Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 182 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So how is an LEO supposed to know if someone he sees or someone who has been called in, who is open carrying a firearm is a responsible law abiding gun owner or someone who is mentally ill looking to do violence. Is law enforcement supposed to only question those who have drawn their weapons and begun shooting? Up until that point it's violating their rights to stop them, guns have to be fired and people shot before law enforcement can intervene? A retro-active field interview wouldn't do much good in cases such as we've seen lately.

Example: A man open carries into a movie theater, a little league field or shopping mall. Law enforcement shouldn't field interview to determine his intent? Law abiding citizen or unstable individual with a gun?
In an urban environment anyone open carrying should expect to be assessed by law enforcement, you say it's your right to carry... and it's the general publics right to feel that they're not about to be victims. I seriously question the stability of these guys that open carry everywhere looking to challenge law enforcement on their right to carry a weapon. It's not the Navy SEAL types we see in these videos and case examples, but rather the individual with a chip on his shoulder and other issues which are being compensated for...

Answer: Who knows, permit process for OC? All I know is the guys I've come across who open carry look and act like they'd have a tough time with a psych test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
As a police offficer we have the responsibility to protect the public at large from harm, but equally important is to protect the rights of the public at large as well. What an officer will probably do if he see's an open carrier is first observe the person, and maybe even follow for a minute. If the carrier is in a state, city, location where open carry is lawfull... Most of the suspicion should be dampened. Observing the carrier the officer may notice the quality of the firearm, the quality and mode of carry, the security of the firearm. Observe the actions of the carrier. For example if the guy is with his wife and kids, and they are shopping and have packages... 99% he's just someone who decided to open carry and there's no reason to pester him. On the other hand if the carrier is just aimlessly wandering with no apparent destination or purpose I might want to chat this guy up. Again if a guy is wearing lets say a 1911 in a high ride pancake open... No real reason to pester him. But of a guy is wearing a border patrol holster on his belt, with the revolver jutting out, and the retention strap not holding the gun down. We might have a chat regarding his effect on the safety of the at large public.

Open carry dont negate common sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
So how is an LEO supposed to know if someone he sees or someone who has been called in, who is open carrying a firearm is a responsible law abiding gun owner or someone who is mentally ill looking to do violence. Is law enforcement supposed to only question those who have drawn their weapons and begun shooting? Up until that point it's violating their rights to stop them, guns have to be fired and people shot before law enforcement can intervene? A retro-active field interview wouldn't do much good in cases such as we've seen lately.

Example: A man open carries into a movie theater, a little league field or shopping mall. Law enforcement shouldn't field interview to determine his intent? Law abiding citizen or unstable individual with a gun?
In an urban environment anyone open carrying should expect to be assessed by law enforcement, you say it's your right to carry... and it's the general publics right to feel that they're not about to be victims. I seriously question the stability of these guys that open carry everywhere looking to challenge law enforcement on their right to carry a weapon. It's not the Navy SEAL types we see in these videos and case examples, but rather the individual with a chip on his shoulder and other issues which are being compensated for...

Answer: Who knows, permit process for OC? All I know is the guys I've come across who open carry look and act like they'd have a tough time with a psych test.
Everybody you have come across who open carries look and act like they'd have a tough time with a psych test? All of them? How many people have you personally witnessed OCing? I'm not talking YouTube, I mean personal observation. The reason I ask is that the vast majority of OC'ers are simply going about their business, not looking or acting any differently than anybody else who is going about their business. I am one of those people. I OC sometimes, and I don't act any differently than when I'm CCing or not even carrying at all.

