Police and Open Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...

Well, did you, or didn't you at any point have a gun that night in a zone designated by the city as a "no gun zone"? I believe Tim said multiple times that you didn't. I'm inferring from your recent posts that you did.

I wasn't aware that we had two LEO-apologists here at TFL which would raise such ludicrous non-points.
Click to expand...
Just trying to get the whole objective story, which seems to be like pulling teeth.

Did someone call in a stolen gun report on that *ancient* April night?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that someone reported you having a gun in a no gun zone. I'm guessing that's a local misdemeanor. And if you had indeed carried in violation of a city ordinance, and an identified person called that in, then it was enough for reasonable suspicion for a stop.

Another issue. We really have no idea if there actually was a No Weapons zone, and if there was, where it actually began.
Click to expand...

Tim says you weren't in a no gun zone, now you're saying you don't know if there was a no gun zone. And I suppose the cops and security guards contend that you WERE in a no gun zone.

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.
Click to expand...

Were you in this area or not with a gun?
 
I would think that advocating carrying a gun where others can't see it is a pretty common-sense approach to carrying guns.
Click to expand...

How so?

This obsession with concealed carry seems a purely American thing. Here, while the gun license enables Israelis to carry guns concealed or open, as they wish, the oppressive majority carries openly. I in fact only know one or two people who carry concealed.
 
FrankDreblin: Palestinians cannot carry anything, as they are not Israeli citizens (However, some Arabs who I know do carry in downtown Tel-Aviv - openly).
 
An unbelievably stupid question.

You are two for two.

They don't need no stinkin' plan. Its the way they are.
Click to expand...
Does your hot plate have any setting other than high? Just because someone has a difference of opinion or does not see things exactly as you is no reason to go off or start to hit. Relax. It's called a exchange of ideas/information/discussion. Nobody is threatening you or calling you names.
Just trying to get the whole objective story, which seems to be like pulling teeth.
Click to expand...
What Frank stated in the above line is a very reasonable line of thinking. When an Officer does something these type of Internet forums go on questioning every little thing for pages and pages. If, however, it's the citizen who some (god forbid) is questioned, the poster(s) are treated like they are "dumb/stupid, or outright hostile", just for asking the very same line of questioning. ALL sides of the story means ALL the facts/observations, etc. If you didn't know you were in a "no gun zone" it means you did not violate a law with intent, but that does not mean the Police can not take action. No different than if you were speeding and didn't know the speed limit. The Police can stop you for speeding regardless of whether you knew you were speeding. It's the same for the private property/no gun thing. Just because you man have not known (either not well posted or condition white) doesn't mean the Police (on a complaint or even their own observation) can't enforce the law. They investigated and did not arrest/charge. It seems you and some others are missing that point. It's the biggest thing I've noticed about Internet boards. Many individuals don't really understand a thing about Police work. Police conduct investigations on complaints and observations. That is being proactive. Some think the Police should just wait around until a crime is committed then try to pick up the pieces. Some investigations result in arrests (many), but others do not, and there is not a thing wrong with that if based on reasonable (court standards, not your own personal bias) standards.

All the best
 
TBO, actualy, it's debatable, according to the original poster, how much "right" did the original "owner" have to limit carry there, see above.
 
Yes, that is called "hindsight". It's like complaining about getting stopped because your driving was suspicious enough (weaving/slowing down/speeding up) that the Officer checked you out for DUI. Turns out you weren't DUI and are released. Now you complain that, "I wasn't doing anything wrong".

SSDD
 
In Pennsylvania, in-so-far as I understand, having a carry permit or license as they used to be called, allows one to carry a pistol or revolver, concealed on or about their person, or in a motor vehicle. I'm less than certain about open carry. Cutting to the chase, several years ago, in the spring, I got caught in a hellish traffic problem, they were running a martaython race of some sort, and all sorts of streets were blocked.

Disgusted, I finally parked my car, and approached a "street cop", to seek directions. I was wearing a light weight, shell jacket, unfastened. As I approached the cop, my jacket shifted, exposing to his view, my pistol.

He gave my the directions I sought, then inquired if I had "identification". Realizing what his concern was, I asked if my carry permit would do? He said that that would be nice. I offered same for him to see, which solved any problems, though he did politely point out that I had a concealed carry permit, and that my pistol had not been concealed. He also noted that this situation might cause others "concern", and that I might consider "controlling" the movement of my jacket.

End of story.
 
However, some Arabs who I know do carry in downtown Tel-Aviv - openly
Click to expand...

How many Arabs in Israel carry concealed? Or Israelis of Palestinian descent in Israel?
And you probably have the advantage here, since it's a lot easier for you to say how many people in Israel carry openly vs. how many I can show you who carry concealed. Which is kind of the point.
 
Nobody is threatening you or calling you names.
Click to expand...
Calling me names? It has been implied that I am not telling the truth. That would be calling me a liar, wouldn't it?
Well, did you, or didn't you at any point have a gun that night in a zone designated by the city as a "no gun zone"?
Click to expand...
No, I did not have a gun in a zone designated by the city as a "no gun zone." As ARS 13-3102 states, and the State Court ruled against the City of Tempe, a few years before this happened, the city may not set up a "no weapons zone" in an open area witout...it being a defined "event" of defined duration and area.

Even assuming that some lease signed by DTC gave them control over public property (Tempe couldn't find any such designation) there was no sign so there could be no violation of a law.

If I had refused to leave, after the DTC asked me to leave (once public property) then there could have been a charge of trespass, but not until then, since I offered to leave before we were asked to leave.

We were stopped soley for the reason that they wanted to know "why are you carrying openly like that?" There was no mention of any "zone" during the time we were "detained" or were we just "contacted?" I didn't ask.
Seems to me that someone reported you having a gun in a no gun zone. I'm guessing that's a local misdemeanor. And if you had indeed carried in violation of a city ordinance, and an identified person called that in, then it was enough for reasonable suspicion for a stop.
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to write this before you get it? When we were first stopped there was no sign. In fact, we have only the word of the cop that there was any real "no gun zone" at that point. And since 30 minutes later and 1/3rd mile away the cop slandered the shop owner by saying that she called the "man with gun" report when he knew it was actually the DTC security droid who RADIOED the call in... well, why should we take his word for it?

Rick
more later
 
but that does not mean the Police can not take action. No different than if you were speeding and didn't know the speed limit. The Police can stop you
Click to expand...
What rule of law did the cop demand ID, and then bluff by saying, "...so, you're refusing to comply?" And under what articulable reasonable suspicion did he have to place his nose one inch from my face and then scream at me at the top of his lungs as 200 (I trust way more libertarian than before) people looked on?

If I had done that to him, I would have been told to "calm down, sir," wrestled to the ground, tased, and charged with disturbing the peace.

Was the cop disturbing the peace? No, just good police work? Then why did that crowd gather after he lost his temper?
They investigated and did not arrest/charge.
Click to expand...
During many "driving while black" stops, er, contacts, the black man who finds himself in too nice of a car in too nice of a neighborhood won't get ticketed either. But his rights are still violated. He was profiled as a black man exercising his rights and violating no laws. I was profiled as an open-carrier, exercising my rights and violating no laws.
It seems you and some others are missing that point... Many individuals don't really understand a thing about Police work. Police conduct investigations on complaints and observations
Click to expand...
No, I think it is *you* who are missing the point. Neither cop was investigating a complaint of unlawful conduct.

We were first noticed by a bike cop minutes before getting to the cul-de-sac. He turned around, looked at us, and radioed in. He then changed his direction and followed us to the cul-de-sac. It was this very same cop who notified the others. We were targeted before we got to the phantom "no gun zone."

The "complaint" at the shoe shop was not "called in" by the shop owner or by a citizen, it was RADIOED in by DTC which is always in contact with Tempe PD. So, Tempe called Tempe to investigate a call by Tempe of people not engaging in any illegal activity.

Knowing who we were, why did they pursue us 1/3rd of a mile away? What was their purpose? Law enforcement? They didn't get our names -- again. They didn't investigate a crime. But they did get the chance to tell us that maybe we shouldn't come back.

Do you get this now or should I write you off as completely hopeless?

Oh, I just remembered. As we walked back to our cars, we passed a tall black guy heading to Mill Avenue (remember that, Tim?). We told him what was going on. He said he was with Phoenix PD and what Tempe was doing was "unconstitutional." Should we believe that he was with PD? I'm confused all of a sudden.

Rick
 
I just have a problem reconciling this statement:

No, I did not have a gun in a zone designated by the city as a "no gun zone." As ARS 13-3102 states, and the State Court ruled against the City of Tempe, a few years before this happened, the city may not set up a "no weapons zone" in an open area witout...it being a defined "event" of defined duration and area.
Click to expand...

With this one:

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.
Click to expand...

Now if the officers believed in good faith that a city ordinance or administrative rule precluded people from carrying guns here, whether the ordinance was legal or not, and that you had carried a gun on that property, I believe the stop came under the Good Faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule.

Did the police make a report about the initial incident? Most college town departmens likely would have. Can you post that report? What about the internal affairs report? Can you post that one?
 
You're way slow on the up-take.

Why do you have trouble reconciling something that does not exist?

There is no city ordinance. None.

There was no police report to my knowledge as no law was broken.

As I recall there was a hardcopy of an IA report mailed to C. He may have a .pdf of that report.

This was not about police work. This was about harassment, encouraged by the City Council and Mayor of Tempe, along with the anti-gun Chief of Police. This is about a few rogue cops going ballistic in my face when I challenged their authority to demand "ID" from me.

Now:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001954529_cops12m.html
On Thursday, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that police may not ask a passenger for ID unless there is evidence that the passenger committed a crime, or unless there's some other clearly defined reason for doing so. Just what those other reasons may be will become the subject of future court battles, lawyers say. But for now, officers and prosecutors are struggling to understand the decision's implications, as defense lawyers are singing its praises.

"One of the great principles in American law is that a person can walk down the street free of any police interference," said defense lawyer Tom Conom, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the case for the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "That's what makes us different in America."
Click to expand...
 
[RickD] "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."

.... This is one of the reasons why "permits" and concealed carry are something of a trojan horse. And it is why I encourage as many people as possible to open carry where it is legal.

The more people see open carry, the less such incidents will occur. In places where open carry is common, the police do not have to time to stop, check, every person wearing a pistol and run serial numbers. And "calls" to the police are more likely to come from tourists from elsewhere - to which the appropriate response by a dispatch operator absent the allegation of a crime should be "So what ...?"
 
Now if the officers believed in good faith that a city ordinance or administrative rule precluded people from carrying guns here, whether the ordinance was legal or not, and that you had carried a gun on that property, I believe the stop came under the Good Faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule.
Click to expand...
Suijurisfreeman posted an interesting thread at THR HERE on carrying a Constructive Notice. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to do likewise while open carrying in Tempe from now on.
 
I'm unaware of any such police report. We focused on obtaining the IA report. I do not recalle the IA report citing a police report.

Rick
 
If you didn't know you were in a "no gun zone" it means you did not violate a law with intent, but that does not mean the Police can not take action. No different than if you were speeding and didn't know the speed limit. The Police can stop you for speeding regardless of whether you knew you were speeding. It's the same for the private property/no gun thing. Just because you man have not known (either not well posted or condition white) doesn't mean the Police (on a complaint or even their own observation) can't enforce the law.
Click to expand...


If a local town sets up a 25 MPH zone in the middle of a 55 MPH zone, and does not post it, then proceeds to ticket people for exceeding 25 MPH, we don't call that "just". In fact, IIRC, SCOTUS said so about 10 years ago. Sorry - speed traps don't cut Constitutional muster. Even our current statist SCOTUS can see that.

A "No gun zone" that is not posted is no different.


And a stop for DUI is NOT a valid comparison. If someone is driving badly enough to look drunk, the officer has PROBABLE CAUSE for the stop. Carrying openly in a state where open carry is legal is NOT probable cause for a stop.

And even IF there is probable cause for a stop, there is NEVER probable cause for screaming and spitting. Cops simply do not have a right to do that. EVER.
 

How many Arabs in Israel carry concealed? Or Israelis of Palestinian descent in Israel?

How would I know?


And you probably have the advantage here, since it's a lot easier for you to say how many people in Israel carry openly vs. how many I can show you who carry concealed. Which is kind of the point.

Which is kind of not the point. My point is there's nothing suspicious with open carry.
 
Which is kind of not the point. My point is there's nothing suspicious with open carry.
Click to expand...

My point is that in this country, in my opinion, it makes a lot more sense tactically to carry concealed. If you were an Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah sniper, and you wanted to kill as many people as possible before being killed yourself, would you shoot the apparently unarmed targets first, or the armed ones?

How would I know?
Click to expand...

If I were carrying a gun, I'd prefer that you not know. Same goes for the government and criminals and the regular public. I'd really prefer they not know either.


And even IF there is probable cause for a stop, there is NEVER probable cause for screaming and spitting. Cops simply do not have a right to do that. EVER.
Click to expand...

Again, one side of the story. Why I agree that cops should be able to control their emotions, it's certainly understandable, and even proper, for them to yell at people at times. And even if this wasn't one of those times, I can understand why a cop would yell at someone if they were trying to bait them. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can understand. The day we hold the public accountable for every little infraction is the day I won't have a problem with people holding the police accountable for every little infraction. And the police yelling at you while you're trying to bait them is a little infraction. And I'm still not convinced that there wasn't some type of policy forbidding guns in an area where the people involved in this may have had guns. And personally, if the cops ever assaulted me for doing something that I had the right to do, there would be no "shaking hands" and "promising not to sue". If there were 200 witnesses, and the cops blatantly abused me, I'd sue them.

I'm unaware of any such police report. We focused on obtaining the IA report. I do not recalle the IA report citing a police report.
Click to expand...

You could always post names and dates and let the people on the forum innundate the department with FOIA requests. After all, there's no way this case is still ongoing after 6 years. The information should be readily available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top