Great Fun while open carrying

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great fun while open carrying

I'd recommend that if you're going to continue open carry that you invest some money in a small digital recording device that you can record the conversations you're having with the police. I'd go with something digital only because they might have a harder time erasing it when they take it from you, whereas a tape could be lost or easily damaged.
 
Great idea.

I would much prefer that when a legal activity is described in a 911 phone call, the initial responding officer would say hello to me and then go talk with the person who called 911 about the proper use of the 911 phone system. Then I wouldn't even have time to turn my tape recorder on.

In some ways I don't like the idea of a tape recorder, because it indicts that I was looking, (or atleast expecting), that what I was doing would make a scene. Thereby, giving prosecutors some evidence to use against me in a disturbing the peace case. I would claim that my method of carry is totally opposite that of making a scene, sense it is everything but concealed.
 
Fishorman,
I don't think they would need your tape -- you've laid it all out for them by posting your thoughts and attitude on a public forum and on your blog. They would only need to google on:

Ellensburg + "Fred Meyer" + gun
 
[rick_reno] "I'd recommend that if you're going to continue open carry that you invest some money in a small digital recording device that you can record the conversations you're having with the police. I'd go with something digital only because they might have a harder time erasing it when they take it from you, whereas a tape could be lost or easily damaged."

... Or, set your own phone number of your cell phone as a one touch dial. Hit the number on the dial pad and "send". You don't even have to take it off your belt. It will go straight to the mailbox, and record your uh, "message". Cell phones have generally very sensitive mics, and even it someone figures out what's happened after the fact - there is no way they can erase that recording without first your cell number - and then the passcode ;)

I recommend both. Have a recorder on, and use the phone. If a bent cop is dumb enough to grab your recorder and tamper with it, damage it or otherwise render it useless, he will probably hang him or herself with his own mouth in the ensuing "conversation", and it'll all be recorded in your cell mailbox.
 
If the people have not given the government the power to do something, and that government does it, it is against not just the law, but it is against our representative form of government.
Click to expand...

Well then the police were within the boundaries of the law. Our government has given the police the responsibility to investigate complaints of potential criminal activity. Any police officer that failed to respond to a call about an armed person in a bank, should be fired.

I hazard to guess, but I doubt that the 911 caller said; "There's an unsuspicious armed citizen minding his own business in the bank". I imagine it went more like; "There's a guy with a gun in the bank"!

If that is how it went,the police were obligated to ask you questions to determine if a crime was commited. It's not the job of the 911 operator to determine if a crime has been commited or not. It is their legal requirement to send a police officer to such a call. By your own admission in the first post, you became contentious and defensive with the police officer when he stopped you to ask you questions. This would most likely raise their suspicion and cause them to ask MORE questions.

Until the police get to know you better (oh that's just 'ol Fishorman), I suspect that you will be having more of these conversations.

Are you getting how it is that the system works?
Click to expand...

Not quite sure why you're getting patronizing with me for asking a simple question, but I'm seeing a pattern here. I'm starting to think that you are a person that enjoys "sticking your thumb in the eye" of authority.
 
I'm starting to think that you are a person that enjoys "sticking your thumb in the eye" of authority.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think Fishorman is a person who feels it is his "responsiblity" as a citizen to put a stop, or at least check the abuse of authority.

Fishorman, you are my hero!

Now, if I can only get the nerve to open carry here near Detroit!
 
sigh... don't know where to start...

Sorry, I did not intent to be patronizing... It was that your line of questioning was the exact opposite of how our government is suppose to work.

Laws don't "bind a police officers actions" or "forbid" officers from doing things.

Laws bind the citizen's hands and forbid the citizen's from doing things.

Our government has given the police the responsibility to investigate complaints of potential criminal activity
Click to expand...