Getting to your basic question of whether a LEO should stop us to determine our intentions, that's illegal and an invasion of my privacy and my rights. I am not willing to give up my freedom for (perhaps) a little more safety. That's how citizens become subjects. You don't seem to have a problem with that. I most certainly do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
So how is an LEO supposed to know if someone he sees or someone who has been called in, who is open carrying a firearm is a responsible law abiding gun owner or someone who is mentally ill looking to do violence. Is law enforcement supposed to only question those who have drawn their weapons and begun shooting? Up until that point it's violating their rights to stop them, guns have to be fired and people shot before law enforcement can intervene? A retro-active field interview wouldn't do much good in cases such as we've seen lately.
So how is a LEO supposed to know if you, NOT openly carrying a firearm, are someone who is a responsible law abiding citizen or someone who is mentally ill looking to do violence? Would you like to be hassled by the police for doing something that isn't against the law? How about being stopped by the police, proned out, and gagged (effectively "disarming" you), as a preemptive measure to prevent a possible catastrophe, just because it looked like you were getting ready to open your mouth? Wouldn't like that, would you? Even though yelling "FIRE" or some other panic inducing word in a crowded venue has had the ability cause severe bodily injury and even the deaths of many individuals, and many of us are "armed" with mouths capable of uttering such devastating words?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,595 Posts
I thought this was another dumb debate gun grabbers like to post about "How do you tell the good guy, from the bad guy?". I generally respond something like this; Oh, I dont know. But if there is a guy around yelling "I am the shooter!", has flaming red hair, dressed in tac gear, or is shooting everyone else in sight, I think I can pick him out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
How many have people have I seen OC in total, a lot if I include the folks in the rural areas. But the number of people I've personally seen in the city, a 1/2 dozen or so. It's mostly the OC advocates in the city environment that, to me, have been a cause of concern. For whatever reason, their demeanor is different. Also the people I see on YouTube advocating OC are a cause of concern as well, I don't feel they further our "gun rights" in the least.
So did I know that the original post would tip the cart a bit, of course... but it's important for people who open carry to recognize that this perception is common, even among other gun owners and that the in your face approach to exercising your right to open carry may bring may controls rather than more freedoms. This is occurred on the left coast, it can happen in other states as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
I thought this was another dumb debate gun grabbers like to post about "How do you tell the good guy, from the bad guy?". I generally respond something like this; Oh, I dont know. But if there is a guy around yelling "I am the shooter!", has flaming red hair, dressed in tac gear, or is shooting everyone else in sight, I think I can pick him out.
hey I had red hair now its blue just because im bored and have fun at work
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
This is occurred on the left coast, it can happen in other states as well.
I don't base how I exercise my rights by anything that happens on the left coast. Over reacting fools if you ask me. They pushed too far. Gun owners pushed back. They pushed back and went past what the courts had OK'd. It will take some time but it's going to backfire on Govco out there.

How many criminals have you seen OC'ing? Not brandishing or using the firearm. OC'ing it holstered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
How many have people have I seen OC in total, a lot if I include the folks in the rural areas. But the number of people I've personally seen in the city, a 1/2 dozen or so. It's mostly the OC advocates in the city environment that, to me, have been a cause of concern. For whatever reason, their demeanor is different. Also the people I see on YouTube advocating OC are a cause of concern as well, I don't feel they further our "gun rights" in the least.
So did I know that the original post would tip the cart a bit, of course... but it's important for people who open carry to recognize that this perception is common, even among other gun owners and that the in your face approach to exercising your right to open carry may bring may controls rather than more freedoms. This is occurred on the left coast, it can happen in other states as well.
When I OC, there's nothing "in your face" about it. Sounds like you're talking about the OC ninjas. Your reference to youtube seems to confirm this. That's why I asked how many people you have personally observed OCing. I'm not defending the OC ninjas. IMO, they are indeed part of the problem. However, you seem to be too willing to throw away the baby with the bathwater. My OCing, and the actions of the vast majority of OC'ers, will not be the downfall of carry generically or OC specifically.

But getting back to your original premise, LE does not have the right to stop just anyone for simply carrying openly (in places where it's legal, obviously). How they determine who's a good guy vs who's a bad guy is not my problem, as long as it doesn't involve the violation of my rights as a citizen of the United States. I expect to be left alone unless I'm doing something illegal, which of course I do not do. As I said in an earlier post, I am not willing to give up my freedom in exchange for the small possibility of being a smidge safer.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
So how is an LEO supposed to know if someone he sees or someone who has been called in, who is open carrying a firearm is a responsible law abiding gun owner or someone who is mentally ill looking to do violence. Is law enforcement supposed to only question those who have drawn their weapons and begun shooting? Up until that point it's violating their rights to stop them, guns have to be fired and people shot before law enforcement can intervene? A retro-active field interview wouldn't do much good in cases such as we've seen lately.

Example: A man open carries into a movie theater, a little league field or shopping mall. Law enforcement shouldn't field interview to determine his intent? Law abiding citizen or unstable individual with a gun?
In an urban environment anyone open carrying should expect to be assessed by law enforcement, you say it's your right to carry... and it's the general publics right to feel that they're not about to be victims. I seriously question the stability of these guys that open carry everywhere looking to challenge law enforcement on their right to carry a weapon. It's not the Navy SEAL types we see in these videos and case examples, but rather the individual with a chip on his shoulder and other issues which are being compensated for...

Answer: Who knows, permit process for OC? All I know is the guys I've come across who open carry look and act like they'd have a tough time with a psych test.
No one has a right to any particular feeling.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,068 Posts
... and it's the general publics right to feel that they're not about to be victims.
El Wrongo Bro...

NOWHERE in The Bill Of Rights is it written where the citizen has a right not to feel as they're about to become a victim.

Article XIV of The Bill Of Rights it is written No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Thoughts, opinions ...


So how is an LEO supposed to know if someone he sees or someone who has been called in, who is open carrying a firearm is a responsible law abiding gun owner or someone who is mentally ill looking to do violence.
In a state that hasn't completely erased the 2A RKBA and doesn't criminalize the open carry of firearms, it comes down to the totality of circumstances. We are, after all, free citizens in our free states, and there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in our system of the rule of law. Which means that, unless someone is specifically exhibiting cause to justifiably question one's behavior, nobody has any business stopping or detaining another merely for carrying.

How is someone to know otherwise? One never does, unless there are actual indicators in behavior that can be clearly articulated as showing a credible threat. Unless there's something of that sort, one has the right to carry as he/she sees fit (at least in those states that are still free).


Is law enforcement supposed to only question those who have drawn their weapons and begun shooting?
Ideally, yes.

Though, of course, most folks who are "blowing" sideways give some indications immediately beforehand that they're about to do so. Whether that's an intensity of focus on the intended victims, or rising anger and lashing out at others, or direct verbal/physical threats made, change in proximity/direction combined with other factors (ie, clearly zeroing-in on a target and swooping in for the kill), or whatever. And if an LEO witnesses these things, to the point of being able to credibly identify them as justifying further investigation or stopping something that's beginning to blow sideways, then basically there's the "probable cause" hook. Mere carrying or visibility of arms, alone, shouldn't ever justify any such thing, in a free state.


In an urban environment anyone open carrying should expect to be assessed by law enforcement, you say it's your right to carry... and it's the general publics right to feel that they're not about to be victims.
No person has any such right to feel they're not going to be a victim.

All a person has a right to is to defend against being a victim if one is targeted, to defend his/her own life to the extent one is able to do so. Hence the 2A's protection of the RKBA. "Feelings" aren't a right, and that can't be a basis for presumption of guilt via carrying or cause for stopping, questioning, detaining everyone who's carrying just because (ie, the typical bare-fear MWAG calls that have no corroborating factors justifying any such call, beyond one's "feelings" of guns being their problem).

Taking the "feelings" step too far with, say, automobiles, would be like saying since a person has a right to feel no fear from getting run over by cars, that anyone with a car should be stopped, frisked and grilled as to the person's need to have that car, need to be there at that time, etc. That's about as silly and unjustifiable as stopping, frisking, grilling a person merely because he/she chooses to carry arms.


