[jsalcedo]

Pistol-packers challenge police
By ROGER TALBOT
Sunday News Staff
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=62485


Police took Michael V. Pelletier’s loaded pistol while he browsed in a bookstore; David K. Ridley’s mistake was to change jackets in a mall parking lot, and Penny S. Dean’s encounter happened during a late-night constitutional on a city street.

Because the New Hampshire Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms — no license needed, unless the weapon is concealed — all three got their guns back within minutes, but the confrontations caused them unease.

“The bottom line is that this type of thing shouldn’t be happening in a state where (carrying a pistol) is perfectly allowed,” said Dean, a lawyer and consulting counsel to Gun Owners of New Hampshire, the gun-rights advocacy organization.

Dean, in a routine followed often in the 10 years she has lived on Warren Street in Concord, was taking a late-night walk on June 16. She was on Pleasant Street out by St. Paul School when state trooper Abbott Presby stopped his cruiser.

“He must have asked me six times for a driver’s license. Then he proceeded to ask what I was doing there and I kept asking him, ‘Are you detaining me?’” Dean said.

She didn’t have her driver’s license. She had a cellular phone, a credit card, her license to carry a concealed pistol and her Glock 23 in a nylon, neon-pink fanny pack.

Dean wrote a letter to state police Col. Frederick H. Booth citing her constitutional rights and complaining of her “detention” by Presby.

“Had I not vigorously, repeatedly and firmly asserted that I wanted to (be) released from this detention I could have been illegally held there indefinitely. I firmly believe that it was only after I explained to trooper Presby that I was an attorney that the impetus to release me awakened,” Dean wrote.

Three months later, state police Lt. Mark J. Myrdek responded, writing that a review of the incident had found Presby’s “actions and conduct were justified, lawful and proper.”

On March 27, 2004, at about 9:15 p.m., three police officers in uniform and two detectives in plain clothes converged on Michael Pelletier as he thumbed through a book at Barnes & Noble store in Manchester. Pelletier and his wife had marked their 11th anniversary with dinner, then gone to the bookstore, where his coat stayed in the car. He had forgotten the change in attire left visible the holstered Glock 30 pistol tucked into his belt at his back.

A shopper telephoned police.

Pelletier said the officers “basically grabbed me by the shoulder, disarmed me and took me out of the store. They ran my license and registration and the serial number on the gun and stood around lecturing me for 20 minutes. It was irritating, but at least I wasn’t arrested.

“What boggled my mind was that out of at least seven officers and dispatchers involved not one seemed to know that open carry is legal in New Hampshire and they basically treated this like they would a felony stop. . . . I wasn’t doing anything illegal. I was minding my own business and I think they could muster the ability to treat me with courtesy and respect in that situation,” said Pelletier, who lives in Merrimack and is a West Coast transplant drawn here by the Free State Project’s pick of New Hampshire in 2003 as the place to promote its minimal-government agenda.

Alan M. Rice of Brookline, the treasurer of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, has been dealing with gun use safety for 10 years. He is certified as an “instructor-trainer,” qualified to teach even the firearms instructors.

Commenting on what Pelletier has written on the Internet about his bookstore experience, Rice said, “I think he exercised extraordinarily poor judgment on that particular night (because) he had an open-top holster in the small of his back in an unconcealed fashion. . . .

“Most professionals do not carry a gun there because it’s hard to access the weapon and hard to retain the weapon if someone wants to take it away from you.”

Rice prefers holsters with retention features that thwart efforts to extract the handgun, and he advises students to place the belt holster at their right or left side, where it is protected by the arm.

As a firearms instructor, Rice views concealed-carry as “a good way to deter crime because they don’t know who is carrying.”

Though it is legal to carry a gun in plain view, “open-carry is not a bright idea,” Rice said. “You are a target. If someone comes in with criminal intent, the first thing he is going to do is neutralize any person with a weapon who can hurt him.”

