Great Fun while open carrying

[Quartus]

If I were sent to a "man with a gun call," whether or not California was an "open carry" state (it isn't), I would have my rifle out. You WOULD be proned out, by not just me, but by about 4-5 cops, all armed with rifles. You WOULD be handcuffed, you WOULD be searched for any further weapons.

After all was said and done, if you could legally possess the weapon, understand I have no idea if your a convicted felon, a nut, or someone else who should not be in possession of a firearm (a nut seems more likely, since most places in this country, read MOST, don't allow open carry; those that do, I'm sure its not highly encouraged, as it went out in the early 1900's), I still wouldn't hand the firearm back to you. I would politely walk you back to your car and place it in the trunk of your car. Either that, or you could make arrangements to get said firearm from the property/evidence room the next day.

I'm going to bookmark this thread for the next time we have a discussion on whether or not we are sliding into a police state. This is a perfect example of a police state mentality. We just heard a clear intent to break the law and violate the letter and intent of our Constitution, expressed by someone who took an oath to uphold the law. What the poster just described is assault under color of authority, because it certainly doesn't have any legal or moral justification. It's purely about POWER.


Never ceases to amaze me how people just like to throw their weight around, "just because they can."

I think this pretty much sums it up in a nutshell: Your rights end where my safety begins.

A law abiding citizen carrying a weapon constitutes neither a de factor nor a de jure threat to your safety. You have no right to construe it as such. If you really want to be known as one who subscribes to the sick philosophy of the Brady Bunch ("Ooooh! A GUN! It might go OFF! NORMAL people don't carry guns! He must be DAAAANGEROUS!"), go right ahead. Don't expect it to garner much respect around here.

it's all just hot air and typical threats that we deal with every single day

Yes, you are almost certainly right that people with badges can carry out such assaults with impunity - I don't think it's news to any of us that it's done all the time. We've slid a long way down toward a police state. Police state? Yes, when officers of the law can make up "rules" as they go along, and violate the written laws of the land with the impunity you describe, we have a police state.

The situation you describe (accurately, I think) is simply corruption at work - the corruption of POWER.

But no, it's not about "hot air". It's about standing up for the principles on which this country was founded. I don't just mean the Second Amendment, I mean the whole idea that the government - and it's officers - are subject to the People, and are "bound by the chains of the Constitution", as Jefferson put it. The idea that they DON'T get to use their power as they please, just because they don't like what someone else is doing.

It's about the rule of Law, rather than the rule of men, who always become tyrants when not constrained by law.

Generally those who go looking for a confrontation........find one.

Yep. Like those ""irresponsible gun owners" at Lexington. They should have just kept a low profile. Troublemakers!


I used to say that the liberals were bringing America to a police state. Since 9-11 I've learned that I was wrong. Oh, yes, that's their goal, and they've been making steady progress for many years now. But another group has blown right by them and taken us farther and faster in that direction than I would have thought possible.

It's the blind "LAW AND ORDER" crowd. The "My Country right or wrong!" The "Cops are always right!" crowd. They are quite happy to sell our liberty down the river, if only we can keep the 'bad guy du jour' from hurting us, whether he's an Islamic terrorist or a law abiding citizen who happens to carry one of those eeeevil handguns out where it scares the sheep.

 

[Scott Conklin]

Generally those who go looking for a confrontation........find one.

The important question here is WHO is looking for the confrontation? The Citizen, exercising his Rights and obeying the law or the Citizen's employee, a cop, overlaying that Citizen with the cop's own biases and fear who then initiates the physical assault?

Seems the answer is obvious. Seems the solutions are likewise obvious.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Well, so far in my case, the Manchester IAD is looking into my complaint, and the Governor, when I spoke with him last week, was planning to sic the Attorney General on them.

Really? The governor was going to sic the Attorney General on the cops after hearing one side of the story huh? When you go to meet the governor, let me know how far past his receptionist you get with your gun on your hip. And when the cops go see the governor to give him their side of the story, maybe they'll remind him that they don't have receptionists when they get a man with a gun" call.

 

[Scott Conklin]

I believe I am beginning to understand the anti-cop attitude within the court system. I also believe I am beginning to be happy for it. With attitudes like the above... :barf: Keep in mind, guys, you're just civilians, too, and very often not nearly so well educated or trained as your employers whom you so willingly cast aspersions on.

