Very simple question about unlawful conceal carry...

[5whiskey]

I know someone who recently was charged by citation, and his gun seized, because he chose to carry a pistol in the lobby of a police department. He did not mean any harm, made no threatening moves, and is a CCW holder. Still, my State has laws that clearly prohibit carrying in court, law enforcement facilities, after consuming alcohol, and a few other places. There IS a sign at the door, but it is off in a corner and it is possible he didn't see it. Additionally, a class is required for the CCW permit in my state, and it clearly covers were you can and cannot carry (along with some use of force authorization law).

To make matters worse, the gentleman was at the police department to pick up a pistol that he had originally reported stolen. It was not stolen. He was pocket carrying, and it fell out of his pocket at an AA meeting and he apparently never noticed. The AA meeting coordinator turned it over to the police department, who in turn called the gentleman to come get his gun, and noticed that he was CCW in the police department when he came.

The question is simple. Do you feel this guy was unfairly charged, or does he deserve this as a stupid tax?

[tangolima]

He is careless. If I were him, I probably wouldn't trust myself to carry a loaded gun.

Being careless itself isn't a crime, but breaking a law on ccw is. In this case it may not be a felony. A misdemeanor perhaps. A conviction may mean revocation of his license. But I don't see any unfairness if the DA decides to throw the book at him.

-TL


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

I'm afraid I have little sympathy and no compassion for people who, through carelessness, apathy, or ignorance violate their responsibilities as a ccw holder.

The fellow lost a gun he was carrying? And thought it had been stolen??, then was carrying another gun when he went into the cop shop to pick up the one he lost? He's lucky to still be breathing...

At least a fine, and his permit needs to be pulled. I'm all for not automatically making a stupid mistake (where no harm was done) a criminal matter, but stupid should hurt. Pinch his wallet and take away his toys (ccw permit) at least for a while. Otherwise the odds of him not learning anything are high.

This is the kind of thing that works against all ccw holders, and the anti gun people love it.

[BarryLee]

While he may be a good person, he made obvious mistakes that reflect negatively on all of us.

[Nathan]

I hate to say it. In your simple explanation, you show multiple acts of complete carelessness. I’m guessing his carelessness is not limited to these.

Wearing gun into police dept without confirming it is acceptable.
Not looking for the sign at every entry point.
Dropping a loaded gun.
Leaving without noticing his loaded gun was not with him.
Alcoholism….not passing judgement, but one could say alcoholism that rises to the level of treatment might indicate a poor choice has been made at some point.

Typically, I would lean towards leniency in all ccw mistakes, but here? I think he needs a good self assessment that maybe a substantial fine will help with.

[mehavey]

There is so much wrong here . . . .

[MTT TL]

Do you feel this guy was unfairly charged, or does he deserve this as a stupid tax?

This is a website that supports responsible and legal gun ownership and use. Your friend did neither. Being responsible means knowing the law and following it. When I visit another state or anywhere that I think that my firearm might not be welcome I always check the local laws.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[5whiskey]

All points I made to him. I told him he's lucky the extent of his consequences so far was a ticket with a court date. He could have gone to jail. Well, he did get the revolver he was carrying seized as evidence... but that kinda goes without saying. He did get his other "stolen" gun back though. He's worried about his permit, and swears he didn't know. I've sat through the ccw class though, and I know places where you cannot legally carry are thoroughly covered.

My biggest confrontation with him was over the fact he was pocket carrying without a holster. That, imo, is extremely dangerous and irresponsible. He isn't a friend really, more like just a guy I know. Still, to hear him talk he is convinced that he just made a couple of simple mistakes and he's being treated unfairly. I don't see it that way at all, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

[tangolima]

Where I came from has a saying. Certain people should be kept distance from, lest you may get hurt when lightning comes down from heaven for him.

If I were you, I would put a restraining order on myself to keep at least 100yd from this guy. There have been a few people like that in my life.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[heyjoe]

the best thing you can do for him is to tell him to get a lawyer, take a safety class, and then steer clear from him.

[44 AMP]

he was pocket carrying without a holster. That, imo, is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.

everyone has a different opinion, I've dropped a pistol in my pocket a time or three with no harm done, and I've known people who I wouldn't feel safe around if they carried in a full flap holster closed with a combination padlock.

What I consider dangerous and irresponsible is carrying a concealed pistol into the police station, and your guy is lucky to have gotten only a citation...

I can easily envision a scenario where he walks into the cop shop armed and unannounced, somebody spots his "pocket carry" shouts "GUN!!" and they all draw. He, innocently and unthinkingly makes a rapid move, looking around trying to spot the threat. One of the cops fires, and instantly ALL fire, maybe a couple shooting to slide lock.....

