Another Open Carry Video

[Soju 153]

but it still looks like an illegal stop to me -- no RAS.

 

So you are saying it is illegal for police to simply talk to and hold a conversation with someone on the street in public? That seems odd to me, and I highly doubt that it is illegal. In fact, I'm nearly positive it isn't.

 

The officer didn't detain him. He didn't demand he do anything really. He asked him if he could check the weapon. He didn't force the man to comply. He asked him for his name, albeit in a firm way, but didn't force him to tell him his last name. I think it would be funny if there is ever a time where you happen to ask a police officer a innocent question like "do you know which direction 4th street is?" and they told you they weren't required to answer, just because.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

So you are saying it is illegal for police to simply talk to and hold a conversation with someone on the street in public? That seems odd to me, and I highly doubt that it is illegal. In fact, I'm nearly positive it isn't.

 

The officer didn't detain him. He didn't demand he do anything really. He asked him if he could check the weapon. He didn't force the man to comply. He asked him for his name, albeit in a firm way, but didn't force him to tell him his last name. I think it would be funny if there is ever a time where you happen to ask a police officer a innocent question like "do you know which direction 4th street is?" and they told you they weren't required to answer, just because.

It's not the cop approaching someone which is the issue, its how its handled from there. If the guy said excuse me i don't have time right now and kept walking, the issue becomes whether the officer chooses to acknowledge your rights and allows you to leave. This guy choose to comply, he could have refused and kept walking, would have been interesting to see how that would have turned out. If officers always acted like this and are informed, people wouldn't mind being cooperative and wouldn't fear being wrongfully arrested. An officer can approach anyone at anytime on the street, just like a stranger can, but the mentality he speaks of is that we shouldn't have to even deal with being approach just because you have a firearm. Think of it like passing the same bum on the street every day who haggles you for change, something very simple if done enough can quickly turn into harassment.

[bulpup 98]

It's not the cop approaching someone which is the issue, its how its handled from there. If the guy said excuse me i don't have time right now and kept walking, the issue becomes whether the officer chooses to acknowledge your rights and allows you to leave. This guy choose to comply, he could have refused and kept walking, would have been interesting to see how that would have turned out.

 

Well put. We all have rights, but the officer's job is to check out calls to the police. There is no way of knowing if the people that called said "there is a man with a gun walking down the street," or "there is a man with an unloaded pistol in a holster on his belt," but if you had to bet, which one is the most likely?

 

Just as a caller could say " there is a man with a green gym bag that may have taken something from a person's car." Of course the cops are going to want to ask that guy something.

[Bob B 103]

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).

 

I agree with you that there is a dilemma here. That is one of the points of my question. I wonder if it is the policy of the Oceanside PD to dispatch the police to any report of MWAG. The answer is probably yes, and that is likely a very common policy.

 

Instead, should the 911 operator qualify the event with the caller? Is the MWAG threatening the person or property of another? Do you have any reason to believe that the MWAG is about to commit a crime? Does the MWAG appear intoxicated or under the influence? If the answers are no, then the police are not dispatched and the caller is told that the MWAG is carrying legally, but call back immediately if he threatens anyone.

 

There may be an even better solution, I'm just thinking out loud, but consider what would happen if 10 people were observed carrying that day in Oceanside, or 100. Dispatching the police for every MWAG call is not going to work. So, what would work and still be acceptable?

 

So you are saying it is illegal for police to simply talk to and hold a conversation with someone on the street in public? That seems odd to me, and I highly doubt that it is illegal. In fact, I'm nearly positive it isn't.

 

The officer didn't detain him. He didn't demand he do anything really. He asked him if he could check the weapon. He didn't force the man to comply. He asked him for his name, albeit in a firm way, but didn't force him to tell him his last name. I think it would be funny if there is ever a time where you happen to ask a police officer a innocent question like "do you know which direction 4th street is?" and they told you they weren't required to answer, just because.

 

My understanding is that a A Terry Stop, or a Stop and Identify are both illegal, or at least improper, if there is no reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime.

