First open carry encounter

Tucker6900 · Sep 20, 2011

GeoffD said:
While attempting to shop at Wal Mart on SE14th St In Des Moines with my son, I was approached by the people greeter....

I expect you all to do what you do best: analyze, critique, and offer your opinions as to how I handled this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtax70FA0M

Fine job on the encounter. The officer was only right about one thing and that was the fact that you need to show your permit. He was wrong about everything else. The officer does not have the right to refuse you entry into the store. That is up to the store manager. And from the audio it sounded to me like he was ok with it.

Badger Johnson · Sep 20, 2011

Tucker6900 said:
Incorrect

A permit is required to open or conceal carry in Iowa.

You also MUST show, on demand of an officer, your permit to carry a firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Iowa

According to your quote, which you have incorrectly highlighted, you do not have to show your permit unless you are carrying AND driving a vehicle AND the officer asks to see it. It is not on the 'must disclose' list, that I could find which includes Michigan, NC, and a couple others.

You highlighted the part about the 'whether or not' but omitted the end which was 'commits aggravated assault', and then 'exemptions' which was having a permit.

These laws are tricky to read and excerpt, so unless -I- misread it you do not have to disclose on foot. Perhaps if you're printing and an Iowa LEO sees it he can ask. If you're not carrying at ALL, and asked if you have a permit, or asked to show it, you do not have to show in Iowa. (In virginia there's a $100 fine if you leave your permit at home or something and you're asked driving for it (but do not have to volunteer).)

Tucker6900 · Sep 20, 2011

Badger Johnson said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Iowa

According to your quote, which you have incorrectly highlighted, you do not have to show your permit unless you are carrying AND driving a vehicle AND the officer asks to see it. It is not on the 'must disclose' list, that I could find which includes Michigan, NC, and a couple others.

You highlighted the part about the 'whether or not' but omitted the end which was 'commits aggravated assault', and then 'exemptions' which was having a permit.

These laws are tricky to read and excerpt, so unless -I- misread it you do not have to disclose on foot. Perhaps if you're printing and an Iowa LEO sees it he can ask. If you're not carrying at ALL, and asked if you have a permit, or asked to show it, you do not have to show in Iowa. (In virginia there's a $100 fine if you leave your permit at home or something and you're asked driving for it (but do not have to volunteer).)

I think the point I was trying to get across is that if an officer knows your carrying, either by discloser or open carry, you are required to show your permit when asked.

Gunslinger · Sep 20, 2011

GeoffD said:
While attempting to shop at Wal Mart on SE14th St In Des Moines with my son, I was approached by the people greeter....

I expect you all to do what you do best: analyze, critique, and offer your opinions as to how I handled this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtax70FA0M

He has been a cop for 24 years. And a moron for far longer. Another room temperature IQ cop who knows nothing about the law, probably is semi-literate anyway, but wants to throw his weight around when dealing with a 'subject.' Well, you are not a subject. Follow up with a complaint to the department and Wal-Mart corporate. As to his taking your gun and permit away on his own whim, I don't think they suspended the 4th Amendment in IA.

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 20, 2011

724.4 CARRYING WEAPONS.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
...
4. Subsections 1 through 3 do not apply to any of the following:
.....
724.4. 4. i. A person who has in the person's possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the limits of that permit.....

724.5 DUTY TO CARRY PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph "i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple misdemeanor.

From the reading of the Iowa Code, it would appear that one must carry and present 100% of the time if concealed, AND must carry and present whenever within the city limits of any city whether concealed or openly carrying. Unless I was very sure of where each and every city limit was, I'd probably carry a permit at all times.

That's a bit stricter than even my home state of Georgia, where one must carry a weapons license for both open or concealed carry, unless it's a longarm. (Oddly enough, rifles with barrels <18 inches aren't even listed as longarms, so a 16" carbine in completely unregulated except for in specified areas, (silly legislators).

amaixner · Sep 21, 2011

This is because even before we fixed the permit issuance law last year, it was already legal to open carry in unincorporated ares without a permit, and remains so. The only thin I find interesting is that one section requires an officer to "demand" a permit, and the other requires them to "request" it. Legally there may not be an actual distinction between the two words?

