Open Carry a Magazine ??

SGB said:

Your mistake is in comparing Apples and Oranges, you can't equate a box of ammunition and a pistol magazine in a glove compartment to being the same as having a pistol magazine physically displayed on your person. One is in your immediate possession and the other is not.

Further your cite deals with probable cause not reasonable suspicion. Terry V Ohio only requires reasonable suspicion not probable cause. The openly displayed possession of a pistol magazine provides reasonable suspicion.





itow,

Obviously you are free to believe what ever you wish. However the childish accusation that I made something up was uncalled for. When I was on the street enforcing the Law I averaged a 90-92% conviction rate so I'm pretty sure that I've got a good grasp on how LE works. I also promote Open carry and my post was in no way to indicate otherwise. I simply pointed out that under Florida's current statutes it could bring unwanted attention from Law Enforcement.

If you want to open carry your magazines more power to you however the fact that you to this date have not drawn the attention of a LEO doesn't mean that you never will.

Click to expand...

I'm just like that, don't read too much into it.

I draw the attention of LEOs all the damn time. I never said I haven't.

Regardless of Florida's current law, some LEOs just like to screw with people. In FL, it seems like a majority fit in that category. Many of them know me by name and intentionally look for ways to screw with me because I dared to push back and put them in their place.

Never once has my pair of 1911 matte-chromed mags with 8 rounds each ever drawn their scrutiny. It may not be entirely conclusive. But phuckers like this wouldn't let anything slide they could use. They've SHOT at me. My conclusion is that, if they could have used it to screw with me, they would have. They've tried to stretch and lie in a multitude of ways. But they never tried to use the mags. There must be a reason for that.

SGB said:

Your mistake is in comparing Apples and Oranges, you can't equate a box of ammunition and a pistol magazine in a glove compartment to being the same as having a pistol magazine physically displayed on your person. One is in your immediate possession and the other is not.

Further your cite deals with probable cause not reasonable suspicion. Terry V Ohio only requires reasonable suspicion not probable cause. The openly displayed possession of a pistol magazine provides reasonable suspicion.
[snip]

Click to expand...

Actually no.

In Regalado v. State, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009, the court has this to say:

Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment

Click to expand...

So this answers the question of whether a LEO can demand production of a CWFL in the following situations
1) The open carry of a pistol magazine now, and
2) The open carry of a firearm (when open carry is 'more legal' than it is today) next year.
without RAS of some criminal activity taking place. The court had this to say (Paraphrased):

Possession of a concealed gun is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit

Click to expand...

Yes, you DID make that part up, you put something valid on the top and bottom to try to legitimize it, and then you called me childish for nailing you on it. It's a bullschidt sandwich and I'm not eating it. Trying to force feed it to me and call me childish is, uh, I won't insult children by calling that childish, too.

As Mr. Boyer has pointed out, Carrying a GUN isn't RAS/PC to investigate.

This has been suggested by people who just don't get it before. It is not RAS/PC to pull someone over just because they are driving, even thought it is a licensed behavior. So, how could a stop for someone carrying a gas can on the side of the road be any more legit?

Even if I am carrying a gun illegally concealed, the visibility of the mags doesn't mean there is a gun or mean I don't have a permit. Since carrying the concealed gun is only a crime in the absence of the permit, the cop has to have RAS/PC that you don't have a permit.

What part of carrying mags visible gives the officer RAS/PC that you don't have a permit? Nothing, it's unrelated. Just like carrying a gas can doesn't have anything to do with weather or not you have a drivers' license.

There is a reason why a number of cops with an ego-based beef have never tried to use the mags against me. This is that reason.

I read through this last post nodding my head, saying yes, yes, ixtow gets it... Then I got to this part:

ixtow said:

There is a reason why a number of cops with an ego-based beef have never tried to use the mags against me. This is that reason.

Click to expand...

I get it, you have a problem with police officers. You have said it at every possible opportunity. Let it go or sue them for a civil rights violation under color of law. If you have no grounds for action, this is just cop bashing without justification and it makes us all look bad.

StogieC said:

I read through this last post nodding my head, saying yes, yes, ixtow gets it... Then I got to this part:



I get it, you have a problem with police officers. You have said it at every possible opportunity. Let it go or sue them for a civil rights violation under color of law. If you have no grounds for action, this is just cop bashing without justification and it makes us all look bad.

Click to expand...

+1

brboyer said:

Actually no.

In Regalado v. State, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009, the court has this to say:



So this answers the question of whether a LEO can demand production of a CWFL in the following situations
1) The open carry of a pistol magazine now, and
2) The open carry of a firearm (when open carry is 'more legal' than it is today) next year.
without RAS of some criminal activity taking place. The court had this to say (Paraphrased):

Click to expand...

Once again I believe this is the apples to oranges comparison. Your cite deals with an "anonymous tip" from an individual that a subject was seen openly displaying a firearm vs. this discussion as being observed by an Officer to be openly carrying pistol magazines. The appellate court in your cite ruled that the anonymous tip in and of itself didn't warrant the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Terry stop. Not surprising considering the courts long standing rulings considering "anonymous tips" as the basis for 4th amendment exceptions.

