Questioned about OC

[shooterX]

Just say......... "My name is SUE"

+1


My Dad used to say he was "retired", which he was, just not retired LE.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[LongRider]

I agree with the Do Not Lie !! Why lie when the truth is better. Are'nt we supposed to be honorable men and women? Liars have no honor and deserve no respect. But that is just me I am not a mall ninja or wanna be LEO. I am a proud American

[archer51]

Just flash them your CC Badge and walk away!

Seriously though, I usually just tell them no and go on about my business.

[Rugergirl]

This brings up a valid point of discussion. I'm not an attorney but I'll put it in "layman's" terms as best I can. Some states are "one party" recording laws while others are "two party" recording states.

Simply put, if your state has statutes & laws that permit recording with only ONE person aware that recording is occurring this is legal.

If your state is a "two party" recording state you are REQUIRED by law to notify that person that they are being recorded. If you record them without their knowledge that most likely is illegal.

Again, I'm not an attorney so research the laws of your state regarding recording conversations. If your state is a "one person" recording state you should be able to record the conversation without the other person's knowledge.

This is my opinion FWIW!

If I ever need to use a voice recorder I will inform the person being recorded that I am recording our conversation and anything ignorant that they may say could be used against them

[doobie]

I had a conversation with a 8 year old kid Friday night in Petco that went something like this:

Kid: "Are you police?"
Me: "No."
Kid: "I know you are Army."
Me: "Nope."
Kid: "Military?"
Me: "Nope, just an every day citizen."
Kid: "You are FBI!"
Me: "Nope, just an average guy."
Kid: "You are US!"
Me: "No."
Kid: "Are you buying a pet?" <looks into my cart>
Me: "Nope buying food for a pet I have."
Kid: <loses interest>.

Moral of the story when you open carry in Petco and there are little kids around, buy a pet!

[Bunny]

I think by telling the truth and stating that you are just an ordinary, law-abiding citizen (like whomever is probably asking you), it's a great way to open up a conversation and educate on OC, CC, Firearms in general, 2A, you name it.

[PastorPack]

When open carrying and asked if you are a cop, are any of the following answers good to use in order to keep the crazies from calling 911?
1. “Loss Prevention Agent” – We are carrying in order to prevent loss of life (ours and our families).
2. “Protective Service” or just “Body Guard” – We can claim “client confidentiality” when asked who we protect.

Just my thoughts.

3. "Are you a robber?"

[MinistrMalic]

This thread is why I am a member of DC. Good, respectful discussion and a commitment to be people of integrity.

Thanks, guys and gals!

[tinkerinWstuff]

This thread is why I am a member of DC. Good, respectful discussion and a commitment to be people of integrity.

Thanks, guys and gals!

Dangit - and just as I was about to flame a bunch of folks......

I used to OC in WI on trail rides with a saddle club. I'd get a lot of questions; "why do you have that??"

Now that I live in CO and OC on trail rides, people ride up and ask me what I'm carrying and tell me about their gun. For some reason, few of them seem to bring it with them on the trail!! Not sure why, I guess I haven't thought to ask them why they didn't bother to bring it.

Anyway, I haven't had the courage to try an OC WWW yet or around town. We don't have OC preemption law in CO and I don't know what the local restrictions might be in and around Ft. Collins.

[NavyLT]

Anyway, I haven't had the courage to try an OC WWW yet or around town. We don't have OC preemption law in CO and I don't know what the local restrictions might be in and around Ft. Collins.

No preemption in CO? Really? Are you sure? Preemption applies throughout the state of CO except for Denver.

Title 29. Government - Local Miscellaneous
Article 11.7. Regulation of Firearms
29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:
(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution,
the article referred to as the state bill of
rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable
rights, which include the right to defend
their lives and liberties;
(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution
protects the fundamental right of a person to
keep and bear arms and implements section 3
of article II of the state constitution;
(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty
to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights
set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection
(1);
(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency
among jurisdictions within the state with regard
to firearms regulations;
(e) This inconsistency among local government
laws regulating lawful firearm possession
and ownership has extraterritorial impact on
state citizens and the general public by subjecting
them to criminal and civil penalties in some
jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other
jurisdictions;
(f) Inconsistency among local governments of
laws regulating the possession and ownership of
firearms results in persons being treated differently
under the law solely on the basis of where
they reside, and a person's residence in a particular
county or city or city and county is not a rational
classification when it is the basis for denial
of equal treatment under the law;
(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the
position of not knowing when they may be violating
the local laws and therefore being unable to
avoid violating the law and becoming subject to
criminal and other penalties.
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection
(1) of this section, the general assembly
concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of
statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws
concerning the possession and ownership of a
firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are
not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly
committing crimes involving firearms.

29-11.7-102. Firearms database-prohibited.
(1) A local government, including a law enforcement
agency, shall not maintain a list or
other form of record or database of:
(a) Persons who purchase or exchange firearms
or who leave firearms for repair or sale on
consignment;
(b) Persons who transfer firearms, unless the
persons are federally licensed firearms dealers;
(c) The descriptions, including serial numbers,
of firearms purchased, transferred, exchanged,
or left for repair or sale on consignment.

29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm –
prohibited. A local government may not enact
an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits
the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm
that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or
possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance,
regulation, or other law enacted by a
local government prior to March 18, 2003, is
void and unenforceable.

29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting.
A local government may enact an ordinance,
regulation, or other law that prohibits the
open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific
area within the local government's jurisdiction.
If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation,
or other law that prohibits the open carrying
of a firearm in a building or specific area, the
local government shall post signs at the public
entrances to the building or specific area informing
persons that the open carrying of firearms is
prohibited in the building or specific area.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...main-h.htm&cp=

and

http://www.opencarry.org/co.html

[Bunny]

When in doubt, maybe call the local courthouse and ask someone there? That's what I would do. (I don't speak legalese, and some of the written laws make my brain hurt, trying to understand them in plain English!)

[dtweeks]

3. "Are you a robber?"

That there's funny, I dont' care who you are....

[tinkerinWstuff]

maybe poor choice of words by using "preemption." Although, I guess I consider preemption to mean that the local municipalities cannot pass laws more restrictive than state law. Which, in this case, they can. The state has said that if they choose to, then they must post it. However, there is no standard in how the signage must look. And then, is it really preemptions when Denver gets a pass?

Thanks for your reference, it's been a while since I've read it word for word.

Really, it's probably a topic for another thread and I'll just fall back on my original statement of not having the nutties for a OC WWW walk yet.