Telling an officer?

" ...and to let everyone know that MOST of us don't give two flips if you are OCing."

And there is the tell tell sign that MOST of us fear. Aegri_Mentis, when all of the LEO's, instead of most, allow me to carry without question, I will maintain my right not to tell. But until such a time happens I will not give any LEO the opportunity to question my right to carry openly or concealed. Why do LEO's find it neccessary to know that I'm armed? If they are frightened of armed public, find other work. And you should man up and not worry about a citizens openly carrying a weapon.

hotrod said:

And there is the tell tell sign that MOST of us fear. Aegri_Mentis, when all of the LEO's, instead of most, allow me to carry without question, I will maintain my right not to tell. But until such a time happens I will not give any LEO the opportunity to question my right to carry openly or concealed. Why do LEO's find it neccessary to know that I'm armed? If they are frightened of armed public, find other work. And you should man up and not worry about a citizens openly carrying a weapon.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for others, so all statements I make in this post or any other refer to me alone as an LEO, even if I use "we" or "us".
It's not that we are "frightened" that you are armed. It's that we are scared we may misinterpret a movement towards a previously unseen weapon. I've already stated this point.
I don't know ANY police officer that is worried about guns he/she can see. We are worried about the ones we DON'T see until the last second.
And again, I am not advocating or attempting to dictate any course of action to anyone on this board. I'm simply trying to give the LEO perspective here...

aegri_mentis said:

I don't know ANY police officer that is worried about guns he/she can see. We are worried about the ones we DON'T see until the last second.

Click to expand...

If that is true why are open carriers harrassed? There was another open carry guy cuffed in WA yesterday at a baby shower. IMO, cops do not like firearms and either don't know or misunderstand laws. This is the reason so many law abiding open carriers are harrassed and their civil rights violated.

Yes, the bolo above was written to warn cops about me. So much for non public consumption. It appears that Jadon and Grassroots were refering to this document in this thread.

kwikrnu said:

If that is true why are open carriers harrassed? There was another open carry guy cuffed in WA yesterday at a baby shower. IMO, cops do not like firearms and either don't know or misunderstand laws. This is the reason so many law abiding open carriers are harrassed and their civil rights violated.

Yes, the bolo above was written to warn cops about me. So much for non public consumption. It appears that Jadon and Grassroots were refering to this document in this thread.

Click to expand...

Dude, I've gone back and read some of your posts, and you're so far gone, I don't know why I even bother, but here goes...
You say things like "cops don't like firearms, and either don't know or misunderstand the laws". You have shown yourself to be a person who doesn't like cops, makes a spectacle of yourself, then insist you want to be "left alone" and blame your problems on cops.
You can't make blanket statements with absolutes like you do and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Yeah, there are some cops out there that either misunderstand or are ignorant of some laws. It happens. Cops aren't attorneys, and not are they expected to be. The best thing YOU could do is strive for better education and training for LEOs, but instead,you want to set up confrontations with LEOs, so you can play the victim game.
I know two Brentwood PD officers, and we talk online about once a week. I'm gonna ask them the real skinny on you, see what we are actually dealing with.
What's truly sad is with your knowledge and dedication, you could be a force to really propel OC to the forefront, and get some real progress made, but you chose to sit aside and babble and blather.

Respect to all of the opinons

I for one will inform LE that i am armed " IF" i am stopped and only if i know they can not see the weapon either OC or CC. Be it for respect,common curtasy, or just good judgement. I will not however offer my weapon for inspection unless i am being charged with a crime.
think what you will of me, makes me no difference. i personaly know to many LEO's
and i give them respect untill they show me they do not desirve it from me.If you have had encounters with LE that gave you no respect i fully understand your stand. but with all this being said, i fully respect each of your thoughts and opinons.

kenneth meier said:

I for one will inform LE that i am armed " IF" i am stopped and only if i know they can not see the weapon either OC or CC. Be it for respect,common curtasy, or just good judgement. I will not however offer my weapon for inspection unless i am being charged with a crime.
think what you will of me, makes me no difference. i personaly know to many LEO's
and i give them respect untill they show me they do not desirve it from me.If you have had encounters with LE that gave you no respect i fully understand your stand. but with all this being said, i fully respect each of your thoughts and opinons.

