Open Carry in a police station in medford oregon

Teddybearfrmhell said:

ROFLMAO.... you are wondering if they are going to act ? not until they absolutely must . the only thing they have been known to do PROACTIVELY was detain david pyles and look what that got them!

Click to expand...

Well at least some of them now know the law. I am hoping (not holding my breath) that the Chief will reply to my letter and indicate that they are going to at least issue a training bulletin to all officers explaining that tey need RAS for anything non consensual and that the threats of DC charges are not going to fly against someone who is merely open carrying. Like I said, not holding my breath but it would be nice if our public servants actual were responsive to their citizens and concerned about the potential liability, not to mention the danger, that lack of knowledge of firearms laws is creating.

We-the-People said:

Well at least some of them now know the law.

Click to expand...

this isnt true at all, they dont KNOW the law just from listening to a radio show about them not knowing the law. in order for them to KNOW the law they must now do one of 2 things, either the must READ the law and understand it or they must ask the city attorney to read the law and explain it so that they understand it. you putting the information out there is no way REQUIRES them to acknowledge it. this doesnt diminish what you did in any way, but i think you may be overly optimistic as to the outcome.

Teddybearfrmhell said:

this isnt true at all, the dont KNOW the law just from listening to a radio show about them not knowing the law. in order for them to KNOW the law they must now do one of 2 things, either the must READ the law and understand it or they must ask the city attorney to read the law and explain it so that they understand it. you putting the information out there is no way REQUIRES them to acknowledge it. this doesnt diminish what you did in any way, but i think you may be overly optimistic as to the outcome.

Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't clear or maybe I wrote it wrong. What I meant was that the some who now know it are the ones that looked it all up and then had to release the guy they just knew had committed a class c felony by having the audacity to walk into THEIR "house".

The letter is intended to get them to, hopefully, enact some training and be responsive to the citizens and their shortcomings. The media only increases local awareness. I haven't checked to see what the officer before me said on the air, need to go check KMED and see if that's on the previous segments podcast.

We-the-People said:

I guess I wasn't clear or maybe I wrote it wrong. What I meant was that the some who now know it are the ones that looked it all up and then had to release the guy they just knew had committed a class c felony by having the audacity to walk into THEIR "house".

The letter is intended to get them to, hopefully, enact some training and be responsive to the citizens and their shortcomings. The media only increases local awareness. I haven't checked to see what the officer before me said on the air, need to go check KMED and see if that's on the previous segments podcast.

Click to expand...

ok, now i see your point. at least a few of them KNOW what the law is..... one would hope that word is passed around in an official manner....

Teddybearfrmhell said:

ok, now i see your point. at least a few of them KNOW what the law is..... one would hope that word is passed around in an official manner....

Click to expand...

One would hope but when he went back a couple hours later to turn in the complaint form he'd gotten an officer approached hiim insisting he couldn't have it in the PD...... here we go again...... This officer however just wanted him to go outside and wait....so he did and a nacotics officer in plain clothes "sat" on him (for those that don't know that means kept watch over) the whole time he was waiting for the officer that was going to take the complaint.

Not sure if the conversation the officer engaged him in was merely out of curiosity or not.

Maybe there was a shift change and they didn't tell the oncoming crew? Maybe the way they operate it was just another batch of officers that happened to be at teh station....who knows. But you'd think that word would have been all over the place. I'm sure it is now....though without it in written from and spelled out in policy, who knows what the word being passed around word of mouth has morphed into. Remember that grade school experiment of whispering a short sentence from person to person down the line and seeing what came out the other end?

We-the-People said:

One would hope but when he went back a couple hours later to turn in the complaint form he'd gotten an officer approached hiim insisting he couldn't have it in the PD...... here we go again...... This officer however just wanted him to go outside and wait....so he did and a nacotics officer in plain clothes "sat" on him (for those that don't know that means kept watch over) the whole time he was waiting for the officer that was going to take the complaint.

