Question for OCers - Page 3

Question for OCers

This is a discussion on Question for OCers within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by F350 So if a couple cops knocked on the door of your house and asked to search you wouldn't have a problem ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54
Like Tree57Likes

Thread: Question for OCers

  1. #31
    Member Array kmf0925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wyoming, MI
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    So if a couple cops knocked on the door of your house and asked to search you wouldn't have a problem 'cause after all you're not doing anything illegal and people do cook meth in their houses you know!!1 Not being facetious, just interested in where you would draw the line??
    Those are all good points. I guess I would say I draw the line like this.. it is legal for me to sit in my house and mind my own business. It is legal for me to have phone conversations. However, it is illegal and in some cases a federal felony for some people to own firearms. Your right, I probably wouldn't let an LEO in my house without a warrant or any sort of probably cause. I still say I'd simply show my ID if an LEO asked while I was open carrying. Just my personal opinion.
    smolck likes this.


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Originally Posted by Badey
    You are free to agree with him, but he is an officer, and acting in an official duty; he is not paid for his opinions, he is paid for law enforcement. If he doesn't like OC, he is free to have that opinion, but he shouldn't be putting it forward while in his official capacity, JMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by smolck View Post
    I can see your point. And to some extent, I agree. However, I am able to objectively look at BOTH sides because I wasn't involved.

    Police officers are humans just like you and I are humans. We aren't perfect everyday of our lives now are we? Why should police officers be held to a different standard? Maybe he had a bad day. Also, maybe that officer has seen the tragic side of guns in the hands of idiots and morons. After some time, I bet that takes a toll on you. Why not try and see it from the other persons side once in awhile.
    [/QUOTE]
    Wasn't addressed to me but here goes. I do not accept being yelled at or rudely lectured by others so why would I allow it from a public servant? I do not care who you are. If you are having a bad day deal with it but leave me out of it. If you have seen to many tragedies in your time on the job and can no longer deal with it them maybe its time to move on.

    Michael

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by kmf0925 View Post
    Those are all good points. I guess I would say I draw the line like this.. it is legal for me to sit in my house and mind my own business. It is legal for me to have phone conversations. However, it is illegal and in some cases a federal felony for some people to own firearms. Your right, I probably wouldn't let an LEO in my house without a warrant or any sort of probably cause. I still say I'd simply show my ID if an LEO asked while I was open carrying. Just my personal opinion.
    It is as you say illegal in some cases for an individual to own firearms. By that same token it is also illegal in many cases to discuss certain things over the phone. Also many thing a person might do in their house is illegal. Your line is blurry.

    Michael
    Badey likes this.

  4. #34
    Member Array jrclen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Central Wisconsin
    Posts
    342
    I still fail to see any advantage to an officer to know my name if I am not breaking the law. Asking for ID when there is no law being broken is just an act of bullying by the officer. Showing the citizen who has the authority and who is in charge. Works in Russia, not in the USA.
    Shall not be infringed means - shall not be infringed.
    Member - NRA
    John

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,144
    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    While on a business trip, I was sitting by the hotel pool one evening, and an officer walked up and asked (through the fence) for my ID.

    It never crossed my mind to make a big deal out of it. While handing it to him, he explained that someone had just robbed a nearby store and that I fit the description. A smile, nod and a "stay safe" later, I was laying back by the pool.

    I was breaking no more laws than a legal OCer, only it never crossed my mind to make scene, because I didn't have a chip on my shoulder.
    So store robbers don't carry ID but might sit by the pool? What if you were swimming and not in possession of your ID? Would he tie up his time escorting you to your room to check your ID? I fail to see the officer's logic.
    suntzu and carracer like this.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by smolck View Post
    I can see your point. And to some extent, I agree. However, I am able to objectively look at BOTH sides because I wasn't involved.

