Interesting night maybe ahead.

imported post

So the situation I have avoided for awhile has finally came true.
Little history.
When first explaining to my bestfriend why I open carry he told me that
he had asked his wife's friend who is a police officer what she thought of
open carrying and what would happen if she saw me on the street.

She stated that I would get a boot to the back of my head and arrested.

Well I will be opening carrying around her tonight. She is going to be where I am going off duty.

We will see what happens.

~G~

imported post

Do Tell. I am eagerly awaiting the up-date

imported post

Yea, this will be a good one.

imported post

So I got some really good insight to the other sides thoughts and it opened my eyes a little bit. Very good conversation about the subject.

The main thing that was stated to me was when they get a call for a man carrying a gun they don't know what to expect when they arrive. It could be any type of situation.
I think it all comes back to educating the public. I was told you have to understand
people just aren't used to seeing people carry guns on their hips everyday in CA like they would in other parts of the country where it happens all the time and has been around much longer. I agreed it made sense to me also being new to open carry not to long ago. When I first heard about it.. I said there is no way you can do that in CA and not be arrested.... It took education on my part.
I think there are a lot of uneducated people on this subject. We both agreed it shouldn't be on the part of the police officer but she did state that more of the longer time employees are made aware and it is the new officers that not as educated in Open Carry. I think they should be......

Over all a wonderful evening and no boots to my head!

imported post

guitrman1001 wrote:

So I got some really good insight to the other sides thoughts and it opened my eyes a little bit. Very good conversation about the subject.

The main thing that was stated to me was when they get a call for a man carrying a gun they don't know what to expect when they arrive. It could be any type of situation.

Click to expand...

I believe that is complete BS, when you consider how the call is taken, and what data is collected, if any.

The police should ASK if the man with the gun has his weapon holstered, to eliminate the open carriers. If true, then they should advise the caller, that if the MWG isn't doing anything suspicious, or illegal, that there is nothing to be concerned about. It's the criminals that conceal their weapons that are of concern.

On the other hand, police can (IMHO) make a mountain out of a molehill, and consider every call a threat, even when they know open carriers are present.

Eventually, police agencies need to change their policies in regards to taking MWG calls, and ASK if the weapon is being brandished and pointed at people, or if the weapon is holstered.

imported post

guitrman1001 wrote:

SNIP We both agreed it shouldn't be on the part of the police officer but she did state that more of the longer time employees are made aware and it is the new officers that not as educated in Open Carry. I think they should be......

Click to expand...

The elephant in the room being the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Terry v Ohio,[suP]1[/suP] a 4th AmendmentUS Supreme Court case,is clear. Police need articulable facts which taken together with reasonable inferences give reasonable suspicion of a crime before they can detain someone.

You see, cops don't have to be educated that OC is legal. All the cop has to know is that he does not knowit is illegal.

If the cop does not know that OC is illegal, then he doesn't even know whether he has authority to detain someone over it.

If the cop doesn't know to a dead moral certainty that OC is a crime, he can't possibly know he has legal authority to detain the OCer.

The glaringly obvious point in this case being that the cop seemed entirely willing to detain someone with a boot on their neck without having any authority to do so.

Its not only the legality of OC that needs to be driven home. The Fourth Amendment restrictions on police need to be driven home, in spades, with a pile driver.

I mean, really. She is probably a "nice" person. But a nice person doesn't go around exceeding her authority by putting a boot on someone's head without knowing the authority to do so. Police who do so are literally making it up as they go along, and at the same time violating one of the mosthighly regarded freedoms of all.[suP]2[/suP]

In case anybody is a little shaky on this point with regard to firearms, maybe saying to themselves, "Well, guns are different." The US Supreme Court spelled it out in a case called, Florida vs JL.[suP]3[/suP] In that case the court expressly declined to make a firearm exception to 4th Amendment protections.

I cannot emphasize enough that themuch largerissue is the Fourth Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment.



1. Terry v Ohio:“And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html



2. Terry quotingUnion Pacific v Botsford:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.



3. Florida v JL: A second major argument advanced by [the government], in essence, that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception."... We decline to adopt this position.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0529_0266_ZO.html

imported post

Statesman wrote:

guitrman1001 wrote:

So I got some really good insight to the other sides thoughts and it opened my eyes a little bit. Very good conversation about the subject.

The main thing that was stated to me was when they get a call for a man carrying a gun they don't know what to expect when they arrive. It could be any type of situation.

Click to expand...

SNIP The police should ASK if the man with the gun...

Click to expand...

Good catch, Statesman.

Also, thered-bold statement necessarily includes a non-situation of a person peaceably exercising his right to possess the means to self-defense.

This is indicative of sloppy thinking on the part of certainpolice. Sloppy thinking, or disregard,about the limits of their authority. Sloppy thinking, or disregard, about 4A rights.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I cannot emphasize enough that themuch largerissue is the Fourth Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

I don't know why, but I find that many on gun boards completely miss this point. Today's battle really is not about the 2nd Amendment. Every attack on the 2nd Amendment in recent times has been first and foremost an attack on the 4th...these circumstances simply involved guns, dragging the 2nd into the picture.

Folks need to look at the big picture.

We need not focus on the 2nd Amendment. We need to defend all of our Liberties because when one is gone, the others erode. They are interrelated and hold each other up.

Just my $0.02

imported post

American Rattlesnake wrote:

Citizen wrote:

I cannot emphasize enough that themuch largerissue is the Fourth Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

I don't know why, but I find that many on gun boards completely miss this point.

Click to expand...

I think its as simple as people not knowing their 4A rights.

