Private Property

imported post

teamreddog wrote:

Thanks for the replys everyone. For now I think I am going to limit my open carry to my property. Events like the gear grinders car show ect. In July or august I will probably get my CPL.

Click to expand...

As we talked about the other day, when you are more confident and have your cpl, you will carry without worry of harming your career position.

To the forum: I talked to teamreddog for over an hour. He presents himself to think much along the same lines as myself and others. But as I have done many times,his questions may appear to come offin the wrong direction in an attempt to get a point made or a question answered. That's why I asked him about his job position, to get his train of thought and reasoning on his comments. He has valid concerns and questions given his position.

just my .02

imported post

Leader,

In any situation...especially when called to a man with a gun call. Adrenaline is increased. Adrenaline produces a fight or flight response. Now this same reaction happens to most people that are also approached by an LEO. You now have two groups of individuals that are wired on adrenaline. The officer being in possesion of the gun could defuse the situation some. It makes sure no mistakes are made. He will not be on edge and thinking that if force needs to be used (for what ever reason) you are also armed and can respond with deadly force. If it defuses the situation it now has made it more safe. To me it is just a mere inconvince to have to let the officer see my weapon. An example: Some people gesture with their hands when they talk. If you have let the LEO temp. take possesion of your gun then he wont have to determin if that was a gesture you were making or if it was a movement toward your gun.

I know you could counter with 1000 what if's That could make transfering a loaded weapon fropm one person to another "less safe" than not handing it over if the LEO asks.
Again that my opinion on it as to why it is safer for the officer and the individual involved. I am sure there are differing opinions.

imported post


Warchild, Thanks...Yes I do sometimes stick my keyboard in my mouth by accident because I am one of those that uses tone and gestures in verbal language to make my point. It always doesnt come across the same way when I type it out lol. I will admit working in LE with the intent to go on to the academy I probably lean towards backing an LEO on what I feel is a reasonable stop and talk. Again as I have said before I do not believe the chief of courunna that first day was reasonable. Sounds like he was on the second encounter though. For now the open carry movement is small (growing) Small enough that it isnt commonly seen and people react to it. As the movement grows this reaction will deminish. I think the pioneers of the movment should be applauded because it wont be easy. They are the ones that are going to have to put up with small inconviences, keep a calm head, and lead by example. Its never easy in the begining.

imported post

teamreddog wrote:

I have a 4 year degree in public safety. I understand Terry stop laws. I was speaking praticalities. I am 100 percent for the right to be able to OC. I am against a lot of the CCW laws because I feel it is just a money maker for the state. Now they allow my MCOLES certified firearms class I had in college but when the law first came out they did not. Nor can I be printed at my department where it is free. SO now I am looking at having to take a class, pay precessing fees ect. I havent got my cpl because of principal only at this stage. Thats why I choose to open carry. However, knowing the public and the people I deal with on a regular basis. I dont think it is unreasonable to stop ID a person and ask for their green card for their pistol just to ease the publics concern and for the safety of the officer to disarm the person only while a quick check is done. I know a lot of you seem to be against that. I however, believe the coruanna chief of police to be way out of line. I think the MSP troopers handled the situation well. I guess maybe being that I see both sides of it I feel there is a happy medium. I would not at all be upset if I was detained for 15 minutes while the officer checked out me and that my gun was legal.

Click to expand...

The police have no right to stop a law abiding person and ask for ID. The fact that they have a gun does not give the officer the right to as for ID or detain anyone for lawful open carry. It would be the same as someonewalking down the street wearing a green T-shirt and getting stopped by the police and asked for ID. That person would not have to give ID. It's really about personal freedoms that we are quickly losing to a increasing police state.

imported post

teamreddog wrote:

Leader,

In any situation...especially when called to a man with a gun call. Adrenaline is increased. Adrenaline produces a fight or flight response. Now this same reaction happens to most people that are also approached by an LEO. You now have two groups of individuals that are wired on adrenaline. The officer being in possesion of the gun could defuse the situation some. It makes sure no mistakes are made. He will not be on edge and thinking that if force needs to be used (for what ever reason) you are also armed and can respond with deadly force. If it defuses the situation it now has made it more safe. To me it is just a mere inconvince to have to let the officer see my weapon. An example: Some people gesture with their hands when they talk. If you have let the LEO temp. take possesion of your gun then he wont have to determin if that was a gesture you were making or if it was a movement toward your gun.

