Another Open Carry Video

[Bob B 103]

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

 

I'm not sure I understand. Does that mean that your answer is that there is automatically reasonable suspicion because the officer doesn't know if the gun is loaded or unloaded?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

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"

I remember a couple years ago, 911 got a call of a bunch of guys at a bar OCing, the operator basically talked the woman through what was going on and explained that it was legal, she asked follow up questions like, are the guys doing anything wrong, she explained the guys were eating dinner and hanging out... they still dispatched an officer to check it out. This was in AZ too if i remember correctly. To me that doesn't necessarily warrant an officer to check out the guys carrying, the woman just couldn't believe what they were doing was legal. On the flip side, you get a caller freaking out about a guy in the neighborhood with a gun... I would expect the police to exercise some kinda discretion in the manner in which they respond to calls especially when complaints are legal. Basically, if its legal to OC, the police should not respond unless the person complaining generally feels like the person OCing is being threatening, samething with an officer noticing someone on the street OCing. Im all for the police responding to complaints, but i also don't want them to waste time on nothing. If a guy is acting suspicious while OCing then i see no reason not to respond, but there needs to be a level of respect between both OCer's and police where people shouldn't have to worry about encounter police just because they are exercising their rights.

[Bob B 103]

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"

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

In your professional opinion, were there any other circumstances apparent in the OP's video that rise to the level of reasonable suspicion?

[KpdPipes 388]

I'm not sure I understand. Does that mean that your answer is that there is automatically reasonable suspicion because the officer doesn't know if the gun is loaded or unloaded?

in CALIFORNIA..Yes, since to be legal the firearm has to be unloaded.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

in CALIFORNIA..Yes, since to be legal the firearm has to be unloaded.

 

And now that this has been answered by a professional, can anybody tell me why they would OC knowing that they automatically draw concern that may rise to a level of suspicion thereby causing valuable Police resources (usually two cars plus a road Supervisor around here) to be dispatched? Meanwhile, a kid got hit by a car running after a ball in the street across town or somebody's parent or grand parent fell or is having cardiac distress. Where is the responding Officer most needed?

 

That's my point and that's why I'm against Open Carry. In THIS State a MWAG call could distract an entire shift in a smaller town.

 

Dave

[bulpup 98]

As I mentioned earlier, and now appears to be supported, open carry of an unloaded pisol, as a law, is foolish and dangerous and as smokin' says, a complete waste of police resources.

 

This is because the police have to approach an individual openly carrying to verify if the firearms is unloaded and therefore legal whenever called. It is a flawed law the way CA has it.

[GAPP 11]

Quite honestly, I dont see a problem with how the LEO handled himself and the situation. He was professional and respectful... and the job he did will difuse any future calls to 911 about a man carrying a gun in public. I, as a legal firearm owner and carrier would have no problem being stopped by an officer like this and spending 2 minutes of my time so he could verify I was legal. While it does speak to the nature of the times and political environment we live in (and that is troubling), I would rather sacrifice my 2 minutes than have a Plaxico or some other illegal firearm carrier/owner walking around unchecked.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

That's my point and that's why I'm against Open Carry. In THIS State a MWAG call could distract an entire shift in a smaller town.

 

Dave

 

Can't disagree with you more. I'm for open/concealed/multiple/rifle/shotgun/ carry. Now, I can understand not doing it if you don't want to draw attention to yourelf but don't let your OPINION on a 2A issue become law.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Can't disagree with you more. I'm for open/concealed/multiple/rifle/shotgun/ carry. Now, I can understand not doing it if you don't want to draw attention to yourelf but don't let your OPINION on a 2A issue become law.

 

Your right on the money with that Ray.

 

Harry

[Smokin .50 1,907]

We're going have to agree to disagree on this issue. Police resources in NJ are better spent in other ways than checking-out a MWAG call only to find some guy walking around with an unloaded gun and a camcorder looking to make a point. I think that doing that is akin (about one notch down) to screaming FIRE in a movie theater, a public nuisance. There are unfortunate deadly incidents of "friendly fire" amongst Police Officers who shoot their own cause they're in plain clothes. We have to overcome this obstacle so IF we ever have to brandish or pull a gun to stop a bad guy, we as the good Samaritan don't get perforated.

 

Our forefathers didn't walk around with unloaded guns. Un-primed yes (especially in Church) but they always had powder & ball in them. The 2A issue is being "twisted" to allow unloaded guns. I think we should fight to have them loaded and out of sight, where they won't intimidate the public at large and create the need for a Police response.

 

As far as my opinion becoming law, in NJ I think it already is the law, no? I don't see you on Youtube yet.....

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Dave the only issue I have is that 2A doesn't have provisions for OC or CC, I just feel that the 2A is black and white and if you are not a prohibited person you have a right, not a privilege.

 

Where we are currently is exactly why our founding fathers wrote the 2A and it's sad that we even have to have discussions about a right, and not just in NJ but other states also.

 

Harry

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Harry,

 

You make 100% sense. I wish things were different, like it is out West or down South. You're right, it is sad that we post here about our "Rights" and why we don't have them or how to, God willing, get them back! I think the major problem is the 2A got screwed by technology. In the late 1700's we had the ability to walk around with a single-shot flintlock smoothbore hand gun. Now we have Politicos watching Sons of Guns on TV mixing-up full-auto with semi-auto.

 

I wish we had the answers and I could see real change in my life time.

 

Dave

[mipafox 438]

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.

 

You are ALSO dead wrong. Police can't compel you to do anything they damn well please absent prohibition by the US Constitution. I don't have to give my name to a cop simply because it's not mentioned in The Constitution. I don't have to give a cop oral sex simply because it's not mentioned in The Constitution. I MIGHT have to give my name to a cop if it is law and if your case law withstands a new chalange based on the right against self-incrimination.

 

Actually in several states you are in fact required to identify yourself if asked BY statute.

 

 

How convenient, ^this guy gets it.

[mipafox 438]

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?

 

Where? In CA? I don't know. But it seems so.

 

In NJ? I don't know. But I would guess so since firearms are illegal with exceptions/defenses whatever.

 

In PA? No. Open carry of a firearm is NOT RAS for a Terry Stop or detainment. Period. We have the right to keep and bear arms in our constitution and have case law all the way up to the supreme court that carrying a firearm, absent evidence of criminality, is never RAS. Including supreme court rulings of criminals set free because possession of a firearm was used as RAS for a stop. And, all police in PA were retrained on this specific point in 2009.

 

So, back to your question. You are asking about a case in CA from your location in NJ and it seems to me like you don't mean it to be specific to either state, just as a general question. As a general question, it is probably not yet answerable. In most states, it has been answered. And, the answer is NO. It is not RAS to carry a gun in an unlicensed manner in most of America.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I wish we had the answers and I could see real change in my life time.

 

 

I wish I did also, but the groups fighting for our rights that we support and especially the NJ2AS who have been very active vocal are what will help bring these changes.

 

You have been around the shooting community for longer than I have and seen the changes over the years, while I don't want to get my hopes up and be disappointed but I do feel the recent efforts in this state and other rulings around the country have us closer to positive progress than we have seen in the last 45 years.

 

Harry

[KpdPipes 388]

I wish I did also, but the groups fighting for our rights that we support and especially the NJ2AS who have been very active vocal are what will help bring these changes.

 

You have been around the shooting community for longer than I have and seen the changes over the years, while I don't want to get my hopes up and be disappointed but I do feel the recent efforts in this state and other rulings around the country have us closer to positive progress than we have seen in the last 45 years.

 

Harry

 

 

Careful now some Newbies are going to group you with me in the "Defeatist" column. FACT Gun Owners are a minority in this state. FACT Gun Onwers who are A. Politically Aware, and B. Interested in seeing EVERY group of Gun Onwers have full rights are an even SMALLER Minority. Target guys dont care if AR's are banned because "I dont use one..as long as my Benchrest gun is Legal, I Dont Gara. Bird Hunters are the same, and so on and so forth..until and unless we have a UNIIFIED base of gun owners and sportsmen, we're political Clown Shoes... SO, we have to take the only other recourse.. Court Action. Which is WHY People should donate to NJ2AS, ANJRPC, and SAF. the ONLY way things are going to change here is through Court challenges, and Attorneys have to eat too.