PK90 3,570 Posted July 23, 2011 My link Gotta love how this was handled. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrP 81 Posted July 23, 2011 My link Gotta love how this was handled. Sadly, this is the most appropriate harassment of a law-abiding citizen exercising their rights I've seen. I saw this the other day and was tempted to post it. What the officer is doing is wrong to begin with, but at least it didn't turn into the clusterf*** that most OC harassment stops do. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caine 147 Posted July 23, 2011 LOL best cop ever Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bry@n 195 Posted July 23, 2011 I thought it was handled very well and the cop was extremely professional. I could see why the open carrier was trying to protect himself but think he may have been over the top. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bulpup 98 Posted July 23, 2011 I love that cop. Not sure I understand why he wouldn't give his name, but I guess in states where you can open carry people know the issue a little better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgstinner 11 Posted July 23, 2011 This cop is a complete 180 from the officer in the OH CCW video posted the other day. If I were the CCW holder in the video, I wouldn't have an issue giving the officer my name. I'm not sure why he was so hesitant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fishpaw 17 Posted July 23, 2011 I thought you were required to identify yourself, although you dont have to show ID. Maybe just giving your first name is enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob B 103 Posted July 23, 2011 Oceanside, CA? Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HINCHMAN 4 Posted July 23, 2011 GUYS, in the USA, you are NOT Required to identify yourself...lose the slave mentality that NJ put on you. ALso, that cop was very mature and seasoned, not like the 25yo's you see in NJ with a sleeve full of tattoos. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bulpup 98 Posted July 23, 2011 GUYS, in the USA, you are NOT Required to identify yourself...lose the slave mentality that NJ put on you. yas massa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HINCHMAN 4 Posted July 23, 2011 yas massa Now get back out and pay my taxes then pick my fields, then I will tax you some more...LOL... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HINCHMAN 4 Posted July 23, 2011 Also, note the accent...very boston, RI.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BRaptor 68 Posted July 23, 2011 GUYS, in the USA, you are NOT Required to identify yourself...lose the slave mentality that NJ put on you. ALso, that cop was very mature and seasoned, not like the 25yo's you see in NJ with a sleeve full of tattoos. Sorry, but you're dead wrong. In the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Circuit of Nevada (2004, I think), the sole question was, under the US Constituion, whether the police can require you to give your name if requested. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS decided that your name is not protected by either the US Const. 4A or the US Const. 5A. Thus, the police CAN constitutionally require you to give your name, when they approach you and CAN arrest or detain you if failure to give your name is violation of state law. I don't know NJ's state law regarding this, and NJ's constitution may give you more rights than the US Const. But, as a US citizen, you must give your name to police when asked. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted July 23, 2011 Sorry, but you're dead wrong. In the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Circuit of Nevada (2004, I think), the sole question was, under the US Constituion, whether the police can require you to give your name if requested. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS decided that your name is not protected by either the US Const. 4A or the US Const. 5A. Thus, the police CAN constitutionally require you to give your name, when they approach you and CAN arrest or detain you if failure to give your name is violation of state law. I don't know NJ's state law regarding this, and NJ's constitution may give you more rights than the US Const. But, as a US citizen, you must give your name to police when asked. +1 Every state has different laws when it comes to this, but from what I could find the majority of them require you to identify yourself when involved in a "Terry stop" being temporarily detained by LE. You do not have to show a govt or any other paper ID, but you do have to give your name. Most of the time the ID requirement stops at your name, but may be different depending on the state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted July 23, 2011 ok.. watched video.. read a little.. why is he walking around with an unloaded handgun?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caine 147 Posted July 23, 2011 From what I've been told from a co-worker who lives in CA, they are allowed to open carry, but the firearm can't be loaded - mag has to be stored in a pocket or mag holder - basically anywhere, but IN the gun. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted July 23, 2011 From what I've been told from a co-worker who lives in CA, they are allowed to open carry, but the firearm can't be loaded - mag has to be stored in a pocket or mag holder - basically anywhere, but IN the gun. this just illustrates the absurdity that is US gun law... nothing but odd ill thought out legislation that has absolutely no impact on anything of substance.. oh wait I am sorry.. there is impact.. the impact is on us.. the law abiding citizen.. thanks for clearing up that nonsense.. I think that officer illustrated a pretty high level of professionalism.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wildbob 14 Posted July 23, 2011 It starts out "We got a lot of calls from people seeing you walk down the street". Anyone but me see a problem with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted July 23, 2011 It starts out "We got a lot of calls from people seeing you walk down the street". Anyone but me see a problem with that? well that IS a LARGE chunk of the problem.. we as a society have demonized guns with such vigor that a normal looking guy with a holstered gun has now become something "suspicious"... what was funny is when I am up in the PA mountains.. and walk around with a holstered gun.. I barely get a glance.. all about location.. location is everything.