I know you could counter with 1000 what if's That could make transfering a loaded weapon fropm one person to another "less safe" than not handing it over if the LEO asks.
Again that my opinion on it as to why it is safer for the officer and the individual involved. I am sure there are differing opinions.

Click to expand...

But don't you see, as a dispatcher you can ask questions of the caller in regards to the level of response needed. You can short circuit the adrenaline, by telling the officer it looks like a lawful open carry call, be careful, but don't get pumped up. These are very different from a shots fired, a robbery, or other serious crimes called in. It's a guy having coffee or a women shopping that happens to be open carrying and the cops get called. You can inform the officer while he is in route, that's one of the things we are trying to change in regards to 911 calls.

imported post

Venator: and others; I guess once again we agree to disagree (partially). In order to further the right to OC-- WITHOUT-- terry stops, why not bend our rights and principles to make the point, as many times as it takes. I definately agree we are in a increasingly police state, no doubt. I wouldn't mind a terry stop, just to inform the officer that you are aware of your rights and HE is the one in violation of the law. I grant you I would only do this for an officer once. If the same officer attempted to stop me again, I most definately would regard that as harassment and challenge him on the spot! And inform his department of his actions immediately.

imported post

I agree and we do ask all these questions but I feel there is a transition period that is happening. It isnt common for LEO or the public to see people OCing...I know that doesnt make it against the law. However I feel if I choose to carry that way and personally I believe open carry is a better deterent than CC. That an officer stopping me to see that I am carrying for lawful reasons is just a minor inconvience. That will both put the officer at ease with the more and more encounters it appears he is going to have and will put the public at ease as they see the officer talk with the subject then let him carry on his way. I think the more common place open carry becomes a lot of this will go away. You can bet if a person made a call about a man peacefully carrying a weapon...I would let them know he is lawful and STILL dispatch it to officers...If I didnt I can assure you there would be people comming in asking to see the chief wanting to know why officers never responded.
I completely understand the info you are trying to get out to dispatchers and officers. I think it is a good thing. However, both a PD would be harmed and the open carry cause would be harmed if the 1 and a million chance that the person that was OCing then walked into some place like VT university and shot the place up and as never checked on. I know this is a 1 and million chance but in todays society you never know.(and an extreeme example) I wish one of the teachers or students at any of these shootings had been armed it might have never happened....I know I might sound like I am for taking peoples rights away but I am not. I just see both sides of being asked about the firearm straped to your side....If it wasnt a LEO that stopped to talk with you about it I bet you would welcome the opertunity to inform them of the OC cause. Thats the way I look at it. I know the stakes are higher when it is a LEO asking you questions it is a different ball game snd that personal rights and freedoms are involved....That why I said it wouldnt bother me to allow the LEO to be in possesion of my weapon if it made him "feel" more safe.

imported post

Open carrying is an obvious expression of support for the Second Amendment. You do know that the Second Amendment was not written to protect us from the common criminal, it was written to protect us from the police state. I will absolutely protest being disarmed, I cannot say that I will physically resist because I don't want to be a test case for the real meaning of the Second Amendment. However the point is that the Second Amendment was to protect us from tyranny, which I believes the increasing police state and instances of police brutality. I can't protect myself very well if I am disarmed. That is my legal reasoning for saying that an officer has no right to disarm me.

Secondly, trying to say that the adrenaline from having a discussion with a police officer is enough to turn a law abiding OCer into a cop killer is the same kind of argument the antis bring and it fails every time. They always try to say that if everyone has guns than any argument or tense situation will result in a gunfight. The fact is it doesn't and hasn't happened.

Lastly, can you name a single mass shooting that didn't occur in a gun free zone? If someone is OCing in a gun free zone, then you have a crime to dispatch officers to, if they're planning a mass murder in any other location, I like to think that they won't get too far with the amount of CCWs around. Your odds of arresting a potential criminal because they are lawfully carrying is next to nothing. You'd have much better statistical chances of catching a potential criminal if you arrested every black man in certain neighborhoods. You have no more right to dispach officers to a lawful OCer than you do to a black man on the sidewalk.