• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Peace Officers respond to open carry

#4
xdpatriot said:
The civilian should've been more cooperative due to the fact the Officers weren't pricks. I'd say that was handled pretty flawlessly and extremely professionally by these Officers. Great job guys.
Click to expand...

Eleven-plus minutes of edgy, nervous low-ready cover and at least three separate references to head-shots for furtive movement. Um, yeah.
 
#6
Sure they weren't "pricks" but I'm pretty sure telling him that if he moves their gonna shoot him in the head was not a very necessary gesture. I'm not sure about you guys but haven't a gun drawn and at the ready with a very edgy nervous female officer standing behind me would not make me feel like they respected my rights or were not pricks

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
 
#7
tucker301 said:
Illegal stop. detainment, and searches.
Click to expand...

I didnt watch the whole thing, but the imitial stop was not illegal. We have the right and the responsibility to investigate complaints that get called in.

I suspect those two guys are the standard idiots that walk around open carrying simply in an effort to bait law enforcement into violating their right. Theyre not exercising their 2A rights. Theyre attempting to start problems with the cops.
 
#8
SniperCJ said:
I didnt watch the whole thing, but the imitial stop was not illegal. We have the right and the responsibility to investigate complaints that get called in.

I suspect those two guys are the standard idiots that walk around open carrying simply in an effort to bait law enforcement into violating their right. Theyre not exercising their 2A rights. Theyre attempting to start problems with the cops.
Click to expand...

A visual would confirm that they were not in violation of any laws. No need to stop and ask for ID, etc.
 
#9
I understand we can, and I believe should open carry, but now a days if you do, you're gonna get hastled. That doesn't make it right, but 9 times out of 10, officers react worse than this. I wouldn't have been upset with this confrontation knowing one was immanent while open carrying a rifle. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
#10
Guys, I can't stand open carry for the most part. I get it for outdoors on the ranch, etc but I don't get the activism. So initially, I was cheering on this cop until another cop I know blogged about it. Read the blog, it makes tons of sense. Wish we had more cops like Chief Weems.
 
Last edited:
#11
The problem is that cultures have changed, but our laws have not. I'm not saying that's good or it's bad. I'm just saying it's different these days.

When I was 14 (40 years ago), I routinely walked the sidewalks in my small hometown, carrying a shotgun on my shoulder.
It was the shortest way to get to a buddy's farm to shoot doves.
People didn't mind me, cops didn't mind me. It wasn't commonplace, but no one suspected me of meaning anyone any harm.

Today's carry laws are the same as they were then. Those laws have not changed.

Is it OK for people to be suspicious or concerned over someone carrying weapons today? Probably.
Is it illegal to openly carry a firearm? No.

So, in the purest terms of the law, there is no probable cause to stop, detain, and search someone who is carrying today anymore than it was 40 years ago.
If people want to change that.
If their fears are such that they want law enforcement to impede a citizen's rights, in order to give them some measure of comfort, then by all means, employ your legislature to get something on the books and make it so.
Until then, I salute those who are pushing back.
 
#15
LRI said:
Again: Apparently, Tone Does Make A Difference | Chief Weems' Blog
Click to expand...

Nailed it!

"The Reasonable Articulable Suspicion standard for an investigative (Tier 2) stop requires specific and articulable facts when taken together and based upon the officer’s knowledge, training, and experience lead the officer to believe that criminal activity is afoot. Is it reasonable to believe that just because someone is armed that they are a mass shooter?"
 
#16
LRI said:
Guys, I can't stand open carry for the most part. I get it for outdoors on the ranch, etc but I don't get the activism. So initially, I was cheering on this cop until another cop I know blogged about it. Read the blog, it makes tons of sense. Wish we had more cops like Chief Weems.
Click to expand...

Points taken. I'm afraid I was wrong in my initial assessment. The Officer you know is right, tone makes a difference in the way it's accepted but the message is still the same. You can't murder someone just because of your personal opinions.
 
#17
I didn't watch the video BUT reasonable suspicion Is all that is needed to stop and question someone. Usually I don't even bother people open carrying, its still common where I live. If I do want to talk to them about it (they are acting suspiciously) I usually open with "Nice looking gun. What is it?" We usually talk about guns, shooting, training, and all sorts of stuff. I end with explaining to them how not to conduct their self if approached by an aggressive officer wanting them to relinquish their sidearm.
I always try not to threaten anyone with "I'm gonna shoot you in the head" because I would miss hahaha. And they would probably head fake if they knew that's where I was aiming!
 
