• 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.

Granite School Police

Nuttycomputer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
65
Location
West Jordan, Utah, USA
imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:
I was at 7-11 getting a refill when two officer in the corner came over and asked me if my firearm was loaded I replied yes.
Aside from the humor that your Driver's License number appears on the same citation for failing to present DL I will agree with utbagpiper regarding presenting your permit.

However I'm not sure if we follow the same reasoning. I would have suggested offering your permit after having admitted you were carrying a loaded firearm but I would also suggest that you refrain from providing any more information then you are required. (Your name and address)

My firearm has a load indicator but if yours does not there is no method in which they could tell if it was loaded save asking you (which they did) or conducting a search which would not have been legal.

You've definitely got several defenses here as has been outlined. You were on private property and not on a public street, you have a concealed firearm permit, etc. The other two are of course easy. The citation itself is evident that the officers couldn't even tell you which law you broke (since there is none) as they didn't write the code number.

Let us know how it turns out. Shouldn't even need a lawyer for this one lol
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:
Loaded one in the chamber and yes I do have a valid CWP I just don't always have it with me when I open carry
I've got to be honest, I don't understand not telling the cops you have a permit. You do HAVE a permit to carry even if you are not carrying the permit on your person. And, if the gun is Utah loaded, then in most cases (outside your car and in a city) you are either carrying pursuant to a permit OR you are in violation of State law. Toss in school zones (as noted on another thread, we've been doing some work on this and I think most folks here would be shocked at just how difficult it is to avoid Utah school zones) and it is all but impossible to even OC unloaded legally without a permit. That the cops are probably as ignorant of all the schools as we are may well be a great blessing.

It is, however, great that Utah law does not actually require us to carry our permit on our person. So if someone forgets his wallet or loses the permit, he is not SOL. Ditto if the permit is damaged in some way that a cop could claim it is no longer valid. (Ever try to get on an airplane these days with a DL or other ID that is separating or otherwise damaged?)

Now, let me ask you this, do you want to spend time fighting a law that would require us to carry our permit with us? Or do you want to spend your time and energy working to actually materially improve our RKBA?

If you want to "sterile carry" have a ball. But then do so in a manner and in locations where you don't need a permit to carry. If you are going to carry loaded and/or in school zones, then you need a permit under current law. And I see no good reason to be difficult in such situations. Hand the cop your permit, smile and assume he might just know the law well enough to hand your permit back to you with a simple, "Thank you." If he turns out to be a jerk, there will be plenty of time to be difficult later.

Anyway, I, for one, would much rather spend my time working to fix our insane definition of school zones and getting permit-free carry (ala Alaska/Arizona) than fighting some bill to require us to carry our permits on our person.

It is a bit like the current guns in "posted" churches law. The current penalty is not so harsh as to mess up your day if you make an honest mistake and carry into a church (or home) where your gun is not welcome. But rather than taking that as an excuse to violate the law (and just be rude regarding others' private property rights), we ought to obey the law and church/homeowner wishes. There is just nothing to be gained by giving anyone any legitimate reason to say the penalty needs to be stiffer.

Similarly, the lack of legal requirement to carry a permit on your person is very nice. But it should not be abused just to be difficult. Even if you don't want to carry your permit, you really should just tell the cop you do have a permit to carry and he is free to look it up.

My $0.02 worth.

Charles
 

Utah_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
718
Location
Kearns, Utah, USA
imported post

I told the officer indeed I had a valid permit just did not have the permit with me. They were never misled as to if I had a permit or not.

If fact I gave them my DL number and told them I had a valid permit but not currently on my person. So please understand the police were not misled but were ignorant of Utah law which does not require me to carry my permit with me.

The Granite officers were rude and ignorant of Utah law. All I wanted was to get my refill and leave they were the aggressors since their was no PC to make the stop.

They were told several times indeed had a permit to carry my firearm and was in compliance with Utah law.

They were misunderstood and misguided when told I could have a county officer familiar with Utah law respond they were offended and called Dispatch from the county to insure they would not respond.

The Officer T Arnold refused to give me his badge number and the other officer stated he did not have to give me his badge number.