Fallschirmjäger said:
724.4 CARRYING WEAPONS.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
...
4. Subsections 1 through 3 do not apply to any of the following:
.....
724.4. 4. i. A person who has in the person's possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the limits of that permit.....

724.5 DUTY TO CARRY PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph "i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple misdemeanor.

From the reading of the Iowa Code, it would appear that one must carry and present 100% of the time if concealed, AND must carry and present whenever within the city limits of any city whether concealed or openly carrying. Unless I was very sure of where each and every city limit was, I'd probably carry a permit at all times.

That's a bit stricter than even my home state of Georgia, where one must carry a weapons license for both open or concealed carry, unless it's a longarm. (Oddly enough, rifles with barrels <18 inches aren't even listed as longarms, so a 16" carbine in completely unregulated except for in specified areas, (silly legislators).

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 21, 2011

amaixner said:
This is because even before we fixed the permit issuance law last year, it was already legal to open carry in unincorporated ares without a permit, and remains so. The only thing I find interesting is that one section requires an officer to "demand" a permit, and the other allows them to "request" it. Legally there may not be an actual distinction between the two words?

I dunno... what do you think is the difference between an officer requesting that you come home with him, spread chocolate sauce all over your bodies and rubbing penises together... and having the authority to demand that you do it?

What's the difference between two licenses, one saying "the licensee may conceal" and the other demanding that "the licensee shall conceal"?

What's the difference between your child asking "May I have another cookie?" and demanding "Give me another cookie, NOW!"?

I'd say there was one heck of a distinction.

GeoffD · Sep 21, 2011

Update:

Complaint submitted to Office of Professional Standards....should hear back tomorrow afternoon from Mr Friendlys supervisor.

amaixner · Sep 21, 2011

Fallschirmjäger said:
I dunno... what do you think is the difference between an officer requesting that you come home with him, spread chocolate sauce all over your bodies and rubbing penises together... and having the authority to demand that you do it?

What's the difference between two licenses, one saying "the licensee may conceal" and the other demanding that "the licensee shall conceal"?

What's the difference between your child asking "May I have another cookie?" and demanding "Give me another cookie, NOW!"?

I'd say there was one heck of a distinction.

I think you are being a disingenuous. There are words that mean specific things in the law. An officer "requesting" something that the law says shall be presented to him upon his "request" is a little different from your hot gay sex proposition scenario (which is probably inappropriate here). My comment is on why they used different words that effectively amount to "we must hand over permit if officer says hand over permit."

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 21, 2011

I'm not being disingenuous at all. As you said, there are words that mean specific things in the law and the words "shall", "must", "may" and "demand" are all well defined. What do you suppose is the difference between a "Shall Issue" state license and a "May Issue" one?

You have the right to demand the Assistance of Counsel for defense guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment; are you even entertaining that such right is going to be interpreted as a "request" that can be denied?
Words have meanings

My use of an extreme example was to vividly illustrate the difference between what an officer may request, (and I don't see any argument that an officer couldn't request anything I mentioned.) and what an officer may demand by virtue of the authority granted by the state. An officer could request you tell him the color of your favorite shirt, that does NOT mean he has the authority to demand that you answer.

It's not a case of two words that amount to the same meaning; it's a case of two different phrases meaning two different things,... something well supported by definition and the use of those same words in society.

If you can come up with a citation in law which demands something must be done upon request and I'll apologize, but I think you'll be looking long and hard.

[edit:] To make your search easier, I'll point you in the right direction. Here's a link to 40-3-103 in the Montana code which you may find of interest.

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 21, 2011

Let's use a simple illustration.
Let us suppose that you're driving a licensed vehicle upon public roads in the state of Iowa and are pulled over for a minor traffic infraction.
May the officer request your license?
May the officer demand your license?
Does he have the authority under state law to gain your compliance?

May the officer request that you paint your car pink with purple polka dots?
May the officer demand that you paint your car pink with purple polka dots?
Does he have the authority under state law to gain your compliance?

Words mean things.

amaixner · Sep 21, 2011

Fallschirmjäger said:
If you can come up with a citation in law which demands something must be done upon request and I'll apologize, but I think you'll be looking long and hard.

