968.

Officer must be able to articulate that it was his/her judgementthatreasonable suspicion of criminal activity and for the safety of himself and others he stopped and searched.

Furthermore he/she has the right to ascertain the identity of the person so stopped.



http://www.expertlaw.com has a whole section devoted to terry stops.As a counter balance.. http://www.papersplease.org shows the oppositions stance.



I want to repeat myself if I may, it is never my intent to stop or curtail the right to open carry...I do however have another perspective as to my safety.

My safety ,while attempting to protect you ,is my primary concern.

I have never stopped a felon open carrying on his person..but I have taken 2 off themconcealedand secured about 5 give or take 1 out of vehicles.

In the home I've lost count.

thank you.
 

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
Yes..I am.



Forgive the lack of case law stated ,but the US Supreme Court ruled on 06/22/2004 that the State of Nevada vs Larry Hiibelswas constitutional..

Its called a terry stop in NC.

1stHeard by SCOUS in 1968.

Officer must be able to articulate that it was his/her judgementthatreasonable suspicion of criminal activity and for the safety of himself and others he stopped and searched.

Furthermore he/she has the right to ascertain the identity of the person so stopped.



http://www.expertlaw.com has a whole section devoted to terry stops.As a counter balance.. http://www.papersplease.org shows the oppositions stance.



I want to repeat myself if I may, it is never my intent to stop or curtail the right to open carry...I do however have another perspective as to my safety.

My safety ,while attempting to protect you ,is my primary concern.

I have never stopped a felon open carrying on his person..but I have taken 2 off themconcealedand secured about 5 give or take 1 out of vehicles.

In the home I've lost count.

thank you.


A few things. Neveda has a "law" that says you have to give your name. NC, VA, KY, DC, MD, and TN do not. Supposely, only NV has the law, but I have only confirmed in the mentioned states.

Also, OC, in not cause for a Terry stop. The requirement to provide ID is dependant upon a reason to believe that someone is breaking the law. OC'ing does not provide cause for a Terry Stop.

Protecting me includes protecting my rights. I really started carrying after talking to several people while working privacy issues. If I chose to end an encounter with a LEO, while the only reason the encounter was begun is because I was OC, I expect you to protect my rights and let me leave. I will never agree to siezure of any of my property.

Now, your safety, is not as important to me as my safety is to me. I carry to protect mine and me. I'm not there to "protect" you. You are there to protect me. Giving up my right to carry because I might be questioned, not going to happen.

I have many, many times just asked if I was free to go and refused to answer any questions.
 

kenpofan

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
22
Location
Greater Metro Reidsville, North Carolina, USA
imported post

I do not find the Patriot Act as a wet dream..

I am unaware of how the act has affected the OC law in NC.

dream or nightmare !

The Sgt in Ohio was rude and disrespectful . IMHO.

The Capt. was possibly just trying to explain that in a dept. of 740 officers some may not be as preparedas he'd like..or perhaps hejust doesn't support OC.

If its the later he's wrong !

gregma,

I can assure you that each and every firearms call is investigated and after the VT shooting they will be even more so.

If you read terry vs ohio and the following hiibel

You'll see the officer has to articulate the need for a stop ,question andsearch..

in the eyes of a reasonable man.. I think you'll find the vast majority of officers can and will be able to articulate to the satisfaction of a judge ,the need to verify that a armed individual ,on public property or in a manner that has caused public concern will be within therange of aterry stop.

IMHO.

Thank you for your time.
 

ijusam

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
322
Location
Kent county, Delaware, USA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
Yes..I am.
Is that: Yes I am a LEO
OR yes I am a victim of that common misconception
Forgive the lack of case law stated ,but the US Supreme Court ruled on 06/22/2004 that the State of Nevada vs Larry Hiibelswas constitutional..

Its called a terry stop in NC.

1stHeard by SCOUS in 1968.

Officer must be able to articulate that it was his/her judgementthatreasonable suspicion of criminal activity and for the safety of himself and others he stopped and searched.

The officer must have probable cause to suspect unlawful activity, it is not unlawful to open carry so isn’t enough to justify a terry stop by itself
Furthermore he/she has the right to ascertain the identity of the person so stopped.

If there isnt PC of unlawful activity, then there isn’t cause for terry stop, then there is no authority (not right) to require ID
http://www.expertlaw.com has a whole section devoted to terry stops.As a counter balance.. http://www.papersplease.org shows the oppositions stance.



I want to repeat myself if I may, it is never my intent to stop or curtail the right to open carry...I do however have another perspective as to my safety.

My safety ,while attempting to protect you ,is my primary concern.

I have never stopped a felon open carrying on his person..but I have taken 2 off themconcealedand secured about 5 give or take 1 out of vehicles.

That is the point. the felon doesn’t open carry they HIDE their weapons.. cc or under the seat ect.. IMO it would be very rare for a felon to open carry

In the home I've lost count.

thank you.
 

Pa. Patriot

State Researcher
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,441
Location
Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Where have we seen this before?

Nobody said we did not want to hear the "other perspective". You apparently did make a mistake. But that was thinking that we have to agree with you. Yup, your mistaken.

If OC is legal then... It's LEGAL. What more do you need to know?

I'm talking about the OC in and of itself only, and with NO other suspicious behavior.

Or is it your "perspective" that someone OC'ing a gun is reason enough for you to ask personal questions (ie: "why?", "what?", "Where?", Who?", etc)

Do you feel compelled to ask these questions of other law abiding citizens based on their legal appearance or acts?
Tattoos and piercings? Walking a dog? Wearing white after labor day?
 

Pa. Patriot

State Researcher
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,441
Location
Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

kenpofan wrote:
...in the eyes of a reasonable man.. I think you'll find the vast majority of officers can and will be able to articulate to the satisfaction of a judge ,the need to verify that a armed individual ,on public property or in a manner that has caused public concern will be within therange of aterry stop.
And THIS is exactly what is wrong with law enforcement today. IMHO.

FYI: In PA the SC has ruled that OC is NOT reason for a Terry stop.
( "Any form of felony stop procedure for open carry by itself is unwarranted". - http://tinyurl.com/346wwr Commonwealth v. Hawkins (1997) )


Hopefully cooler heads prevail in your state too. OC poses no threat to LEO's.
Guns are legal and carrying guns is legal.
Your in law enforcement, you need to enforce laws, not make them up. If you feel the need to harrass people because no more reason other than that they are carrying your in the wrong job. As for the VT shooting, what are you saying? Your going to overstep your legal bounds even more?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Its a failure to correctly apply 4th Amendment jurisprudence. That's all. He's just applying his opinion that there might be somethingdangerous and it needs to be checked out, as opposed to applying 4th Amendment case law.

If he just reads up on 4th Amendment cases it will sort out.
 

kenpofan

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
22
Location
Greater Metro Reidsville, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Thanks all for this interaction.

I think you'd find that in a real world encounter, we'd agree too about 99 % of gun issues, however it apears that on the latter 1 %we must disagree.

I hope I've done so without being disagreeable.

But alas, Men/Women should at somepoint agree to disagree, and that is the point I'm at now.

I'd be the first to submit, all is not right with the world, and while I'm not perfect, I try on a dailey basis to make it better.

I think in truth you feel the same.

thanks all.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

http://policechiefmagazine.org/magaz...ue_ id=122005


Chief's Counsel

Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun if properly licensed, a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."3

State laws vary regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms, but courts are usually sensitive to officer and public safety concerns over the presence in public of firearms. Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.4

Anonymous Tip
In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.5 More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.6 Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.7 In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.8 The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.9

Clearly, not every report of a citizen is worthy of belief or sufficient to justify a response by an officer. A caller could, for example, intend merely to harass someone by making an anonymous call to police and claiming someone had a gun hidden in his or her vehicle or on his or her person.

The ultimate issue on the report's usefulness is whether the contents (and other attendant circumstances) create a reasonable suspicion that a dangerous situation exists, creating authority to detain or frisk or both. It certainly helps if the report contains particular facts that do one or more of the following:


Create a suggestion of threats of violence in this situation

Are themselves acts of violence

Indicate impending criminal activity

Raise a reasonable concern for public safety

Of course, in the many jurisdictions where carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, this analytical step may be obviated and inquiry will proceed to the next issue, the likely veracity of the information source. In the case of an anonymous tip, the question will be whether corroboration of detail goes beyond the mere description of a person already in public.

Examples of Appropriate Police Actions
Examples may be helpful here. Police officers would be acting reasonably in stopping and frisking an individual after receiving information on the street from a known bystander that the person was displaying a handgun on a street corner in a high crime area at 5:30 in the morning, or if it reasonably appears that a suspect is not only armed but also dangerous, as would be the case if the individual appeared to be reaching for his or her weapon. The possession of a firearm by a minor in many states may be viewed as presumptively illegal, and thus sufficient to justify an investigatory stop of the minor by the police, again provided the information source is sufficiently credible. A constitutionally reliable report of the sighting of someone carrying a sawed-off shotgun-especially in states where this is illegal-would likely justify an immediate investigatory stop. Loading a weapon in public, especially where there is no clearly lawful reason for doing so (to begin hunting or target shooting, for instance), and especially in a high crime area at night or during early morning hours, could provide the extra information some courts require in order to allow police officers to conduct an investigatory stop and frisk of a person reportedly in possession of a firearm.

Enforcement Guidelines
Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:


Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.

If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.

If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.

If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview.

If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon.

Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter.


1 See, for example, Com. v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
2 Id.
3 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
4 Com. v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998).
5 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
6 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
7 Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
8 Id.
9 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1105 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); U.S. v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998).

From The Police Chief, vol. 72, no. 12, December 2005.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

BB62 wrote:
kenpofan wrote:
...In NC you are required to give your name and ID when so asked...
Okay, please quote the section of the code that requires ID be produced while one is just walking in public.

We'll anxiously await your reply.

KENPOFAN: 3 posts of "Blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. etc." not addressing my and others request that you back up your DIRECT assertion.

You've done agreat jobat NOT answering direct questions. What are you trolling for?

Yourcredibility is zero, and I think that is evident to all.
 
Top