View Full Version : Question about open carry and probable cause for police questioning.
I apologize in advance for the long post.
I've been around enough police officers in my life to understand that if they want to find probable cause to do something, they'll usually find it. I also understand that LEOs obtain a lot of information by questioning individuals who are either willing to speak, or unaware of their rights.
Preface to my question:
The State of Colorado allows open carry with very few exceptions. This incident took place in the City and County of Boulder where open carry is not prohibited, save for University of Colorado grounds.
An acquaintance of mine is a 22-year-old, clean-cut, Caucasian male college graduate who open carries his pistol wherever it is not legally prohibited. He was walking down a public street around 2:00 p.m., and was approached by two uniformed female Boulder police officers. They requested he speak to them away from his three friends (two 34-year-old Caucasian males, one 22-year-old Caucasian male).
This conversation started by them asking if he was law enforcement, to which he responded that he is in the process of being hired by a local department. He inquired as to why he was being questioned, and they informed him they had received phone calls from people who felt uncomfortable or threatened. They asked for his identification, which he provided, and called in his information to check for warrants. He came back clean, and they continued to question him about why he was carrying, why he felt the need, etc. They told him he “shouldn’t” carry again until he can legally do so concealed, and claimed he would have a difficult time obtaining a law enforcement job should he choose to continue his behavior. I understand the entire conversation lasted roughly 5 minutes.
The question:
Is a stop such as this voluntary for the individual being questioned, i.e. could have he refused to provide identification/walked away without consequence? What constitutes probable cause to force him to produce identification? Suspicion of underage weapons possession? Is calling in to check for warrants indicative of being detained (like a traffic stop)? Once they have established age, does the reason for questioning cease to exist, and if so, how do they justify checking for warrants on someone who has broken no apparent law? I’m curious as to the amount of case law on this subject. What has your experience been with these situations?
Jay Cunningham
07-03-07, 06:28
I apologize in advance for the long post.
I've been around enough police officers in my life to understand that if they want to find probable cause to do something, they'll usually find it. I also understand that LEOs obtain a lot of information by questioning individuals who are either willing to speak, or unaware of their rights.
Preface to my question:
The State of Colorado allows open carry with very few exceptions. This incident took place in the City and County of Boulder where open carry is not prohibited, save for University of Colorado grounds.
An acquaintance of mine is a 22-year-old, clean-cut, Caucasian male college graduate who open carries his pistol wherever it is not legally prohibited. He was walking down a public street around 2:00 p.m., and was approached by two uniformed female Boulder police officers. They requested he speak to them away from his three friends (two 34-year-old Caucasian males, one 22-year-old Caucasian male).
This conversation started by them asking if he was law enforcement, to which he responded that he is in the process of being hired by a local department. He inquired as to why he was being questioned, and they informed him they had received phone calls from people who felt uncomfortable or threatened. They asked for his identification, which he provided, and called in his information to check for warrants. He came back clean, and they continued to question him about why he was carrying, why he felt the need, etc. They told him he “shouldn’t” carry again until he can legally do so concealed, and claimed he would have a difficult time obtaining a law enforcement job should he choose to continue his behavior. I understand the entire conversation lasted roughly 5 minutes.
The question:
Is a stop such as this voluntary for the individual being questioned, i.e. could have he refused to provide identification/walked away without consequence? What constitutes probable cause to force him to produce identification? Suspicion of underage weapons possession? Is calling in to check for warrants indicative of being detained (like a traffic stop)? Once they have established age, does the reason for questioning cease to exist, and if so, how do they justify checking for warrants on someone who has broken no apparent law? I’m curious as to the amount of case law on this subject. What has your experience been with these situations?
He needs to talk with an attorney. Don't look for legal advice on the internet.
1) The incident was not consentual, It was a "brief stop". His compliance with the investigation of a complaint is expected.
2) Probable cause is not needed to ask a person to produce identification. An officer may do so on a first tier encounter and the contact would still be consentual. This has ben upheld.
3) Checking for warrants/probation/parole is an activity that is usually indicitve of an officer checking to see who he/she is speaking with . It is an officer safety issue more than anything.
4) The officers are in contact with your friend in response to a citizen being concerned with the open display of a weapon (ie, a complaint). The officers can/ will detain him until any alarm is dispelled and until it is clear that they are not dealing with someone who is not in violation of statute as a result of thier history, hence the the checking of status: warrants, parole, probation, ect.
5) An officer needs no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to check for wants/status/ warrants on another person. If an officer has had dealing with a particular person previously, for example, and had that persons name and date of birth, which is common for an officer to retain, then the officer may at his discretion, check that person's status. It is akin to checking a license plate on a vehicle for which there is no expectation of privacy.
6) There is a metric assload of case law on officer citizen encounters, hope your friend likes to read.
7) My experience is pretty simple, I do it for a living.
In my opinion, based on what was written, is that the officers did not exceed the scope of their authority during the encounter. Their opinions of his carrying in the open are just that, and as long as he is in compilance with the law, he can drive on. If he feels the need to obtain legal counsel, fine, however the officers are not, based on what you wrote, culpabe for any wrong doing.
Good Luck.
the1911fan
07-03-07, 11:58
I check warrant status on people I assist at the roadside, complainants, people that come to the station for assistance installing a child car seat, and anyone that I locate in reference to a complaint.
Some people do fear open carry of weapons (I imagine since someone was in fear to the point of calling police)...why not sling your favorite AR15 and walk around downtown Boulder?...what would the diiference be? Hell you start praying to Mecca in public and you get people calling the police. In some areas if you are walking while black people call the police and say that you are "suspicious".
IMO anyone that open carries is doing so to make a point and nothing more.
Maybe he likes to read as much as he likes to open carry... hope so b/c as stated loads of case law exist and his encounter has been addressed previously by many courts in many jurisdictions.
The only way to find out if the person open carrying is a prohibited person is to run them for warrants and CCH. Walking away from an officer or officers that are only engaging you in conversation when you are open carrying would reasonably raise the suspicion that you "might" be a prohibited person and further investigation would reasonably warranted. Your friend acted properly as did the officers.
Nick,
As I'm sure you know, laws vary greatly from state to state. I won't pretend I know anything about Colorado law, but if you go to http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum13 you can likely find others with similar experiences, advice on finding local lawyers (if desired), etc.
Mark
could have he refused to provide identification/walked away without consequence? What constitutes probable cause to force him to produce identification?
This is the real question.
Patrick Aherne
07-03-07, 13:23
The officers were responding to a complaint about a suspicious person call. It sounds like they did a consensual encounter and asked questions.
I think your friend should heed their advice, or he will not wind up as a LEO.
He needs to talk with an attorney. Don't look for legal advice on the internet.
He's not seeking legal advice - this is more for me personally. I'd just like to know the norm of officer/civilian interaction when legal weapons are involved.
1) The incident was not consentual, It was a "brief stop". His compliance with the investigation of a complaint is expected.
2) Probable cause is not needed to ask a person to produce identification. An officer may do so on a first tier encounter and the contact would still be consentual. This has ben upheld.
