Help educate a european

[geetarman]

Incidents like this only put the police and public of open carry.

Manta,

Not always. Arizona is a pretty good place to live for a lot of reasons.

I went over to a restaurant to pick up a carry out of chicken and there was a guy in line open carrying a 1911 cocked and locked.

It did not concern me except the fact the guy might not have been the sharpest tool in the shed.

Open carry is permissable but not always the smartest way to carry.

You can invite unwanted attention.

Geetarman

[animal]

Request vs. Order also comes in because of consent.

Say you’ve been drinking and are in a private area… Cop asks you to come out into a public area. If you do it, he can charge you with public drunk. If you reply that you want to stay where you are. The cop has a choice to leave you there, or order you out into public.
If he orders you out, he can’t arrest you for public drunk when you come out. He can arrest you if you refuse to come out and he has "RAS" you’re doing something against the law.

Same thing applies for everything from checking IDs to Cops pretending to be hookers...
Asking someone to incriminate themselves is A-OKAY ! Forcing them is never correct.

Citizens retain all their natural rights in this country, and that includes the right to do something stupid... doesn't remove the natural consequences, though.

[Pahoo]

Legal or not. Right or wrong. In good times and in bad times, this guy is an idiot and spends too much time, in front of a mirror. .....

In Iowa and we do have open carry, you are obligated to show your carry permit upon the request of an LEO. Since the passage of Shall-Issue, I have only see two open carries, one at a gun show and the other that peeked out from under a T-shirt. .....

Be Civil and;
Be Safe !!!

[Gunnut17]

Last year, when I still was enrolled in public school, the police came on two occassions with drug-sniffing dogs, no reason, just brought in to smell us and our bags, make sure we didn't have anything illegal(I, of course, didn't)

I felt that they were out of line, and I think saying that you have to show your permit to any officer that wants it is also out of line.

I cannot wait until I can exercise the bill of rights. As I have been told several times before, I apparently don't have most of my natural rights until I am 18 years old.

[RedBowTies88]

Last year, when I still was enrolled in public school, the police came on two occassions with drug-sniffing dogs, no reason, just brought in to smell us and our bags, make sure we didn't have anything illegal(I, of course, didn't)

I felt that they were out of line, and I think saying that you have to show your permit to any officer that wants it is also out of line.

I cannot wait until I can exercise the bill of rights. As I have been told several times before, I apparently don't have most of my natural rights until I am 21 years old.

Fixed that for you,...

Never got that personally... you can be handed an m60 and go take fire for your country but god forbid you have a beer or purchase a handgun.

[MLeake]

OP, the officer needs Reasonable Articulable Suspicion to make the stop. He needs Probable Cause (a higher evidentiary standard) to make an arrest.

[Willie Sutton]

"Legal or not. Right or wrong. In good times and in bad times, this guy is an idiot and spends too much time, in front of a mirror"

^^^ 10K X

"In your face Open Carry Activists" = Idiots that hurt us far more than they help us.

You can thank them for California now not allowing it at all... even in the desert where it was common.


Willie

.

[MLeake]

Then again, the fact that CA banned (ridiculous IE unloaded) open carry is what opened the door to challenges of "May Issue."

[Gunnut17]

I didn't mean drinking or handguns, that I understand, but as a minor, I was refering to the more fundamental rights, mostly the first and fourth admendments; I can't speak freely and I can't be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. At least that's how it seems.

If I say something that my parents do not like, especially my views on how the constitution does not say "the right of the people 18 years and older", I get in trouble, if my parents or possibly even the police want to look around in my property, they can as long as my parents say they can, I have no freedom of liberty, because what my parents say goes, I don't have the freedom of walking away if my parents confront me, and, if I were still in public school, if a kid were to punch me and I hit him back, I am just as likely to be suspended/expelled for my actions as him, even if it was completely justifiable self defense.

[LockedBreech]

Gunnut, regarding your rights at school, the Supreme Court has gone back and forward on that throughout our history. The current interpretation at least as regards speech deviated from the relatively student-expression-protective Tinker standard to the more-deferent Hazelwood and Bethel standard. Look up those cases (all U.S. Supreme Court cases) for interesting reasoning as to why student rights are abridged somewhat.

[Rj1972]

Interesting caveat for some states I'd think.

Here in Texas, although you may not be required to show your license if you're just walking around town (not carrying), it looks like you'd need to give them BOTH licenses (conceal carry & regular ID) if they ask you to and you're carrying.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE.
"If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by manta49

So a police officer see someone carrying a gun how is he supposed to know if he is carrying it legal or not without asking him. ? If he or anyone with a bit of common sense would identify them salves. Incidents like this only put the police and public of open carry.

Well, the short answer is, "He's not."

