• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Letter to KPIX-TV Re: 1-14-10 Open Carry News Story

chewy352

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Harrah, Oklahoma
imported post

Straight Shooter,

Thank you for your time and insight in OCDO. Your perspective gives us an insight into what is going on in officers heads and is very helpful for everyone involved.

I just have on suggestion to help bridge the gap. Why don't you take it upon yourself to help educate your fellow California LEOers. With your willingness to talk to us you would be in the perfect position to be heard in a way that we can not.

I also wanted to comment on the 12031e checks. You are not required by law to perform them. It is a tool that you are given. Therefore if an officer truly believes in the constitution he would not use it as it is on its face a violation of the 4th amendment.

Here is the Thread about San Pedro. 30 officers, helo, and ambulance for four people drinking coffee. This video shows a lot but there are better videos that will be release at a later date. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36014-1.html

Please continue to frequent OCDO your input (IMO)is invaluable.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

As I got honorable mention in your post, I will only respont to that part.

This was almost the best hand jobI ever got. As far as you wanting to protect me, I wonder how you will do that when you are down at the donut shop hitting on the waitress. I don't want you to protect me. I want to be able to protect myself. If somethings happens to me, please feel free to investigate and possibly catch the perp. My reasons for UOCingare for personal protection and desensitizing the public about seeing someone carrying. So far, in the time I have been carrying, no one has reacted in any negative way. The only encounters I have had were very positive. My mechanic asked if my gun was real and the manager of Office Depot accused me of being my wife's bodygaurd. I haven't had an (e) check yet, but I fully expect to be drawn on, proned out, cuffed, searched and put in the back of a patrol car and then released. If a field interview is conducted, I will decline to answer any questions without legal advice, and I won't consent to any unconstitutional search. You are authorized to do an (e) check. That sounds like it optional, depending on the circumstances. This will not stop me from UOC'ing.
 

straight shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Chewy352,

Thank you for your response to my post. I am pleased that I can provide you and anyone else with any insight into LEO's and what is going on when it comes to this issue.

I am pleased to let you know that I have brought this subject up and have talked to quite a few officers of my department, and of our joint agency S.W.A.T. team. I have found out that other officers in other agencies have been dealing with this very issue. Right now, nothing is going to change because the powers that be (police chiefs) are not willing to change or look at revamping an policy changes, but that doesn't mean that the officers involved in these type of calls won't do things differently. It's going to be a slow process I can see, but slow is better than not addressing the issue at all.

Many of my officers are also very pro gun rights, so you can say that it at least is a start.

I will try to do as much as I can when it comes to OC and CCW, but I am just one officer and I would love to see this forum go further to include more officers. I have encouraged my officers to write in, and hopefully they will follow through.

If there is any way that you or others can think of to bring OC and CCW to other officers attention, please feel free to either let me know what I can do to help, or what you and others feel would be appropriate for you men and women to do.

I will stay in contact. - Straight Shooter.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Straight Shooter,

Thanks for coming to the forum and taking part in a rational discussion. It's a good thing when LE and citizens can interact in a non-confrontational manner to discuss issues causing friction, and I'm glad this forum is able to provide that (usually, there's nuts on both sides of the line, who generally don't stay here too long) While we clearly don't see eye to eye on many of the issues relating to firearms and how they are carried, I'm going to try to keep this somewhat short and not go in to all of that right now.

What I would like to address first is your comment regarding pschological testing for a ccw. While being adjudicated crazy will prevent a person from owning/having a firearm (already law), that is more than sufficient to address any issues regarding carry. It's not shall issue if there is anything more than 'I want it I get it' involved.

The more steps to obtain the permit, the more hoops to jump through, the more potential to restrict the rights of regular citizens based on perceptions and personal desires of those involved in administration of those steps. I believe that if you considerit thatyou will come to a similar conclusion. It has great potential to turn into a similar situation with the 'may issue' permits that we currently have, where you need to have political clout/large donations to get that permit. Perhaps the psychological testing is minimal to start, yet over the years it could be easily turned into a very exhaustive process that most average people couldn't hope to get through for the permit if they're not a friend of/donator to the agency involved in the testing. The slope is too slippery, and if it is to be shall issue, then it cannot take any more into account than merely checking to see if the person can legally own a firearm.

The only other point I'm going to address in this post is your comment about loaded concealed vs. unloaded open. Loaded open is a far preferable way to carry, in my opinion, weather permitting. If loaded concealed was so far superior in terms of draw/tactical advantage, then on duty LE would exclusively carry that way. Yet, I see uniformed officers with the gun on their hip, openly carried. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess this is due to a faster draw time and ease of access, as well as a deterrent value. Your point about having the drop on a criminal by carrying concealed is a source of ongoing debate, with pros and cons to each side of it. While there is an advantage in concealed due to not standing out, such as when a criminal chooses to threaten a group, there is no deterrent. A criminal most likely would not threaten a group where some/most are carrying loaded weapons openly, and would instead choose to move on, outside of something that would be similar to a 'suicide by cop' attempt using regular armed citizens. Either way, I believe that it should be up to the citizen to choose which way they prefer to carry, openly or concealed, based on their own viewpoint of deterrent value vs. not standing out.

You're correct that unloaded OC is crap, I agree with you on that. Loaded OC, like the majority of the states allow (including unlicensed loaded OC, such as Idaho and many other states have). The legislature of this state has neutered the rights of citizens seeking to protect themselves, and that's a travesty that will hopefully be addressed via the supreme court this year.

In closing, I'd like to suggest that you look around, and try to make contact with other officers who work the streets in areas with less retarded...er...restrictive gun laws. Idaho, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Arizona all come to mind. See what they have to say about how they respond to MWAG calls, both from a dispatching point of view as well as a responding officer point of view. I think you might be surprised in the vast difference in attitude between the way CA departments do things compared to how some of those other departments handle them. Also, it's easy to spot a CA officer who moved to such an area (I lived in Idaho the past several years), as they're all...jittery, for lack of a better word,when you're armed and talking to them (loaded OC, in this example), compared to the quite mellow long term local officers. I've seen this first hand, it's really quite interesting.


Thanks again for coming to the forum and actually speaking up, instead of lurking as it seems so many officers do. Looking forward to reading more of your posts and engaging in discussion with you in the future. To any otherlaw enforcementreading this, if you have questions/concerns, try becoming a member and talking to us, we don't bite.

PS. Here is the link to the sheriffs press release, if you like. Credit to Onedavetoomany for posting it, thanks! http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/sheriffs/pdfs/Press%20Releases/20100114_opencarry.pdf
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
Like I mentioned before, a person with a gun call gets officers to use tactics that will provide them with the greatest officer safety possible. Provided no one does something crazy, or the police don’t totally over react, then the chances are that we would approach you, with guns drawn, from behind cover, order you to the ground, handcuff you, disarm you, and then check to see if the gun was unloaded. Once we discover that the gun is unloaded, then you will be un-cuffed and dusted off. The officers, may conduct a field interview to understand why you are carrying an unloaded firearm in plain view, but then that’s all that should happen.

Coolusername2007, hey my idea of CCW’s and conducting some simple tests such as the psychological check I mentioned, is not to put a shrink in control of who can carry and who can’t, but just to make sure that the person who is applying is not a threat to him/herself or has any mental disability, lets say bipolar disease, that would cause them to use the CCW in a unsafe way in regards to the general public. Nothing against shrinks (Sorry if there are any out there) but having gone through numerous tests with them, I sort of wonder if you could flat out lie to them and get away with that. By such testing I’m just thinking that we could weed out some of the nuts out there, thus creating a good name for those of you who would be carrying a CW.


Wow! Now that's a long post. I hope you didn'twrite that while on duty...you know the whole taxpayer dollarsthing. :cool:

A quick comment on UOC...I think its safe to say that everybody here isn't a huge fan of UOC...we all want LOC. So let's be clear, even though we UOC that doesn't mean we like it or even prefer it. Personally, I don't care for CCW, and would much prefer LOC because it offers far more tactical advantages than concealed and/or disadvantages. Case in point, LEO's LOC and we all know why. Now that doesn't mean I wouldn't get a CCW permit if I could. I would prefer having both methods available to me, but I would likely LOC more often than not. For instance, if I was wearing a jacket of some kind, I would LOC, but my CCW would cover me in the same manner my jacket covers my sidearm...incidentally.

Now, your comment on handling an individual whose UOC'ing. Are youaware of the NM ruling? Here's the link. A gun in public is not a crime, regardless of whether or not the armed individual is an LEO or not. And while you're at it here's another article on open carry.

A quick comment on 12031(e) checks...they are not required. So if you are called on to investigate an open carrier, why not show him or her the respect they deserve and just talk to them.But ordering them to the ground, cuffing them, and seizing their property (even if its a weapon)is illegal without RAS of a crime. Do it enough times and eventually someone will file civil charges against you. And like the LEOs in NM, you may lose your qualified immunity and be held personally liable.

My question is this...if you would treat UOC'ers as you have stated, what are you going to do to legal LOC'ers when that becomes an option again? Perhaps you should consider UOC'ing situationsas remedial training for when LOC returns.

Now, as far as pyschological testing and shrinks are concerned. I will not give an inchon this issue. Its reeks of police state action and will lead to nothing good whatsoever. I suspect the folks back in '67 thought the same thing about the Mulford Act and look where that got us. Again you are attempting to trade libertyfor safety, and that simply is no longeracceptable.


ETA: fixed my last sentence...had liberty and safety backwards.
 

straight shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25
Location
, California, USA
imported post

To Gundude:

I received your post and I was quite flattered that I could be of service to you.

My post was not "a hand job", but it was my honest thoughts, opinions, and experiences. I am not trying to stop you from UOC'ing.

Since you don't want you to have LEO's protect you, because we are to busy "DOWN AT THE DONUT SHOP HITTING ON THE WAITRESS", I ask that you do me and all other LEO's a favor, Don't bother calling us when your house gets broken into, your car is stolen, your neighbors dog is barking at 2:00 in the morning, Your wife has decided to fire her "bodyguard" and you need a civil stand by while you move your stuff out of the house, or for anything else for that matter. It sounds like you have it covered. As you said we are all to busy to deal with your stuff, because again were down at the donut shop hitting on the waitress. Oh by the way when you do get (e) checked and won't answer our questions (which is another one of your rights), ask for the cell next to bubba, he will show you a real good time and he doesn't need a bodyguard.

Seriously I have no problem with you protecting yourself, or open carrying, but your resentment towards law enforcement in general is what gives people who OC a bad name and causes problems. Were trying to work with you and for you and do our jobs at the same time. Sorry to be so rude, but I don't have time for people who are so head strong, that they won't even try and listen to reason. :X
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
To Gundude:

I received your post and I was quite flattered that I could be of service to you.

My post was not "a hand job", but it was my honest thoughts, opinions, and experiences. I am not trying to stop you from UOC'ing.

Since you don't want you to have LEO's protect you, because we are to busy "DOWN AT THE DONUT SHOP HITTING ON THE WAITRESS", I ask that you do me and all other LEO's a favor, Don't bother calling us when your house gets broken into, your car is stolen, your neighbors dog is barking at 2:00 in the morning, Your wife has decided to fire her "bodyguard" and you need a civil stand by while you move your stuff out of the house, or for anything else for that matter. It sounds like you have it covered. As you said we are all to busy to deal with your stuff, because again were down at the donut shop hitting on the waitress. Oh by the way when you do get (e) checked and won't answer our questions (which is another one of your rights), ask for the cell next to bubba, he will show you a real good time and he doesn't need a bodyguard.

Seriously I have no problem with you protecting yourself, or open carrying, but your resentment towards law enforcement in general is what gives people who OC a bad name and causes problems. Were trying to work with you and for you and do our jobs at the same time. Sorry to be so rude, but I don't have time for people who are so head strong, that they won't even try and listen to reason. :X
The one eyed jack is showing the other side of his face.
 

chewy352

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Harrah, Oklahoma
imported post

Straight Shooter,

Gundude likes to give people a hard time. If you cruise the forum enough you will see a couple of times that he harasses me, yet I assure you it is in good fun.

If I am wrong Gundude than let me know and I'll butt out and go try on my banana outfit. BTW did you get some new socks yet I can smell them all they way in San Diego. :?
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

It just amazes me how the LEO's come on here and tell how they believe in the 2nd amendment and want to uphold the constitution. Then in the next breath, they say they will violate the 4th amendment with an illegal search, and this comment about my 5th amendment right.

"Oh by the way when you do get (e) checked and won't answer our questions (which is another one of your rights), ask for the cell next to bubba,"

I've been around long enough to have a turd in every pocket.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

Straight Shooter- thanks for sticking around to respond to our concerns. I hope that you make it a point to remain a part of our quirky little community, so we may gain a better insight into police encounters and thepeace officers perceptions ofthe gun rights community. It is because of our status as a super minority in California, that we need as many friends in blue and tan as we can find.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

chewy352 wrote:
Straight Shooter,

Gundude likes to give people a hard time. If you cruise the forum enough you will see a couple of times that he harasses me, yet I assure you it is in good fun.

If I am wrong Gundude than let me know and I'll butt out and go try on my banana outfit. BTW did you get some new socks yet I can smell them all they way in San Diego. :?
Someone broke into my house and stole all my socks. I won't call an LEO, cuz its punishment enough having those socks.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Gundude wrote:
It just amazes me how the LEO's come on here and tell how they believe in the 2nd amendment and want to uphold the constitution. Then in the next breath, they say they will violate the 4th amendment with an illegal search, and this comment about my 5th amendment right.

"Oh by the way when you do get (e) checked and won't answer our questions (which is another one of your rights), ask for the cell next to bubba,"

I've been around long enough to have a turd in every pocket.

I agree Gundude, there's a lot of double speak in his posts. Very interesting hisperspective is (channelling a little Yoda here). I think it goes to show how much human error plays a part in practical, street level law enforcement.

Straight shooter, if you want to help, and I get the sense that you do, please go read the NM ruling I provided the links to. And don't just read the article, but go get the actual ruling and read it, study it, live it. Then go teach your LEO friends and co-workers. It should give you sense of how wrong the PRK's LEA's really are on this isue.

Question:when a person goes through LEO training 101...is there a class on the Constitution? If not, there needs to be. I get the feeling they get too mired down in the details and forget the more important bigger picture.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
To Gundude:

I received your post and I was quite flattered that I could be of service to you.

My post was not "a hand job", but it was my honest thoughts, opinions, and experiences. I am not trying to stop you from UOC'ing.

Since you don't want you to have LEO's protect you, because we are to busy "DOWN AT THE DONUT SHOP HITTING ON THE WAITRESS", I ask that you do me and all other LEO's a favor, Don't bother calling us when your house gets broken into, your car is stolen, your neighbors dog is barking at 2:00 in the morning, Your wife has decided to fire her "bodyguard" and you need a civil stand by while you move your stuff out of the house, or for anything else for that matter. It sounds like you have it covered. As you said we are all to busy to deal with your stuff, because again were down at the donut shop hitting on the waitress. Oh by the way when you do get (e) checked and won't answer our questions (which is another one of your rights), ask for the cell next to bubba, he will show you a real good time and he doesn't need a bodyguard.

Seriously I have no problem with you protecting yourself, or open carrying, but your resentment towards law enforcement in general is what gives people who OC a bad name and causes problems. Were trying to work with you and for you and do our jobs at the same time. Sorry to be so rude, but I don't have time for people who are so head strong, that they won't even try and listen to reason. :X


I see I made a mistake when I read your post and decided that you were interested in discussion, and were mature enough to handle it. My apologies for reading you wrong.

Red text: It's a well known fact that when a crime occurs, there are not always police right there at the exact time to prevent it, or to defend people. Which part of being prepared to defend ourselves offended you? Also, it's known that SCOTUS has found that the police have no obligation to defend anybody anyway.

Green text: None of that involves "protecting", but rather consists of taking a report after the fact. I'm curious how you consider taking a report of a stolen vehicle "protection".

Blue text: So, because we legally stand on our rights and don't answer your questions, you feel that a we should be incarcerated for saying nothing and ask to get raped? Yet you wonder why people get bent about the attitude that law enforcement has.

Orange text: What part of locking up someone who will rape them because they stayed silent and didn't answer your questions, while breaking no laws at all,is the part that includes "working with" or "for you" or "doing our jobs"?


Thank you for being a prime example of why people get sick of most law enforcement. You say one thing, but immediately turn around and piss all over people when they don't give you what you believe to be proper respect. Grow up. Note, this doesn't apply to all law enforcement. There are some on this forum (and some not on this forum) who are great.
 

AIC869

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
In response to AIC869’s post, I love your sarcasm, especially about grandma eating a chulupa, and you expecting a full tactical response. I will leave you alone, as long as I know you and your grad mother’s intent is not to use your uoc firearm for illegal purposes. Again it all boils down to this, With my city having over 60,000 resident citizens, and other citizens who are traveling through that don’t even live in my city, I can’t tell what everyone of those peoples intent is. Officer safety dictates that we preserve life at all costs, even our own. Now I’m not trying to be flip, but I do have to check out every call that is presented to me, weather it be a barking dog, domestic violence, or UOC citizen just eating a sandwich in front of the sandwich store.

If I might infer from your “freedom of speech and whisper” analogy, you believe you should have the right to carry a firearm any way you want to, open unloaded carry or ccw. My point being from my first post was that a rational ccw policy would end all of the controversy. Don’t get me wrong here, but where not in the old west, and this isn’t the eighteen hundreds where toting a gun on your hip was the “norm”. May be it should be. What I am getting at is that wouldn’t you and others have the same level of protection by being able to carry a loaded concealed weapon, rather than an unloaded open carried weapon. Lets put it to you this way, you would be protecting yourself and others if ccw permits were the norm because (1) Criminals would have no idea who was armed and who wasn’t, thus the theory go’s that they would be far less likely to attack people because they don’t know if they are armed and (2) carrying a firearm open, and unloaded might not deter crime, because if criminals know that the gun is unloaded and can see this, they may be more apt to take an OC person on. The simple fact is that your gun is unloaded and it takes critical seconds to load it and get into the fight as they say. Where the criminals don’t carry around unloaded guns, and they are far more likely to use them, even before you have a chance to draw your firearm and load it. Basically what it boils down to is I truly believe and feel that you would be better served by being allowed to carry a loaded concealed weapon. Heck as a cop I can carry open and loaded, but I know from my training and experience that I can get the drop on someone who is trying to harm me by carry concealed. When they ask me for my wallet all I have to do is to pretend to reach for it and pull my firearm and end the situation one way or the other.

