Chief Deputy Brad Stanley of the Forsyth County, NC Sheriff's Office says....

In Forsyth County North Carolina the Police have chosen to harass law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their constitutional rights. Its bad enough that the county is doing everything it can to circumvent a new state law expanding concealed carry rights to parks but now they are intentionally trying to threaten OCers with the help of The Winston Salem Journal.

Stanley pointed out that the state does have a law against "going armed to the terror of the people." What that means is you can be charged with a violation if your carrying of a weapon scares the daylights out of folks.



"Most likely, people will call law enforcement and they will confront you and ask why you are walking down Main Street with a gun," Stanley said. "If I see a guy walking down the street and he has a gun, I will be inquisitive."


Action put off on guns-in-parks issue | JournalNow.com

Please read this article and tell me what I missed.

Tracer

The Deputy needs to hit the books in NC to find out what constitutes a violation of the GATTTOTP law. A holstered firearm does not constitute an arrestable offense under that statute. There is case law on this and he should know better.

We have anti gun Law Enforcement Officers in Wisconsin too. When they violate our rights, the result is often a law suit. Thus far, each case has resulted in a monetary award to the law abiding person whose rights were violated.

By in large NC is a gun friendly state. Being stationed here I've read up on the laws here and they do have some stupid ones resulting carry. However LE can't have it both ways. You can say something is ok but then turn around and say no it's not just because you encounter some crazy anti who things guns are bad. Now if a the police respond to a MWAG call and everyone around runs up to them say that guy with the gun was acting crazy and waving it at everyone I would be scared to. But if Joe Smith is walking down the street with a 1911 in holster minding his own dang business everyone needs to bug off.

The wearing of a beard, mustache or skin piercings could be considered terror to the people. A gun carried legally should be just another tool like a hammer or screwdriver on a tool belt. The police should be held liable for harassment if no laws are broken.

Here is the comment I posted.

Deputy Stanley needs to look up State v Huntley that outlines what GATTTOTP is. And simply open carrying a firearm in no way fits the definition. As a matter of fact the NCSC has ruled that "For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun." And commissioner Whiteheart needs to look into NCGS 14-409.40 (f). We have been able to store a firearm in our cars for a long time, even in parks. Per the statute, "except nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a person from storing a firearm within a motor vehicle while the vehicle is on these grounds or areas. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chief1297

The Deputy needs to hit the books in NC to find out what constitutes a violation of the GATTTOTP law. A holstered firearm does not constitute an arrestable offense under that statute. There is case law on this and he should know better.

---

Seems that ignorance of the law is an excuse if you are the government. Its only the citizens that are required to know and obey the laws.

Michael

Unfortunately that is the problem with laws and lawmaking.

There are so many dang laws that people, including Law Enforcement cannot keep up with them and the changes or amendments to them.

One states laws differ from the next ones and the laws vary even from city to city and county to county.

It's a pathetic system but it's all we have. The only way to beat it is to keep up on the laws and carry copies of them on us at all times.

OK I added a couple comments, unfortunately the smart:booty: came out a little bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

In Forsyth County North Carolina the Police have chosen to harass law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their constitutional rights. Its bad enough that the county is doing everything it can to circumvent a new state law expanding concealed carry rights to parks but now they are intentionally trying to threaten OCers with the help of The Winston Salem Journal.

Stanley pointed out that the state does have a law against "going armed to the terror of the people." What that means is you can be charged with a violation if your carrying of a weapon scares the daylights out of folks.



"Most likely, people will call law enforcement and they will confront you and ask why you are walking down Main Street with a gun," Stanley said. "If I see a guy walking down the street and he has a gun, I will be inquisitive."


Action put off on guns-in-parks issue | JournalNow.com

Please read this article and tell me what I missed.

Tracer

---

I'm not sure how you view the police as being "inquisitive" when they see someone walking down the street with a weapon as being "harassment". You do understand that the police can stop and talk to anyone they want without any "legal reason" right? They can detain you, forcibly if necessary, upon reasonable suspicion, and arrest you upon probable cause, but they can talk to anyone they want for any or no reason. It is quite clear that the chief deputy in this case don't know the ins and outs of GATTOTP, but then again, as a chief deputy, it has probably been a long time since he did any real law enforcement. Hopefully the patrol deputies know better.

At any rate, the police are supposed to be suspicious and curious, and yes, inquisitive, that is what we pay them for, they just have to act within the bounds of the law.

When the good Chief Deputy and his department have to hand over large sums of cash for lawsuits involving harrassment and violation of state law and constutional rights, he'll get educated in a hurry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Landric

I'm not sure how you view the police as being "inquisitive" when they see someone walking down the street with a weapon as being "harassment". You do understand that the police can stop and talk to anyone they want without any "legal reason" right? They can detain you, forcibly if necessary, upon reasonable suspicion, and arrest you upon probable cause, but they can talk to anyone they want for any or no reason. It is quite clear that the chief deputy in this case don't know the ins and outs of GATTOTP, but then again, as a chief deputy, it has probably been a long time since he did any real law enforcement. Hopefully the patrol deputies know better.

At any rate, the police are supposed to be suspicious and curious, and yes, inquisitive, that is what we pay them for, they just have to act within the bounds of the law.

---

And that ususally involves some measure of violation of a state statute. Reasonable suspicion of ? Probable cause for?
The police have the right ato ask anything they wish; you also have to right to say nothing and carry on with your business as usual.

If the elected County Attorney will not educate the elected Sheriff, the voters can remedy the situation when their tax statements show a hit from this stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoJoGunn

Unfortunately that is the problem with laws and lawmaking.

There are so many dang laws that people, including Law Enforcement cannot keep up with them and the changes or amendments to them.

One states laws differ from the next ones and the laws vary even from city to city and county to county.

It's a pathetic system but it's all we have. The only way to beat it is to keep up on the laws and carry copies of them on us at all times.

---

The trouble here is that if the ordinary citizen breaks a law he does not know about he will pay a price for his lack of knowledge. If the police make an arrest because of their lack of knowledge of the law the citizen will still possibly pay through lost work to appear in court or lawyer fees.

I know when I occasionally do ride alongs with LEO friends they are very exact when writing down the number of the code being violated when documenting a stop.

What code number is used when a person is cited for a law that does not exist? I do not expect every officer to know all the laws but is it to much to ask for them to know the ones they are attempting to enforce? I believe it perfectly reasonable to stop someone if you believe they are breaking a law. To make that assumption do you not have to know the particular law you believe is being violated?
If I am being stopped should the officer be expected to know the exact law he is stopping me for. Should he be expected to know that there is a law?

Michael

LEO are doing the same thing in Wisconsin have been for years. DA and court will not stop them for every case we win they get away with many