    Police officers are humans just like you and I are humans. We aren't perfect everyday of our lives now are we? Why should police officers be held to a different standard? Maybe he had a bad day. Also, maybe that officer has seen the tragic side of guns in the hands of idiots and morons. After some time, I bet that takes a toll on you. Why not try and see it from the other persons side once in awhile.
    I see your point and I do try to look at both sides objectively, but by your own admission you are not objective since you think OC is stupid.

    I don't expect an LEO to be perfect, but bad day or no, he has no right to use his badge to try to pressure me to cover my sidearm. If he wants to yell at me or swear at me while off duty, that is one thing, but while on duty he is held to a different standard.

    Similarly, when I worked in customer service, I had to play nice, regardless of whether or not my dad was in the hospital, or the cat puked on the brand new carpet. I even had to listen while anti-2A people talked about banning guns (which I thought was stupid). When I was off the clock, I was free to say whatever and be rude to whomever I wanted to, but on the clock, I was expected to be kind and courteous, regardless of the circumstances.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    While on a business trip, I was sitting by the hotel pool one evening, and an officer walked up and asked (through the fence) for my ID.

    It never crossed my mind to make a big deal out of it. While handing it to him, he explained that someone had just robbed a nearby store and that I fit the description. A smile, nod and a "stay safe" later, I was laying back by the pool.

    I was breaking no more laws than a legal OCer, only it never crossed my mind to make scene, because I didn't have a chip on my shoulder.
    The difference is that in your case the officer had reasonable suspicion that you had committed a crime, as you fit the description of a person who had just committed a crime. This is not the case with OCers, unless they fit the description of someone who had just committed a crime.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array smolck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    I see your point and I do try to look at both sides objectively, but by your own admission you are not objective since you think OC is stupid.
    Yea, I suppose I did sort of come off that way. Maybe I should clarify my position on open carry. I do not think it is stupid. And again, I firmly support ANY gun rights and right to own and bear arms. I have no issue when encountering an OC'er in public. It has happened probably twice in the last year, both at my local outdoor store. My feeling (backed by what I call common sense) is that if someone chooses to OC they are 99.999999% likely to be legal. If you weren't legally carrying, you wouldn't have it out for the world to see (that's the "common sense" part).

    All that said, I personally do not see enough of an advantage to OC vs CC. I prefer to avoid the looks, stares, and possible hassles with the police. Again, the difference between me and the liberals is this, I don't care to or want to OC, but I defend your right to CHOOSE what YOU see fit to do. Hope that makes sense.

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by CARRY365 View Post
    My question is, why doesn't the OCer just ask the cop "Why don't you go tell the caller that there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing? Cops are supposed to enforce the law and I'm pretty sure they should inform the public if they falsely accuse of something that is leagal. Have a nice day!"
    In many Washington State jursdiction 911 operators do exactly that ask if the MWAG is doing anything threatening or criminal if not they explain that OC is legal. This came about because of several lawsuits for illegal detention

    Quote Originally Posted by paaiyan View Post
    In many states you're required to provide you license when "officially" contacted by an officer of the law. Oklahoma is one such state.
    Could you please provide a link to that Oklahoma statute? My understanding that is Unconstitutional. When I was growing up we were taught that one of the things the Nazi did was require people to carry papers that they had to present upon demand. We were also taught that our right to privacy is one of the benefits of living in a free nation, in America we would never be required to carry papers. It is a shame that anyone exercising their Constitutional Rights is now perceived as some kind of degenerate trouble maker.


    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    The videos are generally made when people are trying to make a point and bait the officers into doing something illegal caught on camera. I don't really think that those cases really help the cause, it just makes for pissed of police.
    Actually, if you investigate in most of those cases the video tape set ups come as a result of ongoing criminal conduct by a LEO under the color of law violating our Constitutional Rights. Sadly in cases like that where reason does not prevail because that PD thinks they are above the law and Constitution the only solution is to sue for civil rightist violations. Video Tapes provide excellent evidence.

