This is a discussion on Why does it have to be OC Vs. Police? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by TN_Mike Well, I see it this way. Back in the 60's, there were a lot of people marching, picketing and doing things ...
Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 20th, 2012 at 11:21 AM.
FWIW, I have had a couple of interactions with LE over the years. I have had no issues with them. I have caught one or two giving me the stink eye from a distance, or the one that turned his car around to try and cut me off but I got in my truck before he got back around. I feel pretty confident I would have had an issue with that particular LE, mainly because of his demeanor in trying to approach me. And the fact that he would have had to probably blue light me to stop me and talk to me when I was doing nothing wrong. Coming out of a gun shop carrying a gun in a holster. Suspicious!
Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 20th, 2012 at 11:22 AM.
I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!
"Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"
Being an armed citizen is not a crime. Driving a car is not a crime. Walking down the street is not a crime. Nor should such actions be assumed they are, treated as they are, treated as though such people need investigating, detaining or vetting merely for going about the business of living their lives. This isn't a principle requiring a flip answer. It's a principle requiring deep thought and appreciation, for it's at the core of the whole problem.
EDIT: BTW, don't misinterpret where I'm coming from. I personally have had no problem with my previous engagements with law enforcement folks. Generally, they've been professional, respectful and accommodating. None of this is about the people involved. Rather, it's about the principles, the procedures and the method of how such calls about citizens simply going about their lives are handled.
Also, as you said you do, to explain to the sheep who places the MWAG call that the person they complained about is a card carrying Good Guy.
Plus, the sight of you being polite to the OC'er who was the origin of the MWAG call, saying have a nice day and seeing that person walk on about their business with the gun on will make that sight a little less threatening to them. When a police officer comes up to an OC'er and first thing disarms them or, God forbid, holds them at gunpoint for no reason, that simply reenforces to the sheep that there MUST have been something wrong or the police wouldn't have reacted that way. The more the sheep see people with OC'ed guns, and the more they see the police being cordial to them and not treating them like criminals, the more at ease the sheep will become and the fewer MWAG calls will be made.
Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 20th, 2012 at 11:24 AM.
I can list a million "what for" calls that I have been dispatched to... I hate going to them... but I am required to!
If a random citizen was curious about your firearm and asked you about it, wouldnt you politely inform them about it? Why does it have to be different just because they are in uniform?
Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 20th, 2012 at 11:25 AM.
A simple internet search will show you how many LEOs are killed each year... We HAVE to be careful... but we are on the same team! If you, as an OCer, were sent to talk to a random guy who had a gun (based on a citizen complaint), wouldnt you be careful? Why wouldnt you be reassuring to the LEO that is in that position?
I admit... I started this thread based on a couple of YouTube Videos I saw. It was almost as if they were out to get us... and then I continued reading threads on this website and saw one labled something like "Its OK to shoot the Police if they enter your house unlawfully".
Do people really think that we are out to get random people for no reason?! Lets help each other out here! We have the same goals and we are on the same team!
Now as for baiting? I think it's stupid but around here half the police either 1) don't know it's legal, even with out a permit or 2) they don't like it and try to instill their "own" laws.
We have a local open carry meetings once a month but still some get harassed. The videos help keep the police officers in line because it has happened before and will happen again because of their personal feelings or lack of knowledge of the laws. Alabama is an open carry state with out a permit, the permit is only needed if you're in a vehicle or obviously concealing the weapon. Some will try the "the Permit doesn't allow you to open carry" law, DUH! because you don't need a permit to open carry here. Or the "someone called a MWAG and you're scaring people so you need to either cover your weapon or put it in the car or you will be taken to the clink under public disturbance or trespassing.
This is why I carry a audio recorder with me at all times, I don't want it to turn into a he said vs he said and the police video happens to not be working that day... It's nothing against police but it's sad that we get messed with by the police for doing something that is perfectly legal. Actually, it's our right unlike driving. Some police have thing about that badge and makes them think they're above the law, those small few make all of those who serve the thin blue line look real bad.
For instance, this judge takes the law into his own hands. He doesn't like OC and makes things up on his own and convicts a man on a non existent crime.
Again it's nothing against you at all, it all just a protection vs renegade cops who think they can make up their own laws. I carry a weapon for self defense from bad people, I carry an audio recorder to protect myself from bad cops.
Required to go, yes. Particularly urgently if there's high likelihood of dire need or threat. But the flipside should also be true: particularly with circumspection and intelligence about the high likelihood of a 'bare fear' call without substance beyond that fear/concern ... which, quite simply, isn't by itself sufficient for a threat to be presumed to exist.I can list a million "what for" calls that I have been dispatched to... I hate going to them... but I am required to!
Possibly, though for me it would depend on the circumstances. At a picnic or outing where firearms were being discussed, and another commented on his/her firearms choices and preferences? Likely. But if someone just came up and began asking why I had a firearm, who was I, and such, almost certainly not. Frankly, going about my normal, everyday, lawful business of living my life shouldn't be a concern to anyone else, irrespective of whether it's the guy next to me, the wide-eyed person across the way, or the officer being dispatched by that wide-eyed person. In that sense, I make little distinction between people. It comes down to the circumstances and justifiability of the comments/questions.If a random citizen was curious about your firearm and asked you about it, wouldnt you politely inform them about it?
