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

[Danny Tanner]

I appreciate citizens who do this, just to let law enforcement know that we're not as sheepish as some of them want to think, that we do know our rights, and we do know the laws. Keeping the power and control-hungry LEOs in check, so to speak.

I also think this officer handled the situation very well. Quick, to the point, professional, offered advice on public training and even gave appreciation to the guy for exercising his right.

I think anybody carrying should be able to stand up for themselves to law enforcement and if this LEO overstepped his boundaries you all would be singing a completely different tune. Except for BB.

 

[Buzzgun]

I don't think anyone has suggested that the officer should ignore the call and risk his or her job, but, if the officer has no legal right to detain the person, then doing so is a violation of the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

Yes, it is a bit of a catch 22, but it is not the job of every citizen to make a cop's life easier. However despite what you said above, police officers DO have choices just like the rest of us. If they are given orders to do something illegal, then they have the right to refuse that order. If dispatch sends them out on a MWAG call, they may not have a choice as to whether to respond, but they DO have a choice as to how they respond. They can certainly observe and determine if the MWAG is doing anything illegal before contacting the person. The officer in the video chose to confront the MWAG even though walking down the street with a shouldered firearm is NOT illegal and the MWAG was not acting in a threatening manner. Further, the officer disarmed and detained the MWAG and made up a bogus reason for doing so, which is apparently a violation of the law in that jurisdiction.

This shouldn't be an issue with the Oklahoma law as it is written, as I understand it, LEOs are allowed to ask open carriers for ID and concealed carry license if they choose to do so.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Except for BB.

Haha! That's not true and you know it. The power-hungry, "I don't gotta follow the rules because I am the law" JBTs just make it worse on the guys who are there for the right reasons. Besides, I don't get a pass around here either. In fact, I have it MUCH worse now that I am married to a JBT than before. I can't speed, or float that stop sign or nuthin' without getting my arse handed to me -- Kinda sucks ...

ETA: So, Danny, aren't you gonna open carry?? I'm not against open carry, but it's not for me. I'll continue to CC my gun.

 

[Danny Tanner]

ETA: So, Danny, aren't you gonna open carry?? I'm not against open carry, but it's not for me. I'll continue to CC my gun.

Nope. I'll be picking up a full size 1911 since ultimate concealing will not be an issue, but since I'll still frequent places that post up Gun Buster signs, I'll carry concealed.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Nope. I'll be picking up a full size 1911 since ultimate concealing will not be an issue, but since I'll still frequent places that post up Gun Buster signs, I'll carry concealed.

Ahhhh ... K, couldn't remember if you'd said and I was beginning to think I was the only person planning on continuing to CC ... LOL

 

[BadgeBunny]

Gosh, guys ... didn't mean to put a damper on the conversation.

This shouldn't be an issue with the Oklahoma law as it is written, as I understand it, LEOs are allowed to ask open carriers for ID and concealed carry license if they choose to do so.

And that right there is where the rub comes. I'll continue to be respectful and polite to LEO who contact me (for whatever reason) and take any concerns I have about their conduct to their superiors -- which I have done on a couple of occasions. Once with a OHP Trooper and the way he treated my son and a couple of times with Bethany PD and the way their officers treated me. I'd much rather just take notes and talk to the boss later than spend the night in the pokey ... Maybe it's because I've been in the pokey before and don't wish to spend any more time with Helga, the transvestite ... or maybe it's because I've seen all three sides of the issue now (from the civilian's point of view, from the officer's point of view and from the defense attorney's point of view) and have figured out that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I've enjoyed the conversation here ... Thanks for letting me hang out in 2A for a while ... I'm gonna go terrorize the chickens and make sure GC has clean sheets to sleep on as he is doing a "turn-around" shift tonight. Ya'll carry on!

 

[MoBoost]

I think it was asked, but not answered - "it looks like automatic rifle" is indeed reasonable cause for detention? How is it any different than claiming that "this firearm looks to be loaded with illegal ammo"?

I understand that the guy is really asking for it and can't keep his mouth shut - but I don't think that's a very good reason to give up any rights.

Thanks.

 

[henschman]

BadgeBunny is right that cops don't have a whole lot of say in which calls they get to respond to. However, they do have a lot of choice in how they handle the situation once they are called, and it is part of their responsibility to address any concerns as aggressively as possible WITHIN THE LAW. Obviously it is part of their responsibilities to know the law and the legal limits on their own choice of action. Certainly it would not be good police work to address a legitimately concerned citizen's call about a man with a gun by just telling the citizen that open carry is legal and to buzz off... if a call goes out, the cop needs to show up, locate the subject of the call, and make consensual contact to adequately address the situation. None of this requires any sort of suspicion of wrongdoing. In addition, a cop would be completely within his rights, as would any member of the public, to tell the subject exactly what he thinks of his behavior, and even to lecture him about how not all legal behavior is smart behavior. The process of making consensual contact, and the conversations that ensue, frequently give rise to reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that a crime is being committed... in which case it is proper to detain the suspect, either for further investigation or for prosecution. But if there is no RS or PC present, no contact beyond consensual contact would be warranted. In the vast majority of cases, this sort of contact should give the cop a pretty good idea of whether the subject is actually a danger or not. And if there is no reason to suspect a crime is being committed, the cop can tell the concerned citizen that he checked into the situation, that the man is lawfully carrying a firearm, that he doesn't believe him to be a danger, and that there is nothing more he can legally do about the situation.

For the situation at hand, I think it should have been clear within the first few seconds of contact exactly what the subject was about, based on his statements and attitude... it becomes immediately clear that he is an "activist" who is trying to draw attention to himself and then aggressively assert his rights, that he was anticipating and preparing for police contact, and that he does not pose a threat to anyone's life or limb. If he thought it was a possible issue, he should inquire as to the legal status of the firearm, and if the answer and conduct of the subject doesn't raise RS of a crime being committed, he should give the aforementioned "helpful advice" and end the encounter. If it were me, I wouldn't want to "feed the bear" any more than necessary. Obviously the kid is trying to provoke an illegal response and publicize it or file a lawsuit over it.

 

[vicious]

off-topic

There have been posts in which I have seen a few quips about how the open carry law was unnecessary and more notably a bad idea. I think what really rubbed me wrong, and is not fair to the other officers on here, where they said that they plan to check everyone for their ID regardless of whether they are suspicious or not, even though it was perceived that it would not be department policy. Unfortunately the thread that was in was deleted, or I'd be able to quote it word for word. It's quite possible I misinterpreted sarcasm, but unfortunately I saw it more than once so I don't know that's the case.

Please, don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for the boys in blue, both on this forum and off. I've even posted some contrary opinions based on what I've experienced in person. I've found that most of the police I've spoke with feel exactly how you stated.

It may simply be that I've only seen a couple of negative posts, and glossed over the positive ones.

/off-topic

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.

 

[Glocktogo]

Thanks for the clarification. Not all officers are on board with open carry. Hopefully it will turn out no different than concealed carry back when it was passed.