Alarming new trend with some CCWs


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
July 29, 2011, 10:00 PM
.

The majority of CCW's are law-abiding citizen's who rarely have any problems with law enforcement. Recently we've been seen an alarming trend wherein someone who has a CCW keeps/carries the gun for their friend(s) who aren't allowed to CCW or are known criminals/gang-members.


What usually happens is the CCW'er passes their gun off to his friend who isn't a CCW, that person uses the gun in a crime, and they then pass the gun back to the CCW. If the CCW'er is caught after the crime he can't be ID'd as the suspect because he didn't commit the crime and because he has a permit to carry he is lawfully possessing the firearm.


What we are seeing is usually known gang-members with someone who is a CCW'er. Whether the gang-members recently befriended the CCW'er or have known them for a long time is unknown and different per each incident.


One situation was where there was a fight outside of a bar. Once the fight broke up one half of the fighters stayed in front of the bar while the other half walked across the street and one man in the group (the CCW'er) took a pistol out of his car and they all started walking back to the bar where the fight had taken place and the other half of the fighters were still standing there. They got halfway across the street when they were stopped by police. A police officer had witnessed all of this from the beginning and called it out over the radio.

The group was stopped and the man with the CCW's gun was taken for safe keeping wherein he'd be able to pick it up during business hours the next day and if there would be any charges filed. This was a mutual combatant bar fight, not one person/group being assaulted and then one half of the fight goes and gets a gun and comes back to once again confront the other party. It is hard to plead self-defense when you leave a situation and instead of calling the cops or going home come back with a gun. The other members of the group were known gang-members while the CCW'er was not. Now, this would have been a case of the CCW'er committing the criminal act if he had used the weapon or brandished it. However, it's who he was with and the act he was most likely about to commit that is unusual for most CCW'ers.



At one time you could have an encounter with most any CCW and almost all of the time it would be a nice encounter, now you may have a legit CCW'er but who they are with might make you think differently on their intentions. Obviously you treat every situation with the utmost safety, but it is good to know about new trends in crime.


Also, many people who are known gang-members or criminals are not actually Felons. Some of our worst criminals have many arrests and convictions and are not felons. This doesn't mean they can get CCW's, but it also means they cannot be charged with Felon in possession when they get caught with a gun.


Law Enforcement officers need to be aware of this as we have had quite a few encounters recently with situations like this. We have a lot of armed robberies where I work and other crimes where criminals use guns.

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Alarming new trend with some CCWs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GRIZ22
July 29, 2011, 10:05 PM
Can you provide an example of this happening?

Aaron Baker
July 29, 2011, 10:25 PM
What are you quoting from?

And secondly, the situation described in the text sounds like a legally armed citizen being unlawfully disarmed by the police because they are afraid he might commit a crime in the future. I didn't realize we had reached that level of police tyranny in the United States.

If a friend of mine got into a fight and I was not previously armed with my carry weapon because I had been inside a prohibited place (a bar), it seems like it might be a prudent thing to re-arm myself if I'm going to hang around the area. Sure, it'd be smarter to just go home, but if my friends are refusing to leave with me, maybe I'd rather be armed in case I have to come to the defense of others, as allowed by law.

Just because my friend has previously been associated by the police with gang activity doesn't mean he can't have law-abiding friends. I don't see any concrete examples of a gun "hand-off" happening.

Looks like an example of the "only some people should be legally allowed to arm themselves for self-defense" mentality. Sort of like the racism of "Saturday Night Special" laws.

Aaron

usmarine0352_2005
July 29, 2011, 10:38 PM
.

Grizz, as all of the current cases are still pending comments can not be made about them.





What are you quoting from?

And secondly, the situation described in the text sounds like a legally armed citizen being unlawfully disarmed by the police because they are afraid he might commit a crime in the future. I didn't realize we had reached that level of police tyranny in the United States.

If a friend of mine got into a fight and I was not previously armed with my carry weapon because I had been inside a prohibited place (a bar), it seems like it might be a prudent thing to re-arm myself if I'm going to hang around the area. Sure, it'd be smarter to just go home, but if my friends are refusing to leave with me, maybe I'd rather be armed in case I have to come to the defense of others, as allowed by law.

Just because my friend has previously been associated by the police with gang activity doesn't mean he can't have law-abiding friends. I don't see any concrete examples of a gun "hand-off" happening.

Looks like an example of the "only some people should be legally allowed to arm themselves for self-defense" mentality. Sort of like the racism of "Saturday Night Special" laws.

Aaron



I am not quoting from anything. I was working that night. In MN you can carry in a bar. So this patron did not carry in the bar but then went and got his gun and came back.



Self-defense is going to be hard to prove if you go back to where a fight happened and then end up shooting the person you were in a fight with.



Our department is very CCW friendly, so don't make assumptions like that.

.

Sock Puppet
July 29, 2011, 10:47 PM
I don't know about MN's laws, but many states allow you to carry a firearm in your vehicle. Since the CCW holder is accused of handing his weapon to a friend out of his vehicle, why is it relevant that he had a CCW? Anyone can have a weapon in a car (legally or not) and hand it off. From your example, I don't see this as a CCW holder problem.

GRIZ22
July 29, 2011, 10:47 PM
Grizz, as all of the current cases are still pending comments can not be made about them.

Pending what? If there have been people charged with some crime for doing so that is a matter of public record. A news article would be fine.

mp510
July 29, 2011, 10:49 PM
It's not really a new trend or concept. That behavior has been documented in criminal elements (e.g. motorcycle gangs) for decades.