I asked him several times if I was under arrest he stated "No" I asked if I was free to go he stated "No"

These officer clearly violated my Civil Rights and were ignorant of Utah law. This is the misconceptions I wish to clear up so in the future the officers will better understand Utah law.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

Well that is a bit different story than I had understood.

In this case then, it sounds like you were correct and the officers need to be educated. My apologies for misunderstanding.

I encourage you to also provide details of this case to AG Shurtleff and your State Legislators and the Governor's office.

I would also encourage you to carry your permit whenever possible even though you are not legally required to do so. It avoids conflating two issues and allows us to focus on what I, at least, think is the more important issue: fully loaded OC pursuant to a permit. Hand a permit to the cop and the ONLY question that remains is: Is it legal to OC a fully loaded gun (perhaps even in a school zone) pursuant to a permit.

We all know the answer to that is "yes." We need to get that issues fully resolved and THEN move on to issues like producing ID.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

Pistol Pete Utah wrote:
Yes, I would have to agree with that, when asked if my gun is loaded, I would say yes, however, I am permitted to carry loaded in Utah because I have a CFP.
One of the great advantages of having and carrying my permit is that I don't have to say much of anything. On one of the few occasions I was questioned by the police about OCing in public I saw the officers headed my way across the field. I had my permit in hand and handed it to them as soon as they got close enough to accept it and before I said anything else.

Ditto with a traffic stop. Cop walks up to the window, my DL and permit are in hand waiting for him, often along with my registration and prof of insurance.

This eliminates a LOT of questions: cop knows I have a permit; he knows I haven't got any major criminal history; he has my name and address; he knows I have--or likely have--a gun on or around my person; he has some reason to figure I am not a grave threat to his life and safety despite being armed; he has some indication I am not a completely uncooperative jerk. It also avoids a lot of potential confusion: bad idea to say "I have a gun" in many situations; let the permit do the talking and let the cop register things at his own speed as my hands stay in plain sight.

There are locations and situations where "sterile" carry may be an appropriate action in terms of advancing rights. It is my firm belief that in Utah, now is not the time and there are VERY few locations in any urban/suburban setting where it can even be done legally.

Pick your battles carefully, wage them well, and when they are won, THEN move on to the next battle. Right now, if I have to have a disagreement with a cop or DA, I'd MUCH rather have the discussion about not being required to conceal a loaded gun carried pursuant to a permit than get sidetracked worrying about whether or not I legally have to produce ID. "Here is my permit. It is valid. I am legally allowed to carry a fully loaded gun in this location. The only question is, 'Do I have to hide that gun?' Let's talk about that."

Charles

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

LovesHisXD45 wrote:
How about somebody teach the cops the law first?

Kevin
A laudable idea. But by that logic "somebody" could just teach legislators, congress, judges, governors, and presidents the real meaning of the constitution. Then we wouldn't have bad statutes on the books in the first place.

Or "somebody" could teach the voters the constitution and they'd stop electing gun grabbers to office.

I'm not saying these things can't or shouldn't be done. I just haven't found a practical way to snap my fingers and do it overnight.

What has worked well over the last couple of decades is to incrementally retake the rights we lost (or that our parents/grand-parents lost for us). We have learned how the political system works, convinced enough voters, AND made clear to enough politicians that voting the wrong way on RKBA will cost them their seats. Laws have improved dramatically over the last 20 or so years since Florida really started the modern shall issue movement and in the last 15+ years since Utah got on board with our own shall issue law.

There is no magic bullet. A historical look at the 1st (or 5th/6th/7th) amendment will make clear that full recognition of the 2nd amendment will take time.

We need to pick our battles well, wage them effectively, and then move to the next area.

We're doing great in Utah. But this is a marathon, NOT a sprint.

Charles
 

sedjester

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
93
Location
West Valley, Utah, USA
imported post

utbagpiper wrote:
Pistol Pete Utah wrote:
Yes, I would have to agree with that, when asked if my gun is loaded, I would say yes, however, I am permitted to carry loaded in Utah because I have a CFP.
<snip>

There are locations and situations where "sterile" carry may be an appropriate action in terms of advancing rights. It is my firm belief that in Utah, now is not the time and there are VERY few locations in any urban/suburban setting where it can even be done legally.

