The recent Philly thread had me looking through youtube for other types of LE/civilian encounters in open carry states. Seems there are quite a few of them that results in detention of civilians above what LE may have the authority to do so.

 

The main premise behind many of the detentions and violation of rights stems from citizens calling the PD with reports of a "man with a gun".. as if this was some kind of inherently illegal act. Instead of the PD asking the caller if the MWAG was acting violent, handling the gun in an illegal manner such as pointing it at people, etc... they go and investigate as if it was a crime in progress. To me this policy/activity is pure harassment.

 

In a majority of the videos I found, LE says that they have an obligation to investigate and file a report. Under the same logic, if I called the PD to check out someone riding a bike on public roads (another legal activity), the PD would be obligated to detain, investigate, and file a report on that individual's activity.

 

I don't want to turn this into a philosophical discussion on whether or not OC is the best form of carry or if it is tactically prudent or not, or anything like that.

 

It just seems like some LEO's (not all) in these OC states don't agree with the laws and go out of their way to "persuade" people from exercising their rights.

 

I'm curious to hear what people think on this topic. Is there rampant "abuse of police powers" against those who choose to legally OC in states that support R2KBA? Or, are these videos mostly troublemakers out there exercising their rights only in order to antagonize a police response by simply OC'ing where they know LE and civilians would be alarmed (like those funeral protesters exercising their freedom of speech rights)?

I understand that open carry is a right, but I would never choose to exercise it. It's a lot like riding a motorcycle without a helmet in PA. It's a choice, but I believe it to be a foolish one. A visible gun can be a force deterrent, but it can also be a force escalator. While the sight of a gun at your side will dissuade most criminals from risking a confrontation with you, there are some it will not deter. When you open carry, someone who wants to rob you for your money and/or weapon knows that a higher level of surprise and violence is needed to overwhelm you. When you concealed carry, the element of surprise is on your side.

If nothing else, the level of constant vigilance and knowledge of your surroundings must be greater when you open carry, IMO.

The thing about it is that people who are ordinarily law abiding will lie if they feel they are not getting the response they want from the police.

 

In New York City there are those people that will call the police because they are having some kind of a dispute, maybe about a parking space, and say that there has been an officer shot. They do this to get a faster response from the police. This happens close to 100 times a day and is such a part of the police experience in the NYPD that they think nothing of it any more.

 

So what if someone really wants the cops to come check you out? They do like Pee Wee does in Cheech and Chongs Next Movie. (skip to 1:40)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-qLZRyQdW8

Like I've always said, I've OC'd for 3 years and never been harrassed by cops for it. All over the eastern half of PA, from south to north, including Philly. And, including inside banks on a weekly basis. I did have a cop follow me into a state store one time. Probably because he checked the NJ plates on my rental car Never even said a word to me.

 

I've run into dozens and dozens of cops that have noticed my sidearm all around PA. Including several standing in line behind me to get coffee or goodies at the nearest stop-and-rob. None have ever spoken to me, but I've gotten about a dozen head-nods.

.

Like I've always said, I've OC'd for 3 years and never been harrassed by cops for it. All over the eastern half of PA, from south to north, including Philly. And, including inside banks on a weekly basis. I did have a cop follow me into a state store one time. Probably because he checked the NJ plates on my rental car Never even said a word to me.

 

I've run into dozens and dozens of cops that have noticed my sidearm all around PA. Including several standing in line behind me to get coffee or goodies at the nearest stop-and-rob. None have ever spoken to me, but I've gotten about a dozen head-nods.

.

 

Thats refreshing to hear.

Or, are these videos mostly troublemakers out there exercising their rights only in order to antagonize a police response by simply OC'ing where they know LE and civilians would be alarmed

 

I think many of these people are trying to elicit a response and are looking for an argument. How many people carry around a video and/or a voice recorder on a regular basis? Some of the encounters I've seen on other forums:

 

1. Someone OC into a bar in PA (not illegal OC or concealed even if you're drinking). Someone at the bar calls police and they respond. The tell the OC person they have to leave. The OC responds that its legal, they are drinking cokes, the bar is not posted no carry, etc etc. The bar management isn't looking for trobule they just don't want someone OC in the bar. Not an otrageous idea.

 

2. The OC goes to say Wal-Mart, some patrons are alarmed. The manager asks the OC to conceal the gun or leave. Same arguments from the OC and demands to know what the store's policy is. In reality, the store doesn't care if the patrons don't. I support the 2A but if it means I'm going to lose business beacause some guy wants to OC. I will interfere with his 2A right if it means I'm losing business.

 

3. I read an account of a guy in TN or KY (not sure) who OC an AK pistol he had painted orange like a toy gun. This is a guy really looking for trobule AFAIC. He wondered (?) why the police stopped him.

 

I dealt with OC both doing it myself and as a LEO in AZ in the late 70s, early 80s. OC was the only way people could carry in those days no concealed permits at all. It never was an issue for the people I dealt with if I separated them from their firearm and I never had any issues. OC was not that common in the cities at that time or in 1995 (last time I was in AZ) although you do see it sometimes.

I think many of these people are trying to elicit a response and are looking for an argument. How many people carry around a video and/or a voice recorder on a regular basis?

 

 

I think that in the majority of cases you are incorrect. People that OC have been advised to carry a voice recorder because of the reaction of some LEO's, as was ably demonstrated with the Phila OC Thread. After reading about the outcomes of some of those encounters it is just prudent to do so, if you intend to OC. That way it doesn't come down to the LEO's word against yours should you all wind up in court.

 

There is a You Tube segment making the rounds about how people protray themselves in court and then a look at the actual incident via the officer's dash cam - usually 180 degrees apart. Having a recorder with you when exercising this right, in this particular manner, is just being prepared. If you had read about the Philly incident, rather than actually hear what went on, who would you have been inclined to believe?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

While I also believe most of the LE responses qualify as harassment, it is not as though they could get a man with a gun call and not check it out. It's not the same as riding a bike (in their eyes) because not everyone is allowed to own a gun, while felons can own bikes. A dispatcher who got a call of a man with a gun, and didn't send anyone to check it out would be acting negligently in his/her duties. A big stink is made (and is warranted) about the cops not knowing the laws they are sworn to enforce, but I think an even bigger issue is the local populace's ignorance of their carry laws. If everyone in a town knew it was legal to open carry, there would be drastically fewer calls about a MWAG. Who knows, maybe the MWAG calls they get might actually be about a crime being committed!?

 

Cops need to know the laws, citizens need to know the laws. Perhaps a PSA is in order.

 

"LISTEN UP YOU IGNORANT LIBERAL YUPPIE SCUM, I'M LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OPEN CARRY. IT'S. LEGAL. CARRYING OPENLY DOESN'T MEAN I'M THREATENING YOU, IF ANYTHING IT MEANS YOUR a** IS SAFER NEAR ME."

 

The more you know

 

*CUE SHOOTING STAR/RAINBOW THING*

A dispatcher who got a call of a man with a gun, and didn't send anyone to check it out would be acting negligently in his/her duties.

 

 

Incorrect. Some PA municipalities take the MPOTEC training seriously and make sure that their officers and dispatchers are aware of such things as OC. A dispatcher that receives a MWAG call is instructed to ask what the actor is doing - if the response is, "Nothing, just walking down the street", the response from the dispatcher is that it is perfectly legal and no car is sent, preserving police resources for genuine needs. OTOH, if the caller's response is, "He's waving it around", then LE intervention is indeed needed.

 

The failure in the Philly incident was systemic, as eveidenced by no one being able to figure out, or tap a resource that knew, what was legal and what was not. Just sad.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

I will without question agree that concealed carry is better.. and it is the route I generally take.. in the fall and winter it is quite easy to carry concealed... but come summer.. in 100+ degree weather.. in shorts and a t-shirt.. expect to see me openly carrying.. the whole reason I bought my 27 is to make open carry a little less obvious.. will carry on the belt in a holster with a retention system.. my CC holster does not utilize a retention system, but I don't sweat it since you don't see it... right rig for the right kind of carry.. and I would not completely abandon the idea of open carry..

Why is it acceptable for the police to not know all the laws that they have to enforce? What is the point of paying people to not know their job? I have to know 100% of my job. Most people do. Lets be fair and say 95% of our/their jobs since nobody is perfect. Ok maybe they won't know some of the minor laws because laws aren't always an easy read since they are usually written by lawyers. If I was a cop I think I would be pretty familiar with all the firearm laws. Since they have a bit more potential to do harm then say... a jaywalking law. I mean to seriously not know that OC is legal in your city/state shows a lot of lacking in that officers knowledge. Not sure I want someone like that patrolling the streets.

 

These days someone can access the laws on their damn cellphone. Are officers tested in their knowledge every year or two? If not they should be.

Why is it acceptable for the police to not know all the laws that they have to enforce? What is the point of paying people to not know their job? I have to know 100% of my job. Most people do. Lets be fair and say 95% of our/their jobs since nobody is perfect. Ok maybe they won't know some of the minor laws because laws aren't always an easy read since they are usually written by lawyers. If I was a cop I think I would be pretty familiar with all the firearm laws. Since they have a bit more potential to do harm then say... a jaywalking law. I mean to seriously not know that OC is legal in your city/state shows a lot of lacking in that officers knowledge. Not sure I want someone like that patrolling the streets.

 

These days someone can access the laws on their damn cellphone. Are officers tested in their knowledge every year or two? If not they should be.

 

this basically sums up how I feel about the situation.. it is absurd that it is "ok" to "inconvenience" and "sort out the details" post inconvenience..

 

if I was LEO in an area that allowed ANY type of carry you can be sure I would know about it..

 

 

2. The OC goes to say Wal-Mart, some patrons are alarmed. The manager asks the OC to conceal the gun or leave. Same arguments from the OC and demands to know what the store's policy is. In reality, the store doesn't care if the patrons don't. I support the 2A but if it means I'm going to lose business beacause some guy wants to OC. I will interfere with his 2A right if it means I'm losing business.

 

 

 

 

so you're willing to lose business...the OCer...in order to not lose business...the "concerned citizen"...? If you're going to lose a customer anyway, while interfere with someone rights to do it?

Or, are these videos mostly troublemakers out there exercising their rights only in order to antagonize a police response by simply OC'ing where they know LE and civilians would be alarmed

 

The same could be said about the Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins, Rosa Parks taking a front seat on the bus, and other civil rights pioneers.

so you're willing to lose business...the OCer...in order to not lose business...the "concerned citizen"...? If you're going to lose a customer anyway, while interfere with someone rights to do it?

 

 

Do not lose sight of an individuals right to run his business as he sees fit, in favor of being so overzealous in being pro-2a that you attempt to force your views on firearms onto said business owner...

 

You SHOULD have the right to carry a gun in public...

A private business owner should be able to limit public carry (while in his business) if he sees fit..

 

Open carry is good in only a few regards...... with that said we as a community should have enough respect for the rights of others to understand that certain businesses may not want us carrying.. you can at that point choose to blackball that entire business (which I find to be an excessive knee jerk reaction).. or you can choose to understand the situation, and accept that not everywhere is going to be open to you carrying..

 

There is a certain concert venue in Philadelphia that has rules about guns..

even if you have a CCW permit you can NOT carry IN the venue... but they allow you to "check" the gun and put it in a locked safe...

while this compromise is not ideal.. the situation is not one of lack of respect.... it is one of public safety.. the venue can get extremely crowded and chaotic... having a bunch of random untrained people carrying is not going to be good for anyone...

 

they do not allow me to carry there.. but I understand why, and respect their right to limit weapons...

If you look at some of the CCW sites in states in free America, several of them have a database of businesses that don't allow carry on the premises. They're within their rights to disallow guns in their stores, and the patrons who feel that that is some sort of infringement are within their rights to take their business elsewhere in protest.

 

Perfectly sensible.

While I also believe most of the LE responses qualify as harassment, it is not as though they could get a man with a gun call and not check it out. It's not the same as riding a bike (in their eyes) because not everyone is allowed to own a gun, while felons can own bikes. A dispatcher who got a call of a man with a gun, and didn't send anyone to check it out would be acting negligently in his/her duties. A big stink is made (and is warranted) about the cops not knowing the laws they are sworn to enforce, but I think an even bigger issue is the local populace's ignorance of their carry laws. If everyone in a town knew it was legal to open carry, there would be drastically fewer calls about a MWAG. Who knows, maybe the MWAG calls they get might actually be about a crime being committed!?

 

Cops need to know the laws, citizens need to know the laws. Perhaps a PSA is in order.

 

"LISTEN UP YOU IGNORANT LIBERAL YUPPIE SCUM, I'M LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OPEN CARRY. IT'S. LEGAL. CARRYING OPENLY DOESN'T MEAN I'M THREATENING YOU, IF ANYTHING IT MEANS YOUR a** IS SAFER NEAR ME."

 

The more you know

 

*CUE SHOOTING STAR/RAINBOW THING*

 

This is a good point. In OC without a license states, how does LE know if a person OCing is not a prohibited person without stopping and checking them out. Then besides the standard "name and address" response to identify yourself as they cannot demand any other form of ID (DL for instance if they are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads). How does LE know if its a gang-banger with a 12 felonies going back for 10 years, or a law-abiding citizen without some form of ID check? Slippery slope.

This is a good point. In OC without a license states, how does LE know if a person OCing is not a prohibited person without stopping and checking them out. Then besides the standard "name and address" response to identify yourself as they cannot demand any other form of ID (DL for instance if they are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads). How does LE know if its a gang-banger with a 12 felonies going back for 10 years, or a law-abiding citizen without some form of ID check? Slippery slope.

 

 

how does an officer know that you are licensed to drive the car you drive?

 

A state that allows officers to stop and demand licensing for no other reason than just to check might as well be a complete police state..

 

If you are in a state where OC is legal.. and someone is acting in a non suspicious manner carrying a gun in a holster..

* it is unlikely the police are even going to get called because many of these states are inhabited by people familiar with firearms

* if they were called I fail to see a reason for the police to even respond.. a man with a holstered gun is no different than a man driving a car (in states that allow lawful carry)

Vlad, I like your counterpoint on license to drive a car.

 

Here's what I believe:

 

a) If the cop has reasonable suspicion that you are breaking the law, they can temporarily detain and question you. They are permitted to frisk you for weapons according to the Terry Stop rules. They may also separate you from your weapon legal or not. If they have reasonable suspicion that you were or are involved in committing a violent crime, they may use force including aiming their gun at you during the detention. You are also typically obligated (according to State) to at a minimum identify yourself.

 

b) For the cop to do anything further, such as searching you beyond rules outlined in the Terry Stop, they would need to have probable cause that you are breaking the law, this means they have grounds for an arrest. This would give them grounds to do things like check your DL, and any other documents on you, along with running gun serial numbers, etc.

hit double reply by accident here

so you're willing to lose business...the OCer...in order to not lose business...the "concerned citizen"...? If you're going to lose a customer anyway, while interfere with someone rights to do it?

 

First of all my store (if I had one) is my property. If I require people to wear a purple shirt (as my own personal dress code) or require concealed carry to enter that's my right with my property. You miss the gist of my post. If I'm going to lose 10 "concerned citizens" to allow that OC his "right" guess what decision I'm going to make.

 

You also have to realize the OC guy's rights can end at the door to my store. The Constitution and its Amendments are there to protect you fromaction from the government not private individuals.

 

I suppose you would find it okay if someone came into your store and started making a speech about global warming or handing out literature. If you stopped them you would be interfering with their 1A rights using your logic about me interfering with the OC's 2A rights,

 

They're within their rights to disallow guns in their stores, and the patrons who feel that that is some sort of infringement are within their rights to take their business elsewhere in protest.

 

Perfectly sensible

 

This is correct. I don't know of a state that requires you to allow people to carry openly or concealed on your private property.

 

The same could be said about the Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins, Rosa Parks taking a front seat on the bus, and other civil rights pioneers.

 

It is not the same thing. Rosa Parks was working with the NAACP when she took that seat on that bus and their lawyers were already in the loop. If these guys were working with the NRA or some other pro-gun group and it was a planned, tactical leagl action that would be different. These guys seem to constantly be looking for trobule. If they were serious they would would file civil rights actions (criminal and civil) against the agencies doing it. It seems they just want to see what trobule they can stir up and post on the internet about it.

It is not the same thing. Rosa Parks was working with the NAACP when she took that seat on that bus and their lawyers were already in the loop. If these guys were working with the NRA or some other pro-gun group and it was a planned, tactical leagl action that would be different. These guys seem to constantly be looking for trobule. If they were serious they would would file civil rights actions (criminal and civil) against the agencies doing it. It seems they just want to see what trobule they can stir up and post on the internet about it.

 

On the contrary, it IS the same thing. Parks intended to open up a can of worms and cause the media to cover her "situation". These people with their "inconvenient cameras" posting on the internet ARE the new media. This IS the new civil rights movement. THAT'S how to get people involved again. This is a civil right and we deserve these rights just as (excuse my term please) "Black America" demanded their rights in the '60s.

On the contrary, it IS the same thing. Parks intended to open up a can of worms and cause the media to cover her "situation". These people with their "inconvenient cameras" posting on the internet ARE the new media. This IS the new civil rights movement. THAT'S how to get people involved again. This is a civil right and we deserve these rights just as (excuse my term please) "Black America" demanded their rights in the '60s.

 

 

I partially agree..

 

I think that people who seek to rock the boat by open carrying in certain areas are probably not helping us as much as you might think... 9 times out of 10 it is some inarticulate attention whore looking for his 15 seconds of internet fame.. or worse... some internet lawyer that is seeking out just to "school" someone....

 

something positive in an open carry state would be to have a meet and do something positive for the community while carrying openly, and using the opportunity to educate the public on firearms.. something that ties the non firearm enthusiast into the firearms community.. allowing them to have a positive experience...

 

getting your friend to videotape you while breaking the $8 an hour Cablelas sales staff's balls while crying about a civil rights violation so you can put it on you tube, is a bunch of horse **** that no one cares about..

 

but back to what you said... people forget sometimes that guns are a right that is actually guaranteed to us.. and in that regard I agree with you completely.. it has been FAR too long that we should have to worry about a simple traffic stop turning into an assault weapon charge, because the gun we have looks a little too scary.. or having to worry about being arrested while LEGALLY carrying a gun in the course of a normal day, because the LEO you encounter believes his city is above state law.. these are instances where society levels an unfair bias against us.. and that is the wrong that without question has to be made right.. but these dramatic grandstanding instances of open carry are not the solution IMO..

On the contrary, it IS the same thing. Parks intended to open up a can of worms and cause the media to cover her "situation".

 

Rosa Parks was a part of a much bigger organized effort. It wasn't just Rosa parks who made the decision to sit on that bus that day. It was an organized effort and not just some bunch of guys who want their 15 minutes of fame. If you read some of these things all these OC guys say their entire life is wrapped up in carrying a gun. They don't go to their kids ball games at school or anyplace where their "rights" are restricted. They laugh and joke about how f---ed up the police are and all claim to press charges and sue but where are all these arrests and huge damages paid out? These guys are not the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord but more like the rowdy drunken Bostonians that threw rocks and snowballs at the soldiers in what we know of as "The Boston Massacre".

 

I have read accounts of how people educated the local police and populace regarding OC. It was handled in an appropriate manner (yes sometimes someone was arrested) rather than as a confrontation.

 

How come some people (as someone did in this thread) can OC in PA including Philadelphia and have no trobule but some always have problems. That seems to be something to look at.

On the contrary, it IS the same thing. Parks intended to open up a can of worms and cause the media to cover her "situation".

 

Rosa Parks was a part of a much bigger organized effort. It wasn't just Rosa parks who made the decision to sit on that bus that day. It was an organized effort and not just some bunch of guys who want their 15 minutes of fame. If you read some of these things all these OC guys say their entire life is wrapped up in carrying a gun. They don't go to their kids ball games at school or anyplace where their "rights" are restricted. They laugh and joke about how f---ed up the police are and all claim to press charges and sue but where are all these arrests and huge damages paid out? These guys are not the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord but more like the rowdy drunken Bostonians that threw rocks and snowballs at the soldiers in what we know of as "The Boston Massacre".

 

I have read accounts of how people educated the local police and populace regarding OC. It was handled in an appropriate manner (yes sometimes someone was arrested) rather than as a confrontation.

 

How come some people (as someone did in this thread) can OC in PA including Philadelphia and have no trobule but some always have problems. That seems to be something to look at.

 

 

Not being a dick but why should I have to educate a police officer when it comes to his job? the police don't help me train for my job.

How come some people (as someone did in this thread) can OC in PA including Philadelphia and have no trobule but some always have problems. That seems to be something to look at.

 

I would have to guess that it has a lot to do with the scenario, and the manner in which you carry yourself....

 

 

Not being a dick but why should I have to educate a police officer when it comes to his job? the police don't help me train for my job.

 

+1

Rosa parks might have been more articulate and part of a group, but neither of those are requirements to being able to excercise one's rights.

There are a whole bunch of these types of videos on Youtube. This one

has audio and makes more sense to me than the Cabela's one.

Not being a dick but why should I have to educate a police officer when it comes to his job? the police don't help me train for my job.

 

Isn't activism educating the public and the government? The public to win their support and the government as to why we should have it our way.

 

I'm not defending the actions the actions of the Philly PD here but the way to solve this OC issue is not a screaming match in the street. I've read accounts of OC confrontations followed by meeting with the local chief of police that resolved the problems the OC people have encountered. I don't know if this has been tried in Philly or even if the Philly PD is willing to do it. I know there have been court decisions and legal instructions given to police in PA and the problem persists in some areas. It would seem the mechanism to get this corrected is already in place and could be settled in a better way that this "OC encounter" went.

 

Rosa parks might have been more articulate and part of a group, but neither of those are requirements to being able to excercise one's rights

 

The big difference is what Rosa Parks did was not just about a seat on a bus but a much bigger thing. It seems to me that OC a gun and getting into the biggest confrontation possible is some people's entire focus in life. Its not about OC its about getting the most outrageous confronation. On video or audio even better.

 

The people OC in a bar and the guy with the AK pistol painted orange I related in my earlier post were also exercising their rights.

I think that any gun owner who exercises their right solely to create a confrontation (and claim your 15 seconds of Internet fame) isn't doing the community any favors. It just reinforces the impression of gun owners as belligerent, adversarial morons who are just itching for a fight. If you know that there may be a problem for OC where you're planning to go, then don't do it. That's the responsible thing to do. The irresponsible thing to do is thumb your nose at the police with an "It's my right and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it" attitude. It makes all of us look bad, and if it escalates into something more, then it will always be the fault of the gun owner.

 

Just because something can be done isn't an overpowering reason to do it.

 

In most of America, OC isn't a political statement. It isn't intended to shock the bystanders and aggravate law enforcement. It isn't confrontational. It isn't screaming "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

 

Like selecting a tie or picking a pair of shoes for the day, it's a wardrobe decision based on the weather or mood.