Danb1215
July 29, 2011, 10:52 PM
You know what doesn't make concerned whatsoever? People carrying guns without a permit.....

orionengnr
July 29, 2011, 10:59 PM
Sorry, I know a number of CCW holders, and none of them hang around with scumbags.

Stop and think about it for a minute:
--You have subjected yourself to an fairly rigorous background check.
--You have paid a pretty penny for your permit (here it is $140 to the state plus ~$100 to the entity conducting the required training).
--You have paid (insert your $ here) to buy your carry pistol.

Now you are going to put all of that (plus your personal freedom) at risk to back up some scumbag? Not really buying it without further evidence.

If it happens in one or two circumstances (and we still have seen no evidence that it actually happens, but it is possible)...it is a self-correcting problem. Scumbag goes to prison, CCW guy loses his permit (and very likely his freedom).

Kind of like straw purchases. Yes, it happens, but it is a < .1% problem.

Sounds as if Chicken Little is alive and well to me.

FIVETWOSEVEN
July 29, 2011, 11:17 PM
(here it is $140 to the state plus ~$100 to the entity conducting the required training).

:eek: In New Hampshire, all you do is pay $20 and you get the permit within 14 days if you aren't a criminal, etc.

David E
July 29, 2011, 11:52 PM
It's a licensed CCW holder giving his gun to a felon to use in a crime?

Define "trend."

Evergreen
July 30, 2011, 12:01 AM
What do seasoned criminals who murder, pillage, rape and steal care about using a CCW holder to hide their criminal intentions? First of all, they can dump all their guns in a trunk. The police need a search warrant. Second of all, they can carry guns with them. Third of all, many areas that have very high murder rates, especially gun violence, are in places where CCW isn't legal at all, like Los Angeles, Wash DC, New York CIty, Chicago, etc. Really, I think one goody two shoes with a CCW rolling along with his felon-friends and acting as a coverman, isn't going to provide them any great benefits. A cop pulls over a group of felons that have a car full of weapons and one legit guy with a CCW, oh yeah right, like this isn't going to draw any attention.

Also, a lot of other gang shootings are done with shotguns and rifles. Since, when are you allowed to conceal carry a long gun?

Most criminals can get guns on the street. Why would they want to use a handgun in a crime that can easily trace back to themselves? A legal CCW holder would be a very easy source to trace. Especially, if he is buying loads of guns for all his homies to use in crimes. Gee, I wonder how long that would last?

Aaron Baker
July 30, 2011, 12:04 AM
I am not quoting from anything. I was working that night. In MN you can carry in a bar. So this patron did not carry in the bar but then went and got his gun and came back.

Self-defense is going to be hard to prove if you go back to where a fight happened and then end up shooting the person you were in a fight with.

Our department is very CCW friendly, so don't make assumptions like that.

I'm going to try to keep this High Road, but your response honestly made me extremely angry.

You are saying that a person who had committed no crime and was not arrested for anything whatsoever had his property confiscated by the police. That's positively unAmerican. You and your cronies on the police force don't get to decide when a law-abiding citizen gets to carry his firearm and when he doesn't, but you've apparently taken it upon yourselves to do so anyway. I hope your department gets sued and loses big.

Your department may be "very CCW friendly" when it's the right people carrying in situations that don't make you uncomfortable, but apparently you're not Constitutional rights friendly when people have done nothing wrong other than associating with people that you have labeled as "gang members." Sounds like you're pretty similar to the cops in Canton, Ohio who don't like CCW'ers that they don't trust for whatever reason.

As for proving self-defense, maybe it's because I'm a Kentuckian, but here in the free world, we have a saying. "A Kentuckian never retreats." If I am in a place where I have a lawful right to be and am threatened with deadly force, I have the right to use deadly force to defend myself.

You tell me the legal difference between putting my carry piece in my pocket and leaving it there all day OR leaving it in my car, but retrieving it when I sense that the area I'm in has become more dangerous. If I don't have a duty to retreat, then my claim of self-defense is valid either way.

If you think that "would have been a case of the CCW'er committing the criminal act if" justifies "the CCW's gun was taken for safe keeping," then with all due respect, go find yourself a communist police state to live and serve in, because we don't need you here in the United States.

This is still a free country and we don't need cops like you.

Aaron

Evergreen
July 30, 2011, 12:20 AM
I didn't realize this thread was started by a police officer. Sounds very anti-gun to me.. And,I must say it is alarming that some police departments feel so obliged to find excuses to criminalize our freedoms and constitutional rights. This is, IMO, a bogus thread and has no place on THR.. The antis, love to find any excuse or make up any type of crisis they can to ban our RKBA. Wasn't it not long ago that I heard law abiding AMerican citizens were supplying all the Mexican drug cartels with their grenades, rocket launches and fully automatic rifles? Oh wait a minute, it turned out that all those weapons were supplied by the US Government.. Oh yeah, American citizens (little brother) cannot even own these types of weapons. The media and antis forget to mention that too. GO figure.. And, how did law abiding American citizens get the blame for this one? Now, it is CCW allows gang members to covert their activities. Total BS..

Just my opinion, though.

Mags
July 30, 2011, 12:24 AM
So what laws are being broken?

What's to stop the gang bangers from illegaly carrying concealed themselves?

If the legal CCW guy was in poessesion of a gun used in a crime by his gang budies wouldn't he be under investigation?

Steve in PA
July 30, 2011, 12:26 AM
"and the man with the CCW's gun was taken for safe keeping wherein he'd be able to pick it up during business hours the next day"

Really??? Tell me the case law that allows the (illegal) seizure of property for "safe keeping" until the next day.

TIMC
July 30, 2011, 05:36 AM
I'm sure that can happen but I don't think it is a nation wide epidemic. If a person loans a gun to a felon to use in the commisision of a crime they too can become a felon if the gun is linked back to them which it can through ballistics. Someone is always going to abuse the system for their own advantage but they will soon be weeded out.

While I am sure this could and probably has happened I really doubt it is of any large scale like the OP is putting it. The post reads like a media sensationlism wolf cry to try and bring more importance to an isolated incident. It sure doesn't happen around here.

EddieNFL
July 30, 2011, 06:25 AM
And secondly, the situation described in the text sounds like a legally armed citizen being unlawfully disarmed by the police because they are afraid he might commit a crime in the future. I didn't realize we had reached that level of police tyranny in the United States.

Katrina's aftermath is one of multiple examples.

Grizz, as all of the current cases are still pending comments can not be made about them.

I'm amazed your department has been able to keep this under wraps. Normally, the media would be all over something like this and you would have a plethora of news links to post.

Cryogaijin
July 30, 2011, 06:29 AM
Recently we've been seen an alarming trend wherein someone who has a CCW keeps/carries the gun for their friend(s) who aren't allowed to CCW or are known criminals/gang-members.

Couple issues with this statement. First off, "Known criminals" are in jail. If they aren't in jail, they're innocent, or rehabilitated.

Presumption of guilt, guilt by association, or guilt by demographic are both rampant and unconstitutional. The constitution is not a document you can pick and choose what you want to enforce; you either enforce all of it, or you get an amendment passed to change it.

A friend of mine came >< close to getting a DV against him, by a woman that had assaulted him. Because he didn't file anything, she got the jump on him in court. If he had gotten the DV, I would have happily taken care of his guns while he attempted to get the DV overturned. He didn't get it overturned, I would have assisted him in selling said firearms.

Things are not always as they appear, and using simple descriptions and general statements will get you into trouble more often than not.

MyGreenGuns
July 30, 2011, 06:32 AM
.. then the legal CC guy is stepping into dangerous water. If his gang banger buddy kills someone, the only linked evidence may point to him. Could he PROVE he didnt provide the weapon, knowing how it would be used? The gang kid can deny everything, its not HIS gun! In a media frenzy they would be labeled a killers. If someone were dumb enough to do that, they get what they deserve.

Southern Rebel
July 30, 2011, 07:23 AM
I gotta go with the same opinion as everyone else regarding the "trend". One or two instances do not make a trend. However, I do have concerns about ANYONE leaving the scene of a fight, then going to get a gun and returning to the fight scene with his buds. I have to agree with the police on disarming him until things cool down.

Sam1911
July 30, 2011, 07:40 AM
You tell me the legal difference between putting my carry piece in my pocket and leaving it there all day OR leaving it in my car, but retrieving it when I sense that the area I'm in has become more dangerous. If I don't have a duty to retreat, then my claim of self-defense is valid either way.

However, I do have concerns about ANYONE leaving the scene of a fight, then going to get a gun and returning to the fight scene with his buds.

I think this is an important point here. You may not have a duty to retreat from an area. You may have the lawful right to arm yourself. However, leaving the scene of "trouble" (like a fight), arming yourself, and retuning to the scene of ongoing or expected trouble steps beyond lawful self-defense. It certainly may put you into the role of a mutual combatant who's justification for the use of lethal force has evaporated.

"No duty to retreat" is not the same thing as "Hey, let's get a gun and go back for another round."

Also, giving someone else a firearm when you KNEW or had reason to know that they intended to use it in the commission of a crime (whether or not they are a prohibited person already) isn't exactly a legally sound idea. If the police observe you handing a gun to someone who then takes it into a bar and shoots someone in a bar fight, you could definitely be charged with aiding and abetting that felony assault with a deadly weapon or murder. It would be extremely hard to fight a charge of being an accomplice to that crime, if you were present at the scene of a fight, left to get a gun, and gave that weapon to one of the combatants to use in continuing the violence.

Autolycus
July 30, 2011, 10:13 AM
Just because someone has a CCWer does not mean you are a good guy. I think to think otherwise is silly and a bad idea.

RUT
July 30, 2011, 10:17 AM
>>What do seasoned criminals who murder, pillage, rape and steal care about using a CCW holder to hide their criminal intentions?<<

My sentiments exactly! :rolleyes:

Unistat
July 30, 2011, 10:39 AM
...Recently we've been seen an alarming trend wherein someone who has a CCW keeps/carries the gun for their friend(s) who aren't allowed to CCW or are known criminals/gang-members...

I remember hearing that OMG members often had their women carry their guns. Seems that this is similiar to that, for similiar reasons.

Unistat
July 30, 2011, 10:45 AM
Couple issues with this statement. First off, "Known criminals" are in jail. If they aren't in jail, they're innocent, or rehabilitated...

If that is true why are criminal records kept? Why do convicted felons have certain rights curtailed? Why are there Third Strike-type laws?

For the purpose of this discussion a "known criminal" is someone that has been convicted of a crime that prohibits them from owning and carrying a gun, hence the need for the "gun sherpa."

tbutera2112
July 30, 2011, 10:53 AM
i know a guy who is a drug dealer and a gangbanger and he has his CCW permit.....just because someone doesnt have a record, doesnt mean they arent into bad stuff...just means they are good enough to not get busted

HD Fboy
July 30, 2011, 10:54 AM
After training, reading, paying money, taking tests, etc I, as a lawful CCW licensed individual enters an establishment unarmed and feels threatened. So, I leave, go to my car, get my gun and return. Really??

Let me state for the record if I was unarmed in a place where I sensed danger and I escaped (with any family/friends I had with me) under no circumstances would I return. Why in the world would you put yourself back into the line of fire like that?????

IMO anyone who does return to said location, armed is not looking to defend themselves. If said individual got into an altercation following these events and that exchange resulted in said individual shooting another individual i believe they would have difficulty escaping arrest. Hard to argue that when you re entered the establishment armed you didn't become the aggressor.

IMO if a LEO witnesses this type of exchange and stops it he has done his job.

InkEd
July 30, 2011, 10:58 AM
The fact that the person had a ccw is irrelevant to behavior and actions committed. Basically, all that it does is prevent him/her from being charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. However, if they KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY hand it to a felon (or anyone) to be used for an illeagal activity they can be charge with accessory to whatever crimes are committed. Which is a more serious crime anyway.

SaxonPig
July 30, 2011, 12:39 PM
I sincerely doubt this is a "trend." Maybe a few isolated incidents. It's long been known that the old ladies will sometimes carry for their biker BFs. But they are robots who do as they are told without question. Anyone packing on behalf of a felon is breaking the law and is asking for a felony conviction. If murder results they are guilty, too.

Most gang bangers and violent criminals don't worry about gun laws, anyway. They carry despite laws against doing so. If murder doesn't worry them why should a gun law?

Sounds like a typical Brady Bunch scare tactic press release, to me.

lemaymiami
July 30, 2011, 12:44 PM
I read most of the above posts and feel the need to point out a couple of things that go beyond the right to keep and bear arms... and the privelege of carrying concealed.

First things first -- if you gathered together any group of 100 individuals and sort them out any way you want... 100 doctors, 100 car mechanics, 100 priest or rabbis, 100 cops, 100 construction workers, or don't sort them at all... At least one or two (occasionally more) are probably doing things they shouldn't be doing. Some of them will keep it minor others are into the stuff of nightmares. That also includes folks that have passed all the requirements to legally carry concealed. Anyone that thinks I'm exaggerating might consider that for many years I dealt with every level of society as a cop (and was lied to by many that I met... good guys, bad guys, the clueless, and the sharpies...). By the time I left police work I didn't trust the folks I worked for, the folks I worked with, etc. I found I probably had more in common with people I met in back alleys than the ones you'd never find in back alleys.... In the fifteen years since I 'retired' I've mellowed a lot but you never forget the basics. That sort of stuff is how people behave - even when it's going to cost them...

Now for the fun part... bad guys will get access to guns if they want them. They'll steal, beg, borrow,etc. Anyone that helps in that process ought to have trouble sleeping at night. The best reason not to do that sort of stuff (even if it's a family member, best friend, or lover) is that when really bad stuff happens and the guy or gal is in custody and going down hard.... they'll hand up their own mothers to stay out of jail. The guy or gal that handed, lent, gave them the gun they used will be the first one they'll give up. I've seen it happen.

One last thought and a true story.... I automatically figure an experienced bad guy won't be the one carrying the gun if they're smart (and prison is nothing but a school...). Whenever I had one in front of me I always paid attention to their buddies, girlfriends, family members because one of them was probably the one holding if they were up to no good. Many years ago one of my snitches told me about a late night scene at a topless/bottomless (and taste-less) bar where there was a short fight. The kid who got beaten left, then came back with a bat to settle up. All around the bar bikers (it was that kind of place) went into their boots, or into their girlfriend's purses to come up with guns.... The young man with the bat made his apologies and backed out very, very quietly. Everyone present put their guns away and went back to business as though nothing had ever happened... just another hot, Florida moment.

You ought to remember that most cops (or those like me that made it into another life style) never saw any good moments involving guns when they were working. We all knew that lots of good people owned, carried, and never ever were a problem. We just never got to deal with many of them. All I ever dealt with were the other kind....

usmarine0352_2005
July 30, 2011, 12:45 PM
Sam1911: Quote:
You tell me the legal difference between putting my carry piece in my pocket and leaving it there all day OR leaving it in my car, but retrieving it when I sense that the area I'm in has become more dangerous. If I don't have a duty to retreat, then my claim of self-defense is valid either way.
Quote:
However, I do have concerns about ANYONE leaving the scene of a fight, then going to get a gun and returning to the fight scene with his buds.
I think this is an important point here. You may not have a duty to retreat from an area. You may have the lawful right to arm yourself. However, leaving the scene of "trouble" (like a fight), arming yourself, and retuning to the scene of ongoing or expected trouble steps beyond lawful self-defense. It certainly may put you into the role of a mutual combatant who's justification for the use of lethal force has evaporated.

"No duty to retreat" is not the same thing as "Hey, let's get a gun and go back for another round."

