Video of OCer stopped by officer

http://www.liveleak.com//view?i=589_1345502474

Thoughts on this incident?

"I think it is a full auto. I need to do function check of it." derpy derp. "I THINK looks like a semi-auto now."

They make a full auto Glock too. So now because there is a full auto version that is RAS for a stop and check? I don't think so!


So how do you know if it is full auto short of pulling the trigger and laying down lead?

"Just to let you know, I don't consent to any seizures."
"I'm not seizing anything", as the officer removes the firearm from the individual without permission and without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

"Due to my proffesional experience, I have determined that this is not an automatic firearm." (After racking the slide.)

Wouldn't someone with such "professional experience" know that observing the presence of a select fire switch would suffice?

Probably one of the most polite violations of civil rights I have seen. However, like the guy said, the officer had no RAS or PC for the detainment. And I believe there is case law stating that an anonymous tip does not give an officer either of the aforementioned rights.

Other than the violations, the officer was professional, did not threaten the individual, and the stop was minimal. This could have been avoided if the officer would have just inspected the weapon without touching it.

Superlite27 said:

Wouldn't someone with such "professional experience" know that observing the presence of a select fire switch would suffice?

Click to expand...

Of course, because even DIY full auto has a prominent selector switch clearly marked as semi and full auto.

If you do the proper research then you can find plans to turn any semi auto full auto. After that all you have to do is machine the parts. If I was going to carry around an illegal full auto, I would naturally make the full auto prominent somewhere on the firearm.

Also, you can buy AR lowers with the three selections clearly marked as safe, semi, and full. That does not make it a machine gun or an assault rifle.

In short, the only way to see if a firearm is in fact capable of full auto is to do a function check.

Any gun person should know by now that esthetics changes nothing about the action of the firearm. A forward and rear pistol grip, a large detachable box, and a flash hinderer are all common on assault rifles, these to do not make something capable of full auto.

Now what if during his function check the gun went off because he thought he knew the gun but didn't?

Uber_Olafsun said:

Now what if during his function check the gun went off because he thought he knew the gun but didn't?

Click to expand...

That is always a possibility with a firearm. That is why you always point it in a safe direction. As long as no one was hurt, I don't feel that he would have been any different than the average citizen having an accidental discharge.

Tucker6900 said:

Probably one of the most polite violations of civil rights I have seen. However, like the guy said, the officer had no RAS or PC for the detainment. And I believe there is case law stating that an anonymous tip does not give an officer either of the aforementioned rights.

Click to expand...

The PO made it pretty clear he did have RAS and that the gentleman with the MP5 was being detained. Whether that was justifiable RAS would be a matter for a lawyer to interpret.

Once the PO satisfied himself that the firearm was semi-automatic, he stated clearly he no longer had RAS, returned the firearm, and ended the encounter.

I see no issues with this and no violation of civil rights. The RAS wasn't established because of an anonymous tip. RAS was established because the gentleman was carrying a firearm that appeared to be a fully automatic weapon at face value, which requires a tax stamp. The officer also implied that had the firearm been fully automatic, his next course of action would have been to ask for ID and the carrier's tax stamp.

Again, I have no issue with this.

So what if the officer had said "I think this is stolen." Would that make a difference in your opinions? What about "I think you are a felon."

NoTolerance said:

The PO made it pretty clear he did have RAS and that the gentleman with the MP5 was being detained. Whether that was justifiable RAS would be a matter for a lawyer to interpret.

Once the PO satisfied himself that the firearm was semi-automatic, he stated clearly he no longer had RAS, returned the firearm, and ended the encounter.

I see no issues with this and no violation of civil rights. The RAS wasn't established because of an anonymous tip. RAS was established because the gentleman was carrying a firearm that appeared to be a fully automatic weapon at face value, which requires a tax stamp. The officer also implied that had the firearm been fully automatic, his next course of action would have been to ask for ID and the carrier's tax stamp.

Again, I have no issue with this.

Click to expand...

Your car appears to be a fast car, I need to check your DL and engine to make sure you don't have to much power.

You might have said something illegal like you where going to threaten the prez, I need to record everything you say.

You might be a thief I need to check all the items in your house to see if their stolen.

You might be a felon I need to run your information to see if your wanted.

A lot of what if's, the only thing that was certain is the only RAS was he wanted to harrass the person.

NoTolerance said:

The PO made it pretty clear he did have RAS and that the gentleman with the MP5 was being detained. Whether that was justifiable RAS would be a matter for a lawyer to interpret.