According to the Supreme Court decision, they cannot use a legal activity, (even the legal activity that involves a gun), as the excuse for the investigation. MVPEL posted the case earlier. It's the whole probable cause issue. The people have decided to allow police to do investigations, and even arrests, when there is probable cause of a crime. I don't believe any probable cause was given to this officer's by the person calling 911, (if they were given probable cause he would have said so immediately when approaching me).

This is why police will immediately give you the reason for a police stop, whether in your car or on the street. He gave no such reason to me, he only gave the description of a legal activity.
Until the police get to know you better (oh that's just 'ol Fishorman), I suspect that you will be having more of these conversations.
Click to expand...
Sadly you might be correct. When it's a right of the public to do this activity, (open carry), will all the citizen's be harassed until the police get to know us better? Aside from your personal feeling about me, don't you feel that that is just another form of asking permission? I feel they are the ones that need to ask "permission" if they would like to step outside the law. I did not want to chat with him while I was shopping with my wife about the weather, guns, open carrying, or anything. He refused to stop his personal assumption that I was committing some crime. I became upset when he refused to step back inside the laws that, "we the people," have given him to enforce.
 
Col. Cooper cited an incident in Vermont where the law does not infringe one's right to bear arms openly (or concealed). In this case a peace officer responded to a call that an individual bearing a holstered pistol in some retail place of business. The "complaintant" pointed out the subject to the peace officer on arrival, to which the peace officer correctly responded, in effect, "So .... ?".
 
Fishorman, you're confused about some matters of both law, and police procedure. I can't fault you for either, but I merely wish to point them out.

It's not the obligation nor duty of the cops to repond to a complainant, particularly on a 9-1-1 call, to ascertain the reason for the call. It's up to them to respond to the scene of the call, and detain and interview those parties which may be involved. "Probable cause" has only to do with ARRESTS (and search warrants), not the "investigation" leading up to that point. "Reasonable suspicion" would be at play here, and it is a much lesser burden imposed upon the police. They receive such a call, and spot YOU with a gun, therefore it's reasonable to conclude that YOU are the object of the call. There's a reason why you can report things to the police anonymously.;)
 
I did not want to chat with him while I was shopping with my wife about the weather, guns, open carrying, or anything. He refused to stop his personal assumption that I was committing some crime. I became upset when he refused to step back inside the laws that, "we the people," have given him to enforce.
Click to expand...

You were on private property (the bank) and an employee became uncomfortable (apparently without reason) with your open carry and called the police. The police are OBLIGATED to check out this complaint. All the cop did was come ask you some questions; he did not arrest you, handcuff you or search you. The most extreme thing the officer did was to take control of your pistol temporarily, something the law entitles them to do if they (not you!) feel it necessary for officer safety.

This cop didn't know you from Adam, nor do you know what the bank employee said to the 911 operator when he/she called. For all the cop knew, you may have been casing the bank to rob it (I'd bet that the 911 operator just specified "suspicious man with a gun" at Fred Meyer). So he came and asked you some questions!

Instead of responding (as VictorLouis mentioned) with a friendly and cooperative attitude, you became contentious and agravated, causing the officer to see you as suspicious. Not only did this extend the encounter with the police, it apparently upset you for most of the remainder of the day and the police now have you pegged as a guy with a chip on your shoulder instead of that nice guy who just prefers to open carry!

You choose to open carry, as is your right, knowing that this will rightly or wrongly concern some people. That places upon you a moral responsibility to show these people that gun owners are no threat to them, something difficult to do if they see you getting arguementative with the police. Instead, you seem to see this as a game as indicated by the title of this thread: Great Fun while open carrying.

The police are not the only ones who could have handled the situation better!
 
Thanks for pointing out the "reasonable suspicion" term.

Ok, let me get this straight, they had "Reasonable Suspicion" that I was the suspect of a 911 call.

Since the 911 call was over a legal activity, the "So...???" comes to mind again. But, if it is as you say:
It's up to them to respond to the scene of the call, and detain and interview those parties which may be involved.
Click to expand...
I see no reasonable suspicion to continue a detainment and interview. That is detained and interviewed over a visible legal activity? Can this be right???

It doesn't appear that way in the above sited ruling, (which seemed to be over a much more serious matter).

"matters of both law, and police procedure"? I think police procedures are defined with laws, correct?

Still sort of puzzled, but thanks for pointing these things out.
 
The police are OBLIGATED to check out this complaint.
Click to expand...

Which is as simple as, yes, I've found the man helping a women pick out some make-up. He has a handgun. There is NO crime here, have a nice day.

The questioning was unnecessary, (especially after I stated it was quite legal for me to be shopping with my wife legally open carrying my handgun). I see no conditions present in this situation, nor did he claim to have any when approaching or during the entire time he harassed me, that reasonable suspicion or probable cause of any crime was at play.

The only thing left was just like you say:
For all the cop knew, you may have been casing the bank to rob it
Click to expand...
Do you feel that legally carrying my gun in a bank is reasonable suspicion of a crime?

This in fact would be assuming guilt, which law does not call for, (even when dealing with the legally carrying of a gun). The previously sited ruling seems to make that point quite clear.

Everything after this point was caused by an officer that decided, he needed to get to know me, to make sure I was "friendly enough," to carry a gun. Is that a process that you agree should have to take place with every citizen that decides to exercise his rights?

Everything after that point is when I became upset.

you became contentious and agravated, causing the officer to see you as suspicious
Click to expand...
Actually it happened exactly opposite of that. He continually treated my with suspicion, which caused me to became "contentious and agravated."


Great Fun while open carrying.
Click to expand...
This is just sooo much fun... sigh...
 
Last edited:
VictorLouis, Excellent post.
thumbsup.gif





Originally posted by Fishorman:

Which is as simple as, yes, I've found the man helping a women pick out some make-up. He has a handgun. There is NO crime here, have a nice day.
Click to expand...

That Sir, sounds exactly like what happened. An employee reported a man armed with a gun acting suspicious. The Police responded, made contact with the man (you), asked a few questions, then cleared closing it out as (Matter of Record, NO CRIME COMMITTED).
I suspect your personal bias runs deeper/stronger than you realize and causes you to bristle at any mention/contact/conversation with Police. It is certainly your right to have any opinion on a subject you wish, but that doesn't mean you are right , or more right than anyone else. You are also no exception to people thinking they know the job of the Police better than they do. A great suggestion is to complete whatever steps are necessary in your own state to become a licensed Police Officer and give it a go. Then the ball is in your court.

Cheers

All the best

TBO
 
That Sir, sounds exactly like what happened. An employee reported a man armed with a gun acting suspicious. The Police responded, made contact with the man (you), asked a few questions,...

Acting suspicious by conducting his bank business and moving on to shopping with his wife in a Fred Meyer store? How is that suspicious?

They responded by demanding his identification, disarming him, and calling in a code 1 summoning five officers in to continue the harassment!

At least they didn't have the drop on him like the Manchester PD did with me, otherwise they would probably have grabbed him and forcibly disarmed him, like they did with me.
 
"Reasonable suspicion" would be at play here, and it is a much lesser burden imposed upon the police. They receive such a call, and spot YOU with a gun, therefore it's reasonable to conclude that YOU are the object of the call. There's a reason why you can report things to the police anonymously.

What "reasonable suspicion" was there that any illegal activity was being contemplated or undertaken, Victor?

Read the Florida v. JL US Supreme Court case again:

The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's reasonable to conclude that he was the object of the call, but the Supreme Court has ruled that that's not good enough to undertake a seizure of an individual.
 
It amazes me how willing some who have the right to open carry retreat in fear of exercising that right because the possibility of harrassment exists. It is this attitude I believe that has fueled the anti-gun movement in this country, and made us easy targets for unconstitutional treatment by governing authorities whether by legislation or actual physical intimidation and harrassment. If you can legally open carry, then it is your duty to do so on occassion. Use it or lose it!

$.02 Theo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top