Also, giving someone else a firearm when you KNEW or had reason to know that they intended to use it in the commission of a crime (whether or not they are a prohibited person already) isn't exactly a legally sound idea. If the police observe you handing a gun to someone who then takes it into a bar and shoots someone in a bar fight, you could definitely be charged with aiding and abetting that felony assault with a deadly weapon or murder. It would be extremely hard to fight a charge of being an accomplice to that crime, if you were present at the scene of a fight, left to get a gun, and gave that weapon to one of the combatants to use in continuing the violence.



Good post.




Also, as it appeared he was returning to re-start the fight that he was involved with earlier it would disorderly conduct and he could have been charged with that. All of them could have been arrested for disorderly conduct in the first place, the only difference is this time he would have had his gun on him.

Mike1234567
July 30, 2011, 12:51 PM
I would never loan a firearm to anyone... not even to a good friend. I might sell one to him/her for $1 with a signed receipt and (hopefully) they'll sell it back to me for $1 when they no longer need it. Provided I, in good intent, try to ensure he/she can legally possess a firearm then I should be indemnified if something goes awry.

However, I would expect the firearm to somehow become "lost" or "stolen"... just human nature in my experience. But that's another subject.

Cryogaijin
July 30, 2011, 01:07 PM
If that is true why are criminal records kept? Extensive records of your finances are kept as well, doesn't make you a tycoon or a debtor.

Guilty until proven innocent is what the antis want to label legit firearms owners, no reason for us to stoop to the same arguments.

Honestly I'm in favor of ex-felons getting their right to keep and arm bears after a probationary period.

lemaymiami
July 30, 2011, 01:17 PM
I'll second that Cryo... as long as their rights are earned back with years of good behavior.

Prisons turn out bad guys, period. Anything that might help to bring a felon back to daylight is worth considering. I'd go for the right to vote being restored after three years trouble free, the right to own firearms after five years, etc. I'm not talking automatically either. It would be a good idea to really look at them before full restoration. I know that lots will oppose this but people change over time (mostly) and I think we'd be smart to encourage good change. I don't like what prison does (folks inside get taught all the wrong stuff and it really shows when you deal with them as a cop once they're outside again).

Unistat
July 30, 2011, 01:57 PM
Extensive records of your finances are kept as well, doesn't make you a tycoon or a debtor.

Guilty until proven innocent is what the antis want to label legit firearms owners, no reason for us to stoop to the same arguments.

Honestly I'm in favor of ex-felons getting their right to keep and arm bears after a probationary period.

Well then, I see we're not going to agree on much with regards to this particular dicussion. I can respect your sincere and honest difference of opinion.

Old krow
July 30, 2011, 03:18 PM
I see an issue with immediately walking back into a bar after I have been in a fight, with or without a gun. I agree that I have the legal right to defend myself, the problem that I have with it is knowingly taking a chance where Physics might trump my rights to self-defense.

I'm sort of confused though. Was the CCWer with the gang members or was he part of the other half?

In either case, I wasn't there, everyone lived through it, so I am reluctant to say much about the judgement of the LEO that was there, but, here's a question:

What would happen if the CCWer, no matter which side he was on, was killed on the way home? He hadn't broken a law had he? A better question might be, was he charged with anything? If he was disarmed, no law broken, no arrest, and one of the opposition decided to continue the fight on the way home, his means of self-defense were taken from him that he previously had until his gun was unlawfully taken away from him. That seems like a disaster waiting to happen for someone.

Edit: Just saw where they could have been charged with Disorderly Conduct.

Aaron Baker
July 30, 2011, 03:52 PM
Also, as it appeared he was returning to re-start the fight that he was involved with earlier it would disorderly conduct and he could have been charged with that. All of them could have been arrested for disorderly conduct in the first place, the only difference is this time he would have had his gun on him.

Ahh. Now we see what kind of cop you are, as if it wasn't already clear. Lawyers have another name for "disorderly conduct." We call it "contempt of cop." Because any time you do something that a cop doesn't like and he can't find another charge to fit, it's disorderly conduct.

"Appearing to return to an area that was earlier the scene of a fight he was involved in" is not disorderly conduct and never will be. You could charge someone with that charge, but they would never be convicted of it.

But, again, the point is that despite all the "would have/could haves" that you're throwing around, no one was charged with a crime. You deprived a citizen of his property without charging him or anyone else with a crime.

"No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law."

Shame on you. Don't you believe in our Constitution?

Aaron

MikeNice
July 30, 2011, 04:38 PM
Grizz, as all of the current cases are still pending comments can not be made about them.

Pending what? If there have been people charged with some crime for doing so that is a matter of public record. A news article would be fine.

A report number and agency name would work as well. Once a report has been written and submitted to the records department it is considerred public information most often.

MikeNice
July 30, 2011, 04:44 PM
However, it's who he was with and the act he was most likely about to commit that is unusual for most CCW'ers.


The act he was most likely about to commit? So he did absolutely nothing. He didn't shoot anybody. He didn't pass off a gun to anybody. Yet he is the sign of a new trend in CCWers passing guns to criminals and/or acting as strawmen?

Really your leap of logic holds enough fallacies to be mind boggling. I work for the police department. I'm glad you're not one of my officers.

All parties should have been orderred from the scene. The scene should have been secured long enough to make sure they were gone and didn't come back. Then it should have been on about busines as usual. You don't disarm a man legally carrying when he hasn't actually ben involved in a crime.

My question is, why didn't anybody talk to the manager or club security to see why they didn't call the cops? A large fight with mutiple parties should be called in. Otherwise it looks like the club condones the action and is making itself a problem fo the neighborhood.

