Legal Open Carry Threatened by Cop

[AnimalMother]

I was in a similar situation when my firearm was accidently exposed and a city cop saw it. I followed his orders while verbally identifying myself as an off duty deputy sheriff. After I was proned out on the sidewalk, he was able to safely check my work ID card. I got an apology, which wasn't necessary because he was doing his job in the safest manner possible.

Okay, so there was probably an excited 911 call from some random person...something like, "OH MY GOD THERES A MAN WITH A *GUN*!" The cops have no way of knowing whether or not the guy's legit and have to roll out to the call.

This is how it should have gone down (though, I imagine you can carry a loaded firearm in PA):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFzH5Oe- ... r_embedded

The Philly and Oceanside police viloated these citizens rights just by approaching them without just cause. Since open carrry is legal in these cities, there's no reason to stop anyone who's carrying openly. If the LEO's presummed that these citizens are innocent, then there's no need to approach these citizens unless they're engageed in an unlawful act.

Thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with you wrt compliance and staying cool when interacting with a police officer. Nor do I think the officer in the video was a "bad" cop - he just made two very common and understandable mistakes:
1)-assuming that an uncommon activity, that he personally disapproved of, must be an illegal activity, and
2)-assuming that the mere presence of a weapon equated to a direct and deliberate threat to his safety.

The issue isn't necessarily that police are corrupt or bad, but that they are often unaware of the legalities of open carry, and in places where it's uncommon they overreact to what isn't necessarily a threat to their safety. It's a training and education issue, more than an ethical/corruption issue.

I agree, often it's more of a training and education issue. Also, it's a cultural issue, i.e. guns are not a tool most people use or see in their everyday lives. There's always a few bad apples, but that's not common.

[JTNieman]

lmao, since when do you have the right to not be talked to in public?

That Oceanside cop did not a damned thing wrong. You can be stopped and talked to for ANYTHING, dude. Yes, open carry is legal in Cali, but unloaded carry only.

[squinty]

How many times a night do police investigate a 911 or other call, or suspicious activity, only to determine that no crime has been committed? They don't know if a crime has been (or is being) committed until they investigate.
Still, OC being legal, I wish that PD would stop treating OC in and of itself as a suspicious activity.
And what went on in Philly I believe was either a LEO ignorant of the law wrt carrying, or a decision to discourage a perfectly legal behavior that the officer disapproved of, by making the investigation as unpleasant and inconvenient as possible for the OCer.

[DannusMaximus]

How many times a night do police investigate a 911 or other call, or suspicious activity, only to determine that no crime has been committed? They don't know if a crime has been (or is being) committed until they investigate.
Still, OC being legal, I wish that PD would stop treating OC in and of itself as a suspicious activity.

Concur on both points.

LEO's generally don't have much say in what they choose to investigate - - they recieve a dispatched 911 call and they go check it out. It's what they're getting paid to do. Woe unto that officer that decides to gaff off a 'man with a gun' call and that man is on his way to a grade school to gun people down. And, frankly, woe unto the public if officers simply stop responding to calls they think are no big deal.

I'm a firefighter, not a cop, but we make probably a dozen false alarms for structure fires a week, and countless more investigations on "Smoke in the area" and other such things. It's damn rare, but sometimes that "Smoke in the area" ends up being something, and sometimes it ends up being a big something. I would be VERY remiss in my sworn duty if I just decided to not go on a run because I had decided it probably wasn't a big deal. Same with cops.

OC people need to get that they are probably going to get, at a minimum, asked what's up by local LEO's, either because a scared citizen called them or because the cop is simply keeping his/her eye out for things that are out of the ordinary. That's simple fact. From that point on, everybody hopes that the OC'er and the LEO are cool and all ends well.

[RECO]

When is someone an "Armed Suspect" if they arent commiting a crime except for the LEO's lack of knowledge.

[Greyfox]

The Philly and Oceanside police viloated these citizens rights just by approaching them without just cause. Since open carrry is legal in these cities, there's no reason to stop anyone who's carrying openly. If the LEO's presummed that these citizens are innocent, then there's no need to approach these citizens unless they're engageed in an unlawful act.

The law I was shown reads, (and you would have read it to if you read the previous posts) so if its the law what right was "viloated" ?