Not sure if the conversation the officer engaged him in was merely out of curiosity or not.

Maybe there was a shift change and they didn't tell the oncoming crew? Maybe the way they operate it was just another batch of officers that happened to be at teh station....who knows. But you'd think that word would have been all over the place. I'm sure it is now....though without it in written from and spelled out in policy, who knows what the word being passed around word of mouth has morphed into. Remember that grade school experiment of whispering a short sentence from person to person down the line and seeing what came out the other end?

Click to expand...

hope he filed a second complaint about his treatment during his filing of the first complaint

Teddybearfrmhell said:

hope he filed a second complaint about his treatment during his filing of the first complaint

Click to expand...

Since he complied with the "request" and had a consensual conversation with the other officer outside there's not really anything to complain about except the "general attitude". Maybe I'm missing something?

We-the-People said:

Since he complied with the "request" and had a consensual conversation with the other officer outside there's not really anything to complain about except the "general attitude". Maybe I'm missing something?

Click to expand...

nah. its just me. done with this thread

Schlitz said:

but if you walked into a police station, nicely dressed, in a decent holster made to securley hold that firearm < ugh if you just walk the walk right and you are indeed with in the law this would have happened differently in one way or anyother and I think it would have been for the better. If you're going to carry into the police station, dress nice, have a decent holster that has some sort of professional look, go to the front desk and speak clearly about your intentions for being there and be done with it. I'm having a hard time gathering my words here. Does anyone here see what I'm trying to say?

Click to expand...

Might want to ask SuddenValleyGunner in Bellingham how this worked out for him. I've never seen him wear anything but khaki slacks or shorts and nice, unoffensive t-shirts or button up shirts. He has short hair, is clean shaven, and is generally a pleasant and law abiding looking fellow. He wears a Level 3 retention Serpa holster. He was cuffed when entering the police station to file a complaint. Eventually he won the case but ...

Not saying dressing nice isn't a better idea, but it doesn't always make the difference.

heresolong said:

Might want to ask SuddenValleyGunner in Bellingham how this worked out for him. I've never seen him wear anything but khaki slacks or shorts and nice, unoffensive t-shirts or button up shirts. He has short hair, is clean shaven, and is generally a pleasant and law abiding looking fellow. He wears a Level 3 retention Serpa holster. He was cuffed when entering the police station to file a complaint. Eventually he won the case but ...

Not saying dressing nice isn't a better idea, but it doesn't always make the difference.

Click to expand...

without doing all the research regarding oregon and washington state laws and chl exemptions/preemption are we sure we are compairing apples to apples?

Teddybearfrmhell said:

without doing all the research regarding oregon and washington state laws and chl exemptions/preemption are we sure we are compairing apples to apples?

Click to expand...

That's always a hard thing to get people to understand. EVERY state is different and the ccity on the other side of the border getting put on notice has no effect on a city the other side of the border. Different laws, even if they're very similar.

ADDED: I know you're "up" on this Tedde, quoting you is just so folks know what I'm talking about.

Now national precedent does cross the border (Terry v. Ohio, Hiibel, Florida v. J.L., et. al). The manner of dress doesn't usually seemn to enter into the matter in OC cases though if one were in a known crime area wearing known gang colors or attire, that would tend to go to the "totality of circumstances" in building RAS. But jeans and a T shirt are NOT some identifiable method of dress that is unusual or particularly associated with criminal activity.

Besides, in these local cases, it doesn't enter into the equation.

At the PD it was merely "you can't carry it in here"

At Tinsel Townl, it was based on a MWAG call, even though no gun had been seen (to my knowlege), just an errant comment by a non carrying individual who was with the carrier and apparently overheard.

In the incident after the PD encounter if was, again, based on a MWAG call and the officers made the all too common but incorrect statement that "we have to come make sure you're legal to have it".

