LEO's who claim ignorance of the law -

imported post

Whenever a person is (illegally) harassed or detained for OC'ing, the defense of the LEOs is always along the lines, "Gosh, I didn't know OC was legal." I have always suspected many LEO's know OC is legal, yet they insist on harassing folks for it anyway. Unfortunately, there's no way to prove this assertion.

Or is there?

Here's an idea: before open-carrying in a city or county, send a certified, return receipt letter to the police department or sheriff's office, respectively. The letter should clearly explain the law as it pertains to OC, and should strongly advise the police chief or sheriff to train the LEOs under their command about the law.

Why send the letter?

If someone is harassed or detained for open-carrying, the LEO cannot claim he/she didn't know the law. (Unless, of course, the police chief or sheriff didn't educate the LEO, which means the police chief or sheriff is liable.)

Is this a worthwhile endeavor, in your opinion?

imported post

Nice idea....

But the Chief is not likely to beobligated to report to his troops something that is"legal" already....

That would be like me telling the Chief "I am going to be walking through your town tomorrowand I do not want your officers to mess with me since this is legal. Signed.... John Rambo"

Now if the Chief stops you and you have your signed receipt.... You can go after the Chief. But I am not sure this is a cure all for all the officers.

Let's say the officers are told. But you had a few on vacation, away on training, family leave, military leave.... They never got the notice and slipped through the cracks.

Do you run their butts through the ringer now since you have a signedreceipt showing that the Chief knew?

Sending some correspondence is an excellent idea with a request to be acknowledged. Something that says you are aware it is legal but in some locations officers were unaware. You want to be sure during your stay that there is no unnecessary altercations due to your legal activity.

imported post

229:

Agreed, but I believe it's better than doing nothing at all. At the very least, it will give the police chief or sheriff pause. And such a document can only help (not hurt) the victim in court. But I agree it's not a perfect solution.

imported post

Ohio Patriot wrote:

229:

Agreed, but I believe it's better than doing nothing at all. At the very least, it will give the police chief or sheriff pause. And such a document can only help (not hurt) the victim in court. But I agree it's not a perfect solution.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of your thoughts except holding the Chief responsible.

I mentioned in the past about sending the CLEO a letter to inform and educate. Nothing wrong with that at all.

My only issue was, in all fairness, the Chief is not obligated to tell his troops you may do something "legal". However.... if drafted properly.... it would be in thebest interests of the department to be sure the word gets out.

imported post

I agree with the thought, but in practice, nothing gets their attention like a formal complaint--that is, except filing a lawsuit, after the incident. That's the best way to make them learn the law and respect the rights of citizens.

As Hitler once said " we must take away the guns to make the streets safe for the SS."

imported post

There is NO need to send any communication to any law enforcement agency advising them what the current interpretation of the law is.

Law enforcement agencies are required to provide training and education to their employees when a court decision effects the interpretation of law. They may be informed of the need to profide the training and education from any number of sources, including the locality's attorney (whether Commonwealth Attorney/District Attorney), or the lawyer that the locality hires to defend itself when being sued, or the International Chiefs of POlice/Fraternal Order of Police legal department, or the police officers' union - just to name a few possibilities.

Failure to provide training and education isone basis for a civil rights violation lawsuit (usually under 42 CFR 1983), as well as the possibility of various tort claims under the state law.

Yes, even if the cop you encounter is truely ignorant of the appropriate interpretation of the law, you can sue him and his agency because the case law expects him to be trained and educated on the law's most current interpretation, and his agency to have provided that training and education.

I suggest you contact your local LEO's Training Officer and ask them about what would happen if a cop said he was never told about X law. YMMV, but my experience has almost universally been a request for names of officers and a check of their training records. Should one have slipped through and missed that class, they are assigned to attend most ricky-ticky!

By the way - there is a hint for anybody who gets tangled up with a cop enforcing their own version of the law - check their training records! You may have to be engaged in a lawsuit so you can supeona the information, but obtaining it will be most helpful to you. It will either show he was trained and acted as a rogue cop, or that the department's training was deficient. Either situation is good for you.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

I think the OP is trying to avoid the confrontation by making an attempt to make them aware at the highest level and have it passed down.

Certainly.... each member department should know and hopefully they heard it at one time in training. But as time goes by you can forget what you do not practice on a regular basis. Remembering that this is not a law that is "enforced" as there is no law on OC.

So I see the feasibility in a gentle reminder that may be passed down to the rank and file.

It is not every day a cop seeing someone OCing and forgetting something that may.. or may not have been discussed in the academy.... He may do his part to keep the community safe.

This is often the case when we have the confrontations.

Asking the training officer on what would happen is pretty mush useless as this does not create awareness. You pose a question, it is answered, life goes on.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I think the OP is trying to avoid the confrontation by making an attempt to make them aware at the highest level and have it passed down.

