Police and Open Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Might that be because it is such a dubious and questionable part of this entire discussion?

He saw fit to post that particular detail of the now 7 year-old incident 4 years ago. Was his memory of the details and their importance better then, or better now?

Hmmm, do the police officers here believe that one may pull over a motorist for no other reason than ensure that it is legal for him to be operating and that his vehicle is not stolen?

No, but when a named person calls in and says "That guy is driving a stolen car" then it's a perfectly legal stop.

You'll have to pardon others for being somewhat less than over-awed here, ok?
I'm trying to be objective. I'm not the one preaching to the choir, and I'm certainly not trying to impress anyone here. Go to a town where few, if any people carry openly, especially when they can easily get a permit to carry concealed. Walk around with your gun strapped on in open view and ask a non gun-carrying citizen whose point of view is more reasonable. And then stop crying when the typical voter approves more restrictive gun legislation, because some of you guys are your own worst enemies when it comes to influencing votes.


Glad we've got our "If it's Blue, it's True" contingent, though. Always good to have extremes represented.

I was going to make a suggestion or two to help get the "Not all Police are bad" message across in a more effective manner considering the audience, but then realized that probably wasn't the message you're going for. Oh well.

You're absolutely right, I don't really care what you think of the police. I'm not a police ambassador. And I never said the cops were necessarily right in what they did. But I'm also only getting one side of the story. Cops make mistakes, and given all the laws, rules and regulations they deal with every day, it's not surprising that some of them might not be familiar with open carry laws when people rarely carry openly. In that case, I think it makes sense to go along to get along to some degree, but I get the impression that many of you would rather push the issue and bait the cop just because you can, to show how much more well informed you are. That's certainly your right, but you have a lot more to lose than the police.


Regarding the "private property" issue.

Why don't we just cut to the chase. You're convinced you were right. You had a chance to score a major coup for gun carriers everywhere. The case is at least 7 years old. How did the lawsuit turn out? You've had plenty of time to settle it. But you "promised" the nice policeman that you wouldn't sue? So you could spend the next 7 years talking about this case that is sure to live forever in open-carry folklore? Internal Affairs blew you off? What about the citizens review board? The merit board? The city council? The newspapers and TV? The NRA? They all couldn't have blown you off....
 
Actually, I never promised the "nice police" anything, since I had no standing. I wasn't contacted, wasn't "harrassed", wasn't spat upon. The worst that happened was I was "muzzled" when the officer took C's firearm and started looking for the serial number. The fact that he did it AFTER having been advised it was a hot weapon with the hammer down/safety off was what was disturbing. Not worthy of a suit, but I did complain to the department about that officer's gun handling.

As was reported, the entire incident was "unfounded". Short of video of the officer's bad firearm handling skills, nothing was going to happen.

There is no citizen's review board.

The IA division was who I complained to.

The City Council is adamantly anti-gun, and has openly stated such with a variety of policy attempts (the "even" designation being one, city-sponsored gun buy-backs and/or allowing city property to be used for buy-backs being another).

Gannett News, which now owns the Republic, is anti-gun. The NRA was busy making deals on the preemption bill going through the legislature at the time to get involved.

As I noted, we said we would gladly comply with the request to leave private property if the proper notification was given. In the first incident, it wasn't until WE brought it up that the police went to the representatives of the "private" property to consult with what they wanted done. They asked us to get off the private property. We did. Just over the invisible sidewalk line.

If we were breaking the law, we (actually Rick and C.) would have been arrested. The fact is no laws were broken. We complied with the laws that were on the books...leaving private property, even though the ownership of that sidewalk being private was dubious, at best.

The second situation was pure bull****. They got no call from the store manager. In fact, they didn't (wouldn't) even name the store they got the call from...because there was no report.

Rick called "bull****" on them by relaying the conversation he had with the manager. Oops. They basically admitted that there was no call.

They did not like the fact that Rick and C. told them they carried in order to provide their own protection to self and family. The line "if you don't feel safe, don't come here" is crap. Since cops only protect society at large and have no responsibility to the individual (which was pointed out to them), we'd provide our own protection tools, thank you very much.

That C. doesn't want to bend over for an Uncle Sam finger exam in order to carry a gun concealed is irrelevant. Not to mention the cost for the course, the prints and the permit. What part of "...shall not be infringed" or "...shall not be impaired" (Az Constitution) don't you get? He doesn't believe in turning a right into a privilege.

However, in the end, the best part of the evening was watching the faces of everyone around us when the cops gave Rick and C. their firearms back, which they then re-loaded in a safe direction (after the gendarmerie left, but the crowd was still there). Folks came up and asked what happened.

We told. A lot of nods and "so what was the big deal about carryign a gun? I thought this was Arizona and it was legal."

We educated. So, not all was lost.


next question?
 
Frank wrote: "Yes, there is."

Not when this occurred. The ordinance establishing the review board (Ord. No. 99.13 of the Tempe Code) was adopted 7-15-1999, well over a year from when this incident occurred.

Next?
 
Tim, timing is everything, ex-post-complaino. :D

So, I must have missed the part where some named person said that Rick was carrying a stolen pistol? So, did some named individual report that these individuals were in possession of stolen firearms? Missed reading that. :confused:

Of course, I miss the valid stop entirely. Lucky for the coppers that they did not stop someone with a lot more juice in Tempe. Could have been big, big trouble for them on all three levels--administrative, civil, and criminal. :eek:
 
Frank,

I cannot speak for Rick or C., but I didn't go any further than I did because my concern rested solely with the poor gun handling skills of the cop. Since the department didn't believe it, and there was no review board when this happened, there was really no alternative in my opinion.

In addition, I didn't even know Tempe had a citizen's review board, so one cannot do what one doesn't know about....especially a year after-the-fact when I'd already received an answer from TPD. Living in Glendale (on the other side of the Valley of the Sun from Tempe for those who don't know...about a 40 mile drive), it's not something that would make the news or the local rags.

By telling IA about the cop's gun handling skills, along with my account of what happened that night, I did all I believed I could at the time.
 
So, I must have missed the part where some named person said that Rick was carrying a stolen pistol? So, did some named individual report that these individuals were in possession of stolen firearms? Missed reading that.

I believe some security guards called about them openly carrying guns in an area off-limits to guns. All the more reason to carry concealed. By the way, if I were representing the "extreme" in this forum, wouldn't I be advocating no gun carrying? I would think that advocating carrying a gun where others can't see it is a pretty common-sense approach to carrying guns.
 
Actually, the first contact was made when we were strolling down the (actual) public sidewalk. Some bike officers riding to where Sgt. Spittle had a cop pulled over saw Rick and C's guns. As we approached that area, they came up and started the contact. Sgt. Spittle joined them moments later...abandoning the car/driver he'd pulled over. We were not on private property at that point and they never saw us in the Starbucks.

Rick ended up on the wrong side of the Invisible Line of Death because that's where Sgt. Spittle had directed him (to separate him from C). But it was literally less than 2ft across this line, next to a planter on the corner.

If a cop pulled you over and you had a stereo in your car, would you expect him to run the serial number to see if it was stolen?

Absent a crime, there was no justification to do so. Additionally, the "private property" was not posted, per Arizona Revised Statutes. So even if we had been on said property at time of this initial contact, there was still no law broken since proper notice hadn't been given, again, per A.R.S.
 
Frank - I agree with you regarding common sense and carrying firearms. But we're talking about people who see a concealed carry permit as asking for permission from the state to exercise a right. (where'd they get that crazy idea... ;)) I can see their point too.

I guess the question is: Why should they abandon their convictions when they are participating in a legal activity?

Does common sense (as determined by popular culture) trump a person's constitutional rights?
 
permit as asking for permission:

If you go back to the founding of Arizona, there was a series of conversations that took place by the officials setting up the laws and such. The idea that carrying concealed should be illegal, and specifically mentioned in the new state constitution came up. it was shot down, metaphorically speaking, by those writing the state's constitution, that concealed carry wasn't a crime and shouldn't be regulated.

