Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Would You Submit?? (Is that the proper question?)

  1. #1
    Regular Member 40s-and-wfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lake County, Montana, USA
    Posts
    490

    Would You Submit?? (Is that the proper question?)

    Okay here's my question, I've been pondering this for a while:
    You're walking with your significant other and are carrying (OC or CC, doesn't matter.) A local LEO notices a 'bulge' under your shirt, firearm on your hip, etc., as you walk through the park and stops you. Upon walking up to you the LEO says, "Sir, can I see your permit to carry a concealed weapon?"
    My thoughts on this are: If I'm driving down the road and obeying all laws and posted speed limits and there is no question that I'm within the law, Law Enforcement cannot stop me just to check my driver's license and make sure I have a valid one. Just because I'm in a car, commuting down the road, doesn't mean the cops can stop me at their will to make sure I'm legal. Can an LEO do pretty much the same thing if we're carrying a firearm, open or concealed?
    My response to the LEO if he asks to see my permit would be, "On what grounds? I haven't committed a crime, I'm not flashing it around and I haven't done anything to put anyone at risk. Your request is unfounded and is made without the appropriate Probable Cause!"
    I used to be a city police officer and have developed a somewhat 'confident air' when dealing with Law Enforcement and so I will question things if I feel I am in the right. That part may be right or wrong according to some people but that is not the matter in question. What would you do in the original scenario? Would you produce the requested license or would you want to know why if you have done nothing wrong?

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    uhhu,,

    i would not confirm the presence of a gun!
    florida V. peters tells us that, when an activity requires a permit to do,
    then absent RAS of a crime, the permit cannot be compelled!

    like you said, driving, and carrying a gun, even concealed, is not in itself a crime!
    you do not need to honor a demand for a permit absent RAS!

    just thank him for the consensual encounter,
    tell him that you are done visiting with him,
    and smile, when you tell him, "you are free to go"!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I cannot speak to stop-and-identify laws in Montana. The Montana forum would be the place to learn about any uniquenesses of that State's law.

    That being said, there are several precedents from federal courts that say that an officer may not stop you and keep you from leaving unless he has reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. The mere presence of a gun, not being carried in an unlawful manner, does not provide that RAS (except in some specific circumstances defined in local and State law, for example in Philadelphia or on a train in Georgia; again, check Montana law).

    I would recommend a firm (but courteous) response that asserts your rights. Repeatedly ask if you are free to go. If he says yes, wish him a good day and go. If he says no, you have officially been seized. If he has no RAS, he has broken the law. I hope you have it on tape.

    When he asks for your permit, ask him if he is making a demand under color of law. If he says yes, he has officially seized your permit. Show it to him. Again, I hope you have it on tape. If he says no, don't show it to him unless you want to.

    Check with your local law, but consider carrying "sterile." If your local and State laws do not require you to carry your permit when you OC, leave it in your car or at home. (In Alabama, I leave it in my car, since the law requires me to have a permit to have my gun in my car.)

    Basically, make the officer make it clear that he is using his authority before you comply with his orders--and get it on tape. Even if the officer is acting unlawfully, I strongly recommend against physically resisting any forceful seizures. Make sure that your recording reflects your professionalism and lawfulness and captures any unprofessional or unlawful behavior by the officer.

    IANAL.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Basically, make the officer make it clear that he is using his authority before you comply with his orders--and get it on tape.
    The Officer wears a Uniform, Badge, wears a Gun, etc...

    I find it amazing that people 'ask' if they are being detained or 'ask' if he is demanding under color of law.

    If a guy (or gal) in a Uniform, with a Badge and a Gun STOPS you, and TELLS you to do ANYTHING; there really is no doubt that you are being detained and being forced to do as he/she wants under color of law.

    I realize this isn't how the courts see it, but it is fact. In order to make this fact unavoidable, I suggest not asking if you are free to go, but ask why you are NOT free to go. You already know you're being detained. You already know you have no choice but to comply with the demands of the guy in Uniform.