<snip>

Charles

Charles
Very few locations where carrying without your permit can be done legally? I thought we no longer had to have the physical ID on us but merely had to give our name and address. Are you referring to the school zones? Do we still have to carry our CFP if in those areas?
 

Nuttycomputer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
65
Location
West Jordan, Utah, USA
imported post

utbagpiper wrote
This eliminates a LOT of questions: cop knows I have a permit; he knows I haven't got any major criminal history; he has my name and address; he knows I have--or likely have--a gun on or around my person; he has some reason to figure I am not a grave threat to his life and safety despite being armed; he has some indication I am not a completely uncooperative jerk.....

........

"Here is my permit. It is valid. I am legally allowed to carry a fully loaded gun in this location. The only question is, 'Do I have to hide that gun?' Let's talk about that."
I took these two paragraphs because I fundamentally disagree with the premise behind them. Law Enforcement is supposed to be assuming everything in that paragraph without needing to hand over papers to provide evidence for it. The problem is we've created a society in which we've moved away from innocence presumed to guilt presumed. Why would the cops be showing up if he wasn't guilty? Law Enforcement based entertainment shows continually push the notion of "If your not hiding anything" while making it seem like the cops can never make a mistake after all DNA evidence only takes an hour to gather and analyze and it only ever points to the murderer (rolls eyes)

This leads into the second paragraph that's based on the first. I don't believe the conversation should be about whether open carry is legal or not. If you can have a loaded gun in 7-11 or not. The conversation should be why are the cops approaching you anyway. What reasonable suspicion do they have that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed in order to detain you?

- Clearly carrying a firearm is not against the law so no reasonable suspicion to stop there.
- Carrying a loaded firearm without a permit on a public street is against the law and it's possible the officers saw him on the street and not at 7-11. However what reasonable suspicion did they have (until they were told) that the firearm was loaded? None.
- Based on suburban school distribution he may/may not be in a school zone. The address of the infraction says he is. But based on google street view it's unlikely he would have reason to believe 7-11 was in school zone which is part of the legal requirement. So no reasonable suspicion there. (And based on the fact that they charged him for two "crimes" not even codified rather than a school zone based charge makes me think this wasn't their reason anyway)

All in all let's pretend that gunsfreak4791 didn't have a permit and DID have a loaded firearm. If he didn't say anything to that effect or have any outside indication it was loaded (which I recommend) then what would they have charged him with?

Based on the original infraction, they wouldn't have anything left except failure to provide driver's license which you could charge anyone under 16 or anyone who doesn't drive. Under our pretend scenario they could have conducted a search of the firearm to find out if it was loaded but that goes beyond RAS into probable cause. At that point if he was charged even an incompetent lawyer could probably show they didn't have any Reasonable Suspicion that gunsfreak4791 was carrying a loaded firearm AND didn't have a permit. If they couldn't meet even that standard then the whole stop would be thrown out.

I agree that we have to earn our rights back incrementally but we do that by pushing the extremes. That's how they were lost. People wanted to outright ban guns and we "compromised" with restrictions.

So under that guise I think we should push as extreme as legally able so that we can "compromise" for less restrictions. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. In this case it's not even just gun rights we're pushing back for. It's the basic right of presumption of innocence and to be left alone absent reasonable suspicion.
 

kdt1970

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
122
Location
Grantsville, Utah, USA
imported post

The police should be taught and forced to learn the law that they have willingly chosen toaccept as an occupation. Anyone else would be fired or forced to learn their job.

Police should be set to a hirer standard, because of the fact that there job like a doctor can seriously affect someone if not done in the correct manner.
 

Nuttycomputer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
65
Location
West Jordan, Utah, USA
imported post

kdt1970 wrote:
The police should be taught and forced to learn the law that they have willingly chosen toaccept as an occupation. Anyone else would be fired or forced to learn their job.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they should be forced to learn the law as a whole. It's far to intricate and far to large for an officer to learn.

That said I believe they should know the specific laws they want to enforce. If they don't know if something is against the law or not then they should perform one of three actions:

1. Consult a superior
2. Consult Utah Code
3. Not issue a charge.


This reasoning means an officer doesn't have to also be a lawyer but citizens are also protected because whether their behavior is illegal or not the officer won't detain/arrest/charge unless they know it's illegal.