Certainly.... each member department should know and hopefully they heard it at one time in training. But as time goes by you can forget what you do not practice on a regular basis. Remembering that this is not a law that is "enforced" as there is no law on OC.

So I see the feasibility in a gentle reminder that may be passed down to the rank and file.

It is not every day a cop seeing someone OCing and forgetting something that may.. or may not have been discussed in the academy.... He may do his part to keep the community safe.

This is often the case when we have the confrontations.

Asking the training officer on what would happen is pretty mush useless as this does not create awareness. You pose a question, it is answered, life goes on.

Click to expand...

I think the real issue is LEO's (as in the NC thread by DreQo) who "know the law" but don't have anything to back it up (and don't consult their statutes to verify their assertions). When confronted by a citizen that knows the statutes they resort to the "bully" methods. Rather than backing down, it could be a bigger issue like culture within the department. How do you really fix that? You can't with a letter... The only thing you can (sadly) do is go after the bad LEO's after the fact, which is bad for the citizen.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It is not every day a cop seeing someone OCing and forgetting something that may.. or may not have been discussed in the academy....

Click to expand...

You and I agree once more. And for my best example I will use the TV show called "The Academy" again. The instructors catch these kiddies off guard by verbally pop quizzing them out of the blue.An instructor asked a student what the police code was for "officer needs help". When the recruit couldn't answer, the instructor asked him about another code. And another. And another. The kiddie couldn't answer one single police code at all.

I have never in my life seen such poor quality recruits as seen in this TV show. It's pathetic. It seems like not a single thing is sinking into their heads. How can they be expected to remember that OC is legal when they can't even remember the police code for "officer needs help"?

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

It is not every day a cop seeing someone OCing and forgetting something that may.. or may not have been discussed in the academy....

Click to expand...

You and I agree once more. And for my best example I will use the TV show called "The Academy" again. The instructors catch these kiddies off guard by verbally pop quizzing them out of the blue.An instructor asked a student what the police code was for "officer needs help". When the recruit couldn't answer, the instructor asked him about another code. And another. And another. The kiddie couldn't answer one single police code at all.

I have never in my life seen such poor quality recruits as seen in this TV show. It's pathetic. It seems like not a single thing is sinking into their heads. How can they be expected to remember that OC is legal when they can't even remember the police code for "officer needs help"?

Click to expand...

Maybe there is hope for you and I after all.... :lol:


You do learn a ton of stuff and some people simply cannot retain it all. Some people learn by doing while others can absorb the stuff no problem.

I am sure that there is not much to say about OC.

"OK class.. we will discuss gun laws... You can legally open carry in this state. And This is a felony and that is a misdemeanor. and this compounded with that is a felony....."

They are going to focus on crimes... not what is legal. :?

imported post

But the point is, back in my day and time,I would never enforce the studded snow tire law unless I knew what the law was.

If you stop somebody on October 16 or April 14 for studded snow tires, you have just screwed up. And ignorance of the law is not your friend.

The same should be true with guns.

It's incumbent upon some of these newfangled rookies to research and study the laws they pick and choose to enforce. If they want to enforce studded snow tires or gun rights, they need to read, study and know the laws.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

But the point is, back in my day and time,I would never enforce the studded snow tire law unless I knew what the law was.

If you stop somebody on October 16 or April 14 for studded snow tires, you have just screwed up. And ignorance of the law is not your friend.

The same should be true with guns.

It's incumbent upon some of these newfangled rookies to research and study the laws they pick and choose to enforce. If they want to enforce studded snow tires or gun rights, they need to read, study and know the laws.

Click to expand...

This I would agree.... I have seen things I suspected where a violation. But.... knowing enough first hand.. I let them go and looked up something I was lacking in knowledge.

I think the major difference here is this.... Oh my gun! A gun! I cannot take time to look this up and need to stop them!

I guess it is some conditioning by society and their reaction to hardly ever seeing someone OC.

Not an excuse... just an opinion.

imported post

OK, let's try it this way then....

If you had to take a poll of 1,000 law enforcement officers for whatever reason,I am sure the biggest majoritywould say the biggest threat to them as a lawenforcement officer is a GUN. Armed with this knowledge alone, you would think the gun laws would be right at the top of their priority list of laws for them thouroughlyresearch and understand.

Having said the above, I believe the majority of law enforcement officers know the guns laws. It is my humble opinion that they individually and collectively choose to step over the line in alter the lawsto their liking because they think they can get by it --and because they think their administration will back them up because of civil liabilty if nothing else.

During my law enforcement career of almost 30 years -- the good, bad and ugly of it -- there was never a question in my mind as to whether open carry was legal or not. And yet this newfangled brand of rookie of the last decade pretend they didn't know the laws when they screw up. I honestly feel they think they can intimidate citizens into conforming to what the average person would consider not acceptable -- open carry!

imported post

I am not sure about the people you worked with or where they came from.