And I'll say this again, openly carrying your pistol magazines while not illegal is going to draw unwanted and unnecessary attention to yourself under the current law in this state. If you want to do it feel free to ignore anything I've had to say on the subject.


ixtow,

It's appears pretty obvious that you have a problem with authority. And as to questioning the honesty and sincerity of my posts I'm just going to consider the source. You sir are our own worst enemy.

I am still unclear. Wouldn't open carrying a magazine be enough for an officer to have reasonable grounds/probable cause to believe that the offense of carrying a concealed weapon is being committed?



790.02 Officer to arrest without warrant and upon probable cause.--The carrying of a concealed weapon is declared a breach of peace, and any officer authorized to make arrests under the laws of this state may make arrests without warrant of persons violating the provisions of s. 790.01 when said officer has reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that the offense of carrying a concealed weapon is being committed.

The officer would have to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe that someone with an exposed mag carrier is illegally carrying a concealed firearm. Unless that person is in some prohibited place, like a post office, that would be a hard sell. The FBI has issued studies that say criminals don't openly carry and they don't use holsters usually.
It would be more reasonable that someone with an exposed mag in a mag carrier would have a valid CWFL and therefore not be violating any law.

It would be like saying that an officer pulled someone over for suspicion of driving without a license because they had car keys hooked to their belt.

StogieC said:

The officer would have to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe that someone with an exposed mag carrier is illegally carrying a concealed firearm. Unless that person is in some prohibited place, like a post office, that would be a hard sell. The FBI has issued studies that say criminals don't openly carry and they don't use holsters usually.
It would be more reasonable that someone with an exposed mag in a mag carrier would have a valid CWFL and therefore not be violating any law.

It would be like saying that an officer pulled someone over for suspicion of driving without a license because they had car keys hooked to their belt.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up StogieC. I missed it the first time with all of that legal rhetoric going back and forth.

StogieC said:

I get it, you have a problem with police officers. You have said it at every possible opportunity. Let it go or sue them for a civil rights violation under color of law. If you have no grounds for action, this is just cop bashing without justification and it makes us all look bad.

Click to expand...

Excuse me? What? How?

It is a statement of fact. Nothing more. In spite of all the times dirty cops have tried to stretch and bend the law to mean what they wish it meant, they never even tried this one.

I didn't say ALL cops. I didn't say cops in general. I qualified the statement. Don't pretend I didn't.

I don't have a problem with Police Officers even. I've just met so few decent ones that I assume the worst when I have to deal with them. Much as any prudent person should, because; they are not your friend. I just have a lot of experience to back up that reasoning.

Stop trying to make it into something it isn't. Sure, I hate cops: until one gives me a reason not to. Very few have.

That doesn't mean every word I speak is 'bashing.' Blinding yourself to that as an excuse to attack me is not useful for either.

I was using the example to edify the Law you cited, nothing more. It was useful to the point. The dirty ones that hate that I know the law and my rights look for ways to screw with me. My visible mags were never even mentioned. This suggests that there is a very clear reason, as they have skirted, bent, and broken every restriction there is to try to screw with me. They never went with the mags. There is a reason, you cited it, even during extreme cases of freedom-hate/opinion enforcement, it never happened.

Don't make this about something it isn't about. Don't lie to get there. Lets keep it on the topic; which my post was directly related to.

I cited an example of a circumstance in which one would expect trouble from carrying mags. That trouble, in spite of extreme prejudice and attempts to create trouble in other ways, never came. There is a reason. That reason has been cited.

kthnksbai.

SGB said:

It's appears pretty obvious that you have a problem with authority.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes I do. A severe and enormous one. The very thought that any man has the right to tell another what to do with himself, is beyond perverse.

I accept that society demands enslavement of itself out of simplicity and laziness. I have learned where the lines of authority are drawn and accept this demented reality. I have a problem only with those who attempt to redraw those lines while not being legislators (whom I also loathe, but accept the reality of).

My self-restraint is damn incredible. Be happy for it.

StogieC said:

It would be like saying that an officer pulled someone over for suspicion of driving without a license because they had car keys hooked to their belt.

Click to expand...

^ Spot on. ^

Even if they were driving the car at the time. This is why 'sobriety checkpoints' are not legal, either. Driving a car does not mean you are doing so without the license. It is illegal to drive if you don't have the License. There must be RAS/PC that the driver doesn't have a license, that the driver is drunk, etc. There has to be RAS/PC of something that is actually illegal, not that you are doing something that a baseless fishing expedition might be able to show is illegal.

If carrying mags were RAS, then carrying a pencil would be too, as it 'suggests' you 'intend' to stab someone in the eye. Running with scissors; baker act the suicidal man!

Just because I'm hot-headed doesn't make me stupid. I know how the game works. I find it revolting, evil, and perverse, but I know how it works.

StogieC said:

The officer would have to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe that someone with an exposed mag carrier is illegally carrying a concealed firearm. Unless that person is in some prohibited place, like a post office, that would be a hard sell. The FBI has issued studies that say criminals don't openly carry and they don't use holsters usually.
It would be more reasonable that someone with an exposed mag in a mag carrier would have a valid CWFL and therefore not be violating any law.

It would be like saying that an officer pulled someone over for suspicion of driving without a license because they had car keys hooked to their belt.

Click to expand...

Best way I've heard this point argued, thanks...