    If someone breaks into a woman's home, pins her to the floor, tears off her clothes and proceeds to have non-consensual sex with her while she screams and begs him to stop; is it perfectly legal just because that man has a badge? Do you have to ASK what he's doing? Does that woman have to wonder if she's being raped? Is asking the rapist if he is raping her, while he is raping her, a useful thing to do?

    That example is extreme, but it makes the point well enough.

    Do not ask IF you are being detained. Ask WHY you are being detained. You already know you are being detained/seized and that you are not free to go. The Officer will realize where he stands, and that you know where he stands. He will advise that you are not being detained, or dodge/deflect the question. Either way, the Officer has ether established that you are free to walk away, or you're feeling of not being free to go stands. You won't get a straight answer if you ask, so don't. You already know it, so why bother asking?

    The same goes for the "Papers Please." My harassment by LEOs has all but disappeared since I started using this method. Several times:

    COP: "Can we talk for a second?/I'd liek to see some ID"
    ME: "Why am I being detained?"
    COP: [tries to hide shock of realizing he's already detaining me, reacts by saying] "Oh, you're not being detained."
    ME: "Bye!"
    COP: [realizes he just let me go and can't do anything now]

    A few have gotten half a sentence out of saying I better come back, but they catch themselves and give me the stink eye. I suppose they go home and kick a puppy or some such, dunno.

    ----------------------------------------

    "Why are you demanding my Papers? Why am I being Detained?"

    Don't ask IF an event is occurring which clearly is occurring. It only gives them a way to deny it or not answer. If YOU don't feel free to go, you aren't! If you feel it is a demand you are compelled to comply with, then that's exactly what it is. Don't ASK! You already know!

    I've never been bothered for more than 15 seconds, or showed an ID since I adopted this policy.

    The objective is to eliminate the grey area. If you are being detained, it stands as such if they dodge/don't reply. IT requires action on their part to end that detainment. The old trick of just not answering doesn't fly anymore. It reminds me of little kids who go limp and flop around when their parents try to move them, making it as difficult as possible to make them comply. This is essentially the same mental level that cops operate on in this situation. Don't be a stupid parent and let them get away with it. If you give them a choice, they'll create a 3rd option, so eliminate the 3rd by not asking IF.

    Long winded and oft-repeated, but I feel its THAT important.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hastings, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    47
    You had better understand your own state's gun laws. In some states, you are REQUIRED to produce your permit to carry on demand, or REQUIRED to inform any officer you come in contact with that you are carrying. In California, the unloaded open carry rules require you to submit to checks of your firearm to ensure it is compliant.

    If the officer is professional and courteous, I will be too- and produce the ID and then move on.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnK87 View Post
    You had better understand your own state's gun laws. In some states, you are REQUIRED to produce your permit to carry on demand, or REQUIRED to inform any officer you come in contact with that you are carrying. In California, the unloaded open carry rules require you to submit to checks of your firearm to ensure it is compliant.

    If the officer is professional and courteous, I will be too- and produce the ID and then move on.
    Very definitely check local and State laws.

    Oh, and work to change them too.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    i would not confirm the presence of a gun!
    florida V. peters tells us that, when an activity requires a permit to do,
    then absent RAS of a crime, the permit cannot be compelled!

    like you said, driving, and carrying a gun, even concealed, is not in itself a crime!
    you do not need to honor a demand for a permit absent RAS!

    just thank him for the consensual encounter,
    tell him that you are done visiting with him,
    and smile, when you tell him, "you are free to go"!
    Pit bulls... really? Not sure this applies to RAS and licenses,

    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

    State of Florida v. Peters
    Florida
    534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988).

