imported post
Hi there,
I've never posted here before, but I've been reading this forum (as well as Calguns) off and on for quite a while. In the interest of full disclosure, I am presently employed as a municipal police officer in California. I'm also an NRA member, OLL-based-rifle owner, and supporter of reformed concealed carry laws for law-abiding citizens.
For the most part, the regular members of both this website and Calguns sound like ordinary, law-abiding citizens. However, every now and then I see a string of posts or attitudes that disturb me -- most of you guys don't pull any punches, so I'm not going to either.
I just finished reading Demnogis' post "4th LEO encounter". I applaud him for his level-headed handling of the situation. He was wronged by an officer who did not understand the law and, in the end, was probably issued an 849(b)(1) PC certificate to "downgrade" his arrest to a detention, given his guns back, and sent on his way with an uncommonly explicit apology from the offending officer. Demnogis', in an extremely mature fashion, seemed willing to chalk it up to ignorance on the part of the officer and see value in the education he was able to provide to a few of his hometown PD's officers.
That's great. We need more people like Demnogis carrying openly, handling the inevitable law enforcement encounters maturely, and educating cops about this small facet of law. Eventually, through enough of those, more people will exercise their rights and more cops will understand those rights.
However, the rest of you who said you would "take the officers to the cleaners" and made childish comments about "getting rich" are a discredit to the open carry movement. You are the people who alienate otherwise friendly law enforcement officers. You talk about how these rampant violations of your civil liberties will not stop until you hit agencies and officers in their pocket books. WRONG.
Face the facts that open carry in California is NOT THE NORM. California's citizens - and police officers - are not accustomed to citizens lawfully and openly carrying firearms. Snide remarks (as I've read both here and on Calguns) about how California officers must not be as proficient with their weapons as officers elsewhere and, therefore, more war of armed individuals are ignorant. In Arizona, 9 our of 10 armed citizens are probably law-abiding people going about their business. In California, 9 out of 10 people carrying a gun are probably breaking the law. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact.
Many open carry advocates know the laws regarding concealed carry very well. They know the statutes, case law, published decisions vs. depublished decisions, dissents, and are familiar with local district attorney and police agency policies. That's great! That makes you great advocates for the cause.
Do you have any idea how many statutes the average beat cop needs to be familiar with? How much case law, court decisions, local policies, and police procedure each officer needs to know? Do you know the laws regarding the administration of a Brethalyzer test incident to a DUI arrest? Do you know how to field test suspected narcotics? Are you familiar with the laws regarding domestic violence and restraining orders violations? Do you know about Marsy's Law an it's provisions that concern law enforcement? I really doubt that you're familiar with all of that -- but the average cop is.
You have the luxury of knowing a very small body of law very well. You can choose not to carry and not deal with any of it. Police officers must know a very large body of law reasonably well just to wake up and go to work and feed their families. I do not have the luxury of NOT spending my off duty time reading case law and re-reading statutes I haven't used in a while just to make sure I don't "maliciously, intentionally" wrong someone when I stop them for a traffic violation that I remembered incorrectly and subsequently arrest them for a host of narcotics and weapons violations.
There is a very clear, very obvious difference between an officer who intentionally, maliciously violates your civil rights and the cop who misunderstands the law. No, there is no mistake of law exception for the police just as ignorance of the law is no defense for a criminal defendant. However, there is a gray area. Just as there is discretion for police officers when dealing with a criminal offender, there is discretion for citizens who have been wronged by the police. Would you support an officer who supported ALWAYS issued a traffic citation in EVERY instance? Or ALWAYS made an arrest any time he was supported by probable cause? I doubt it. Usually citizens want cops to "have a heart" or "understand". And most of us do. Most of us give breaks and use discretion when not otherwise prohibited by law.
If you don't want interactions between cops and open carriers to be confrontational, then help defuse them. Don't further the reputation of some open-carriers (in some jurisdictions) as cop-baiters and money-grubbing lawsuit chasers wiling to sue over the smallest infraction (real or perceived) of your civil rights. Be strong, articulate advocates for yoru cause, and you will influence people. Otherwise, you will only alienate those cops who WANT to be on your side, who WANT to see you exercise your (and our!) rights, but don't want their name, family, and good reputation dragged through the mud in a federal civil rights lawsuit for a mistake.
Demnogis- you were definitely wronged, and could probably sue for an unlawful arrest. However, I respect your apaprent decision not to. I hope you followed it up with letters to both the police department and the police officers association regarding your contact and applicable laws.
I apologize for this being long, but I spend most of my days as an ardent 2A supporter and it pisses me the hell off when my colleagues and I are painted as the enemy. I hope that should I ever run into an open carrier, the contact would be a brief but friendly discussion -- but unfortunately, the initial call and circumstances might not be so simple and clear cut, and I would hope the open carrier would be civil and cooperative so that I can later return to the PD and preach the good news of the second amendment, instead of my partner later saying, "Man, that guy was a raving nutcase! Good thing we digitally record all of our stops!"
