Urban Rifle Hike

chewy352 · Oct 4, 2010

"THIS SUBJ IS TESTIN THE OPN CARRY LAW REGARDN WPNS . . . WAS TESTN TO SEE IF OFCRS WUD SHOOT AT HIM."

Seriously?!?!?! Ya cause thats his favorite past time to get shot at by police. Unless its that sheriff deputy in LA I wouldn't test anyone shooting at me.

eb31 · Oct 4, 2010

Let this be a lesson. While I do not agree with oc'ing a long gun....the op was courteous, relaxed and mature about the entire ordeal....from run in with LE to arrogant gun range personnel.

Since Tn was referenced...

Kwik antagonized every situation he was ever in. He was refused to cooperate with LE...spewed forth his rights and what he would and would not do etc

He deserved to get his permit revoked and deserves every ounce of legal troubles that await him.

To the op, kudos sir. You weren't out to "make a statement"...you had a legit reason to do what you did. As stated...while I disagree with oc'ing a long gun....you were legal, you handled yourself appropriately and I'm glad to hear you had a successful trip. Good luck the rest of the season!

EB

AyatollahGondola · Oct 5, 2010

chewy352 said:
"THIS SUBJ IS TESTIN THE OPN CARRY LAW REGARDN WPNS . . . WAS TESTN TO SEE IF OFCRS WUD SHOOT AT HIM."

Seriously?!?!?! Ya cause thats his favorite past time to get shot at by police. Unless its that sheriff deputy in LA I wouldn't test anyone shooting at me.

I did not think it they would act that strongly. I predicted I would be stopped, and expected they would have hands on weapons, but pointing them at me was a little bit surprising, but not shocking.

markm · Oct 5, 2010

This is a 42 USC section 1983 civil rights lawsuit.

Iopencarry said:
If you do not want to stand up for your 4A rights let alone 2A rights that have been murdered in your city, I say we don't need you trying to say you stand with us.

Even if you do not file a lawsuit, ,file a claim. Make it so THEY know they did wrong. You can not teach them how to be better if they do not know they did it wrong.

Send letters to every dept that was there. Chief of police, station commander of the chp, sheriff, etc.

They must know, in writing, that the practice of intimidation will not and can not be allowed to continue.

Hey Ayatollah,

Iopencarry is correct; his admonishment is not sugar-coated, but still correct.

Part of our duty as citizens is to call-out LEO and bureaucrats when they violate our most basic of creator granted rights.

The individual police officers involved should learn that they are in jeopardy of losing their Qualified Immunity because of their actions with this event. Detaining people at gun-point is serious business, and cops should pay with their own money when they viloate 4A in this way. Courts have ruled that 4A is "clearly established" and therefore, should be understood by all cops.

Ayatollah, email me (PM from this site) if you want me to help create a "political battle plan" and to draft/edit letters for all agencies involved and police officers involved.

Here is a 10th circuit summary ruling:

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fcadd%2F2009%2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf

You could have been SHOT! Think about it, if the cops were so poorly trained regarding 4A, do you think they are trained well enough to control their trigger fingers? 4A is more basic than learning how to respond to tactical situations.

You don't need to file a lawsuit to get your point across; there are other ways.

markm

Iopencarry · Oct 5, 2010

Thank you Mark,

LOL you are 100% correct.

I state my piece plain as day for all to see. I do not sugar coat anything. never have and never will.

AyatollahGondola · Oct 6, 2010

MarkBofRAdvocate said:
Hey Ayatollah,

Iopencarry is correct; his admonishment is not sugar-coated, but still correct.

Part of our duty as citizens is to call-out LEO and bureaucrats when they violate our most basic of creator granted rights.

The individual police officers involved should learn that they are in jeopardy of losing their Qualified Immunity because of their actions with this event. Detaining people at gun-point is serious business, and cops should pay with their own money when they viloate 4A in this way. Courts have ruled that 4A is "clearly established" and therefore, should be understood by all cops.

Ayatollah, email me (PM from this site) if you want me to help create a "political battle plan" and to draft/edit letters for all agencies involved and police officers involved.

Here is a 10th circuit summary ruling:

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?full-path-file-name=%2Fdata%2Fdrs%2Fdm%2Fdocuments%2Fcadd%2F2009%2F09%2F08%2F0002561429-0000000000-08cv00994.pdf

You could have been SHOT! Think about it, if the cops were so poorly trained regarding 4A, do you think they are trained well enough to control their trigger fingers? 4A is more basic than learning how to respond to tactical situations.