I cannot agree with your last post. The cops I know do not "forget" that OC is legal and then use that "forgotten" information just to harass people. We are too busy to go messing with people.

Either they knew or they did not. I know guys that have been on a while and when the word came down that the OCers were out and about there were a few cops that did not know.

Keeping in mind.... this was in roll call and had no reason to just "forget" at that moment. I did not personally see anyone OC until last fall !! I have been on the job for 16 years now. Imagine that.... after 16 years I finally see a unicorn! And prior to that I was unaware that OCing was legal in Virginia. Everyone thinks you have to CC if you want to go out armed.

When you look through the code book... you see all the gun codes. Oddly enough there is NO CODE FOR OCing being legal. So you do not get a constant reminder that a code does not exist. :lol:

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I have been on the job for 16 years now. Imagine that.... after 16 years I finally see a unicorn! And prior to that I was unaware that OCing was legal in Virginia.

Click to expand...

I certainly hope you are kidding? :question: :shock:

LEO 229 wrote:

When you look through the code book... you see all the gun codes. Oddly enough there is NO CODE FOR OCing being legal. So you do not get a constant reminder that a code does not exist. :lol:

Click to expand...

You're kidding again, right? :question: :shock:

The law on open carry most certainly does exist, in black and white. I have imported the beginning of the particular code section --and highlighted the key wording in red below and underlined it.

§ 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.

A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart; or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second violation of this section or a conviction under this section subsequent to any conviction under any substantially similar ordinance of any county, city, or town shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony, and a third or subsequent such violation shall be punishable as a Class 5 felony. For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.


EDIT FOR TYPO

imported post

Me personally, I say screw that. If a LEO can't figure out the law, any mistakes will be sorted out in Federal court with a 1983 lawsuit. I PROMISE you after the municipal atty, mayor, and chief of police all become acquainted, everyone will be 100% informed and up to date on the law.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I have been on the job for 16 years now. Imagine that.... after 16 years I finally see a unicorn! And prior to that I was unaware that OCing was legal in Virginia.

Click to expand...

I certainly hope you are kidding? :question: :shock:

LEO 229 wrote:

When you look through the code book... you see all the gun codes. Oddly enough there is NO CODE FOR OCing being legal. So you do not get a constant reminder that a code does not exist. :lol:

Click to expand...

You're kidding again, right? :question: :shock:

The law on open carry most certainly does exist, in black and white. I have imported the beginning of the particular code section --and highlighted the key wording in red below and underlined it.

..Snipped

Click to expand...

Gee.. Sorry that no OCer has crossed my path in such a long time. If surly must be MY fault that this had not happened.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Gee.. Sorry that no OCer has crossed my path in such a long time. It surely must be MY fault that this had not happened.

Click to expand...

You don't need to come across an OCer or a CCer to realize that § 18.2-308 allows open carry in Virginia. You said there was no such law on the books sayingopen carry is legal.

You have been educated.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

§ 18.2-308 allows open carry in Virginia.

Click to expand...

Well, it would be more correct to say there is no law that prohibits open carry, hence it is legal by default. This is how it works in all states that "allow" open carry.

As they say, if a law doesn't say you can't do something, then you can.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

.... this was in roll call and had no reason to just "forget" at that moment. I did not personally see anyone OC until last fall !! I have been on the job for 16 years now. Imagine that.... after 16 years I finally see a unicorn! And prior to that I was unaware that OCing was legal in Virginia. Everyone thinks you have to CC if you want to go out armed.

Click to expand...

This then seems to be a leadership problem. There are ~8500 registered, posting eligible OC'rs nationwide on this forum. There are an unknown number of them lurking without being registered. More even, that don't know this site exists.

It may have taken you 16 years before you've x'd paths with an OC'r, but did you keep it to yourself? After you found out/realized it was not illegal did you discuss it with your peers at FCPD? Does the Sgt at roll call periodically remind the shift about local happenings that are becoming more commonplace, just for them to be aware that they are perfectly legal? If so, why did those 3 FCPD officers allegedly attempt to railroad the traveler from NC? With the monitoring of this site by national, state, and local LEO agencies, how can anyone pretend they don't know?

I know whenever I am reminded of an unusual situation in my business I am prompted to use that to keep my folks informed, for them to bank as experience for possible future use. It's a responsibility we all have when performing our jobs with others.

BTW, will you tell us of your first OC encounter in 16 years, please? You indicated you didn't know it was legal until then, so, what happened? Did you use the valuable radio you carry to ask for clarification, or did you learn some other way? (I may have misunderstood your statement "And prior to that I was unaware that OCing was legal in Virginia. ")

Click to expand...