Hooksett, NH cop acts belligerent and uses profanity to Law-Abiding Citizen for OCing
This is a discussion on Hooksett, NH cop acts belligerent and uses profanity to Law-Abiding Citizen for OCing within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Don't sweat the small stuff. Walking around OC talking to a camera in an area that does not often see people OC can warrent a ...
June 7th, 2009 02:19 AM
Don't sweat the small stuff. Walking around OC talking to a camera in an area that does not often see people OC can warrent a hello from LEO IMO.
In addition, the gun owner should have had an id. For example, can you transport a firearm open carry in a vehicle in NH. I'm not 100% sure if I care if he does or does not provide the ID to LEO (I guess it would depend on state law).
In the end, I think the OC did fine (but I don't get what was proved other then you have rights) and the LEO did fine.
If it were me, I would have had the id, stated I had my id, if supported by state law inform the LEO he did not have the right to ask for it, and ask why I was being detained, I would like to go.
As for PD watching the OC, oh well. No law against that.
Not that my opinion matters much, but I don't always get to agree with HotGuns, and I agree with every point he has made in the quoted post.
Originally Posted by HotGuns
S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger
June 7th, 2009 02:19 AM
June 7th, 2009 09:44 AM
After reading this entire thread, I'm going to attempt to "coin a phrase" that might represent what a lot of folks here are trying to get across. The phrase might save a lot of typing and explanation in similar cases in the future.
Let's say someone OC's, and they do so perfectly in their legal right, essentially flaunting their OC status, intentionally drawing attention to themselves, hoping for a confrontation, especially with the police. Much of this is about a (subtle or not) "in-your-face-attitude". They get the attention they "wanted", and the police now have a negative experience with this OCer. The general public who has been watching see that MAN + GUN = the police presence needed for this man; which means to the public that they should notify the police if they see a man with a gun, because the police are interested in this. I'm calling this OC ugly dance, the "OC Shuffle"
"OC Shuffle"- When someone OC's in a manner and/or demeanor that creates more problems, creates more enemies, and ultimately casts a negative light on all OC'ers as perceived by the public. If you have an OC experience that causes US to lose support when WE could have had an opportunity to gain support, you did the "OC Shuffle"........you caused the public to paint us all with that broad negative brush.
FWIW, I'm supportive of OC................when it helps!
Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.
June 7th, 2009 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by orangevol
I've been detained 5 times in under 2 months.
harassment: to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
A man with a gun in itself is not illegal; it is my RIGHT. Another person's annoyance and alarm does not OVERIDE my RIGHT. If the officer has reason to believe I've done something wrong or am doing something wrong, or WILL do something wrong, then YES he had a responsibility to stop me. But he had NONE of them. Therefore he had no reason to stop me. It was NOT considered a terry stop, because if my first question was "Am I free to go?" I probably would have been free to go if I had him answer the question. If he told me a lawful reason why he was stopping me I would have provided him with any information he requested. He refused to answer what I was doing wrong with anything other than, "what are you doing in our <censoring> town with a <censoring> gun?"
June 7th, 2009 10:04 AM
Like many of you have said already this guy seems like he is just looking for confrontation. Yes he isn't in the wrong and it is his right to OC in the area he is in but he is making us all look bad by looking for trouble. This site isn't meant to show how LEO's are stupid and willl bust you no matter if you have the right or not. This isn't the way to exercise your right, kinda foolish in my opinion.
June 7th, 2009 10:11 AM
I get it, sort of. I just think maybe there are more friendly ways to prove a point and educate. I mean, if this is the response this is getting on an internet message board where essentially we are all pretty unknown to each other, imagine the response it may be getting in person.
There's got to be a better way to make a statement, still maintain a good relationship with local PD (and if they know you to be a "good guy" when they get the call on you, I'm sure you'll be treated with a lot of respect. It goes BOTH WAYS.), and give POSITIVE PR to open carry in your area.
When people see something that might scare them or make them nervous, what's the best way to ease their fears? Argue with a cop, or be a role model and help educate, possibly converting more sheep into sheepdogs?
Just my 2 cents.
Don't frisk me, I am the weapon.
Sig Sauer P239 DAK (9mm)
NRA Member & Pistol Instructor
June 7th, 2009 10:50 AM
It is not about being a "good" guy. It is about getting in front of a judge and setting a legal precedent. Then the whole police force will have to change their policy on how they deal (or don't deal) with OCers and the 2A.
This town was "known" as an anti 2a town. So this guy is trolling for a law suit. He is making himself visible and available to be stopped and detained. He is also obeying the law at all times. The video is for evidence of this stop and any others (like creating a paper trail). Sooner or later the police will wise up and leave him alone, or they will arrest him and get smacked with a law suit. That is his goal. Not being a "good" guy.
Allot of people in DC probably thought Heller was a troublemaker too.
In this case I think the cop did an OK job. He should just clean up his language a bit.