Like Pelletier, David Ridley’s move to New Hampshire was inspired by the Free State Project. He came from Texas, which he described as having restrictive gun licensing laws.

“When you come to a place where the right is recognized by government and you’ve never had it before, it’s a right you want to celebrate. At the same time, if you don’t exercise the right, I think you will eventually lose it. So for me, open-carry is primarily a political thing,” said Ridley, who lives in Keene.

Ridley had changed jackets and was engrossed in lettering a placard on the hood of his car in a supermarket parking lot in Salem on March 21 when five police officers, responding to a citizen’s call, asked about the holstered Glock 19 on his hip.

“They said, ‘You alarmed a person who saw the gun.’

“When that is the situation, they have to respond to the call. I understand that, but what was wrong was when they started talking about arresting me when I hadn’t done anything illegal,” Ridley said.

In responding to a letter from Ridley, Salem Police Chief Paul T. Donovan wrote that his officers would continue to respond “with an open mind” when a complaint comes in about someone carrying a firearm.

“In this day and age where people have committed some very violent attacks using firearms, it is understandable that people who do not understand the values of law-abiding firearms owners run scared. We need to work at improving our image with those who don’t understand,” Donovan wrote.

[DRZinn]

Yeah, but at least we're not...

Never mind, I'll let him say it.

[45acpSHOOTER]

But, we are supposed to trust the police. They walk the walk, and are professionals. Who am I to second guess?:cuss:

[NHBB]

I remember this incident from some time ago... pelletier was carrying on his six dressed in slacks and shirt and tie and was accosted in a barnes and nobles here in manchester NH where I reside. I never had any problem with the local police when they found out I was armed, but apparently he experienced a much different scenario. I forget his handle on here, I think it was mvpel. if you do a search you can see the debate that ensued regarding this. a few overzealous LEO's accosting him for displaying a firearm in an open carry state... now I dont agree with carrying in a position where you can easily be stripped of your firearm, but the action that was taken was over the top imo... its not like he had jeans sagging to his ankles and was wearing a doo rag.

I believe he had intention to sue the city... anyone know what came of that? on a side note, a few days later a man had his dog shot to death by an off duty cop in the same city claiming it attacked him and his children, but the circumstances were pretty much a he said, he said thing.

[Joejojoba111]

[Though it is legal to carry a gun in plain view, “open-carry is not a bright idea,” Rice said. “You are a target. If someone comes in with criminal intent, the first thing he is going to do is neutralize any person with a weapon who can hurt him.”]

...

And they'll take your gun away from you.

Because they are villians with super powers. And laser beams on their heads.

FEER THE LASERHEADVILLIANS! GIVE US YOUR GUNS BEFORE THE LASERHEADVILLIANS COME FOR YOU!

[Devonai]

“In this day and age where people have committed some very violent attacks using firearms, it is understandable that people who do not understand the values of law-abiding firearms owners run scared. We need to work at improving our image with those who don’t understand,” Donovan wrote.

Okay, I suggest training dispatchers to ask more specific questions about the person with the weapon and attempt to separate fact from perception. While the caller may feel threatened, the dispatcher needs to find out whether or not the caller actually was threatened. I would say to the caller, "carrying a firearm is legal in New Hampshire, whether openly or concealed. Is there anything else about this person's actions that would constitute a crime?"

[aaronrkelly]

Okay, I suggest training dispatchers to ask more specific questions about the person with the weapon and attempt to separate fact from perception. While the caller may feel threatened, the dispatcher needs to find out whether or not the caller actually was threatened. I would say to the caller, "carrying a firearm is legal in New Hampshire, whether openly or concealed. Is there anything else about this person's actions that would constitute a crime?"