37 shots fired in less than 2-3 seconds, Guy is now down, hit 9 times, and so are 4 cops, also hit by flying bullets or ricochets....

What that guy did had the potential to be what I just described, or possibly worse. The fact that it wasn't is everyone's lucky day.

Wouldn't have happened at all if the guy had not been so barking stupid. Multiple times!!

I think he deserves everything the DA throws at him, and most likely more than that!

[throttleup]

As a Concealed Weapons Permit holder he is responsible for knowing the law, period. He took a class explaining that law enforcement facilities were off limits, he never paid any attention or just ignored it. He ignored a sign confirming that and he must have carried in a manner that revealed his firearm or he announced it to the police. He is an alcoholic who had a poorly secured gun fall out of his pocket and he didn't even notice it.

The man is careless and ignorant and makes the rest of us look the same. He deserves to have his CWP revoked and made do his training all over again. Sorry, but he's getting no sympathy here, he deserves whatever penalties the law dishes out.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

The question is simple. Do you feel this guy was unfairly charged, or does he deserve this as a stupid tax?

Fair has nothing to do with being charged. We are all subject to a million rules, at least one of which we break daily, and we are all liable for those breaches.

I'm not upset with your friend. I'm the kind of fellow who day dreams as he pours a glass of milk, then puts the milk carton back in the cabinet from which I got my glass. Your friend's actions don't reflect on you, me or anyone else in this thread the same way my stupidity with a milk carton doesn't reflect on the rest of you.

He was going to be carrying a firearm in the police station anyway necessarily, but that someone would object to him having a second one is foreseeable. I think it would be worth having counsel. There can be a mechanism in which defense and prosecution chat and come to a resolution before the judge gets involved.

He will pay a bill, it will hurt a bit, and if he's normal it will be a lesson learned.

I've heard people in the self-defense/concealed carry industry admonish people for not carrying all the time because you won't know when it is needed. While the observation of uncertainty is true, a life in and out of courthouses, banks and other government offices may dissuade people from consistent carry.

[44 AMP]

I'm not upset with your friend. I'm the kind of fellow who day dreams as he pours a glass of milk, then puts the milk carton back in the cabinet from which I got my glass. Your friend's actions don't reflect on you, me or anyone else in this thread the same way my stupidity with a milk carton doesn't reflect on the rest of you.

I have to disagree with this, somewhat. Yes, in the rational world your foolishness or stupidity doesn't reflect on me.

However, our world is made up of many people who are not rational thinkers but feelers who operate primarily on their emotions and opinions rather than facts and rational thought.

These people tend to tar everyone with the same brush, and by that I mean put people into groups and in their minds believe every member of the group is, and behaves the same as everyone they put in that group.

Some call this racist, some call it bigoted, or elitist or some other name, but that doesn't matter quite as much as the very real effect that behavior has.

People get elected under those beliefs. LAWS get passed under those beliefs. Everyone in a group winds up suffering, and often being legally restricted, because of the bad behavior of SOME of the people in the same group.

The simple fact is that when someone misuses a gun in any way, lots of people point out the (false) "Fact" that "this is what gun owners do!" (or if they're a bit more polite, "what gun owners could do"...)

I think it is simply wrong to accuse someone of something they didn't do, and won't do because someone else did it. Yet large numbers of people do just that, and some people make a living at it, some even becoming famous and wealthy. FEAR sells. and lots of people profit from it.

SO, no, I won't be giving a fool a pass for breaking some law that he KNEW he shouldn't have, just because he forgot to remember it at the time.

[zukiphile]

44 AMP, people absolutely make the analytical errors you describe, but that doesn't drive me to adopt those errors.

Some people surely misuse their votes or words. I don't get upset with people who do as a reflection on my group (sometimes called a "community") of voters or speakers. I doubt you see a speeder pulled over on the side of the road and feel embarrassment on behalf of the driver community.

We don't have to give the fellow who was caught doing 75mph in a 60mph zone a pass to acknowledge that he'll have to deal with a ticket, but we aren't personally irked or damaged by his rate of travel, and the locality may enforce it mostly as a revenue measure.

I confess I smiled when I read your scenario in which someone shouts "GUN!" and POs put up a storm of lead that injures people. It read like an argument that POs shouldn't be allowed to carry, at least that day at that station.


POs have a very wide diversity of opinion on whether anyone else should be allowed to carry, so I'll avoid generalization. I think I might know why 5Whiskey posed the question. The police knew he would be carrying a firearm at some point during his visit to the station. There may be a rule that one can't carry inside a police station, but if that's where you are going to pick one up, you'll be carrying on the way out. It seems a petty and insubstantial victory to cite an individual for one of the guns he carries, confiscate it, and have him leave with the other gun he was just handed.