Manner of attire had nothing to do with these incidents. As towhat was going on in the officers heads, who knows but no legally acceptable RAS was presented to the involved carriers. To the contrary, unacceptable "excuses" were offered as the reasons for the ones that resulted in detentions and the other two (of this set) simply involved officer prostheletizing and threats of detention and/or charges for disorderly.

Be sure to read my tag line...I'm NOT a lawyer, this ain't no legal advice.

sheepdog762 said:

great broadcast except for tha fact that you called yourself a "wolf", wolves are the bad guys,sheepdogs are the good guys and sheep are ..well just sheep

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Click to expand...

Yeah, as soon as I said that I thought "oops" and threw in the disclaimer that followed. Would have been better to say "he's going to go look for a sheep instead of a sheep dog" less "intimidating".

EDIT ADD: Just read the article you linked. I really don't think that terminology, other than the Sheepdog "label" would go over well. Certainly don't want to be talking about a "capacity for violence" etc., as the author did. That would definitely get some neck hairs raised by more than a few.

We-the-People said:

Yeah, as soon as I said that I thought "oops" and threw in the disclaimer that followed. Would have been better to say "he's going to go look for a sheep instead of a sheep dog" less "intimidating".

EDIT ADD: Just read the article you linked. I really don't think that terminology, other than the Sheepdog "label" would go over well. Certainly don't want to be talking about a "capacity for violence" etc., as the author did. That would definitely get some neck hairs raised by more than a few.

Click to expand...

i have used this more than a few times...

"When the jackals feast on the gazelles, its good to be a lion."

Agreeable Disagreement

Grapeshot said:

Gentlemen, can we stick to the facts in the cases(s) and leave the personal opinions aside about those involved. Such opinions when describing your view of another may well indeed be seen as personal attacks and will not be tolerated. We must be responsible, polite and show consideration for others, even as we disagree on methodology.

Click to expand...

I understand what You are saying Grapeshot about facts and facts being the utmost important in a 'case'.

'But' are You also saying that I have to 'testify' with only facts and have NO personal opinions in this forum just like in a court room ?

Are You the arbiter ( judge ) of what is fact and what is opinion and what is an attack ?

I will go back to the "term of agreement" and read the s-small print > boiler plate disclaimer from lawyers and the overlords of PC lol.


You mean I cannot vociferously disagree with anyone else and post my quite possibly well informed opinions with harsh determined boldness and sarcasm on the motives of others based on their overt actions, just because another person will 'see' it as a personal attack ? ??????

( insert Moderator ) yes Steve that is what I am saying and YOU are pushing it pal !!!!

IMPORTANT: Is that not thee essence of being politically correct ?

My "Opinion" : We all must balance between uncivilized out right anger based personal attack with the obligatory cuss words & slurs that the FFC has determined are illegal to use , and a politically correct leftist giant list ad: dumb jerk gay moron bozo et all, and re-write our responses to fit the rainbow scrip were by the OP and any Reply looks like a Soviet Pravda editor has washed down for feeding of the re-educated masses.

We are Americans we should have thick skin and if You step into the ring ( forum) prepare to back Your facts 'and' deal with harsh opinions and not cry to the ref because I slapped the football out of Your hand and spiked it ( flag ) unsportsmanlike like conduct .

As I slink off the the locker room for being a loud mouth American, lol.

SteveInAshand said:

I understand what You are saying Grapeshot about facts and facts being the utmost important in a 'case'.

'But' are You also saying that I have to 'testify' with only facts and have NO personal opinions in this forum just like in a court room ?

Are You the arbiter ( judge ) of what is fact and what is opinion and what is an attack ?

I will go back to the "term of agreement" and read the s-small print > boiler plate disclaimer from lawyers and the overlords of PC lol.


You mean I cannot vociferously disagree with anyone else and post my quite possibly well informed opinions with harsh determined boldness and sarcasm on the motives of others based on their overt actions, just because another person will 'see' it as a personal attack ? ??????

( insert Moderator ) yes Steve that is what I am saying and YOU are pushing it pal !!!!

IMPORTANT: Is that not thee essence of being politically correct ?