 

[FrankDrebin]

I believe I am beginning to understand the anti-cop attitude within the court system.

Anti-cop? I can't remember the Supreme Court being MORE pro-cop with regard to officer-safety issues any time during the past 20 years. Educated? It doesn't take a Ph.D in survival to know what it takes to increase the odds of going home after your shift. Assuming that someone is not going to pull his openly carried pistol and shoot you when you're responding to a "man with a gun" call is not a very good way to increase the odds of remaining ushot over a 25 or 30-year career.

 

[Scott Conklin]

The odds are strongly against any law suit against the local po-po going to the SCOTUS, thus I wasn't discussing the SCOTUS. The odds are, in fact, that most po-po will settle out of court to avoid the publicity and the cop-bashing. Regardless, it sends the desired message.

Now, let's be prefectly clear: I am not interested in your safety. By your choice of job you willingly sacrifice the (non-existent) right to safety. It becomes your responsibility to deal appropriately NOT ONLY with the bad guys but the good guys as well. That's what makes the job tough. If you find your fear clouds your ability to do that then it is time for you to find another job, not for a law abiding Citizen to mold himself to fit your fear. If your solution every time some wimp whines "He's got a gun, WAHHH!" is to bash the gun-carrier to the ground and abuse them regardless of the presence or indication of any criminal activity then you have a problem. One that needs cured. A problem that is SOLELY yours.

BTW, it's noted the question of who is provoking the confrontation has been carefully avoided...

 

[FrankDrebin]

If you find your fear clouds your ability to do that then it is time for you to find another job

It's not fear that motivates me to immediately disarm the subject of a "man with a gun" call until I find out that he's not a hold-up man or a whackjob, it's common sense.

 

[Quartus]

I can't remember the Supreme Court being MORE pro-cop with regard to officer-safety issues any time during the past 20 years.

I can't remember the Supreme Court being less interested in the Consitution any time in the last 20 years. We have "Justices" openly declaring that they look to European standards in "interpreting" our Constitution. I wouldn't be bragging about having the present SCOTUS on my side. But then, I value the principles on which this country was founded.

One of the most important of those (which is pretty much scorned in Europe, BTW) is "innocent until proven guilty".

You have put your safety above that principle. You have put your safety above the Constitution.

 

[FrankDrebin]

One of the most important of those (which is pretty much scorned in Europe, BTW) is "innocent until proven guilty".

It's not my job to determine guilt or innocence. I have no problem with the Supreme Court on my side. With lifetime appointments, they can afford to use more common sense than someone who worries about which way the wind is blowing when they decide whether it was reasonable for a police officer to disarm a guy carrying a gun openly when the bank calls in a "man with a gun".

 

[Quartus]

When you assault someone for no reason other than exercising his Constitutional rights, you have assumed they are guilty.

I have no problem with the Supreme Court on my side.

That says something about you, Frank. Either you don't know much about the present Court, or you don't know much about the principles on which this country was founded, or both.


From you posts I'd say both. Of course, there's a worse interpretation that could be put on that, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[FrankDrebin]

When you assault someone for no reason other than exercising his Constitutional rights, you have assumed they are guilty.

I don't assume anything when I encounter a man with a gun in a bank when the dispatcher sends me to investigate a man with a gun in a bank. If I assumed he was going to shoot me, I'd shoot him first. If I assumed he wasn't going to shoot me, I could easily wind up dead. And since many people don't care about my safety, I take it upon myself to not only care about it, but also do something to preserve it. If that means disrupting someone's right to openly carry a gun for a few minutes, then someone's gun is going to be taken away for a few minutes.

 

[mvpel]

First of all, Frank, I already met with the Governor at about 5:00pm on Thursday May 27 in the town hall conference room in Merrimack, NH. He carries a pistol too, as it turns out.

Secondly, I'll remind you that Officer McFadden, of Terry v. Ohio fame, which established the "reasonable suspicion"-based "Terry Stop" doctrine, watched the suspects for 10-15 minutes observing them in a pattern of casing a store preparing for a daylight robbery.

He then approached them, identified himself as a police officer, and had them "assume the position," and found the guns they were planning to use in the robbery with a pat-down of their outer clothing.

All I am asking of the Manchester PD, and the rest of the police departments in open-carry states, that they use a similar level of judgement and discernment in situations such as this.