This strikes me as meriting a fine that together with court costs should be less than $500. 5Whiskey's acquaintance should view it as a wash; he shouldn't have expected to ever get his lost pistol back.

[44 AMP]

It seems a petty and insubstantial victory to cite an individual for one of the guns he carries, confiscate it, and have him leave with the other gun he was just handed.

I think you are missing some substantial differences between the two because they both happen to the same guy in the same place, and include a gun.

And also its a matter of the common use definition of words and the legal definition of the same words are different, but co-mingled in the description of events.

Carry, means physically moving an object off the ground in some manner. And, so does transport. Words mean the same thing, parts is parts, right? Sure, but not in the law.

He carried a loaded pistol into the lobby of the police station. And, did it concealed. (not well, because the gun was spotted) he won't be carrying the pistol he picked up, even if its in his hands when he walks out, he will be transporting it, because the gun WILL be unloaded.

When the law refers to "Carry" of a weapon, it is nearly always referring to A) a weapon under your direct control, and B) ready for immediate use (or assumed to be).

Look at this from the cop's point of view...
unidentified man enters lobby, spotted carrying a concealed pistol. The cops in the lobby don't know the guy, only that he is armed, his gun is almost certainly loaded (can't afford to assume its not) and they have no idea why he's there. or what his intentions are.

AND, every cop in the place knows the guy is breaking the law being armed where he is, which does not speak well of his possible intentions, and none of them want their families to be beneficiaries of the Police Widows & Orphans fund!

SO, yeah, he gonna get pinched, and cited, or worse.

Now, same thing minus the illegal concealed carry...
guy walks in, seems harmless, nobody gets spun up, he IDs himself and reason for being there, gets taken back to the property storage and gets his property returned to him (in this case, a pistol). He signs some forms, the pistol will be returned unloaded, any ammo it had in it/with it when it came in will be returned separately (not loaded in the gun), the cops KNOW what's going on, know the gun is there, and its not loaded and most likely will provide an officer to escort him on his way out to make sure the gun doesn't get loaded and to prevent any misunderstandings before he leaves.

These are very different situations, involving the same people and item but not the same at all.

I doubt you see a speeder pulled over on the side of the road and feel embarrassment on behalf of the driver community.

No, I don't get embarrassed, if anything I might briefly wonder what the actual offense that got them pulled over was, but rarely longer than the image in my rear view mirror lasts.

However traffic violations are simply not in the same class as firearm law violations. Not even close. And that's not just in the court of public opinion, its in the written law itself.

Objectively, logically, firearms should be treated the same as any other inanimate object. But, they aren't. Probably because so few people are objective or logical about them.

[5whiskey]

Objectively, logically, firearms should be treated the same as any other inanimate object. But, they aren't. Probably because so few people are objective or logical about them.

Objectively, I generally agree. The one caveat is that having my keys fall out of my pocket at church generally causes no harm. EVEN IF I have a pepper spray key ring, one of the worst things that could happen is a 3 year old douses themselves with it, cries inconsolably, an ambulance is called, and the kid is generally fine after a little bit of time and a whole lot of water. Even with a small pocket knife, the chance of catastrophic consequences is lower than it is with a pistol. Most infantry units, most especially the Marine Corps, objects to weapons being left laying around haphazardly. Even in the field, even when everyone is armed, and most have an automatic weapon of sorts. Having a loaded handgun fall out of your pocket at an AA meeting at a church, and you leave it there because you didn't notice, ranks extremely high on the grossly irresponsible scale.

I was not advocating for "the guy I know" in posting this thread. I simply wanted other people's take on it. And I appreciate alternate opinions such as zukiphiles. I did have my opinion on the matter, but I always appreciate opposing views (as should we all). It's quite likely that there was no specific law covering leaving the firearm in the church, though law enforcement investigating thought it was extremely irresponsible and believed there should have been consequences. The subsequent act of showing up to retrieve said pistol while illegally carrying at the time may have been as much a proxy for "hey bonehead, you need to reevaluate this ccw thing" for losing and leaving the gun in church more so than it was a "how dare you carry a pistol in my house" response. It may well be that there is a law against ccw in the "cop shop," but no law against leaving loaded handguns laying about flippantly.

[44 AMP]

It may well be that there is a law against ccw in the "cop shop," but no law against leaving loaded handguns laying about flippantly.

There absolutely are laws against weapons (concealed or open) in numerous govt buildings, including the public areas of police stations, and there are signs at every access point stating some variant of "no weapons allowed".