You and Husqvarna and other Europeans have not lived subject to the freedoms (supposedly) guaranteed by our Constitution. One of those is that we are legally presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. More specific to this discussion, however, is the 4th Amendment. A few years after the adoption of the original Constitution, the founders of this country adopted a set of ten amendments that are together known as the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment, which (supposedly) guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, is one of these ten amendments. So is the 4th Amendment, which reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Demanding identification without "probable cause" that a person may have committed a crime is considered to be an "unreasonable" search and seizure. Several decades ago there was a landmark legal case that went to the Supreme Court. The case was Terry v. Ohio. Although the Supreme Court actually ruled against poor Mr. Terry, the written decision very firmly clarified when a police office may or may not stop and interrogate a potential suspect.

As has been commented, it is not sufficient for a police officer to have a "hunch" that someone may be up to no good. In the language of the Supreme Court, the officer must have "a reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed." The court specifically and explicitly stated that a "mere hunch" is NOT sufficient.

What I think you Europeans overlook is that, in most (not all) of our states it is legal to openly carry a firearm. In those states where it is legal, the mere fact that you see someone openly carrying a handgun in no way offers anything whatsoever to suggest that he or she is breaking the law. Thus, absent other contributing facts that might pass court scrutiny as being enough to establish a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts," a police officer would have no legal justification for stopping an open carrier.

However, as has been noted, this varies by state. Some states allow open carry only with a carry license, and some of those states further require the licensee to show the license upon demand. Where it gets interesting is the states where this is written as "upon lawful demand," which leaves room for plenty of potential both for abuse and for litigation for unlawful detention.

You used the analogy of driving a car and needing a driver's license, but that analogy fails on multiple fronts. First, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, it is not a right. Second, it requires a license in every state. In many states, open carry does NOT require any license. Lastly, our courts have ruled that police may NOT stop cars at random just to ask if the driver has a license. If they aren't allowed to randomly stop people engaging in what is ONLY a licensed privilege, why should they be allowed to stop people who are engaging in a Constitutional right, which may not even require a license?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by animal

If he orders you out, he can’t arrest you for public drunk when you come out. He can arrest you if you refuse to come out and he has "RAS" you’re doing something against the law.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!


There is NO SUCH THING as "RAS."

Show me where "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" appears in Terry v. Ohio or any other Supreme Court decision.

[MLeake]

AB, a lot of trainers use that as an easily remembered shorthand version of "a reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts."

I've heard it from at least three reputable folks. As a description or a mnemonic, it works just fine.

Lawyers should be more specific, but they should look up their citations for more specificity than most of us require.

[Tom Servo]

RAS is an informal name for a doctrine police departments adopted. The general outline is in the Terry majority opinion:

And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

RAS is an informal name for a doctrine police departments adopted. The general outline is in the Terry majority opinion:

Well then, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that so many police officers don't understand the concept. The acronym "RAS" does not convey the substance of the SCOTUS principle. "RAS" is an acronym for "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion." But it is not the suspicion that must be articulable, it is the facts that support the suspicion and make the suspicion reasonable. And the facts must not simply be "articulable" -- that would encompass a hunch. They must be "clearly" articulable. The acronym "RAS" does not include any reference that would cause one to think about either facts or clearly.

The fact that some police departments may have adopted "RAS" as a shorthand for the actual guidelines laid down in Terry v. Ohio does not make the acronym effective.

Anecdotal evidence of my point? Pennsylvania. Outside of Philadelphia city limits, open carry is legal withOUT a permit. (Within Philadelphia open carry is legal with a permit.) On the PA Firearms Owners Association forum I often see references to "RAS," so I guess the acronym is in common use in PA. And on the PAFOA forum I also see numerous reports of people being hassled, detained, interrogated, and even arrested for engaging in open carry -- even though they were 100 percent within the law.

So if the police academies are using "RAS" to teach the concepts of Terry, I respectfully suggest they need to find a better acronym.

[kilimanjaro]

A police officer has the right to ask for identification when he makes contact for a reasonable cause. Some folks think they need not comply with that request. It's my opinion that a right to refuse to identify yourself to civil authorities is one step above teenage dramatics, the police have a duty to get criminals off the streets and they cannot do that without identifying them. When you are pulled over for a traffic violation, you identify yourself, same with any other contact. An officer seeing someone in open carry on the street, doesn't know if he's looking at Charles Manson or St. Francis of Assisi, so he checks it out. And when St. Francis refuses to show his sainthood card, he could still be Charles Manson invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, so there you have it. If you can't be incriminated, there is no purpose in refusing to identify yourself.

[animal]

Got a point there on the acronym being flawed, but "RAS" seems to be in common use for the correct idea, lots of flawed acronyms out there…

imo, it should be a matter of common sense that to be articulate, one must be clear; and without facts, suspicion is unreasonable … not that common sense has anything to do with the law anymore, but hopefully, it’s still present in law enforcement.

How about just calling it "Probable Cause Light … same great case,. Less filing ?

[nazshooter]

Originally Posted by manta49

So a police officer see someone carrying a gun how is he supposed to know if he is carrying it legal or not without asking him. ? .

The presumption is that he is carrying legally unless the officer has a specific reason to believe otherwise. It's really that simple.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

[Davey]

Help educate a european

First let me say that I have nothing against gun rights, open or concealed carry and all that, I fully support it.