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KpdPipes 388 Posted July 23, 2011 GUYS, in the USA, you are NOT Required to identify yourself...lose the slave mentality that NJ put on you. ALso, that cop was very mature and seasoned, not like the 25yo's you see in NJ with a sleeve full of tattoos. Actually in several states you are in fact required to identify yourself if asked BY statute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KpdPipes 388 Posted July 23, 2011 ok.. watched video.. read a little.. why is he walking around with an unloaded handgun?? because California law requires that any handgun carried openly be unloaded........ So, when the gangbanger decides to mug you you have to ask for a timeout so you can draw your weapon, put in a magazine, and chamber a round. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hd2000fxdl 422 Posted July 23, 2011 because California law requires that any handgun carried openly be unloaded........ So, when the gangbanger decides to mug you you have to ask for a timeout so you can draw your weapon, put in a magazine, and chamber a round. Yea a time out should work.. Maybe it works as well as this... :icon_rolleyes: Harry 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted July 23, 2011 I'm actually quite impressed with how the officer was acting. I'm not too certain what the laws are regarding officers stopping a citizen who is OCing in a state that allows it, but overall I'm pretty satisfied with the professionalism he showed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tt-33 8 Posted July 25, 2011 I got a harder time in lakehurst years ago for having a nra sticker and a hundred empty shotshells during a traffic stop Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob B 103 Posted July 25, 2011 Is carrying a gun, by itself, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted July 25, 2011 Is carrying a gun, by itself, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion? That entirely depends on the area. In NJ, yes. In a state that allows that specific style of carrying, I do not believe so. You have to think about it this way: An officer won't know if you have a valid drivers license, valid registration, and current liability insurance before pulling you over. Can an officer pull you over to check these documents? No. An officer won't know if you have the proper licensing to carry a firearm (if licensing is required) until he stops to question you. Under the same logic, should the officer be able to stop and question you? No. Edit: Was that a rhetorical question? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anselmo 87 Posted July 25, 2011 because California law requires that any handgun carried openly be unloaded........ So, when the gangbanger decides to mug you you have to ask for a timeout so you can draw your weapon, put in a magazine, and chamber a round. I think it might be some loophole in the law that prohibited the open carrying of a loaded gun. Since the gun isn't loaded, it's not illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted July 25, 2011 What ever it is, it's better then nothing.. and +1 to the cop, nothing says they can't approach you on the street, the officer didn't demand anything, and was probably investigating an complaint. If he let the guy go with no ID i'm guessing he's not the kind to just stop someone because he has a pistol holstered. Since the guy had a video camera and no id i'm guessing he was in fact trying to make a statement and gain there attention. I actually think once the cop realized he was being filmed he knew what was going on and foiled the guys plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob B 103 Posted July 25, 2011 That entirely depends on the area. In NJ, yes. In a state that allows that specific style of carrying, I do not believe so. You have to think about it this way: An officer won't know if you have a valid drivers license, valid registration, and current liability insurance before pulling you over. Can an officer pull you over to check these documents? No. An officer won't know if you have the proper licensing to carry a firearm (if licensing is required) until he stops to question you. Under the same logic, should the officer be able to stop and question you? No. Edit: Was that a rhetorical question? I agree. I'm encouraged that the officer was polite and professional and genuinely seemed to support the right to carry, but it still looks like an illegal stop to me -- no RAS. It's much better than what we have been seeing, i.e. the Canton, Ohio stop and the Philly stop, but we have to be careful not to accept this as the standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted July 25, 2011 I agree. I'm encouraged that the officer was polite and professional and genuinely seemed to support the right to carry, but it still looks like an illegal stop to me -- no RAS. It's much better than what we have been seeing, i.e. the Canton, Ohio stop and the Philly stop, but we have to be careful not to accept this as the standard. Believe me, it's not that I disagree with you. I'm all for my rights. But there is an issue that comes up. A bunch of people start calling the cops on the individual walking down the street. If the cops do nothing, they look bad. The people who called the cops become irritated with the police force. Now you start messing with the relations that the public has with the cops, and that's not good by any means. What the cops SHOULD have done was simply explained to the public the law. Told them "I'm sorry, but open carrying a gun is actually legal, as long as the gun is unloaded and does not have a magazine in it." Then the REAL issue that comes up is someone who knows NOTHING about what they're talking about, says it's loaded. I guess what I'm getting at is it's not entirely the officers fault when they're confronted with a situation like this. They're likely not provided accurate information...there's other issues to worry about. All in all, I'm still very satisfied with how the stop went. I mean come on, the video is like 2 minutes long. The man was not detained, the officer did not force him to do anything, the officer did not talk to the man in a disrespecting tone (even before he knew he was being recorded). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