    I do understand many see those who stand up for all of our civil rights as trouble makes. Just as Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus and Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr. and David Richmond for sitting at the white counter, were called trouble makers. Just like those other trouble makers who stared all this rights and freedom crap so many here seem to find so objectionable. You know them George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, John Morton, Benjamin Rush, George Ross, James Smith, James Wilson, George Taylor, John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Lewis Morris, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, William Floyd, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Jefferson, George Wythe, Thomas Nelson, Jr. , William Hooper, John Penn, Joseph Hewes, Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, Thomas Lynch, Jr., Thomas Heyward, Jr., Abraham Clark, John Hart, Francis Hopkinson, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Samuel Huntington, Roger Sherman, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Thomas Stone, William Paca the jerks who signed that trouble making Declaration Of Independence.

    Personally I would take great pride to be considered a trouble maker rather than being a complacent coward handing my paperwork over to those with a Gestapo mindset because it is the most convenient thing to do.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,096
    Quote Originally Posted by smolck View Post
    Yea, I suppose I did sort of come off that way. Maybe I should clarify my position on open carry. I do not think it is stupid. And again, I firmly support ANY gun rights and right to own and bear arms. I have no issue when encountering an OC'er in public. It has happened probably twice in the last year, both at my local outdoor store. My feeling (backed by what I call common sense) is that if someone chooses to OC they are 99.999999% likely to be legal. If you weren't legally carrying, you wouldn't have it out for the world to see (that's the "common sense" part).

    All that said, I personally do not see enough of an advantage to OC vs CC. I prefer to avoid the looks, stares, and possible hassles with the police. Again, the difference between me and the liberals is this, I don't care to or want to OC, but I defend your right to CHOOSE what YOU see fit to do. Hope that makes sense.
    Fair enough. I think that is a decent stance.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,088
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    Could you please provide a link to that Oklahoma statute? My understanding that is Unconstitutional. When I was growing up we were taught that one of the things the Nazi did was require people to carry papers that they had to present upon demand. We were also taught that our right to privacy is one of the benefits of living in a free nation, in America we would never be required to carry papers. It is a shame that anyone exercising their Constitutional Rights is now perceived as some kind of degenerate trouble maker.
    Here it is.

    TITLE 21 § 1290.8 POSSESSION OF LICENSE REQUIRED-NOTIFICATION TO POLICE OF GUN

    A. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, an eligible person shall have authority to carry a concealed handgun in this state when the person has been issued a handgun license from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act provided the person is in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, and the license has not expired or been subsequently suspended or revoked. A person in possession of a valid handgun license and in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall be authorized to carry such concealed handgun while bow hunting or fishing.

    B. The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punishable as a criminal offense as authorized by Section 1272 of this title or pursuant to any other applicable provision of law. In addition to any criminal prosecution which may result from not carrying the handgun license and the required identification with the authorized pistol as required by the provisions of this subsection, the person may be subject to an administrative fine for violation of the provisions of this subsection. The administrative fine shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) and shall be assessed by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation after a hearing and determination that the licensee is in violation of the provisions of this subsection. Any second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be grounds for the Bureau to suspend the handgun license for a period of six (6) months, in addition to any other penalty imposed.

    Upon the arrest of any person for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the person may show proof to the court that a valid handgun license and the other required identification has been issued to such person and the person may state any reason why the handgun license or the other required identification was not carried by the person as required by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. The court shall dismiss an alleged violation of Section 1272 of this title upon payment of court costs, if proof of a valid handgun license and other required identification is shown to the court within ten (10) days of the arrest of the person. The court shall report a dismissal of a charge to the Bureau for consideration of administrative proceedings against the licensee.

    C. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop. No person shall be required to identify himself or herself as a concealed handgun licensee when no handgun is in the person’s possession or in any vehicle in which the person is driving or is a passenger. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to any criminal prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the licensee shall be subject to a six-month suspension of the license and an administrative fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00), upon a hearing and determination by the Bureau that the person is in violation of the provisions of this subsection.

    D. Any law enforcement officer coming in contact with a person whose handgun license is suspended, revoked, or expired, or who is in possession of a handgun license which has not been lawfully issued to that person, shall confiscate the license and return it to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation for appropriate administrative proceedings against the licensee when the license is no longer needed as evidence in any criminal proceeding.

    E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  12. #42
    New Member Array emont504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    7

    I see both sides of this....

    I'll start by saying that cops who harass law abiding citizens for any reason should be the subject of an internal investigation, and probably shouldn''t be a cop anymore becuase they've obviously forgotten what their purpose is in the first place.

    That being said there are several factors that can come into play with this type of scenario. First off, depending on the jurisdiction (WA is one of these), the "brandishing" law(s) are written deliberately vauge. Basically, if someone else can see that you have a firearm, and they claim that it intimidated them, then that technically is a crime. HOWEVER, most cops are going to figure out that you are not America's Most Wanted and leave you with a "Have A Nice Day Sir." Going into the situation is a different story however. From the perspective of the badge, it's not as issue of open carry. It's simply: Some called 911 on you. It's my job to appraoch you, and talk to you, I can see you have a gun. I'm going to want to know who you are and whether or not you're actually committing a crime. If I ask you for your license, and you refuse or try to deflect, then congrats! You've made me incredibly nervous, becuase for my safety I have to assume you're withholding your identity becuase you're hiding something.

    However if you're cooperative, show me your ID, I run your name and you come back clean. Then I'll thank you for your patience/cooperation. Plus in the future I'm going to remember you as being cooperative and respectful, and thus I won't freak out everytime I see you OC'ing. I will also pass my experience with you on to the other officers in my squad.

    Long story short: You're not doing anything wrong, so where's the sense in making the cops think that you are.

  13. #43
    Member Array carracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Id.
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by emont504 View Post
    I'll start by saying that cops who harass law abiding citizens for any reason should be the subject of an internal investigation, and probably shouldn''t be a cop anymore becuase they've obviously forgotten what their purpose is in the first place.

    That being said there are several factors that can come into play with this type of scenario. First off, depending on the jurisdiction (WA is one of these), the "brandishing" law(s) are written deliberately vauge. Basically, if someone else can see that you have a firearm, and they claim that it intimidated them, then that technically is a crime. HOWEVER, most cops are going to figure out that you are not America's Most Wanted and leave you with a "Have A Nice Day Sir." Going into the situation is a different story however. From the perspective of the badge, it's not as issue of open carry. It's simply: Some called 911 on you. It's my job to appraoch you, and talk to you, I can see you have a gun. I'm going to want to know who you are and whether or not you're actually committing a crime. If I ask you for your license, and you refuse or try to deflect, then congrats! You've made me incredibly nervous, becuase for my safety I have to assume you're withholding your identity becuase you're hiding something.

    However if you're cooperative, show me your ID, I run your name and you come back clean. Then I'll thank you for your patience/cooperation. Plus in the future I'm going to remember you as being cooperative and respectful, and thus I won't freak out everytime I see you OC'ing. I will also pass my experience with you on to the other officers in my squad.

    Long story short: You're not doing anything wrong, so where's the sense in making the cops think that you are.
    And if I have no ID on me?

  14. #44
    Member Array HeHasAGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    25
    " Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his name."

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibe...ourt_of_Nevada

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,118
    I really don't have any problem showing my permit to a LEO if he asks to see it because he got a MWAG call. He's just doing his job. There are states where you are not required to show ID if you are not doing anything illega but in TN you are required to show your permit if requested.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

is it legal to open carry on a bicycle without your cwl
,

ocers

,
ocers police carry
,

oklahoma open carry law specifics

,
oklahoma open carry specifics
,
open carry in car in va
,
open carry oklahoma specifics
,
open carry walks ohio
,
specifics on oklahoma open carry law
,
title 21 section 1290.8 in violation of 4 th amendment
,
virginia open carry law police cannot ask you to produce id
,
washington state police traffic stop with concealed weapon
Click on a term to search for related topics.