I seriously question the stability of these guys that open carry everywhere looking to challenge law enforcement on their right to carry a weapon. It's not the Navy SEAL types we see in these videos and case examples, but rather the individual with a chip on his shoulder and other issues which are being compensated for.
The severely in-your-face types? So do I, a bit. But that's not a crime. Nor is it really necessarily a threat. Given the 1A, it's well within a person's right to vociferously (though, non-threateningly) stand for one's rights to ensure they're not infringed upon, if that's a person's choice. It's still a free state we're living in, and we're still free citizens, after all.

IMO, once a person exhibits heavy-handed, in-your-face tactics that go beyond what's simply necessary to make a point and ensure one's rights aren't trod upon, then that becomes part of the totality of circumstances with respect to others' perceptions about the threat represented by such a person. To the extent others can justify a credible threat via such indicators a person is delivering, then further investigation becomes warranted. I'm sure LE sees it a bit differently, a bit more simply, in many ways, but it seems clear that it comes down to threat, and how legitimate and threatening that person's behaviors are becoming.

There are ways to engage others while remaining calm, respectful, yet firm in the principles one is standing for, presuming one is absolutely sure one is absolutely right. And it needn't be done with the aggressive, clipped-voice, chip-on-shoulder, in-your-face aggressiveness apparent with so many of these Youtube wonders. I'm all for standing firmly for our RKBA, but not at the expense of blasting it out of the water via my own hand. And I'm even all for recording activities when out and about, as a precaution against being trod upon. It is important to be seen as being justified, if things do blow sideways. But there are effective and there are belligerent ways to do things. I opt for effective. But that's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
It is hard to stop part way down the rabbit hole......

-I want to be sure that person carrying a gun openly is no threat to me....what training does he have, has he had a psych test, we should check all this in advance by making him qualify for a permit

- I hear there are even more people out there carrying concealed. I want to know I am not about to be victimized. We should have some way to identify them so we can steer clear. Can't we make them wear ball caps with a G on the brow so we can tell them from a distance and steer clear if it makes us feel better?

- Everyone who carries in public, especially urban places should be interviewed by police. The hat thing was too intrusive and let everyone know they are carrying. I would be okay if just the police knew. Can't we have them imbed a micro chip that police can detect at a couple of hundred yards so they can interview these folks quietly on the side without embarassing them too much? That would make traffic stops safer for police too if they could tell in advance there was a gun owner in the car ahead of them, not just whether the registered owner of the car was in the data base as a registered gun owner.

- woah, this is costing a lot of money cause we had to hire alot more officers, I didn't realize so many folks carried. We can't afford this. It would be better if only police were able to carry guns, then anyone else with a gun would be surely a bad guy and that would make me feel better cause there would be a lot less guns around.


And all of the above "restrictions" would be totally ignored by the bad guys and only place a burden/restrict the rights of the law abiding person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
so to adress the question Good Guy/Bad Guy-So how is an LEO supposed to know?

It is tough. Experience is the best answer but also they can never let their guard down. We laugh about the little old lady that draws a 357 magnum out of her purse to show the officer why she is not afraid to walk alone in a neighborhood but it demonstrates that not everyone fits the pattern or dare I say profile. Actions speak louder than words. Police officers daily decide to interview people based on their actions/behaviors. Wearing a gun openly should not qualify as suspicious behavior in and of itself. If the person is going around acting the fool or like he is looking to put one in the first person who doesn't jump out of his way then the LEO should have a chat with him/her, which they would do even if the person wasn't visibly armed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Warning the following is off topic :eek:fftop2:

There are a lot of parallels with smoking and guns. That fact that a person choosed to smoke, which is a dangerous activity both to himself and those around him, does not warrant a stop and chat unless the person is smoking in a area where it is unlawful. Unfortunately, it is legal to smoke. I wish folks could only do so in their own homes where I wouldn't be affected by it unless I chose to enter their home (invited or the non-invited type of visit). Businesses can choose to make their places non smoking. Light up and refuse to put it out and you are faced with trespassing. The fact that smoking is not a right allows local, state, and federal governments to actually make laws on where it is legal to smoke. Many states have banned smoking in restaurants, movie theaters, schools, etc. unless you are in a designated smoking area set aside for that purpose. Some of the language in gun laws smacks of this (not allowed to carry a gun except on the way to a shooting event, the range, hunting site, i.e. designated areas)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,589 Posts
So how is an LEO supposed to know if someone he sees or someone who has been called in, who is open carrying a firearm is a responsible law abiding gun owner or someone who is mentally ill looking to do violence. Is law enforcement supposed to only question those who have drawn their weapons and begun shooting? Up until that point it's violating their rights to stop them, guns have to be fired and people shot before law enforcement can intervene? A retro-active field interview wouldn't do much good in cases such as we've seen lately.

Example: A man open carries into a movie theater, a little league field or shopping mall. Law enforcement shouldn't field interview to determine his intent? Law abiding citizen or unstable individual with a gun?
In an urban environment anyone open carrying should expect to be assessed by law enforcement, you say it's your right to carry... and it's the general publics right to feel that they're not about to be victims. I seriously question the stability of these guys that open carry everywhere looking to challenge law enforcement on their right to carry a weapon. It's not the Navy SEAL types we see in these videos and case examples, but rather the individual with a chip on his shoulder and other issues which are being compensated for...

Answer: Who knows, permit process for OC? All I know is the guys I've come across who open carry look and act like they'd have a tough time with a psych test.
Just because a person open carries does not mean he or she is looking for a confrontation. Just because a person did not shave does not mean he's a psycho. Police can assess anybody, anytime - but what they can do while assessing depends on the state's laws, the state's case law, and some basic constitutional limitations.

First, if the state has a statue that requires the carrier to produce a permit on demand, end of story (I'm not aware of states that have such laws, but all I know is Ga does not).

Second, absent a statute, some state courts may hold that police can question and temporarily detain an OC, because OC may be RAS. I think New Mexico is in this camp, but I could wrong. Personally I think that line of reasoning is wrong, but I must deal with what the law is, and not what the law should be.

Third, if statutes and courts are silent, then the "go-by" to stop and temporarily detain (which means the person IS NOT free to go) is RAS. Arrest is PC.

Here's the 3x5 card:

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS): A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent police officer, based on the officer's knowledge, training, and experience that criminal activity is afoot.

Probable Cause (PC): A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent police officer to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed by the suspected person.

Consensual encounter: No legal authority is needed to approach a citizen, but the encounter must be voluntary on the part of the citizen.

Brief Stop: An officer must have RAS to make an investigative stop, and the person can only be held for a "reasonable" amount of time.

Arrest: An officer must have PC to make an arrest.

Absent other facts and circumstances, there's no RAS for a brief stop. In GA, if an officer gets a MWAG, or just sees me OC'ing, which is legal and in GA has been found to not constitute RAS by itself, the office can observe but not detain me. Caveat: If I match the description of a perp that just committed a crime, that's a different story. But OC is not a crime.

Finally, the same can be said for CC if you are made. Would it seem reasonable if you are made to be detained and questioned for 30 minutes while the police "check you out?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
How many have people have I seen OC in total, a lot if I include the folks in the rural areas. But the number of people I've personally seen in the city, a 1/2 dozen or so. It's mostly the OC advocates in the city environment that, to me, have been a cause of concern. For whatever reason, their demeanor is different. Also the people I see on YouTube advocating OC are a cause of concern as well, I don't feel they further our "gun rights" in the least.
So did I know that the original post would tip the cart a bit, of course... but it's important for people who open carry to recognize that this perception is common, even among other gun owners and that the in your face approach to exercising your right to open carry may bring may controls rather than more freedoms. This is occurred on the left coast, it can happen in other states as well.
Uh oh...here we go with the 90% of gun owners thing. Has there been a study that shows this is a common perception? Just a quick interview between me and my gun owning buddy and neither of us has this perception, so zero for two...not very common in my "poll"...
 
1 - 20 of 182 Posts
Top