Does reasonable suspicion become probabale cause?

Former LEO.

For Wildcard - Carrying a firearm requires a certain level of emotional maturity, and the capability to comprehend the responsibilities of carrying a firearm, both legally and illegally. The mere fact that a member is asking other members of this forum ways to circumvent the local law indicates a particular kind of thought process. Whether or not he likes it, his actions will reflect on us all. If (operative word IF) he is ever stopped by the local authorities, and they have cause to detain and search him, he will be arrested. If he is perceived to have no respect for the law, then no gun owner has respect for the law (guilt by association). Ridiculous, I agree, but true none the less. Perception is reality to the anti-firearms crowd. To put it succintly, if he's that stupid, then he isn't really smart enough to handle a firearm in the first place.

For USP45 - No, I am not a 'Law is God' sort of fellow. However, laws that are in place are there because society has decided (right or wrong) that those are the particular standards they wish to live under. There are ways to change bad, or non-enforceable laws. The way not to do it is to simply break them at whim. That is anarchy. I agree with his decision to arm himself. But...I still say that one firearms owner's actions reflect on us all. Consider the 'slob hunters' that usually get shown on newscasts. Suddenly, all hunters become slob hunters. You and I both know that is not the case.

Just my opinion for consideration.
 
Last edited:
OK. Circumstances. 2 AM and a prowl finds you walking down the alley in a HIT area-you most likely will be challenged and lit up. When the LEO spots the magazines, gunpoint. Officer safety issues. 2 PM and you are walking down the street-you would have to do something to raise the prowls interest. If the bag were in your vehicle and a prowl pulled you over for a legitimate reason, where it is would be the issue. Hands reach? Expect felony CCW charge. Backseat or behind the seat in a truck? The prowl would likely take you out and secure (cuff) you and then search what is obvious. Plain sight has no relation to suspicion. This is an automatic public safety issue where the magazines or even an empty holster is in plain sight. Where is the weapon? The demeanor, dress, time of day and even the environs bear on your encounter. If a prowl has 0 reason to look at you, you are good to go, illegal though you may be. IOWs, if you are in a 90 degree, 80% humidity area and you are the only person in a flak jacket, Corcorans, back pack carrying pink haired fellow walking down the street, expect to be looked at by everyone and the prowls. Atlanta Olympic bombing is now being used to justify stops of back pack carrying people. My advice is simply not to draw attention to yourself. I suggest looking at the North Face for a neutral back pack. I doubt many people including LEOs pay close attention to ml-surp clothing/gear for establishing fear/probable cause. A fat man in a red suit, black leather and a rednosed reindeer in July isn't even THAT unusual with Christmas in July sales. If you aren't calling attention to yourself, there should not be a LE encounter. If you are stopped, be polite and cooperative.
 
If he is perceived to have no respect for the law, then no gun owner has respect for the law (guilt by association).
Click to expand...
I really don't mind if he creates the impression that I have no respect for gun control laws.

Breaking bad laws is a proud old American tradition, dating back to such things as the Boston Tea Party and the Underground Railroad. Freeing slaves was wrong because it was illegal? No, it was part of how we made slavery itself illegal.

I committed a felony some years back. Back when Al Gore invented the internet, I took advantage of a simple form page someone set up, and sent a copy of the encryption program PGP to the island nation of Anguilla. That was a felony under our munitions laws at the time, but it was also my way of letting the government know that we citizens WOULD be able to encrypt data, and they couldn't stop it. I'd do it again.
 
You should. Though you do cite good examples of the "proud old American tradition" of law breaking that eventually were judged to be true and just, it is interesting what is commonly not stated about the Boston Tea Party. The immediate result was oppressive, anti-freedom government edicts in the form of the 'Coercive Acts' of King George III.

The port of Boston was closed. England drastically reduced the powers of self government in the colony. Royal officers could be tried in other colonies or in England when accused of crimes in Massachusetts. Colonists were forced to provide for the quartering of troops in their barns and empty houses.

Granted, the ultimate result was to fire up the colonists, and the Revolutionary War ensued, but my point is that by simply choosing to break the law, the ire of 'the government' was drawn down on a lot of people who didn't have anything to do with the Boston Tea Party. That is what I mean when I say 'guilt by association'.

If the law should be changed (indeed, I believe any law that prohibits a person from carrying a firearm should be changed) then it should be changed from within...legally. No matter how righteous it may be to simply break a bad law, folks in the modern world who do it will be seen as criminals and trouble makers, not heroic 'Sons of Liberty'.
 
Not all laws can be changed legally. Had it not been for the masses refusing to comply with prohibition none of us would be allowed a beer at baseball games (and lord knows with some teams the beer is the only thing keeping the game interesting!). If the masses were to simply comply with drug prohibition instead of standing up for what's right we'd have the same result. Unfortunately the lack of education is vital in keeping unjust laws, from gun control to drug and alcohol prohibition, from being repealed.

You can't do everything legally because something it's illegal to do the right thing.
 
I would love to answer this. However, reading back over the thread, we have seriously threadjacked the original post. I apologize, folks, for the legal eagle/history side track.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread... ;)
 
Mrex-
It is a worthwhile discussion, though, and I encourage a new thread on it. We might even get into the nitty gritty of Jury Nullification and Directed Verdicts in terms of the legalities.
Rich
 
If you get pulled over and arrested for anything, police have the right to search the passenger compartment of an automobile and any containers. In fact, police can search the passenger compartment even if a person has been a "recent occupant" of the auto. Consitutionally, police may arrest even if the offense carries only a fine. There may be state limits on this authority, however.

If the purpose of the handgun in the bag is to be prepared in the event of a disaster, perhaps you could disable the weapon by fieldstripping it, etc. Then reassemble in the event of the disaster. (This may or may not be sufficient in Cal.). Of course, if you have a sudden need for the weapon, it will be absolutely worthless.
 
No matter how righteous it may be to simply break a bad law, folks in the modern world who do it will be seen as criminals and trouble makers, not heroic 'Sons of Liberty'.
Click to expand...
I do not see our friend Bravo25 as a potential public relations liability for gun owners unless he does something much more threatening than simply arm himself. In fact, I'd like to see the gungrabbers make a huge issue out of someone simply arming himself without permission. If no other crime has occurred, we will win that issue.
 
terry v ohio

go to findlaw.com and look up terry v ohio and work out from there...
yep, reasonable suspicion would permit a temporary detention and perhaps
a pat-down..the patdown could establish probable cause if weapon detected....temporary stops move on to probable cause all the time, it is the essence of good police work....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top