All The Open Carry Folks wanted a court decision......

[hrdware]

Read the article again than. there was no rights violated. the ranger was well and full within his rights to do what he did. granted this probably wouldnt have happen if he was carrying a regular pistol, but no the less it can happen. Heres the last sentence from the article:
"Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we."
so noone but Embody and some of say his rights were violated. This would never hold up in court. he wasnt arrested. all they need is a suspicion or probably cause to detain u. An AK is plenty enough reason to detain u and make sure it is all legal. Why is it such a big deal to let them make sure u are a legal CCW carrier and hav a legal gun. and plus we do NOT live in a society where we civilians can walk down the street with an AK or other similar weapon without getting looks from ppl and most certainly get the cops called on u. this guy wasnt doing anything but causing us more trouble with rights for owning and carrying guns. Jesus if he approached me in a public park in camo and an AK, i would hav at least had my hand on my gun if not drawn it and disarmed him myself. its stupid. if he was hunting, it would be another thing. From a defense standpoint, an AK in public park to defend urself is also stupid. if you had to actually defend urself with an AK pistol, the probability is much higher that u will injure/kill someone u are not intended to shoot. Its a 7.62X39 round for christ sakes!! Would u want that on ur conscience? trying to make a statement carrying this type of gun, actually having to use it to defend urself, accidental having a round go through ur intended target and wounding or killing an innocent civilian who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We CCW carriers have to think smartly while we are carrying. An AK is not a smart idea. its why i carry a .40 S&W. i dont want to shoot anyone im not intending to.

First off, I never disagreed with the article, I have already stated that I think the stop was 100% legit. In this case, the reasonable suspicion was that the firearm in question would have been considered a rifle under the laws of that state due to barrel length. The stop in this case was not for open carry, it was for open carry of what was perceived to be a rifle. I have no problem with the rangers stopping him and making sure he had a pistol by definition.

Now we get to the part of your argument that is based completely on emotion. It doesn't matter if you think it is not a good idea to carry a 7.62 in a park for self defense, the law of that state allows it. Good idea or not, it is perfectly legal...if people don't like that, they need to work to change it. In Oklahoma, the law specifically states you can not carry anything larger than a .45. If we accepted emotional prejudice as our guiding factor we still wouldn't have any kind of carry because there are lots of people who think guns are scary and the average citizen is to incompetent to use them correctly.

 

[hrdware]

Maybe i dont know this but where does it say that a PO cant detain u to make sure u are carrying legally? i honestly dont know if it does so this is a serious question. i cant keep up with all the new legislation on CCW and gun ownership. im too busy looking to buy new guns lol. And i really dont see the big deal for a PO to stop someone and detain them to make sure everything is legal. As long as the PO is respectful and professional id be more than happy to cooperate. If you get arrested, its a different story for carrying legally, its another story. but this is just my feelings on this subject. We all know carrying an AK is ridiculous to a public park in camo. right? am i the only one? lol

Check out the court case Terry v. Ohio. A driver was stopped for the sole purpose to see if they had a drivers license. The supreme court ruled that without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed, officers could not check someone for their papers. It is a violation of the 4th amendment to search and seize someones ID to make sure they are legal without some kind of suspicion of a crime.

I'm sure you wouldn't be happy if an officer just decided to relieve you of your firearm for no reason, same thing. And even if they ask for it and you show it to them (they didn't search you for it or take it by force) it still falls under the search and seizure clause because there are legal repercussions if you don't show it to them.

If I am walking down the street and an officer stops me, I am not required to show ID, but if I open carry, I now have to(according to state law that will become effective Nov 1). The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?

 

[Blurplers]

First off, I never disagreed with the article, I have already stated that I think the stop was 100% legit. In this case, the reasonable suspicion was that the firearm in question would have been considered a rifle under the laws of that state due to barrel length. The stop in this case was not for open carry, it was for open carry of what was perceived to be a rifle. I have no problem with the rangers stopping him and making sure he had a pistol by definition.

Now we get to the part of your argument that is based completely on emotion. It doesn't matter if you think it is not a good idea to carry a 7.62 in a park for self defense, the law of that state allows it. Good idea or not, it is perfectly legal...if people don't like that, they need to work to change it. In Oklahoma, the law specifically states you can not carry anything larger than a .45. If we accepted emotional prejudice as our guiding factor we still wouldn't have any kind of carry because there are lots of people who think guns are scary and the average citizen is to incompetent to use them correctly.

I wasnt specifically accusing u of anything if thats what u mean. never said you disagreed with the stop. The reasonable suspicion was that the firearm in question could have been illegal and therefore perfectly legal for the PO to stop him and check him and the gun. u think my argument is nothing but emotional, well its not. its completely logical. im sry i think b4 i do something. sry i think of possible outcomes with the weapon i carry and what could happen if **** hit the fan. All of us gun carries are suppose to be responsible enough to think b4 we act, or at least plan for wat we think can happen. Carrying a AK type or similar weapon is illogical in the society we live in. A guy like this is only helping the politicians to make stricter gun laws. Im not trying to bash on anyone, but some of the ppls responses to this topic are more emotional than mine. There was no law or rights broken. It really is not a big deal to get stopped by a PO to make sure everything is legit. and for anyone who thinks it is, well i feel bad for u all. lol

 

[Blurplers]

Terry v. Ohio: all it would take is for him to be speeding 1 mph over the speed limit for a crime to have been committed. i havent read this case and dont intend to. dont have the time, since im working right now. u said " I am not required to show ID, but if I open carry, I now have to(according to state law that will become effective Nov 1)." So from wat u said all of us who open carry will have to show ID to a PO if stopped for whatever reason. So how is that any different with this guy and his AK? he was open carrying. therefore he was stopped, and had to show that he was carrying legally as well at the gun was legal. How is it any different that a Game Warden approaching u when ur hunting, asking to see ur hunting license? Game Wardens have just as much legal experience as any PO if not more since they have to deal with the hunting legal issues. " The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" If you were carrying a "normal firearm", the chances of u getting stopped in a situation like this AK guy did are slim at best. if you are carrying an rifle or rifle type weapon, that alone is suspicion that a crime may have been committed and perfectly legal for a PO to stop and check u. If you were carrying a 1911 openly or any other similar weapon, u damn sure ppl are going to get stopped come Nov 1st. its going to happen regardless. No. 1 if a PO stopped me to check i was carrying legally and disarmed me to check everything out. HELL no i wouldnt mind. i wouldnt react like an ass or be unhappy. he is doing his job. U just said you thought that this stop by this PO was 100% legal. but u keep contradicting the legality of it. " The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" A regular pistol may not produce reasonable suspicion, but an AK does. so i really dont understand if u think this guys' rights were violated or if the PO was well within the legal doctrine of stopping this guy. ur words seem way to contradicting to me.

 

[hrdware]

I wasnt specifically accusing u of anything if thats what u mean. never said you disagreed with the stop. The reasonable suspicion was that the firearm in question could have been illegal and therefore perfectly legal for the PO to stop him and check him and the gun.

Agree 100%.

u think my argument is nothing but emotional, well its not. its completely logical. im sry i think b4 i do something. sry i think of possible outcomes with the weapon i carry and what could happen if **** hit the fan. All of us gun carries are suppose to be responsible enough to think b4 we act, or at least plan for wat we think can happen. Carrying a AK type or similar weapon is illogical in the society we live in. A guy like this is only helping the politicians to make stricter gun laws. Im not trying to bash on anyone, but some of the ppls responses to this topic are more emotional than mine. There was no law or rights broken. It really is not a big deal to get stopped by a PO to make sure everything is legit. and for anyone who thinks it is, well i feel bad for u all. lol

Yes, it is an emotional response to think a stop like this is ok because of they type of firearm (an AK) even though everything about it was legal. Logically, to you (and most people) this is not a great idea, but it is not illegal in his state. You don't agree with his choice and that provides you the justification for an officer to intervene. Would you have been OK with the stop if the barrel would have been 8 inches, obviously below the 12 inch legal limit?

Putting up with being stopped by a PO to "check things out" is more of a hassle than anything, however it is a big deal because they are doing things they really don't have authority to do.

u said " I am not required to show ID, but if I open carry, I now have to(according to state law that will become effective Nov 1)." So from wat u said all of us who open carry will have to show ID to a PO if stopped for whatever reason. So how is that any different with this guy and his AK? he was open carrying. therefore he was stopped, and had to show that he was carrying legally as well at the gun was legal.

The difference is that in this case there was RAS for the stop, the belief that the barrel on the firearm was to long, thereby making it an illegal weapon for open carry. The new state law does provide that an officer can demand to see your permit for no reason than they want to see it, even though this is state law, it still violates the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

How is it any different that a Game Warden approaching u when ur hunting, asking to see ur hunting license? Game Wardens have just as much legal experience as any PO if not more since they have to deal with the hunting legal issues. "

I don't have a right to hunt, I have to have permission to do so. Technically I have a right to carry a firearm, but in OK I have to have permission to do that as well.

The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" If you were carrying a "normal firearm", the chances of u getting stopped in a situation like this AK guy did are slim at best. if you are carrying an rifle or rifle type weapon, that alone is suspicion that a crime may have been committed and perfectly legal for a PO to stop and check u.

Not an issue in OK since you will not be able to open carry a rifle.

If you were carrying a 1911 openly or any other similar weapon, u damn sure ppl are going to get stopped come Nov 1st. its going to happen regardless. No. 1 if a PO stopped me to check i was carrying legally and disarmed me to check everything out. HELL no i wouldnt mind. i wouldnt react like an ass or be unhappy. he is doing his job. U just said you thought that this stop by this PO was 100% legal. but u keep contradicting the legality of it. " The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" A regular pistol may not produce reasonable suspicion, but an AK does. so i really dont understand if u think this guys' rights were violated or if the PO was well within the legal doctrine of stopping this guy. ur words seem way to contradicting to me.

He may be doing his job, but he is violating your civil rights. I am not contradicting the legality of this particular stop, I am saying that in general, without RAS it is a civil rights violation. In the persons state, an AK pistol is perfectly legal for open carry and should not produce RAS, the barrel length produced RAS.

 

[Michael Brown]

Check out the court case Terry v. Ohio. A driver was stopped for the sole purpose to see if they had a drivers license. The supreme court ruled that without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed, officers could not check someone for their papers. It is a violation of the 4th amendment to search and seize someones ID to make sure they are legal without some kind of suspicion of a crime.

You are completely wrong about the facts in Terry vs. Ohio.

The issues in Terry have nothing to do with driving or identification.

Before giving out information, you should read the facts.

In fact, Terry directly contradicts the point you are making.

I quote:

“ Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. ”
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 14–15


Michael Brown

 

[hrdware]

You are completely wrong about the facts in Terry vs. Ohio.

The issues in Terry have nothing to do with driving or identification.

Before giving out information, you should read the facts.

In fact, Terry directly contradicts the point you are making.

I quote:

“ Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. ”
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 14–15


Michael Brown

My facts of what happened in the case were incorrect, but the outcome is still the same.

Two men were observed in suspicious behavior (allegedly casing a store for a hold up), the two were joined by a third who quickly left. The two eventually joined the third a few blocks away. The three were searched and a revolver was found on two of them. The defense wanted the finding of the firearms thrown out because they claimed violation of the 4th. The courts ruled that if there was suspicion a crime had been committed or was about to be committed, then the search was warranted and not a violation of the 4th Amendment.

As a result, if an officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime, a search may be warranted. Without reasonable suspicion it is not.

I got my cases mixed up, but Terry v. Ohio allows searches with reasonable suspicion of a crime, but without that reasonable suspicion of a crime, a search is still a violation of the 4th.

 

[mons meg]

All I was saying is I don't think the case in question will affect current "Terry standards" such as they are. It's not significant enough, IMO.

 

[LightningCrash]

I find the use of tweener text speak in this thread troubling.

 

[Michael Brown]

My facts of what happened in the case were incorrect, but the outcome is still the same.

Two men were observed in suspicious behavior (allegedly casing a store for a hold up), the two were joined by a third who quickly left. The two eventually joined the third a few blocks away. The three were searched and a revolver was found on two of them. The defense wanted the finding of the firearms thrown out because they claimed violation of the 4th. The courts ruled that if there was suspicion a crime had been committed or was about to be committed, then the search was warranted and not a violation of the 4th Amendment.

As a result, if an officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime, a search may be warranted. Without reasonable suspicion it is not.

I got my cases mixed up, but Terry v. Ohio allows searches with reasonable suspicion of a crime, but without that reasonable suspicion of a crime, a search is still a violation of the 4th.

You didn't get cases mixed up; You just haven't read any of them. You have done a minimal amount of internet research and are now offering definitive opinions.

When you don't know what you're talking about, the best thing to do is not to post.

If you don't know what you are talking about and choose to post anyway and prove you're talking out of your ass, the best thing to do is simply accept your error, learn from your mistake and move on. Don't try to mitigate your error.

Terry doesn't deal with "searches". It deals specifically and narrowly with patdowns of the exterior clothing that may or may not include an arrest based on suspicion of a crime that may include the use of a weapon. A stop of an open carrier is not judged under the Terry standard since the subject is known to be armed not suspected of such as would be the case in a Terry stop.

As Mons Meg stated, this case will not affect the Terry standards and will likely not alter the premise of the state law.

If there is language in Terry v. Ohio that will be applied to detention of open carriers, it will likely be the portion I quoted as supported by the decision in the original post.

Michael Brown