Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Open Carry Meeting

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    I am a newbee here, just joined today after watching this site for several weeks.

    Let me ask a question about an open carry meeting but before asking the question, let me describe 2 scenarios:

    Scenario 1: At the last oc meeting at Arby's, suppose 15 - 20 people showed up, all open carrying. Everyone will not arrive at the same time, so people will trickle in for 15 minutes or so. Now suppose there is someone in the parking lot getting ready to enter Arby's. Let's call her Bertha. Bertha sees a few people walk into Arby's with guns on their hips. See is confused by this and while trying to figure out if anything devious is taking place, a couple of more people enter Arby's. She sees their guns, and is now convinced something devious must be taking place inside, so she dials 911 on her cell phone and hysterically reports that several people have just entered Arby's and all of them are carrying guns. The 911 operator can tell by Bertha's voice that Bertha is terrified.

    Scenario 2: all 15 - 20 attending the get together are either seated in Arby's or waiting in line to place their order. A customer, let's call him Horace, strolls in to have dinner. He sees several people standing in line with guns. Horace assumes there is a robery or some such taking place, and runs out of the restaurant to dial 911 on his cell phone. He tells the 911 operator there is a robbery or something going on at Arby's and he is scared to death.

    Being that a call has been placed to 911, law enforcement must respond. Being that guns are involved, more than likely multiple law enforcement personnel will be dispatched. They will arrive with sirens blaring and blue lights flashing. The parking lot will quickly be filled with blue lights.

    The police may or not see Bertha or Horace in the parking lot. If they do, they will probably get a distorted picture of what is taking place inside. At any rate, the police will enter Arby's to assess the situation. Depending on the officer's experience they may use extreme measures to either enter Arby's or to get the perceived situation under control.

    Worse case scenario, they cordon off the parking lot; call for more backup; or whatever.

    While the officers are trying to assess the situation, Arby's parking lot is full of blue lights and potential customers will not enter on their own, or else the police will prevent them from entering the parking lot.

    It is reasonable to assume it will take at least a half hour for the police to question those inside with guns; Bertha and/or Horace; Arby's management and employees; and any other customers that are in the restaurant.

    Meanwhile, the manager has just lost a minimum of a half hours business. He may loose other business if Arby's reputation is damaged because of all the blue lights in the parking lot.

    Now Arby's is in business to make money, so the manager will look for a way to prevent this from happening again. The simplest and most cost effective thing for him to do is to print a sign stating all firearms are prohibited from Arby's.

    Now to my question, assuming either of these scenarios take place, and the end result is another business posts a sign preventing fire arms, have we not just defeated our purpose for oc in the first place?

    rlk

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    678

    Post imported post

    not going to happen that way, ever.

    A couple of officers will show up. Seeing everyone seated through the windows, they would probably enter casually. Also, since no one is breaking any laws, they would have no need or ability to detain everyone in the building for questioning.

    This is almost the same stuff that the CC is the only way people spout.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    lol Rlk..do you right bad books for a living? Er, well, you probably wouldn't make much of a living off of that, huh?

    Let me take a gander at this one. Soo, lets say a group of friends, like 15-20 of them, decide to go eat at the Cracker Barrel. All of these friends happen to be black. Now they're probably going to trickle in a few at a time, so a woman randomly standing in the parking lot..lets say her name is Tammy Jo Jean, is going to see a few black guys walking in the restaurant. Now, obviously while she's standing in the parking lot staring at the building for no reason, she's going to wonder why a bunch of black guys are walking into the Cracker Barrel of all places. Then, when she see's a few more go in, she'll obviously assume that something's about to go down. So, she calls 911 and tellstheoperatorthat a bunch of black guys are about to rob the Cracker Barrel. The operator really can't understand Tammy Jo Jean's southern accent, but he pieces together black guys, Cracker Barrel, robbery, and something about standing in the parking lot being nosey. So the cops show up and storm the restaurant swat style, put everyone in handcuffs including the wait staff, cooks, patrons, children, and one cop that forgot to wear his uniform when they busted in. Now that they have everyone under control, they pull out their tazers and start zapping all the black guys before asking them if they're going to rob the place. Eventually everyone makes it out ok, and theyall getfree biscuits!

    K how did I do? This sounds about as likely as yours, right???

    If...IF some idiot did call 911 to report a bunch of armed patrons in an Arby's restaurant, any 911 operator with more thanhalf a brain would ask a few questions, like "Are they threatening anyone? Where is the gun? In their hands? Or in a holster? What are they doing?" etc. etc. As soon as the idiot admits that all the armed men are standing around with smiles on their faces waiting for their curly fries, the 911 operator would tell him to have a nice day.