Once the PO satisfied himself that the firearm was semi-automatic, he stated clearly he no longer had RAS, returned the firearm, and ended the encounter.

I see no issues with this and no violation of civil rights. The RAS wasn't established because of an anonymous tip. RAS was established because the gentleman was carrying a firearm that appeared to be a fully automatic weapon at face value, which requires a tax stamp. The officer also implied that had the firearm been fully automatic, his next course of action would have been to ask for ID and the carrier's tax stamp.

Again, I have no issue with this.

Click to expand...

I don't care who you are.....this was down right high-larry-ous!!!!

moonie said:

So what if the officer had said "I think this is stolen." Would that make a difference in your opinions? What about "I think you are a felon."

Click to expand...

DocWalker said:

Your car appears to be a fast car, I need to check your DL and engine to make sure you don't have to much power.

You might have said something illegal like you where going to threaten the prez, I need to record everything you say.

You might be a thief I need to check all the items in your house to see if their stolen.

You might be a felon I need to run your information to see if your wanted.

A lot of what if's, the only thing that was certain is the only RAS was he wanted to harrass the person.

Click to expand...

You people certainly love your straw man arguments, don't you?

What you took away from the cop's attitude, demeanor, and the way he handled that entire encounter was that he wanted to harass someone? Really??

Was it reasonable to suspect the firearm might be fully automatic based on its appearance?
Was that suspicion articulable?

Oh, I'm sorry. I forget that all police are the devil and are out to destroy us and take away our rights and piss on the Constitution, and as such, are always wrong.

Huh. I guess I can see why straw man arguments are so fun!

NoTolerance said:

SNIP
Was it reasonable to suspect the firearm might be fully automatic based on its appearance?
Was that suspicion articulable?

SNIP

Click to expand...

You missed the point people are trying to make. Perhaps if it's stated more clearly...

A fully automatic firearm is NOT illegal at face value(in most states). Unless the officer had reason to believe it was an UNREGISTERED fully automatic weapon then he has NO RAS. Perhaps now you can see why people used the "stolen firearm" analogy, among others, to make a point.

NoTolerance said:

You people certainly love your straw man arguments, don't you?

What you took away from the cop's attitude, demeanor, and the way he handled that entire encounter was that he wanted to harass someone? Really??

Was it reasonable to suspect the firearm might be fully automatic based on its appearance?
Was that suspicion articulable?

Oh, I'm sorry. I forget that all police are the devil and are out to destroy us and take away our rights and piss on the Constitution, and as such, are always wrong.

Huh. I guess I can see why straw man arguments are so fun!

Click to expand...

I never said all cops are the devil, I worked with a lot of great cops and know a bunch.

You can harass someone and be polite about it as this cop did.

The main thing is he SHOULD NOT have even stopped him, he could have OBSERVED the guy.

If the man was black is that a reason to stop someone? Just because of his appearance.

One could argue anything looks like it might be a full auto just to stop someone but it doesn't make it right. But I guess you believe that anyone with a gun is guilty until proven innocent.

Sorry but appearance doesn't give RAS.

georg jetson said:

You missed the point people are trying to make. Perhaps if it's stated more clearly...

A fully automatic firearm is NOT illegal at face value(in most states). Unless the officer had reason to believe it was an UNREGISTERED fully automatic weapon then he has NO RAS. Perhaps now you can see why people used the "stolen firearm" analogy, among others, to make a point.

Click to expand...

And apparently you missed the part in the video where the cop states exactly that. He had reason to suspect it may be fully automatic and, if it was, would be asking for ID and a tax stamp as a result. Since he cannot ask for ID prior to establishing whether or not the firearm is full auto, he inspected the firearm first and then didn't pursue it further.

The stolen property, car, and the rest of the nonsense analogies provided do not apply. A more appropriate analogy might be something like: There's an ordinance against the public consumption of alcohol. Someone walks out of the liquor store with a bottle of soda in brown paper bag and consumes it from the bag. Is there anything illegal about that? No. However, would a cop have RAS to inspect the content of the bag to verify the beverage did not contain alcohol? Most likely, yes.

DocWalker said:

I never said all cops are the devil, I worked with a lot of great cops and know a bunch.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's how straw man arguments work.

DocWalker said:

You can harass someone and be polite about it as this cop did.

The main thing is he SHOULD NOT have even stopped him, he could have OBSERVED the guy.