3) Checking for warrants/probation/parole is an activity that is usually indicitve of an officer checking to see who he/she is speaking with . It is an officer safety issue more than anything.
4) The officers are in contact with your friend in response to a citizen being concerned with the open display of a weapon (ie, a complaint). The officers can/ will detain him until any alarm is dispelled and until it is clear that they are not dealing with someone who is not in violation of statute as a result of thier history, hence the the checking of status: warrants, parole, probation, ect.
5) An officer needs no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to check for wants/status/ warrants on another person. If an officer has had dealing with a particular person previously, for example, and had that persons name and date of birth, which is common for an officer to retain, then the officer may at his discretion, check that person's status. It is akin to checking a license plate on a vehicle for which there is no expectation of privacy.
6) There is a metric assload of case law on officer citizen encounters, hope your friend likes to read.
7) My experience is pretty simple, I do it for a living.
In my opinion, based on what was written, is that the officers did not exceed the scope of their authority during the encounter. Their opinions of his carrying in the open are just that, and as long as he is in compilance with the law, he can drive on. If he feels the need to obtain legal counsel, fine, however the officers are not, based on what you wrote, culpabe for any wrong doing.
Good Luck.
Perfect - just the kind of post I was looking for. Thank you. Is there any possibility of him being cited for anything just by carrying the gun? Something like disturbing the peace?
I feel an officer's opinion should be kept to themselves when laws are not being broken, and in that respect they overstepped their grounds. It's not something I would file a complaint about, but IMO, that is unprofessional.
I check warrant status on people I assist at the roadside, complainants, people that come to the station for assistance installing a child car seat, and anyone that I locate in reference to a complaint.
Some people do fear open carry of weapons (I imagine since someone was in fear to the point of calling police)...why not sling your favorite AR15 and walk around downtown Boulder?...what would the diiference be? Hell you start praying to Mecca in public and you get people calling the police. In some areas if you are walking while black people call the police and say that you are "suspicious".
IMO anyone that open carries is doing so to make a point and nothing more.
Maybe he likes to read as much as he likes to open carry... hope so b/c as stated loads of case law exist and his encounter has been addressed previously by many courts in many jurisdictions.
The only way to find out if the person open carrying is a prohibited person is to run them for warrants and CCH. Walking away from an officer or officers that are only engaging you in conversation when you are open carrying would reasonably raise the suspicion that you "might" be a prohibited person and further investigation would reasonably warranted. Your friend acted properly as did the officers.
I completely agree that he was open carrying simply to make a political statement, and is foolish if he didn't expect an incident like this. I still find it interesting that one is expected to produce identification due to another person's complaint about a legal activity. I know this is a stretch, but that is almost like me calling 911 and reporting that another driver is doing nothing wrong, but he's making me nervous. :confused:
Nick,
As I'm sure you know, laws vary greatly from state to state. I won't pretend I know anything about Colorado law, but if you go to http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum13 you can likely find others with similar experiences, advice on finding local lawyers (if desired), etc.
Mark
Thanks Mark, I'll check them out. A lawyer isn't needed in this situation, thankfully - I just found it interesting. I open carry to snag lunch or coffee on my way to the range from time to time, always without incident. If it could turn into a legal issue for me, I'll simply stop.
The officers were responding to a complaint about a suspicious person call. It sounds like they did a consensual encounter and asked questions.
I think your friend should heed their advice, or he will not wind up as a LEO.
Not a friend - I've only met the guy once. Why do you think he won't end up as a LEO? Word travels fast within departments, but do you honestly think an incident like this is enough to justify torpedoing him with other departments? I think that may have been a pretty empty threat considering no law was broken, and no citation was issued.
Patrick Aherne
07-03-07, 15:34
Around here, if you act like an ass, word travels. All it takes is one call to your background investigator that you failed the attitude test on a contact with an officer and you're toast, depending on the officer making the call.
Around here, if you act like an ass, word travels. All it takes is one call to your background investigator that you failed the attitude test on a contact with an officer and you're toast, depending on the officer making the call.
I've got to claim ignorance on this - how would they have a record of this? When they called in his information, is there a record of that? Is there a record of cooperative/uncooperative? I was under the assumption there was not... Even still, he had no attitude - just politics that differ from the officer's. He's had the opposite experience before, too, when officers tell him they wish more people carried.
I know this is a stretch, but that is almost like me calling 911 and reporting that another driver is doing nothing wrong, but he's making me nervous. :confused:
That is the example I was thinking of. Should I call 911 everytime someone in a 6000 pound SUV or pickup tailgates me or drives like a maniac? That in reality is probably alot more dangerous than someone legally carrying around a gun.
Pat_Rogers
07-03-07, 16:07
I've got to claim ignorance on this - how would they have a record of this? When they called in his information, is there a record of that? Is there a record of cooperative/uncooperative? I was under the assumption there was not... Even still, he had no attitude - just politics that differ from the officer's. He's had the opposite experience before, too, when officers tell him they wish more people carried.
Nick- in NYPD there was a "Stop and Frisk" form that had to be filled out anytime you stopped and frisked someone.
A person did not have to answer your questions of course, and in that case if no further action was taken the captions such as "Name" were filled with "refused".
The purpose of this form was to document an officers actions as to why they stopped who they stopped.
Factors such as time of day, location, actions of the person etc were included, to include a 911 call.
For example, a report of a prowler at a specific location would mean that someone in that vicinity might be questioned as to who he is, where he lives, why he is there.
Furtive movements, specific actions/ answers/ refucals would elevate the reasonable suspicion to a frisk- an external pat down for officer safety.
If a weapon was found, then this would satisfy the legality of the search issue.
One night my team spotted 2 people who exhibited all of the signs of someone who was looking for a vic. At one point they split up. We did too and followed them for a period of time. When we started to incur OT, we did a stop and frisk. We turned those cards in and filed the names with our data system. Both has extensive GLA/ robbery sheets.
On the next night there were two garage takedowns in close proximity. We stayed a few blocks away and saw one of the mutts stopped the night before running. Based on all of the previous info and radio 'script of perps, we stopped him.
He immediately rolled over on a major robbery/ GLA ring that resulted in multiple arrests and closed out a metric assload of cases.
So yes, these things remain on file.
If an investigator asked me about people who were in the application process and with whom i had interaction, it was simple for me to look at my memo book for the name/ date and provide him with the back story.
If the guy was not an assclown, that is what we gave to the investigator. If he was rude, belligerent, stupid or such, that is what we gave to the investigator.
If he was arrested for a misdemeanor charge that did not make him ineligible for hiring, we would be asked for our opinion as to his suitability for the job.
Things to think about when one wants to get on the soap box...
Also, you are getting the word of someone you met once and who is relating a tale to you. Red Flags Flying...
Nick- in NYPD there was a "Stop and Frisk" form that had to be filled out anytime you stopped and frisked someone.
A person did not have to answer your questions of course, and in that case if no further action was taken the captions such as "Name" were filled with "refused".
The purpose of this form was to document an officers actions as to why they stopped who they stopped.