Why wasn't anyone arrested for fighting. Even mutual combat can land both parties in jail for the fight. It can also lead to drunk and disorderly, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct and public intoxication charges. Instead the police disarm a CCWer that has comitted no crime and send the parties back in to the night. They are left free to go home and collect all kinds of weapons to escalate the scene at another location or even at the same location.

Brilliant work guys.

brickeyee
July 30, 2011, 05:10 PM
It actually sounds like a bunch of hysteria dreamed up to oppose CCW by the 'unclean' (as in not LE or their chosen).

Without a single reference to something publicly available it sounds like BS.

evan price
July 30, 2011, 05:27 PM
News Flash:

Criminals are doing illegal things.

Thanks for the breaking news.

Now back to your regularly scheduled THR session...

rori
July 30, 2011, 05:34 PM
Seems to me that the ccw holder is violating the law just by giving a person he knows to be a felon a gun. Other than that IMHO if I can get to my car to get my gun then I would much rather get in the car and drive away as fast as I can and not kill or wound anyone or get killed myself. Believe me you don't want to be in the situation of having to justify assaulting someone with a gun much less killing him. Shooting is a very last resort not the first option by any means.

Cap'n Jack Burntbeard
July 30, 2011, 08:06 PM
Although my first instinct is that this is a troll thread, I'll give this supposed police officer the benefit of the doubt, at least for a minute anyway.

So let me get this straight:
A man is indirectly involved in an altercation, you don't arrest him because he apparently did nothing wrong, he leaves the establishment, arms himself which you stated is legal, he then attempts to return to said establishment to enjoy the rest of his night out, at which point you decide it would be a swell idea to forcibly disarm him and confiscate his property without due process?

Either you are simply here to troll us, or you are a shining example of why people often take a very dim view of law enforcement.

357 Terms
July 30, 2011, 08:50 PM
Did this happen in Canton Ohio ?

Art Eatman
July 30, 2011, 10:25 PM
Not every member of a gang has a criminal record. We know from published information that "gaming the system" is now occurring. Gang members are joining the military for one enlistment term in order to get the training and come home and then act as instructors to their fellow gang members.

It seems evident from the opening post that a similar sequence is now occurring with CHLs. A non-record gang member goes through the licensing process and then the gang takes advantage of laws as they are written. Again, gaming the system, which is set up with the assumption that good guys will always act like good guys.

Zundfolge
July 30, 2011, 10:31 PM
Alarming new trend?

I call shenanigans ... prior to this thread I'd never heard of such a thing, let alone it being a "trend".

The only thing that stops me from crying "troll" is that the OP has been around here a long time and I don't remember reading any other silliness posted by them.

Kliegl
July 30, 2011, 10:48 PM
Be careful man, shenanigans might be too strong a word for here. I got a comment deleted for saying *IT*.

MikeNice
July 30, 2011, 10:54 PM
It seems evident from the opening post that a similar sequence is now occurring with CHLs.

How? Please point out where a gang member recieved a gun from a CHL holder or where anyone did anything illegal after the fight.

we are not amused
July 30, 2011, 11:11 PM
I have a friend whose son-in-law is in Law Enforcement, and he is always telling me what the latest scare stories are being passed along among Law Enforcement types. Most of them are so outrageous and unbelievable I thought he was pulling my leg, only when I checked with a couple of Law enforcement acquaintances, did I find out the stories were real. Well, perhaps real is the wrong term, the stories were obviously exaggerated, if not outright fakes, but they were being passed around by cops and being believed by at least some of them. What were the stories? Almost any outrageous, paranoid and conspiratorial story that could be invented. And when asked for details, it was always, "can't say any more, it is under investigation."

Take the current example, why would a CCW permit holder pal around with a bunch of gang members, and loan them weapons? If the gang member was caught with that weapon, and it could be traced to the CCW owner, I would think some very embarrassing and legally troublesome questions would be asked.

For that matter, some of the things I have been accused of by Law Enforcement officers, lead me to believe that their judgment of who is or is not violating the law is questionable at best.

Evergreen
July 30, 2011, 11:22 PM
In a police state, the police are much safer, but the population is much less. In a free country ruled by majority rule and a constitution to protect the rights of the people, the police will have more dangerous jobs. Unlike some countries, the police don't have to take these jobs. However, police should understand the situation that arises from living in a country where citizens have so many rights. In a lot of ways, I think police get abused by the system quite a bit too. However, it goes both ways. The OP has proven that with this post. Police should be there to find solutions to our problems while helping protect the rights of the people, rather than try to do away with them.

I agree with Art about gangbangers joining the military. That seems to be something I have a concern with, as there have been reports of gangs joining the military to increase their combat training for their gangs. I really think when it comes to the military, that they should screen heavily for people with gang affiliations, including terrorist groups. My thoughts are there is no 100% solution to all these problems without taking away our freedoms. Freedom comes with a price, but the alternative is much worse.

Considering, how politicians have abused the system with gun rights, I don't advocate any personality profiling on non-criminals who want CHLs. I highly doubt congress will ever ban people joining the military en masse. As we need people to serve int he arm forces to protect the country. My father was denied sub duty in Vietnam, because his mother came from Belarus. Do I feel he was abused? No. I think when it comes to the safety of our soldiers, some precautions can be taken to keep potentially volatile people out of the military. For example, the Islamist who tried to murder people at Fort this week.

Art Eatman
July 30, 2011, 11:32 PM
"Take the current example, why would a CCW permit holder pall around with a bunch of gang members, and loan them weapons?"

Could be that the CHL person is a gang member?

NavyLCDR
July 30, 2011, 11:43 PM
Could be that the CHL person is a gang member?

Or hired by the BATFE.... :scrutiny:

we are not amused
July 30, 2011, 11:58 PM
The whole story could be a fake too!
It certainly doesn't sound very likely.
And even if it is, how is it different than a gang member giving his gun to girlfriend or other acquaintance?
It sounds like another anti-CCW story by a bunch of anti-gun nuts. Maybe the guy who posted it, who is apparently a police officer, believes it, but I have heard too many wild stories from cops over the years to put too much stock in wild stories. I remember a couple of decades ago when wild stories about witchcraft and satanism were making the rounds in the Law Enforcement Community. In the Nineties it was every Conservative was suddenly a militia member and plotting to kill cops, now it CCW holders who are supplying guns to gang members. (Yawn!) It's late, enough with the conspiracy theories.

BullfrogKen
July 31, 2011, 12:09 AM
This is not a new trend.


Gangs use members without records to do things those with records can't do all the time. It's not limited to finding ways to lawfully carry guns for the gang.

They'll use them to visit people in prison. Gets jobs that require criminal background checks. Etc.

This isn't anything new. Or really all that surprising.

Weevil
July 31, 2011, 12:55 AM
Well if a CHL holder breaks the law then charge him with a crime and if he's convicted he won't be a CHL holder anymore.

Isn't that the whole idea of requiring a CHL, to keep "convicted" felons from "legally" carrying a concealed gun.


Hasving a CHL doesn't guarantee someone will always obey the law, that's why it can be revoked.

I'm sure there are more than a few CHL holders who made bad decisions and lost their right to legally carry a concealed firearm.

Just as I'm sure more than a few cops have lost their jobs for making bad decisions.


There's always a few bad apples in any group.

hso
July 31, 2011, 08:11 AM
While I have no first hand experience with this I have been told by people on both sides of the issue that do have first hand experience of specific instances in which a female or minor was carrying a weapon for someone that was either a felon or gang member. Every one of the people telling me this explained that the penalty was much less serious for the person with the gun than it would have been for the felon/gang member.

I also know a large number of LE and I also know that there are a number of instances in which they've told me about incidents in which they didn't arrest someone, but did intervene in the situation to keep it from becoming more dangerous. Typical actions were to oder someone to leave an area to force deescalation when the parties were too emotional to exercise good judgement. A couple have told me about taking guns and knives to be picked up the next day until the owner "cooled down". Are these purely Constitutional? The officers telling me about these instances wanted to prevent the situation from becoming dangerous without having to charge anyone. They usually expressed it as "avoiding all that paperwork" or "not wanting to make it worse" for the individual by arresting them. That isn't very unusual outside of big cities.

Is it purely Constitutional? No. Is it unusual? Not in my area. Is it intended to deprive the citizen of their property? Temporarily, Yes. Permanently, No.

Pilot
July 31, 2011, 08:14 AM
So how is this a trend? Criminals do illegal things whether it be with a CCW holders weapon or not. I don't usually post negative thoughts here, but I think this is one of the most ridiculous threads I have read on a gun forum. Sorry, but that is how I feel after wasting time reading it.

TCB in TN
July 31, 2011, 08:37 AM
I'm amazed your department has been able to keep this under wraps. Normally, the media would be all over something like this and you would have a plethora of news links to post.

While we do hear lots more about the things that happen today, there are still plenty of things that happen that don't see the light of day. IMHO most PD are pretty good about keeping things quiet, and most people involved with incidents don't publicize them all that much.


I see an issue with immediately walking back into a bar after I have been in a fight, with or without a gun. I agree that I have the legal right to defend myself, the problem that I have with it is knowingly taking a chance where Physics might trump my rights to self-defense.

I agree in some levels, but have been in positions where I felt threatened but was not able to go (Job). The plant I worked at had several incidents with employees crazy ex's threatening to kill everyone. The lady who was the clerk in my department was one of them. Her ex came, I had to ask him to leave, then threaten to call the police. He threatened to kill me, her, anyone else, but left. In that case would I have been wrong to arm myself, but stay? I don't think so........

EddieNFL
July 31, 2011, 08:48 AM
While we do hear lots more about the things that happen today, there are still plenty of things that happen that don't see the light of day. IMHO most PD are pretty good about keeping things quiet, and most people involved with incidents don't publicize them all that much.

Can't speak for others, but the local daily rag has a reporter that reviews the local police, sheriff and FHP blotters. Maybe the officers never filed a report.

bikerdoc
July 31, 2011, 09:08 AM
Drama. opinion, and Hearsay, aside, bottom line is accessory before the fact is a crime.
A ccw is yours to lose by bad decisions, and bad decisions have consequences.

Redlg155
July 31, 2011, 09:59 AM
I agree that criminals/gangs have often used individuals with no records to help provide information and facilitate crimes. They utilize family membes and recruited and /or comprimised members in law enforcement, corrections and other state agencies such as the department of motor vehicles. Certain biker gangs have networks of legal professionals that are either members of affiliated with them to help in trouble situations.

Many states flag individuals who utilize the NCIC and state criminal registries in an attempt to identify LEOs and Corrections. Run a DMV check on a state or unmarked vehicle and the plates will often come up with a ficticious business.

we are not amused
July 31, 2011, 10:31 AM
I agree with Art about gangbangers joining the military. That seems to be something I have a concern with, as there have been reports of gangs joining the military to increase their combat training for their gangs.

Considering, how politicians have abused the system with gun rights, I don't advocate any personality profiling on non-criminals who want CHLs.

I am aware of the flurry of news media reports about "gang" members joining the military to learn military tactics for their gangs. I thought it was a bunch of hooie then, and I still do. Most of the small unit tactics used by the military are not applicable to gang warfare, and those that are, were probably already being used. Most of those people "associated" with the gangs who joined the military, probably did so because they wanted out of the gangs.
Did some bad guys join the military, and then return to the gangs? Probably, but it wasn't any great number, there have always been criminals in the military, just as there have always been criminals in every other large organization including the police.
The idea that the gangs are recruiting large numbers of CHLs, to carry guns for them is quite frankly preposterous on the face of it. Did they recruit a few? Quite possibly, just as they have members and relatives who join the police departments to give them inside help.
This sounds like one of those wild stories that get circulated by Law Enforcement types, where they take one atypical case and turn it into a disturbing trend nation wide without any real evidence. Kind of like that silly memo put out by the Missouri Dept. Of Public Safety titled "The Modern Militia Movement"http://http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missouri_retracts_police_memo_which_labeled_0326.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missouri_retracts_police_memo_which_labeled_0326.html)

teumessian_fox
July 31, 2011, 11:54 AM
as it appeared he was returning to re-start the fight

Yeah, I think I saw that movie. It was called "The Young Savages" with Burt Lancaster.

And as others have noted, the OP observed a single occurance of this. That doesn't make it a "trend."

Hoppes Love Potion
July 31, 2011, 01:03 PM
If it's a 'trend", it isn't a recent one. Old-time mobsters used to use a "gun moll" - a woman with no record, to carry the heater and hand it to the gangster when he needs it.

Oathkeeper1775
July 31, 2011, 05:46 PM
Any suggestion that a law abiding citizen committed a crime will have to be backed up with a conviction in a court of law.

Simply stero-typing a segment of the population with a broad stroke is always take negatively.

Example: The unfortunate incident in Arizona where one Former Marine was shot 60 times by a team of LEOs; really? A man who never took his weapon off safe was shot 60 times?

I am alarmed at the amount of bias toward regular citizens protecting themselves; we have to be "trapped" or be in a situation with no other course of action but to save our lives....how many times has anyone heard of somebody being shot by an LEO for simply displaying a pocket knife from 30 feet away? Portland police killed a retarded man for urinating in public a couple years ago........

Another "alarming" new trend?

While most LEOs are doing a great service to our communities, they are in NO position to judge, it takes a judge.

Lets not even bring up the "Professional courtesy" LEOs offer each other.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/police-inquiry-reveals-violations-in-arrest-beating-of-videographer-126438953.html

Millwright
July 31, 2011, 07:44 PM
And these are "new" criminal tactics ......how ?

Just another example of why the hoplophobes' techno-fantasies won't work, IMO. >MW

mp510
August 1, 2011, 01:19 AM
If it's a 'trend", it isn't a recent one. Old-time mobsters used to use a "gun moll" - a woman with no record, to carry the heater and hand it to the gangster when he needs it.

Which is not indifferent from practices that are common in a number of Asian countries where firearms are heavily regulated/ outright prohibited. In those places, a low level gang member will often carry the weapon on behalf of a ranking member- and take the rap if something goes down.

firemedic2000
August 1, 2011, 07:10 PM
Hello new on this forum. This is an interesting post about gun treads. I to would like to see some documentation on this new tread. :confused:

bigfatdave
August 1, 2011, 07:40 PM
I'm not going to worry too much about extreme off-body carry, and I highly doubt this is an actual "trend" (or "tread" for that matter)

Scumbags don't care about CC laws, and most of them are aware of the small number of times they'll be searched in any given day. If some LEO decides that I'm shifty because of the trouble I went through to get my permit, (s)he simply reveals themself to be something other than a "peace officer" and if they confiscate my property they'll be facing a big public spectacle if not a lawsuit.

Cosmoline
August 1, 2011, 08:43 PM
If the CCW'er is caught after the crime he can't be ID'd as the suspect because he didn't commit the crime and because he has a permit to carry he is lawfully possessing the firearm.

He just has a firearm that can be linked directly with a murder. Which means he goes to prison for life, or he rats out the actual killer and goes for a little less than that.

I don't see what the nogoodnicks think they're going to gain from this plan.

EddieNFL
August 1, 2011, 08:48 PM
I don't see what the nogoodnicks think they're going to gain from this plan.

No one accused them of being smart.

forgetitohio
August 1, 2011, 11:36 PM
firemedic2000 welcome to THR.

I to would like to see some documentation on this new tread. .........

You and about 1000 other people. Myself inclued.
I haven't read anything about it in Ohio ....yet. LOL

The central problem of our age is how to act decisively in the absence of certainty. - Bertrand Russell

rocky branch
August 2, 2011, 12:27 AM
Sounds like an introduction in to "Street smarts 101"
Old and basic stuff.

Acelaw
August 2, 2011, 06:48 AM
I'm pretty skeptical that gangs are using CCWs as gun holders. I'm pretty skeptical about the claim that gangs are entering the military for "training" too. I guess it depends on how you define "trend." Sounds like BS to me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Alarming new trend with some CCWs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!