While I am about as Pro Gun as it gets and I believe every state should have open carry laws I am also a dispatcher - deciding if someone has commited a crime over the phone is not my job nor should it be. If someone "believes" themselves to be in danger I am not going to waste time by playing 20 questions with them....real or not that person believes there to be danger and its an officers job to show up and do his job - its not my place to do his job over the phone. The officer should have looked at the guy in his nice clothes browsing books and been very polite in his dealings with him - now if he would have had a ski mask on looking at Thug Gang Bangers Who Hold Their Gun Sideways Monthly then game on.......officers these days have a piss poor conception of discretion. The stories I could tell of officer out-right singling someone out and then bragging about it back at the station - makes me wanna blow chunks. Most are good guys but more and more are merely thugs themselfs.......somedays I wanna quit but you know what they say - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[El Tejon]

How dare these law-abiding people make the police look like fools!:D

[pax]

While I am about as Pro Gun as it gets and I believe every state should have open carry laws I am also a dispatcher - deciding if someone has commited a crime over the phone is not my job nor should it be.
Aaron,

I'm not trying to be sarcastic; this is a genuine question because I don't know how such things work.

If a citizen called in and reported, "I saw someone wearing a weird-looking hat," or "There's a guy here wearing a purple shirt," would you dispatch police based only on that? Or would you try to get more information? Or would you get more information while dispatching police?

What I'm getting at is, if somebody calls and reports something that is clearly not against the law, do you always send the police anyway? Do you any screening for them at all, on any other kind of report?

pax

[El Tejon]

Sarcasm? Oh, I'll get that one, pax.

Notice: I have called IPD (Internet Police Department) on you all for obeying the law.

As well, I have called the police in my city on: people walking down the street, people waiting for the bus, people sitting outside coffee shoppes drinking coffee (yes, drinking coffee! The horror!), and on the iron workers across the street working on the high rise office building going up.

All these people are obviously obeying the law [*shudder*]and the police should investigate at once as I believe I am in grave danger.

[HankB]

Hey, El Tejon - these people who were "obeying the law" . . . are you sure they weren't just exploiting a loophole? :rolleyes:

[pax]

El T ~

No, it was an honest question. I don't know what the dispatcher's job is. Presumably they've got some sort of guidelines to work with.

I'm just wondering at what point in the process the brakes would kick in, and who would be responsible for applying them.

pax

[NCP24]

The officers should have approached these people in a non-custodial way and simply asked for cooperation. IMO the officers used poor investigative and public relation techniques, I’ll leave it at that.

[jsalcedo]

In our society any call with the word "gun" in it will get a police response.

Here in San Antonio it is perfectly legal for me to walk down the street with a fully loaded AK.

I will not get 4 steps before someone calls the cops and I get arrested for
"menacing" "brandishing" "disturbing the peace" etc...

So yes police respond to people obeying the law

[The Real Hawkeye]

While I am about as Pro Gun as it gets and I believe every state should have open carry laws I am also a dispatcher - deciding if someone has commited a crime over the phone is not my job nor should it be. If someone "believes" themselves to be in danger I am not going to waste time by playing 20 questions with them....real or not that person believes there to be danger and its an officers job to show up and do his job - its not my place to do his job over the phone. The officer should have looked at the guy in his nice clothes browsing books and been very polite in his dealings with him - now if he would have had a ski mask on looking at Thug Gang Bangers Who Hold Their Gun Sideways Monthly then game on.......officers these days have a piss poor conception of discretion. The stories I could tell of officer out-right singling someone out and then bragging about it back at the station - makes me wanna blow chunks. Most are good guys but more and more are merely thugs themselfs.......somedays I wanna quit but you know what they say - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.Ok, I call you in a panicked voice explaining that I just saw a man on a ladder painting the trim on his house, and that I feel very threatened by this act. Do you immediately dispatch a squad car, or do you ask for more information first?

[Lucky]

Did anyone else see the thread here where they had 911 calls people made about tacos, hamburgers?

[aaronrkelly]

Aaron,

I'm not trying to be sarcastic; this is a genuine question because I don't know how such things work.

If a citizen called in and reported, "I saw someone wearing a weird-looking hat," or "There's a guy here wearing a purple shirt," would you dispatch police based only on that? Or would you try to get more information? Or would you get more information while dispatching police?