As for a right vs. asking permission: Believe what you want. And so will I. I mean, what was Ohio's RKBA before the CCW permission slip was enacted?
 
Does common sense (as determined by popular culture) trump a person's constitutional rights?

I would equate people getting all bent out of shape because a cop doesn't know the basics of open carry -because the cops seldom have a need to know- with the kind of cop who writes normal people tickets for "obstructed vision" because there is an air freshener hanging from the mirror, or "fail to signal lane change" when no one else is on the road. Or "improper display of license plate" when they have a dealer advertisement frame around it. Yes, it's the law and the driver shouldn't have done it, but sometimes you have to go along to get along. Yes, open carry is permissible by law, and the police should know it, but there are plenty of ways to handle the situation that don't involve baiting the police. And most of the time, a judge will consider "officer safety" a lot more than "citizen getting grabbed by the police for doing something legal like carrying a gun in the open". Especially a local judge who works with the cops every day.

I'm going to AZ soon, and I called to see if out-of-state cops could carry concealed (they can't, but permit holders from my state can). And it took me 4 different calls to find out. Would I get bent out of shape if some cop pointed a gun at me and demanded ID when I'm carrying openly, which I plan to do in Phoenix? Hell no. I'd give him my ID and be on my way. I know what my rights are, and I have no need to flaunt them, or educate a cop who doesn't care to hear about it, other than saying "Here's my ID, I'm carrying openly and I'm legal and don't have any warrants." I wouldn't even car if he ran me. Incidentally, the only reason I'm bringing a gun in the first place is because I have to turn in my rental car at the after hours lot in Phoenix. The last time, I was by myself, and it was the only time I've ever wished I had my gun the whole time I was there. This time, I'll have my family with me, and I'm absolutely going to have a gun when I turn my car in. Other than that, it will just sit in a drawer at the condo for my whole stay.

As for a right vs. asking permission: Believe what you want. And so will I. I mean, what was Ohio's RKBA before the CCW permission slip was enacted?
I really don't care one way or the other. I just do what I have to to carry concealed legally.
 
I sincerely hope that this thread doesn't get closed due to inflammatory comments. If that does happen, then it should be readily apparent to everyone perusing this discussion where the incivility originated/escalated.

Having pointed that out, let's review (and critique) a few comments made so far:

Hmmm, do the police officers here believe that one may pull over a motorist for no other reason than ensure that it is legal for him to be operating and that his vehicle is not stolen?

Surprisingly (to me, I don't presume to speak for others), this question was answered in a later post by FrankDrebin:
when a named person calls in and says "That guy is driving a stolen car" then it's a perfectly legal stop.
"perfectly legal stop"

This phrase alone should make it readily apparent who is an agent of "the state" rather than a servant of the people.

Incidentally, this statement is a "red herring". It's a faulty analogy. The (alleged) phone call made did not suggest any illegal activity parallell to " the car is stolen", but only a report of someone acting within the law, along the lines of "the car is being driven". The (theoretical) phone call did not suggest that that anyone was "driving a stolen car", only that someone was driving a car. Who was it that made the inference that the car might be stolen? Exactly the same logic comes into play here... Simply because someone is in possession of a firearm does not suggest that the firearm is stolen. If simple possession of a legal obect were enough to formulate 'articulable suspicion', then we could all be accosted based upon the observation that we were wering clothing. It's possible that our clothing was stolen, just as it's possible that our gun or car might be.

So based upon a phone call of a man "wearing clothes" in public, is that cause to accost, detain, question question said man?

If not, then how is it that a call about a man wearing a gun is different? Both are (need I remind anyone) entirely legal., in these circumstances.

Regardless, I doubt that this statement is true. I would be surprised (and very disappointed, or somewhat enraged) to learn that a simple phone call accusing someone of driving a car (whether or not the caller assumes wrongdoing) would result in a similar response.

The very same upstanding citizen made this statement:
it's not surprising that some of them might not be familiar with open carry laws
which baffles me somewhat, because I seem to remember hearing something about "ignorance of the law" not being an excuse. Maybe that only applies to people who are not acting in the interest of "the state".