Finally I would like to address your last issue and that is “We grant the law enforcement community their authority to enforce laws on our behalf.” “There is no expectation that (citizen’s) will be going in harms way at the request of their fellow citizens”. I fully understand your point, and being issued a CCW permit should and doesn’t obligate you to “act as an officer of the court” and bring suspects to justice. Just the opposite, a ccw permit’s only obligation would be to protect you and your loved ones against serious physical harm. I along with many other citizens who have joined the ranks of law enforcement are responsible for enforcing the laws of the state, county and country, and no one else unless paid to do so should have to put themselves in harms way to deal with situations that they either don’t want to get involved in or shouldn’t get involved in. You and other citizens of every community, county, and state pay us to do that.
Broke it up into a few paragraphs just for ease of reading (nothing implied by this).

Well, as several have stated, I welcome the fact that you weren't a one-hit wonder. All too often in ANY kind of forum (not just gun related) a new guy/girl will stop in, lob one at a group and then never be heard from again. Education only comes with dialogue from both sides.

As for the sarcasm - good. You got it, and it wasn't wasted. Humor is often the best way to interact with others, as it implies goodwill and shows the other side that you don't take yourself too seriously. :) As for grandma and the chalupa, she's planning on expanding her diet to also include the gordita after realizing you can't live off the 99 cent menu forever. What's to be gained from this is that all things being equal, AND absent any RAS that the gun owner is committing, about to commit, or has committed any crime in accordance with Supreme Court case law in Terry v. Ohio, there is no reason for police interaction between a gun owner and an officer. As others have pointed out, mere possession does not make him a bad guy. Training a dispatcher to ask pertinent questions would go a long way.

Concerned citizen: "I'd like to report a man driving a car!"
Dispatcher: "Well, what is he doing with the car?"
CC: "He's all over the road!"
D: "You mean swerving all over the place?"
CC: "No! He's going from one end of the street to the other! He's legally using up an entire lane! Yellow lines on one side and white lines on the other! Hurry! Please!!"
D: <click>

A car is equally as dangerous as a gun; yet it isn't mandated that everyone drive a Smart Car that could double as a golf cart, and no one has to take a psych profile to get a driver's license (which is a privilege, not a right)... although maybe Smart Car owners should, because those things are ridiculously stupid looking.

As for carry - actually, I think Loaded Open Carry is just fine with me. Are there times when decorum would dictate CC? Of course. Same as decorum would dictate white tie for certain events over a powder blue polyester leisure suit. It's all situationally dependent. While I would love to see CA as a Shall Issue state, I can already envision a mandate by some overzealous "peace" officers that if you have a CC permit then they would try to institute their interpretation that possession of a CC permit requires CC. That's akin to saying that since I have a driver's license, I MUST drive everywhere I go. One option does not trump the other.

It is at least some evidence that armed citizens abort or prevent at least some crime. That 40% of the sample had at some time decided not to do a crime because the intended victim was carrying a gun is additional evidence favoring the same point.

The felons in this survey were clearly concerned about encounters with armed victims. Most felons agreed that "a smart criminal always tried to find out if his victim is armed. In general, encounters with armed victims seemed to be about as worrisome to these men as encounters with the police. Confrontations with armed victims were a fairly frequent occurrence for these men. About two fifths had run into an armed victim at least once; about one third had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by one; about two fifths had decided at least once in their lives not to commit a crime because they knew or suspected that the victim was armed; about 80% had had at least some experience with an armed victim; either directly or vicariously, through the experiences of their associates.

- James Wright, investigator, National Institute of Justice
This survey was conducted by a UMass professor who surveyed nearly 2,000 (1,879 to be exact) felons. That CC exists is one thing. For a felon to reasonably expect that his potential victim is CC'ing is another. If anything, the odds are dramatically in his favor that the victim is not. There's no doubt if the would-be victim is open carrying. The e-check ridiculousness is simply one more step to prevent a victim from defending themselves. LE doesn't stop to see if there's gas in my car...