What I'm getting at is, if somebody calls and reports something that is clearly not against the law, do you always send the police anyway? Do you any screening for them at all, on any other kind of report?

pax


Yes, if a citizen requests the police they will get them - even if what they are requesting isnt against the law. For one, Im a dispatcher - I got one week of training at the academy. A police officer knows the law, knows what is and isnt against the law and acts appropriately. I am not a police officer and I dont know the law. Even if I did my job is not to make such decisions. A dispatcher merely takes information and gives it to the most appropriate authority. Its not my job to decide what is and isnt worthy. For instance I got a call tonight from a parent that was having trouble with their daughter. That is not a crime but the police go down there and tell them that - I merely hand off the request, information or page to the correct agency be it fire, EMS or law.

From a liability stand point I am not going to decide when a person needs law enforcements presence over the phone - if you think you need help your going to get it. The officers can make the decisions when they get there.

[Pilot]

officers these days have a piss poor conception of discretion. The stories I could tell of officer out-right singling someone out and then bragging about it back at the station - makes me wanna blow chunks. Most are good guys but more and more are merely thugs themselfs.

Why anyone would want to be a LEO and deal with the scum of the earth on a daily basis is beyond me, but thank G*d we have them. I'm glad you said that most are good guys because I'd like to believe they are. There are also bad lawyers, dentists, business people, teachers, etc.

[El Tejon]

HankB, I have opened a file on you, sir.:D You just keep up that law-abiding behavior and see where that gets you, young man!

pax, I know but the flow chart law enforcement that we have now drives me nuts--personally and professionally. I know it's nothing the dispatchers do, but shift command or the deputy chief or somebody should step in and say "No!"

[fourays2]

Pistol-packers challenge police
By ROGER TALBOT
Sunday News Staff
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=62485


situation,” said Pelletier, who lives in Merrimack and is a West Coast transplant drawn here by the Free State Project’s pick of New Hampshire in 2003 as the place to promote its minimal-government agenda.


might be time to consider a new location for the free state project.

[pax]

Aaron ~

Thanks. That makes sense.

So where this battle is going to be fought is either at the citizen level -- increasing awareness that merely carrying a gun isn't breaking the law -- or at the level of the local police, educating them about what the law actually says and convincing them to respond less aggressively in such cases.

Um, what kind of influence do you have on the type of police response? Do you, for instance, suggest multiple units? Or is that also entirely up to police discretion?

pax

[AnthonyRSS]

A police officer knows the law, knows what is and isnt against the law and acts appropriately.


Unfortunately, this just isn't true.

[Zach S]

If someone "believes" themselves to be in danger I am not going to waste time by playing 20 questions with them....real or not that person believes there to be danger and its an officers job to show up and do his job - its not my place to do his job over the phone.

As a dispatcher, it is your job to play 20 questions over the phone, and relay that info to the responding LEOs. And based on my (limited) experiance, dispatchers do a poor job of that.

Every time I or someone in my family has had to call 911 the dispatcher plays 20 questions, and as far I can tell, doesn't tell the officer a damned thing other than an adress and what might be happening.

[aaronrkelly]

Aaron ~

Thanks. That makes sense.

So where this battle is going to be fought is either at the citizen level -- increasing awareness that merely carrying a gun isn't breaking the law -- or at the level of the local police, educating them about what the law actually says and convincing them to respond less aggressively in such cases.

Um, what kind of influence do you have on the type of police response? Do you, for instance, suggest multiple units? Or is that also entirely up to police discretion?

pax


In the case of "amount" of officers to send - I dispatch the call to the appropriate agency (either SO or PD) and the responding officer will tell me if he needs/wants more help - I go from there. I dont automatically call in more officers. Alot of dispatchers make their jobs more complicated then they are. All I do is take information and dispense it - I dont make any decisions because thats were you start making yourself liable. I do what people tell me to do and nothing more or less.