As the fates would have it, another comment was posted... One which went much further toward describing the true attitude:
I think it makes sense to go along to get along

This is what it really boils down to.

Some are focused upon the ideals of freedom and liberty, while others are focused on 'going along to get along'

To many, the next paycheck becomes vastly more important than any philisophical dream of anything as silly as "individual rights".

This is the problem facing those in the LEO community. At some point, an LEO becomes more of an agent for "the state" than an individual sworn to uphold the law for the good of the community. Many are unable to make the distinction.

I don't see this trend correcting itself anytime soon, but I'm cynical by nature.

To anyone who values freedom and liberty, I can only advise this...

Watch your six. Agents of the statists are all around you, and your rights mean nothing to them. Individual rights and sovereignty are insignificant to those who believe that "it makes sense to go along to get along".
 
Last edited:
If not, then how is it that a call about a man wearing a gun is different?

They were carrying guns in an area off-limits to gun carriers.

I strolled right passed Tempe police with my Glock 21 carried openly as per Arizona law. There is a Super Double Secret sidewalk/culdesac on Mill Avenue known as Center Point which is actually public property but the Ctiy of Tempe has leased to a private concern. No guns allowed in this smidge of territory due to private property concerns. The problem is that the City of Tempe defines how the property should be run in the contract. The City Council members are also members of the board that runs the area (DTC or Downtown Tempe Community Corp), and runs several parking complexes which forbid guns (again as private proerty owners).

I would guess the call went something like this: "Make Center Point for several men with guns. Serurity guards state they're carrying in a prohibited area."

Thats enough to stop them right there. AND depending on the city or state policy for misdemeanors not committed in the officers' presence, enough to arrest them.
 
Frank,

You're apparently MISSING the entire first item I wrote...where we were, there was NO prohibition on guns, whether "alleged" or "real". The public sidewalk we were on was public sidewalk. We were approached by the cops when we were on the public sidewalk. Rick ended up on the wrong side of the Invisible Line of Death SOLELY due to the cop taking him over there to "separate" the two (Rick and C).

Also, if you don't feel safe (by wanting to bring your firearm), perhaps you shouldn't come out here?

What's that again? You want to protect your family? Oh...nice. So I bet my "stay home" message wasn't appropriate? Neither was that of the police.

As much as I am seeing you as another Bureaucrat with a Clipboard and a Shiny Badge, I do sincerely wish you a safe journey and hope that the cops leave you alone. Phoenix PD is, 99% of the time, very good about open carry. I've never been approached by them, even when downtown and going into the County Court House or City Hall (the security officers therein nicely check the guns, per ARS).
 
Also, if you don't feel safe (by wanting to bring your firearm), perhaps you shouldn't come out here?

What's that again? You want to protect your family? Oh...nice. So I bet my "stay home" message wasn't appropriate? Neither was that of the police.

If I had a choice, I WOULDN'T go there, but that's the only place I can turn in my rental. And if lived there, I would certainly carry concealed if I had to go to that area of Phoenix. As far as a retail area in Tempe, I probably wouldn't carry, family or not. As far as the police' "stay home" message, they can be smartasses too sometimes.
 
Volponi said:
This is the problem facing those in the LEO community. At some point, an LEO becomes more of an agent for "the state" than an individual sworn to uphold the law for the good of the community. Many are unable to make the distinction.


Out of sequence, but I think it is not out of the larger context:

(responding to a question about RKBA)
FrankDrebin said:
I really don't care one way or the other. I just do what I have to to carry concealed legally.

That seems to sum it up.



it's not surprising that some of them might not be familiar with open carry laws

THat's a lousy excuse. If I were that ignorant in my job, I'd be fired. But it's not just that - these cops showed abysmal ignorance of the Constitution (we already know your opinion of that document, Frank) and basic courtesy. (Although I suppose that's no longer expected of officers of the law.) At least one of them (Sgt. Spittle) showed a lack of self control that by itself is reason to have his badge removed permanently.

They also showed a clear desire to find a reason to arrest Rick, as evidenced by them prompting the security people to ask them to leave.

When did it become a police officer's job to create a crime?
 