    Now granted there are plenty of 911 operators out there with half a brain or less, so a cop or two may be sent to the scene to investigate. Either way, as soon as the cops arrived, they would see the same thing. A bunch of people chatting, being social, and eating. If they liked their jobs they'd ask the manager if there had been any problems since someone had dialed 911, and when the manager said no they would leave.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    Jdriver, I understand your point, however, I can still see my scenario playing out. Remember in NC there is something called, "Going armed to the terror of the people".

    Granted there is nothing devious going on, but Bertha and Horace were terrified and/or felt something bad was happening, so they called 911. Bertha and Horace have the right to press the issue since they were terrorized, whether real or imagined.

    DreQo, I think your example is over the top and far reaching. Whether Bertha and Horace answer the questions you posed or not, in my opinion and experience, law enforcement will be dispatched. The 911 operators will leave it up to law enforcement to decide if laws are being broken.

    I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade about having oc meetings, I just trying to think through all the consequences.

    At a minimum, I believe the restaruant manager deserves a call prior to the event to ensure he is o.k. with it and will be supportive should a customer complain, or law enforcement show up.

    rlk

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pittsboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    rlk wrote:
    Jdriver, I understand your point, however, I can still see my scenario playing out.* Remember in NC there is something called, "Going armed to the terror of the people".
    Ok, if I hear anyone else bring up this arcaine "law", I might have to give everyone a subscription to Municode.com. Yes, the ordinance exists, but it is very clear on what constitutes "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public" (272 N.C. 535; 32 N.C. App 495). There are four distinct conditions that must be met. The scenario that was proposed does not meet any one of them except for having a firearm.

    1. Must be armed with unusual and dangerous weapon. (Firearm)
    2. With the intent to terrify others
    3. Out on public highways (in public, but possibly not on private property)
    4. Acting in a manner to cause terror (whether anyone is terrified or not.)

    I do love the "unusual and dangerous weapon". Isn't any weapon by definition dangerous? Also, what is so unusual about a firearm nowadays or ever?

    However, this being an open carry state, the simple possession of a firearm is not a violation of the first condition. If someone was truly going in terror of the public, there would be no question.

    As you can tell, when it comes to Open Carry, this subject is my #1 pet peeve.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    I bet RLK is a Raleigh police officer that made a big goof back in November at that very Arby's. He now has a complaint investigation ongoing over at internal affairs and depending on whether the Raleigh police department corrects itself or "covers our tracks" will have a Federal lawsuit to contend with.

    Going about armed to terror of the public has to be the most thrown about BS by undereducated police officers and "Concealed only types".

    Yep RLT would make a lousy fiction writer, but probably a great recruit for Obama's new SS like neighborhood security team.

    Bottom line: Open carry of a firearm is Never reasonable articulable suspicion, and law enforcement can't detain you or demand ID.

    See Florida v. JL or google States that have stop and identify laws.
    Hint: North Carolina isn't one of them.

    Shape up or get sued, it's your choice.


  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    rlk wrote:
    At a minimum, I believe the restaruant manager deserves a call prior to the event to ensure he is o.k. with it and will be supportive should a customer complain, or law enforcement show up.

    rlk
    Asking permission implies that there is a reason to say no. After all, why ask permission if you already know the answer is yes?

    As I have already demonstrated, we can think up "what if" scenarios all day, and mine is just as likely to occur as yours. The bottom line is that carrying openly (under the circumstances described) violates no law nor right. Any and all negative actions by law enforcement taken upon a citizen carrying openly would be illegal, unconstitutional, and completely unwarranted.

    You know, now that I think about it, a situation similar to what you described happened in PA at a Golden Corral. Months later, Golden Corral has yet to ban firearms from their restaurants, and the LEO's involved are facing multiple lawsuits I believe.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    no carry permit ? wrote:
    I bet RLK is a Raleigh police officer that made a big goof back in November at that very Arby's. He now has a complaint investigation ongoing over at internal affairs and depending on whether the Raleigh police department corrects itself or "covers our tracks" will have a Federal lawsuit to contend with.
    You would loose that bet. Never been in law enforcement. Been in the Army, but no law enforcement.

    rlk

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    Asking permission implies that there is a reason to say no. After all, why ask permission if you already know the answer is yes?
    There is always a reason for the owner or manager to say no. The establishment belongs to them, and they have the right to do as they please.

    If I was going alone, or with another person, then I would not call ahead, however, in my opinion, a large number of people showing up with firearms puts a whole new light on the situation.

    Getting back on track, my original question was that if the establishment ends up banning all firearms on site, have we not defeated our purpose?

    rlk

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    acritical wrote:
    Ok, if I hear anyone else bring up this arcaine "law", I might have to give everyone a subscription to Municode.com. Yes, the ordinance exists, but it is very clear on what constitutes "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public" (272 N.C. 535; 32 N.C. App 495). There are four distinct conditions that must be met. The scenario that was proposed does not meet any one of them except for having a firearm.