I have certain protocol that says if there is a chase, shooting etc that I am to phone the chief of police or sheriff and notify them of the situation - from there they make the decisions.

[aaronrkelly]

As a dispatcher, it is your job to play 20 questions over the phone, and relay that info to the responding LEOs. And based on my (limited) experiance, dispatchers do a poor job of that.


True but read it in context - Im not going to play twenty questions before sending someone. If I heard there is a guy down here with a gun Im going to dispatch a guy with a gun then get more information while units are on the way. Im damn sure not going to ask if hes a concealed weapons carrier, is he threatening people with it, does he look like a criminal etc *before* alerting officers - the questions comes after dispatching the calls primary purpose. They can be half way across town before I even get to those questions........

Dispatch centers are setup differently so I cannot comment on your other comment.....most dispatch centers have 2 staff. One is a dispatcher and the others is a call taker. The call taker answers the phone, types the information into the system and the dispatcher reads off that screen to send the appropriate units. This is the most common setup for any but the smallest towns - in this setup you would not hear the dispatcher because they are atleast setting at another desk and possibly in another room entirely. All setups are different.

[depicts]

I'll bet there are people who wear jeans hung way low and a dew rag that are law abiding licensed gun owners. Just because a guy wears a tie doesn't make him trustworthy.

[cuchulainn]

What I don't get is why people don't simply look at a person wearing a holstered firearm and assume that he's a cop or something -- especially if that person is minding his own business and is calm.

And that begs the question: How often do off-duty police officers get the cops called on them when their firearms are noticed? For that matter, how often to on-duty, but non-uniformed officers get the cops called on them?

[CoachVince]

Why anyone would want to be a LEO and deal with the scum of the earth on a daily basis is beyond me, but thank G*d we have them. I'm glad you said that most are good guys because I'd like to believe they are. There are also bad lawyers, dentists, business people, teachers, etc.
Agreed. I'm cynical, but I'm still thankful for all the decent people in those professions. I am, in fact, a teacher. A male computer teacher, by the way. I hate turning on the news and seeing all these freaking pervs:fire: , and I cringe when I think about how some parents must wonder, even about me, and analyze how I act, or what I say. Thankfully, I'm in a small private school, so I know parents better than I might otherwise, but even though we have a more "family" feel, I try to always act as if I'm on camera; avoiding even any appearance of impropriety.

To steer this back on topic, I can only imagine that all the good cops out there feel the same way every time some SOB gives the badge a tarnished image. I know, of course, that sometimes even the officers charged are innocent, or were involved to some degree in something, but were picked as the scapegoats.

If you think that 1% of cops are bad, then they're much better than society's average.
If you think that 10% of cops are bad, then they're still probably better than society's level, and you can't be too upset with that.
If you think that half the cops are are bad, then the ones that ARE good, are REALLY REALLY good.

[aaronrkelly]

I'll bet there are people who wear jeans hung way low and a dew rag that are law abiding licensed gun owners. Just because a guy wears a tie doesn't make him trustworthy.

Agreed, in fact add a Harley and some ill manered shirt and your describing half of our law enforcement staff on their off days.

[depicts]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I live near a State Police training area in Massachusetts wherre open carry is NOT legal for civilians. I see a lot of state police in unmarked clothes and no badges going in for coffee at the local Tedeschi's some mornings. Mostly I recognize them from the black boots, short hair and most times sunglass. Often they will be wearing a pistol.

While I assume they are state cops, I make it a point to go up to them and politely ask, "Excuse me, I assume you're a Police Officer, but isn't it required
for you to have some kind of identification to show that? I'm just curious because I am a shooter and I always wondered about that?"

Some have been red faced and embarrassed, some have answered with a smart remark, some have taken the time to talk to me. In any case I find it interesting.

Once I was in line at the local hot dog cart and a young man with a great big revolver got into line. He wore no identification. People in line were acting very nervous. I approached the guy and asked him if he was a Police Officer. He said no. I then asked him "why are you carrying a gun then?" He replied that he was a CONSTABLE and was serving warrents that day.

I told him I thought he should cover his gun because it was making people nervous and scared and it made all us shooters look bad, and we should try not to make the public think unfavorably about us. He said "I'm not scared." to which I replied, that's because "YOU" have the gun. He said "You don't seem scared." I replied, that's because YOU don't know what my hand is on in my pocket!!!!"

That was almost 20 years ago, and that young man is now the middle aged dispatcher for our local police department. We still laugh at that day, and he still calls me sir, and I think he learned a lesson...at least I hope so.

[Coronach]

A police officer knows the law, knows what is and isnt against the law and acts appropriately.Unfortunately, this just isn't true.Actually it is, probably 99% of the time. We read about the exceptions, not the rule. And, for those instances where the police do screw up, we have the court system, and all of the protections it provides.

That's not to say that it is ever acceptable for cops to not know the law, or not act appropriately. However, if one looks over the Constitution and similar documents for the several states, one will note that the framers of our government recognized that government is not always right, and engineered the system appropriately. Think about it- if cops were always right and always acted appropriately, the courts would be superfluous. They're not, and, given the reality that no one can be right 100% of the time, that's a good thing.

As to dispatchers, each department will have their own policy, but the general trend is to ALWAYS err on the side of sending the cops. Can you imagine the uproar if someone called 911 to report a man with a gun, got the runaround from the call-taker, and someone got shot because the police arrived a few seconds too late? We'd all be up in arms (so to speak) chanting "call 911 and die!"

So yeah, a 'man with a gun' call is going to get a police response.

Now, should the dispatcher be gathering as much info as possible, and passing that along to the responding officers? Yep. Should that information include just what it is this chap is doing? Yep. Should that information be subsequently evaluated in light of common sense and the law of the state by those officers? Yep. But should the cops be responding? Yep. Why? Someone called for the police. Unless that person spoke with the dispatcher and their concerns were allayed by that conversation (which, believe me, if you call in a "OMG THERE'S A MAN WITH A GUN" call, you're not going to be reassured by chatting with a dispatcher), that person deserves a police response.


Mike

[Derby FALs]

Okay, I suggest training dispatchers to ask more specific questions about the person with the weapon and attempt to separate fact from perception. While the caller may feel threatened, the dispatcher needs to find out whether or not the caller actually was threatened. I would say to the caller, "carrying a firearm is legal in New Hampshire, whether openly or concealed. Is there anything else about this person's actions that would constitute a crime?"

He has a Jerry Garcia Tie, Oh MY!

:neener:

[Igloodude]

might be time to consider a new location for the free state project.

No sooner said, than done. I heard on the radio this morning that having only gotten 6500 signatories, the FSP is formally abandoning its goal of 20,000 by 2006 or whenever the deadline is.

[Igloodude]

Now, should the dispatcher be gathering as much info as possible, and passing that along to the responding officers? Yep. Should that information include just what it is this chap is doing? Yep. Should that information be subsequently evaluated in light of common sense and the law of the state by those officers? Yep. But should the cops be responding? Yep. Why? Someone called for the police. Unless that person spoke with the dispatcher and their concerns were allayed by that conversation (which, believe me, if you call in a "OMG THERE'S A MAN WITH A GUN" call, you're not going to be reassured by chatting with a dispatcher), that person deserves a police response.

Well said. What would probably help a bit more is if afterward the officers or the dispatcher (or even a letter from the PD) got the opportunity to explain that the suspect wasn't actually committing a crime and that open carry is legal. They might simply retort "Well I don't think they should have a gun and so I'll call the cops again next time too" or something, but as it stands now all they know is that the police arrived, and (more than likely) escorted the suspect out of the store, so their mistaken belief is confirmed in their mind.

[The Real Hawkeye]

What I don't get is why people don't simply look at a person wearing a holstered firearm and assume that he's a cop or something -- especially if that person is minding his own business and is calm.

And that begs the question: How often do off-duty police officers get the cops called on them when their firearms are noticed? For that matter, how often to on-duty, but non-uniformed officers get the cops called on them?Whenever I see, for example, men poorly concealing service pistols in external holsters, with jackets or sweaters over them in Suffolk County, NY, I just assume they are Suffolk County Policemen who are off duty. They are notorious for this. I saw a couple of them in a Barnes and Nobles recently. Obviously cops, by the looks of them. You could actually see the outline of their weapons through the light wind breaker and sweater. I guess they can't afford a good Milt Sparks IWB holster.

[MikeIsaj]

‘You alarmed a person who saw the gun.’ This is the comment that bothers me most. It should say "someone was alarmed by seeing the gun." The gun owner did nothing to alarm the person. The person was alarmed by thir own irrational fear, not by any direct action of the gun owner.

I have had discussions with LEO regarding open carry in Pa. The responses you get are interesting. Most will say there isn't a direct prohibition in the crimes code. That said, they will threaten to write you a ticket for disorderly conduct, claiming that the mere presence of a firearm is alarming, but the law requires a level of intent that just isn't there in mere carry. I've challenged many who say it's illegal, and have asked them to cite the statute. No one has because, there is none.

[BostonGeorge]

its not like he had jeans sagging to his ankles and was wearing a doo rag.


Because lord knows they don't belong with guns. :rolleyes:

[mwelch8404]

..
As to dispatchers, each department will have their own policy, but the general trend is to ALWAYS err on the side of sending the cops. Can you imagine the uproar if someone called 911 to report a man with a gun, got the runaround from the call-taker, and someone got shot because the police arrived a few seconds too late? We'd all be up in arms (so to speak) chanting "call 911 and die!"

...
Mike

LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER sound.:cuss:

Like the women that was being raped?

The duty of law enforcemnt is to the public as a "whole," not to any individual or individuals. Just ask the several state courts that have bailed out officers and municipalities on these little beauties.

[AnthonyRSS]

Cops aren't lawyers. Oftentimes they don't know the law.
Friend of mine called the local sheriff to see if he could buy his boy a handgun. I had already told him it was okay, and shown him the legal statutes and whatnot, but he didn't believe me :rolleyes: The sheriff told him that he had to be 21 to own a handgun. Not true in this state.

Another thing- to all those that have anything to say about how you dress-
If it looks like a duck, etc.

Dressing a certain way doesn't make you any worse than you are, but it makes others suspicious of you.

If someone wears cowboy boots and tight jeans + Stetson, people will assume he is a cowboy.

If someone wears a suit and tie, people assume he is a business man.

If someone wears baggy jeans and dorags etc, he is an assumed 'gangsta'.

Most of the time these hold true. Thats just the way it is.

And if someone wears wrinkled slacks + black belt + brown shoes + suspenders + wrinkled polo shirt, he must be an engineer :p

BTW, I am not a cop-basher. I sometimes have to remind myself that cops are only people, and there are good ones and bad ones.

[Smurfslayer]

Cops aren't lawyers. Oftentimes they don't know the law.

Hit up "Google" on the search arguments "Champps" "Reston".

The mark of a good professional PD is not pushing a bad situation, where there is no crime, and trying to make up some sort of violation... There are stark contrasts in the way the Virginia (Fairfax county) police handle(d) open carry to the way the NH police did as depicted in the report and in accounts we already knew about. There has been some limited "mis" handling of these open carry events in VA, but they are few and far between and honestly it's been a while since one was really messed up. As has been the case, once the departments are aware of what the law actually is, they handle it. I'm not saying that VA PD's like open carry, endorse it, think highly of it, or otherwise have issues with it, but my experience has been that when you treat them with the respect you would give any other person on the street, you're treated to the respect and professionalism of a good PD, by and large.

Pax asked about dispatching "for (otherwise) lawful conduct". Another PP indicated, and I agree that those decisions should not be made by a dispatcher. It does no harm to dispatch an officer to be safe, rather than sorry. Of course, if I faced the attitude displayed by the quotes in that article I'd probably feel quite differently. Since I don't have to, I don't worry about it.

Unfortunatley, the attitude of Mr. Rice in the article is prevalent even in our own community like THR and many other gun circles. Dave Workman, Maria Heil, some of our own posters here have all pontificated that "open carry BAAAAAADDD", you'd better not do it! You'll be arrested for disturbing the peace! You'll scare the people! You're hurting us politically... Your gun will be snatched from you! :uhoh: :scrutiny: Ok, I guess if you're completely engrossed in something, wear an open top holster in the small of your back and you're attacked by several police officers you _could_ get your gun taken from you. :rolleyes:



Yeah, heard it all before. Hit up the blog @ bighammer.net. We have yet to run into this. Statistically, open carry is a non event. The overwhelming majority of poeple don't notice, most who do notice don't care. Those who notice and care - most of them are pro gun. Of the ones who notice, care and are not pro-gun or anti-gun, about half of them are completely non committal.

I'd venture to say that over the last several years I've open carried in the presence of tens of thousands of Virginia citizens and visitors, including police officers, Fed agents, gov't officials and regular dissheveled engineers ;) I guess we just handle it differently down here.

[Ultima-Ratio]

This brings to mind the day Anchorage PD dispatch phoned Brian the range officer at Rabbit Creek Range (state run); dispatch sez someone had reported machine gun fire at Rabbit Creek Range, to which Brian responds.....and?
Dispatch asks "it's legal?" YES

[Coronach]

LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER sound.

Like the women that was being raped?

The duty of law enforcemnt is to the public as a "whole," not to any individual or individuals. Just ask the several state courts that have bailed out officers and municipalities on these little beauties.In instances where the system, as a whole, fails to respond adequately, that probably applies. However, in instances where an individual engages in misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance, they most certainly can be and are sued. A dispatcher deciding on his own that a gun-run requires no response? That would not fly well in court around here. And, besides, I made no mention of suits, as lawsuits are but one way of showing outrage.

The most effective way often is that of making life politically difficult for the politican responsible for the agency in question.

Mike

[TallPine]

I can sorta understand the deal with the dispatcher (see below), but the responding officers should know better and act accordingly. It should be pretty obvious if the person is acting in a threatening manner or not. Just a quiet chat, and "good-day" would work fine.

You know, you're required to have a licence to drive a car, but can you imagine stopping every "man with a car" to verify that he has a license? :rolleyes:

A couple years back, we got a page one night for a structure fire. I get up, get dressed, and am about to roll the pickup down the driveway when the dispatcher calls back to cancel the response. It seems the reporting party had seen the light of the rising moon through the windows of a nearby house. :D

[Coronach]

I can sorta understand the deal with the dispatcher (see below), but the responding officers should know better and act accordingly. It should be pretty obvious if the person is acting in a threatening manner or not. Just a quiet chat, and "good-day" would work fine.I agree. However, we're hearing one side of the issue. Assuming what has been relayed is the unvarnished and whole truth, I agree. Details, however, matter, and we don;t have all of them. In general, though, we're on the same page.

Mike

[Devonai]

On a lighter note, this reminds me of when I dispatched for my alma mater's department of public safety. My friend Marc and I were (and still are) big into sparring with bokken (wooden swords) and the other dispatchers and officers would often get calls about people trying to kill each other with sticks. They'd just laugh and say, "that's just Dave and Marc, call us back if one of them stops moving."

I suppose they could have gotten in trouble if two other students ever got into a real fight with "sticks" and did nothing.

[Standing Wolf]

I've been carrying openly in Colorado about a third of the time since last spring. To date, (other than my fellow bullseye shooters at the range,) a grand total of one person has questioned me about it.