Public displays of open carry

[noelf2]

If it's legal to OC in your state, I believe in 'picking the time & place' to do so.

Absolutely. That's an idividual choice, sometimes. In Virginia, you can't apply for a CHP until you are 21, but you can own and carry a gun at age 18. That means that open carry is the only option between 18 and 21, wherever you are. I don't see a lot of open carry in my area, but when I do, I support and respect the carrier. I am definitely a fan of video capturing police officers performing their duty. Not keen on people picking a video fight with the police, but police should be well versed on how to handle such encounters. If an encounter goes bad, I blame the cop more than the idiot.

[lcpiper]

I am confused now noelf2, which Police Mans do I not trust, the one in the video or the ones from my home town, that I see at the High School football games, and at the table next to mine at the pizza parlor, or the ones who graduated from school with my daughters?

I am so confused

[Reinz]

If OC get passed in Texas, I'll stay concealed.

[noelf2]

lcpiper:

I am so confused

Finally we agree on something. Anyway, you should do what works for you. Just don't assume the same is best for everyone. I prefer legal advice over bubba law, and posted what I thought might benefit others that don't know your local law enforcers.

[SgtLumpy]

I OC maybe 50% of the time. Grocery store or restaurant - no. Walking the dog, hiking - yes. I guess I kind of look at it like - If I were a black belt in karate, I wouldn't wear my Gi and belt everywhere I went. In bigger picture mode, I'm in favor of bad guys never really knowing WHO might be armed. Might be that old guy with the moustache, might be that young soccer mom with kids in tow, might be both the husband and wife going to Costco for the free samples. And of course, I'm in Arizona. In some places, guns in the open are not well tolerated.

As far as group demonstrations, I definitely do NOT participate in any of those, gun related or otherwise. Big crowds with an agenda are not what I consider a safe place to be. Even if that doesn't get out of hand, there's always a bunch of 'other' agenda participants - the John 3:16 guys, the abortion/stem cell/federal budget/impeach the pope/you name the topic, guys.

As far as LEOs go, they aren't out to "get you" if you're law abiding. LEOs would LOVE to catch crooks all day long. But they spend most of their shifts keeping the peace between domestic disputes, neighbors with loud stereos and cars, and occasionally people who see "a guy with a gun". Their job is to go find that guy with the gun, verify that he's not a gangster, then go back to that original complainant and explain how they've interviewed you and they're convinced you're safe, not a crook. If you care to be the adversary and treat the cop like he has no business asking you to simply demonstrate that you're not a bad guy, then you're highly suspect. You don't set a very good example as a law abiding gun toting citizen. When those anti-gun people see you arguing with the cop, they naturally think "See, those gun nuts will even argue with the cops". That doesn't help a thing. What do you think the cop can/will tell the complainant if all you want to do is fight?

Relax. Demonstrate to the cop's satisfaction that you're the RIGHT kind of person to be carrying a gun. Then let him get back to work keeping the Jones' marrige together.


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq

[sigcurious]

If you care to be the adversary and treat the cop like he has no business asking you to simply demonstrate that you're not a bad guy, then you're highly suspect.

While I respect this train of thought, it has complications in practice. Yes LE has the authority to come talk to you, however, since you are doing nothing illegal they have no authority to detain you and you have no obligation to talk to them.

Granted, yes in most cases it would simply be easier to comply and talk to the LEO. However, this dodges point that LEOs should understand where the line between detainment and consensual encounter is and respect it. The issue is a legal, albeit controversial, activity has turned into cause for detainment in some(not all) LEOs playbooks. Whether its OC, driving down the street, walking through a bad neighborhood, or chewing gum, if it's a legal activity, LEOs must respect it regardless of their personal beliefs and hopefully the training they receive also reflects the difference. In the end no one should have to "demonstrate that [they're] not a bad guy" while doing nothing illegal or indicating they are about to do something illegal.

Note:What I have stated is based on an unregulated/unlicensed OC state(like NV), states where OC is regulated/licensed(like TN) there may be stipulations in the licensing requiring compliance with questioning. Make sure you know the rules/law in your state, particularly if your state lacks preemption or has grandfathered municipalities/counties.

[rcolgin]

Oklahoma here.... OC and CC legal if so licensed .

I was relieved when the OC provision was passed into law... as I was unsure as to what would be construed as.. "flashing"... should my jacket momentarily allow my side arm to show .

Also; IF.. this should occur in a CC state ...what might be the
repercussions ??

What about "printing in a CC only state ??
AND...what is the interpretation of "printing ?

JMO..if a LE should ask me if I was licensed for OC ...or CC ..;and requested my ID ; I'd show it with no problem or attitude .

Useful comments are appreciated ...

[SgtLumpy]

Quote:
If you care to be the adversary and treat the cop like he has no business asking you to simply demonstrate that you're not a bad guy, then you're highly suspect.