Click to expand...

Well, thanks, first off..
But when I say it's nice to know someone is armed, I mean only during legitimate contact for other reasons.
I certainly don't expect to be in Wal-mart, and have everyone who is packing march up to me and tell me so!!

aegri_mentis said:

You can't make blanket statements with absolutes like you do and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Click to expand...

I didn't use the word "all" and specifically used "IMO". Maybe you can explain to me why I was detained three hours for legally carrying a handgun. Maybe you can explain why cops are lying about my past in apb and bolos. Maybe you can tell me why cops in Nashville, Belle Meade, Williamson County, and State Park rangers don't know carry laws. I have officers from all of these agencies on video or audio or written statement which contradict actual law.

ok so I guess I must just be mistaken, (especially since this is not the WA thread like I normally view)

However I am of the opinion of telling an officer I am armed is not a respect thing or disrespect thing. It is more of a self preservation thing.

no offense meant to aegri_mentis or any other LEO, however I have noticed that a bunch of LEO's tend to be jumpy, especially when they dont have control over all the circumstances and information.

Not to say that they are horrible at there job (although there are a select few in ANY organization that are inept and should get a different job, whether LEO or not).

My thing is this, gun on right side of hip in holster (passenger side and blocked by the body) officer approaches 9x out of 10 on the drivers side, I lean forward too far or reach to the glove box and rotate my body and out pops the gun. (becomes visible to the officer standing on my weak side)

I personally know that IF I was a LEO (I am not nor will I probably ever be, just not for me) and I approached an unknown person and could not see a weapon and then all the sudden out of nowhere it pops out, that would put me a little on edge and possibly on the offensive (questioning wise)

Going back to the whole jumpy officers thing this could result in at very big problem, possibly a "life altering" one. Thus I believe it is safer to inform the officer that you are carrying if the DONT have a line of sight on the weapon, and if they further violate your rights take it to court and become rich (hopefully). Even if you dont win in court at least you still have your life.......

kwikrnu said:

I didn't use the word "all" and specifically used "IMO". Maybe you can explain to me why I was detained three hours for legally carrying a handgun. Maybe you can explain why cops are lying about my past in apb and bolos. Maybe you can tell me why cops in Nashville, Belle Meade, Williamson County, and State Park rangers don't know carry laws. I have officers from all of these agencies on video or audio or written statement which contradict actual law.

Click to expand...

Ah, a debate on logic...prepare to be dazzled...
1. When making a statement like "cops don't know the law", you are in fact, using an absolute. It's like saying "Gravity pulls on things." You didn't use any exclusionary or mitigating language, so in fact, you did make an absolute statement.
2. Your opinion, quite frankly, is yours. I could say, "IMO, guys who are convicted of domestic assault in the Brentwood, TN area are pansies." Neither statement is any more valid than the other. (Though I do wonder why you would put on these forums proof you were convicted of domestic violence. Are you proud of the fact? Was it your arrest and conviction of domestic abuse that lead to your hatred of law, or did you hate it before?)
3. I'm sure the men and women of your local LEAs have nothing better to do than to make up completely fictitious claims about you; then waste their time and the taxpayer's time trolling for you on completely bogus charges/assumptions. Yes, that is what cops want to do. They don't want to stop burglaries in progress, drug dealers, child abusers and the like. They only want to harass YOU. I am sure you are a perfectly pure, innocent snowflake admired by the community as a whole...
3. You're a trouble maker, plain and simple. You like to test people, push their buttons, and then fuss about the reactions. You seem to be one of the most disliked persons on this forum.

aegri_mentis said:

Ah, a debate on logic...prepare to be dazzled...
1. When making a statement like "cops don't know the law", you are in fact, using an absolute. It's like saying "Gravity pulls on things." You didn't use any exclusionary or mitigating language, so in fact, you did make an absolute statement.
2. Your opinion, quite frankly, is yours. I could say, "IMO, guys who are convicted of domestic assault in the Brentwood, TN area are pansies." Neither statement is any more valid than the other. (Though I do wonder why you would put on these forums proof you were convicted of domestic violence. Are you proud of the fact? Was it your arrest and conviction of domestic abuse that lead to your hatred of law, or did you hate it before?)
3. I'm sure the men and women of your local LEAs have nothing better to do than to make up completely fictitious claims about you; then waste their time and the taxpayer's time trolling for you on completely bogus charges/assumptions. Yes, that is what cops want to do. They don't want to stop burglaries in progress, drug dealers, child abusers and the like. They only want to harass YOU. I am sure you are a perfectly pure, innocent snowflake admired by the community as a whole...
3. You're a trouble maker, plain and simple. You like to test people, push their buttons, and then fuss about the reactions. You seem to be one of the most disliked persons on this forum.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to quote because you'll soon find out that these cops did lie and they have nothing better to do than make false claims.

kenneth meier said:

I for one will inform LE that i am armed " IF" i am stopped and only if i know they can not see the weapon either OC or CC. Be it for respect,common curtasy, or just good judgement. I will not however offer my weapon for inspection unless i am being charged with a crime.
think what you will of me, makes me no difference. i personaly know to many LEO's
and i give them respect untill they show me they do not desirve it from me.If you have had encounters with LE that gave you no respect i fully understand your stand. but with all this being said, i fully respect each of your thoughts and opinons.

Click to expand...

Mr. Meier you have made a statement that will get you arrested. That you will not offer your weapon for inspection unless you are charged with a crime. In the Commonwealth, if so ordered by a LEO, you are required to let him/her retain your weapon for the entire detainment. So you have no recourse but to give your weapon up. That again is why I don't disclose. And no one will think badly of you or anyone else who wishes to disclose, but once you do, you can't take it back

read closer to what i said

hotrod said:

Mr. Meier you have made a statement that will get you arrested. That you will not offer your weapon for inspection unless you are charged with a crime. In the Commonwealth, if so ordered by a LEO, you are required to let him/her retain your weapon for the entire detainment. So you have no recourse but to give your weapon up. That again is why I don't disclose. And no one will think badly of you or anyone else who wishes to disclose, but once you do, you can't take it back

Click to expand...

Fair enough Hotrod....but did you not see where i said offer my weapon? if it is demanded on a detention i would be a fool in the commonwealth to refuse...forgive me if my wording is not the best. but i thought the meaning and intention was fairly clear. the same as you not offering information.

gutshot said:

The right that I am asserting is the right to privacy, or is it disrespect to assert that right, too. You have articulated the very situation I tried to describe, although your saying it is much more persuasive that I could ever be. I am hiding many things. There are things that have occurred in my life that I would like to keep private. I don't talk about the events of my wedding night, my first girlfriend, whether or not I may have masturbated as a youth, if I ever smoked dope, every stupid thing I did when I was young, my last bowel movement. I do not tell everyone I encounter every detail of my life and I don't tell police or any government official anything, except the bare minimum that is required by law. When I "standup" it is for liberty and the rights of the individual. Government, and it's agents, should be resisted at every opportunity. If for no other reason than to remind them that some of us remember that we can and will. If someone finds that disrepectful, so be it. If police are so thin skinned that they feel disrespect when a citizen does not disclose all of their private information for government examination they need to find other employment.
It might be a pain in the ass to get a warrant to search my house. It might be a lot of paper work to show PC to examine my bank records. That's part of the job. The constitution wasn't written to make the job of government employees easy or respectful. The government expects me to obey the law and will punish even minor infractions. Now I hear it's disrespect for me to not voluntarily tell a police officer I have a legal tool in my possession. Telling you I have a legal gun on me is not manning up, it's lying down. I refuse.

Click to expand...