I do not know if (and I don't think there are) specific laws about "losing" a handgun in a public place, but I think about every state has laws covering "reckless endangerment" that could, and often are applied when the situation results in someone being harmed, or the serious risk of such.

Now, in the incident given by the OP, while the reality was that the gun was "lost" the owner did not believe it was due to his negligence, and reported it as being stolen. Was that "honest" ignorance?? OR a deliberate attempt at CYA??

Personally, I simply cannot imagine someone so out of touch with situational awareness to NOT immediately notice the gun going missing. I've worn a gun (or some other tool/equipment that has weight) a lot in my life, and part of my mind is always in a "feedback loop" about it. When I get used to it, its done below the concious level so I'm not actively thinking about it, but I am always aware of it, and if anything changes I know something has happened, right then, not later. How is this NOT the case for everyone??

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Personally, I simply cannot imagine someone so out of touch with situational awareness to NOT immediately notice the gun going missing. I've worn a gun (or some other tool/equipment that has weight) a lot in my life, and part of my mind is always in a "feedback loop" about it. When I get used to it, its done below the concious level so I'm not actively thinking about it, but I am always aware of it, and if anything changes I know something has happened, right then, not later. How is this NOT the case for everyone??

I'm like you in that, when I'm carrying, I'm always aware that I'm carrying a firearm, and I'm always aware of where it is. But this world is full of airheads -- we can't assume that what's true for us is true for everyone.

I know that in Basic handgun classes, both under discussing the fundamental safety rules ("Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction") and also specifically when explaining how the live fire portion of the class will be conducted ("Always keep the muzzle pointed downrange at all times"), I cover where the muzzle is to be pointed. And yet it's not even unusual for at least one person in every class to load the gun, and then turn around to ask a question -- swinging the muzzle of the loaded gun in an arc that would definitely sweep at least 180 degrees if not stopped before it gets that far. When told that they just violated one of the basic safety rules, they respond with a deer in headlights look.

NOT everyone is conscious all the time. We have read reports of police officers leaving duty weapons on the toilet paper dispenser in the stall of a men's room, on the seat of their UNlocked police (or personal) vehicle, and there was one who, IIRC, set his duty firearm on the roof of his vehicle and then drove off.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

And yet it's not even unusual for at least one person in every class to load the gun, and then turn around to ask a question -- swinging the muzzle of the loaded gun in an arc that would definitely sweep at least 180 degrees if not stopped before it gets that far. When told that they just violated one of the basic safety rules, they respond with a deer in headlights look.

I had a clerk who wanted to work for the FBI when she left school, and wanted to learn about shooting. Several sessions in, I had her set up with my Ruger 22lr, and bent down to unpack my things into my stall.

I can still remember vividly placing my things on the shelf and seeing her turned toward me with the pistol pointed at my gut saying "I think it's jammed!". I side stepped and reached slowly from her side, and gently turned the muzzle back down range. "OK, but we always want it pointed this way."

She was almost always attentive, but most of us have a limit on how many individual things really have our attention at any moment. You notice this when teaching people to drive too. Before automaticity sets in too many tasks, even simple tasks, can overwhelm. That principle is the basis for distracted driving studies.

Limited attention isn't an excuse for people who leave a pistol in the toilet or the floor of an AA meeting, it just explains how it can happen.

[mehavey]

Automaticity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...and%20practice.

I've got to remember that.

[Sevens]

Sometimes we have discussions where dang near EVERYONE is universally in agreement.

Please report back with this guy's results. There's nothing in the initial post that indicates he's been "treated unfairly."

Every shred of evidence offered so far indicates that he's a whole bunch of liabilities waiting to happen.

[Spats McGee]

I got nothing that hasn't already been said. He earned the charge.

[gwpercle]

When you got a case of the Screaming Stoopids as bad as he has it ...

I got no sympathy for him . Even I have enough smarts not to carry a gun into the Police Station .... What A Maroon !

He should plead Insanity and throw himself on the Mercy of the court .
Gary

[44 AMP]

While everyone has a right to arms, there absolutely are people who should not be armed. Prior restraint applied as a blanket covering everyone is morally and ethically wrong. Even though we have to put up with a lot of it, in varying degrees (such as the entire concept of needing permits, etc) they are still wrong.

So we're left with only restricting arms possession when the individual clearly demonstrates they are not, which they do by violating laws.

In this case, the fellow clearly demonstrated he was not capable of being responsible and following the rules.

Fortunately, in THIS case, his recklessness and lack of responsibility, did not result in anyone being harmed. But, they easily could have, Any one think a fine of mere money and a stern lecture from the authorities is enough?

I don't.