Reply Quote:
While I respect this train of thought, it has complications in practice.

I don't see a complication in the least. I see someone (the citizen with an attitude) wanting to test the limits of common sense.

Turn the situation around. You're a homeowner, mowing your lawn. Gang banger looking guy walks by wearing an open carry pistol. You (or someone) calls the cops because you're genuinely concerned. Cop arrives, tries to simply ascertain who the guy is and what he's doing in YOUR neighborhood. Instead of the guy simply saying "I'm walking home, I live at 123 Olive St, you may examine my firearm if you wish", the guy gets loud and in the face of or quiet and non-compliant to the cop. "I don't have to answer your questions" or similar.

The "I don't want to/don't have to talk to cops" attitude is not borne out of common sense. It's borne out of wanting to confront authority. Those cops ARE authority. You and I put them in that position. To bear a grudge against cops, refuse to talk to them, suspect them of being "out to get you" is not productive, not reasonable, not a good example of what a calm thinking, intelligent, adult gun owner should demonstrate.

"Oh those crazed gun owners and their high capacity clips and their black, assault guns! They're always wanting to argue with the police. I saw it on my street yesterday!"


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq

[noelf2]

SgtLumpy:

The "I don't want to/don't have to talk to cops" attitude is not borne out of common sense. It's borne out of wanting to confront authority. Those cops ARE authority.

Oh I agree with you, on one regard, because what some consider common sense is not so sensical to a lot of people (i.e. common sense gun laws; your position regarding this subject; etc). What you think is common sense won't always get you out of trouble, and in many cases will get you in trouble. Do you believe that all people who excersize their 5A rights do so to be confrontational? Those cops are only the authority to uphold THE law, not thier law.

Gang banger looking guy walks by wearing an open carry pistol.

Did you ever see something like that? Anyways, what if he wasn't dressed like a gang banger (whatever that is supposed to look like these days, high school students?)? What if he/she is nicely dressed in casual/comfortable summer attire, and is open carrying? Would you still call the cops? In neither scenario is anyone obviously breaking the law if open carry is legal. The cops have no law to uphold here. Perhaps the clothes scare you more than the gun? Tend to profile, do you? When you/someone calls the police, even in this ridiculous scenario, the proper response from the cop/dispatcher is "Carrying a holstered gun and being dressed funny aren't crimes here."

[MLeake]

Sgt Lumpy, profile much?

West Palm Beach police, back in the 80's, would routinely stop drivers for DWB (Driving While Black), to see if they had work permits for the island.

In your scenario, aside from looking different and openly carrying, what exactly is the gang-banger looking dude doing that merits a call to the police, let alone a stop and interview?

If he's acting as though he's casing houses; if he's scowling at little old ladies and making them get off the sidewalk; if he's yelling threats at people; if he's urinating in your bushes; then a call and a stop are in order.

Looking different, and carrying? Not valid reasons for the call, let alone the stop.

If somebody can't articulate an actual crime that appears to be in progress, or reason to suspect a crime is being planned, then what are you suggesting?

[sigcurious]

The "I don't want to/don't have to talk to cops" attitude is not borne out of common sense. It's borne out of wanting to confront authority.

Correct it's not borne of common sense. It's borne from the constitution and various legal precedents that explicitly address where police authority ends and a persons rights begin.

Stop and Frisk AKA Hey you're not doing anything illegal but we're going to conduct a terry stop anyway.

Terry v Ohio Defines detainment as a seizure, among other 4th amendment issues.

[W]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized' that person," and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be "reasonable."

Brown v Texas Directly addresses that subjectively looking funny/suspicious whatever is not RAS.

To this end, the Fourth Amendment requires that a seizure must be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require the seizure of the particular individual

The flaw in the State's case is that none of the circumstances [p52] preceding the officers' detention of appellant justified a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct. Officer Venegas testified at appellant's trial that the situation in the alley "looked suspicious," but he was unable to point to any facts supporting that conclusion.

In the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference

Emphasis mine.

Sadly both Brown v Texas and Terry v Ohio were decades ago, yet some LE continue to think that 4th amendment violations are ok.

[SgtLumpy]

MLeake wrote:
Sgt Lumpy, profile much?

Absolutely. So do you and so does EVERY citizen.

You see a pregnant lady with a baby stroller and a sidearm.
You see a guy in gang colors, chinos, whatever if popular in your area for thugs.

Which raises your suspicion more?

More importantly, you're now a cop and you're talking to either of them. One of them is confrontational. Wont give his/her identification. Quotes a bunch of laws that he thinks "You should be aware of". How does that make you feel as the cop? Do you feel "Oh that's good to know that this person is exercising their rights and informing me of all the stuff that I forgot from cop school. I think I'll go tell that little old lady complainant she's over-reacting to a strange, out of place looking with a gun in front of her house".

Change scenarios again. You're now that little old lady in her house in her neighborhood where she's lived for 50 years. You look out your window and see a black/hispanic/Asian/white/biker/whatever guy that you've never seen before. He's in front of your house and he has a gun. Compare that to - You see your neighbor Bill, the guy that you see every week mowing his lawn. That guy has a pistol on his hip. Who makes you more suspicious?

NOBODY is immune from "profiling" no matter how politically correct and new-age hip it may want to sound. You can make it sound like it's racial if you like. It's not. But a white guy with a gun in an all black neighborhood or vice versa, that's initially suspicious until the situation is over.

So if you want to feel better thinking I'm a "bad cop who profiles" be my guest. But I do. You do. Everyone does. Or at least everyone should. Especially us - gun carriers. WE should be really good at quickly scanning a scenario and thinking "something seems out of place". If that something ends up proving otherwise, that's great. But if that out of place something only tries to make things seem MORE out of place by arguing, confronting etc. with the cops or anyone, that's exit time. Angry people with guns are not a good mix. Even if nothing tragic happens, it sends a horrible message to the liberal gun grabbers who think we're all thugs.


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq

[SauerGrapes]

I've never had a bad experience with any LE. That's not to say I haven't had LE confront me.
I was in one of the local Wawas' which I walked to one Saturday morning. Evidently some woman with nothing better to do called the police. The cop caught me red handed buying rolls.

He asked for my LTCF. For his trouble, I told him I didn't have it on me because I was on foot and didn't need one.
He told me a woman had reported a man with a gun. I said to him, ''you found me''. ''Can I go now''?
He kinda snickered and said, ok, we always have to check out ''these kind of calls''.
I responded with, good thing there aren't hundreds of us running around Wawas' with guns strapped to our hips. He told me I was the only guy he's ever seen carrying in that manner. I said to him, yeah, it's pretty rare around here. Tell the rest of the guys, I'm local and you'll be seeing me a lot more of me.

If the LEO had gone any farther with his inquiry, it could have been less than friendly. The cop could clearly see, I wasn't doing anything suspicious and left it go at that. He didn't even have the right to asked me for my license, but I wasn't going to bother explaining the firearms codes to him.
Our police are decent guys and always come post hast when I've had a problem. I considered it a win win.
BTW, I forgot to wear my ''gang banger'' cloths.

I open carry all summer. I've OCed in just about every Wells Fargo and TD bank in the area. Out to dinner, weddings, funerals, you name it. Hell, I've OCed in our local police station.

[sigcurious]

There is a reason lady justice is often portrayed blind folded, even with with our biases as people, justice should be meted out impartially and objectively.

Yes, everyone profiles, but acting on that is the issue, particularly when it's under the color of authority. It's one thing to make note of someone because they're out of place, it's another to violate their rights because you don't like how they look.

Your line of reasoning flies directly in the face of SCOTUS/court decisions that protect 4th amendment rights. Would you care to provide more reasoning than, standing up for your rights might hurt an LEOs feelings? How about some legal precedent that supports your stance?

I do find it odd that you would be so concerned with people who would violate the 2nd amendment, but support violations of the 4th... Last I checked all our rights are pretty important.

[SgtLumpy]

Would you care to provide more reasoning than, standing up for your rights might hurt an LEOs feelings?

Not really, no. You clearly aren't in agreement with me when I suggest being adult, responsible and human in engaging with cops. That's fine. Thanks.


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq

[Flopsweat]

Originally Posted by SgtLumpy

Not really, no. You clearly aren't in agreement with me when I suggest being adult, responsible and human in engaging with cops. That's fine. Thanks.

Perfectly legitimate suggestion - if only it were applicable. It's perfectly "adult, responsible and human" to stand up for one's rights when they are being trampled. This has been explained to you several times now.

[MLeake]

SgtLumpy, I have a lot of friends who are cops. I don't dislike cops, in general.

I do dislike cops who think that, because they are cops, it is acceptable for them to decide Terry stops are in order any time they think a person looks out of place. That isn't the standard.

With regard to field interviews, if you aren't detaining the person, the person is not required to participate in the field interview. If you are detaining the person, you had better be able to show more cause than that he is of a different ethnicity than most of the neighborhood, and that he is legally open carrying.

A few cops in Louisiana, and their departments, had learned that the hard way in court, last time I checked.

Am I generally cooperative with, and polite to, the police? Certainly.

Then again, I am generally polite to everybody, until they give me reason not to be.

[SgtLumpy]

Flopsweat writes:

...This has been explained to you several times now.

Seems difficult for you to even discuss the topic without being confrontational.

Youz guys that feel the need to make a political statement by being confrontational with cops, carry on. IMO, you're just fueling the anti gun people's beliefs. I choose a different route. That's America.


Sgt Lumpy - n0eq

[sigcurious]

Youz guys that feel the need to make a political statement by being confrontational with cops, carry on. IMO, you're just fueling the anti gun people's beliefs. I choose a different route. That's America.

Yet you keep on missing the point. There would be no "confrontation" in these situations if the LE involved these situations understood the law surrounding consensual encounters.

You seem to think that just because someone is acting under the color of authority/law that people should kowtow to their unconstitutional demands. Well politicians(and LE) are an authority, some of them want to severely restrict your 2A rights. Why don't you acquiesce in that arena too?

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Youz guys that feel the need to make a political statement by being confrontational with cops, carry on. IMO, you're just fueling the anti gun people's beliefs. I choose a different route. That's America.

Yet you keep on missing the point. There would be no "confrontation" in these situations if the LE involved these situations understood the law surrounding consensual encounters.

You seem to think that just because someone is acting under the color of authority/law that people should kowtow to their unconstitutional demands. Well politicians(and LE) are an authority, some of them want to severely restrict your 2A rights. Why don't you acquiesce in that arena too?

Maybe it would be helpful if you informed us how you handle the situation as the internet doesn't convey meaning well.

You're OCing going to a store. Pick a non gun related store or locale.
Police show up. Police ask for your name, and what are you doing.

How do you respond.
1. "I'm Joe X, here to do some shopping."
2. "BLEEP OFF AND DIE SCURVY DOG! I KNOW MY RIGHTS!"
3. something else (please fill in the blank).

[sigcurious]

LE in my neck of the woods(or desert as it may be) have already gotten in trouble enough times that they updated the training and no longer harass OC'ers. However, if I were to get approached while OC'ing I would say, I do not consent to this encounter.

Yet, the point still remains, no matter the response(with some exceptions such as imminent threats), the officers should abide by the legal precedents set in the arena of 4th amendment law, and not detain someone without RAS or PC.

[lcpiper]

the proper response from the cop/dispatcher is "Carrying a holstered gun and being dressed funny aren't crimes here."

The rest of that 911 call goes like "I have never seen this guy around here before, he is a stranger in our neighborhood and he looks suspicious, I want you to come check him out please."

I have seen guys OC in the grocery store, restaurants, and while playing that card game "Magic The Gathering". I thought it odd with the cards but who am I to judge.

I even saw a dude OC into my bank. No alarms, guards or cops were involved and I didn't notice if the tellers looked nervous but I didn't really look for it. People have been OCing around here for a good while and most folks have seen it and don't get bent out of shape because nothing is happening. No confrontation, argument, or drama is involved at the time. It's boring looking at some guy with a gun on his belt, so what.

Now a guy with a gun on his belt being confrontational with the cops, that's going to be interesting to watch.

[noelf2]

Now a guy with a gun on his belt being confrontational with the cops, that's going to be interesting to watch.

Nobody is saying that OCers should be confrontational with cops. Nobody is supporting the youtube videos where jerks are spewing regulation after regulation, to cops (but it isn't illegal either).

Again, OCers have the right to not engage in consensual conversations with police. Exersizing your right to silence can hardly be described as "confrontational". Remaining silent isn't a crime, it is a right. In fact, if you are detained for a crime, that's the first thing the cop tells you via miranda rights. In fact, I think I'm going to make a 3x5 card for use in just about any police officer (performing his/her job) contact I may have for carry, DUI checkpoints, etc...that says:

"My name is <place name here>. No offense officer, but I do not wish to engage in a conversation with you. I am excersizing my 5th Ammendment right by remaining silent. I do not consent to warrantless searches or seizures of myself or my property. If I am not being detained, I wish to leave now. If I am being detained, please explain what crime you believe I have committed, or am about to commit, and allow me to contact my lawyer for guidance. Am I free to go?"

Would giving that to a cop be confrontational?

[zincwarrior]

"My name is <place name here>. No offense officer, but I do not wish to engage in a conversation with you. I am excersizing my 5th Ammendment right by remaining silent. I do not consent to warrantless searches or seizures of myself or my property. If I am not being detained, I wish to leave now. If I am being detained, please explain what crime you believe I have committed, or am about to commit, and allow me to contact my lawyer for guidance. Am I free to go?"

Would giving that to a cop be confrontational?

Doesn't sound confrontational to me, especially if you are otherwise polite about it. Its like you made your own Miranda warning card.

I myself have advised our teenagers to be polite and not resist anything, but refuse up front any searches requested.

[Flopsweat]

Originally Posted by SgtLumpy

Seems difficult for you to even discuss the topic without being confrontational.
...

Interesting interpretation. I'd call it standing up to you. You don't like that, do you?