Results of my Open Carry Wal-Mart complaint

[MTS840]

MTS840,
How do you propose we expose non-shooters to firearms in a safe and responsible fashion?
My end goal is for there to be a point at which everyone accepts the sight of a firearm and doesn't freak out like a 6 year old who stumbles across older kids playing with firecrackers.

Good luck with that. When kids are suspended from school because they draw a picture of a gun on a piece of paper or form the shape of a gun with their fingers and point it at another student, I don't think that public acceptance is gonna happen anytime soon.

In my opinion, you have to get the public to understand the reasons WHY people carry a gun in the first place. When they realize that the police will likely not be there to save them, they come to this conclusion on their own.

I think this is why we have won much public support in recent years and how we've beat the pants off groups like the Brady Campaign.

If you are an NRA member, look at the way they promote safe and legal gun ownership. In the first few pages of the the American Rifleman, you'll see a section titled "The Armed Citizen."

These are stories are gathered from newspaper accounts throughout the country of how regular civilians saved themselves from a violent attack. The reader is left with the conclusion that the police were not there to save these people, and that guns can be a safe and effective means of self defense.

The NRA does NOT promote the idea that the way to overcome public opinion is by convincing its members that they should strap on a gun in plain sight and then go to Walmart.

Which approach do you think is more rational in the eyes of the public?

 

[TOM RENZO]

In states without a statute banning employers from restricting firearms in the parking lot, an employer will have the right to regulate their property in the absence of any state statute.

So if Starbucks wants to ban guns in their place of business they can. Remember its private propety. I was in Virginia a couple of months ago and a lot of the resturants posted signs NO GUNS PAST THIS POINT. Now why in the world would someone want to carry open. Unless the state says that is the only way. My thinking is dont let the other guy see you have a GUN. Their is no reason to let someone know that. If the law allows it its fine but in theory you are showing people your poker hand. Not a good idea. In some states if you allow people to see your gun you are in violation of your carry rights. I know what you will say next but in my state many have lost permits for branishing. That is the charge.

As a master NRA instructor i think this statement says it all.

"This approach is much more effective than some guy displaying a gun in Walmart at a time when there is no threat".

I agree with this. And no one hates gun laws more than ME. Good point

 

[TOM RENZO]

Personally, I don't want to be confronted by anybody while I'm shopping. I don't want kids getting up close to me, pointing and staring at my gun. That's not what I'm carrying for. I don't want any media attention. I don't want to make a political statement or to challenge people to ask me why I'm carrying a gun. My gun is only there to protect my life. And I don't want anybody to know it's there until I need it.


Once again well said. I always teach this in my self defense course. The worst thing in the world is to let the bad guy know you have a GUN. Its just common sense. If you open carry and push the issue on an in your face senerio . We may just loose some ground in the fight against the anti gun media. Not that it matters but its something to think about. Trying to convince the anti gun media and for that matter the anti gun groupes or people will never happen any way. So be cool and dont show your cards in a POKER GAME it is not wise to do so.. Hay Navy i hear you loud and clear but some things just are better left alone. Peace Tom

 

[jhco50]

So if Starbucks wants to ban guns in their place of business they can. Remember its private property. I was in Virginia a couple of months ago and a lot of the restaurants posted signs NO GUNS PAST THIS POINT. Now why in the world would someone want to carry open.

If the place of business is displaying a sign, then they are legal and you are not supposed to carry concealed or openly into the store. That is fine, but the OP did not see any signs. I have never seen a sign on Wally World doors prohibiting guns here in the Springs.

This thread is way off and so convoluted that it has become a CCW vs Open carry argument. Most of you fellas don't even live in Colorado and do not really know the laws exept what is read on the internet and a personal opinion.

Colorado is an open carry state. The only restrictions are government buildings, transportation building (such as the bus station), and of course stores that post signs. However, stores that post signs lose business and eventually remove their signs.

Most people don't carry openly all of the time, but some do. I carry every time I travel or go into an area I don't like to be. I don't care what Millie WooWoo thinks, it is my right under Colorado Constitutional law. It is a right I exercise when I feel the need. If that is bothersome to some people, oh well.

I don't conceal carry because I don't want to be on a list that believe it or not, can be used to harass or take guns from the citizen. I am an older American that is still aware of a time when we had a lot more freedoms than we have now because the younger generations gave them away. Shame on them.

 

[fallingblock]

still....

And too many of those within the pro-gun crowd believe way too much of the Brady Bunch propaganda.

If we can demonstrate that the presence of openly armed citizens is no more a threat to the public than openly armed police, we foster public acceptance of firearms possession.

 

[MTS840]

If we can demonstrate that the presence of openly armed citizens is no more a threat to the public than openly armed police, we foster public acceptance of firearms possession.

Can you show just ONE case in which open carry among civillians led directly to public acceptance of firearm possession?

However, your post raises another point. Police officers on duty also carry a badge when they carry a weapon. They have also been TRAINED in the use of their weapons. But when they're off duty, I've never heard of ONE who carries a handgun openly. The police officers I know would be the last people who want to be recognized or confronted in public.

To get a CCW in most states, one has to pass a class to carry a weapon concealed. You learn about legal aspects and the circumstances of when you can use deadly force.

While this is not a difficult class, sometimes it's the only training some civilians will ever get. And it shows. You should see some of the weapons they bring to the firing range and hear some of the student opinions about self-defense.

By the way, what training standards are there for Open Carry?

Breathing doesn't count.

 

[TOM RENZO]

MTS840 Dude these guys are not getting this. Like you said in our course we work with Police all the time and off duty is a NO NO for them to open carry. I agree with you 100% Thanks just me could be wrong. Hay if open carry is your thing God Bless but i would not do it personally. Never let someone know you have a gun. If it gets hairy the bad guys will pick you out FIRST. And i run 2 local ranges and 840 is 100% correct you cant believe what shows up at the range. And i mean untrained individules and some strange conversations about the LAW. Peace Brothers and remember

Shoot Safe Shoot Often and Share the Sport

 

[fallingblock]

Can you show just ONE case in which open carry among civillians led directly to public acceptance of firearm possession?

I'm suggesting it as a step in acclimating folks to the possession and bearing of arms by civilians. I think is is a positive step in that direction. We have been making good progress over the past few years in regaining what were once commonly accepted rights.

Police officers on duty also carry a badge when they carry a weapon. They have also been TRAINED in the use of their weapons.

So we tie the bearing of arms to mandatory training?
Is that in the fine print of the Second Amendment?

You're already sounding a bit like a press release for the Brady organization.

The police officers I know would be the last people who want to be recognized or confronted in public.

Ha-ha...well they already have the ability to carry concealed, right? In many of the open carry movements, California and Wisconsin for example, there is no or very limited provision for citizens to carry discreetly.

While this is not a difficult class, sometimes it's the only training some civilians will ever get. And it shows. You should see some of the weapons they bring to the firing range and hear some of the student opinions about self-defense.

I don't think most folks would be opposed to obtaining training - but the idea of tying mandatory training to the exercise of a right is a slippery slope.

By the way, what training standards are there for Open Carry?

Breathing doesn't count.

I believe there is mention of ..."to keep and bear arms..."
in the Second Amendment. Citizen='bear'.

...if open carry is your thing God Bless but i would not do it personally. Never let someone know you have a gun. If it gets hairy the bad guys will pick you out FIRST.

Ah, freedom is a wonderful thing to allow us choice.

And i run 2 local ranges and 840 is 100% correct you cant believe what shows up at the range. And i mean untrained individules and some strange conversations about the LAW

.

Education is also a wonderful thing. Compulsion, not so much.
Do we accept the responsibility for our own education, or do we allow "the authorities" to make exercise of our rights contingent upon their assessment of it?

 

[NavyLT]

They have also been TRAINED in the use of their weapons.

I practice 3-4 times a month to ensure that I can continue to place all 30-50 rounds in a 1/4 scale silhouette at 7 yards. How often does the average LEO get to the range for their extensive training? Once a quarter? Semi-annually?

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/04/troy_meade_everett_cop_who_sho.php

Is this an example of police training?

Steven Klocker, the other officer on the scene, disagreed. In testimony, Klocker claimed that he and Meade had many other, non-lethal alternatives at their disposal. He also said that he overheard Meade say, "Time to end this; enough is enough."

If it gets hairy the bad guys will pick you out FIRST.

I hear this same argument over and over again like a broken record. And yet not once have those making this argument been able to show an example of it happening.

Can you show just ONE case in which open carry among civillians led directly to public acceptance of firearm possession?

I can show several individual cases from my normal day-to-day carrying. It usually starts out with "Is that legal?" and the ending is normally, "Wow, that's cool, I didn't know we could do that!"

And it would help if police would get on board demonstrating not only the legality of carrying but also the appropriateness. How about a cop gets a MWAG call and they show up at the scene and talk to the caller instead of talking to the guy carrying the gun? "What was the man doing?" "Shopping." "Where was his gun?" "In a holster on his belt." "Did he ever take his gun out of the holster, or reach for it like he was going to remove it?"
"No." "Well, ma'am. I don't see anything here indicating anything illegal is going on, so I am not allowed to even stop the person for formal questioning because I have no Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. It's perfectly legal for a person to carry a gun for self defense purposes, just like I carry my gun. Thank you, have a nice day."

They have also been TRAINED in the use of their weapons.

Also, speaking of training. Vermont and Alaska have constitutional carry (and soon to be Arizona as well). Does the "lack of training" cause problems in those states with increased firearms accident rates and increased shootings? NO. Washington has no training requirement for a CPL. Many states such as Washington, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona and others allow for open carry with no permit and no training. Does the "lack of training" casue problems in those states with increased firearms accidents and shootings? NO. There are no statistics or facts to back up a statement that REQUIRING training for civilians to be armed makes any difference at all.

It is just as safe to walk down the streets of Alaska, Vermont, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana without fear of being shot by a person lawfully carrying a firearm as it is to do so in Texas or Oklahoma.

 

[TOM RENZO]

I practice 3-4 times a month to ensure that I can continue to place all 30-50 rounds in a 1/4 scale silhouette at 7 yards. How often does the average LEO get to the range for their extensive training? Once a quarter? Semi-annually?


Navy with all due respect and we are on the same page. We are gun loving and dont want our rights trampelled on . Thats what its all about. But putting 30-50 rounds in a target that does not shoot back is a whole load of difference when someone is shooting back!!!!! And with all due respect its great to practice 3-4 times a month that is better than 90% of gun owners practice. But i personally train 2-4 times a week. I am nuts about this and take it quite sereyously. I am also a master instructor (not trying to impress anyone just saying) and you are wrong a professional will always take out the first guy he sees with a firearm. This is standard practice. We teach that all the time. Not seeing a gun is always secondary in a bad situation. Rule of training consentrate on the guy with the gun FIRST. Then go from their. As a Gunnery Sergeant i have been in some bad situations in the past and my training saved me thank the LORD. But with that said have a good day and be careful Peace Tom

Remember
Shoot Safe Shoot Often And Share The Sport!!

 

[NavyLT]

and you are wrong a professional will always take out the first guy he sees with a firearm. This is standard practice.

Show me one instance where that has happened in an armed robbery situation where an armed civilian was shot first in the robbery attempt because of their gun. The only cases that can be shown in real life have been robberies where people such as guards in uniform during armored car robberies (Washington state Wal Mart incident). It's easy for you to state something as fact. But show us where it happens in real life.

A lot of claims are being made with no factual evidence to prove them. Open carrying citizens will get shot first - no examples in real life of that happening. Lack of training will be a problem - no statistics from states that have no training required now to carry a firearm to back that up.

And I love this one by Russell Knoke of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association in regards to open carry: "But police are not enthusiastic about the law. Russell Knoke, spokesman of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association, said it can be hard to figure out 'who is the good guy and who is the bad guy' when everyone is armed."

Really? How does that work? Last time I checked criminals don't obey laws and they are going to carry their guns illegally concealed anyway. So how does giving citizens the ability to open carry cause endangerment to police officers? Hell, wouldn't it make it easier for police officers to determine who was armed if they were open carrying and wouldn't that make it safer for them arriving upon a scene to be able to see the guns up front instead of guessing if there was a concealed firearm or not?

The Oklahoma State Troopers Association has also received a large amount of press attention by deeming HB 3354 as “dangerous”. The OSTA is using their influence in an attempt to sway Governor Henry to veto the open carry bill. Russell Knoke, OSTA president is quoted in an interview:


He said when officers arrive on a crime scene or respond to a domestic call, three or four people may have weapons, adding that it makes it difficult to determine "who is the good guy and who is the bad guy."


Mr. Knoke, how would this scenario differ if there were three or four persons carrying concealed handguns? Perhaps some examples of such a dangerous situation could be made public in the press; Oklahomans have been legally carrying firearms since 1995, so there must be a past incident to point to.

 

[avakadava]

I did not want to comment on this subject

We have fought a long time for concealed carry.

I am an old man (68) and carry concealed. I live in a very densely populated
and diverse city with a high crime and murder rate. It is against the
law to openly carry in this state. But, if it were legal to openly carry,
I would be very, very cautious of the person with a handgun on there
hip. In fact I would always be behind them.

Open carry is fine if you live in a rural area, but if you live in a large
city you become a target, so be prepared for actual combat.

Thanks,

Dan

 

[MTS840]

And it would help if police would get on board demonstrating not only the legality of carrying but also the appropriateness. How about a cop gets a MWAG call and they show up at the scene and talk to the caller instead of talking to the guy carrying the gun? "What was the man doing?" "Shopping." "Where was his gun?" "In a holster on his belt." "Did he ever take his gun out of the holster, or reach for it like he was going to remove it?"
"No." "Well, ma'am. I don't see anything here indicating anything illegal is going on, so I am not allowed to even stop the person for formal questioning because I have no Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. It's perfectly legal for a person to carry a gun for self defense purposes, just like I carry my gun. Thank you, have a nice day."

Sir, it would be great if they were all this easy and cooperative. But sometimes the caller does not wish to be contacted by police. They want to remain anonymous.

We can't simply ignore calls like this. The callers sometimes have an agenda, such as some anti-gunner may have.

For example, if they tell the police dispatcher that you are carrying a gun and that you keep putting your hands on your belt as if you are about to draw in a crowded place, then these details will be given to the responding officers.

I can assure you they may not be so friendly when they approach you, especially if your hands go near that gun!

So much for good public perception.

Believe me, the caller will enjoy watching you get a faceplant and handcuffed on the asphalt, even though you've done nothing wrong. After we talk to people in the store and watch surveillance videos, we may come to the conclusion that you've done nothing wrong and you'll be on your way. But you will be entered into a police database. That's just the way it works.

Bear in mind, the police did nothing wrong in the above scenario. They are simply responding to the call as it was given to them. As a police officer, you can't assume that every guy carrying a gun is a good, honest flag waving patriot.

And you can't assume he's some nut looking for a fight, either. Each case is different and you have to be ready for anything. The call details will largely determine police response.

All I'm saying is that when you Open Carry, you may be exercising your rights, ut you're also opening yourself up to the possibility of an unwanted confrontation that nobody wants.

So we tie the bearing of arms to mandatory training?

I think formal training is a good idea. As much as you can get.

Just think, it might keep the media from portraying the Open Carry folks as a reckless, untrained bunch of yahoos.

We wouldn't want to give the public that impression, would we?

 

[fallingblock]

We're on the same side here....;.

We can't simply ignore calls like this. The callers sometimes have an agenda, such as some anti-gunner may have.

Isn't that why an officer is dispatched rather than a robot?
If there is a serious discrepancy between the caller's account
and what is actually happening, that is the responding
officer's first clue.

All I'm saying is that when you Open Carry, you may be exercising your rights, ut you're also opening yourself up to the possibility of an unwanted confrontation that nobody wants.

Like Rosa Parks on that bus in Montgomery, AL?
Somebody has to challenge the errors in the system if it is to change.
If there is to be an "unwanted confrontation" the object is that the caller and the cops both learn from it.

I think formal training is a good idea. As much as you can get.

And who decides when that training is "enough"? And to whom it will be "allowed"?

What effect does that arbitrary decision have on the right to bear arms?

Just think, it might keep the media from portraying the Open Carry folks as a reckless, untrained bunch of yahoos.

We wouldn't want to give the public that impression, would we?

The media is already hostile to the idea of RKBA.
When open carriers gather and nothing at all happens, it damages their case.

And thus changes the perception of the public.

...you are wrong a professional will always take out the first guy he sees with a firearm.

Why? For exercising their constitutional rights?
Bad professional, bad professional!

 

[NavyLT]

I can assure you they may not be so friendly when they approach you, especially if your hands go near that gun!

So much for good public perception.

Believe me, the caller will enjoy watching you get a faceplant and handcuffed on the asphalt, even though you've done nothing wrong. After we talk to people in the store and watch surveillance videos, we may come to the conclusion that you've done nothing wrong and you'll be on your way. But you will be entered into a police database. That's just the way it works.

I am glad I live in a state where such actions are a violation of state law!

 

[MTS840]

I am glad I live in a state where such actions are a violation of state law!

What law would the police have violated if they had acted the same as that scenario I described in your state?

 

[TOM RENZO]

A lot of claims are being made with no factual evidence to prove them. Open carrying citizens will get shot first - no examples in real life of that happening. Lack of training will be a problem - no statistics from states that have no training required now to carry a firearm to back that up.


LT i would like to know how many times you were in the position to use your GUN. I get the impression that you lack training. Please no disrespect intended. Have you ever took a real training Course?? It sounds like you haven't. Hope i am wrong. But who would you shoot first in a bad situation ??? The guy with a visible gun or one that does not appear to have one. Like i said carry open i am not judging this and in your state its clearly legal. Once again i have seen many many people shoot excellent at paper targets. But the bad guys shoot back. When you get into a bad situation training and proper training is your only defense. And once again the visible gun is the guy you take out first. This is my experiance and i think i can say with proven fact this is correct. So with that said Have a good night. Good discussion and remember we are all on the same side just different feelings.

Remember

Shoot Safe Shoot Often And Share The Sport

 

[NavyLT]

What law would the police have violated if they had acted the same as that scenario I described in your state?

At least two. First, the charge for threatening with a weapon (brandishing), in Washington is a gross misdemeanor:

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

RCW 10.31.100 makes it illegal for a police officer to arrest a person for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor which has not be committed in the officer's presence:

RCW 10.31.100
Arrest without warrant.

A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section.

(1) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the unlawful taking of property or involving the use or possession of cannabis, or involving the acquisition, possession, or consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of twenty-one years under RCW 66.44.270, or involving criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 or 9A.52.080, shall have the authority to arrest the person.

Now I know that you are going to say, "But the exception of paragraph (1) would apply!" In order for that argument to apply, however, one must be familiar with case law regarding what a threat with a firearm is. In order to be guilty of 9.41.270, ALL the elements of the offense must be met: "in a manner", "under circumstances", "at a time and place", AND that "manifests an intent to intimidate" or "WARRANTS alarm." Notice the statute does not say causes alarm.. it says warrants alarm.

In the scenario you described, NONE of the actions of the subject would meet the requirements of 9.41.270 until the gun actually was removed from the holster AND was accompanied by other threatening actions or statements such as pointing it at someone or making a verbal threat.

This has been decided by the Washington Supreme Court in numerous cases:

State v. Spencer
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile;id=25

and

State v. Casad
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile;id=9

The Washington Supreme court ruled in those cases that the mere carrying of a firearm did not meet the requirements of 9.41.270, and in Casad the firearms were even carried in the hand, on a public street, by a convicted felon!

Arrest is defined as:

Halsbury's Laws of England defines an arrest as:

"Arrest consists of the actual seizure or touching of a person’s body with a view to his detention. The mere pronouncing of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be arrested submits to the process and goes with the arresting officer."

These words were adopted in Canada in R v Whitfield (1970).

In the United States, the Supreme Court, in the 1968 case of Terry v Ohio, used these words:

"An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows."

The act of "faceplanting and handcuffing" is an arrest, and unless the offense is committed in the officer's presence, or the officer has PROBABLE CAUSE (notice it is probable cause and not reasonable suspicion. Probable cause requires more than a 911 call to establish) that ALL of the elements of 9.41.270 have been met, the arrest is illegal under 10.31.100.

In addition, if the officer uses such actions in an attempt to persuade the subject not to open carry the firearm, then the officer is guilty of coercion:

RCW 9A.36.070
Coercion.

(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.

(2) "Threat" as used in this section means:

(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

(b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).

(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.04.110(25) has been modified since 9A.36.070 was written and 9A.36.070 was never changed to reflect the modifications made to 9A.04.110(25). That is what the asterisk is for in the above statute. The definition of threat in 9A.04.110 is now in paragraph (27):

(27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent:

(a) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or

(b) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or

(c) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or

(d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or

(e) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(f) To reveal any information sought to be concealed by the person threatened; or

(g) To testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or

(h) To take wrongful action as an official against anyone or anything, or wrongfully withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding; or

(i) To bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other similar collective action to obtain property which is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group which the actor purports to represent; or

(j) To do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationships;

Because of these requirements, multiple training bulletins have been issued in various law enforcement agencies around Washington informing officers that open carry is a legal act and that no formal detainment of persons carrying firearms is legal unless probable cause exists that all the elements of 9.41.270 have been met.

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;cat=1

 

[gearchecker]

Face plant? That's certainly a voilation of my rights!

MST840 - Believe me, the caller will enjoy watching you get a faceplant and handcuffed on the asphalt, even though you've done nothing wrong. After we talk to people in the store and watch surveillance videos, we may come to the conclusion that you've done nothing wrong and you'll be on your way. But you will be entered into a police database. That's just the way it works.

First of all a "face plant" is an unwarranted arrest. Even handcuffing a person that is open carrying "for his protection" is illegal here.

Where open carry is legal the LEO's MUST exercise due caution in their actions. Just because a person carry's openly doesn't automatically make them a threat or a criminal.
The LEO's need to get off their self created pedestals and start following the laws as they're written. And before they violate my rights, they'd better know the law they're accusing me of breaking or violating.

Laws are not arbitrary, If a LEO is going to enforce a law it must be exercised fairly. They are for everybody, equally.

Placing somebody in a police database because they openly and legally carry a gun?
Do you support the National Terrorists Database too? It sounds like it to me?
Those are First, Second and Fifth Amendment rights violation in my state, as well as Washington State where NavyLT lives.

These actions are violations of our rights throughout the entire nation, except for the few places that have illegal gun control laws.
They've already violated the 2nd amendment anyway, so they think they're already excused from the law.

My right to openly carry will always be challenged by me if I'm stopped or accosted by some attitudinal LEO. I'll challenge them professionally and with dignity, because I don't need to fight over my constitutional rights.

 

[NavyLT]

Also in addition to my post #118 above and gearchecker's post below it, may I ask how well the officers in St. John v. Alamogordo which was decided in Federal Court fared? The Federal district court ruled in St. John's favor and ruled that even a Terry Stop was an illegal action taken by the officers!

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile;id=52

So.... go ahead and "faceplant and handcuff" me! I dare you!