I have not said, at any time, that this is an issue of respect. It's a safety issue.
My issue with the initial argument was a person claiming he was asserting his right to OC, yet hesitating to lawfully do so.
And you bring up the "right to privacy", well again, we can't stand on both sides of the fence, and here's why...
When you OC, by the very nature and definition, it is OPEN and in PUBLIC. How can you assert any sort of right to PRIVACY for an act that by definition has to be overt and public?
Again, not arguing for anyone to pursue any course of action here.
And the argument you put forward about not telling an officer about past transgressions is not valid, as OC is not a crime, but the past transgressions you mentioned would be.

aegri_mentis said:

I have not said, at any time, that this is an issue of respect. It's a safety issue.

Click to expand...

It is only a safety issue if the person with a gun is engaging in criminal behavior. A gun carried by a law abiding citizen is not a safety issue. For this reason the Supreme Court had the opinion that only upon RAS of criminal activity may a person be detained and patted down for weapons. I think that decision was over the line because there is no exception in the Fourth Amendment for weapons.

kwikrnu said:

It is only a safety issue if the person with a gun is engaging in criminal behavior. A gun carried by a law abiding citizen is not a safety issue. For this reason the Supreme Court had the opinion that only upon RAS of criminal activity may a person be detained and patted down for weapons. I think that decision was over the line because there is no exception in the Fourth Amendment for weapons.

Click to expand...

Well, see your underlined point makes it soooooo easy...if I am in contact with you over a traffic stop or some such, then it is possible that you are not a law abiding citizen, yes?
You really need to get it together, as you are all over the place...
I made not mention of a pat-down. If you are OC, then why would I have to pat you for weapons? And no, sir, I do not have to have RAS of criminal activity for a pat down. That is for the Terry Stop itself, not the frisk. The frisk is for my safety and safety of people around. I have had plenty of Terry contacts with people who were either OCing and CCing, and never frisked them for weapons. And I rarely, rarely take someone's weapon who is OCing during a contact, unless the circumstances dictate it.

You are right, carrying a weapon is not a safety issue, HOWEVER, like I have said multiple times already, a misinterpreted move towards a previously unseen/unacknowledged weapon, and that officer's subsequent reaction, is a safety issue.

What some are forgetting, or do not know, or are simply ignoring is what is not known by either the person carrying for self defense or by the law enforcement officer making contact with them.

Now, the person carrying, you, do know you are law abiding.
You know that at no time in the past have you committed a crime.
You know that at the moment of the encounter, other than the possible reason for the encounter, you are not violating any law nor committing a crime.
You know that you do not plan on committing a crime in the future.
You know that you have a legally owned and carried firearm in your possession.
You know that firearm was purchased new from an FFL.
You know that by design and manufacture, the firearm is a legal handgun.
You know you have no intention of touching, nor will you touch that firearm during the encounter.

Tell me, how much of that information does the law enforcement officer know at the moment of contact with you?

At the moment of contact, what do you know about the circumstances that lead to the law enforcement officer's encounter with you?

I knew ________________________________________.
I knew ________________________________________.
I knew ________________________________________.
I knew ________________________________________.
I knew ________________________________________.
I knew ...

Please feel free to fill in the blanks.

Now, what influences the law enforcement officer's dealings with you?

Of course, Constitutional restrictions and related Court cases should be first - no argument, and they influence both parties behavior.

Well, there are all of those facts unknown to you that are in those blank lines above, as well as your actions and reactions to the officer, the words you say and don't say, your body english, physiological reactions - all put together it is the picture you present to the officer, consciously and sub-consciously.

And some can present a very calm and respectful picture. Some cannot. Absent information from you, it will be that first impression the officer has to work with.

To answer the question, yes, both calm people and not calm people can be and have been very, very dangerous.

"Well," some will say, "just assume I am the harmless one."