    Case Details
    Printible Version
    Summary: This is an appeal from an order of the county court invalidating a City of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs. The ordinance in question, City of North Miami Ordinance No. 422.5, regulates the ownership of pit bulls by requiring their owners to carry insurance, post a surety bond, or furnish other evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $300,000 to cover any bodily injury, death or property damage that may be caused by the dog. The ordinance also requires that owners register their pit bulls with the City and confine the dogs indoors or in a locked pen. Defendants moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the ordinance violates equal protection and due process, and on the ground that the ordinance's definition of a pit bull is on its face unconstitutionally vague. The court held that the defendants' claim overlooks that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not guarantee that all dog owners will be treated alike; at most, the only guarantee is that all owners of defined pit bulls will be treated alike. Thus, the determinative issue is whether the North Miami City Council had a rational basis for regulating pit bulls. The court found the evidence adduced at the motion hearing as well as the language of the ordinance itself provided the rational basis. Similarly, the court dismissed claims of due process violation and vagueness.

    Judge Daniel S. Pearson delivered the opinion of the court.


    Opinion of the Court:

    This is an appeal from an order of the county court invalidating a City of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.160, the county court certified that its order passed upon a question of great public importance. We accept jurisdiction, [FN1] Fla.R.App.P. 9.160(e)(2), uphold the ordinance, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
    FN1. The questions presented by this appeal are most appropriately ones which we should decide. Judgments of federal courts about the vagueness of state statutes are made in light of prior state constructions of the statute. Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 190, 38 L.Ed.2d 179 (1973). In vagueness challenges to pit bull ordinances, two federal district courts have abstained, pursuant to Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). See Holt v. City of Maumelle, 647 F.Supp. 1529 (E.D.Ark.1986); Responsible Dog Owners v. Board of County Commissioners, No. 85-6743- Civ (S.D.Fla. Jan. 9, 1985) (Westlaw, 1985 WL 8031) (Broward County ordinance).

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    sosorry,,

    i can not get the case out of the computor, but its not about dogs!


    A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Washington does not have a "stop and ID" statute. However, even where a state enacts a "stop and ID" statute, stop must be limited to situations where RAS exists of a crime, and further, stop subject's statement of his name satisfies the ID requirement as Kolender, discussed supra, has not been overruled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) (driver of vehicle has no duty to produce driver's license absent RAS) (citing Hiibel). Law enforcement officers seizing persons for refusal to show identification are "not entitled to dismissal of . . . [42 USC 1983 claims] based on qualified immunity." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2008).
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    By state law I am required to show a law enforcement officer my CPL upon demand.
    Same, and our law goes one further, specifically stating that if one is carrying concealed, one must CC when asked, and failure to show the CHP is grounds for assuming its absense and being charged for failure to carry the CHP (something small, like a Class 5 petty offense).
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Valhalla, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    351
    If he asked me, i'd run. lol


    Whats the color of law?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Black on a white background. Some areas are very gray, though.

    LOL...

    Although in some jurisdictions, the Law is getting a decidedly Red tone to it.

    Here in NC, we DO NOT have "stop and identify" statutes. However, if you are CC, you are required by law to inform an LEO that you have a permit and are carrying at the first sign of an "official contact" made by an LEO.

    So if some LEO comes up to me and asks to see my permit, under NC law, I am required to not only produce my NC CHP, but also my DL or some other government-issued photo ID.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by hogeater f6 View Post
    If he asked me, i'd run. lol


    Whats the color of law?
    It is when someone with authority to enforce the law uses his position to force someone to do something or not do something. It may or may not be justified. The phrase becomes necessary because officers are citizens too and often take actions not intended to be official, but may be mistaken for official.

    For example, an officer walks up to you and says, "Can I speak to you for a second?" He may be stopping you (that would be "under the color of law"), or he may be just wanting a friendly chat about your opinion on Glocks (that would not be "under the color of law").