Terry Stop:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html

 

A few examples of states that have stop and identify laws (not sure about NJ).

http://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2006/14214/15-5-30.html

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c019/sc01/index.shtml#P27_576

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072500050HArt.+107&ActID=1966&ChapAct=725%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+PROCEDURE&SectionID=30017&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=10000000&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963. (scroll down to Sec. 107-14)

 

So, I am posing the question, is carrying a gun (in a manner which appears to be legal), in and of itself, Reasonable Suspicion or Reasonable Articulable Suspicion?

 

If we answer is no, then we believe what the officer did was unacceptable. Stop, detain, disarm, pat down outer garments, question, identify, determine that no crime has been committed and release. That's a Terry Stop and by definition, the person is being detained.

 

If we answer yes, then we have just acquiesced to being stopped by a police officer, disarmed, patted down, etc., even if only for two minutes, when there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. We are being treated differently than the rest of society because we are exercising our right to carry for self-defense.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone of my point of view. Just pointing out that maybe we shouldn't be so happy about this video either.

 

I was as impressed with the officer's professionalism and skills as everyone, but my hope is that we all consider the implications that may not be so immediately obvious. I am not ready to hold this up as the gold standard yet. I still see problems and there will be plenty of opportunities in the future to further develop our opinions on the subject.

[bulpup 98]

I agree with you that there is a dilemma here. That is one of the points of my question. I wonder if it is the policy of the Oceanside PD to dispatch the police to any report of MWAG. The answer is probably yes, and that is likely a very common policy.

 

Instead, should the 911 operator qualify the event with the caller? Is the MWAG threatening the person or property of another? Do you have any reason to believe that the MWAG is about to commit a crime? Does the MWAG appear intoxicated or under the influence? If the answers are no, then the police are not dispatched and the caller is told that the MWAG is carrying legally, but call back immediately if he threatens anyone.

 

I believe in this case the law itself is the issue. The difference between loaded or unloaded makes the carry of the firearm illegal. I don't know what happens if he is found to have it loaded, but lets just imagine it is a felony;

 

this means the condition of the firearm is the legal issue. A person calling about it couldn't possible know if the handgun is loaded or not, so the police will have a duty to check.

[Soju 153]

So responding to a call is a terry stop, and asking some questions which are being complied with and not forcing somebody to do anything is being detained? You sure have some very different definition of things then I do.

 

Is it sad and disappointing that people legally carrying get approached by cops because other people call, or they themselves are not informed? Yes. But saying it is illegal based on your own vague definition doesn't make it so. I don't want to be hassled anymore then you do just for doing something I'm allowed to, but you are stretching it if you think this guy was hassled. This is far from the Philadelphia incident or the other incident with a driver and a CCW that was posted (was it this forum?) recently with cops clearly overstepping their bounds, so don't make it as such.

[bulpup 98]

So responding to a call is a terry stop, and asking some questions which are being complied with and not forcing somebody to do anything is being detained? You sure have some very different definition of things then I do.

 

Is it sad and disappointing that people legally carrying get approached by cops because other people call, or they themselves are not informed? Yes. But saying it is illegal based on your own vague definition doesn't make it so. I don't want to be hassled anymore then you do just for doing something I'm allowed to, but you are stretching it if you think this guy was hassled. This is far from the Philadelphia incident or the other incident with a driver and a CCW that was posted (was it this forum?) recently with cops clearly overstepping their bounds, so don't make it as such.

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_being_detained_by_a_police_officer

 

 

A Detention is a non-consensual temporary denial of liberty. A police officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that

 

 

1.you are about to commit a crime

2.you are in the act of committing a crime, or

3.you have committed a crime

 

in order to Detain you. The officer has the authority to temporarily deny you the ability to leave while he investigates his suspicion. You may still refuse to answer any questions, but you have no right to leave. The officer must use a reasonable amount of time to investigate his suspicions until the detention elevates to the level of "probable cause" to arrest you. If the officer fails to determine there is probable cause for an Arrest, he must release you in a reasonable amount of time. The courts have determined that what is a reasonable amount of time is relative to the criminal activity being investigated. If you attempt to leave a detention without the permission of the police officer, you may be subject to Arrest. During a Detention, absent certain circumstances, a police officer may not move you to another location or the Detention becomes a de facto Arrest.

[Soju 153]

Cool. Glad you defined what it takes to detain someone. That might be applicable if he ever detained the guy. But he didn't so it isn't.

[bulpup 98]

[Ray Ray 3,566]

The cop was cool, seemed to be on "our" side and that's all that matters. I actually thought it was a Hi-Point pistol not a Smith & Wesson.

[Bob B 103]

So responding to a call is a terry stop, and asking some questions which are being complied with and not forcing somebody to do anything is being detained? You sure have some very different definition of things then I do.

 

Is it sad and disappointing that people legally carrying get approached by cops because other people call, or they themselves are not informed? Yes. But saying it is illegal based on your own vague definition doesn't make it so. I don't want to be hassled anymore then you do just for doing something I'm allowed to, but you are stretching it if you think this guy was hassled. This is far from the Philadelphia incident or the other incident with a driver and a CCW that was posted (was it this forum?) recently with cops clearly overstepping their bounds, so don't make it as such.

 

It's not my vague definition.

 

Articulating precisely what “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” mean is not

possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with the factual and

practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal

technicians act. As such, the standards are not really, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set

of legal rules. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as a particularized and objective

basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, and probable cause to search as

existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable

prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. We have

cautioned that these two legal principles are not “finely-tuned standards” comparable to the

standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts

in which the standards are being assessed. The principal components of a determination of

reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop

or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of

an objectively reasonable police officer amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause.

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. at 695-96

 

There's clearly room for debate about whether or not he was free to go. I'll give you that. He never actually asked if he was being detained or if he was free to go, but, it's kind of hard to go when the officer has taken your gun.

 

But, there's no debate that he was stopped, searched and had his gun seized, which, without reasonable suspicion is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

So, my question remains. Is carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion?

 

Is that adequate in your opinion?

[PK90 3,570]

Is carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion?

 

It was not determined that the possession was legal until it was verified, then he was allowed to leave.

 

Such a stupid law or loophole. Why would anyone want to open carry an unloaded firearm?

Then again, why would anyone open carry a firearm, OR, conceal carry an unloaded firearm.

Load up, button up, and shut up.

[KpdPipes 388]

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.

 

So the Police are to Ignore calls???

[Soju 153]

It's not my vague definition.

 

 

 

There's clearly room for debate about whether or not he was free to go. I'll give you that. He never actually asked if he was being detained or if he was free to go, but, it's kind of hard to go when the officer has taken your gun.

 

But, there's no debate that he was stopped, searched and had his gun seized, which, without reasonable suspicion is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

So, my question remains. Is carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion?

 

Is that adequate in your opinion?

 

 

California has dumb laws like NJ. To carry legally, it has to be unloaded. If it is loaded, it is a crime. So you could certainly argue that yes, he had reasonable suspicion. But I'm not even making that argument.

 

When you consent you have given up your 4th Amendment rights. He consented. So there is no violation of anything. The officer doesn't need reasonable suspicion. He checked to see it was unloaded. It was. He gave it back. He chatted with the guy. The guy didn't want to show him ID or give him his last name. He didn't push it, or keep asking for it. He chatted with the guy nicely. The guy was free to go at any point. He was not detained.

 

Whether or not you or I agree with the laws, the California policy of open carrying an unloaded firearm, the act of open carrying an unloaded firearm, or the officer approaching him after he had received concerned calls by people who don't know the law, none of those things are the issue, nor your dislike for them justification making what happened illegal.

 

For the record, I think it is kind of ridiculous the police even were called, and equally ridiculous that he had to be questioned. But the reality is, what happened is going to continue to happen when the general population is ignorant. Life sucks and you'll make it suck more by complaining about minor annoyances that happen in every day life.

 

Like I said before, there is a difference between this, and say being harassed, threatened, and arrested for doing something legal. Had that been the case, then there certainly would be a problem. Fortunately, none of that happened in this case.

[Bob B 103]

So the Police are to Ignore calls???

 

I think a better question is, should the police be dispatched in response to a call of MWAG, where carrying in the manner described is legal and the caller does not describe any behavior that would be considered illegal or threatening.

[Jon 264]

I think a better question is, should the police be dispatched in response to a call of MWAG, where carrying in the manner described is legal and the caller does not describe any behavior that would be considered illegal or threatening.

 

Just to play devil's advocate here...

 

Police get a call for a MWAG who is behaving normally and not being threatening in any way, and the PD decide not to respond. Ten minutes later, the MWAG starts shooting random people. Now the PD could be held liable for every death caused by the MWAG, no?

[vjf915 456]

It was not determined that the possession was legal until it was verified, then he was allowed to leave.

 

Such a stupid law or loophole. Why would anyone want to open carry an unloaded firearm?

Then again, why would anyone open carry a firearm, OR, conceal carry an unloaded firearm.

Load up, button up, and shut up.

Although I agree with you to some extent, I think it may be a motion for gun owners in CA to try and make the general public understand that guns ARE NOT bad. What other way can you make progress other than making people understand....."Hey, it's safe for me to LEGALLY carry a firearm in public." If done enough, and responsibly enough, it could possibly help get more laws changed.

 

That being said, I agree with you 100%. The ONLY way I would want to carry is concealed and loaded.

[raz-0 1,259]

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 yes you are. To the extent that you must provide your name. USSC decided that in 2004 in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. But that is only if your state has a stop and identify statute on the books, which many do. I'm guessing form this CA does not.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but it would seem to me that one of the problems with open carry is that one would constantly be stopped by police. If the guy in the video (and in others I've seen) is doing nothing more than walking along with a legal firearm, why would the police stop him? And (as I believe someone pointed out in another thread) once he answers that LEO's question, what's to stop the next LEO down the street from going through the same routine? Seems like it would take a long time to get anywhere with all those stops!

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but it would seem to me that one of the problems with open carry is that one would constantly be stopped by police. If the guy in the video (and in others I've seen) is doing nothing more than walking along with a legal firearm, why would the police stop him? And (as I believe someone pointed out in another thread) once he answers that LEO's question, what's to stop the next LEO down the street from going through the same routine? Seems like it would take a long time to get anywhere with all those stops!

 

It all depends on where you are, a with me I have been going to and from AZ for 45 years, yea a lot of the early years I don't remember but can remember for as long as I have been going there seeing someone with a sidearm was not something to give a second look to or question. Now I like OC along with CC just because I like the ability to do either, and more so because if you have that inadvertent CC fail moment.

 

I agree no reason to have an unloaded gun, but the more people out there OC and go through the hassle stages the sooner it will be more widely excepted.

 

Now before anyone says OC and getting people used to see it, well let me give a little example of how things change: Take me for example, 1984 I am living out in SoCal, I rode a copper, not the bling crap of today but a real built with my own 2 hands chopper. Now picture a kid on a bike like that, now dress him in a suit because that is how I used to dress for work. I rode every day to work, one of the location was only a few miles from my apartment, and other locations were close to 60 miles, it didn't matter what place I was going to, I was getting pulled over without fail. The reason was only bad guy rode chopper out there, well at least that was the perception. Fast forward to today, the HD craze went ballistic, LEO's, Lawyers, Judges, Doctors, and more regular people are riding today, and I can say, these days you don't get pulled over daily because the public perception has changed.

 

It works this was with most things.

 

Harry

[KpdPipes 388]

I think a better question is, should the police be dispatched in response to a call of MWAG, where carrying in the manner described is legal and the caller does not describe any behavior that would be considered illegal or threatening.