Here's the thing that every citizen needs to appreciate. It hasn't been but a few years with this everyone's-armed situation, across the country. It's a game-changing thing. Good thing, too. But it's been a rocky road, in many cases. Not everyone has gotten comfortable with it at the same pace, from the general citizen population to those elected/hired. There have been a few wackos who slip through the CHL background-check sieve; there have been a few in law enforcement and politics who abused their roles; there have been some misinterpretations, mistakes and overstepping in some quarters. But by and large we're progressing toward a more-polite, armed society. IMO, that's nothing but a good thing. It's helping to ensure we all deal with each other rationally, that dealing with each other from a position of fear or violence ain't gonna cut it anymore. In the long run, I feel we all win on that score.
And that's the point, with the 'bare fear' MWAG type calls. They need not be handled blindly, based on a presumption of guilt, or based on a presumption that fear implies threat. It's like an informant being but one source of intelligence. It's not too smart to take an informant's word blindly, and much smarter to corroborate it with other evidence prior to giving it its allotted weight as justifiable, credible intel. Same thing should be true with such street encounters with armed citizens. A call is just that; it's not evidence of anything beyond a fearful caller, not without substantiating behavior or speech to support such a call. And think, what is such a call after all, generally speaking? It's not a claim of wrong-doing; it's a claim of fear/concern. Think about the distinction, because it's all-important.
Last edited by Rock and Glock; July 20th, 2012 at 11:27 AM.
I was pulled over by a State Trooper not to long ago, before he even approached. I had all the windows down, interior lights on, my DL, CCL, and Insurance in hand, with both hands outside the window in clear sight.
It was dusk so I wanted the officer to be completely at ease. When he walked up he was very polite and informed me my tail light was out.. Took my credentials, asked if I was armed, "I said yes sir" one on my person AIWB, the other in a mounted holster in the truck.. After he returned.. He said thank you for this great display of courtesy to "OUR" safety!
Would you not see it the same way while OCing?
What if it was a BG pretending to be a legal law abiding citizen OCing that had plans of his own and was using it to his advantage?
Honestly I'd want the officer to feel safe, just as I would. I'm all for OC, I live in Texas with hi hopes that it passes this next years legislation. If I was asked for my license I'd be honored to show proof of who's side I'm on and make some good friends in the process.
This is just a simple case of COMMON SENSE and the difference in how some of us are raised, see authority, and in most cases just get an EGO, which in my eyes is not conductive to good manners especially while carrying.
It's a responsibility that requires us to be trained mentally, physically, and in the Laws that govern it.. I for one will forgo the Ego, Attitude, and idea that the officer is doing anything more than his job!
As far as how we are raised. I was raised to be polite. I was not raised to allow folks to aks things of me that are not required and quite frankly none of their business untll the point the officer feels I am a BG for some reason. Also, by virtue of handing over your papers on demand whether you need them or not is becoming commonplace and folks just think you have to. Just like your SSN. It is asked for all the time and I refuse to give it to somebody unless needed or they will refuse a service. My water company had SSN on the application....I did not put it down and the lady said it was required. I stayed there for almost an hour waiting for her to prove I needed to put it down. Finally after phone calls she said it was not required.
Your last sentence sounds good except you suppose that we know the laws. And in some states the law says that we do not have to show ID. So we do understand the law and complying with it.
[QUOTE=glocknug;2324952I handle all of these calls as a "consensual encounter". If you didnt really want to talk to me, you don't have to.
Serious question: if it can be ascertained by observation that they are not a threat and are simply OC'ing, even with a less common gun such as a rifle, why should this require an encounter at all?
Keep in mind that most won't see it this way. Especially the part in bold. Yes, they should know their rights regarding an encounter, but your very presence by definition is a threat, even if it is an implied "obey or else I will use force".As far as the ID thing goes... I admit, I ask for ID on EVERY call I go to, whether its this or somthing else. It is not disrespectful. If you dont want to show it, ok... this shouldnt be a huge issue.
Another thing to consider is that maybe the one who needs to have an official LEO encounter is the one making the MWAG call? By letting them make a call and then responding by requiring an encounter you are encouraging this behavior. At a minimum, the no feedback, no consequence is a neutral, but more than likely will leave them thinking (or rather feeling) that they were right and that something was wrong and it needed to be dealt with. This is the part that needs to be addressed.
As a side note, I have a coworker who a few months ago was enountered and in his opinion harrassed because he was walking around the block using a long walking stick. He says that it was harassment because it went beyond a simple question of who are you, what are you doing, to repeatedly asking these questions and a fixation on the stick. They too asked for ID, which he didn't carry (in his own neighborhood) and finally left. This was a rural neighborhood too, the kind with houses on 1-3 acre lots and neighbors along a main road, not a populated subdivision.