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFETY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

[WY_Not]

Exactly. If the LEOs tried to just pull people driving down the road in a vehicles over at random and for the hell of it, there would be a HUGE uproar in the media and elsewhere. Detaining, much less drawing down on and ordering OCers to the ground, is absolutely detestable. Both activities are legal, why should they get different responses? Unless the OCer is doing something stupid like brandishing or threatening someone, they should get NO attention from LEOs. Some concerned citizen calls and whines that someone is walking around OCing, dispatchers response should be, "are they brandishing, threatening someone, or doing something illegal or dangerous?" If the caller's response is "no", then the dispatcher should tell them to mind their own business and quit wasting department resources. And if your response is that the person with the gun might go on a rampage and kill someone... Go look up the stats on how many people are killed by vehicles and how many are killed by guns. I've seen the way most people drive, they scare me a LOT more than some person walking down the street with a firearm.

When is someone an "Armed Suspect" if they arent commiting a crime except for the LEO's lack of knowledge.

[Big B]

When is someone an "Armed Suspect" if they arent commiting a crime except for the LEO's lack of knowledge.

I've been trying to stay out of this thread because of comments like this. I think you need to read the post above yours again.

[WY_Not]

That is part of the problem. That law is the problem. Why should it be any different for an OCer than it is for a person driving down the street in their car? Both require licenses. With a driver, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal then the LEOs are not going to be pulling them over and hassling them "just to make sure they have a license". OC should be no different. If the OCer is not doing anything stupid/illegal then the LEOs should not be pulling them over and hassling them "just to make sure they have a license".

The law I was shown reads, (and you would have read it to if you read the previous posts) so if its the law what right was "viloated" ?

4. AN OFFICER ENCOUNTERING A PERSON CARRYING A FIREARM OPENLY IN PHILADELPHIA SHOULD FOR THE SAFETY OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATE AS A POSSIBLE VUFA VIOLATION.
A. SINCE A SEPARATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED IN PHILADELPHIA AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OFFICER TO KNOW WHO DOES AND DOES NOT HAVE A VALID CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR OFFICERS TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN AND INVESTIGATE ANY INDIVIDUAL CARRYING A FIREARM EXPOSED TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS OPERATING WITH THE LAW.

[squinty]

How is stopping and questioning an open carrier different from highway checkpoints, where police stop you and check your license and look for evidence of DUI and etc., when you were just driving legally down the road and they had no probable cause to stop or detain you?
(I don't like highway checkpoints myself. I think they are counter to the spirit of the fourth amendment, though it seems the supreme court has disagreed with me, and their opinion is the one that matters.)

[DannusMaximus]

Some concerned citizen calls and whines that someone is walking around OCing, dispatchers response should be, "are they brandishing, threatening someone, or doing something illegal or dangerous?" If the caller's response is "no", then the dispatcher should tell them to mind their own business and quit wasting department resources.

That's probably exactly how the dispatcher should handle it, but that's a dispatcher problem, not a LEO problem. I promise you that police officers don't respond to 100% of the runs they are not dispatched too...

And again, regardless of whether it's justified or not, a person open carrying in an area where it's not common is going to draw some attention. That's reality. It's not illegal for a person to cover themselves in fake blood and slump against a tree in a public park, but it's damn sure going to get noticed, and somebody will probably report it, and the cops and firefighters will come check it out, even if it makes you all mad and you want to give the responding public safety personnel a dissertation on your first amendment rights to cover yourself in fake blood, slump against a tree, yadda yadda. It's not technically illegal to burn your own house down, at least in my AO - - you might get an open burning ordinance violation, but that's about it is long as you don't make a fraudulant insurance claim. But you shouldn't get all butt-hurt if you DO decide to burn your house down and somebody calls the fire department and we come to investigate.

Finally, I think people on this board might have a bit of a skewed perspective (in a good way) about how people interact with law enforcement (or for that matter, hose humpers and ambulance crews). Most people on this board are no doubt reasonable, mentally stable, generally well adjusted folks, whose interaction with public safety involves occasional tours of a fire station with a scout group and the occasional speeding ticket. The majority of people I deal with everyday are NONE OF THOSE THINGS. The majority of people that cops deal with everyday are NONE OF THOSE THINGS. They're high, drunk, batshit crazy, career petty criminals or delusional hypochondriac ambulance frequent fliers, etc. Even if the citizen has none of the above issues, the average citizen interaction that a cop faces on any given day is likely extremely hostile. I continue to be absolutely stunned at the rudeness that people exhibit towards police officers, ranging across all socioeconomic strata, and regardless of how polite the officer is attempting to be. YOU probably wouldn't act like this towards a cop, but YOU are rapidly becoming the exception to the rule. After very few years on the street an officer will grow to expect hostility in their interactions, and human nature being what it is, many will become more suspicious and more rude themselves, despite their best efforts. It's a high stress, high burnout job, topped with an added dose of physical danger. I say this not to start a LEO pity party, but to maybe give a touch of insight into life in that profession.