 

 

Ok no problem..next time YOU call something in and the Person on the other end of the phone decides it doesnt need a response, dont come here and **** about it. Some of you folks make me laugh. You **** and moan about how we "Arent required by law to respond" (which is incorrect by the way) but then piss and moan louder when they DO respond to checl calls that YOU determine dont need response. 370 days and i REALLY dont have to GARA anymore.

[Jon 264]

Ok no problem..next time YOU call something in and the Person on the other end of the phone decides it doesnt need a response, dont come here and **** about it. Some of you folks make me laugh. You **** and moan about how we "Arent required by law to respond" (which is incorrect by the way) but then piss and moan louder when they DO respond to checl calls that YOU determine dont need response. 370 days and i REALLY dont have to GARA anymore.

 

 

Some people would be shocked by some of the stupid stuff that I have HAD to dispatch officers to.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

It was not determined that the possession was legal until it was verified, then he was allowed to leave.

 

Such a stupid law or loophole. Why would anyone want to open carry an unloaded firearm?

Then again, why would anyone open carry a firearm, OR, conceal carry an unloaded firearm.

Load up, button up, and shut up.

 

I'd rather carry unloaded firearm with a magazine in my pocket than use a sticker or club.

[Bob B 103]

Ok no problem..next time YOU call something in and the Person on the other end of the phone decides it doesnt need a response, dont come here and **** about it. Some of you folks make me laugh. You **** and moan about how we "Arent required by law to respond" (which is incorrect by the way) but then piss and moan louder when they DO respond to checl calls that YOU determine dont need response. 370 days and i REALLY dont have to GARA anymore.

 

I think you misunderstand. I'm not complaining or criticizing. It's a real question and a real dilemma. I'll respect your opinion either way but most of all I'm interested in your reasoning.

 

Old Glock Guy makes a good point that a person could be stopped over and over again, at which point it becomes a real problem, if it wasn't already.

 

You and Jon make a good point that if the person carrying is up to no good and if the police are not dispatched, something bad might happen.

 

My reply is that it is also possible that the police could be dispatched to several calls reporting a MWAG where the individuals are carrying legally and that might cause the police to miss a real emergency, at which point bad things could happen.

 

...but this all goes back to my original question. Is openly carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion. I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.

[PK90 3,570]

...but this all goes back to my original question. Is openly carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion. I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.

 

The problem is that "an apparently legal manner" can not be determined until it is verified that the firearm is unloaded.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

The problem is that "an apparently legal manner" can not be determined until it is verified that the firearm is unloaded.

 

Then you can pull over someone just to see if their license isn't suspended.

[PK90 3,570]

No. Apples and Oranges. But to answer your question, you can run the tag and ascertain if the registered owner's DL is suspended, car is registered, warrants are active, etc, then a stop is justified.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

No. Apples and Oranges. But to answer your question, you can run the tag and ascertain if the registered owner's DL is suspended, car is registered, warrants are active, etc, then a stop is justified.

 

What right do you have to run the tag?

[PK90 3,570]

We are getting slightly off topic.

 

"One has no expectation of privacy while out in public. Courts have regularly held that police officers are allowed to randomly type license tags into their computer as they pass by."

 

 

[KpdPipes 388]

I think you misunderstand. I'm not complaining or criticizing. It's a real question and a real dilemma. I'll respect your opinion either way but most of all I'm interested in your reasoning.

 

Old Glock Guy makes a good point that a person could be stopped over and over again, at which point it becomes a real problem, if it wasn't already.

 

You and Jon make a good point that if the person carrying is up to no good and if the police are not dispatched, something bad might happen.

 

My reply is that it is also possible that the police could be dispatched to several calls reporting a MWAG where the individuals are carrying legally and that might cause the police to miss a real emergency, at which point bad things could happen.

 

...but this all goes back to my original question. Is openly carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion. I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.

 

in and of itself, in a place where it is a legal and normal practice..No it isnt...That said, once again, There isnt any crystal ball to tell a Dispatcher.."Oh this person is seeing someone legally open carrying"