capitol police try baiting oc'rs

Capitol police tried to bait several people into oc at the capitol this morning. They were trying to tell us open carry was legal in the building today without a permit. Someone has audio. Should post tonight...

Figures the cops would do something like that. They were going to try to get someone to break the law. so they could make an example of them.

Police lying. They would never do that!

I didn't actually hear it but couldn't they possibly just be misinformed? You know, like most cops?

Im thinking misinformed is more the situation...granted, they can lie...BUT can the tell or suggest an individuial to actually break the law?

^^Are you saying that 99% of cops are good guys and misinformed? Guess it's possible.

Unfortunatly, it has become quite apparent that to expect an officer of the law to actually know the laws they are charged to enforce is unreasonable.

Hmmmmmm.

I knew it was a trap! Lol

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

My first instinct is to say the Capitol Police just don't know. For the police to suggest that you can do something legally, only to arrest or cite you because it is not legal, sounds like entrapment. That would be like a cop saying, "Hey, those apples on the cart are free for the taking", then charging you with theft if you took one. That's a no-no. Yes, the police can lie, but they cannot entrap.

There's been plenty of confusion over the past couple of days over open carry in state buildings, thanks to poorly-worded articles in the press. I've been pretty well-acquainted with a couple of the capitol cops and they've been decent pro-gun guys. I don't know all of them however.

GlockRDH said:

Im thinking misinformed is more the situation...granted, they can lie...BUT can the tell or suggest an individuial to actually break the law?

Click to expand...

Sure they can, but it would be considered ENTRAPMENT once it was proved that they did it.

JoeSparky said:

Sure they can, but it would be considered ENTRAPMENT once it was proved that they did it.

Click to expand...

Only if we were charged.

After turning in our applications in J.B. Van Hollen’s, several of us were hanging out in center of the ground floor. Charles Atlas was talking to a Capital Police officer, then later came over to me and said that the officer said that we could Open Carry in the Capitol starting on Nov. 1. We went back over the that officer and I challenged him saying that 941.235 prohibits firearms in a public building and Act 35 only amended that to allow licensees to carry and we just handed in our applications and have not received our CWL’s yet, so no, we cannot Open Carry in the Capitol today. He basically said I can think what I want but he knows. I said that the average gun rights activist knows the laws better than most LEO's. The discussion got deeper and he conceded that the DOJ says its illegal, but the DOA says that it is legal and the DOA has authority over the Capital and Capital Police.

Charles Atlas and I told GlockRDH and others talked about it. I approached the officer again and told him to his face that it is legal for an LEO to lie. That is when he started to squirm. It was obvious to me that he was trying to protect the lie. He started saying that if he was caught in a lie, he could be fired. I laughed rather sarcastically stating that he would NOT get fired.

Charles Atlas, GlockRDH and myself went to Sen. Grothmans office and spoke with Jolene Churchill, who called the Capitol Police Office and she was told that we could Open Carry as long as we did not go into any of the restricted areas like the Capitol Police Office, Supreme Courts chambers, and legislators offices that are posted.

The consensus amongst us was that the Cap. Police were trying to bait us(entrap us) inot open carry into the Capital that would be in violation of State Statute and use this situation to pressure DOA into posting the entire building.

The audio recording will tell a lot that Mlutz mentioned. I was joking and pulled out my audio recorder to get the officer on record, but then I showed in that it was not on. Later, he asked if I was recording and I showed him I was not saying that it goes on when I am armed and I am not armed. I am glad someone else had their audio recorder on.

i have the audio on my computer...trying to figure out how to pull the short segment out of the entire file...

Interesting situation. The following was added to 941.235 by Act35.

941.235 (2) (e) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(d), or an out−of−state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1)
(g) "

Unless specifically posted it appears 941.235 no longer applies to those licensed to conceal carry.


This excert from 175.60(2) adds even more interest.


(c) Unless expressly provided in this section, this section
does not limit an individual’s right to carry a firearm
that is not concealed.

Does the combination of the two quotes mean: Does 941.235(2)(e) imply that a license to carry allows all those with a CCW license the privilege to carry in all public buildings(unless specifically prohibited by statute or posted). Does that license also apply to open carry by those licensed individuals. Does(c) above imply that 941.235 still applies to open carry because 175.60 is specific to concealed carry.

I have to keep reminding myself that Act 35 was drafted by lawyers.

GlockRDH said:

i have the audio on my computer...trying to figure out how to pull the short segment out of the entire file...

Click to expand...

If you are going to be at Lizzy's tonight, I have my netbook with me, so I can get that information off for you.

I was also told in person that it was now ok to open carry in the Capitol building. It was from an CLEO sitting behind the counter near the main rotunda. He seemed to actually believe what he was saying.. I mentioned it to Paul who confirmed (to me) that he was wrong. As I was on my way out and not planning on carrying in the building I just left it at that.

Outdoorsman1

If i get my little card in the mail today, i may just OC into 'our house'...will i be subject to request for permit/id from LEOs? OR will be it just like on a public sidewalk where they really cant ask?

GlockRDH said:

If i get my little card in the mail today, i may just OC into 'our house'...will i be subject to request for permit/id from LEOs? OR will be it just like on a public sidewalk where they really cant ask?

Click to expand...

You gave up a bit of your Fourth Amendment Rights with your CWL.

175.60(2g)(c) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carrying
a concealed weapon in a manner described under s.
941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed
weapon shall display his or her license document and
photographic identification card and an out−of−state
licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display
his or her out−of−state license and photographic
identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the
request of the law enforcement officer while the law
enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and
with lawful authority.

Otherwise, without a CWL/concealing you are covered by 968.24 which requires RAS for a non-consensual 'conversation'.

GlockRDH said:

If i get my little card in the mail today, i may just OC into 'our house'...will i be subject to request for permit/id from LEOs? OR will be it just like on a public sidewalk where they really cant ask?

Click to expand...

I assume by "our house" you mean the capitol building. While OC, a demand for your license in the capitol would be made with lawful authority so you are compelled to produce it. It has lawful authority because you may not OC without the license in the capitol. Public sidewalk, and not in a school zone, the request is just that; a request. My opinion, IANAL and all that.

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.