What I don't get is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UMd...eature=related

the refusal to identify yourself when asked by a police officer. what is the problem in showing an ID? the cop sees that you are a good guy and you can walk away. I get that you don't wnat to be registred but that doesn't need to happen.

I mean you would show your drivers license if the cops pulled you over right? what is the difference?

Seems like crooks can get away with carrying guns by just refusing to show ID. Or a kid/teenager, or a Swede

Some people here respect their own privacy. If a police officer has no probable cause to arrest or detain someone an individual doesn't have to divulge any information. Basically such right is defined in the fifth amendmant of our Constitution. The first ten amendments is formally known as the Bill of Rights.

The difference with showing a driver license when pulled per is that the driver most likely commited a traffic violation which is sufficient for an officer to detain someone. The driver did indeed break the law.

So in short if a citizen isn't breaking any laws the police can ask and demand for whatever the heck they want and we don't have to tell them jack squat. If someone is being detained or being arrested he would lose some right to privacy however he would still have the option to not say anything.

[maestro pistolero]

In the US, an officer needs to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be committed in order to detain an individual, even for the purposes of ID.

Since carrying a firearm (in a legal manner as prescribed in the state one is in) is presumptively legal (in all but a few states), then without more, it alone does not rise to either standard for detention.

If one is apparently intoxicated, or brandishing the weapon in a rude and threatening manner, or KNOWN to be in a prohibited class, then further police action is warranted and constitutional.

Otherwise, there is a presumption of innocence, and the citizen has no obligation to even speak, let alone provide ID.

In other words, the legal and constitutionally protected behavior of carrying a holstered firearm alone is NOT probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

That the officer doesn't know whether the person is legal is immaterial. He must have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that the person is breaking a law to require ID. A simple hunch won't do. That's the essence of a presumption of innocence.

[BlueTrain]

I am glad, Mr Animal, that my post was taken in the spirit in which it was intended. I am, after all, the resident cynic, an office that carries considerable risk. I do, however, agree with your interpretation of what the constitution is and what it is not. I'm not sure the federal government has no rights, however, which may be outside of the topic. It certainly has powers.

In fact, the question of power is how it came to be. There are, you may recall, other governments, ours being a federal system. The early power struggles, if in fact there were any, were between the states and the central government. It didn't work that well while the revolutionary war was going on and it didn't work any better as a confederation. So they started over, in a manner of speaking. Switzerland calls itself a confederation, you know.

I must confess to not being a true Virginian, Mr. dogrunner, but I actually live upstream, sort of, from D.C. My water comes from the mighty Ocququan. But I digress. I was born in West Virginia, a mere ten miles from the state line, which makes all the difference in the world. I was the first one in my line not born in Carroll County, Virginia, since before 1800 and the first one not born in Virginia since around 1650. As the song says, my home's across the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Admiral Richard Bird, born near Winchester, wintered over a couple times in the Antarctic and spent a few months alone in an advance weather station there. He said that because he was a Virginian, he missed being insulted now and then.

All that aside, it is well worth pointing out that Europe, even to include the U.K., is not one homogenous land but rather one of great diversity of languages, beliefs, histories, geographies and climates and religious and political thought. Most of the moveable stuff has found its way to this country, too, over the years, although the earliest colonizers of the New World obviously had the greatest impact on our history. We have gone our separate ways for so long that we don't even speak the the same languages the same way anymore as it is still spoken in the mother country (or father land, as the case may be). I know; I was in the U.K. last year and could barely understand anyone. But then, I have the same problem with my mother-in-law and she's only from Lynchburg, Virginia. Anyway, I'm sure Americans have as many misconceptions about Europe as they do about us.

[alloy]

The difference with showing a driver license when pulled per is that the driver most likely commited a traffic violation which is sufficient for an officer to detain someone. The driver did indeed break the law.

So in short if a citizen isn't breaking any laws the police can ask and demand for whatever the heck they want and we don't have to tell them jack squat.

He must have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that the person is breaking a law to require ID. A simple hunch won't do. That's the essence of a presumption of innocence.

If they aren't allowed to randomly stop people engaging in what is ONLY a licensed privilege, why should they be allowed to stop people who are engaging in a Constitutional right, which may not even require a license?

Several cite traffic stops and proboble cause as examples....which begs the question...what about the standard road block where all traffic is stopped, despite no evidence of a violation? Requirement to show ID/registration/insurance, whats the difference?

[CowTowner]

Requirement to show ID/registration/insurance, whats the difference?

Alloy, I think we need to remember that driving is not a right. It's a privilege. We operate motor vehicles on public highways with the permission of the state, not by any right in the Constitution.

[alloy]

Well....that's what I assumed, but then I see getting pulled over without proboble cause mentioned as an example of improper.

Is there something different between getting pulled over without proboble cause(singled out) and a traffic road block(where nobody is singled out), or are the driving examples just irrelevant altogether?

Not trying to be obtuse...just curious.