You don't need to file a lawsuit to get your point across; there are other ways.

markm

I read this over, and I think this particular case does not precisely mirror my circumstances that day. There are some parts that do, but not necessarily leading to the same conclusions. Also, what are my damages? The court ruled in that plaintiffs favor for 4th amendment violation. So what are my losses? 24 minutes of detainment, a pair of glasses, and what else? How does that justify the time and cost of a lawsuit?
And how do you come to the conclusion I was not standing up for our 2nd amendment rights? I finished the tour that day, and was not dissuaded by the police, so it looks to me like that right was defended. So if it's down to the 4th amendment infringement, my goal in protecting it would be to make the best effort to prevent it from happening again. In the case you cited, the two officers lost immunity, and would end up bearing the cost of any judgement. That leaves umpteen other officers out there who won't be learning a thing from their co-workers error. My thought is to work with my law enforcement agency to figure out how we can prevent further situations such as this from happening in the future. I think I stand a better chance of working with them if I don't become a legal adversary first.

ConditionThree · Oct 6, 2010

AyatollahGondola said:
I think I stand a better chance of working with them if I don't become a legal adversary first.

Uhm....

They believe you already are a legal advesary... as evidenced by the descriptions in the incident report. They think that you are testing the open carry law. Which they assume you are already seeking law enforcement contact in the hopes that you will be able to document their activities and litigate. They also indicate that you were testing police to see if they would shoot you... This comment was recorded not as a triviality, but to support a defense in the event that they are called to a witness stand to justify their behavior.

AyatollahGondola · Oct 6, 2010

ConditionThree said:
Uhm....

They believe you already are a legal advesary... as evidenced by the descriptions in the incident report. They think that you are testing the open carry law. Which they assume you are already seeking law enforcement contact in the hopes that you will be able to document their activities and litigate. They also indicate that you were testing police to see if they would shoot you... This comment was recorded not as a triviality, but to support a defense in the event that they are called to a witness stand to justify their behavior.

That was the opinion or conclusion of one or two of the responding/communicating officers. There's no evidence yet that every one of them thinks that way, or the whole department, and there's no evidence that they all still feel like I'm their adversary now. And let's say that they were just for the sake of argument. Why should I prove them right?

markm · Oct 6, 2010

Please read the last sentence in my post!

AyatollahGondola said:
I read this over, and I think this particular case does not precisely mirror my circumstances that day. There are some parts that do, but not necessarily leading to the same conclusions. Also, what are my damages? The court ruled in that plaintiffs favor for 4th amendment violation. So what are my losses? 24 minutes of detainment, a pair of glasses, and what else? How does that justify the time and cost of a lawsuit?
And how do you come to the conclusion I was not standing up for our 2nd amendment rights? I finished the tour that day, and was not dissuaded by the police, so it looks to me like that right was defended. So if it's down to the 4th amendment infringement, my goal in protecting it would be to make the best effort to prevent it from happening again. In the case you cited, the two officers lost immunity, and would end up bearing the cost of any judgement. That leaves umpteen other officers out there who won't be learning a thing from their co-workers error. My thought is to work with my law enforcement agency to figure out how we can prevent further situations such as this from happening in the future. I think I stand a better chance of working with them if I don't become a legal adversary first.

Hey Ayatollah,

I agree that you don't need to file a lawsuit to get you point across to LEO. A political campaign will also work.

Mr. Wolynak and Mr. St. John are cases that we can site to further your political campaign. Sometimes, a political campaign is more effective.

It is not your fault that LEO is not trained on 4A.

You did nothing wrong.

You may create a small scale political campaign which could include a few letters, or a large scale campaign that includes press releases and appearances before City Councils and Boards of Supervisors.

It is your choice.

markm

markm · Oct 6, 2010

Here is what LEO thinks should happen in a 2A, (our KA situation is a 12031 (e) stop)

Ayatollah,

Please read this:

http://policechiefmagazine.org/maga...n=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005

thanks,

markm

Robin47 · Oct 7, 2010

AyatollahGondola said:
That was the opinion or conclusion of one or two of the responding/communicating officers. There's no evidence yet that every one of them thinks that way, or the whole department, and there's no evidence that they all still feel like I'm their adversary now. And let's say that they were just for the sake of argument. Why should I prove them right?

Well its a good thing you had it "Slung across your back" If you had it on your shoulder and your hand on the
sling and wanking, you just might have been shot ,when you turned around !

These "Police Boot-Camps" they go to, sure have a "Political Correct" way of making their Officers
come out all thinking the same way.
I would at least complain and ask for an "Im Sorry for your 4A violation". And replace your glasses.
Seems like they forgot they work for you !

Robin47

Gundude · Oct 7, 2010

Robin47 said:
Well its a good thing you had it "Slung across your back" If you had it on your shoulder and your hand on the
sling and wanking, you just might have been shot ,when you turned around !

These "Police Boot-Camps" they go to, sure have a "Political Correct" way of making their Officers
come out all thinking the same way.
I would at least complain and ask for an "Im Sorry for your 4A violation". And replace your glasses.
Seems like they forgot they work for you !

Robin47

If he had his hand on the sling and was wanking, I understand why someone called the cops.

Urban Rifle Hike

chewy352

Regular Member

eb31

Regular Member

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member

markm

New member

Iopencarry

Regular Member

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member

ConditionThree

State Pioneer

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member

markm

New member

markm

New member

Robin47

Regular Member

Gundude

Regular Member