Click to expand...

Observed what? He observed that he was carrying an MP5 on his back and had reason to believe that it might be a fully automatic firearm. If it was, and the carrier didn't have the proper credentials, that's a crime.

DocWalker said:

If the man was black is that a reason to stop someone? Just because of his appearance.

Click to expand...

Never said that or implied it. Straw man again.

DocWalker said:

One could argue anything looks like it might be a full auto just to stop someone but it doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

I suppose one could. However, would one be reasonable to do so?

DocWalker said:

But I guess you believe that anyone with a gun is guilty until proven innocent.

Click to expand...

Not only straw man, but an egregious claim. Is there anything in my arguments thus far that seem troll-like to you? I'm an active member here because I own and carry guns. By your assertion, I consider myself guilty until proven innocent? C'mon.

DocWalker said:

Sorry but appearance doesn't give RAS.

Click to expand...

I'm betting the courts would strongly disagree with you. I would say appearance is a primary factor in any RAS.

NoTolerance said:

And apparently you missed the part in the video where the cop states exactly that. He had reason to suspect it may be fully automatic and, if it was, would be asking for ID and a tax stamp as a result. Since he cannot ask for ID prior to establishing whether or not the firearm is full auto, he inspected the firearm first and then didn't pursue it further.

.

Click to expand...

Even I it was full auto was was the RAS that the carrier does not have the tax stamp?

Uber_Olafsun said:

Even I it was full auto was was the RAS that the carrier does not have the tax stamp?

Click to expand...

I don't know what the laws are in that state (not even sure what state it was, to be honest), but here in WI, I have to produce my ID and CCL permit to a cop if asked. So if my IWB PPD becomes exposed and a cop sees it, what is his RAS that I don't have my CCL?

NoTolerance said:

And apparently you missed the part in the video where the cop states exactly that. He had reason to suspect it may be fully automatic and, if it was, would be asking for ID and a tax stamp as a result. Since he cannot ask for ID prior to establishing whether or not the firearm is full auto, he inspected the firearm first and then didn't pursue it further.

The stolen property, car, and the rest of the nonsense analogies provided do not apply. A more appropriate analogy might be something like: There's an ordinance against the public consumption of alcohol. Someone walks out of the liquor store with a bottle of soda in brown paper bag and consumes it from the bag. Is there anything illegal about that? No. However, would a cop have RAS to inspect the content of the bag to verify the beverage did not contain alcohol? Most likely, yes.



Yep, that's how straw man arguments work.



Observed what? He observed that he was carrying an MP5 on his back and had reason to believe that it might be a fully automatic firearm. If it was, and the carrier didn't have the proper credentials, that's a crime.



Never said that or implied it. Straw man again.



I suppose one could. However, would one be reasonable to do so?



Not only straw man, but an egregious claim. Is there anything in my arguments thus far that seem troll-like to you? I'm an active member here because I own and carry guns. By your assertion, I consider myself guilty until proven innocent? C'mon.



I'm betting the courts would strongly disagree with you. I would say appearance is a primary factor in any RAS.

Click to expand...

So according to your argument a cop can stop anyone carrying a gun to see if it is stolen, they can stop any car to see if it is stolen, they can stop anyone for any reason.

NOT A STAWMAN AS YOU SAY.

Just because someone has a weapon that could be something doesn't give RAS. Your argument pretty much says a cop can stop anyone for any reason and make up a reason for the stop and be completly fine. I disagree just because something could be something doesn't mean it is.

Everyone OCing could be a felon so they should be detained and checked with your logic.

georg jetson said:

You missed the point people are trying to make. Perhaps if it's stated more clearly...

A fully automatic firearm is NOT illegal at face value(in most states). Unless the officer had reason to believe it was an UNREGISTERED fully automatic weapon then he has NO RAS. Perhaps now you can see why people used the "stolen firearm" analogy, among others, to make a point.

Click to expand...

A full auto firearm is illegal in every state. The only way possession is not illegal is if the firearm is registered with the federal government and you have paid a tax and everything was approved by the BATFE. Some states also have their own laws concerning automatic weapons, and some have their own registration. If an officer knows you are in possession of a fully automatic firearm he does have RAS to suspect a crime is being committed. Your defense against this is having copies of your registration with the weapon, and if you don't you might end up in a jail cell until you can show documentation that the firearm is legally possessed.

Known possession of an NFA item does give an LEO RAS to conduct an investigation.