capitol police try baiting oc'rs

Motofixxer said:

I believe there is a misunderstanding about the RAS in a situation like this. Just because an act is illegal without a permit, does not create RAS to demand a permit. The act is also legal with the permit, so the officer has to have more info than a mere observation or suspicion. This is obviously my opinion but here is a court case that I believe states very clearly.

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."


Think of it like a DL, an officer can't just stop you to see if you have it. There has to be something else going on to give RAS to stop you. Now they could consensually converse with you. But that's a different topic. And you should know how to handle that.

Click to expand...

941.235 prohibits firearms in public buildings, so if you open carry in the Capitol, you would be subject to a misdemeanor arrest, unless you provided your CWL.

Open Carry in the Capitol is PC that a crime has been committed, your defense is your permit.

I disagree, as stated in the aforementioned case. The officer can't glean from observation that a crime has been committed. The act is legal with a permit, illegal without a permit. He has no way of knowing which is the case. He may question you, but has no basis to take it past a consensual observation to establish cause.

To get even more technical and trivial, you don't have to provide any info that can be used against you as clarified in Hoffman vs United States. If you signed your application with that in mind, you didn't forego any rights.

"where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved the court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution."
[Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT.814, 95L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951)]


But again...this is my opinion, and not legal advice.

Motofixxer said:

SNIP I disagree, as stated in the aforementioned case. The officer can't glean from observation that a crime has been committed.

Click to expand...

The federal circuits may be split on this. I recall a case out of (Georgia?) within the last few years of a gun-carrier getting into some sort of trouble. That court ruled that a permit is an affirmative defense. Meaning the presence of the gun created reasonable suspicion for a temporary seizure. I don't recall whether it was a criminal case or civil rights case. Don't recall anymore than I've said here, actually. The thing that stuck in my mind was the ruling went against us and made a permit/license an affirmative defense.

A state case or federal case in the relevant state or federal circuit would be a better authority.

Moto,

Some of us were discussing this same thing before and we thought of it like this:

OC is generally legal for everyone in Wisconsin, therefore an officer shouldn't have RAS to check a license.

OC is generally illegal for everyone in the capitol building, therefore an officer probably has RAS to check CWL.

If you think about it, a lot of situations work out in the same way in that if the act bring performed it's legal for the majority of people (our a very healthy minority) there's no RAS but if it's the opposite, there is.

Virginia Law also requires you give up certain rights to get the CHL. You can be asked to submit to testing at any time, for one thing. (alcohol and stuff).

Badger Johnson said:

Virginia Law also requires you give up certain rights to get the CHL. You can be asked to submit to testing at any time, for one thing. (alcohol and stuff).

Click to expand...

How is Virginia law applicable to the conversation? Thankfully, the only thing we are required to give up is our anonymity by providing our DL and CWL when demanded with lawful authority. The question is when that authority exists.

Brass Magnet said:

How is Virginia law applicable to the conversation? Thankfully, the only thing we are required to give up is our anonymity by providing our DL and CWL when demanded with lawful authority. The question is when that authority exists.

Click to expand...

He was just giving an example in another state. He didn't say it was applicable.

"In other news, the price of tea in China has dropped significantly in the past week."

Badger Johnson said:

Virginia Law also requires you give up certain rights to get the CHL. You can be asked to submit to testing at any time, for one thing. (alcohol and stuff).

Click to expand...

Huh!?! Where is that written? Meaning, where is it written that a Virginia CHP creates an implied consent to testing at anytime for alcohol or drugs? This is news to me.

Citizen said:

Huh!?! Where is that written? Meaning, where is it written that a Virginia CHP creates an implied consent to testing at anytime for alcohol or drugs? This is news to me.

Click to expand...

I am also calling BS. Where are you coming up with this stuff Badger?

I am debating whether or not to go down to Madistan on Monday to watch the hearing on the Emergency Rules and OC in the Capitol.

Go for it, maybe you will create a story.

hey Broken...Ill go with you if you come down...