How is running a serial number any more invasive than what they did by taking it from you?
An unbelievably stupid question. When did I make that distinction? Each item was a violation of my rights.
How did they "harass" you?
You are two for two. They harassed us when they surrounded us, took our guns, didn't let us leave, lied to us about the justification for their actions, gave us the good ol' boy, "Son, maybe you ought not come around here." Cripes, the new negro is the gun owner and the deep south is just south of the Salt River in Tempe, Arizona.
Must have been some type of Polish conspiracy.
"Consiracy?" It's standard operating procedure. They don't need no stinkin' plan. Its the way they are.

Here's the atmosphere in that liberal college town. The Tempe City Council gave (for free) the use of their chambers to an avowed socialist professor from ASU so he could have a gun buy-back (strangely, they were a might flustered when I showed up with a $1,200 FN-FAL and wanted 60 of their $20 grocery vouchers). The Chief of Police even showed up for a gun buy-back photo-op. This is how Tempe is... the ex-mayor and current state senator violated state election law by stealing his opponent's campaign signs (they were found in the the mayor's dumpster). The judge decided that was just a-okay with him. Case dismissed.
You wouldn't have happened to have been carrying on property that had been designated as private would you? Like this guy perhaps?
That guy would be me. And nobody knew of the private property until that night. It was a sidewalk. We sat down on a bench/planter on the sidewalk which turned a corner into the cul-de-sac. The sidewalk, built by public funds, and public property until the DTC gave a private concern control over a public sidewalk, looked like any other sidewalk in Your-town, USA. And the theater was on the FAR side of that cul-de-sac, which also used to be public property...until the corrupt Tempe government officials gave themselves control of it with a private organization formed by members of that same city government. Cool how they do that, eh?

Not only did Tempe give control over that super-secret portion of the sidewalk, they allowed DTC to lease all of the major city-owned, city-built parking garages. Guess what? No guns allowed in cars parked in city, er, DTC property.

A lot was learned during that night of activism.
After walking back over, he said to Rick and C., "Yes, they are asking you to leave."
Actually right after he said that I said, "We offered to leave five minutes ago."After the cop calmed down and stopped spittling (which witnesses said they saw back-lit in the night by the street lights as they pelted my fact), we had a calm talk, where I told him I wouldn't sue him. We shook hands, and the first of 200 people surrounded us tryin' to figgure out what the heck they just saw. It was priceless.
Oops. Cops hemmed and hawed.
I wouldn't say they hemmed or hawed. When I told them the shopkeep was a gunnie they admitted that she didn't call and that the DTC-droids (essentially their private-capacity co-workers), were the ones who called it in. What wasn't admitted, nor varified, was that the DTC and the Tempe PD were in contact the entire time. So, separation between the two is magic dust, IMO.
The first post failed to mention anything about the "private property"
If you consider the Mayor of Tempe giving public property to his own corporation in a sweetheart deal, private property I suppose you'd be correct, if , in fact, we had ANY reasonable notice that a sidewalk which had been just a sidewalk for twenty years suddenly became just another shopping aisle at Costco. As well, since I have written about this here at TFL and Glock Talk, the info is just a search away. I wasn't aware that we had two LEO-apologists here at TFL which would raise such ludicrous non-points.
The second post says the "spitting" was a result of excited talking. Hardly what it was before I called him on it.
You called me on nothing. You jumped to a really stupid conclusion, as others have pointed out to you. But let me describe the LEO's actions. He and I were about the same height. He, with shaved head, had his feet about two feet from me when he started and was leaning in. He was yelling at the TOP of his lungs. He was so distraught that he had a vein bulging from his forehead and another from his neck. Did I mention the red face? Then he took a step into me.

I put myself in a Happy Place because I knew *exactly* what this JBT fool in front of me was trying to do. Prevoke me. I'm not sure, but I think I got myself soooo happy that I might have had something of a Gomer Pyle aire about me. Heck, that'd annoy just about anyone, let alone a full-of-himself Tempe LEO.