I remind all about the word ASSume...

gutshot said:

You may not have said it was a matter of respect, but Kenneth Meier did. It was he that was directed toward. Your "philosophy of OC", whatever in Hell that is, may dictate you act that way, but, I don't share that philosophy. Why do you force that philosophy onto me? I see no inconsistency, whatsoever, with openly carrying a weapon and not announcing to a police officer, or anyone else, that it's there. If I go to the grocery and carry my purchases to the car I don't declare every item to each person as we pass in the parking lot.
Which of the things that I mentioned is a crime? Smoking dope is the only criminal act on the list, and I said "whether or not I smoked dope". I never said I did, it's just a common question. If OC is so OPEN and PUBLIC, as you put it, why do you need me to tell you about it? You change your argument in mid-paragraph. First, it's OPEN and PUBLIC, then you want notification. Your weapon is carried openly, do you make sure that the citizens are aware of where it is? Do you notify us? After all, if the citizen suddenly sees it, they might start blasting away. If cops are so skittish that they may "lose it" over an armed citizen, just don't stop anyone. The citizens usually don't initiate the encounter. I'll make a deal with you, when cops start telling me where their weapons are and what type they are, and I mean all of them, I'll start telling them. After all, it's a matter of safety and I want to go home at the end of the day. And I want to take all of my rights with me, intact. You see it's very simple, the law does not require me to notify, therefore, I don't. I don't care what the excuse is: respect, safety, pretty please, I may get frightened. I don't care. I won't do it.

Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to do it, or anything else. Relax.
My argument is about the idea that a gun on a person's right hip would not be seen by an officer approaching from the left side of a vehicle during a traffic stop. Quit making this out to be more than it is...
Your arguments about announcing your groceries are a non sequitor, as most of them cannot be mistaken for a deadly weapon (though broccoli will give me gas that may make you die).
And again, I am not demanding anything from anyone here, not trying to force my philosophy on anyone. I'm just trying to tell people the LEO side of things, at least from my perspective. I'm a major supporter of OC, as it is part of the KY Constitution I took an oath to uphold, so I do so.
An open discussion about what I do/did, etc is not "forcing a philosophy" on anyone.

aegri_mentis said:

Well, see your underlined point makes it soooooo easy...if I am in contact with you over a traffic stop or some such, then it is possible that you are not a law abiding citizen, yes?
You really need to get it together, as you are all over the place...
I made not mention of a pat-down. If you are OC, then why would I have to pat you for weapons? And no, sir, I do not have to have RAS of criminal activity for a pat down. That is for the Terry Stop itself, not the frisk. The frisk is for my safety and safety of people around. I have had plenty of Terry contacts with people who were either OCing and CCing, and never frisked them for weapons. And I rarely, rarely take someone's weapon who is OCing during a contact, unless the circumstances dictate it.

You are right, carrying a weapon is not a safety issue, HOWEVER, like I have said multiple times already, a misinterpreted move towards a previously unseen/unacknowledged weapon, and that officer's subsequent reaction, is a safety issue.

Click to expand...

I was patted down in Radnor Lake and I was open carrying. I was patted down in Belle Meade for open carry. So, you're saying they can't do pat downs if someone open carries?

To do a pat down w/o consent there must be a detention first. For a detention you need at a minimum RAS.

gutshot said:

You certainly advocate a position.



How can it be a contradiction if I never believed it? You have tried to project that belief as mine, then claim a contradiction.

Click to expand...

You are right, carrying a weapon is not a safety issue, HOWEVER, like I have said multiple times already, a misinterpreted move towards a previously unseen/unacknowledged weapon, and that officer's subsequent reaction, is a safety issue.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]



If the LEO is going to misinterpret moves he ought to take up different employment where he doesn't get to carry a gun.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I have not said, at any time, that this is an issue of respect. It's a safety issue.
]You are right, carrying a weapon is not a safety issue,[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


What the hell! You change your story so often even you can't keep it straight.[/QUOTE]

Well, then, quote me as saying it is an issue of respect. As is so popular on these boards, show your citation.

kwikrnu said:

I was patted down in Radnor Lake and I was open carrying. I was patted down in Belle Meade for open carry. So, you're saying they can't do pat downs if someone open carries?

To do a pat down w/o consent there must be a detention first. For a detention you need at a minimum RAS.

Click to expand...

If I was saying that, I would have said so. All I said is I see no need to do a frisk of someone OCing. It doesn't make any sense to me. Why would I pat you down for concealed weapons when I can clearly see it?
However, with your history of behavior, yeah, I might pat you down, even if I saw your weapon.