Personally I think this requirement is an unwritten rule of Reasonable Suspicion. After all how can you reasonably articulate detaining someone for a law if you don't know if there is a law. However maybe we need it spelled out.

- OR -

Alternatively we could get rid of all laws that don't affect in anyway another individual's rights. Then I think it would be fairly easy for the officer, not to mention regular citizens, to determine what actions or illegal. However that's me living in a dream world.
 

Utah_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
718
Location
Kearns, Utah, USA
imported post

Lets look into this a little further is ignorance of the law a reason to break the law ?

As a citizen their are rules I must follow like not speeding not littering not assaulting other people. If I don't know the law and I break it I get a ticket and I am required to pay a ticket see a judge maybe even face jail or prison time.

Now should we not apply this same Idea to our police that ignorance of the law is not a reason to violate their civil rights. You should know the law before you go around citing people and not going off of what you think the law is.

These police officer did not know Utah law in this sense they were uneducated and unsure of Utah law. They were offended a citizen knew his rights and would not back down.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

sedjester wrote:

Very few locations where carrying without your permit can be done legally? I thought we no longer had to have the physical ID on us but merely had to give our name and address. Are you referring to the school zones? Do we still have to carry our CFP if in those areas?
We are not legally required to have a copy of our permit on our person even when carrying pursuant to a permit.

However, if you have not been issued a permit, you may not carry a gun in a school zone except in/on your vehicle. Even if the gun is unloaded.

In Utah, schools zones include all K-12 schools, all post secondary schools (includes colleges, universities, tech schools vocational schools, etc), AND all pre-schools and day care centers. It includes the grounds of these facilities. It also includes 1000' out from the perimeter of these facilities.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:
Now should we not apply this same Idea to our police that ignorance of the law is not a reason to violate their civil rights. You should know the law before you go around citing people and not going off of what you think the law is.

These police officer did not know Utah law in this sense they were uneducated and unsure of Utah law. They were offended a citizen knew his rights and would not back down.
What should happen and reality, are sometimes two different worlds.

I will ask again, is your primary goal to advance RKBA?

If so, you should consider carrying your permit whenever possible when you are carrying a gun pursuant to that permit to avoid all the peripheral issues.

If not, if your primary goal is something else, something like advancing privacy rights, you should just say so directly.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

Nuttycomputer wrote:

I took these two paragraphs because I fundamentally disagree with the premise behind them. Law Enforcement is supposed to be assuming everything in that paragraph without needing to hand over papers to provide evidence for it. The problem is we've created a society in which we've moved away from innocence presumed to guilt presumed.

...

I agree that we have to earn our rights back incrementally but we do that by pushing the extremes. That's how they were lost. People wanted to outright ban guns and we "compromised" with restrictions.

So under that guise I think we should push as extreme as legally able so that we can "compromise" for less restrictions. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. In this case it's not even just gun rights we're pushing back for. It's the basic right of presumption of innocence and to be left alone absent reasonable suspicion.
We lost our rights by the other side advancing legislation that PUSHED the extremes. Had they been so stupid as to start locking people up based on what laws they thought should be on the books, before they actually were on the books, they would have likely lost the debate of ideas and never advanced incrementally.

Think about this, if, 30 or 40 years ago people had actually said that smoking should be illegal even in bars and private clubs how much traction would the effort to limit smoking have gained?

What about if 40 years ago those pushing for clean air and clean water rules had said their end goal was to shut down all oil drilling, make the US uncompetitive for all heavy industry, and give the federal government power to tell States and cities whether or not they could build a freeway off ramp in the middle of an urban area all based on how dirty air was? Or to impose national speed limits?

What would have happened to the homosexual political goals if 40 years ago everyone involved had said their goals were to enjoy full marriage benefits, full adoption rights, and the ability to act as scout masters and youth counselors?

What would have happened to Congress' and Reagan's plan for amnesty for illegal aliens n the 80s if everyone had made clear that they were never going to secure the border and 30 years later we'd have 30 million illegal aliens in our nation and be talking about amnesty again?

