A completely reasonable way to deal with the new wave of open carry morons.....

[vicious]

I'm man enough to admit when my mind has been changed, and it has. hrdware hit the nail on the head for me with regard to complying under duress while being polite. The misanthropic attitude is what sets me off when it comes to interaction with a police officer. I, for one, have had many nice conversations with police in passing, with no detainment involved. It just strikes me as odd that some people believe that any interaction with a police officer should be confrontational.

That said, I've read some recent comments from the officers on this forum that are equally as negative. It would appear that to them a person with a gun is someone who simply shouldn't be able to carry a weapon as that's the job of the police. It's perceived sentiments like that which can make others with no practical interaction with police jaded, and unduly angry. What's even more sad is that these types are the most vocal.

An officer is first and foremost a public servant and carrying a gun does not change the fact that we are part of the public, and we should be treated as such.

It seems to me as though an officer who is suspicious should simply ask if curious, and if they don't get the answer they are looking for, move on. As a guy who is proud of the fact that I'm a gun owner, I have my license, and I love my pistol, I'll be glad to talk with him/her about it without being in trouble.

 

[David2012]

Do you have a reliable cite for this?

All you have to do is listen to a police scanner for a few hours, it happens every single day in my town and the 6 smaller towns surrounding mine. Police & sheriffs' deputies are responding to suspicious person or vehicle calls several times a day & night, 365 a yr.

 

[Glocktogo]

First, by talking to people who question it, politely. If someone starts yelling at me, the conversation will be over and I will find someplace else I need to be. If I'm in a store, I will simply find the manager and explain that the other customer is making it hard for me to shop in their store. A polite conversation should include what the law allows for and doesn't allow for. It should also include the results of the 2006 FBI study on Violent Encounters that found bad guys don't open carry and about 1% actually use a holster. OKOCA has an open empty holster trash cleanup scheduled in September in Tulsa. Community service events help get the word out as well.

As far as law enforcement goes, if I am doing nothing illegal, there should be no contact. However if there is, I will be polite with the officer, I will freely comply with what the law allows them to do, and comply under duress with what the law does not allow them to do. All the while being polite.

I feel dispatch should ask people who make a MWAG call should ask if the gun is in a holster and if the answer is yes, the caller should be told open carry is legal. If dispatch decides to send an officer out, it's up to them, but they should educate the caller on the legality of open carry.

As far as the MarkedGuardian goes it's not really an issue, Oklahoma Open Carry does not provide for long gun open carry. That being said, I still believe officers should know the law as well as open carriers will be required to know the law, and operate within those boundaries. Will I politely tell an officer I believe he is violating the law/my rights, yep. Will I file a complaint if an officer violates the law/my rights, maybe. Will I ask for a supervisor if I think an officer is going to far, in a heartbeat. Respect and courtesy are 2 way streets and if I feel an officer is going beyond the scope of duty under color of law, I will call him on it.

We have come to a point in society when many times we must prove our innocence and good intentions first instead of being innocent until an officer can prove our guilt and bad intentions. This has been allowed to happen for so long, it now seems common practice and those that don't subscribe to that philosophy seem to be labeled as activists, trouble makers, cowboys, idiots....the list goes on.

An officer stopping someone just because they are open carry when they have committed no other crime is like stopping someone for wearing a red shirt....if noting illegal is going on, or looks like it is about to happen then move on.

I have no issue with how you plan to handle it. Seems a reasonable response to me. I'm not saying you won't run into dissent, but your responses shouldn't escalate things.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'm man enough to admit when my mind has been changed, and it has. hrdware hit the nail on the head for me with regard to complying under duress while being polite. The misanthropic attitude is what sets me off when it comes to interaction with a police officer. I, for one, have had many nice conversations with police in passing, with no detainment involved. It just strikes me as odd that some people believe that any interaction with a police officer should be confrontational.

That said, I've read some recent comments from the officers on this forum that are equally as negative. It would appear that to them a person with a gun is someone who simply shouldn't be able to carry a weapon as that's the job of the police. It's perceived sentiments like that which can make others with no practical interaction with police jaded, and unduly angry. What's even more sad is that these types are the most vocal.

An officer is first and foremost a public servant and carrying a gun does not change the fact that we are part of the public, and we should be treated as such.

It seems to me as though an officer who is suspicious should simply ask if curious, and if they don't get the answer they are looking for, move on. As a guy who is proud of the fact that I'm a gun owner, I have my license, and I love my pistol, I'll be glad to talk with him/her about it without being in trouble.

What made you decide that? I believe most every officer on this forum is notably pro-carry for citizens. The more armed citizens we have, the better.

 

[bee-r549]

Maybe we should have to get mandatory forehead tattoos that say we are legal to open carry.

 

[beast1989]

@hrdware thanks for joining OSA and we are glad to have you.

Your views accurately mirror my views pretty well, I been a bit too busy this week to tackle the issue as well as you did.

 

[beast1989]

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."
--Noam Chomsky; while his politics may be horrid, he is an expert on linguistics

Good quote for sure. I don't know as much about his philosophy as I should but I certainly want to read up on it.

 

[MLRyan]

I wanna buy that cop a beer.

 

[BikerHT]

I first watched some of MarkedGuardian's videos about a week ago when there was another post about him. He lives in Oregon where, unlike OK, obviously a long gun is legal OC. He travels to various towns in the state, sometimes with a friend, just to walk around and "educate" people. He is a self-professed 2A activist and passes out flyers along his journeys. Most always, he's in public parks or along "busy" streets in the town he's visiting.

Of the videos I watched, the majority of the time the LEO was responding to a MWAG call. I would think, in these cases the LEO, as a public servant, has a responsibility to stop and have a discussion with this guy, he's in public. On the occasions where the LEO saw him personally (without a MWAG call), I would think it is not a violation of this guys rights to stop and have a discussion with him. That's why he is there, to be noticed and attract attention. It works! In several of the towns, the LEO already knew his name and had heard of him, just never met him personally.

Now, IMHO - with rights come responsibilities. This fellow appears to be one of the "because I can" types. Now I am all about "educating" people, but personally don't think this is the best, nor most responsible way to go about it. There are a lot of things we have the 'right' to do because it is legal and we 'can'.

BTW, I've noticed a lot of posts referring to OSA's favorite 2A activist as a '*********'. Reminds me of a story...a friend of our youngest girl was attempting to reset a GFCI receptacle at our house one time while I was out of town. He ended up removing it from the wall, shorting it out, tripping the breaker and frying the receptacle. He responded with..."Well, I'm such a *********!" At which time my wife replied, (NO...douchebags are HELPFUL!"

 

[BadgeBunny]

For all you folks who think that officers on the street should ignore all the "man with a gun" calls, that is a surefire way to wind up in the SO's office. Just remember, the cops out there don't get to pick and choose what calls they will and will not respond to. That's NOT how it works. I gotta tell ya, if GC came home and told me he risked his pension (and all the sick leave, comp time, holiday hours and vacation time he has accrued) just to make a point and not respond to a certain type of call from dispatch, his SO would be the least of his worries ...

So, just remember ... the LEO on the street doesn't have a choice. Dispatch gets the call, dispatch passes the info on to the officer, the officer responds. That's just how it works, whether you, me or the officer on the street likes it or not.

I've never said you shouldn't engage the police in conversation if you are contacted. All I'm saying is don't make the officer's job (or you visit with him) any harder on either of you than it has to be. Same with private citizens that might approach you with concerns. With the good guys will come the nut cases. It happens all the time ... You guys be careful out there.