    1. Must be armed with unusual and dangerous weapon. (Firearm)
    2. With the intent to terrify others
    3. Out on public highways (in public, but possibly not on private property)
    4. Acting in a manner to cause terror (whether anyone is terrified or not.)

    I do love the "unusual and dangerous weapon". Isn't any weapon by definition dangerous? Also, what is so unusual about a firearm nowadays or ever?

    However, this being an open carry state, the simple possession of a firearm is not a violation of the first condition. If someone was truly going in terror of the public, there would be no question.

    As you can tell, when it comes to Open Carry, this subject is my #1 pet peeve.
    Reference the document: http://www.jus.state.nc.us/ncja/ncfirearmslaws.pdf published by Roy Cooper, NC Attorney General, titled, "North Carolina Department of Justice Law Enforcement Liason Section", revised December 2007.

    Page 23, Paragraph 6, Going Armed To The Terror Of The People
    "By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms."

    In my scenario it is my opinion that items 1, 3, and 4 have been satisfied. Number 4 is satisfied because either Horace or Bertha were terrified and that is the reason they called 911. Item 2, which is intent, probably is not satisfied, but I don't think the responding law enforcement officers can determine intent. That is more for the courts to determine.

    As I stated earlier, I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I just feel we should examine and be aware of all sides of the situation, and be prepared to face the consequences if others do not agree with our opinions and/or actions..

    rlk

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    678

    Post imported post

    rlk wrote:
    acritical wrote:
    Ok, if I hear anyone else bring up this arcaine "law", I might have to give everyone a subscription to Municode.com. Yes, the ordinance exists, but it is very clear on what constitutes "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public" (272 N.C. 535; 32 N.C. App 495). There are four distinct conditions that must be met. The scenario that was proposed does not meet any one of them except for having a firearm.

    1. Must be armed with unusual and dangerous weapon. (Firearm)
    2. With the intent to terrify others
    3. Out on public highways (in public, but possibly not on private property)
    4. Acting in a manner to cause terror (whether anyone is terrified or not.)

    I do love the "unusual and dangerous weapon". Isn't any weapon by definition dangerous? Also, what is so unusual about a firearm nowadays or ever?

    However, this being an open carry state, the simple possession of a firearm is not a violation of the first condition. If someone was truly going in terror of the public, there would be no question.

    As you can tell, when it comes to Open Carry, this subject is my #1 pet peeve.
    Reference the document: http://www.jus.state.nc.us/ncja/ncfirearmslaws.pdf published by Roy Cooper, NC Attorney General, titled, "North Carolina Department of Justice Law Enforcement Liason Section", revised December 2007.

    Page 23, Paragraph 6, Going Armed To The Terror Of The People
    "By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms."

    In my scenario it is my opinion that items 1, 3, and 4 have been satisfied. Number 4 is satisfied because either Horace or Bertha were terrified and that is the reason they called 911. Item 2, which is intent, probably is not satisfied, but I don't think the responding law enforcement officers can determine intent. That is more for the courts to determine.

    As I stated earlier, I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I just feel we should examine and be aware of all sides of the situation, and be prepared to face the consequences if others do not agree with our opinions and/or actions..

    rlk

    OK, we can concede that 1 has been confirmed.

    In your scenario, we are not out on public roads or highways. We are in a retail food establishment, which as far as I know, is not in the middle of the road. 3rd requirement is no satisfied.

    No one is acting in a manner to CAUSE terror. If someone is afraid of lightning, do we ban bad weather? 4th requirement is no satisfied.

    As well, a manager is not an owner, and if they are afraid of people obeying the law then they don't belong outside of their house. They COULD ask us to leave, but that would probably violate a corporate policy, or be a bad business move.

    We agree to face the consequences when we open carry. Those are having to inform the general populace and LEO of what the law states, and possibly being illegally detained or arrested. We could be charged with a crime even, but would not be convicted and would probably have reimbursement for our time.


  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    rlk wrote:
    In my scenario it is my opinion that items 1, 3, and 4 have been satisfied.
    Whoa boy well isn't it wonderful that your opinion doesn't matter :celebrate.

    It's already been said, but I'll reiterate: Private property, including restaurants, is NOT a "public highway". Going about inpublic performingnormal activities is NOT "in a manner to cause terror", whether you're armed or not. Thankfully those are facts, not opinions.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    DreQo, why are you so negative? Can't you have a reasonable discussion without all the negative emotion?

    rlk

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    678

    Post imported post

    He is not being negative, and actually very entertaining to be around (no ****, no offense)

    You seem to be very unreasonable and refusing to see any point of view other than your own. You also seem to believe that the police can do whatever they would like when they get a call. You constantly give arguement based on emotion, instead of fact, which causes everyone to believe that you are just trolling instead of honestly asking a question. At this point it is like we are talking to a wall, and you are just being difficult.