My "Opinion" : We all must balance between uncivilized out right anger based personal attack with the obligatory cuss words & slurs that the FFC has determined are illegal to use , and a politically correct leftist giant list ad: dumb jerk gay moron bozo et all, and re-write our responses to fit the rainbow scrip were by the OP and any Reply looks like a Soviet Pravda editor has washed down for feeding of the re-educated masses.

We are Americans we should have thick skin and if You step into the ring ( forum) prepare to back Your facts 'and' deal with harsh opinions and not cry to the ref because I slapped the football out of Your hand and spiked it ( flag ) unsportsmanlike like conduct .

As I slink off the the locker room for being a loud mouth American, lol.

Click to expand...

First it is worth mentioning again that OCDO is the personal and private property of Mike and John - we do not have rights here, we have privileges, granted on a limited basis.

The rules and the intent (equally important) behind them is to allow for open discussion of approved subjects while maintaining both a responsible attitude and one suitable for public dissemination.

The decision(s) on what is acceptable rests with the ownership of the forum and is handled as best as we can first by Moderators. Our direction is taken from John (Administrator) and subject to his decisions.

Surely some postings will cause emotional responses from others, but these MUST avoid personal attacks, slander, misquotes et al. The purpose is not to suppress individual expression but to maintain a level of decorum and not deviate from the express purpose of sharing facts. Are opinions verboten - most definitely not, but care must be employed judiciously so as not to cross the line. A simple test frequently works - if in doubt, don't.

BTW - what is with your following line? I quote: "( insert Moderator ) yes Steve that is what I am saying and YOU are pushing it pal !!!!" Seems a poor choice for inclusion here IMHO.

OCDO moderates with a light touch as much as possible - I see it as the best operated/moderated RKBA forum on the net. The hammer is seldom used excepting for particularly egregious circumstances.

Grapeshot said:

OCDO moderates with a light touch as much as possible - I see it as the best operated/moderated RKBA forum on the net. The hammer is seldom used excepting for particularly egregious circumstances.

Click to expand...

The definition of "egregious" being purely subjective. Too often, the guy throwing the 'second' punch is targeted. That is, of course, within the purview of the forum hierarchy. But let's not paint ourselves as too pure of heart, shall we...when a moth picks a fight with a wasp and gets stung, who's fault is it? But the wasp gets the bad press.

Not to chime in at the last bell, but I know Sgt. Meilicke (the one who sat down and waiting with the detainee), him being my cousin, and he is very receptive to gun rights. He was obviously trying to diffuse the situation (ex: asking about your gun) but you were being blatantly disrespectful, not to mention twitchy as all get-out, and I would bet money that you were detained for your attitude and demeanor more than the gun. Cops profile like none other, and when you approach one yelling about your weapon it is obviously going to raise red flags.

Also, as a soldier, I find your comment on the purple heart extremely disrespectful. Men who receive the purple heart do so after committing an act of heroism, and until you can find your name among their ranks, keep your mouth shut. Otherwise I'm just four hours away - I'd be happy to shut it for you.

--Moderator statement--
We do NOT threaten or conduct ourselves in this manner on OCDO - such conduct will draw sanctions up to and including banning.

SoldierForFreedom said:

Not to chime in at the last bell, but I know Sgt. Meilicke (the one who sat down and waiting with the detainee), him being my cousin, and he is very receptive to gun rights. He was obviously trying to diffuse the situation (ex: asking about your gun) but you were being blatantly disrespectful, not to mention twitchy as all get-out, and I would bet money that you were detained for your attitude and demeanor more than the gun. Cops profile like none other, and when you approach one yelling about your weapon it is obviously going to raise red flags.

Also, as a soldier, I find your comment on the purple heart extremely disrespectful. Men who receive the purple heart do so after committing an act of heroism, and until you can find your name among their ranks, keep your mouth shut. Otherwise I'm just four hours away - I'd be happy to shut it for you.

Click to expand...

1) Attitude and demeanor, while lawfully conducting ones self is not RAS for an unlawful detention. However, where is this attitude you mention? Do you mean because he had the audacity to walk into a public building while fully in compliance with the law? Or perhaps you mean because of his age and tha the acts like someone of his age? This is america and we have the right to walk about freely, secure from unreasonable searches and siezures. Considering the police didn't even know the law and siezed him, that would be UNREASONABLE. "Twitchy"....ahhh right....being nervous is now "twitchy"....so is that supposed to make us buy the "the cops were scared" BS line? Or that they thought he might be about to do something illegal?

2) As a retired Marine, I find it sad that a soldier doesn't understand the significance of the Purple Heart. Not to minimize the fact that one has suffered injury for our country but you don't get the Heart for committing an act of heroism...you get it for not ducking, being in the wrong place, etc. The Bronze Star, Silver Star, Navy Cross, CMH, etc. are for heroism, not the Purple Heart. A soldier should know that.

3) Threats are not acceptable here on OCDO, nor do they reflect well upon the U.S. Military to which you have claimed being active duty status.

I see that you have only been here a few days and only have a few posts. Relax, read the forum rules, and realize that anyone who open carries does have an "attitude"....one of defending our rights and education. We also don't take kindly to posts that say the "correct course of action" would be to kill a group of protestors exercising their first amendment rights as I've read in another of your posts.

To be honest, you sound a little like a troll, a little like an agent provacateur, and a little "twitchy".

I apologize to the moderator, it will not happen again.

We-the-people, with respect, I find your comments inflammitory. First, I did not defend the officers actions or comment towards the lawfulness of the detainment. Had I done that, I would have been baseless. My comment was directed only towards that which I know; e.g. police reactions (or, rather, overreactions) and the consequences of making yourself a target. You're right, one's demeanor and how they act is not juris prudence in any criminal arrest, however courts and attourneys all over America routinely use them to set up something called "reasonable suspicion". Reasonable suspician, as you may know, is cause for a stop and frisk - otherwise known as a detention. And while I will not argue that the scope of that search is unreasonably broad in this case, it was a search no less. So while I am not agreeing with the officers decison, I can *somewhat* see where they are coming from. And if you would relax your tone, I would be more than happy to debate the above statement with you.

To pay homage to your other comments, I admit I digress. My comment about the protestors was built out of anger, something that I believe we can all relate to in context. And while that does not excuse it, I find it hard to believe that a former Marine would allow a civilian to make such a comment about the purple heart - irregardless of your feelings towards the award in itself - in sound thought. Yes, many who have recieved the designation did so because they were unlucky enough to get hit but lucky enough to survive, but many more were awarded the medal because they were wounded and still performed their duty. I would challenge both of you in saying that there is not an act more American that pushing through pain and fear to achieve your mission. It would behoov anyone to think on the margins in matters of this nature.

While I respect a former Marine, I feel some of your comments are out of line. Not to mention I will need elaboration on the definition of an "agent provocateur". Outside that, I respect your views.

p.s., What did the "troll" comment come from?

We-the-People said:

2) As a retired Marine, I find it sad that a soldier doesn't understand the significance of the Purple Heart. Not to minimize the fact that one has suffered injury for our country but you don't get the Heart for committing an act of heroism...you get it for not ducking, being in the wrong place, etc. The Bronze Star, Silver Star, Navy Cross, CMH, etc. are for heroism, not the Purple Heart. A soldier should know that.

Click to expand...

your statement here DOES minimize the fact .....

" you get it for not ducking, being in the wrong place, etc."

this is one of the most blatantly inflammatory things that i have ever read..... you can receive the purple heart for one reason ONLY ..."for wounds received in action against the enemy". your statement pisses on those who have bled for us and done so in the face of aggression. we know each other pretty well here WTP, and in person too, and while i respect your right to say and feel as you wish, i just want you to know that i think you crossed a HUGE line here. i am disappointed.