Got stopped in Independence KS

The officer that stopped was a detective. He was pretty nice, he asked why I was open carrying and where we (I was with my fiance) were going. I told him we were just going on a walk, and I was open carrying because it's legal there are no local ordinances against it, and also because I can't yet afford a concealed carry permit. Then he asked for my identification. Three other squad cars showed up over the course of things, they didn't really say much. The detective asked if he could look at my gun, I knew what he meant he just wanted to run NCIC, and I don't particularly care. He asked if a round was in the chamber I responded yes. Then he pulled the slide back and left it locked open while he ran NCIC. He put the magazine back in and chambered then removed the magazine and put the previously chambered round back in the mag.

All in all he said I really should get a concealed carry because I'll keep getting stopped because people will call it in even if it's legal. I informed him I work at Subway and that's a little expensive. He put my gun back in my holster and that was that.

You did consentually agree to his "requests", but not bad outcome all things considered.

Doubt they'll make a habit of it - if such were the case you can address things differently.

Well I understood his requests, I didn't particularly have any problem. I suppose I could have been bitter about having my serial # on my gun ran but quite frankly if I ever actually "need" a gun in any sort of shtf scenario a handgun merely is what it is and certainly wouldn't be my primary choice.

Goes to show there are non-political reasons for OC-ing and in that case it makes no sense for anyone to 'stand up for their amendment rights'. It's best to go the path of least resistance and hope the LEO is not planning/trying to get something on you to solve his feelings of inferiority or elitism.

Of course there's also the issue of gun handling and being swept by your own piece, even having a LEO-ND.

"Gee officer, I guess you know that LEOs have shot themselves and others accidentally recently and you want to fool around with my (unfamiliar to you) HG? You know that all NDs occur when handling the gun, loading, unloading and holstering, right? You knew in the first 10 seconds I was a 'good guy', so why put us both at risk?

Well in that case, I can't stop you but be aware, I'm not coming to visit you when you shoot yourself in the leg with my HG'.

I can't find fault with the OP's actions, besides that.

He asked if a round was chambered first, removed the magazine, pointed the handgun down and pulled the slide back. But I understand your point and from here forth I will inquire why they would like to look at my handgun, (of course I know why) and if they say NCIC I'll just tell them the serial #

TheAngelKing47 said:

He asked if a round was chambered first, removed the magazine, pointed the handgun down and pulled the slide back. But I understand your point and from here forth I will inquire why they would like to look at my handgun, (of course I know why) and if they say NCIC I'll just tell them the serial #

Click to expand...

Why would you do that?

There is no cause for him to run serial numbers on a gun just because they exist.

TheAngelKing47 said:

He asked if a round was chambered first......

Click to expand...

Why even ask? All firearms should be treated as always loaded!

I would never take anyone's word as to the status of a firearm.

Did he consent to letting you see his firearm?

If an officer ever desires to "look at" or "see" my firearm, I will politely ask to "see" his as well.

If he refuses, I will then inform him that "seeing" or "looking at" my firearm is friendly interaction, therefore, reciprocal. If he need to do anything other than "see" my firearm, he will need a warrant as taking posession of my property would be more of a "siezure" or "confiscation" than a euphamistic "looking at".

I would then ask him what crime he has reasonable articulable suspicion of me committing in order to justify a warrant, and what probable cause he used to determine it.

I would also have a good, clear recording of any answer he offers .

Ha ha well, I did consent. I'm not exactly rich either, so I was being nice because I chose to be nice. Lawyers are expensive and cops can make things up. Anyways I'm not implying they would but there's good and bad people everywhere. Like I said before, they were nice. Although they did kind of imply discouraging it.

No condemnation from me. Yeah, you consented, and no they didn't have any RAS or PC, and we'll never know how they would have ratcheted things up, but we all know how they could have, even without any legal authority. You had to make your own call, and you did.

Everyone has to make their own decisions based on time/place/circumstances. And for most of us, all those variables are going to change throughout our daily travels. On a stroll with my wife down my own street, on vacation, in no hurry to get out of jail? Yeah, I'll play hard to get. Traffic stop on the way to catch a plane for an important trip? "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir!"

Don't sweat any keyboard kommandos going on about how you broke weak: you did what you felt was right at the time. Be confident in your own conscience, and go with that.

TheAngelKing47 said:

All in all he said I really should get a concealed carry because I'll keep getting stopped because people will call it in even if it's legal.

Click to expand...

Actually the oppisite is true. If you continue to OC and others join you they "SHOULD" realize it is a waste of their time to hassle LACs and won't stop folks minding their own business. If they do continue and they do this to the wrong person (without consent) they are in a world of hurt (lawsuits.)

Maybe he stopped you because you spit in his sub?...j/k...

Civil Rights

There are plenty of lawyers out there who will gladly take a civil suit on your behalf against the city for violating your civil rights, e.g. http://www.theshootersbar.org/ Remember these suits often get settled without the lawyer doing much work, so many would gladly partner with you for % of a settlement. It also is one of the most efficient ways to change local ordinances and police proceedure, because the City will not want to continue to have civil suits brought against them.

Also, why would you risk a potential conviction by complying to searches if you legally are not required? Defending charges becomes a lot more expensive than the illegal CHL tax. The LEO was obviously trying to charge you with something and I don't understand why free citizens accept that behaviour.

I think it is vital that free citizens stand up for their rights and keep LEOs in check. Many LEOs become aggressive when they start crossing the civil rights line and meet resistance from citizens who know and want to protect their rights. It does not make it easier for the rest of us when people comply with that type of unprofessional behaviour...

The FBI investigates and charges LEOs each year for civil rights abuses. If you don't want to mess with a lawyer, how about reporting the activity to FBI, because this could get bad or poorly trained LEOs off the street.

Damiansar-15 said:

There are plenty of lawyers out there who will gladly take a civil suit on your behalf against the city for violating your civil rights, e.g.

Click to expand...

Great advise but does not apply to the OP in this situation as he consented.

What?

Kingfish said:

Great advise but does not apply to the OP in this situation as he consented.

Click to expand...

Where in my post did I tell him to sue for this compliance situation? He made and excuse about expensive lawyers, when in actually it can generate income to stand up for one's civil rights in the right context. In the future if he wanted to exercise his rights and not comply with additional harrassement from LEO, there are many lawyers out there who will bend over backwards to help file suit against the city.

The whole reason for this forum is to share thoughts and ideas on how to support OC. My post was an attempt to provide supportive information to fight potential civil rights violations. No disrespect to anyone, but I don't approve of letting LEOs violate one's 2nd and 4th Amend. rights; this is not a good way to support the OC agenda. It is a free country, but that type of behaviour should be fought through legal means, e.g. lawsuit, reporting to officals, voting, city council, etc... Remember: A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost....

It is not always necessary nor even desirable to make the quantum leap to civil action. Standing up for your rights doesn't have to mean taxing the local citizens with fiscal responsibility. All options and the reasons thereof should be carefully considered.

Sometimes using the biggest hammer is the only way to drive the nail, but ultimately that is an individual decision based not entirely on the perception of others.

Badger Johnson said:

Goes to show there are non-political reasons for OC-ing and in that case it makes no sense for anyone to 'stand up for their amendment rights'. It's best to go the path of least resistance and hope the LEO is not planning/trying to get something on you to solve his feelings of inferiority or elitism.

Of course there's also the issue of gun handling and being swept by your own piece, even having a LEO-ND.

"Gee officer, I guess you know that LEOs have shot themselves and others accidentally recently and you want to fool around with my (unfamiliar to you) HG? You know that all NDs occur when handling the gun, loading, unloading and holstering, right? You knew in the first 10 seconds I was a 'good guy', so why put us both at risk?

Well in that case, I can't stop you but be aware, I'm not coming to visit you when you shoot yourself in the leg with my HG'.

I can't find fault with the OP's actions, besides that.

Click to expand...

We can just do this everytime.

Grapeshot said:

It is not always necessary nor even desirable to make the quantum leap to civil action. Standing up for your rights doesn't have to mean taxing the local citizens with fiscal responsibility. All options and the reasons thereof should be carefully considered.

Sometimes using the biggest hammer is the only way to drive the nail, but ultimately that is an individual decision based not entirely on the perception of others.

Click to expand...

Hence my reference to other options..."legal means, e.g. lawsuit, reporting to officals, voting, city council, etc... " As someone who has actually exercised many options to promote OC and change unconstitutional ordinances and behaviour in Wichita area, I am finding that civil suits are pretty effective and are by no means the largest hammer available... I live in a Republic so all citizens, even minority groups, need to be represented whether or not they are rich, backed by a large PAC/Industry following, etc...

Feel feel to add solutions or "hammers" to the discussion, because I think this would clearly articulate and substantiate what you are trying to communicate with your statement about other options...

Damiansar-15 said:

Hence my reference to other options..."legal means, e.g. lawsuit, reporting to officals, voting, city council, etc... " As someone who has actually exercised many options to promote OC and change unconstitutional ordinances and behaviour in Wichita area, I am finding that civil suits are pretty effective and are by no means the largest hammer available... I live in a Republic so all citizens, even minority groups, need to be represented whether or not they are rich, backed by a large PAC/Industry following, etc...

Feel feel to add solutions or "hammers" to the discussion, because I think this would clearly articulate and substantiate what you are trying to communicate with your statement about other options...

Click to expand...

Do I misread a condescending tone? I neither am "attempting to communicate" (think I already do so reasonably well) and reject being told that I should "feel free" to do what I might do.

My point w/o the race card or social economic status is that no extreme fits all equally. I will start with the most effective response IMO for each situation according to the merits. The impression received on this end from your post was directed at proceeding civilly post haste.

Superlite27 said:

Did he consent to letting you see his firearm?

If an officer ever desires to "look at" or "see" my firearm, I will politely ask to "see" his as well.

If he refuses, I will then inform him that "seeing" or "looking at" my firearm is friendly interaction, therefore, reciprocal. If he need to do anything other than "see" my firearm, he will need a warrant as taking posession of my property would be more of a "siezure" or "confiscation" than a euphamistic "looking at".

I would then ask him what crime he has reasonable articulable suspicion of me committing in order to justify a warrant, and what probable cause he used to determine it.

I would also have a good, clear recording of any answer he offers .

Click to expand...

This is an excellent post. RAS isn't enough for a warrant, btw. He would need PC. However, having RAS would allow him to detain you temporarily. RAS could lead to PC, not the other way around. But I really like your logic.