He saw fit to post that particular detail of the now 7 year-old incident 4 years ago. Was his memory of the details and their importance better then, or better now?
The post was about open carry an police. Can you think of a better scenario? Heck, I guess we could talk about the three SWATies that appeared when we attempted to check our guns at the Glendale library. That was only, what, two years ago? Is that recent enough for ya? I guess chronology really doesn't matter, since I could take you over to www.thehighroad.org and you could read about the guy last month who was felony-stopped for open-carrying in a NewHampshire Barnes & Noble? Too old?

No, but when a named person calls in and says "That guy is driving a stolen car" then it's a perfectly legal stop.
Did someone call in a stolen gun report on that *ancient* April night?

Go to a town where few, if any people carry openly, especially when they can easily get a permit to carry concealed. Walk around with your gun strapped on in open view and ask a non gun-carrying citizen whose point of view is more reasonable.
Hmmm. Go to a town where few or any people are black, especially when they can stay in their own neighborhood...

No thanks. This is Arizona, where open carry is legal. Tempe is not isolated geographically...it is part of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.
it's not surprising that some of them might not be familiar with open carry laws
This is Arizona. They'd have to living in a cave on A-Mountain. The fact is that the leftwing government of Tempe *wants* them to do what the did. A little heat will make things right.
I get the impression that many of you would rather push the issue and bait the cop just because you can,
It's true that leftwing cops are easy to bait. But in this case, all I was doing was sitting on a bench next to some flowers. The cops came to me. Spittle was my reward. ;)
You had a chance to score a major coup for gun carriers everywhere. The case is at least 7 years old. How did the lawsuit turn out?
Lawsuit? You don't quite get how we operate. News of this incident spread all over the gunnie community in Arizona. We used this to call and e-mail our state legislators. We showed up at Legislative District meetings where we cornered state senators and state representatives. This incident became one of the rallying calls for....

State Firearms Preemption. aka ARS 13-1308. ;)

Frank, we're making you look like a fool. I suggest you quit while you're not so far behind. But should you decide to respond, I welcome the chance for more target practice on your weak arguments.

Rick
 
One more...

I would guess the call went something like this: "Make Center Point for several men with guns. Serurity guards state they're carrying in a prohibited area."
Borrowing off Tim's earlier point...

We were surrounded and disarmed not at "Center Point" which is the Spittle Zone, but at the alley next to the big two-story brew-pub which is about 1/3 mile away.

Tim is right about the first contact. When we were walking down to south (we had no plans to stop at Center Point, nor were we aware of the new "corporate" no-guns rule on the once-public sidewalk), we were noticed by a bike cop on the street who glanced at us and spoke into his radio and began following us. This was a few minutes before we reached the cul-de-sac. He then rode over to Mister Spittle and another LEO, pointed to us as we sat on the bench and the race was on.

I just remembered another thing. The guy he actually spotted was not me, but was C. They surrounded C who was sitting to my right on the bench. I'm a lefty so they never saw my gun. When I engaged in the conversation I think I must have told them that I was carrying openly as well. I wish I could remember the looks on their tactical-faces, but, alas, it escapes me.

Another issue. We really have no idea if there actually was a No Weapons zone, and if there was, where it actually began. A crack in a sidewalk is what the officer pointed to as the line of demarcation. As Tim said that night, "Here good. There bad. Here good. There bad...'

'Nuther issue. My wife was with me that night. She was carrying her G-23 concealed with a permit. Tim, she approached them and they ID'ed her per ARS. Do you remember what happened with that? I'd ask her but she's snoozin' right now.

Last issue. Ten years ago, the only way to carry legally in Arizona was openly. There was no CCW permit. Open carry was *very* common back 10-20 years ago.

Were we all stupid for exercising our rights then as well?

Rick
 
The only thing I recall the Lovely Mrs. RickD saying during that was

"Crap, Rick's going to lose his Glock."

The rest of us were amusing ourselves with how tactically inefficient they were NOT to have asked us if we were carrying.

By not doing so, when (again) it was clear to anyone with a brain, that we were with them. So it wasn't about safety. It was about image.

Sorry, but a "poor" image isn't a crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top