    The totality of the circumstances will determine whether the officer is acting under the color of law. By way of another example, I was stopped the other day by four officers who surrounded me. Even though they tried to make no big deal of it, the number of officer, plus the fact that they had surrounded me, left me with the reasonable belief that I was not free to go until ten minutes later when one of the officers stated the magic words that I was, indeed, "free to go." I stayed, and we (including a fifth officer, their sergeant) chatted for another fifty minutes. Until I was "free to go," the officers were acting under the color of law (and violating my rights). Afterward, they weren't acting under the color of law and were no longer violating my rights.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by hogeater f6 View Post
    If he asked me, i'd run. lol


    Whats the color of law?
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Black on a white background. Some areas are very gray, though.

    Seriously, an example of doing something under color of law would be when a LEO is coercing you to do something that you are not required to do by giving you the impression that it is a requirement in statute. For example, if you are open carrying where it is legal to do so, and a LEO is attempting to get you to conceal your firearm under the threat of arrest. It can also happen with politicians, licensing agencies, etc...
    And the requirement to show him your CPL here in Washington is one of those gray areas.

    ...shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so...
    My interpretation would be that if I am OC'ing, I would not be required by law to show it.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  14. #14
    Regular Member 40s-and-wfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lake County, Montana, USA
    Posts
    490
    In the state of Montana, I believe the only thing that is required for us to do is to show proper Identification. I don't think (just my opinion as I haven't talked to my contact in the AG office) a we are required to display a valid permit to carry just because said officer feels it necessary to make sure you're legal. I don't see what authority the officer would be acting on if he were to ask you to display your CCW Permit just because he saw you carrying. I'll have to call Helena to make sure, but as it stands right now I can honestly say that I probably wouldn't give him my carry permit just because he asked for it. Nothing in the process of me getting it said anything about that, or disarming for that matter. I can't say as I approve of the idea of an officer coming up and asking me for my permit just because he was in the mood to do it. I know, I'm an ass!!

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by 40s-and-wfan View Post
    I can't say as I approve of the idea of an officer coming up and asking me for my permit just because he was in the mood to do it. I know, I'm an ass!!
    Not at all. Whether it's legal or not in your state, I don't believe it's Constitutionally sound in any state. The good news is that such stops are slowly getting overturned by the courts, almost always based on arguments of reasonable (articulable) suspicion.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sc0tt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Asheboro, NC
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    Do not ask IF you are being detained. Ask WHY you are being detained. You already know you are being detained/seized and that you are not free to go. The Officer will realize where he stands, and that you know where he stands. He will advise that you are not being detained, or dodge/deflect the question. Either way, the Officer has ether established that you are free to walk away, or you're feeling of not being free to go stands. You won't get a straight answer if you ask, so don't. You already know it, so why bother asking?

    The same goes for the "Papers Please." My harassment by LEOs has all but disappeared since I started using this method. Several times:

    COP: "Can we talk for a second?/I'd liek to see some ID"
    ME: "Why am I being detained?"
    COP: [tries to hide shock of realizing he's already detaining me, reacts by saying] "Oh, you're not being detained."
    ME: "Bye!"
    COP: [realizes he just let me go and can't do anything now]
    I do the same thing. I don't ask if I ask why.
    Then they either pick a reason or try to play it off like
    "its not a detainment I just want to ask you a few questions"
    Once the officer acknowledges your not being detained end the encounter and walk away.

    Officer: Oh Your not being detained Id just like to ask you a few questions
    Me: I'm sorry officer but I since I am not being detained I and going to leave now you have a pleasant and safe (insert verb here)

    (There are factors that play into this, if he says your not being detained but he has you trapped between the corner and a door then make it known that its no longer a concental encounter and you would like to leave if he doesn't let you leave and conts to question you, you can use entrapment)

    If he does detain you then its a whole new ball park but at least in NC peacefully carrying a, holstered handgun is not in and of its self grounds for detainment, I state the facts using case rulings and again ask why I am being detained

    Officer: Yes your being detained because you have a gun, and Id like to ask you a few questions.
    Me: Officer, I am not aware of any grounds for a holstered, unconcealed handgun to be grounds for detainment, the US supreme court ruled in Terry Vs Ohio and the NC supreme court ruled in State Vs Hunley that in and of its self peacefully carrying a holstered un-concealed handgun is not grounds for detainment, So I ask again, why am I being detained.
    [ the y usually just change the reason here because I have yet to meet an officer that will admit to his wrong doings, but I just shut up show Id and exercise my rights]

    I have had officers who asked me for my CHP and I use the same argument other than for ID, an officer can not compel you to show your DL unless you are operating a motor vechilie, so why should I have to show a CHP if I am not CC. Besides I dont even have one so that usually gets settled pretty fast
    Last edited by Sc0tt; 12-31-2010 at 03:39 PM.
    -----------------
    --SCOTT

    Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

    "A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is beg enough to take everything you have, the course of history shows that as government incresses - liberty decreases."


    LEGAL NOTICE: I am not a lawyer, no content in the above post should considered legal advice

  17. #17
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It is when someone with authority to enforce the law uses his position to force someone to do something or not do something. It may or may not be justified. The phrase becomes necessary because officers are citizens too and often take actions not intended to be official, but may be mistaken for official.

    For example, an officer walks up to you and says, "Can I speak to you for a second?" He may be stopping you (that would be "under the color of law"), or he may be just wanting a friendly chat about your opinion on Glocks (that would not be "under the color of law").

    The totality of the circumstances will determine whether the officer is acting under the color of law. By way of another example, I was stopped the other day by four officers who surrounded me. Even though they tried to make no big deal of it, the number of officer, plus the fact that they had surrounded me, left me with the reasonable belief that I was not free to go until ten minutes later when one of the officers stated the magic words that I was, indeed, "free to go." I stayed, and we (including a fifth officer, their sergeant) chatted for another fifty minutes. Until I was "free to go," the officers were acting under the color of law (and violating my rights). Afterward, they weren't acting under the color of law and were no longer violating my rights.

    Did your "chat" with the sergeant go well?

    IE, did he get the point that his officers had stepped in it?

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    Did your "chat" with the sergeant go well?

    IE, did he get the point that his officers had stepped in it?

    The chat went well, but she still needs much education. That's OK. I had another chat with her boss, the deputy chief. He repeated his commitment to making sure that all his officers know that OC is legal--as did the city attorney.

    The recording of my encounter, including my conversation with the sergeant, is available at AlabamaOpenCarry.com/forum. Look for the thread about my second encounter.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    I know laws differ from state to state but what about hunting and fishing licenses? We get asked for those many times even though there is no reason for a LEA to assume you are involved with a crime. What about permits to gather in peaceful protest where required or something such as needing a permit to pass out food and drink to the homeless in a park? People engaged in those types of activities are rountinely asked or demanded to show their permit to do so? I wonder if LE needs RS to demand any of that paperwork from you and if not, why exactly they differ from stopping someone driving a car just to check for a valid permit or stopping someone whose armed and to check them for a permit where required?

  20. #20
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by 40s-and-wfan View Post
    Okay here's my question, I've been pondering this for a while:
    You're walking with your significant other and are carrying (OC or CC, doesn't matter.) A local LEO notices a 'bulge' under your shirt, firearm on your hip, etc., as you walk through the park and stops you. Upon walking up to you the LEO says, "Sir, can I see your permit to carry a concealed weapon?"
    My thoughts on this are: If I'm driving down the road and obeying all laws and posted speed limits and there is no question that I'm within the law, Law Enforcement cannot stop me just to check my driver's license and make sure I have a valid one. Just because I'm in a car, commuting down the road, doesn't mean the cops can stop me at their will to make sure I'm legal. Can an LEO do pretty much the same thing if we're carrying a firearm, open or concealed?
    My response to the LEO if he asks to see my permit would be, "On what grounds? I haven't committed a crime, I'm not flashing it around and I haven't done anything to put anyone at risk. Your request is unfounded and is made without the appropriate Probable Cause!"
    I used to be a city police officer and have developed a somewhat 'confident air' when dealing with Law Enforcement and so I will question things if I feel I am in the right. That part may be right or wrong according to some people but that is not the matter in question. What would you do in the original scenario? Would you produce the requested license or would you want to know why if you have done nothing wrong?
    As a former police officer you know one should NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. The following two links are well worth watching. The first is a Law Proffessor talking to students. The second is a police detective LUItenient I believe who actually backed the professor and stated "everything he just said is right". He made the comment that "If I want to pull you over on a hunch, all I have to do is follow you long enough and you're going to get nervous and ,ake a mistake. Then I have a LEGAL reason to stop you. They are long though, about 27 minutes apiece.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7N...e_gdata_player
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQ...eature=related
    Last edited by William Fisher; 01-21-2011 at 12:52 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by MK View Post
    I know laws differ from state to state but what about hunting and fishing licenses? We get asked for those many times even though there is no reason for a LEA to assume you are involved with a crime. What about permits to gather in peaceful protest where required or something such as needing a permit to pass out food and drink to the homeless in a park? People engaged in those types of activities are rountinely asked or demanded to show their permit to do so? I wonder if LE needs RS to demand any of that paperwork from you and if not, why exactly they differ from stopping someone driving a car just to check for a valid permit or stopping someone whose armed and to check them for a permit where required?
    WHERE (or WHEN) required is key. Driving a car is an activity that requires a Drivers Liscence, fishing requires a Fishing Liscene, CCing requirers a CC permit but OCing only requirers Name, Rank and Serial Number so to speak. If involved in an activity that requirers Liscence or Permit one must show it and then show you are that person.
    Absent those things and you are not doing anything ilegal you need not show identification.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I'd be spending what little money I have on a lawyer. may not win, but the point would be made that "you will be challenged in front of a judge to justify your actions". the word would get out on you and harassing stops will dwindle if not cease all together. i did this in my town. When LEOs roll up on a MWG call and see ME, they stop and let me know why and go about their business. I actually have made far more friends as LEOs since I started spending my money.

    Glad it worked out without a lawyer. To each their own.
    I would much rather NOT sue. It is best if we correct problems quickly to the benefit of all rather than dragging out the matter in court. Now, if the police WON'T learn, as in Birmingham, then they should be sued--and I am sure that they will be.

    In Montgomery, they now recognize that OC is lawful. Training and getting all of their officers on board with the policy takes time. However, that my second stop was far less egregious than my first shows that progress is being made. Others have also reported that MPD are leaving them alone.

    At the moment, I am satisfied. No need to sue.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Since we can't write tickets and take the cops to court, suing is our only recourse.

    I believe that we should sue/file complaint do what ever we can every time a police officer violates your rights. 2A rights become secondary to 4th and 5th in most these cases.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    He's a cop. Submit and work it out later or not. Don't submit and expect an azz whupin.
    I disagree. Do not consent. Make the lack of consent crystal clear. Then, do not resist. That is not the same as submission. If you submit, it will be considered consent by the courts. There will be nothing to sort out later. If you consent, no search or seizure will be a violation of your rights. For a search or seizure to be a violation, you MUST refuse to consent.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Do you actually believe that LE will always get what is coming to them when a LEO breaks the law? Or do you hope that LE will get what's coming to them when a LEO breaks the law?
    Not always. Not all criminals are caught and punished. Dang.

    I can guarantee you that, if you "submit," then the officer has done nothing wrong, and he WILL get what's coming to him: nothing at all!

    Not always getting the perfect outcome is a stupid reason not to take the course of action that will most likely provide the best outcome. And, it has provided spectacular outcomes for me--twice.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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