If you see a clean-shaven guy dressed in Haggar slacks and a purple Oxford minding his own business browsing through a bookstore, exchanging polite greetings with fellow patrons with whom he crosses paths, carrying a partially-concealed $500 firearm in a $100 leather holster in a state where doing so is FLATLY LEGAL, standing at least 50 feet and a number of shelving units away from the nearest cash register, then you would think that a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that this is not a person who needs to be dealt with using force - as opposed to scruffy a young punk dressed in baggy clothes whose ineptly concealed "gat" printed through his football jersey and who is shiftily eyeing his surroundings, lingering near the checkout line.

When officers get to the scene of a 911 call, don't they have a responsibility to assess the situation before taking action? The US Supreme Court's ruling in Florida v. J.L. seems to suggest that they most certainly do.

 

[Scott Conklin]

It's not fear that motivates me to immediately disarm the subject of a "man with a gun" call until I find out that he's not a hold-up man or a whackjob, it's common sense.

Guilty till proven innocent. Thank you for so clearly making the point of what is wrong today. And it IS your responsibility to make wise judgements. That does not mean frisking somebody because YOU don't like the way they look.

 

[mvpel]

I don't assume anything when I encounter a man with a gun in a bank when the dispatcher sends me to investigate a man with a gun in a bank.

If I assumed he was going to shoot me, I'd shoot him first. If I assumed he wasn't going to shoot me, I could easily wind up dead.

Ok, so logically, since your safety is paramount as you've indicated previously, you assume that everyone who you see carrying a gun is going to shoot you since you don't want to wind up dead. So if you see someone carrying a gun, you would, by logical deduction, shoot him first just to be safe.

Then, presumably, you'd pluck my wallet out of my pocket as my bullet-riddled corpse was being loaded into the ambulance to check my ID and my carry license.

Boy, I'm sure glad you don't live in New Hampshire, Arizona, Vermont, or any other open-carry state, or any of 40-some shall-issue states where someone's jacket might blow aside or a holster might print through a shirt. I reckon you'd be piling up the corpses right quick. Maybe cops ought to shoot any man over 30 wearing a fanny-pack, too, just in case.

Do you assume that everyone in the drivers seat of any car is driving without a valid license too, that you need to pull them over and check them out? They could be, you know. It's possible.

What seems to be lost on you is that in New Hampshire and a number of other states, a 911 call about an adult with a gun in a bank, with no further indicia of illegality (Florida v. J.L. again), is legally equivalent to a 911 call about an adult in the drivers seat of a moving car.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Ok, so logically, since your safety is paramount as you've indicated previously, you assume that everyone who you see carrying a gun is going to shoot you since you don't want to wind up dead.

Where did I say that?

Do you assume that everyone in the drivers seat of any car is driving without a valid license too, that you need to pull them over and check them out? They could be, you know. It's possible.

Nope. But the majority of people who drive cars are not driving without a valid license. 90% of the time I get a call about a man with a gun, they're up to no good.

What seems to be lost on you is that in New Hampshire and a number of other states, a 911 call about an adult with a gun in a bank, with no further indicia of illegality (Florida v. J.L. again), is legally equivalent to a 911 call about an adult in the drivers seat of a moving car.

You're wrong. In FL v JL the police responded to an ANONYMOUS 911 call without further corroboration, and then detained and searched the guy who had the gun concealed. If the caller would have been identified with a name (as they were in your case), the search and detention and seizure of the gun would have been fine. In this case, there was a known caller who called about a man with a gun. The dispatcher probably gave him not much more information than that. He got there and there's a guy with a gun, in a bank, who, most likely from the cop's perspective, got belligerent when the cop was trying to assure his own safety. The main point of FL v JL was the fact that the caller was anonymous. If you're in a car and I have reasonable suspicion to believe there is a gun in the car, as long as I've legally stopped your car, I have a right to search the car whether I have reason to believe you're going to shoot me or not. I don't see how I wouldn't have the right to temporarily seize your gun if I'm dealing with you legally and I KNOW you have a gun because I can see it. And make no mistake about it, after getting a call about a man with a gun in the bank that officer had all the reasonable suspicion he needed to investigate you. Very few people carry openly in that bank, people with guns are known to hold up banks, and the bank called about a man with a gun. That's reasonable suspicion for the police to temporarily detain you and your gun.