Factors such as time of day, location, actions of the person etc were included, to include a 911 call.
For example, a report of a prowler at a specific location would mean that someone in that vicinity might be questioned as to who he is, where he lives, why he is there.
Furtive movements, specific actions/ answers/ refucals would elevate the reasonable suspicion to a frisk- an external pat down for officer safety.
If a weapon was found, then this would satisfy the legality of the search issue.
One night my team spotted 2 people who exhibited all of the signs of someone who was looking for a vic. At one point they split up. We did too and followed them for a period of time. When we started to incur OT, we did a stop and frisk. We turned those cards in and filed the names with our data system. Both has extensive GLA/ robbery sheets.
On the next night there were two garage takedowns in close proximity. We stayed a few blocks away and saw one of the mutts stopped the night before running. Based on all of the previous info and radio 'script of perps, we stopped him.
He immediately rolled over on a major robbery/ GLA ring that resulted in multiple arrests and closed out a metric assload of cases.
So yes, these things remain on file.
If an investigator asked me about people who were in the application process and with whom i had interaction, it was simple for me to look at my memo book for the name/ date and provide him with the back story.
If the guy was not an assclown, that is what we gave to the investigator. If he was rude, belligerent, stupid or such, that is what we gave to the investigator.
If he was arrested for a misdemeanor charge that did not make him ineligible for hiring, we would be asked for our opinion as to his suitability for the job.
Ahh, good to know - thank you, Pat. I'm really struggling with this issue precisely because of stories like yours. My father has related many of the same types of tales to me over the years from his experiences as a LEO.
On one hand, I understand the sixth sense officers develop over time about a person's character and intentions, which is why I'm OK with officers using things like jaywalking or loitering to bust the corner crack dealer. On the other, it's upsetting to me that an openly displayed firearm makes a person suspect, and that a phone call reporting nothing illegal is justification enough to question a person. Cops aren't allowed to request proof of residency from people speaking Spanish. If I pop a prescription pill in front of an officer I won't be hassled to prove the prescription is mine. This incident is nothing more than the result of open carry being sufficiently uncommon enough to cause people to take notice, IMO. Being in Boulder, Colorado certainly didn't help...
Also, you are getting the word of someone you met once and who is relating a tale to you. Red Flags Flying...
I posted this thread to satisfy my own curiosity, as this situation is something I would expect to encounter if I carried openly. I don't care to draw any more attention to myself than necessary, but the law has always fascinated me. Even for a law abiding citizen, it never hurts to know your rights.
Pat_Rogers
07-03-07, 17:14
Roger Nick. As i understand it, this contact was the result of a 911 call. The cops responded and saw what they saw. They conducted a quick investigation until they were satisfied (in this instance, no crime. However, they could have collared up under different circumstances and have been proper also).
To have done otherwise could have been negligent. Under the circumstances presented, and based on my knowledge of NYS law, no problems.
Open carry is always contentious. When i was in AZ, it was common in some places but not others. Therefore, what is proper here may not be proper over there. Another way of looking at that would be over here, no 911 call. Over there, maybe several 911 calls.
I believe that open carry in certain settings is viable, but in other settings is stupid, and you are giving up a tactical advantage for no valid reason..
I don't- won't -open carry even in places where i can. Unwanted attention, no matter if you are right or wrong, can have unintended consequences from a number of different corners.
I remember talking to some Columbia, Missouri police officers about this very subject. This was during a police academy and they were guest instructors, a Capt and a Sgt IIRC.
Anyway, their read on it was that while it was legal in Missouri to carry openly, if you caused a disturbance they would arrest you for disturbing the peace. (To be honest I don't remember the exact charge, and I believe it was specific to that city rather than the state at large.)
The lesson from that was carry concealed where it is legal, and open carry only when it's socially appropriate. Columbia Missouri being a three college town, it was never socially appropriate.
Roger Nick. As i understand it, this contact was the result of a 911 call. The cops responded and saw what they saw. They conducted a quick investigation until they were satisfied (in this instance, no crime. However, they could have collared up under different circumstances and have been proper also).
To have done otherwise could have been negligent. Under the circumstances presented, and based on my knowledge of NYS law, no problems.
Open carry is always contentious. When i was in AZ, it was common in some places but not others. Therefore, what is proper here may not be proper over there. Another way of looking at that would be over here, no 911 call. Over there, maybe several 911 calls.
I believe that open carry in certain settings is viable, but in other settings is stupid, and you are giving up a tactical advantage for no valid reason..
I don't- won't -open carry even in places where i can. Unwanted attention, no matter if you are right or wrong, can have unintended consequences from a number of different corners.
Pat - as a LEO, would there ever be reason to cite him for something like disturbing the peace? Something else?
It is also my understanding that the stop initiated from a 911 call. What type of call warrants further investigation, and what type of call does not? This call seems to be motivated by politics and/or ignorance of the law. What if we use the same complaint scenario with a more commonplace activity? What if I call 911 and tell them I think some construction workers might be illegal? What if I report someone talking a cell phone that might be stolen, or using software that might be pirated? Those scenarios have no less legal justification for further investigation than an individual with a holstered firearm, but I bet they would be ignored as a waste of resources. My gut tells me the word "gun" changes the call priority dramatically regardless of context.
I remember talking to some Columbia, Missouri police officers about this very subject. This was during a police academy and they were guest instructors, a Capt and a Sgt IIRC.
Anyway, their read on it was that while it was legal in Missouri to carry openly, if you caused a disturbance they would arrest you for disturbing the peace. (To be honest I don't remember the exact charge, and I believe it was specific to that city rather than the state at large.)
The lesson from that was carry concealed where it is legal, and open carry only when it's socially appropriate. Columbia Missouri being a three college town, it was never socially appropriate.
"Officer, I didn't cause the disturbance...it was all the people yelling and screaming. Arrest them!"
Really, that doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't that akin to arresting the woman with a fur coat when the PETA activist spray paints it and makes a scene?
Boulder is also a college town, so that didn't help matters. Admittedly, I don't know any urban/suburban areas in this state where open carry is socially acceptable.
"Officer, I didn't cause the disturbance...it was all the people yelling and screaming. Arrest them!"
Really, that doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't that akin to arresting the woman with a fur coat when the PETA activist spray paints it and makes a scene?
Boulder is also a college town, so that didn't help matters. Admittedly, I don't know any urban/suburban areas in this state where open carry is socially acceptable.
It gets nuttier. There was a CCW vote in Missouri like a year later. It failed. Thanks to St. Louis County, Jackson County(Where KC is located.) and Boone County (Where Columbia is located). Ever other county in the state voted for it.
So a local gun store/gun range owner decided to protest by openly carrying. He was questioned by security in a local grocery store. I told him that I thought he was lucky because, based on my conversation with the police officers, he would have been arrested if the cops had been called. He said that's exactly what he wanted, but I don't recall him openly carrying after that.
Pat_Rogers
07-03-07, 19:26
Pat - as a LEO, would there ever be reason to cite him for something like disturbing the peace? Something else?
It is also my understanding that the stop initiated from a 911 call. What type of call warrants further investigation, and what type of call does not? This call seems to be motivated by politics and/or ignorance of the law.
Would there be a reason to cite....?
I give up- would there? There are
too many what if's to make a coherent answer.
What type of call warrants further...
All of them. Geez Nick, consider this. You are a 911 operator. Someone calls in and you believe they are intox. You dump the call. Turns out they were diabetic and go DOA. You made a bad decision, and it was based on what??
So, all calls are investigated simply because those operators making not much more then starvation wages cannot- and should not- be permitted to send something to the round file on their own.
Certainly there are priorities- someone screaming, shots fired in the background; multiple calls about the same job etc.; but a cop goes to all of them (or at least all they are dispatched to, and have the manpower to cover.
Example- as a Patrol Supervisor i received a communication from the Boro in the form of a written complaint.
The complaint alleged that a person (named, apartment number etc) was building a submarine in his apartment.
Complainant alleged that he had several adjacent apartments, and he could hear metalwork, smell welding etc 24/7 at the apartment which BTW was on the 12th Floor of a nice building on 2nd Ave in the confines of the 13Pct.
Complainant further alleged that when police came to investigate they would close all of the secret compartments and turn on the ventilators.
When i knocked on the door, F/W 35 answered and stated "On no, did (insert name of complainant) make another one?? This is the 26th for this year".
They invited me in where i searched high and low for a submarine, without result.
The person alleged to be the Capt Nemo was a retired Marine Officer from the1930's, and it turned out i knew him when he was the manager of the 2nd Floor at Polks Hobby House on 5th Avenue in Manhattan in the late 1950's- a great American.
He was on his death's bed- literally- and some cuckoo bird was disturbing his last days on earth with stupidity.
I wrote a long memo to the boro about this, recommending that the writer be involuntarily removed to Bellevue etc.
I got hammered by the Bosses, and they told me that "We investigate everything, no matter how frivolous or stupid it may appear".
So, here is my take. Your buddy/ whatever wants to make a statement by carrying openly, no problem. But when someone calls 911 a cop or 5 will come. And depending on his attitude, what else has recently occured in the neighborhood and so forth, the cops will make a judgement call based on the input they receive from multiple sources.
And then he can whine or cry, or be on TV after the Grand Jury or lawsuits or whatever. Or, he may fit the 'scrip of someone who just raped a nun 3 blocks away, and then maybe something else happens.
People have to be responsible for their actions, and there are consequences for all of them.
But, no more what if's Nick. Thats all for me.
John_Wayne777
07-03-07, 20:02
I apologize in advance for the long post.
Is a stop such as this voluntary for the individual being questioned, i.e. could have he refused to provide identification/walked away without consequence?
If somebody calls the cops in a hysterical panic reporting man with a gun, the police are going to investigate the call. They have to. Whenever they interact with anyone in an official capacity they are going to ask for ID. That's standard procedure.
It sounds to me like the police handled things in a professional manner and there's nothing to get bent out of shape about.
Folks have to expect that the police might be called if they openly carry into a place with a hysterical idiot who freaks out at the sight of someone safely carrying a firearm. The world is full of idiots.
If you open carry be prepared to interact with the police about it....and be prepared to be *very nice* to the police officers and to cooperate with them in a polite and professional way.
They will usually appreciate it very much.
John_Wayne777
07-03-07, 20:09
They invited me in where i searched high and low for a submarine, without result.
:D
That's the best one I've heard yet!
You could have some fun with the report.....
"...found no submarine on the premises. Did, however, notice aircraft parts in several places, which could be assembled into a B-19. Recommend keeping a close eye on this location."
So a local gun store/gun range owner decided to protest by openly carrying. He was questioned by security in a local grocery store. I told him that I thought he was lucky because, based on my conversation with the police officers, he would have been arrested if the cops had been called. He said that's exactly what he wanted, but I don't recall him openly carrying after that.
Political activism can be an expensive hobby. At least the gun store owner knew the consequences and was prepared to accept them. The guy in my story was far more foolish, in my opinion, and should have seen this coming. Something I didn't think about that Pat mentioned is the impact of recent events on the situation. Pre-Virginia Tech, this might not have been an issue. Post-VT, it makes perfect sense that cops want to know what he's doing carrying a gun 0.25 miles from a large university.
If somebody calls the cops in a hysterical panic reporting man with a gun, the police are going to investigate the call. They have to. Whenever they interact with anyone in an official capacity they are going to ask for ID. That's standard procedure.
It sounds to me like the police handled things in a professional manner and there's nothing to get bent out of shape about.
Folks have to expect that the police might be called if they openly carry into a place with a hysterical idiot who freaks out at the sight of someone safely carrying a firearm. The world is full of idiots.
If you open carry be prepared to interact with the police about it....and be prepared to be *very nice* to the police officers and to cooperate with them in a polite and professional way.
They will usually appreciate it very much.
It makes perfect sense to me, too, John - I guess a main point of this thread was to get more input from people who have real experience, as I do not. Pat has made the issue crystal clear. The bottom line, it appears, is that everything, no matter how asinine, is investigated, and priority is determined based on context. I thought certain calls would be ignored, but the submarine proved that that assumption wrong! :p
I’ve studied a bit of Constitutional law (not much), so these kinds of things always interest me. I enjoy seeing how behavior by civilians and law enforcement alike is reconciled through written and case law. It seems to me like this can be a gray area depending on circumstances. You’re not under arrest, but you’re not free to go. Like you say, I’ve always found polite behavior to work wonders.
Time to dust off some old law books…
the1911fan
07-03-07, 20:44
Pat - as a LEO, would there ever be reason to cite him for something like disturbing the peace? Something else?
It is also my understanding that the stop initiated from a 911 call. What type of call warrants further investigation, and what type of call does not? This call seems to be motivated by politics and/or ignorance of the law. What if we use the same complaint scenario with a more commonplace activity? What if I call 911 and tell them I think some construction workers might be illegal? What if I report someone talking a cell phone that might be stolen, or using software that might be pirated? Those scenarios have no less legal justification for further investigation than an individual with a holstered firearm, but I bet they would be ignored as a waste of resources. My gut tells me the word "gun" changes the call priority dramatically regardless of context.
Illegal construction workers at a construction site.....A possible stolen cell phone.....pirated software.... none would be immediately identifiable or scare the average city liberal or college town liberal. I work in a Metro area and IMO cops that open carry off duty are knobs (just like regular non LE folk that open carry IMO)...most dept.'s around my area require concealed carry when off duty...and thank goodness they do.
If you are LEO in the rural areas and open carry is normal that is what you do I reckon.
Illegal construction workers at a construction site.....A possible stolen cell phone.....pirated software.... none would be immediately identifiable or scare the average city liberal or college town liberal. I work in a Metro area and IMO cops that open carry off duty are knobs (just like regular non LE folk that open carry IMO)...most dept.'s around my area require concealed carry when off duty...and thank goodness they do.
LMAO! Great post - you just made me spit out some coffee!
As has been mentioned, the reaction is often very area-dependent.
In Virginia, for example, pre-1995 a CHL holder could carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Post-1995, the anti-gunners got that changed.
As a result, folks who carry a gun for protection must un-conceal when they enter a restaurant that serves alcohol. I have dined with some of these folks, and seen many others. (I saw one last week.) I doubt many of them were open carrying to make a point, but simply to comply with the law.
Usually there's little notice given to them. Once in a while the cops are called, the cops will show up, see that there's no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and leave. Sometimes the cops will professionally discuss the incident with the carrier and be on their way. Once in a while the cops will unprofessionally put their personal feeling above the law when discussing the incident with the carrier.
On the whole, however, I'd say that Virginia is getting more used to open carry.
Bulldog1967
07-03-07, 22:28
As has been mentioned, the reaction is often very area-dependent.
In Virginia, for example, pre-1995 a CHL holder could carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Post-1995, the anti-gunners got that changed.
As a result, folks who carry a gun for protection must un-conceal when they enter a restaurant that serves alcohol. I have dined with some of these folks, and seen many others. (I saw one last week.) I doubt many of them were open carrying to make a point, but simply to comply with the law.
Usually there's little notice given to them. Once in a while the cops are called, the cops will show up, see that there's no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and leave. Sometimes the cops will professionally discuss the incident with the carrier and be on their way. Once in a while the cops will unprofessionally put their personal feeling above the law when discussing the incident with the carrier.
On the whole, however, I'd say that Virginia is getting more used to open carry.
VERY well said.
I open carry throughout the hot summer days into the fall here in VA for several reasons:
Its more comfortable for me, as I ddon't have to wear multiple layers to conceal.
It is legal here in VA, (and required in establishments with are ABC joints) as Dr. Mark mentioned.
It lets the sheeple know that common people CAN. This quite honestly is one of the main reasons I DO. I have helped educate MANY people on VA law in regards to OC since I have taken to do so. I am non-confrontational, I stick to the facts, and I try to inform.
I DO believe it is a deterrent to crime.
As has also been mentioned, it REALLY depends on the climate in YOUR state. VA OC members have been, with the help of forums like opencarry.org, VERY proactive in taking the law and ensuring that a right excersized is a right retained.
You really have to weigh if it is right for you. I won't disparage ANYONE for not OC. I find it discouraging when people, including law enforcement, discourage other from doing so when it is perfectly legal to do so.
Even here in VA, where VCDL got a preemption law passed in the state assembly that restricted local municipalities from enacting gun laws that superseded state laws, there are a few places, like Alexandria, where the local LEO insist on harassing law abiding citizens excersizing their right to OC.
Its a battle, and one that some gun owners are not comfortable fighting.
In the end, we are ALL in the same boat when it comes down to fighting the good fight to protect ourselves and our loved ones in whatever legal manner we deem necessary. I hope we can find common ground in doing so, as we will surely hang separately if we do not hang together.
Semper Fi.
Matt G
John_Wayne777
07-03-07, 22:46
As has been mentioned, the reaction is often very area-dependent.
In Virginia, for example, pre-1995 a CHL holder could carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Post-1995, the anti-gunners got that changed.
As a result, folks who carry a gun for protection must un-conceal when they enter a restaurant that serves alcohol.
Yup. That's been responsible for a number of "man with a gun" calls to law enforcement. Incidents in Fairfax, Staunton, and Manassas have been VERY unpleasant, although I'm not sure if there was some contributory 'tude going on to cause the badness that happened.
It lets the sheeple know that common people CAN. This quite honestly is one of the main reasons I DO. I have helped educate MANY people on VA law in regards to OC since I have taken to do so. I am non-confrontational, I stick to the facts, and I try to inform.
Thanks for saying it. This is the primary reason I choose to carry openly when and where it is prudent to do so.
There are people in certain occupations and/or with connections such that they will never have to worry about being able to possess or carry guns. While some of them are very supportive of the rest of us exercising our rights to do so, many do not share our priorities to remain politically active and vigilant.
Too many people have been brainwashed into believing that if they see someone carrying a gun in a holster, that they are either 1) a cop, or 2) a criminal. They need to be re-educated that if you see a person with a holstered gun, all it means is that they have a gun in their holster. It doesn't mean they are a police officer, it doesn't mean they are a criminal or have intent to do violence, and it doesn't mean they are exhibiting some attention-seeking pathology. It just means they have a gun. They should be judged by their actions, not on what they choose to carry for their own reasons.
Certainly there are times and places where open carry is a very bad idea. There are other times amd places where it's an ideal opportunity to be a positive example. When we make that choice, we have to be aware of the potential consequences and benefits and make a fully informed decision.
It also makes a huge difference how you dress and conduct yourself. Someone who is dressed neatly and just going about their daily business with a pistol in an exposed holster is far less likely (at least in more enlightened areas) to attract negative attention that a shirtless, dissheveled person with a pistol thrust into the front of their trousers who is acting like he's casing a liquor store for his next robbery.
the1911fan
07-04-07, 06:51
I don't- won't -open carry even in places where i can. Unwanted attention, no matter if you are right or wrong, can have unintended consequences from a number of different corners.
Could'nt agree more
the1911fan
07-04-07, 06:56
It is legal here in VA, (and required in establishments with are ABC joints) as Dr. Mark mentioned.
It lets the sheeple know that common people CAN. This quite honestly is one of the main reasons I DO. I have helped educate MANY people on VA law in regards to OC since I have taken to do so. I am non-confrontational, I stick to the facts, and I try to inform.
I DO believe it is a deterrent to crime.
Matt G
A slung AR15 would immensely increase the deterrent effect:D you go first:D
1) The incident was not consentual, It was a "brief stop". His compliance with the investigation of a complaint is expected.
2) Probable cause is not needed to ask a person to produce identification. An officer may do so on a first tier encounter and the contact would still be consentual. This has ben upheld.
3) Checking for warrants/probation/parole is an activity that is usually indicitve of an officer checking to see who he/she is speaking with . It is an officer safety issue more than anything.
4) The officers are in contact with your friend in response to a citizen being concerned with the open display of a weapon (ie, a complaint). The officers can/ will detain him until any alarm is dispelled and until it is clear that they are not dealing with someone who is not in violation of statute as a result of thier history, hence the the checking of status: warrants, parole, probation, ect.
5) An officer needs no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to check for wants/status/ warrants on another person. If an officer has had dealing with a particular person previously, for example, and had that persons name and date of birth, which is common for an officer to retain, then the officer may at his discretion, check that person's status. It is akin to checking a license plate on a vehicle for which there is no expectation of privacy.
6) There is a metric assload of case law on officer citizen encounters, hope your friend likes to read.
7) My experience is pretty simple, I do it for a living.
In my opinion, based on what was written, is that the officers did not exceed the scope of their authority during the encounter. Their opinions of his carrying in the open are just that, and as long as he is in compilance with the law, he can drive on. If he feels the need to obtain legal counsel, fine, however the officers are not, based on what you wrote, culpabe for any wrong doing.
Good Luck.
+100
I'll add in response to some of the open carry comments that in this is allowed in my state. 99% of folks permited to carry do so concealed. Obviously leo's do not need a CCW to conceal carry while off duty (must have in their possession dept badge & ID), however, my dept requires that our officers do so discreetly. We must carry our duty weapon or back up that has been qualified with. We always get calls about the folks that open carry despite the fact that is legal. The average civ becomes alarmed when they see someone with a sidearm on their hip without a badge displayed or otherwise wearing what appears to be LE type gear. Heck, a group of us on chow time during a training day were complained on while inside a restuarant when wearing half our tac gear & wearing clearly marked XX Police Tac Team shirts with badges clipped on our thugh rigs & marked squad cars in the lot. In response to these complaints I'll ask the individual for their permit & check their local status & run them through IDAC/NCIC. Usually everything checks ok for this person & I'll cut 'em loose.
I do advise them that open carry, although legal in my AO, does alert the paranoids & ask (not order) that they try to start concealed carry. This is not a personal opinion on my part, rather just a constructive advisement of the obvious because folks always report it when they observe a citizen open carrying they believe is not a leo. I've never had a prob with anyone with a valid CCW permit carrier causing a prob, however, many of them get so offended about the complaint & forget the fact that the other officers or myself that is dealing with them is just responding to the complaint due to our responsibility as leo's.
As far as could the person being investigated end the contact? Prolly not since that person is not usually free to go until I have determined there is no crime being committed. This person is required by state statute that he/she provide an leo upon demand their permit & present the weapon for inspection of the serial #. We check the validity of the permit & make sure the weapon is not Sig40 to cover all basis the release them after all checks ok. Technically this is a contact that has been initiated via citizen complaint & not the officer. Subsequent to my dept policy we have to respond to all calls fielded by tx to disptach (911 or business line) or be it by flag down while on patrol unless it can reasonably be determined that a complaint is unfounded. The latter is rare since you can't really know until some method of investigation is conducted anyway. Terry Stops are another issue & it sounds as though the event described by the OP did not fit this scenario.
I would advise your acquaintance that it's in is best interest to cooperate with the officers during a contact type you've described. If he is legal he will be cut loose & no harm done. It's the type that want to bang heads with the officer investigating a complaint despite the fact they are not violating any statute or ordinance & "shouldn't have been stopped in the first place" that refuse to cooperate get into trouble. Just because something may be legal doesn't mean leo's don't investigate or ask fewer questions as long as we remain within the scope of our authority.
We always get calls about the folks that open carry despite the fact that is legal. The average civ becomes alarmed when they see someone with a sidearm on their hip without a badge displayed or otherwise wearing what appears to be LE type gear.
Which illustrates why more "regular" people should choose to carry openly more often when that can and it is prudent to do so.
Pat_Rogers
07-04-07, 13:33
In the 70's prostitution was a lesser crime. They were always good for info on guns and bad guys, and arrests for loitering were simple affairs.
Come the democrat convention at Madison Square Garden, the city wanted a more pristine image, so they had pross sweeps, sidewalk vendor seeps, no tolerance on quality of life crimes etc.
An activist feminist group decided that there should be no arrests made for loitering as how could a cop tell if a pross was a pross by the way she dressed.
Yup, platform shoes, garish makeup, semi exposed yaboos, micro minis that came all the way down to their navel, talking into cars, patrolling in packs, fighting with each other.
Like normal people.
So, this group wanted to be confrontational. They dressed some lawyers up (yeah, i know, how could you tell the difference?) like pross and put them on the ho show. When they got swept up, they complained that they were exercising their right to look and act like ho's, and that the fascist po- leece were opressing their right to be skanks.
End of sweeps, increase of violent crime and no more info.
When the AWB came into effect in NY, one gunstore loudmouth sent a letter into the local rag complete with mention of the Constitution, JBT, Nazi's and the winner was (paraphrased here) I ain't giving up nothing and if they want them they can take them from my cold dead fingers.
Wanna' guess what happened there? If not, i'll tell you anyway. An investigation was commenced. Observations and court ordered surveillence was initiated. When they had enough, they served a warrant, arrested, indicted and he of course pled out to lesser charges.
Be an activist, and i am glad for it. However, be sure of what you are getting into. Don't like cops? Keep twisting their horns, especially when there is no valid reason. Touting law to a cop on the street is a waste of time. It is not necessary for him to know exactly what law is being broken, but you better be without sin before you start launching those granite missles.
Perception is reality folks. When people see dorks with guns on the news, no matter how legally correct they are, you lose points- maybe for all of us.
As i stated above, there is a time and place for certain things.
I don't- won't carry open because i lose a distinct tactical advantage.
I have been carrying a gun full time since 1973. I have made a whole bunch of gun collars. I have watched armed robberies occur while in stakout, and watched how mutts set up on decoys. I've got some experience on this but i'll be the first to tell you that i don't know it all.
But i won't carry open.
Do what you want, but be prepared for the consequences.
+100
As far as could the person being investigated end the contact? Prolly not since that person is not usually free to go until I have determined there is no crime being committed. This person is required by state statute that he/she provide an leo upon demand their permit & present the weapon for inspection of the serial #. We check the validity of the permit & make sure the weapon is not Sig40 to cover all basis the release them after all checks ok.
What state are you in?
I've not heard of police, as standard procedure, giving citizens such a hassle when there's nothing to indicate any wrongdoing.
Also, what if the person has no permit? Some folks in Virginia open carry because they don't have a CHL.
Alpha Sierra
07-04-07, 16:43
What state are you in?
I've not heard of police, as standard procedure, giving citizens such a hassle when there's nothing to indicate any wrongdoing.
Also, what if the person has no permit? Some folks in Virginia open carry because they don't have a CHL.
Same in Ohio. Changes to our firearm laws effective 3/14/07 rendered local gun control ordinances null and void, making open carry legal anywhere in the state where you can have a firearm.
NICK,
AS A GENERAL PRACTICE AND MY EXPERIENCE AS A LEO ANY CALL THAT RAISES ALARM BY A CITIZEN WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO INVESTIGATE AND THAT INCLUDES THE CHECKING OF WARRANTS AND NCIC. ALSO IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH LEOS ITS BETTER TO BE CAUTIOUS THAN END UP INJURIED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW PROCEDURE OR YOU GUT FEELING.
CFRAZIER
Bulldog1967
07-04-07, 19:16
Same in Ohio. Changes to our firearm laws effective 3/14/07 rendered local gun control ordinances null and void, making open carry legal anywhere in the state where you can have a firearm.
Same in VA, isn't pre-emption great?
Bulldog1967
07-04-07, 19:25
Be an activist, and i am glad for it. However, be sure of what you are getting into. Don't like cops? Keep twisting their horns, especially when there is no valid reason. Touting law to a cop on the street is a waste of time. It is not necessary for him to know exactly what law is being broken, but you better be without sin before you start launching those granite missles.
Do what you want, but be prepared for the consequences.
I personally have a LOT of respect for our local LEO. They are great professionals who do a thankless job for not enough pay.
But respect goes BOTH ways.
99% of FFX county LEOs will respond to a call with a law abiding citizen OCing by checking to make sure everything is kosher, then leaving. which is how it should be.
My VERY few interactions with LEO have been great and with much mutual respect on BOTH sides.
You will find no greater supporter and defender of Law Enforcement than yours truly.
However, there are LEO in other jurisdictions who take it upon themselves to unnecessarily harass law abiding citizens who are doing nothing wrong, for no other reason than THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
And that's WRONG. And yes, I will fight that, because just because someone wears a badge, doesn't mean they can only enforce the laws they like.
Pat_Rogers
07-04-07, 20:06
I was looking on the other site, re what appears to me to be a baiting situation by someone open carrying f/o a bank.
The alleged verbalization of the poster/ whatever (and remember, we have only one side) "I don't consent to the search"- I don't consent to seizure of my firearm" is the stupid stuff that gets people hurt.
I am remined of the Keyhoe Bros, who used similar verbalization and tried to kill the two cops.
Cops remember that stuff.
I am a strong supporter of RTKBA, and have been an NRA member since 1959 (OK, junior member then:D ) and a life member since 1966.
I said before and i'll say it again, do what you believe is right, but be prepared for the consequences when it goes wrong- and the potential is.
Add to that that all IA keep records of chronic complainers, just like they do of cops who are complained of. What you consider one thing may not what others consider it, and especially when it happens over and over.
And their investigators and intell people are probably very aware of it.
My credo when i was on the job was to be couteous to everyone, friendly to know one. And i felt that I was prepared to use DPF against everyone i came in contact with, no matter what the job, if necessary.
Re discretion. Cops use a great deal of discretion in how they enforce laws. Can you imagine what it would be like if they has a zero tolerence thing- especially with traffic.
Good luck on your endeavors. Please be careful.
Me, i have a TDY coming up so i'll be shooting guns for the next few weeks, and loving every minute of it.
Alpha Sierra
07-04-07, 20:20
Open carry is great in the woods. But I will not deliberately engage in it in populated areas for much the same reasons Pat Rogers has stated. It is simply not tactically smart 99% of the time.
I use other methods to educate others about the exercise of the Second Amendment.
What state are you in?
I've not heard of police, as standard procedure, giving citizens such a hassle when there's nothing to indicate any wrongdoing.
Also, what if the person has no permit? Some folks in Virginia open carry because they don't have a CHL.
If the person has no permit they cannot carry a firearm on their person or in their vehicle, outside of their residence or business. If they carry in violation of this then they are subject to arrest for possession of a firearm w/out a permit. Further, neither my partners nor I hassel anyone. I can't speak for the other eight agencies that operate within my county. Like I stated in my previous post, we respond to complaints whether they're founded or not. It's almost impossible to determine if a call is unfounded prior to making the scene to find that out.
If there is no illegal activity afoot then that subject will be released with no harm done other than to that persons pride in some instances, since many take offense to the fact that an leo has contact with them. I don't have any control over that issue. All I can do is apologize & advise them that someone made a bogus complaint. For example, a complaint of whatever goes out & the complaint advises a certain vehicle was observed leaving the scene. I see a vehicle matching the description provided by dispatch in the area & I stop it. I determine soon enough that this is not the suspect vehicle & release the driver after confirming the victim or witness statement to my dispatch or the officer that is on scene this driver or vehicle is likely not suspect.
Maybe I'll check that persons status via computer if I have time. That driver committed no crime. Would you consider this hassling? This scenario happens everyday in my AO. In my experience, many folks just don't like to see you carrying a firearm & the same folks don't take the time to keep abreast with the laws in the state in which they live. Just because something's legal doesn't mean the person we have contact with has not committed a crime. The only way to determine they have not is to attempt contact with them & ask questions. That's a huge part of what cops do.
I can only speak for the way my dept & myself operate. I know all too well there are cops out there with tudes or what we refer to as "badge head" & it gives the rest of us a bad rep. One just has take it for what it's worth & drive on provided those idiot cops don't screw you over or hurt you. But I'm in the same IBS with Pat. I go out of my way to treat folks as I want to be treated & treat them with the utmost respect whether they earn it or not. It goes without saying that not all cops maintain the same philosophy.
My apologies for two lenghty posts in the same thread:( .
Alpha Sierra
07-04-07, 21:34
If the person has no permit they cannot carry a firearm on their person or in their vehicle, outside of their residence or business. If they carry in violation of this then they are subject to arrest for possession of a firearm w/out a permit.
You might want to explain what jurisdiction you operate in and what laws you operate under, because your statement re: permits and openly carrying firearms is not correct under the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code. And I'm pretty sure such is the case in at least one more state.
Just so we all understand what we are talking about.
If the person has no permit they cannot carry a firearm on their person or in their vehicle, outside of their residence or business. If they carry in violation of this then they are subject to arrest for possession of a firearm w/out a permit.
I suppose the laws in "Valhalla" are very different than in Virginia (I'm reminded of the "nightstalker" poster based in "raccoon city"). Here no permit is needed for an adult to open carry.
Further, neither my partners nor I hassel anyone. I can't speak for the other eight agencies that operate within my county. Like I stated in my previous post, we respond to complaints whether they're founded or not. It's almost impossible to determine if a call is unfounded prior to making the scene to find that out.
If there is no illegal activity afoot then that subject will be released with no harm done other than to that persons pride in some instances, since many take offense to the fact that an leo has contact with them. I don't have any control over that issue. All I can do is apologize & advise them that someone made a bogus complaint. For example, a complaint of whatever goes out & the complaint advises a certain vehicle was observed leaving the scene. I see a vehicle matching the description provided by dispatch in the area & I stop it. I determine soon enough that this is not the suspect vehicle & release the driver after confirming the victim or witness statement to my dispatch or the officer that is on scene this driver or vehicle is likely not suspect.
Maybe I'll check that persons status via computer if I have time. That driver committed no crime. Would you consider this hassling? This scenario happens everyday in my AO. In my experience, many folks just don't like to see you carrying a firearm & the same folks don't take the time to keep abreast with the laws in the state in which they live. Just because something's legal doesn't mean the person we have contact with has not committed a crime. The only way to determine they have not is to attempt contact with them & ask questions. That's a huge part of what cops do.
Of course the police will respond to "man with a gun" calls. In Virginia, however, it seems the increasingly common occurance is for police to be non-intrusive if evidence of wrongdoing is lacking, often not even talking to the "man with a gun." (Example - officer sees a man open-carrying while dining with his family, confirms with the restaurant manager that nothing's afoot, and departs.)
IMO, a man carrying a gun, absent any observable evidence of wrongdoing, does not warrant checking his record without his consent or confiscating his sidearm for SN checking on the presumption that it may be stolen... any more than a man being black in the East End of Newport News warrants checking his record. After all, the same "how do we know he's not a criminal unless we check?" question applies.