None of the above, of course, excuses a cop abusing their authority, or illegally using force, or doing any number of things that makes them look like (and in fact, be) an asshole. But a LEO stopping a person who is OC'ing because they were dispatched to investigate by their 911 center isn't doing it to be the antichrist. They're doing their job. OUR JOB is to be polite and professional and cooperate. And then to sue the City for all the money in their piggy-bank if the cop turns out to be one of the rare bad apples.

[Big B]

Unless the OCer is doing something stupid like brandishing or threatening someone, they should get NO attention from LEOs. Some concerned citizen calls and whines that someone is walking around OCing, dispatchers response should be, "are they brandishing, threatening someone, or doing something illegal or dangerous?" If the caller's response is "no", then the dispatcher should tell them to mind their own business and quit wasting department resources.

I think what a lot of folks here are failing to realize is when an officer is dispatched to a call it's like playing the kids game Telephone (also called whisper down the lane).

It goes like this,

-Reporting party calls 911. More likely than not there are nervous and excited and difficult to talk to (most people seem to get nervous calling 911).
-Call taker at dispatch answers the phone. Call taker attempts to get as much valuable info from the reporting party and type that info into the call screen, while being as brief as possible, as quickly as they can.
-The dispatcher (a different person than the call taker) then radios the LEO(s), reading what is on the screen from what the call taker wrote.
-Sometimes there is an additional step, by including the patrol supervisor in the mix.

By the time the information makes it to the LEO what they are hearing may be very different then what is actually going on. Most of our dispatchers do a good job weeding out the crazies and the BS, but that is often easier said than done. For all the LEO knows they are investigating a crime in progress (depending what info is relayed to him), so they are going to respond accordingly.

[SeerSavant]

If an officer stops you because he is dispatched on a "man with a gun" call, you simply CANNOT fault the officer, for doing his job.

Most stops, even in california like one youtube link farther up the page, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFzH5Oe-YL4&feature=player_embedded Is an example of sterling law officers doing a stop that they probably don't even want to...

If somebody passes a boneheaded law; several in california come to mind, then they (police) are tasked with seeing that it's enforced... Random traffic stops to make sure your licensed and insured, may have constitutional amendments, but that isn't the LEOs decision, it's a legal matter that they have no more control over than the local man on the street.

In california, the law is that open carry is legal, but that the weapon cannot be loaded. The guy in the video had a magazine in it, which is why he checked. If the weapon was without a magazine, he could have checked for one in the chamber, but he's verifying that the weapon is safe.

In virginia, you have to show a valid state ID and your concealed carry permit, if you are carrying and the officer asks... (open carry, that is... Concealed should... well you get the idea) But if you don't have a permit, then you simply give him your name.




Respect is a two way street. You carry a gun openly, you are reflecting the open carry and gun rights communities, so don't balk at telling the officer your name, because you've just made an officer's opinion of everyone that open carries a bit darker... The same to be said for the officer, any breakdown in mutual respect is a failure that reflects on both parties.

You don't have to give him any information, but "I don't think you have the right to ask my name, why, did I do anything wrong?" is the wrong tact.

Be polite, smile... Ask, did I do anything wrong? If the officer treats you respectfully, return in kind... If he's a douche... Shut the fuck up... Yes sir, no sir, no attitude, and nothing but what's required. My name is.... If he starts to violate your rights, ie; searching without cause, don't spout on about your rights, STFU or reply, I don't consent to a search, but I won't interfere or something similar...
Don't loose your cool, your gonna get screwed... If your violated, you wait until you get to lawyer up...
When you lawyer up, is when you let the lawyer go after him...

Chances are, they will be respectful, and if your nice, polite and respectful then it bridges that gap that's been forming between law enforcement and the public...


Officers are human, and if the LEO is simply mistaken, but treated you with respect, don't try and rape the department for cash, a simple, hey guy's howzabout a refresher course on the gun laws, huh? would suffice.

A LEO who doesn't know the law, can become a better cop when he learns it, or can be the open carry/2nd amendment crowds worst enemy...

My two cents...

Well, more like a buck and half, but I am long winded at times...

[DannusMaximus]

What this guy ^^^^ said.

The dispatch call would probably go something like this:

"Report of a man with a gun in the vicinity of Happy Trails Park. Caller advises that she saw a man with a gun walking west on Fiddlefuck Lane. Caller advised the man was wearing a blue jacket and jeans, but could not give any other description."

Seriously. That's pretty much a typical dispatch. I don't know how people would expect the officer to respond to this other than tracking the person down (if possible) and trying to find out what's going on.

[squinty]

That's fine as long as the police, upon discovering that the behavior they are investigating is legal, don't try to trump up charges against the person because they don't think what the person is doing should be legal. That happens a lot with OCers, photographers, and people exercising first amendment rights. There's noone so hostile and volatile as a person who's never had an adversarial encounter with the police, who suddenly finds him(or her) self under arrest or suspicion ("I pay your salary!" "Shut up or I'll start earning it!" etc.)

A great old movie with Gregory Peck and big bad Bob Mitchum, "Cape Fear," is sort of a great argument for police being aggressive and proactive while investigating legal behavior. In it, Mitchum the ex-con stalks and harasses and puts the serious frighteners on Gregory Peck's family, but is careful to always stay just on the right side of the law while doing it. This was before the age of anti-stalking laws and restraining orders and such.

But some of that hostile citizen interaction comes about in areas where police might be too intusive with their efforts, and law abiding citizens feel threatened or belittled by police. New York City's "stop and frisk" policy for instance (I don't live in NY, I just read stuff) has caught a lot of criminals, but it's also created a lot of resentment and suspicion on the part of citizens in some neighborhoods. The 'rare bad apple' cop may have ruined things for the next few police that have to deal with the person mr. badapple harassed, and likewise there are bad police policies that heighten the unfortunate "us vs. them" attitude that's so prevalent these days. In the recording posted in the OP, the citizen didn't sound rude or feisty to me, he sounded scared. The hostility came from the officer. That may not be typical, but it's not uncommon either.

That said, I think everyone on this thread has agreed that civility and coolness are the best defenses the citizen has when dealing with the police, whether the encounter is going well or not.

ETA: oh, and stay away from Fiddlefuck Lane. You know better than to be walking around that neighborhood this time of night!

[DannusMaximus]

That's fine as long as the police, upon discovering that the behavior they are investigating is legal, don't try to trump up charges against the person because they don't think what the person is doing should be legal. That happens a lot with OCers, photographers, and people exercising first amendment rights.

It probably, statistically happens practically not at all with those folks, but every time it DOES happen it gets posted on YouTube 15 seconds later, so it seems like it happens a lot...

'Trumping up charges' = a lot more work for the officer, something they are probably trying to avoid so they can get to the next call backed up on their computer screen.

ETA: Squinty, I like you. Thanks for keeping things in perspective and playing an honorable devil's advocate.

[squinty]

That's fine as long as the police, upon discovering that the behavior they are investigating is legal, don't try to trump up charges against the person because they don't think what the person is doing should be legal. That happens a lot with OCers, photographers, and people exercising first amendment rights.

It probably, statistically happens practically not at all with those folks, but every time it DOES happen it gets posted on YouTube 15 seconds later, so it seems like it happens a lot...

'Trumping up charges' = a lot more work for the officer, something they are probably trying to avoid so they can get to the next call backed up on their computer screen.

ETA: Squinty, I like you. Thanks for keeping things in perspective and playing an honorable devil's advocate.

I like you too. I'd buy you an e-beer if I could.

fakeETA: check out a dvd of the original Cape Fear, if you haven't seen it. Old movie rocks!

[DannusMaximus]

ETA: Squinty, I like you. Thanks for keeping things in perspective and playing an honorable devil's advocate.

I like you too. I'd buy you an e-beer if I could.

*Squinty and Maximus walk off into the sunset hand in hand to go watch old Gregory Peck movies together*

[EODLRD]

99% of calls involving firearms around here are dispatched as a "weapons violation" by the dispatch center. This is their own way of doing things. More information will follow, but it usually consists of "man walking down street in front of Walmart, with a firearm."

I heard one the other day that was for a shotgun in a gun rack in a pickup truck. Cmon people. Dust off your brain.

[WY_Not]

I still want to know why a call about a man with a gun (something LEGAL) should be treated any different than a call about a man driving a car (something also LEGAL). In one case dispatcher sends out a LEO, in the other dispatcher does nothing. In the case of the OCer, just as in the case of a driver, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It is an assinine double standard. If LEOs started pulling drivers over for a license check there would be all kinds of uproar. Stop an OCer on the street to do a license check (assuming one a license is even needed!) should generate the same uproar. Again, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It just boggles my mind the twisted logic people use to excuse the differences in reaction towards two identical legal behaviors.

[JTNieman]

I still want to know why a call about a man with a gun (something LEGAL) should be treated any different than a call about a man driving a car (something also LEGAL). In one case dispatcher sends out a LEO, in the other dispatcher does nothing. In the case of the OCer, just as in the case of a driver, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It is an assinine double standard. If LEOs started pulling drivers over for a license check there would be all kinds of uproar. Stop an OCer on the street to do a license check (assuming one a license is even needed!) should generate the same uproar. Again, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It just boggles my mind the twisted logic people use to excuse the differences in reaction towards two identical legal behaviors.

*sigh*

ONE is out of the ordinary enough to cause suspicion with some people. EVERYONE drives a fucking car, just about. Not EVERYONE carries lethal weapons on their hips. If you don't see the difference, you're being deliberately obtuse.

It's perfectly legal to walk down the street wearing a hoodie at 3am in a suburban cul-de-sac in a ritzy neighborhood. But cops still stop and check on people for doing it all the time. It's. normal. fucking. police work.

OC people would be wise to GET THE STICKS OUT OF THEIR ASSES in regards to such simple fucking things. It's not a goddamned violation of your rights to have someone stop you and chat for a minute or two. Especially in the case of people carrying firearms on their hips.

I've never been stopped when OC'ing... but tits-on-bulls, people, have some damned understanding and put yourself in other people's shoes once in a while.

[squinty]

I still want to know why a call about a man with a gun (something LEGAL) should be treated any different than a call about a man driving a car (something also LEGAL). In one case dispatcher sends out a LEO, in the other dispatcher does nothing. In the case of the OCer, just as in the case of a driver, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It is an assinine double standard. If LEOs started pulling drivers over for a license check there would be all kinds of uproar. Stop an OCer on the street to do a license check (assuming one a license is even needed!) should generate the same uproar. Again, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It just boggles my mind the twisted logic people use to excuse the differences in reaction towards two identical legal behaviors.

The fact is the police do stop legal drivers who aren't doing anything suspicious or illegal. I've been stopped at a number of "checkpoints" where my car is stopped, my license and registration inspected, lights get shined in my car and a LEO engages me in probing conversation ("Where you headed tonight.") I don't like'em. I'm not defending random checkpoints. Just pointing out that such nibblings at the fourth amendment aren't confined to gun owners.

The other thing to consider is that the public isn't up to speed wrt gun carrying. A driver driving normally doesn't generate the calls an OCer will generate - the average soccer mom doesn't call 911 and scream "OMG! Someone's driving tight down the street! In a car! Right out in the open, please help!" I regard the open carry movement as just that - a political movement designed to change peoples attitude towards armed civilians. That doesn't mean the responding officer has to adopt the same histrionic attitude as the 911 caller. The LEO should be a bit better informed. IMO.

[squinty]

I still want to know why a call about a man with a gun (something LEGAL) should be treated any different than a call about a man driving a car (something also LEGAL). In one case dispatcher sends out a LEO, in the other dispatcher does nothing. In the case of the OCer, just as in the case of a driver, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It is an assinine double standard. If LEOs started pulling drivers over for a license check there would be all kinds of uproar. Stop an OCer on the street to do a license check (assuming one a license is even needed!) should generate the same uproar. Again, if they aren't doing something stupid/illegal, there should be NO LEO contact.

It just boggles my mind the twisted logic people use to excuse the differences in reaction towards two identical legal behaviors.

The fact is the police do stop legal drivers who aren't doing anything suspicious or illegal. I've been stopped at a number of "checkpoints" where my car is stopped, my license and registration inspected, lights get shined in my car and a LEO engages me in probing conversation ("Where you headed tonight.") I don't like'em. I'm not defending random checkpoints. Just pointing out that such nibblings at the fourth amendment aren't confined to gun owners.

The other thing to consider is that the public isn't up to speed wrt gun carrying. A driver driving normally doesn't generate the calls an OCer will generate - the average soccer mom doesn't call 911 and scream "OMG! Someone's driving tight down the street! In a car! Right out in the open, please help!" I regard the open carry movement as just that - a political movement designed to change peoples attitude towards armed civilians. That doesn't mean the responding officer has to adopt the same histrionic attitude as the 911 caller. The LEO should be a bit better informed. IMO.

Spelling. I meant to type "driving RIGHT down the street." Not "tight." Someone driving "tight" down the street should probably get pulled over.

[fattycakes]

Kid did a good job. I am not sure If I could have stayed that calm with a gun trained on me and a nervous cop calling for back up. The S sort of H T F here especially when the other cops came. The cops were sort of ignorant but that's what happens. where I work sometimes there are cops who do security and I have talked to them. Most have dealt with open carriers and when in a bad situation have said they will take away the gun until the issues are worked out. This seems like over kill though but Im not a cop. I have been to philly a few times and yes most cops talk like this and can be a bit brutal. It is just the cop culture there. Tough guys.