#18
Jerrrrstanley said:
I didn't watch the video BUT reasonable suspicion Is all that is needed to stop and question someone.
Click to expand...

The 2-3-4 Rule | Chief Weems' Blog

This was a Tier 2 stop, per the officer's actions. The officer admitted that he suspected nothing illegal.
A tier 2 stop can only be implemented when Reasonable Articulable Suspicion occurs.

"Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS): A set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent peace officer based on his or her knowledge, training, and experience that criminal activity is afoot. Case Reference: Ornelas v. US, 517 US 691, 95-5259 (1996)"


"Investigatory Detention/Brief Stop (Tier 2): An officer must have RAS to make an investigative stop. The suspect can only be held for a reasonable amount of time. Barring any other RAS or PC developed during the stop, the officer must release the suspect once the officer’s initial suspicion has been satisfied and all identification checks have been made. NOTE: An officer may handcuff a suspect during a brief stop only when necessary for the officer’s, the public’s, or the suspect’s safety. The suspect must be advised that they are not under arrest. An officer may frisk for weapons if the officer has RAS that the suspect is armed and presents a threat. Case References: Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968); United Sates v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)
 
#19
I gotta say, this thread has surprised me so far! Meaningful discussion with cordial disagreements and reasonable counterpoints. Is the Hide changing?

IMHO, the Officers received calls about a person open carrying. Did the Officer have a reason to stop and investigate? Nope. Could the Officer have observed the individuals if he had a "hinky" feeling? Sure. I get similar calls from citizens and have to explain that someone walking down the street is not breaking the law. Some people understand, some call and complain.

The test for this particular stop is this: Is walking down the street illegal? Is open carrying a rifle, or any weapon illegal within that jurisdiction? Did the calls received from the public indicate criminal activity? If the answer to all three is "NO", then there is no reason to stop and bother them.
 
#20
xdpatriot said:
Points taken. I'm afraid I was wrong in my initial assessment. The Officer you know is right, tone makes a difference in the way it's accepted but the message is still the same. You can't murder someone just because of your personal opinions.
Click to expand...

I ate some crow, that's for damned sure. Chief Weems hangs out at another gun forum I'm on and we're lucky to have him on there.
 
#22
SLINKY ERT said:
I gotta say, this thread has surprised me so far! Meaningful discussion with cordial disagreements and reasonable counterpoints. Is the Hide changing?

IMHO, the Officers received calls about a person open carrying. Did the Officer have a reason to stop and investigate? Nope. Could the Officer have observed the individuals if he had a "hinky" feeling? Sure. I get similar calls from citizens and have to explain that someone walking down the street is not breaking the law. Some people understand, some call and complain.

The test for this particular stop is this: Is walking down the street illegal? Is open carrying a rifle, or any weapon illegal within that jurisdiction? Did the calls received from the public indicate criminal activity? If the answer to all three is "NO", then there is no reason to stop and bother them.
Click to expand...


And you're 100% correct.
Now, let's flip it.
Let's say these guys were observed, the call was made, the police drive by, and they observed no illegal behavior.
No stop was made. No interaction occurred.

15 minutes later, these two guys walked into a place of business or a school and opened fire.
Now.... do you think the news media and the public are going to be happy to hear that they were deemed as "doing nothing wrong" 15 minutes before the massacre?
Outrage abounds. Legislators craft new bills, pushing to give the police more authority to investigate non-illegal activity.

Hmmm....
Now it's getting interesting, because your job as a cop (those of you are cops) just changed a shitload. Not to mention your sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.
 
#23
Peace Officers respond to open carry

I do not wish to start a riot and I firmly stand behind the 2A rights, like everyone else here.

Also, I believe open carry is absolutely fine in many circumstances such as the woods, ranch, etc. However, while I am not necessarily against it, open carry in an urban environment is not the smartest thing, in some situations.

The society we live in has way too many people who are against guns. They have their view and we have ours. Much the same on other topics of controversy such as gay rights. Is it legal to walk into a conservative church wearing a gay pride shirt? Of course, but is it necessary? No. Does it prove anything or help your cause? No.

Therefore, displaying your 2A rights and becoming famous on the internet for a confrontation with police does NOT help our cause or the preservation of personally owned firearms.

Just something to think about.

Edit: I do not wish to get into any moral or religious issues, simply using examples of current issues. Thanks.
 
#24
I'm not a big fan of breaking the law to enforce it. Hopefully your scenario never plays out (some would argue that the bill crafting already has- and I would agree to an extent). I know what the Constitution says is guaranteed to me and every other American.
 
#25
Of course. Increasing tolerance leads to it becoming "normal" and accepted. Hypothetically, that would be great but it's just not the society we live in. We could all walk around naked but I doubt we could ever gain enough traction for that to take hold.

Extreme example; but you do have an interesting point
 
#27
I used to ride from the middle of my town(only 1k) carrying a rifle with scope on my bicycle. I wouldn't get a second look. We would ride out to our pasture to shoot blackbirds.
As far as I know the laws haven't changed. If my daughter were to try this I think there would be a problem. The people have changed not the law.

BTW I lived one block from the school.

R
 
#28
tucker301 said:
I wonder what Rosa Parks would think of that statement?
Click to expand...

Tucker,

I see the point of your analogy, but Rosa Parks actually violated the "Segregation Laws" of the State of Alabama (of that time). It is NOT against the law to wear a gay pride shirt these days, it WAS illegal for Rosa Parks to not give up her seat to a white passenger in her day.

Comparing apples to oranges, but I get the gist of your point.

EDIT: I will concede that there are laws on the books (in every state I'm sure) that are unnecessary, and need to be protested in some manner.
 
Last edited:
#29
Agreed. I understand your point and I agree with it entirely. To take it even further, she was a part of a movement that culminated in racial equality.

However, it is, as stated above, apples to oranges. I wish it was different but flashing those rights around only gives the anti-gun folks more things to distort and throw into the media.
 
#30
SLINKY ERT said:
I see the point of your analogy, but Rosa Parks actually violated the "Segregation Laws" of the State of Alabama (of that time). It is NOT against the law to wear a gay pride shirt these days, it WAS illegal for Rosa Parks to not give up her seat to a white passenger in her day.
Click to expand...

I made no claims about the legality of what she did. I simply wondered how she would feel about that statement, ... and this one. :rolleyes:
 
#31
Tucker I agree he did a RAS stop and after watching the video. I really didn't see much RAS but there is more to it before the video starts. Im not saying he was right or wrong though. I don't agree with the "I'll shoot you in the head" statements from him.
His first statement to them should have been a question. "Do you mind if I have a word with y'all?" Then all the RAS stuff is gone because it becomes a consensual encounter (As long as they are willing to talk. Which they are, that's why they are recording it). A police officers can talk to anyone in public for any reason. I used to work with a guy who would ask people in gas stations if they had drugs on them.
I agree that police officers need to make contact with them to ensure they aren't heading to cause pandemonium and mayhem. The first few years I was an officer I would have handled it worse than this guy did but now I know better and have learned I can get my point across better by doing what I explained in my previous post.
 
#32
Also, the majority of people I see while I'm out and about shouldn't be open carrying. When I'm in a sporting mood I'll see how close I can get to the person without them noticing. Most are so caught up with reading the latest version of Recoil magazine in Walmart so they don't have to buy it I can walk right up to their Uncle Mikes unsnapped holster and reach right over it for a magazine and they don't notice or care. Rarely do I see someone open carrying that has their head on a swivel and have decent situational awareness.
 
#35
During my FTO program, I was informed that bumping the horn was not consistent with a consensual stop. You can ask the person "do you mind talking to me for a bit" or something similar, but using the horn or siren tends to have a connotation with a stop, or being detained.
 
#38
Gpz I agree. I don't even say consensual stop, consensual encounter is the terminology I use. I don't want to imply I STOPPED them.
The officer in the video opened with let me see your hands. Bumping the horn, saying let me see your hands and never asking if they wanted to chat all screwed the pooch for the consensual stuff!
 
#39
First, the forum software wouldn't allow me to use my typical username of "jlw".

Second, your stuff getting linked on Snipers Hide certainly generates a lot of traffic towards a feller's ramblings; so much so that I got a notice that my "stats are booming". I looked to see why and saw all of the incoming traffic from here.

A couple of notes: there was not a 911 call. The call was to the non-emergency line. Furthermore, a 911 (or a non-emergency call) are not in and off themselves RAS of criminal activity.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that the mere possession of a firearm does not trigger a Fourth Amendment exception. There is a distinct difference between being "armed" and "armed and presently dangerous", and this distinction is made in numerous SCOTUS opinions on point including one where the Court ruled that knowledge that a person possesses a weapon is no different than knowledge that they possess a wallet.
 
#40
Is it legal to open carry or not? I guess it is otherwise this would be a snuff flick with brains on the pavement... Cops want to check someone is not mass murderer simply stroll by and say hi if he opens up i guess "someone is" and cop(s) gets to actually do his job for which he is paid and trained for if not simply proceed to next donut shop and do some sweet damage. As to the (in)sanity of such endeavors or is it beneficial or not its a subjective opinion of persons and has nothing to do with legality. You may think of those two as craziest dorks out there who hurt 2ndA rights (as this cop obviously does) but then again USE IT OR LOOSE IT... Just as person above said if everyone would open carry it would be firstly impossible for cops to check everyone and secondly all those scared shitforbrains consumers would simply either die of shock of too many guns or their calls would start to be ignored in a day or two and they would simply adapt to a new norm (its not like they have any huge problems adapting to stuff just hammer them long enough via TV or other media and they will literally eat anything).
 
#41
I made it a total of 4 minutes….


I think the best thing that could happen to some of these OC guys is to have a 'concerned citizen' approach them instead Officer Friendly. They would come away with the understanding that Officer Friendly is a known quantity. The concerned citizen isn't.

Don't make people nervous for no good reason. EVERY pragmatic person wants someone walking around their community OC'ing a long gun vetted.
 
#43
tucker301 said:
The problem is that cultures have changed, but our laws have not. I'm not saying that's good or it's bad. I'm just saying it's different these days.

When I was 14 (40 years ago), I routinely walked the sidewalks in my small hometown, carrying a shotgun on my shoulder.
It was the shortest way to get to a buddy's farm to shoot doves.
People didn't mind me, cops didn't mind me. It wasn't commonplace, but no one suspected me of meaning anyone any harm.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic, but I agree times have changed.

If you do a time lapse on Google Maps, it's scary to see how much of the country has morphed into populated land. My dad used to get on his bike with a shotgun, pedal 10 miles down the road, and hunt with his buddy's when he was that young. Now, the land has been developed into housing developments. This was considered suburbia back then, but suitable hunting/shooting land was within walking/biking distance.

Same with my grandma's place, off her property was an apple orchard, then another 50 acres of woods with a pond. This was close to being a rural area at the time, and now it's all housing developments, upper-mid class McMansion types and firmly a suburban residential area with as many houses crammed in there as can be.

Carrying a gun is definitely abnormal now and when there are less places to shoot, less people are willing to go through the inconvenience to find a fun/suitable area, and give up the sport or hobby.

Some people, like these open carry guys, start treating their guns like little lap dogs and take them for walks or to the local starbucks. This seems somewhat sacrilegious to a guy like me, who thinks guns exist to be shot. Sure they are making a political statement but at the cost of getting themselves into a situation with police where if it ends well nothing is gained and if ends poorly a lot can be lost. It's like trying to walk across a lake of thin ice for the sake of getting to the other side when you could have just walked around. There's just better ways to prove your point.
 
#44
The legality of the stop aside. These people who open carry simply to make a political statement or to bait the police into violating their rights are really going to end up ruining it for everyone else. Just look at Starbucks as an example. Once a pro gun, pro 2 amendment business, they switched their stance when clowns decided that they were going to have mass "sit ins" at their local Starbucks with AR-15s and 12 gauge shotguns strapped to their backs.

Starbucks: Guns unwelcome, but not banned from stores | Fox News
 
#45
Officer is no a friend to the 2nd amendment. Head shots and agrejious were bad choices. The officer talked to much and stayed to long. Do not let ego interfer with your contacts. However his contact was better than most. Open cary is fine and legal. baiting police is legal but not smart.
 
#46
I open carry everywhere I go and those who take notice ask what I'm carrying, how much it costs to get a CCL, how long, and what I'd recommend. Not once have I had some bleeding heart shitbag hyperventilate because I've got a sidearm but no badge but that may have something to do with the fact that I live in a solid red state. Thank God for that!

Those who bait the police or instigate a altercation so they can make a political statement while wasting the officers time and making other second amendment supporters look bad, they need their teeth knocked out for being a damn douche bag.
 
Last edited:
#47
I don't care for open carry in general public myself. It draws unwanted attention and the anti guns love to be given something else to piss and moan about. There are a lot of non gun owners that feel intimidated by the sight, while I'm not the one to really give a crap about someone's feelings I prefer to be invisible and not give someone a reason to fight against it. Yeah on the ranch, hunting place, range, even the rural towns where it's accepted is not a big deal. But like said above when the stupergunners show up at starbutts in down town Dallas in there Tacticool gear with multiple weapons it just makes the whole gun crowd look like a bunch of doucebags and at that moment people are calling the police, city council, starbutts corporate and creating another problem for us to fix to protect our rights.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
#48
Seems like we have a lot of cops here, I am wondering if you guys receive any classes on the Constitution and Bill or Rights when you are training or joining a department? Not a sarcastic Q just curious. ON the open carry, there should be no law regulating this at all in my opinion, like some of the older ones here I also carried my 22 to a field next to RT 1 I. NJ to shoot critters, about a half mile walk through my neighborhood, never a second look, today a kid would be gunned down in that same neighborhood by the swat team. I just wish they would change the laws in my state (Fla) to make it okay for inadvertent showing of my carry gun, I ride a lot and sometimes my shirt blows up and the part of the gun shows, never got a complaint but worry about it. I live in Fla now and we are very gun friendly except for lack of long range shooting spots and the no open carry. This cop wasn't that bad, but he still violated the guys rights no matter what the local law is. Most cops are okay and don't mess with people unless they are doing something wrong or messing with others, in my experience.
 
#49
Officers receive training in Constitutional law, I am trying to remember how many hours that class was in my academy. The reality is that most officers are sucked into the mentality that IF someone calls in a complaint, they HAVE to investigate it. When I used to be on patrol I would routinely pull a call, phone the complaintant and let them know why I wouldn't be responding. Officers often use the fact that someone called in a complaint to justify stopping someone, regardless of it's legality. This is a result of poor training, erosion of independent thinking, the "gung ho" mentality and administrators.

I have had administrators advise me to blatantly violate people's rights. Even when confronted with that fact, they are defiant that it is the "right" thing to do. Case in point: a citizen had issue with a city council member and showed up at any public event the council member did with cleverly worded signs (Council member X is a stupid idiot!). This citizen would sit outside the council member's office with his signs, quietly holding them. Of course the council member complained to the Chief and it wormed its way down to me where I was told to contact the citizen and tell him to stop. I refused, reminded them of that pesky 1st ammendment. It got a little heated but in the end they figured it out.

I work on a unit that requires a pretty firm grasp of the 4th ammendment. I occasionally stop to back up some patrol officers and have to pull them aside to talk to them about the legality of their decisions. Everyone needs reminding sometimes that just because we may not personally like something doesn't mean it is illegal.

Just my thoughts.
 
#50
Jethro21 said:
Officers receive training in Constitutional law, I am trying to remember how many hours that class was in my academy. The reality is that most officers are sucked into the mentality that IF someone calls in a complaint, they HAVE to investigate it. When I used to be on patrol I would routinely pull a call, phone the complaintant and let them know why I wouldn't be responding. Officers often use the fact that someone called in a complaint to justify stopping someone, regardless of it's legality. This is a result of poor training, erosion of independent thinking, the "gung ho" mentality and administrators.

I have had administrators advise me to blatantly violate people's rights. Even when confronted with that fact, they are defiant that it is the "right" thing to do. Case in point: a citizen had issue with a city council member and showed up at any public event the council member did with cleverly worded signs (Council member X is a stupid idiot!). This citizen would sit outside the council member's office with his signs, quietly holding them. Of course the council member complained to the Chief and it wormed its way down to me where I was told to contact the citizen and tell him to stop. I refused, reminded them of that pesky 1st ammendment. It got a little heated but in the end they figured it out.

I work on a unit that requires a pretty firm grasp of the 4th ammendment. I occasionally stop to back up some patrol officers and have to pull them aside to talk to them about the legality of their decisions. Everyone needs reminding sometimes that just because we may not personally like something doesn't mean it is illegal.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

My town is currently searching for a new chief of police. If you'll take the job, I will personally find a way to buy you a new GAP rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blue Sky Country
NYC MTA train operator and landlord fatally shoots armed ex-con who broke into his home. Cleared of shooting but facing charges for unregistered gun.
Replies
12
Views
699
pmclaine
pmclaine
T
3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman
Replies
1
Views
439
JMGlasgow
JMGlasgow
Lowlight
Smosh's Package, Benefit for Sgt Josh Clark
Replies
12
Views
2K
Bender
Bender
PatMiles
'Genderfluid' 'Puppy' Begins Work at Department of Energy
Replies
78
Views
5K
Cardboard55
C
F
2024 Legion Memorial Run and Gun, Honoring the Fallen as a Family
Replies
9
Views
302
FatBoy
F
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts