Video: Citizen is detained for open carry.

[jcizzle]

How do you figure? You have a single phrase uttered by an agency administrator that these instances will be left to officer discretion. What you don't have is any context whatsoever within which to place that phrase. The fact is that most agency policies are guidelines, which have exceptions. It will always be up to officer discretion whether to initiate a field contact. You, the general public and agency administrators would be doing a grave disservice to all officers in the field if you attempted to restrict what is at the very core of good police work.

Simply initiating a field contact is not "harassment by cops". The new OC law has protections in place so that a subject of a field contact is not taken to a higher level if you're in the right. Some magic shield for you to wield in order to never have to talk to an officer isn't one of them. What I fail to understand is why anyone on either side would want to make it an adversarial proposition?

The segment you bolded was in reply to the previous poster's mentioning that there will be bad cops just like any other profession but most are not (paraphrasing). With the TCSO leaving it up to the officers as to whether or not they want to random check those seen open carrying invites the opportunity for said bad cop to push his agenda. No, being legally questioned is not technically harassment, however, some PDs and some officers will use that ability to random check without other cause other than being seein OCing as a way to push the agenda of "inconveniencing" the OCer. If it becomes enough of in inconvenience, people will slowly and voluntarily give up the right fought so hard to re-gain.

I've not read final version of bill that Fallin signed but kept up with it until final vote and at that time don't recall any specific protection from a LEO from approaching and requesting to see permit with no other cause. If so, how are PDs and SDs publicly announcing plans to do just that?

I'm just stating that next year, a good next step would be to push for that protection specific in the law that you should not be stopped for permit unless there is some other reason or suspicion to stop you. This would take it out of the hands of the individual LEO.

 

[kd5rjz]

How do you figure? You have a single phrase uttered by an agency administrator that these instances will be left to officer discretion. What you don't have is any context whatsoever within which to place that phrase. The fact is that most agency policies are guidelines, which have exceptions. It will always be up to officer discretion whether to initiate a field contact. You, the general public and agency administrators would be doing a grave disservice to all officers in the field if you attempted to restrict what is at the very core of good police work.

Simply initiating a field contact is not "harassment by cops". The new OC law has protections in place so that a subject of a field contact is not taken to a higher level if you're in the right. Some magic shield for you to wield in order to never have to talk to an officer isn't one of them. What I fail to understand is why anyone on either side would want to make it an adversarial proposition?

While I agree with you that there is no evidence that any of our local agencies will be harassing us for OC, I will continue to CC in part to keep officers from initiating "field contact" with me. I try to stay within the law as much as possible and find "field contact" to be a waste of my time. I would rather the law not include giving LEO's the ability to check papers on anyone with a visible gun, but that's what we wound up with and I guess it's progress compared to getting a ticket for printing.

 

[kd5rjz]

The segment you bolded was in reply to the previous poster's mentioning that there will be bad cops just like any other profession but most are not (paraphrasing). With the TCSO leaving it up to the officers as to whether or not they want to random check those seen open carrying invites the opportunity for said bad cop to push his agenda. No, being legally questioned is not technically harassment, however, some PDs and some officers will use that ability to random check without other cause other than being seein OCing as a way to push the agenda of "inconveniencing" the OCer. If it becomes enough of in inconvenience, people will slowly and voluntarily give up the right fought so hard to re-gain.

It won't be much difference than the BS DUI checkpoints we endure now, the good cops will go about business as usual and the bad cops will continue to use it as another excuse to invade our privacy and waste our time.

The law needs to be amended to get rid of the money-grab permits, then it will be a non-issue.

 

[beast1989]

Yes i see what you are saying dave.

Beast,


MLR was pointing out the police officer (and those who approach OC-ers in a similar manner) think that way, not that he (MLR) agrees with that line of thought.

VR,

John

I was referring to another post where a rhetorical question was being made about what an activist is. I was merely stating what seems to be the beliefs of some of those who oppose freedom.
I actually agree with you that a person does not need a reason to exercise his rights.
As for who gets to decide what is justifiable? The ones with the biggest hammer, same as its always been.

Michael

When I went through the thread originally I skimmed over the typical osa mutterings and read a bit more into micheal's. If you look at my previous post you will see that Dave mentioned your point(s) and I concurred.

 

[Glocktogo]

The segment you bolded was in reply to the previous poster's mentioning that there will be bad cops just like any other profession but most are not (paraphrasing). With the TCSO leaving it up to the officers as to whether or not they want to random check those seen open carrying invites the opportunity for said bad cop to push his agenda. No, being legally questioned is not technically harassment, however, some PDs and some officers will use that ability to random check without other cause other than being seein OCing as a way to push the agenda of "inconveniencing" the OCer. If it becomes enough of in inconvenience, people will slowly and voluntarily give up the right fought so hard to re-gain.

I've not read final version of bill that Fallin signed but kept up with it until final vote and at that time don't recall any specific protection from a LEO from approaching and requesting to see permit with no other cause. If so, how are PDs and SDs publicly announcing plans to do just that?

I'm just stating that next year, a good next step would be to push for that protection specific in the law that you should not be stopped for permit unless there is some other reason or suspicion to stop you. This would take it out of the hands of the individual LEO.

The only way I really see to do that is to get constitutional carry passed. Even an amendment to the law saying a LEO can't ask to see your permit wouldn't hold up as a real protection. Say an officer sees you OC'ing just as you turn away from him. Would the fact that you're attempting to "evade detection" by him, give reasonable suspicion that you may be illegally carrying without a permit?

While I agree with you that there is no evidence that any of our local agencies will be harassing us for OC, I will continue to CC in part to keep officers from initiating "field contact" with me. I try to stay within the law as much as possible and find "field contact" to be a waste of my time. I would rather the law not include giving LEO's the ability to check papers on anyone with a visible gun, but that's what we wound up with and I guess it's progress compared to getting a ticket for printing.

I agree. Will some officers do it? Sure. That's why I've posted my opinions on how to handle the ones that use it as an excuse to harass. Reinforcing that you're a good guy exercising their rights and not out to intimidate anyone or troll for a bad LEO contact will go a LONG ways towards making this type of improper procedure, short lived.

 

[Michael Brown]

The segment you bolded was in reply to the previous poster's mentioning that there will be bad cops just like any other profession but most are not (paraphrasing). With the TCSO leaving it up to the officers as to whether or not they want to random check those seen open carrying invites the opportunity for said bad cop to push his agenda. No, being legally questioned is not technically harassment, however, some PDs and some officers will use that ability to random check without other cause other than being seein OCing as a way to push the agenda of "inconveniencing" the OCer. If it becomes enough of in inconvenience, people will slowly and voluntarily give up the right fought so hard to re-gain.

I've not read final version of bill that Fallin signed but kept up with it until final vote and at that time don't recall any specific protection from a LEO from approaching and requesting to see permit with no other cause. If so, how are PDs and SDs publicly announcing plans to do just that?

I'm just stating that next year, a good next step would be to push for that protection specific in the law that you should not be stopped for permit unless there is some other reason or suspicion to stop you. This would take it out of the hands of the individual LEO.

By this rationale, we ought to ban guns because some bad apple might/will misuse an otherwise lawful and beneficial tool.

This is why my individual-responsibility rationale makes sense regardless of what laws any legislature passes.

If we pass laws to prevent all possibility of misuse of anything, almost nothing will be legal.

Hold an individual accountable each time he/she does something to the best of your capability and then understand that the process in this and every country is run by humans and will always be prone to error, corruption, ignorance, and many other problems.

Minimize your opportunities to be confronted by such issues, be informed and move on.

Michael Brown

 

[jcizzle]

By this rationale, we ought to ban guns because some bad apple might/will misuse an otherwise lawful and beneficial tool.

This is why my individual-responsibility rationale makes sense regardless of what laws any legislature passes.

If we pass laws to prevent all possibility of misuse of anything, almost nothing will be legal.

Hold an individual accountable each time he/she does something to the best of your capability and then understand that the process in this and every country is run by humans and will always be prone to error, corruption, ignorance, and many other problems.

Minimize your opportunities to be confronted by such issues, be informed and move on.

Michael Brown

I agree that more laws is not the full answer. However until we have constitutional carry the law really only limits the citizen not the govt party.

Equating a law limiting govt reach with a law limiting individual freedom is too much of a stretch for me to buy in to.

If u want to pull the freedom and laws card I will saw laws limiting the reach of our govt and its agents are good. If u feel laws limiting govt and laws limiting individuals are one and the same then we are just cut from totally different cloth.

 

[Michael Brown]

I agree that more laws is not the full answer. However until we have constitutional carry the law really only limits the citizen not the govt party.

Equating a law limiting govt reach with a law limiting individual freedom is too much of a stretch for me to buy in to.

If u want to pull the freedom and laws card I will saw laws limiting the reach of our govt and its agents are good. If u feel laws limiting govt and laws limiting individuals are one and the same then we are just cut from totally different cloth.

You are probably correct that we are cut from a different cloth. Based on your statements here, I'm pretty certain that is the case.

The point I'm making is that I believe you simply like one and dislike the other so principle does not apply.

I don't agree with that but one of the nice things about this country is that we don't have to agree.

Michael Brown

 

[Glocktogo]

I agree that more laws is not the full answer. However until we have constitutional carry the law really only limits the citizen not the govt party.

Equating a law limiting govt reach with a law limiting individual freedom is too much of a stretch for me to buy in to.

If u want to pull the freedom and laws card I will saw laws limiting the reach of our govt and its agents are good. If u feel laws limiting govt and laws limiting individuals are one and the same then we are just cut from totally different cloth.

LEO's are citizens too. Citizens first and foremost in my book. Your opinion is that it's OK to limit their rights to free association and self preservation, just because you don't want to talk to them. If a LEO is abusing their special powers, the correct response is to retrain them, discipline them, and ultimately fire them if they don't get the message. The answer is not to restrict their ability to effectively do their job safely, just to satisfy your need to excessively control them. JMO, YMMV

 

[doctorjj]

How do you figure? You have a single phrase uttered by an agency administrator that these instances will be left to officer discretion. What you don't have is any context whatsoever within which to place that phrase. The fact is that most agency policies are guidelines, which have exceptions. It will always be up to officer discretion whether to initiate a field contact. You, the general public and agency administrators would be doing a grave disservice to all officers in the field if you attempted to restrict what is at the very core of good police work.

Simply initiating a field contact is not "harassment by cops". The new OC law has protections in place so that a subject of a field contact is not taken to a higher level if you're in the right. Some magic shield for you to wield in order to never have to talk to an officer isn't one of them. What I fail to understand is why anyone on either side would want to make it an adversarial proposition?

I wouldn't want to make it adversarial but I think the issue is that otherwise law abiding citizens shouldn't be harassed, detained or even inconvenienced by an officer. Maybe I'm weird but I still think the 4th amendment is a big deal.