.
9 yrs LEO, half as a Sgt and FTO. I'm not with MNPD though, although I train and back them up on occasion (go to same courts, write the same tickets, etc). I wouldn't claim something I'm not, although I know it occurs on the internet. Believe what you may from my posts, but you can look from RP.net that I'm "verified," which requires ID to have that title (screen name is scott715us).
Thank you for confirming your status as a LEO.
Where do you get this info from? I'm not aware of any MNPD officer, or any officer in my area, that carries openly off-duty.
Your knowledge does not constitute a static metric.
The lack of or distinct presence of law abiding open carrying LEO does not hold sway over the reality that it is a Constitutionally enumerated, individual right.
It is interesting to me that you truly believe you are "in more danger" while in the line of duty, than you are while off, and therefore the open carry of a sidearm is somehow "unnecessary".
Hence my disagreement with the bulk of posters here, including the OP. Rather than educating and attempting to develop good rapport with business owners, you elect to ignore the sign completely and leave a bad taste in their mouth when they tell you to leave and/or call the police.
Signs are everywhere in this country, and in many places they are actually posting outdated restrictions or prohibitions that are no longer valid.
A sign specifying "No concealed weapons", is VERY clear in its language.
Property owners have the distinct right to limit what they allow on their individual properties, and in this particular case, it is clear that they don't want weapons snuck in.
Clear and visible carry is obviously not addressed.
Which also wastes our time responding to the nonsense that OCers elect to create.
It would seem to me that the Constitutional right existed before your department was likely formed. It would also seem to me that you have sworn an oath to the Constitution of the United States, and likely to the Constitution of your particular state.
The "nonsense", is repeatedly being proven time and again, to be on behalf of inept or misinformed law enforcement, as "OC'ers" go about their daily lives in peace, carrying out activities that were so important to the founders of this country, that they protected it one amendment down from the freedom of speech.
There is no positive outcome for this.
Bull.
Limelighting the fallacy in your commentary is easy.
Seattle has had to fix their signs.
Tennessee has been forced already to address many of their signs.
All over the country, based on similar actions as the OP's, other business owners have embraced open carry and explicitly invited them to patron their shops or facilities.
Corporate companies have been made to realign with their policies, such as Target, Wal-Mart, and Fred Mayer.
Law enforcement agencies have paid thousands upon thousands, for violating individuals inalienable rights in modern, and recent times.
YOU say OC causes problems, I say it limelights a liberty that we have allowed to slip into disrepair over the years. In this case, the OC'ers have come out to be right, again, and again, and again.
Now the business owner may still elect to prohibit weapons, but who knows, maybe giving them some info on their sign and striking up a conversation will change their mind about OCers and their policy about prohibiting weapons. I would think you would look at the bigger picture, but I guess it's better to flex your OC muscle a bit.
Inflammatory garbage.
The conducting of an inalienable right is not the "flexing of a muscle". The ambiguity of the signs is pretty clear, and your self-concocted translation of the signs to mean "any and all weapons" would not hold a shot-glass of water in a courtroom.
The security guard could have been more polite, and indeed, acted like less of a pompous jackhole in trying to impersonate a police officer, by presenting his rather wimpy guard-card.
Of course, it is more important to denigrate OC'ers in general as you have done several times, than it is to investigate why a security guard would act like a sworn law enforcement officer by demanding to see a permit he is not entitled to see, under color of law.
Most LEOs I have come in contact with, including recruits I help teach at TLETA on occasion, ARE pro-carry.
"Pro-Carry" being open to interpretation of the officer right? We have repeatedly seen over, and over again, what these "pro carry" types are truly capable of.
Whether the specific officer involved was pro-carry didn't really matter when he's called to an establishment who prohibits carry and OCers are violating it. YES I KNOW the sign was wrong and technically he wasn't violating anything, but the perception of the business entity was that he was. Now the correct procedure should have been to ask the OCer leave, but that didn't happen here. I'm sure next time it will or I hope it will, which will avoid wasting the LEOs time.
Just a thought.
As a public servant, you (let's pretend you were on scene for a moment) could have easily said "Sir your sign does not expressly prohibit open carry, and clearly states "concealed carry. Open carry is permitted by law, and so long as the individual is not violating GATTToTP, he really is within his right, and probably didn't mean any harm.
It is your right as a private property owner to limit the type of traffic that comes in and out of your establishment, and if you wish him not to return, then we can proceed accordingly. However, this is likely just a misunderstanding."
But no, it makes more sense to escalate the scene, and then leave a loaded handgun in a waiting room full of people, away from the original owner. Right?
".
From my experience most of the general public believe that people have concealed carry permits, not handgun carry permits. I have seen quite a few signs where the language indicated "concealed" weapons are prohibited for just that reason. I think many of you know this, but elect to play dumb to it so that you can open carry wherever you think you have the privilege of doing, which leads me back to the answer above regarding creating relationships.
That is a completely asinine conclusion. There are plenty of signs with different, and more direct language, that are posted all over the country, without the words "concealed". I could spend all day posting the different variations, but I think you would readily concede that these signs do in fact exist, and not even a small minority of them say "concealed" anywhere.
One of my co-workers and a very good friend of mine teaches a HCP class and has taught many, many HCP holders. Very few if any have said they would carry it openly. This has also been the common method of carry from many HCP holders I have encountered through my 9 yrs as a LEO (and tons of traffic stops).
Your venue is limited, and so is your experience in this particular matter.
Open Carry is pretty normal in more states than it is abnormal. Your state in particular just takes a large, steaming, fermented crap on not only its own state constitution, but the US Constitution as well.
Furthermore, the quantity of HCP holders who elect to conceal carry within Tennessee, has 0 to do with the tactical differences in carry methods.
Now all of a sudden I'm to believe that tons of people carry openly? Maybe in the rural parts of the counties, but definitely not in Nashville or the larger urban areas.
The right itself is incorporated. Meaning applied against all states.
I would expect the HCP process to eventually go the way of the dodo, and the oppression of the ability to carry open by those who think 1mm of fabric makes them morally superior, to do the same.
That's not to suggest it shouldn't happen, but concealed carry has been common since the growth of HCPs and that's what the signage reflected that business owners had posted. To say otherwise is an error in my belief. The new law outlining the signage is just that: NEW. It will take some time for folks to figure out compliance with it, but hey, in the mean time let's p*ss em off, that's the better strategy....
You can't hold everyones hand gingerly as you conduct a constitutionally recognized, inalienable right.
If it squashes a comfort zone or two, then oh well. So long as it is done safely, then who cares? Nobody should.
You will find that most open carriers are
very polite, and not out looking for confrontation.
It is shameful that the same cannot be said for law enforcement officers, which is a well documented, historical truth.