Sure, I can do that, no need to apologize. The word "shall" in law means the same as "must," as you pointed out above in reference to "shall issue." The code we are discussing, as far as I can tell, has an action with must be done when a request is made, upon pain of a misdemeanor charge for failure to do so:

A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph "i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple misdemeanor.

If anyone is saying that the two code sections mean different things, not in slight words but in the effect of what we are commanded to do, I am interested in knowing what I may be missing.

Fallschirjmäger · Sep 21, 2011

I don't think you're missing anything, and I gladly concede the point that you made. That's what I get for trying to make one point and winding up asking about another, lol.

And, looking back, I think I see where I made the original misunderstanding as to "demand" and "request". As the officer has the authority of the state, in this case 'request' (724.5) would indeed equate to 'demand' (724.4.4.i) as the word 'shall' negates non-compliance. After all, you can't really be expected to deny that a robbery has occurred if a thug requests "May I have all your money?" with a pistol pointed at your head.

It may be phrased politely but a 'request' is still a demand when it has the authority of force behind it, which was the point I was trying to get across in post #27 and #31. One request has the authority of the law, the other does not.

As a parent, if I were to ask my child, "May I see what you have hidden behind your back?" it's not really any different from "Show me what you have hidden behind your back", is it?

GeoffD · Sep 22, 2011

Just got off the phone with the director for Internal Investigations. He made it clear that I was not in the wrong in any way based upon the officers and my sides of the story. He informed me that I was the first case that had been brought to their attention with regard to this issue. He assured me that more training would be rolled out for all officers and detectives on how to handle situations like this in the future.

As far as the officer being able to sieze my sidearm and permit...their position is that the officer can do whatever he wants, but not with impunity after the fact. The officer has authority to make me leave private property, given the private property owners request. In my case, it was clear that the employee of Wal Mart was concerned at first, but when assured by a member of management that there was no problem with it, I was good to go as far as Wal Mart was concerned. The problem was the offcer trying to impose his personal views and opinions on the matter and when met by someone who for the first time was not intimidated by his authority, decided to make me leave on HIS behalf, probably knowing that Wal Mart would back him up if need be (I'm the law and I know what's best for you and your store).

I was informed that this should no longer be an issue for me anymore (yeah right!) and told me that if I have any issues in the future to give him a call. So now, if I have any bullies of the law harass me, I'll just have them give my ace in the hole a call to set them straight!

amaixner · Sep 22, 2011

Sounds like a fairly good resolution, let's see how it holds up.

Saber379 · Sep 22, 2011

GeoffD said:
Just got off the phone with the director for Internal Investigations. He made it clear that I was not in the wrong in any way based upon the officers and my sides of the story. He informed me that I was the first case that had been brought to their attention with regard to this issue. He assured me that more training would be rolled out for all officers and detectives on how to handle situations like this in the future.

As far as the officer being able to sieze my sidearm and permit...their position is that the officer can do whatever he wants, but not with impunity after the fact. The officer has authority to make me leave private property, given the private property owners request. In my case, it was clear that the employee of Wal Mart was concerned at first, but when assured by a member of management that there was no problem with it, I was good to go as far as Wal Mart was concerned. The problem was the offcer trying to impose his personal views and opinions on the matter and when met by someone who for the first time was not intimidated by his authority, decided to make me leave on HIS behalf, probably knowing that Wal Mart would back him up if need be (I'm the law and I know what's best for you and your store).

I was informed that this should no longer be an issue for me anymore (yeah right!) and told me that if I have any issues in the future to give him a call. So now, if I have any bullies of the law harass me, I'll just have them give my ace in the hole a call to set them straight!

This is awsome. :banana:

Gunslinger · Sep 23, 2011

Very good resolution. Kudos for your follow up.

Tallinar · Sep 23, 2011

Thanks for the follow up Geoff. As one who also lives in the Des Moines area, I appreciate you bringing the issue to the authorities.

GeoffD · Sep 23, 2011

It sure would be nice if I wasn't the only one....

amaixner · Sep 24, 2011

GeoffD said:
It sure would be nice if I wasn't the only one....

Well, ideally, you will be the only one harassed. I haven't been harassed at all, and consider that a good thing!

First open carry encounter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active member

Active member

Regular Member

Active member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member