BROKENSPROKET said:

I am debating whether or not to go down to Madistan on Monday to watch the hearing on the Emergency Rules and OC in the Capitol.

Click to expand...

"The Wisconsin State Assembly Thursday passed a new policy on concealed weapons, allowing for both concealed weapons on the floor, and for members of the public to have concealed guns in the viewing gallery.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the Assembly’s organization committee approved the policy on a party-line vote of 5-3. At the same time, the committee amended the proposed language to disallow any open carrying of weapons such as rifles."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...d-guns-on-the-floor-and-in-public-gallery.php

GlockRDH said:

hey Broken...Ill go with you if you come down...

Click to expand...

That sounds like a plan.

I need to make a retraction. Capitol Police DID NOT attempt to bait us. DOA policy is to allow Open Carry, (although not recommended.) OC in the Capital on Nov. 1, would have been a violation of 941.235, because we did not have licenses yet, they had no intention of doing anything about it. That was demonstrated today when GlockRDH and I open carried in the Capitol on Monday and they had no interest in checking our CWL's. No such request was made or insinuated.

A lady walked up to a Capitol Officer and claimed that our handguns had to be concealed. He responded and she challenged him and he then said, "Lady, if it was illegal, I would have arrested them already." And she walked away.


The long gun matter was a totally seperate and unrelated issue and DOA has prohibited that, making such action a trespass violation of $1,000 state forfieture.

We got a picture of J.B. Van Hollen with GlockRDH OC'ng in the Capitol.

BROKENSPROKET said:

We got a picture of J.B. Van Hollen with GlockRDH OC'ng in the Capitol.

Click to expand...

Now this is a pic I'd like to see.

OCing with Van Hollen.... In the capitol.

"Is this real life?"

BROKENSPROKET said:

I need to make a retraction. Capitol Police DID NOT attempt to bait us. DOA policy is to allow Open Carry, (although not recommended.) OC in the Capital on Nov. 1, would have been a violation of 941.235, because we did not have licenses yet, they had no intention of doing anything about it. That was demonstrated today when GlockRDH and I open carried in the Capitol on Monday and they had no interest in checking our CWL's. No such request was made or insinuated.

A lady walked up to a Capitol Officer and claimed that our handguns had to be concealed. He responded and she challenged him and he then said, "Lady, if it was illegal, I would have arrested them already." And she walked away.

The long gun matter was a totally seperate and unrelated issue and DOA has prohibited that, making such action a trespass violation of $1,000 state forfieture.

We got a picture of J.B. Van Hollen with GlockRDH OC'ng in the Capitol.

Click to expand...

Could it be they are considering this "DOA policy" as being those carrying handguns are authorized by the chief of the capitol police? As provided for in this paragraph:

941.235(2)(a) Peace officers or armed forces or military personnel who go armed in the line of duty or to any person duly authorized by the chief of police of any city, village or town, the chief of the capitol police, or the sheriff of any county to possess a firearm in any building under sub. (1). Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), for purposes of this paragraph, peace officer does not include a commission warden who is not a state-certified commission warden.

BROKENSPROKET said:

I need to make a retraction. Capitol Police DID NOT attempt to bait us. DOA policy is to allow Open Carry, (although not recommended.) OC in the Capital on Nov. 1, would have been a violation of 941.235, because we did not have licenses yet, they had no intention of doing anything about it. That was demonstrated today when GlockRDH and I open carried in the Capitol on Monday and they had no interest in checking our CWL's. No such request was made or insinuated.

A lady walked up to a Capitol Officer and claimed that our handguns had to be concealed. He responded and she challenged him and he then said, "Lady, if it was illegal, I would have arrested them already." And she walked away.


The long gun matter was a totally seperate and unrelated issue and DOA has prohibited that, making such action a trespass violation of $1,000 state forfieture.

We got a picture of J.B. Van Hollen with GlockRDH OC'ng in the Capitol.

Click to expand...

or

Here ya go....cant see my sidearm though...