If you don't know your 4A rights, just about the only thing you can use to evaluate the encounteris whetheryou "feel violated", and whether the cops were "polite", which we often hear described as "professional".

Gun guys know the 2nd Amendment backwards and forwards. They just don't know the 4A stuff.

That's why I put so much effort into it. To make sure they know.

imported post

Citizen, the problem with the police is that they have "immunity." i.e. they are not required to know the law. They can violate you up and down a wall and then pull the immunity card and say "I didn't know the law on that."

Now what kind of BS is that? We're paying these people to not know how to do their job? wtf? Would you hire someone and keep them on the job if they straight up didn't know how to do it and could pull that "I didn't know" excuse whenever they wanted? NO.:cuss:

I'm not saying that all officers are ignorant ofa law (or some laws, or all), there are officers out there that know the law backwards and forwards, but we really need to revoke this "immunity" law thatends up putingpolice officersabove the law. They are public servants and, if anything, need to be held to a STRICTER standard than the average citizen, not given a get out of jail free card. :banghead:

imported post

I must add and say that when the 911 operator recives a call they do go into as much detail with the person as possible. IE caller: omg there is a man with a gun outside . (911) Is he pointing it at you and trying to get into your house car.
(caller) no but he looks scary can you send someone (911) a patrol officer is on the way.
To assume that 911 operators are not trained well is complete shite I have a friend who works for the Sheriffs office in Ohio and they know how to address MWG calls.
IT all comes down to what an Officer percives as a threat at the time,we all know that.
But all that said I think everyone on OPDO needs to help the cause by creating pamflets for your local PD and a training memo for the 911 operators for MWG calls,it may end up in the trash but what can it hurt. Just some ideas

imported post

I made the mistake of wasting my time trying to "educate" a detective on the gun transportation law hereonce, at which he got indignant and said "are you telling me my job?" I said "no, I'm telling you the law, which apparently has little enough to do with your job." Wrong answer. I suggest not responding thus if it comes up.

-ljp

imported post

Citizen, the problem with the police is that they have "immunity." i.e. they are not required to know the law. They can violate you up and down a wall and then pull the immunity card and say "I didn't know the law on that."







How many times have you heard this phrase: "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE"?

If it's not a defendable excuse for you or I, why is it an acceptable defense for a "Law ENFORCEMENT Officer????

imported post

My belly rolls every time I think about what a cop can get away with. When they taze an eighty something year old woman right on camera and get away with it what do you think they will do when they see me carrying my Glock 27 in a clam shell holster on my hip. Did I mention that I ride a Harley and have a ponytail that hits my beltline. No I didnt. Nor did I mention that I'm a six year Girl Scout Leader! My wife worked afternoons and couldn't be a part of that so I did it

How about this...She worked at the court service center and she was in my truck in the back parking lot one evening and a big tough baliff crept up on her and slung the door open, pointed a gun at her and asked her what the f*** she was doing there.

I've had my CCW permit since they became available in Michigan and was unaware that you could openly carry. I have horrid visions of what could happen and what lies law enforcement would weave to justify their actions. In my county its a "Good ol' boy " attitude that cops bestow on themselves. They cover each other, womanize, berate citizens, rape female inmates at the county jail and pertty much strut their stuff unimpeded.

I would give 10 to 1 odds that I'd be at least beaten to a pulp by some knuckle draging, muscle juice injecting, low brow gunslinger cop that would wind up having round after round set in front of him, free of charge at the local cop pop stop.

This is still America where nobodys free!!!

imported post

guitrman1001 wrote:

...The main thing that was stated to me was when they get a call for a man carrying a gun they don't know what to expect when they arrive. It could be any type of situation...

Click to expand...

Thaty is a cop-out (no pun intended). It is up to the call-taker to ask pertinant questions of the reporting party. It is up to the officer to ask those questions of his dispatch.

Here in AZ, we get these types of call from time-to-time. We ask those questions. It ain't that hard. Your PD's need to have the balls to tell callers, "sorry, that's not a crime" if there is nothing illegal being reported.

imported post

pileit1 wrote:

Citizen, the problem with the police is that they have "immunity." i.e. they are not required to know the law. They can violate you up and down a wall and then pull the immunity card and say "I didn't know the law on that."







How many times have you heard this phrase: "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE"?

If it's not a defendable excuse for you or I, why is it an acceptable defense for a "Law ENFORCEMENT Officer????

Click to expand...

100% agree. How can they uphold something they don't even know what it is? LEO should be held to a MUCH HIGHER standard with regards to lawbecause they chose to do this for a living; NOT a lower standard and have a way out of it...

Some people say "You have no idea how many laws they have to be familiar with..." Well I'm an Engineering student... do you know how many formulas and concepts I have to be familiar with??? ESPECIALLY once I get a job in the field... I guarantee you I wouldn't get hired if I only knew 50% or anything less than probably 85% of them.

I'm sure that LEO KNEW that they would have to know the law GOING INTO the job... I mean, come on, the description is "Law ENFORCEMENT Officer"... They should know the law up and down, backwards and forwards and be just as responsible as any other citizen when they break it...

imported post

If they ask those questions and determine that its not a valid call then the storm troopers dont get to roll out all of their commando gear and kick down doors like they were trained to do. If they dont use the high dollar equipment they may loose funding and we wouldnt want a police force that had to rely on the human element for crime fighting now , would we.

Sorry if I sound bitter but I've had it with twenty year old brass balled police cadets that love to tackle people and grind them into the gravel before they ask any questions. I've seen them throw people from wheel chairs and bind them with nylon straps. Real tough guys!!!