In about 1917 the 16th amendment was ratified on the premise that federal income tax would only apply to the top 1% of wage earners and only to the top of their income. If we had known then that all of us would be subject to 30%+ federal income tax would we have voted to ratify the 16th amendment allowing federal income tax?

I don't care where you come down on ANY of these issues. I don't want to discuss what the "proper" political position is.

I want you to recognize that you win the political idea most often by proposing LEGISLATIVELY or judicially a little more than you think you can get, accepting what you can get, and then coming back for more the next even as you live within the law as currently written.

Pushing the extremes means that people in New Mexico and Nevada were getting Utah permits to avoid the more costly and restrictive home State permits. Now, Utah permits are not recognized in Nevada or New Mexico.

Go tell your neighbors you think anyone should be allowed to carry a fully loaded gun into a grade school, without needing a permit. See how 90% of your neighbors--voters--react to that notion. A few years ago, suggesting that we allow people to carry a loaded gun in their cars without a permit was a non-starter. Today, it is the law of the land in Utah.

We got there not by "pushing the limits" in our conduct, but by demonstrating that loaded guns in cars--with permits--were not a problem. Then we were able to remove the requirement for the permits.

If your primary goals are to advance privacy rights or some ability not to carry ID, fine. But let's be clear, that is a somewhat separate issue from RKBA and conflating the two just makes life more difficult for both. Even most privacy advocates get nervous about anonymous gun possession.

Work on one thing at a time, win the battle, and move on.

I've spent a lot of my time at the capital, on the phone with legislators, and helping to craft pro-RKBA legislation over the last 15 years. And I think we've made some tremendous progress. We will continue to do so, IF gun owners don't make themselves unsympathetic by being viewed as extreme in their conduct.

We have certainly shifted the definition of what is extreme conduct by shifting the definition of what is perfectly reasonable and acceptable conduct. But we didn't do it by engaging too often in what was then viewed as extreme conduct. We did it by making sure our conduct did not cause us to lose the support of voters.

I beg of you to consider how your actions affect our ability to advance needed legislation.

We push the limits legislatively most effectively by keeping our conduct well within the lines as it were.

Please, PLEASE think about this and consider it. Those of us who regularly carry guns are a tiny minority even in pro-gun States like Utah. Some 50,000 Utahns have permits to carry (the other ~50,000 Utah permits are held by non-Utah residents). Most of those with permits do not carry on a regular basis. Even if everyone with a permit did carry regularly, and even if we had that many more who carried legally without permits we're talking about 100k people in a State of 3 million. Exclude children and a few prohibited persons and we're talking about 100k people absolute max out of 2 million. That is 5%...max. In reality, we might be 1/10th that.

Don't let your time on-line in these pro-RKBA chat rooms, or at OC dinners, or even talking to close friends (often selected and maintained because they share your view of the world) blind you to reality. We must win and maintain the hearts and minds of a lot of our fellow citizens who do not carry guns. We do not do that by being extreme in our conduct. We do that by being very moderate in our conduct and pushing the limits in changes to the laws. This is a crucial difference.

Charles
 

Utah_Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
718
Location
Kearns, Utah, USA
imported post

Today I had a meeting with the Chief and the LT the charges were dropped and their will be mandatory trainings for all Granite School Police officers.

A big thanks for all the advice and I feel this situation will go further educating police officers then if nothing was said at all.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:
Today I had a meeting with the Chief and the LT the charges were dropped and their will be mandatory trainings for all Granite School Police officers.

A big thanks for all the advice and I feel this situation will go further educating police officers then if nothing was said at all.
I'm glad this has worked out well for you. I hope the education takes place and that Granite officers are more respecting of our legal rights. (Why a school district has sworn officers with general police powers is an off topic gripe of mine for another day.)

I would still encourage you in the future to consider what aspects of the law you think are most important in which to educated police first: privacy/ID, or RKBA.

Charles
 

kdt1970

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
122
Location
Grantsville, Utah, USA
imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:
Today I had a meeting with the Chief and the LT the charges were dropped and their will be mandatory trainings for all Granite School Police officers.

A big thanks for all the advice and I feel this situation will go further educating police officers then if nothing was said at all.
That is great news. Good job standing up four your rights and the rights of others.
 
Top