As for enforcement, I absolutely said nothing about CCW holders "acting as an officer of the court." That's your job, and that's what I pay you for. You accept the risk of putting yourself in danger to apprehend a suspect. I (we) have no intention of playing police officer. We just want to be left alone. You also receive training in legalities of your actions with regard to civil rights. As your employers, we expect that you will adhere to them vice making it up as you go along (and I have no reason to suspect that you would - you come across as a stand up guy). Similarly, I do not expect you to execute national policy, as that's my job. I go in harm's way abroad to conduct the will of the citizenry. Concurrently, I also am empowered with authority for arrest, search, and seizure under federal statute within my jurisdiction. I also have had to receive training on the limits of my authority from a constitutional law standpoint just the same as civilian LE. I am criminally liable for violating those civil rights just the same as civilian LE. These are authorities granted by nature of my federal commission. I've performed searches. I've made apprehensions. These are actions in addition to my normal duties as a combat aviator. Now if these legal actions aren't my everyday "job" and I "get it," why is it so difficult for some in the "peace officer" business who practice these duties daily?

Virginia allows loaded open carry and CC. California bans LOC (and virtually bans CC as well). Anyone care to compare crime rates per capita (to make it fair)?
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
Question:when a person goes through LEO training 101...is there a class on the Constitution? If not, there needs to be. I get the feeling they get too mired down in the details and forget the more important bigger picture.

Well, here's a first...I'm actually quoting myself. Good grief. Iwanted to expand on my earlier thought, and didn't want it to get lost in an edit.

Wouldn't it be right on point if LEO's attended training and were not taught the Constitution and then asked to swear to an oath to uphold it. Does anyone have a course outline for LEO academy training? And does anyone have the syllabus for the Constitution class (if there is one)? Surely they teach the Constitution, but then again maybe not. That would explain a lot especially since we know our public schools don't teach it.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

Constrained by time I have only read Straight Shooter's first post. I have to disagree with the safety element of a mwag call.Primarilybecause you signed up to face danger with out stepping on our rights. Now hypothetically what if a Californian could not walk anywhere in California without encountering atleast 50% ofcitizensopen carrying. Could you even imagine how much the crime rates would drop in California?

However, I do agree with you on the rest of your post. I agree a CCW should come with an informative class on when you are allowed to use a weapon. I know many many people that are clearly ignorant on firearm law. I can't even count the times I have heard "Damn if someone was in my house stealing my things I would shoot him in a heart beat". I can only imagine those people getting a CCW permit with out knowledge of when it is legal to use that weapon. Only then could you have morons pulling their weapon because they were cussed at. We were all ignorant to the gun laws once, of course we all have common sense, many do not.

I took my CCW course in Nevada, of course I did not learn much as I knew how to handle my firearm, I did find it a perfect class and necessary if I never owned a gun before or researched gun laws. Asto the psych evaluation, that would have to be extremely non-discriminatory and in no way affiliated with the department or its anti-citizen self defense views.
 

straight shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Hello Everyone

It’s me, your favorite LEO.

As to Gundude’s comment’s I will just skip over them, because quite frankly I am not interested in getting into a pissing contest, and quite honestly Gundude you really don’t have anything to bring to the table as of yet.

For those of you who were wondering, yes I am here to stay, not to spy on you, as Gundude may believe, but to gain insight, and hopefully make a positive change for my fellow officers and me when it comes to OC.

Yes you are a “Super Minority in California” as ConditionThree pointed out. Unfortunately that is what makes this issue so hard for LEO’s to wrap their heads around. We “as in I and other officers” have not had contact with a person who is OCing. That makes it tough for us, because most departments are made up of more than 20 to 30% of officers with less than two years experience (another words new hires). Us older guys are learning stuff from them, that to be quite honest blows our minds. They on the other hand are so gung ho that unfortunately rights and liberties do get trampled on by both older officers and younger officers alike.

I personally have learned a lot from this forum and am more open now to the idea of OC. Prior to the Channel 5 KPIX news clip, I had no idea that this was going on. I knew that it was possible to OC, back from my academy days, but in 15 plus years, I have never heard of or seen anyone do it. So you can say you have made an inroad into at least one LEO’s opinions and decision-making process.

Coolusername 2007 asked if in the academy we go through Constitutional law training? The answer is yes. In my day it was a very limited subject, but it was still taught, Now that California Police officers who go through the academy are sent longer than the 3 months that I went through it (I believe it is closer to 5 or 6 months), and the intense in house training, and field training, I would like to believe that they do get expanded training in constitutional law, but again I can’t be sure about that until I get back to the department tonight and ask one of our rookies. I would be happy to dig up one of my old academy binders, but again it’s so old it’s out of date, in regards to current training practices. As far as a constitutional law class syllabus that is easy and hard. You could always write P.O.S.T. (Police Officers Standards and Training) and obtain what they require for all academies to teach on that subject throughout the state. The hard part comes, because there are so many different police academy’s in California, The instructor ultimately has control over less plans, how the subject is taught, and to some degree what they want to emphasize in regards to a specific subject, including constitutional law.

NightOwl brought up some interesting thoughts. NightOwl I agree 100 and ten percent when you bring up that LEO’s will not always be there to protect you, and that usually we arrive after the fact that a crime has been committed. I don’t have a problem with people defending themselves at all. All I ask, is that if it is at all possible (time permitting) that you call your local LEO’s and hopefully they will get there to protect you. In my city, response times are 2 to 3 minutes and when seconds count, you are not going to have a chance to pick up the phone and dial 911. When I was shot at it seemed like it took forever to hear the sounds of those glorious sirens coming to help me. So again don’t be afraid to take the law into your own hands, when it comes down to life or death issues, phone calls can wait. Your life is more important than a phone call to 911! You are right as far as LEO’s taking a report of a stolen vehicle or burglary is not “protection”, but it is a way of LEO’s trying to recover your property, and prosecute the guilty parties. Now if you are talking about LEO’s responding to a call of a burglary or stolen vehicle, neither you nor we can legally use deadly force to stop such a crime unless our lives or yours are put in jeopardy. Yes you will see us draw our firearms for these types of in progress crimes, but that is an extra measure to ensure the suspect we are contacting (1) complies with our orders, and (2) for officer safety in case the suspect is armed. Property crimes are never a reason for LEO’s or citizens to use deadly force.

In answer to you exercising your rights not to answer our questions after being contacted for an OC, all we are trying to find out is that the reason for you OC’ing is just for that reason. We may ask more questions like “Why do you want to OC?” and all you should have to say is that you are exercising your rights granted to you under the law, that’s it. In regards to Gundude (I swear I was not going to talk about him again..Opp’s) not answering any questions, that would lead us to a reasonable suspicion (enough for a misdemeanor) to bring him in until he is ready to tell LEO’s what I had just mentioned. People who don’t answer LEO’s questions often have something to hide, and again we are just doing our jobs by investigating a possible commission of a crime. As I have said over and over again we are not mind readers, so we cannot tell a persons intent without a dialogue. Again I apologize to you and everyone else out there who have read my posts, who don’t agree with me, but I am just trying my best to fill in the blanks and change the disconnect between LEO’s and OC citizens. I am not as you said, “Piss(ing) all over people when they don’t give you (me) what you (I) believe to be proper respect”, and that I need to “grow up”. I am not here to make friends, if so I would be on some sort of social network. I am here to understand how we can bridge any divide between LEO’s and law abiding OC citizens. I am also here to hopefully help you expand your rights to loaded OC and even CCW. Finally Let me address your post dated Jan 18th 2010/1739 hours regarding concealed and non concealed. Yes non-concealed gives us a much faster reaction/draw time. In my experience working undercover and plain clothes as a detective, I was also trained to react and draw from a concealed wearing. I found that while draw time was slightly diminished, in real life applications, people who didn’t know I was carrying allowed me to get the drop on them quicker. Your uniformed LEO’s wear firearms openly (1) As a sign and visual deterrent that they are armed, and that they are physically out their in front of the public on a daily basis enforcing the laws. If they were to carry concealed, unfortunately the uniform gives away the fact that they are carrying a firearm. Just a little piece of inside info, most departments send in their plain-clothes officers fist on a hold up alarm. This is so they don’t startle the perpetrators, which may cause them to do something hasty while a uniformed officer would. My point being that if the bad guys of this country don’t know who is armed and who isn’t, and that is a known fact to the general population, then it is quite possible that armed assaults on citizens would go down substantially.

AIC869, again thank you for your comments to my post. Glad to hear your Grand mother is moving up in the Taco bell world and eating a better class of fast food. You made a very valid point, that cars are also a very deadly weapon as per 245 P.C.. You could actually look at the statistics and find that 23152 C.V.C (dui), has caused more deaths then firearms in every given year. I conduct a program that was designed in the late 1990’s called every 15 minutes. If you don’t know about it, it is basically a program to help teens make the smart decision not to get behind the wheel of a vehicle after drinking. The premise is that in 1990 every 15 minutes someone was killed or seriously injured in the United State by an intoxicated driver. Since the 90’s that figure has changed, but not for the better, it is more like every 11 minutes. Finally I am getting everyone who has contributed to my responses about OC. Again it is still my desire to expand your rights and allow loaded OC, and CCW permits to be issued more readily by departments.

Regarding your UMass study, I appreciate the insight. Do you know what year it was conducted and who specifically commissioned the study? Any information would be appreciated.

Finally I would like to ask everyone on this forum, does the OC movement have a chairman or someone who can speak on everyone’s behalf. You seem like a well-organized group. If you don’t have a chairperson, I think you should address that. Just like the NRA or California Waterfowl Association, where I pay dues to protect my rights, I think if you had a Chairman, you could get a lot accomplished. I know that this is a tight economy, and everyone hates to pay for his or her rights, which should be free, but freedom isn’t always free. I think to desensitize the public and LEO’s through out every state, you need more air time on T.V., More people fighting for your rights, more Law Enforcement involvement and training. Basically I think if your organization had more muscle, be it political, or just education, I believe that your organization would have more traction in “decriminalizing your basic rights”. Just a thought that I wanted to put out there for you all to think about. Heck I would pay to join such an organization.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
imported post

For those of you who were wondering, yes I am here to stay, not to spy on you, as Gundude may believe, but to gain insight, and hopefully make a positive change for my fellow officers and me when it comes to OC.

I checked back on all my posts, and didn't find any thing about spying, but no matter.

In regards to Gundude (I swear I was not going to talk about him again..Opp’s) not answering any questions, that would lead us to a reasonable suspicion (enough for a misdemeanor) to bring him in until he is ready to tell LEO’s what I had just mentioned. People who don’t answer LEO’s questions often have something to hide, and again we are just doing our jobs by investigating a possible commission of a crime.

Did we forget about the 5th amendment already? Please watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

straight shooter wrote:
In answer to you exercising your rights not to answer our questions after being contacted for an OC, all we are trying to find out is that the reason for you OC’ing is just for that reason. We may ask more questions like “Why do you want to OC?” and all you should have to say is that you are exercising your rights granted to you under the law, that’s it. In regards to Gundude (I swear I was not going to talk about him again..Opp’s) not answering any questions, that would lead us to a reasonable suspicion (enough for a misdemeanor) to bring him in until he is ready to tell LEO’s what I had just mentioned. People who don’t answer LEO’s questions often have something to hide, and again we are just doing our jobs by investigating a possible commission of a crime. As I have said over and over again we are not mind readers, so we cannot tell a persons intent without a dialogue. Again I apologize to you and everyone else out there who have read my posts, who don’t agree with me, but I am just trying my best to fill in the blanks and change the disconnect between LEO’s and OC citizens. I am not as you said, “Piss(ing) all over people when they don’t give you (me) what you (I) believe to be proper respect”, and that I need to “grow up”. I am not here to make friends, if so I would be on some sort of social network. I am here to understand how we can bridge any divide between LEO’s and law abiding OC citizens. I am also here to hopefully help you expand your rights to loaded OC and even CCW.
Finally I would like to ask everyone on this forum, does the OC movement have a chairman or someone who can speak on everyone’s behalf.

I think we can agree you have a tough job as a LEO. Although many people have tough jobs and do not cut corners. If it is your true intention to bridge the gap so to speak I think we are all fairly clear on what our intentions are. Follow the law. Thats it. Just because 100% of law abiding citizens do not open carry does not mean you can harrass the few of us there are. That is discrimination.

If 100% of society OC'ed, you would not treat mwag calls the same.

If 100% of society OC'ed, you would not treatus thesame.

If 100% of society OC'ed, you wouldprobably be out ofa job.

Of course we can not possibly ask for you to stop 12031e checking us. Any one in this forum who asks for that is being unreasonable. Imagine if an OC'er strolled by a LEO who decided not to 12031e check, and that same OC'er pulled his gun and shot someone right after. A crapstorm would come down on that department from media everywhere instantly. Headline "Cop had chance to stop murderer but didn't". Of course 12031e does not make society safer or would it stop a murder, BUT, the media would assume that since there was this law, it should have been exersized. All the blame would be on the Department.

Saying that, many OC'ers would appreciate a swift 12031e check(a legal infringement on that persons 4th yet necessary in protecting the department), with no questioning of that person until that said person is notified he may leave.

No chairman, just Mike Stollenwerk the owner. Open Carry will not be organized until the 2nd is incorporated in the State of California.


All in all glad to hear a LEO that has some views I can relate with. Sorry we disagree on how to dothe job however. I view it as.. a mwag call has only trained your mind to think "bad guy:". This is unfortunate, yet.. a personal problem. I don't sign up to be a scuba dive instructorand pour oil in the ocean to kill the potential man eating sharks and the other law abiding aquatic animals. I just stay the hell away from teaching scuba. I love to surf though. Also, the straight-shooter you seem to be tells me you and I both know any OC'er is not about to OC if they are a convicted criminal or about to commit a crime. So the "if you don't talk we become suspicious of a crime" does not fly with us either. Sorry my post seems to disrespectful! I am a nice guyI swear :)
 
Top