Bad CCW Situation.
- Thread starter T.A.Sharps
- Start date
Uh no. Not in any city, you will have a officer speak to ya.
Not free in Nebraska, the tax me state. City has requirements like police registering of weapons etc.
Iowa has more CCWs than Neb, altho Neb is allowing Iowa CCW to carry in Nebr.
Simple answer, dont hang around like that.
shooter_from_show-me
New member
killoften said:
"Man With A Gun", but unsure about the "RAS" myself
armsmaster270
New member
Vermont is better CCW with no permit required.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Geez - I think what happened was that they thought the OP was casing the place and/or waiting for an opportune to moment to hold them up.
Thus, they decided to interrogate you to show the OP that they are aware of him and throw a potential criminal off his game plane. They showed a reasonable response to a potential threat - not a righteous gun owner.
IMHO - the CCW aspect was not what was happening. That's just a projection of a gun rights centric view.
Late at night, they have a lot of cash, and it is well known that some criminals like to act then and when there are few other customers. Luckily, they didn't call the cops - they were ready to - until the conversation (reasonably done - assured them that the OP was OK).
Thus, they decided to interrogate you to show the OP that they are aware of him and throw a potential criminal off his game plane. They showed a reasonable response to a potential threat - not a righteous gun owner.
IMHO - the CCW aspect was not what was happening. That's just a projection of a gun rights centric view.
Late at night, they have a lot of cash, and it is well known that some criminals like to act then and when there are few other customers. Luckily, they didn't call the cops - they were ready to - until the conversation (reasonably done - assured them that the OP was OK).
sailskidrive
New member
4th Ammmmmmendment rights...
Follks,
Keep in mind that your 4th Amendment rights provide you privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by GOVERNMENT entities. This is known as the state action doctrine. Because they are not agents of the state, a store manager or private security officer is not violating your rights by asking to inspect your bags upon you leaving their place of business or temporarily detain you if they witnessed you steal merchandise.
Now, if AFTER they perform the inspection they decided to detain you for an additional 15 minutes simply because you are a right wing conservative gun nut or a left wing liberal wiener (LOL), the would have no justification and you could sue them in civil court for false imprisonment.
The UK has some really goofy laws regarding private security officers, they can actually ticket your vehicle for illegal parking and have much more broad powers.
Personally, I just can't seem to get past the part in the initial post about perusing the grocery store aisles at midnight to get ideas for inexpensive meals. You guys are too funny.
~Sail
Follks,
Keep in mind that your 4th Amendment rights provide you privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by GOVERNMENT entities. This is known as the state action doctrine. Because they are not agents of the state, a store manager or private security officer is not violating your rights by asking to inspect your bags upon you leaving their place of business or temporarily detain you if they witnessed you steal merchandise.
Now, if AFTER they perform the inspection they decided to detain you for an additional 15 minutes simply because you are a right wing conservative gun nut or a left wing liberal wiener (LOL), the would have no justification and you could sue them in civil court for false imprisonment.
The UK has some really goofy laws regarding private security officers, they can actually ticket your vehicle for illegal parking and have much more broad powers.
Personally, I just can't seem to get past the part in the initial post about perusing the grocery store aisles at midnight to get ideas for inexpensive meals. You guys are too funny.
~Sail
markj said:
That does not make the act of carrying the gun illegal. In fact, under most circumstances it would make the actions of the police illegal.
If you think, markj, that:
is incorrect, then please post the statute that makes it illegal.
Let me help you out:
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83#724.4
So looking at the above code, a person is NOT violating the law if they are open carrying, without a license, in an unicorporated portion of Iowa. AND a person is NOT violating the law if they are open carrying, with a license, within city limits.
See what I mean, killoften?
Last edited:
A lot of responses aren't actually addressing the post
The OP never said the presence of a gun or the act of CCW caused the situation. He made it pretty clear that he was NOT carrying, but that the situation made him wonder about a theoretical case - IE, what would have happened if he HAD been carrying?
Some of the answers went off on some odd tangents. OF COURSE CCW didn't cause the problem - HE WAS NOT CARRYING. He also acknowledged in the OP that he had stayed at the store a bit too long.
To the poster who said it's smarter to go shopping at 1230pm than 1230am, the OP would probably agree with you. However, he was out at that hour to meet his lady, who was only then getting off work.
Do people actually read posts before they respond?
The OP never said the presence of a gun or the act of CCW caused the situation. He made it pretty clear that he was NOT carrying, but that the situation made him wonder about a theoretical case - IE, what would have happened if he HAD been carrying?
Some of the answers went off on some odd tangents. OF COURSE CCW didn't cause the problem - HE WAS NOT CARRYING. He also acknowledged in the OP that he had stayed at the store a bit too long.
To the poster who said it's smarter to go shopping at 1230pm than 1230am, the OP would probably agree with you. However, he was out at that hour to meet his lady, who was only then getting off work.
Do people actually read posts before they respond?
I said Nebraska is nice, not Nebraska is cheap
...... .... and only Omaha has a gun registration requirement (in direct conflict with Art. I-1 of the State Constitution! - that's a hint to anyone with deep pockets, a Lawyer and nothing else to do!) which, after lb 430 passed last sesion, does not affect CCW permit holders.......
Again. What is RAS?
I definitly agree with the guy posting how funny it is the guy mentioned twice, about "window" shopping for "cheap dinner idea's". Hahah lol I DO have to admit I almost fell out my chair when I first read that. Probably would have if I wasn't so interested in his story and what happens next! I was expecting like most these stories, a shoot out. Anybody else slightly disapointed the moment he wasn't even carying? Lol hahah again nothin wrong w/ window shoppin for food. Just so humble and honest it's kinda funny no?
Now we have a conflict with one guy saying you DON'T need to comply with civilian store owners trying to "hold up/delay" "non-stealing" customers. And another saying the 4th ammendment allows them to.? Who is right?
And I haven't herd anybody agree/disagree with navylt about it being completly legal to show your gun in public if "asked" to lift your shirt. I kinda expected a good amount of tit for tat on that one... we all agree with his answer? Please leave out the shady-ness "what-if" part about the store manager lies about the facts and uses silent camerias to make it loook like a brandishing. (Solid probability) but not the question at hand, and was already covered.
I definitly agree with the guy posting how funny it is the guy mentioned twice, about "window" shopping for "cheap dinner idea's". Hahah lol I DO have to admit I almost fell out my chair when I first read that. Probably would have if I wasn't so interested in his story and what happens next! I was expecting like most these stories, a shoot out. Anybody else slightly disapointed the moment he wasn't even carying? Lol hahah again nothin wrong w/ window shoppin for food. Just so humble and honest it's kinda funny no?
Now we have a conflict with one guy saying you DON'T need to comply with civilian store owners trying to "hold up/delay" "non-stealing" customers. And another saying the 4th ammendment allows them to.? Who is right?
And I haven't herd anybody agree/disagree with navylt about it being completly legal to show your gun in public if "asked" to lift your shirt. I kinda expected a good amount of tit for tat on that one... we all agree with his answer? Please leave out the shady-ness "what-if" part about the store manager lies about the facts and uses silent camerias to make it loook like a brandishing. (Solid probability) but not the question at hand, and was already covered.
RAS is Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime having just been committed or being committed. For instance, in the case of the store, a guy shopping for 1 hour is not RAS. If they have him on camera appearing to taking something from a shelf and put it under his shirt, that would be RAS.
Someone sees you walking down the street with a gun in a holster. 1. It's legal for you to be walking down the street. 2. It's legal for the gun to be carried in the holster. SO, a person engaging in perfectly legal activities, and someone calls 911 about a man with a gun, do the cops have any RAS that a crime has been committed or is being committed? NO. All they can LEGALLY do is show up at the scene and observe the subject. If the subject is 1. Walking legally down the street, 2. Legally carrying a firearm - END OF LEGAL INVESTIGATION. That is all the investigating they are legally allowed to do.
They can approach the subject and initiate a VOLUNTARY encounter with the person, but NOT an OFFICIAL detainment. Many times though, the police will approach the subject in such a way that the person reasonably FEELS it is an OFFICIAL detainment and also feel that they are obligated to comply with all of the officer's demands. This simply is not true. In most states, the cops would NOT have legal ability to force the subject to show ID. They certainly, under the rules of Terry v Ohio have NO legal authority to disarm the person (illegal seizure) AND would have NO legal authority to run the serial number of the gun to check for stolen (illegal search to gather evidence).
Let's say a cop stops you for speeding. You say you are armed. Cop asks you to step out of the vehicle and disarms you. So far everything is legal - Terry v. Ohio - officer safety. Cop takes your gun back to his car and runs the serial number. NOW he has committed an ILLEGAL action - a search for the purpose of gathering evidence. Did he have any RAS to indicate the gun was stolen? NO. The gun was carried (assumed) in a legal manner, by a person legal to possess it. Did he have a search warrant to search for evidence? NO.