And what's all this about people wearing scruffy clothes? They have just as much right to carry a gun as you. I'm supposed to develop reasonable suspicion based on how they're dressed, but I'm not supposed to develop reasonable suspicion based on the fact that you're carrying a gun in an area where few, if any people carry guns openly?

Lets suppose that you owned a shop in Whitebread Washington and your wife ran the jewelry store next door. You're standing outside your store selling flags and copies of the constitution and into your wife's jewelry store walk 3 young black guys in their early 20's who look like thugs by the way they're dressed, and they're all carrying pistols openly. What are you going to think and do?

 

[Scott Conklin]

I'm going to react differently than if a black guy(since you made the racial distinction) in slacks and button down walks up carrying a pistol openly on his hip. Of course, our gang-bangers aren't likely to have their weapons on display prior to entering the jewelry store, are they? Thx again for making the point.

 

[FrankDrebin]

I'm going to react differently than if a black guy(since you made the racial distinction) in slacks and button down walks up carrying a pistol openly on his hip. Of course, our gang-bangers aren't likely to have their weapons on display prior to entering the jewelry store, are they? Thx again for making the point.

So I can develop reasonable suspicion based on how someone is dressed? I didn't mention anythying about gang colors or gang-bangers. Are all young black males dressed in the hip hop style of the day gang-bangers? Do you have any case law to show me that says I can develop reasonable suspicion based on young black males wearing baggy pants and shirts that say "Thug Life"? You still didn't tell me what you would think or do, just that it would be different if the gun carrier dressed like you do. Why wouldn't they have their guns on display? It's an open carry state, and they have a right to. If this were an open carry area, I guarantee you they'd all have their guns strapped on.

You'd react differently to young black guys with guns dressed in way that doesn't fit the area than you would to a young white guy that dresses like you. And as a police officer, I'm supposed to assume that you're fine because you're a white guy who dresses well? The young black guys don't have the same right to carry unmolested as you do?

 

[mvpel]

Where did I say that?

Posted by FrankDrebin, June 7 9:13am, in this thread:

Your rights end where my safety begins.

And do you really think that most robbers carry openly? When was the last time you or anyone you know arrested a robber openly carrying a firearm in a hip or exposed IWB holster?

You don't have to assume I'm fine, friend, you just have to not grab me from behind and tell me to put my hands on my head. Is that so much to ask in an open-carry state? Is it so much to ask that you look at the totality of circumstances rather than developing tunnel vision on the single fact that someone is merely carrying a firearm?

 

[FrankDrebin]

Is it so much to ask that you look at the totality of circumstances rather than developing tunnel vision on the single fact that someone is merely carrying a firearm?

We don't know what the totality of circumstances was, because we're only getting one side of the story. You will never EVER get the totality of circumstances with only one side of the story. The police are supposed to assume that you're OK because your gun wasn't concealed? If the teller didn't assume that, why would the police? Wasn't the teller a reasonable person? And if it was such a minor deal, why did the bank management bar you from carrying there in the future? Just because the police asked them to? I wish it was always that easy to get bank management to do something.

As far as "Your rights end where my safety begins". That doesn't mean that I assume you're going to shoot me, that means that when I get a call of a "man with a gun", I'm going to take the man's gun until I'm certain that he isn't a hold-up man or a nut. In other words, you right to carry a gun is momentarily suspended when I'm legally in the same place you are, and I don't feel safe with you having it.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Posted by mvpel

All I am asking of the Manchester PD, and the rest of the police departments in open-carry states, that they use a similar level of judgement and discernment in situations such as this.

If you see a clean-shaven guy dressed in Haggar slacks and a purple Oxford minding his own business browsing through a bookstore, exchanging polite greetings with fellow patrons with whom he crosses paths, carrying a partially-concealed $500 firearm in a $100 leather holster in a state where doing so is FLATLY LEGAL, standing at least 50 feet and a number of shelving units away from the nearest cash register, then you would think that a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that this is not a person who needs to be dealt with using force - as opposed to scruffy a young punk dressed in baggy clothes whose ineptly concealed "gat" printed through his football jersey and who is shiftily eyeing his surroundings, lingering near the checkout line.

My my my, aren't we missing the boat. Are you advocating profiling people based on economic or social status? How about race? What does a "bad person" look like?
Are black rifles more evil than regular rifles?