Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: My Visit With The DA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    I wasn't sure if I wanted to speak of this yet untill I read DJDD's post about his encounter...

    To put all this in perspective, the Mayor and a police officer came into our shop to inquire about a gate. Before they left I asked the officer about OC. He replied immediately it was illegal. He did say he prefered would OC, as the weapon would be plainly visible and moves toward it obvious. I offered in reply that the courts recognize OC as legal, and pointed out State v Reid and said it was a decision from 1840 that has not been overturned or supplanted in anyway. The owner was there, so I quickly demurred on the conversation, recognizing that there were better times and places for it. (My boss is curious too, mostly from wanting to know what the real skinny is, just shop time ain't the time) This was Monday IIRC

    I studied all week on this and Friday afternoon I went down to our DA's office (9th District). I went armed with copies of the court cases listed in Documents and Tools at www.alabama.com and notes I had made about them and questions I have about OC and interpretation of 13A-11-52 and 13A-11-73.

    I didn't get to talk to an attorney (office was basicallyempty, to be expected on Memorial Day Weekend) but I did get to speak with one of the officies investigators. We had a good conversation. He agrees that OC is in fact legal, but said that I was likely to be arrested for it. His meaning as I took it was by city cops, and/or cops that don't know the law. He too said that he would prefer people OC.

    We spoke of culture differences of now and our nations past, of states where OC is common. He asked several times what my purpose was in asking twice he used the language "So what point are you trying to prove?". I simply replied that there seems to be a conflict of opinion and I want to know the facts for my own knowledge. At one point we did discuss carrying, he had on a large tee-shirt, and was carrying what appeared to be a small frame Glock underneath and he spoke of how he could conceal an even larger pistol if need be.

    I told him I wasn't as trim as I used to be, (I'm 192 @ 5'7", have a nice pot belly if I say so myself ) but even so I couldn't conceal well my large frame pistol or revolver, that I don't have a mid or small frame anything nor the money for one.

    I didn't get into particulars with him, he's an investgator, not the DA oran assistant. I did ask about the supposed conflict between -73and -52. He got out his code book, read the sections and told me he couldn't answer the question. No problem, apparently sheriffs and other LEO's can't (or won't)either.

    Our conversation ended on a good note, he complimented me on taking the tiime to ask questions, and evaluate my actions and said he wished more people would do the same.

    On thinking of it for two days now I've come to one of two conclusions..

    1) He knows it legal, thinks I'm a nice guy and wants to save me the trouble of a legal battle "to prove my point" (my, He's a nice guy too theory)

    2) He knows it's legal, so does the rest of the law enforcement community here but they don't want to see people OCing and are willing to let the ill-informed officers remain ill-informed, leaving a "loophole of harrasment and discouragement" since they can't make OC illegal, they use the discrepancies and conflicts in the law to achieve that which suits the ends of higher ups(my, He's part of an establishment clique which likes and is invested inthe status quo theory)

    I intend to go back, and I want to speak with the DA himself, butI'll likely only get a junior assistant (whichcould bean anwswer to the question of which theory is correct).This is the question I have for them...

    Why should I fear being detained, harrased or arrested for the practice of unconcealed carry of a firearm when it is both a legal and legitimate option for having a means of self defense upon my person? It should not be my place as a citizen to inform the law enforcement officers and agencies I may come into contact with in the routine course of my daily activities, what the laws of the state are and how the courts have ruled upon them in establishing the boundaries of legal and illegal behaviors and actions.

    I'm not yet satisfied with what I'm hearing. I also intend to ask if the DA knows what the sheriff's view's are and intend to ask the sheriff as well. I am leary about OC in town untill this matter is clear. All it takes for them to cause me trouble, is to flag the NICS and whilea sale may not be denied, itcould certainly be delayed, as wellas having my name added to other listsI wouldn't want it on. I dont have great faith that our elected officals have our best interests at heart.

    My greatest shortcoming is that I"m not a fast thinker anymore. I don't like going into these conversations, I'm not sure I defend myself well speaking, I tend to listen more than speak, and let the "currents" of the conversation direct my answers. As well, our work brings us into contact with the local government frequently. We make ornamental iron work and have over the years done quite a bit of work for the city. This is not a good place to make enemies. At the same time, that they know me could work to some advantage, they may at least be more tolerant than witha different person. Hmmmmmmmm....

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    St. John v. Alamogordo.

    The ill-informed officers can still be held personally liable. The court held that they should know. The DA's office deliberately letting them remain ill-informed, surely would have some liability too, especially if something went horribly wrong during a stop of an OCer.

    Point out that case. They might want to rethink their stand.

    BTW, what city is this?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    St. John v. Alamogordo.

    The ill-informed officers can still be held personally liable. The court held that they should know. The DA's office deliberately letting them remain ill-informed, surely would have some liability too, especially if something went horribly wrong during a stop of an OCer.

    Point out that case. They might want to rethink their stand.

    BTW, what city is this?
    Ft. Payne.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Can you help me find a PDF of that case?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    JohnH wrote:
    My greatest shortcoming is that I"m not a fast thinker anymore. I don't like going into these conversations, I'm not sure I defend myself well speaking, I tend to listen more than speak, and let the "currents" of the conversation direct my answers.

    I can totally sympathize with you on this one. I am not as quick and sharp as I used to be even though my wisdom has increased overall. I am also more accustomed to typing than talking now that the information age is fully upon us.

    This is why doing what you are doing is a good thing. Not only is the additional communication experience a good thing just for practice and repetition's sake,but when you can sit down and talk to some of these people it helps to limit any intimidation factor that might be laying dormantwithin you.

    It can be tough to have to deal with law enforcement situations when you are on the street and the subject of possible negative actions. It can be intimidating. I know it is for me especially if I am not quick with my wit that day. Going in to talk with people at least provides you with a more comfortable atmosphere than what a spontaneous public contact may offer when you are being subjected to some sort of investigative inquisition.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    MK wrote:
    JohnH wrote:
    My greatest shortcoming is that I"m not a fast thinker anymore. I don't like going into these conversations, I'm not sure I defend myself well speaking, I tend to listen more than speak, and let the "currents" of the conversation direct my answers.

    I can totally sympathize with you on this one. I am not as quick and sharp as I used to be even though my wisdom has increased overall. I am also more accustomed to typing than talking now that the information age is fully upon us.

    This is why doing what you are doing is a good thing. Not only is the additional communication experience a good thing just for practice and repetition's sake,but when you can sit down and talk to some of these people it helps to limit any intimidation factor that might be laying dormantwithin you.

    It can be tough to have to deal with law enforcement situations when you are on the street and the subject of possible negative actions. It can be intimidating. I know it is for me especially if I am not quick with my wit that day. Going in to talk with people at least provides you with a more comfortable atmosphere than what a spontaneous public contact may offer when you are being subjected to some sort of investigative inquisition.
    MK, Point taken, and thank you for the support.

    eye95, I found the PDF, Thanks

Posting Permissions

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