Personally, my interaction with police is social (church, gun show attendance, shooting together, etc.), so I'm not pretending I know what it's like to walk in their shoes professionally. However, I like to see them do their job in a way that both keeps them safe and garners the least ill will with the law-abiding public.
I was ok with the LEOs conduct in the OP until the very end when they "suggested" that the person not carry again until he could do so legally concealed....
He should forfeit a legal right available to him in order to keep someone else's comfort level down? No thank you....
As a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia I, too, can Open Carry pretty much whenever I want to....I almost NEVER do for various reasons (i have small kids, i like the deterrent effect, but the surprise effect better, etc etc)...having said that, because of our dumbass "restaurant" law, there are times when I have to....and I do...I understand it makes some people feel uncomfortable....if they feel the need to call the police, that is fine as well....
I do expect, however, the police in my jurisdiction to understand the OC laws and respect them the same as any other law....even if they dont necessarily agree with them...
You might want to explain what jurisdiction you operate in and what laws you operate under, because your statement re: permits and openly carrying firearms is not correct under the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code. And I'm pretty sure such is the case in at least one more state.
Just so we all understand what we are talking about.
My apologies. I'm in Indiana. I will assume you're questioning if a CCW holder can open carry? I can't speak for the Buckeye State or Virginia where DrMark is concerned & I don't proclaim to be an expert on every law within my state. No leo is & with this being a national thread I'm sure there is bound to be confusion. Unless something's changed in my stated that I'm not aware of, one's CCW here also allows open carry. If a gun owner is not licensed with a CCW, that person cannot carry the weapon outside of his/her home property, business or vehicle. Regardless if it's in plain view or concealed on his/her person.
In 10 years here I have rarely dealt with a person on the street who is open carrying. I do hear the dispatches several times a year of officers throughout my county being sent to a a public place ref a call where someone has complained about another openly carrying. During that time I don't recall ever hearing of or witnessing any of the carriers being "hasseled."
"IMO, a man carrying a gun, absent any observable evidence of wrongdoing, does not warrant checking his record without his consent or confiscating his sidearm for SN checking on the presumption that it may be stolen..." We may not have observed any crime, however, we don't have to in order to conduct an investigation if we have a right to be there, as it's called in legal jargon. (That's not just in Valhalla;) ...that's coast to coast). Not all the time do we even go through the entire process I've discussed earlier so don't take that as gospel. We have descretion. One of the greatest perks of being a leo if there are any.
If I get sent to a call tomorrow about the very matter being debated in this thread & check for wants on a pistol being carried by a permit holder & that pistol comes back stolen or alerted as having been used in a crime, then that person can be arrested for the appropriate charge and/or have the weapon confiscated. Doesn't matter if I had any knowledge, presumptions or suspicion before hand. This is not to say that I run around like some I know stopping any & everyone just to see what I can drudge because I want to jail someone.
Let's not turn this into an "us vs. them" debate that we see all to often.
Alpha Sierra
07-05-07, 07:53
If a gun owner is not licensed with a CCW, that person cannot carry the weapon outside of his/her home property, business or vehicle. Regardless if it's in plain view or concealed on his/her person.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that I need to have a CHL to take my handgun (unloaded and locked in my vehicle) from home to a shooting range if I lived in Indiana?
Without a LCH it would be illegal. Read:
IC 35-47-2-1 Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body, except in the person's dwelling, on the person's property or fixed place of business, without a license issued under this chapter being in the person's possession.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that I need to have a CHL to take my handgun (unloaded and locked in my vehicle) from home to a shooting range if I lived in Indiana?
Thanks for posting that I.C. abnk. If I had contact with you (alpha sierra) under the scenario you listed & I trusted that this was indeed where you were going, I doubt it would become an issue for that purpose alone. Obviously you have to be able to get from home to the range & I don't think you can travel Star Trek style yet;) . I'm embarassed to mention that I've never thought of that question nor had occasion to deal with that scenario yet. We would prolly never know anyway unless you told me, provided the gun was not in plain view for an officer to question it, i.e., traffic stop.
gunny,
If you really enforced that legislation, half of the people at the range (and even some training courses) would be busted.
Same in Ohio. Changes to our firearm laws effective 3/14/07 rendered local gun control ordinances null and void, making open carry legal anywhere in the state where you can have a firearm.
As far as Ohio goes, open carry by some determined people played an enormous role in getting the law passed for concealed carry. If not for those people and their demonstrations, it would still be very difficult to carry legally in Ohio (and it would always be openly). Now they have a choice and the law continues to mature. It's a good thing.
As always, people who do such things need to understand why and the ramifications of their behavior. Examples from such places as New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, and other urban areas where personal liberty is dead are interesting, but they may not be pertinent to life in America. Know the laws and socio-political climate of your location well, and make an informed decision.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that I need to have a CHL to take my handgun (unloaded and locked in my vehicle) from home to a shooting range if I lived in Indiana?
As abnk noted, you do need a license to transport a handgun in Indiana (with the minor exceptions noted in the IC).
On the bright side, Indiana was one of the first (if not the first) to unilaterally recognize carry licenses and permits from all other 49 states. In addition, licenses from foreign countries are valid in Indiana, which is probably unique among all of the states where a license is needed. Obviously anyone who can legally possess the gun can carry in Alaska and Vermont (as it should be) without a license or permit.
gunny,
If you really enforced that legislation, half of the people at the range (and even some training courses) would be busted.
Exactly. That's why I don't sweat it & neither should anyone else:cool: . It's rare that anyone gets busted for this type of weapons violation where I live & work.
Locations ...
As someone else noted, when we're discussing things like this, it's important to note location or jurisdiction, especially if your residence is not obvious on your messages.
I'm in Indiana and all of my comments pertain to Indiana.
For what it's worth, we do not have any kind of "CCW" or "CHL" here. We have the "Indiana License to Carry Handgun." Concealment is not mentioned in the Indiana Code, so concealed or open carry is at the discretion of the license holder, but a license is required for either.
Joseywales
07-11-07, 20:12
Not a friend - I've only met the guy once. Why do you think he won't end up as a LEO? Word travels fast within departments, but do you honestly think an incident like this is enough to justify torpedoing him with other departments? I think that may have been a pretty empty threat considering no law was broken, and no citation was issued.
First of all, we need more officers who are for the protection of the rights of the individual. So I applaud your decision to become a cop. That said, now you know what assholes you will be working side-by-side with. At least that is what you can say about her opinion. Hopefully, she is the minority of officers. However, maybe you and your friends can turn the tide.
Secondly, if it was me, I would file a complaint for harassment. Her comment was not different than her saying "you shouldn't be black, because black people make us all nervous". Their picking you out because you carry a gun (a protected civil right) is no different than them picking you out because you were black.
Third, I would have told her that "That is your opinion, and I am sure my attorney and the judge have a different view as do the people who make the laws for this town and the state. So if my exercising my protected rights make someone nervous, that is too bad for them." (My dues for my legal counsel insurance are paid up.)
In the future, if you are going to openly carry a gun, you might also want to carry something to record your police conversations in an inconspicuous manner. I use my cell phone.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.