    We have fully explained why your proposed scenario would not happen.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Concord NC, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    rlk you make a point, What would the manager say if 15-20 people showed up to eat at his place in one group, would he want to ban that group? Not likely. If the police did what you say, then the 15-20 people should sue the PD, each officer, and the city till bankrupt.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    rlk wrote:
    DreQo, why are you so negative? Can't you have a reasonable discussion without all the negative emotion?

    rlk
    I can have a logical discussion, but sometimes I like to fight fire with fire. Your whole argument and theory is based on fear. You're afraid that someone's going to freak out and call 911 because they're afraid of a gun. You then assume that the police are going to show up, lights blazing, because they're afraid for their own safety. Then you assume that the manager is going to ban firearms because he's afraid that it will happen again. This shows that you're afraid of what others might think if you carried, and you're alsoafraid that the police will come after you if you exercise your right! Heck, you've basically admitted that you're afraid of firearms yourself, since you assume that the average citizen would be.

    Open carry is legal. A firearm is an inanimate object. These two facts blow your entire argument out of the water and into the emotional hug-bath that the anti-gunowners play around in all day.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, or listen.

    rlk

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    678

    Post imported post

    That's what we have been trying to tell you.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pittsboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    So, to wrap this up....

    rlk, what you suggested, where interesting reading, is not likely to happen. The past couple of outings that we have had has gone towards proving that.

    If someone does get concerned, most likely they will address it with the management, where either the manager will realize, that 15 - 20 people just came in and bought a good deal of food and are sitting quietly, not causing an issue, and then would most likely inform the customer that they are not doing anything wrong, or may address the issue with the 15 - 20 people to find out for sure, if it is legal.

    If the management is nervous, or someone does call the police on these people for "eating while armed", hopefully the 911 operator will end the call there. Let's say the operator senses a sound of urgency in their voice, at that point, they may send a car to appease(sp). Once the car arrives, and the officer(s) notices 15 - 20 people calmly eating, the restaurant staff calmly working, they may address the individuals just to let them know that there was a concern, and then address the caller to inform them that they do not have anything to worry about.

    The main thing to take from this is, we are not breaking the law. Since we are not breaking the law then there is nothing to worry about. So 15 - 20 people that just happened to be carrying guns decided to go get something to eat.

    Would it be any different if these people did not know each other and just wound up at the same place? What if it was 15 - 20 people riding motorcycles. Is it safe to assume that the police would be called about a "biker gang"? What if the motorcycles were "rice burners"? I know of no Hell's Angels that would be caught dead on one.

    What if 15 - 20 people from the local independent choir decided to go to the same place, and they happen to be wearing the same color shirt? Are they now a gang? Well if they are black or Hispanic the answer is yes. (I'm black, I can say that. Flame me later, DreQo )

    Where it is good to think about that stuff, you must think about it from a legal or rights issue. If you do not, you will never feel comfortable exercising your rights, and then it will be a right that is easily lost. It is very easy for a right to be turned into a privilege and then lost if there is no one there to fight for it.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    rlk wrote:
    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, or listen.

    rlk
    Pot, meet kettle.

    This guy can't be serious. I couldn't imagine someone being that well spoken, yet so stubborn and blinded by emotion. Oh wait...you didn't just get elected into a really big political position, did you?

  21. #21
    Regular Member SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richlands, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    124

    Post imported post

    That was a excellent summation ARTICAL.However race should have been left out all together..............................

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pittsboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP wrote:
    That was a excellent summation ARTICAL.However race should have been left out all together..............................
    Ok, I can respect that. All please ignore the comment that I made with reference to race. It was a lame attempt at easing the tension felt by some, while at the same time getting my point across.

    However, it was a valid statement, for even though many of us have developed enough to see past race, it is still a valid a documented definition of what some consider to be a "gang". But in that same respect as race should have nothing to do with the fact that 15 - 20 people are together at the same place, so should the fact that 15 - 20 people together should have nothing to do with the fact that they are carrying firearms, when done in a legal manner.

    Springfield 45 ACP, I see your point, and I withdraw....

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Apex, ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    acritical, you have a good summary (except for the racial comments), and I hope that we are fortunate enough for it to end the way you describe.

    I don't see any more point in beating this dead horse. Some of us will just have to agree to disagree.

    rlk

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    RLK: Why don't you come to our next open carry dinner ? You would quickly see that your fears of it causing a problem are unrealistic.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    no carry permit ? wrote:
    RLK: Why don't you come to our next open carry dinner ? You would quickly see that your fears of it causing a problem are unrealistic.
    He'd probably just argue that it wouldn't be the same situation. Instead of 15-20 armed patrons, it'd be 14-19 armed andone not armed (visibly, anyway). That of course would completely throw off the rest of the scenario.

    Ok, sorry, now I'm just being antagonistic . Seriously though you should come!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •