I can't watch a video that claims people who open carry in urban area's as "a** CLOWNS", especially when the goof-ball on the right is a prime example of one.

 

I concur.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

No cherry picking one line out of context from an entire post and claiming victory.

 

What I said was:

Does responding to a report of a man with a gun, and finding a man with a gun in plain sight matching the physical description meet the terry stop reqs? I don't think so. Could open carry, I mean, you can see the weapon, open the door to negate the terry stop rules. You no longer have a search for suspected weapons, the weapon is right there, in plain sight. No search required. Now an investigation to determine if the weapon is legally carried by a person legally allowed to have a weapon begins. If the investigation reveals "yes and yes" to the previos questions of legal and allowed, then its "have a nice day, sorry to waste your time." If there is a "no" in there, then everything changes.

 

I agree it doesn't meet the Terry Stop requirements because it has moved past the realm of "Stop and Frisk" and into detain (not arrest, so dont pull the miranda card yet) and investigate, not because it doesn't rise to meet it.

 

As to your question, "Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?" I have a question before I answer. Is OC legal to everyone in Maine regardless of Age or Criminal Background or Mental History? Are all weapons regardless of make, model, capicity, or class legal? If the answer is No, then I say there was more than enought AS for this temporary detainment and investigation.

 

 

Not exactly. An officer can ask questions of anyone at any time. However, the individual is under no obligation to participate, hence the question "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" The officer must have RAS to do a Terry Stop, i.e. detain and search via pat down of outer garments. The officer must have PC to search further or arrest (or have the person's consent).

 

The ME video and the CA video are very different because the CA individual is considered to have voluntarily participated because he didn't ask if he could go. The ME individual clearly asserted his right to not be detained, but was detained anyway. That is why, in the ME example, the existence of RAS is so important.

 

It is frustrating when you cherry pick one part of what I say and leave the rest. If you read all of my posts, you would see that I described the process of police - public interaction correctly.

 

A cop can skip RAS and go right to PC as well, which is what I feel happened in the Maine situation. That the subject was practicing Open Carry negates the need to do a "stop and frisk" before proceeding towards a more a complete search or thorough investigation because you can already see the weapon. It is proven to be there, in plain sight. No suspicion regarding the possession. Now he just needs to determine the subject of the investigation is following all of the laws regarding, ownership, possession, and carrying firearms in that jurisdiction.

As to your question, "Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?" I have a question before I answer. Is OC legal to everyone in Maine regardless of Age or Criminal Background or Mental History? Are all weapons regardless of make, model, capicity, or class legal? If the answer is No, then I say there was more than enought AS for this temporary detainment and investigation.

 

Not every one can drive a car.... is it AS to stop a car to see if that person can drive? Not all cars on the road are legal, is it AS to stop every car on the road to see if it is legal?

 

Now when ur behind a mustang that smells like strait gasoline or the driver looks to be 13 years old you may have AS.

 

 

 

The man listed all the case law for you, to inform yourself as to why police are not allowed to do what he did... The courts have ruled that what you think is RAS or PC in in fact NOT. And that carrying a gun does not warrant any police involvement, and people cannot be detained for simply carrying.

 

Not every one can drive a car.... is it AS to stop a car to see if that person can drive? Not all cars on the road are legal, is it AS to stop every car on the road to see if it is legal?

 

Now when ur behind a mustang that smells like strait gasoline or the driver looks to be 13 years old you may have AS.

 

You got it backwards, stopping a car isn't AS, you need AS to stop the car and PC to write the ticket or make the arrest.

 

SAT question:

 

Motor vehicle law is to Firearm's law as Apples are to:

A) hand grenades

B) sneakers

C) stray cats

D) all of the above

 

You can not compare a privilege, driving, with a right, keeping and bearing arms. Please stop.

 

And, yes. Any car can be stopped if the officer has prior knowledge, articulable suspicion, or probable cause that the driver is not licensed to drive in that state.

 

Now, you made it difficult to respond when you answered in my quote in your post, but here it goes...

 

This is going to sound flippant but it is not meant that way. I understand you didn't see any suspicious activity. Now, What exactly is your experience with Maine gun laws and Maine Police SOP in regards to suspicion?

 

Did you know the reporting party? Were you with them when you made the call to the PD? Were you driving by this location at the same time that the reporting party made the call to Police HQ and see something they did not? In this case, neither did the dispatcher or the police, so an investigation is warranted.

 

As to your second point, same questions as above. In addition, is a man carrying a gun legal in Maine? All men, regardless of age, criminal history and mental background? Or just some? Are there any restrictions on firearms involving school zones, parks, incorporated vs incorporated towns, hunting seasons, bars, churches or other places of worship?

 

Point three: So if you call the police and say there is a man with a gun in an area, then finding a man with a gun in that area is not enough to go on? The caller has to give what? Shoe size?

 

Yes, the second amendment allows the carrying of firearms. I understand. I wish that the states could do nothing to infringe upon that, but they do. If you want to change that, get involved in politics, don't make a video where you taunt cops.

 

Profiling on the basis of race, religion, orientation or ethnicity is illegal. Profiling based on behaviour, equipment you are carrying, etc is completely legal. Carrying a gun doesn't make a potential criminal. However, a convicted felon carrying a gun, or someone carrying an illegal weapon makes him a criminal right now.

 

Finally, I understand what the report was. You don't understand that it being a third party report, not an Officer initiated contact changes A LOT of the rules and makes it more than enough to investigate. Not arrest on its face value, but to check it out.

 

The courts have ruled that what you think is RAS or PC in in fact NOT. And that carrying a gun does not warrant any police involvement, and people cannot be detained for simply carrying.

 

Show me.

 

Show me case law that states a report by a third party, not officer initiated contact, of a man with a gun warrants ZERO police involvement.

You can not compare a privilege, driving, with a right, keeping and bearing arms.

 

-That was 50% of my point. How can cop a detain you when your excising a right within the law?

In fact your rights are more protected then your privileges. which is why i brought it up.

 

 

You got it backwards, stopping a car isn't AS, you need AS to stop the car and PC to write the ticket or make the arrest.

-They need RAS to make a stop, and PC to detain and search. If it is found that a law is broken then ticket/arrest follows.

 

Stopping people to make sure they are following the law? is that the argument your trying to make? AFAIK it is not legal for LEO's to interrogate people and detain them based on the fact that what they are doing may not be legal for everyone to do. Let's take it a step further, what is the probability that the person carrying is actually a prohibited person? If it is more probably, like say a state like NJ, you may have RAS, because far less people are actually allowed to carry. But if we do the statistics, i would gather that there is a far larger percent of people who are not prohibited then are. So again RAS goes out the window. Becuase it is more probable that the person is not prohibited.

Show me.

 

Show me case law that states a report by a third party, not officer initiated contact, of a man with a gun warrants ZERO police involvement.

I'm not saying they can't intervene, i'm saying that they cannot force a person who has done nothing wrong to comply.

 

What does it matter that a third party made the report? It doesn't change what the officer is and isn't allowed to do. Again, the report was a man carrying a gun, the officer said it a couple times, he said i want to make sure your not a felon which violates the court ruling in Brown V Texas. They didn't let the OCer walk away at the end because he was wrong......

 

If 80% of people in maine are not prohibited persons is it reasonable to suspect that someone carrying is not allowed to carry? you have a %20 chance your right. IMHO not reasonable enough. In NJ you could probably argue RAS with well below 1% being allowed to carry.

You can not compare a privilege, driving, with a right, keeping and bearing arms.

 

-That was 50% of my point. How can cop a detain you when your excising a right within the law?

In fact your rights are more protected then your privileges. which is why i brought it up.

 

 

You got it backwards, stopping a car isn't AS, you need AS to stop the car and PC to write the ticket or make the arrest.

-They need RAS to make a stop, and PC to detain and search. If it is found that a law is broken then ticket/arrest follows.

 

Stopping people to make sure they are following the law? is that the argument your trying to make? AFAIK it is not legal for LEO's to interrogate people and detain them based on the fact that what they are doing may not be legal for everyone to do. Let's take it a step further, what is the probability that the person carrying is actually a prohibited person? If it is more probably, like say a state like NJ, you may have RAS, because far less people are actually allowed to carry. But if we do the statistics, i would gather that there is a far larger percent of people who are not prohibited then are. So again RAS goes out the window. Becuase it is more probably that the person is not prohibited.

 

Remember, rights are protected, not untouchable. States manipulate them all the time. Also, as example, you can lose your right to possess firearms and vote by being a convicted felon.

 

A cop can absolutely detain you to make certain that you are exercising your rights within the law, if they have AS. Sometimes that is as simple as saying hello and talking for a minute, other times it requires handcuffs and a trip to the local cop shop, other times it only requires someone else to flag them down or call HQ and report it.

 

As for yet another MV analogy - Sometimes AS and PC are together. For example a speeding ticket. Cops have AS and PC simultaneously as they personally observed the car speeding.

 

Sometimes they are not. A random plate check reveals the registered owner has an outstanding warrant, is unlicensed, or suspended. The cop doesn't know who is driving and a stop is made due to AS. An investigation ensues and an arrest is made, or not made, after a determination of PC. The crux being, is the registered owner in or operating the vehicle? If so, arrest. If not, "I apologize, please let the owner know they need to take care of a few things." I could give you a million examples ranging from something simple like tinted windows, to serious stuff, stolen cars. It all plays out the same basic way = AS -> PC -> investigation -> arrest, ticketing, or release.

 

Now, as far as prohibited persons in other states, I do not know the stats. Pretty sure you don't either. I do not know the percentages of who has what and can't have the other in every state, county, city, town, village in the nation. You are getting into areas that we will never know all the facts. That's when you trust that the local experts in this area are doing the right thing for the right reasons.

 

Finally, investigating a third party complaint is different than an officer initiated action. Your AS threshold is basically reduced for the initial contact, since the cops are reacting to another's observation and interpretation and not their own. In this example, the police are not stopping someone to make sure that they are following the law, the coppers are doing there jobs and investigating a report from someone else that they may not be.

 

This explanation may help. On an officer initiated contact, police are trying to prove a subject IS breaking a law, ordinance, code, whatever, based on their observations, suspicions, interview of the subject, evidence present etc. In a dispatched call, they are trying to determine if you weren't doing what was reported by investigating, presence of evidence and asking questions, and they already may have a witness. A slight distinction, but there none the less.

All I can say is the ranking officer let this guy go with out getting any information from the OCer, i'm sure he would have kept him there if he was legally able to. All the OCer did was refuse to comply and then left with his gun.... That's how it should have been handled from the beginning, but i guess that's where we both disagree...

 

I'm not saying they can't intervene, i'm saying that they cannot force a person who has done nothing wrong to comply.

 

What does it matter that a third party made the report? It doesn't change what the officer is and isn't allowed to do. Again, the report was a man carrying a gun, the officer said it a couple times, he said i want to make sure your not a felon which violates the court ruling in Brown V Texas. They didn't let the OCer walk away at the end because he was wrong......

 

If 80% of people in maine are not prohibited persons is it reasonable to suspect that someone carrying is not allowed to carry? you have a %20 chance your right. IMHO not reasonable enough. In NJ you could probably argue RAS with well below 1% being allowed to carry.

 

"i'm saying that they cannot force a person who has done nothing wrong to comply."

 

You are correct, but first the cops have to determine that the subject has, in fact, done nothing wrong. So, who makes that determination? Every criminal ever convicted states that they didn't do anything wrong. If the cops took them all at face value, what then?

 

As far as Texas v Brown, as I understand it, it does not apply. Again, TvB is officer initiated vs. this case a reported call. TvB listed no real AS for the stop was given by the police officers involved. I can guarantee that if he had been stopped for jaywalking and refused to give a name, or stopped to investigate because he had a gun on his hip, it would have probably been an entirely different finding.

 

80% Ahhhh, lies, damned lies, and statistics. Ok, 80% prohibited person rate in Maine. Thats part of the equation. Now, what's the rate for allowed persons owning prohibited weapons. What's the regs on carrying any weapons near certain properties, like asked above? Are you catching my drift at all here?

 

 

 

 

My "thank you" was sincere. I was thanking you for answering my question, not claiming victory. But, I see now that you have clarified your answer.

 

As to your question, "Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?" I have a question before I answer. Is OC legal to everyone in Maine regardless of Age or Criminal Background or Mental History? Are all weapons regardless of make, model, capicity, or class legal? If the answer is No, then I say there was more than enought AS for this temporary detainment and investigation.

 

 

Here's your case:

US v. Deberry http://caselaw.findl...it/1027378.html

 

...and the pertinent part:

 

The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.   The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.   I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.   At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).   This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.   It would mean, in states that permit carrying concealed weapons, that the police no longer need any reason to stop citizens on the street to search them.   However, we do not have that situation.   Because I therefore consider the Court's comments on lawful concealed weapons to be dicta, I concur in the result reached today.

POSNER, Chief Judge.

 

I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out the other side. I'm happy as long as everyone is at least thinking about whether or not detaining the guy was legal. It takes a long time for this stuff to sink in. It's not necessarily intuitive.

Show me.

 

Show me case law that states a report by a third party, not officer initiated contact, of a man with a gun warrants ZERO police involvement.

 

Still haven't watched the video? The guy tells the cop the case right in the video. So no OC is NOT a reason to stop someone.

 

So yes a cop can come say hello, but the person can also ignore him and keep walking. Remember that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

 

This is not just in Maine. Philadelphia has the exact same rule.

My "thank you" was sincere. I was thanking you for answering my question, not claiming victory. But, I see now that you have clarified your answer.

 

 

 

Here's your case:

US v. Deberry http://caselaw.findl...it/1027378.html

 

...and the pertinent part:

 

 

 

I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out the other side. I'm happy as long as everyone is at least thinking about whether or not detaining the guy was legal. It takes a long time for this stuff to sink in. It's not necessarily intuitive.

 

Understood about the Thank you. However the portion of my post that you snipped from it's entirety, when stood alone appeared to point to me believing the officer was in the wrong.

 

Thank you for the linked case, I will read it "con mucho gusto" in its entirety.

 

From a quick read of the excerpt you provided, it appears that the Chief Judge is intuiting that if there was concealed carry law in Illinois the gun arrest would have been invalid because then the subject would not have been in violation of the law by carrying a concealed handgun. That seems like a common sense ruling doesn't it. Why would you arrest someone for doing something legal.

 

He goes on to say that in that instance there would be no grounds for a search. OK. That still doesn't preclude a contact and investigation into whether or not the individual is in fact a legal CCW holder. How did the person that called know there was a concealed weapon? Do we now have a possible brandishing charge or another possible violation to the CCW regulations to investigate? I mean, we all known bad guys carry guns too right? Even in states that allow CCW.

 

You are right, it is not an intuitive subject (you meant not intuitive right?) and there are many intreprations framed by everyone's frame of reference. This whole discussion has turned a bit from what I believe the OP intended, for that I am sorry. I am however enjoying the conversation and happy it has not gotten personal and devolved into name calling and finger pointing.

This whole last page of banter back and forth is evidence that the PUBLIC gets on the phone and calls in "Man with a Gun". As SOON as that call is made, a Cop has to be dispatched to check it out. I really don't care about all of the what-ifs, PC's and all of the legal mumbo-jumbo, as my PRIMARY concern is the waste of time to the Police force. AND the potential for creating a public nuisance or worse yet, a Police-involved accident where a cruiser T-bones a kid on a bike enroute to the activist A-Hole trying to make a point/statement.

 

Hiking, horseback riding, working around a huge piece of property, etc., etc. are all great places to open carry. In an urban or suburban environment, it draws-away needed resources to investigate whether or not anything of a serious nature is in fact happening.

 

I deal in REALITY, not in what-ifs. If you walk down an urban street with a gun, someone will call the Cops, period! At that split second I hope nobody else needs them for REAL! That's what I'm sayin'!

I deal in REALITY, not in what-ifs. If you walk down an urban street with a gun, someone will call the Cops, period!

 

And that's the problem. This ridiculous mindset that since you can see a gun there is something illegal going on.

So maybe if the people calling 911 for no valid reason should be issued a summons for using 911 incorrectly.

 

 

Still haven't watched the video? The guy tells the cop the case right in the video. So no OC is NOT a reason to stop someone.

 

So yes a cop can come say hello, but the person can also ignore him and keep walking. Remember that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

 

This is not just in Maine. Philadelphia has the exact same rule.

 

I have watched the vid. Have researched the cases he mentions or did you just take the kids word he was citing the correct case law? All the cases he brought up, except, Delaware v Prouse have been mentioned (DvP deals with MV stops with no other AS or PC to verify driver's licenses) and the one that is closest to approaching my question of ZERO police involvment is the one posted above by NJ2AS-LCC, US v DeBerry. But it does not seem to state no involvement, it states no search. No search was required here, the gun was in plain view. If this incident happened to someone carrying CCW that required a Terry frisk, as explained in Terry v Ohio then DeBerry would probably apply.

 

As far as innocent until proven guilty. No one said he was guilty. He wasn't arrested and he walks away at the end with his pistol.

 

IUPG doesn't mean someone can't be suspicious, and in this case I certainly don't think it means a check of the situation wasn't warranted. If he would have just given his name and DOB, as he states in his comments is required by ME law, the whole contact would have been over in 30 seconds, with no drama. He knew why the cop was stopping him. He knew people were going to call if he walked down the street with a heater on his hip. He set the cop up.

 

And, no, not every contact, at least in NJ, requires a report. Often times simply an entry is created in the in-house system about the contact in the event a citizen complaint comes on or a involved person wants something to refer to.

 

 

And that's the problem. This ridiculous mindset that since you can see a gun there is something illegal going on.

So maybe if the people calling 911 for no valid reason should be issued a summons for using 911 incorrectly.

 

I agree. The public needs a lot more education on firearms and firearms safety, and the legal maelstrom that surrounds firearm law.

 

Edited to comment on one more post by PeteF

Edited June 25, 201214 yr by High Exposure

It has occurred to me that there is an underlying sentment here that comes from simply being in New Jersey for so long. The people that are born and raised in New Jersey have developed a kind of "we are screwed" attitude that comes out when they see someone pushing limits or questioning authority of any kind relating to firearms. These people would not think of pushing the limits because their limits are so low. Everyone in New Jersey sees what kind of punishment occurs for breaking the law and would not want to even approach that situation. Even though I live in New Jersey now and have to endure this as well, I feel bad that we all have been raised like lemmings.

Think of all the words that have been written arguing wether or not this guy should open carry. We should spend more time educating the public and writing to our senators, congressmen, representatives and Governor and who ever may listen. We need to change the laws here and soon.

 

It's true. This happens to be one of the most anti-Second Amendment gun forums in existence. If you want to meet real 2A supporters that are similarly restricted by their laws go to CalGuns. They have not been beaten down by the generational brainwashing. Jersey is something special. I spent decades there.

 

One thing I will say, if you carry a gun, keep in mind that it is a very serious responsibility.

 

NOT. No, no it's not a serious responsibility. 5% of the population does outside of the 8 or so shitty states.

 

YOU carry a knife. Keep in mind, carrying a knife is a very serious responsibility. You have the power of life and death at your disposal.