gbrown wrote:
a friend of mine said he was against open carry ( he is an officer ). he said that it would consume so much time as each time he encountered an open carry he would have to check and ask for a license..any comments..how would that work in the law enforcement field...
If he is working in a jurisdiction where OC is legal, he is, most likely, under NO legal obligation to stop EVERY person he sees OCing. As far as I know, in states where OC is legal, there is no statutory requirement for an LEO to perform a 'Terry Stop" every time they see an OCer, and in fact, there is a mountain of Case Law that has ruled that such stops are unwarranted, un-Constitutional, and unnecessary for the purpose of "maintaining civil peace and officer safety".
So in fact, if more people OC'd, it shouldn't make his job ANY more difficult at all--any more than more people installing refrigerators (which would require them to purchase and transport coils of copper tubing), or planting a large garden and using a modern tractor (which would require them to purchase and transport fertilizer and diesel fuel).
Just because an otherwise legal, innocuous activity is performed in the presence of an officer and just because that same activity, on rare occasions, is performed during the commission of a crime, does NOT make that activity a reasonable determinant to assume a crime HAS been committed. Your friends logic is seriously flawed, and his understanding of the dynamics of RAS and Probable Cause are dangerously incorrect.
Does he stop every single car he sees coming out of the parking lot of a restaurant that serves alcohol, to give the driver a breathalizer and do a field sobriety check?
Does he stop every person on a bicycle with a backpack and do a full search of their possessions to make sure they aren't actually a drug courier?
Does he stop every person coming out of a bank in the winter who is wearing a scarf around their neck, just to make sure they aren't a bank robber?
Does he search the home and property of everyone who is coming out of a hardware store with a coil of copper tubing, to make sure they are not running moonshine?
Does he stop every truck pulling out of a farm-supply store with a few bags of fertilizer just to make sure they aren't plotting to blow up some building in a domestic terrorist plot"?
Of course not--on ALL the above. Just because someone is performing an perfectly legal activity that
occasionally occurs during the commission of a crime, does NOT give probable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed...
Nest time this topic comes up with this "friend" of yours, ask him if he has ever personally, or can document any other officer in his department as having EVER apprehended a felon or wanted person as the result of a stop prompted by the sighting of a properly-holstered OC incident. I would bt dollars to donuts that the answer is, after EXTENSIVE research, a resounding NO. And such an answer SHOULD prove to your friend that such stops of OCers are simply useless, as they have a proven track record of ZERO results, and ONLY serve to harass and intimidate the people who are performing a legal activity.
OC is legal in MANY jurisdictions. OC, on it's face, is NOT probably cause for a stop, for a search, or for seizing a firearm. This has been established in MANY court cases, and is backed up by mountains of case law.
If LEO's think they MUST stop everyone they see who is OCing to check "just to make sure they weren't a felon or something", then they need to do the same for people who go to restaurants that serve alcohol, or people who buy copper tubing or fertilizer, or people who ride bicycles. You see, there is this little thing called the "US Constitution" and it has a little section called the "Bill of Rights", which has an article that guarantees that ALL citizens shall be afforded "equal protection under the law".
Selective enforcement of a law, or using "color of law" to harass people JUST because you don't agree with their otherwise COMPLETELY LEGAL activities is AGAINST THE LAW. In some cases, such harassment by LEO's may be a Federal Civil Rights violation which is a FELONY. Such Federal Civil Rights "color of law" violations also remove any claim to immunity for an LEO against individual prosecution, meaning he will be tried as an INDIVIDUAL, not as the agent of a government agency.
Once police start to realize that they can be held PERSONALLY responsible for violating our civil rights--in a FEDERAL court--and that such violations remove prosecutorial immunity from them, they might start to treat OCers as the law-abiding citizens we are. When LEA's start to understand that encouraging their officers to overstep their legal bounds (JUST to prove the point that they don't like OC) can be a MASSIVE liability for the officers as individuals and for their agencies as a whole, then maybe the attitudes of these agencies will change. But unfortunately its going to take a LOT of "test cases". Luckily, we've had most such cases go our way recently, resulting in substantial payouts to the citizens who were offended, and these awards speak volumes to other agencies, saying "you may be writing a BIG check to someone if you don't follow the law".
I am lucky to live in a state and county where the majority of the LEO's (and their attending LEA's) are VERY pro-gun, and overwhelmingly pro-OC. LEO's im my area tend to actually KNOW and RESPECT the laws of the land, and are generally polite, courteous, and service-oriented. I have had many good experiences with LEOs in my area--asking for directions, inquiring about motor vehicle laws, etc.
But every time I "cross the moat" to visit my stepdaughters in MD, I can literally feel the yoke of oppression tightening around my neck. I wouldn't DARE to ask a cop in MD for driving directions, or about some trivial MVA law, or even for help with a flat tire. The adversarial attitude of these supposed "public servants" in MD is palpable, and as a law abiding citizen who has had a lifetime of favorable relationships with LEO's (and has many friends and relatives who have "worn the badge") I find the policies, procedures, and demeanor of MD LEA's to be one of the USA's great national embarrassments.
This growing attitude of "us vs. Them" among LEAs is a disturbing trend, and the assumption that EVERY person a cop encounters is "guilty until the courts allow their innocence to be declared" is truly frightening, and treading frightfully close to Treasonous in light of the history of our Nations historical policies of jurisprudence and Executive powers.
I would suggest that politely suggest to your "friend" that he read up on Case Law regarding Terry Stops, RAS, and Probably Cause. His current attitude, if allowed to go unchecked, is eventually going to result in costing him and his department a LOT of money...