Hi there,
I've never posted here before, but I've been reading this forum (as well as Calguns) off and on for quite a while. In the interest of full disclosure, I am presently employed as a municipal police officer in California. I'm also an NRA member, OLL-based-rifle owner, and supporter of reformed concealed carry laws for law-abiding citizens.
For the most part, the regular members of both this website and Calguns sound like ordinary, law-abiding citizens. However, every now and then I see a string of posts or attitudes that disturb me -- most of you guys don't pull any punches, so I'm not going to either.
I just finished reading Demnogis' post "4th LEO encounter". I applaud him for his level-headed handling of the situation. He was wronged by an officer who did not understand the law and, in the end, was probably issued an 849(b)(1) PC certificate to "downgrade" his arrest to a detention, given his guns back, and sent on his way with an uncommonly explicit apology from the offending officer. Demnogis', in an extremely mature fashion, seemed willing to chalk it up to ignorance on the part of the officer and see value in the education he was able to provide to a few of his hometown PD's officers.
That's great. We need more people like Demnogis carrying openly, handling the inevitable law enforcement encounters maturely, and educating cops about this small facet of law. Eventually, through enough of those, more people will exercise their rights and more cops will understand those rights.
However, the rest of you who said you would "take the officers to the cleaners" and made childish comments about "getting rich" are a discredit to the open carry movement. You are the people who alienate otherwise friendly law enforcement officers. You talk about how these rampant violations of your civil liberties will not stop until you hit agencies and officers in their pocket books. WRONG.
Face the facts that open carry in California is NOT THE NORM. California's citizens - and police officers - are not accustomed to citizens lawfully and openly carrying firearms. Snide remarks (as I've read both here and on Calguns) about how California officers must not be as proficient with their weapons as officers elsewhere and, therefore, more war of armed individuals are ignorant. In Arizona, 9 our of 10 armed citizens are probably law-abiding people going about their business. In California, 9 out of 10 people carrying a gun are probably breaking the law. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact.
Many open carry advocates know the laws regarding concealed carry very well. They know the statutes, case law, published decisions vs. depublished decisions, dissents, and are familiar with local district attorney and police agency policies. That's great! That makes you great advocates for the cause.
Do you have any idea how many statutes the average beat cop needs to be familiar with? How much case law, court decisions, local policies, and police procedure each officer needs to know? Do you know the laws regarding the administration of a Brethalyzer test incident to a DUI arrest? Do you know how to field test suspected narcotics? Are you familiar with the laws regarding domestic violence and restraining orders violations? Do you know about Marsy's Law an it's provisions that concern law enforcement? I really doubt that you're familiar with all of that -- but the average cop is.
You have the luxury of knowing a very small body of law very well. You can choose not to carry and not deal with any of it. Police officers must know a very large body of law reasonably well just to wake up and go to work and feed their families. I do not have the luxury of NOT spending my off duty time reading case law and re-reading statutes I haven't used in a while just to make sure I don't "maliciously, intentionally" wrong someone when I stop them for a traffic violation that I remembered incorrectly and subsequently arrest them for a host of narcotics and weapons violations.
There is a very clear, very obvious difference between an officer who intentionally, maliciously violates your civil rights and the cop who misunderstands the law. No, there is no mistake of law exception for the police just as ignorance of the law is no defense for a criminal defendant. However, there is a gray area. Just as there is discretion for police officers when dealing with a criminal offender, there is discretion for citizens who have been wronged by the police. Would you support an officer who supported ALWAYS issued a traffic citation in EVERY instance? Or ALWAYS made an arrest any time he was supported by probable cause? I doubt it. Usually citizens want cops to "have a heart" or "understand". And most of us do. Most of us give breaks and use discretion when not otherwise prohibited by law.
If you don't want interactions between cops and open carriers to be confrontational, then help defuse them. Don't further the reputation of some open-carriers (in some jurisdictions) as cop-baiters and money-grubbing lawsuit chasers wiling to sue over the smallest infraction (real or perceived) of your civil rights. Be strong, articulate advocates for yoru cause, and you will influence people. Otherwise, you will only alienate those cops who WANT to be on your side, who WANT to see you exercise your (and our!) rights, but don't want their name, family, and good reputation dragged through the mud in a federal civil rights lawsuit for a mistake.
Demnogis- you were definitely wronged, and could probably sue for an unlawful arrest. However, I respect your apaprent decision not to. I hope you followed it up with letters to both the police department and the police officers association regarding your contact and applicable laws.
I apologize for this being long, but I spend most of my days as an ardent 2A supporter and it pisses me the hell off when my colleagues and I are painted as the enemy. I hope that should I ever run into an open carrier, the contact would be a brief but friendly discussion -- but unfortunately, the initial call and circumstances might not be so simple and clear cut, and I would hope the open carrier would be civil and cooperative so that I can later return to the PD and preach the good news of the second amendment, instead of my partner later saying, "Man, that guy was a raving nutcase! Good thing we digitally record all of our stops!"