The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a
patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
June 7th, 2009 11:01 AM
Exactly so. Nothing's going to happen out of the goodness of hearts, because of some overall protective feeling about the People and their security. It's going to happen because the People stop being willing pawns to be toyed with, refusing the continued erosion of liberties ("My Rights! My Rights!" that SD goes on about, as if it's unworthy to retain).
Originally Posted by atctimmy
Rush it, and it might get quite painful. But, achieve it by helping the system itself crumble its own anachronistic feudal system of "by the boot heel" rules, and we all win. That is the goal. And it won't happen by osmosis.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
June 7th, 2009 11:18 AM
Ok, now I'm lost again. Who's Heller?
Don't frisk me, I am the weapon.
Sig Sauer P239 DAK (9mm)
NRA Member & Pistol Instructor
June 7th, 2009 11:27 AM
Heller was the recent Supreme Cour case in which the Court opined that the Federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Pretty simple stuff. It arose from the Washington DC gun ban, It had nothing to do with the states, however.
Originally Posted by Bunny
That case was entirely different than the juvenile act we are discussing here. Washington DC is a Federal enclave. All laws are controlled by the Congress of the United States. The Congress was informed that the laws did not conform to the Constitution so the laws were changed legislatively.
It has nothing to do with the childish stunt of seeking confrontation with authorities. Open carry is already legal! Persoanlly, I would like to see the stunt pulled in Chicago. I doubt that these types of open carriers would really risk something to make their point. This was nothing more than a childish prank, which may not work out so well next time.
June 7th, 2009 12:54 PM
I'm giving up on you Doobie. You just don't get it. Of course you do have a right to have a gun and it seems you do have a right to openly carry it. In your mind you believe you are exercising your right and that you are proving some kind of a point by refusing to produce ID. In reality your methods are counter productive. In addition to making us all look bad I think you are going to create problems for yourself in court should you ever have to justify actually using your weapon in self defense. I'd close by asking you: Do you actually carry your gun for the purpose of protecting yourself and your loved ones, or is getting negative attention your real agenda?
Originally Posted by doobie
June 7th, 2009 01:00 PM
I would also toss in the comment that with rights come responsibilities.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
June 7th, 2009 01:34 PM
Responsibilty to use and protect them first, at will, whatever others may think or feel about them.
Originally Posted by usmc3169
While invoking those rights, motive and agenda really don't matter. LE has a tough job to do, no doubt. Our role as citizens isn't to make their jobs easier by sacrificing our rights, although you have the right to do just that if you wish. Just don't expect everyone else to do the same. I've seen similar videos relating to border patrol checkpoints with the same type of positive and negative comments. Their agenda and motive might be similar to doobie's, we may not like it but that doesn't make them wrong for not conforming to our idea of citizen behavior.
"In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
June 7th, 2009 02:12 PM
I think we have a responsibility to each other not to pollute the stream for others. Doobie may think he is helping our cause by his strange method of "exercising his rights", but in actuality he stokes the engines of the likes of the Brady Batch and others of their ilk. I wish he wouldn't use his rights to endanger my rights.
Originally Posted by kpw
June 7th, 2009 02:19 PM
After reading this thread let me pose a question. What exactly did the original poster do that was illegal?
I'm not asking for your opinion on how it could have been handled or whether or not you thought he was/was not being cooperative. I'm asking about the law.
Was he breaking the law by carrying his firearm?
Was he breaking the law when he did not produce identification?
Was he breaking the law when he did not answer probing questions?
Was he breaking the law when he asked why he was being stopped?
Whether or not you agree with his methods, I don't believe he broke any laws in this state/county/city otherwise he would probably have been ticketed or arrested.
I'm really not attempting to take sides here, I'm just curious as to what law he broke, or what reasonable suspicion the officer had to stop him. I'm also curious why the officer was allowed to use profanity?
In my mind this is not only about 2nd amendment issues. What information must I legally give when an officer has stopped me for - walking my dog, driving a red van, eating lunch, talking on my cell phone while walking to my car after eating, pushing a cart full of groceries, wearing a specific pair of shoes, having short hair, wearing a specific color shirt or pants?
Yes I know the list is ridiculous but since legally carrying a firearm is no more illegal than anything on my list, so what gives and what's next?
Just because someone wears a hooded sweatshirt on a cold day does not necessarily mean the person should be stopped and questioned. Or does it?
June 7th, 2009 02:31 PM
The world she is a changing.
Originally Posted by Holdcard
My wife was going to have a margarita at Taco Cabana and they would not serve her because she did not have her ID.......She is 53.
It did not use to be like that.
By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 11:58 AM
By doobie in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: July 7th, 2009, 08:45 PM
By First Sgt in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: January 23rd, 2009, 05:51 PM
By celticredneck in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 2nd, 2008, 07:31 AM
By fortysomething in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 28th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Search tags for this page
wicked guns hooksett nh
wicked weapon nh
wicked weaponry hooksett
wicked weaponry hooksett nh
wicked weaponry in hooksett nh
wicked weaponry in nh
wicked weaponry nh
wicked weapons hooksett nh
wicked weapons nh
Click on a term to search for related topics.