I would highly recommend you read this:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Open-carry-101
this:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-G...cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
and if nothing else, from the second article, the judge's ruling:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856
Someone sees you walking down the street with a gun in a holster. 1. It's legal for you to be walking down the street. 2. It's legal for the gun to be carried in the holster. SO, a person engaging in perfectly legal activities, and someone calls 911 about a man with a gun, do the cops have any RAS that a crime has been committed or is being committed? NO. All they can LEGALLY do is show up at the scene and observe the subject. If the subject is 1. Walking legally down the street, 2. Legally carrying a firearm - END OF LEGAL INVESTIGATION. That is all the investigating they are legally allowed to do.
They can approach the subject and initiate a VOLUNTARY encounter with the person, but NOT an OFFICIAL detainment. Many times though, the police will approach the subject in such a way that the person reasonably FEELS it is an OFFICIAL detainment and also feel that they are obligated to comply with all of the officer's demands. This simply is not true. In most states, the cops would NOT have legal ability to force the subject to show ID. They certainly, under the rules of Terry v Ohio have NO legal authority to disarm the person (illegal seizure) AND would have NO legal authority to run the serial number of the gun to check for stolen (illegal search to gather evidence).
Let's say a cop stops you for speeding. You say you are armed. Cop asks you to step out of the vehicle and disarms you. So far everything is legal - Terry v. Ohio - officer safety. Cop takes your gun back to his car and runs the serial number. NOW he has committed an ILLEGAL action - a search for the purpose of gathering evidence. Did he have any RAS to indicate the gun was stolen? NO. The gun was carried (assumed) in a legal manner, by a person legal to possess it. Did he have a search warrant to search for evidence? NO.
I would highly recommend you read this:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Open-carry-101
this:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-G...cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
and if nothing else, from the second article, the judge's ruling:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856
I like the way you think. I used to take law classes back in HS and you're right. It IS amazing how the "sheep" go blindly into servatude. Hahaha just look at how many US citizens DON'T carry simply because they don't know they're allowed! 
I will be reading up on those links.
P.s. I agree with every point you made so far, perhaps it's because we're both in the department of the Navy. I'm just in the Marine department (Sgt). Anyway... despite being on the right side of the law, sometimes that doesn't matter to police. And that's all well and good except executing your rights can only can only go so far against a cop at the scene until the ego maniac makes it a matter of life and death, to which you submit and try your day in court. I herd recently about a man in some state (I think Georgia) mowing his grass and carring openly. A neighbor called police not to complain but to inquire if one "could" do such a thing. Police arrived and arrested him for, ("whatever" law it is about causing public worry or hysteria) something like that. That story made me want to get out of this country and move to the north pole all by myself apone completion of my enlistment. Very mad at mordern usa by countless stories like that I hear. What say you?
I will be reading up on those links.
P.s. I agree with every point you made so far, perhaps it's because we're both in the department of the Navy. I'm just in the Marine department (Sgt). Anyway... despite being on the right side of the law, sometimes that doesn't matter to police. And that's all well and good except executing your rights can only can only go so far against a cop at the scene until the ego maniac makes it a matter of life and death, to which you submit and try your day in court. I herd recently about a man in some state (I think Georgia) mowing his grass and carring openly. A neighbor called police not to complain but to inquire if one "could" do such a thing. Police arrived and arrested him for, ("whatever" law it is about causing public worry or hysteria) something like that. That story made me want to get out of this country and move to the north pole all by myself apone completion of my enlistment. Very mad at mordern usa by countless stories like that I hear. What say you?
What exactly is a "terry search"? The lowest form of suspicion recognized by courts is " reasonable suspicion, or articualbe suspicion." This the level falls far below the level needed for arresting someone. Based on mere suspicion an officer MAY!! approach, and have converstion with a citizen. If that officer reasonably feels that the person he's questioning may have a weapon.. he my frisk the subjects outer clothing for such a weapon. There is a fine line between a search, and a frisk. With a frisk there is no entering the subjects pockets, or personal effects. The standard of proof for reasonable suspicion is that a reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion based on the same information the officer had. The standard of proof for articualbe suspicion is the police officer can articulate to a reasonable person, and that reasonble person would agree with the officers argument.
After having a conversation the officers suspicion may be satisfied, or his suspicion may be elevated to reasonable suspicion, and perhaps to the level of probable cause.
After having a conversation the officers suspicion may be satisfied, or his suspicion may be elevated to reasonable suspicion, and perhaps to the level of probable cause.
Iowa code also states
i. A person who has in the person's possession and who
displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons
which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the
limits of that permit. A person shall not be convicted of a
violation of this section if the person produces at the person's
trial a permit to carry weapons which was valid at the time of the
alleged offense and which would have brought the person's conduct
within this exception if the permit had been produced at the time of
the alleged offense.
724.5 DUTY TO CARRY PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed
upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the
permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph
"i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request
of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple
misdemeanor
The Iowa permit is NOT SHALL ISSUE
but at the sole discretion of the county sheriff to issue or revoke.
The store personal have no authority to detain you unless they observe you shoplifting. But they can refuse you entry and have the police enter a no trespassing order.
Please visit this site for more info
http://iowacarry.org/pages.php?pageid=56
i. A person who has in the person's possession and who
displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons
which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the
limits of that permit. A person shall not be convicted of a
violation of this section if the person produces at the person's
trial a permit to carry weapons which was valid at the time of the
alleged offense and which would have brought the person's conduct
within this exception if the permit had been produced at the time of
the alleged offense.
724.5 DUTY TO CARRY PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS.
A person armed with a revolver, pistol, or pocket billy concealed
upon the person shall have in the person's immediate possession the
permit provided for in section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraph
"i", and shall produce the permit for inspection at the request
of a peace officer. Failure to so produce a permit is a simple
misdemeanor
The Iowa permit is NOT SHALL ISSUE
but at the sole discretion of the county sheriff to issue or revoke.
The store personal have no authority to detain you unless they observe you shoplifting. But they can refuse you entry and have the police enter a no trespassing order.
Please visit this site for more info
http://iowacarry.org/pages.php?pageid=56
In point #1, that was my intent. Hanging out in a convenience store at 12:30am does pose risk to the OP and therefore he should have considered this prior to going unarmed. Point #3 was regarding the impact his presence was having on the situation and the risks his presence was introducing.
Perhaps I could have been clearer in my writing....
OK. IF store clerks think you shoplifted, and they call the police and tell them so, the police now have probable cause to search, I think. I may be wrong on that.
I've thought about this scenario too. I carry a big gun in a large fanny pack and it's not impossible some idiot at a grocery store might think I was stuffing something into it.
My plan is:
* Politely explain I'm not shoplifting.
* Explain that I'm reaching for my wallet, do so, pull out my CCW permit.
* Explain that it took a background check and training to get that, and that what's in my fanny pack is NOT something they sell (unless of course I'm in a gun shop!). Hopefully they get the hint and go away...or worst case, throw me out.
The main thing is, don't get ****** off, don't get emotional, keep it cool. "****** off guy with a gun" would scare anybody.
I've thought about this scenario too. I carry a big gun in a large fanny pack and it's not impossible some idiot at a grocery store might think I was stuffing something into it.
My plan is:
* Politely explain I'm not shoplifting.
* Explain that I'm reaching for my wallet, do so, pull out my CCW permit.
* Explain that it took a background check and training to get that, and that what's in my fanny pack is NOT something they sell (unless of course I'm in a gun shop!). Hopefully they get the hint and go away...or worst case, throw me out.
The main thing is, don't get ****** off, don't get emotional, keep it cool. "****** off guy with a gun" would scare anybody.
T.A.Sharps
New member
I was going to reply to a few other posts as well since I had been away from the forums since I posted, but I feel this needs to be addressed ASAP.
I'm sorry sir, but your facts are wrong about Iowa being an open carry state. I have just had to go through the process of getting my concealed carry permit, and at no time did the instructors ever indicate even slightly that a CCW permit holder can carry openly in plain sight. Nor have I ever known anyone in my entire life, anywhere in my sate, to carry a weapon in plain sight.
IN FACT, TO SHOW MY WEAPON AT ALL IS LEGALLY CONSIDERED DEADLY FORCE, in the state of Iowa.
That was something made very clear by my instructors.
I would also be interrested in knowing how NavyLT is such an expert on Iowa law as he is apparently in Washington. Not trying to sound sarcastic, but if you are not from here what leads you to make so many statements on Iowa law? Laws in other state doesn't apply here, Iowa will not even recognize CCW permits from other states that recognize ours.
NavyLT said:
I'm sorry sir, but your facts are wrong about Iowa being an open carry state. I have just had to go through the process of getting my concealed carry permit, and at no time did the instructors ever indicate even slightly that a CCW permit holder can carry openly in plain sight. Nor have I ever known anyone in my entire life, anywhere in my sate, to carry a weapon in plain sight.
IN FACT, TO SHOW MY WEAPON AT ALL IS LEGALLY CONSIDERED DEADLY FORCE, in the state of Iowa.
That was something made very clear by my instructors.
I would also be interrested in knowing how NavyLT is such an expert on Iowa law as he is apparently in Washington. Not trying to sound sarcastic, but if you are not from here what leads you to make so many statements on Iowa law? Laws in other state doesn't apply here, Iowa will not even recognize CCW permits from other states that recognize ours.
Last edited: