Cuffed and Caged for Open Carry

I think a lawsuit (or at least the threat of one) is great. You get a lawyer, and get a settlement from the local PD for your lawyer's costs and an agreement from the PD to give all officers 3 hours of training in firearms law, specifically open carry laws.

My opinion, my opinion only......

In MOST places, open carry is asking for attention. The OP got what he wanted.


It is legal to drive a car, but sometimes you have to go thru a DUI checkpoint, where they ask for credentials, make sure you are legal, and if you are, they let you go.....

And LT, an orange shirt is not dangerous. A pistol is, no matter how you slice it, no matter how responsible YOU are, the next guy with a pistol may be in idiot... And that is what the LEO's need to watch for.

Perhaps they were a little over zealous, but they acted correctly, they investigated a man parading around town displaying a deadly weapon....

Plus you have to assume someone (or several folks) obviously called the police on this one, they have a duty to investigate.

You guys would actually SUE? Really?

Joint and back pain?

(hangs head) I think the money your police force has could be spent on things like crime prevention and training and equipment than some bogus lawsuit. This isn't some big conglomerate that has millions set aside for lawsuits. The police NEED the money they could lose.

My suggestion, if you want to open carry, go meet the cops. Introduce yourself to them, maybe the chief, buy them a coffee, let them know you, that you are no threat, that you are going to legally open carry etc....

Then when they roll up when responding to a sheeple call, they'll be like "Hey John, got a call. How's it going?"

(hangs head) I think the money your police force has could be spent on things like crime prevention and training

Click to expand...

This is precisely the point. The police force ought to be spending its time and money on crime prevention and training--not harassing innocent citizens who are breaking no law. The question now is how best to emphasize this fact to the police force.

Just because you sue someone, rezin, does not mean you take damages in form of money, you could file suit to have the officers in question suspended without pay for harassment. They would then UNDERSTAND that they are servants and DO NOT interpret the law, and that malicious behavior is punished and they are NOT above the law just because they represent it.

Punishment is due where it is necessary. It should never be omitted because someone does something a little "socially unacceptable".

Someone - anyone - please explain how the police are supposed to tell the difference, on sight, between "innocent citizens who are breaking no law" and criminals.

I have a motto of "Kill em with Kindness"

i suggest writing a letter praising the politeness and professionalism of the officers involved. You can always mention that everything went well, except you felt you were detained a little longer than what would be warranted for the situation if you feel the need to bring attention to it. That is usually unnecessary because the Chief has access to the report and if you write in and say why you were detained and who you were detained by the Chief can access the report himself and question it, so stick with mostly praise of the good things the LEO did. You can do this with a new puppy as well, reinforce the good ignore the bad.

DH...
They are not supposed to be able to tell the difference if no laws are being broken.

Period.

An anaology would be...
How do they tell you are a citizen by sight?

Maybe we should wear our ID badges...
p

they investigated a man parading around town displaying a deadly weapon....

Click to expand...

No, they didn't. What they "investigated" was a law abiding citizen who was going about his normal business wearing a well secured firearm in a holster. There is a huge difference.

The word investigated is in quotes, because I think what they did was harass the individual. Investigate would be to arrive on the scene, observe a law abiding citizen legally carry a firearm in a holster, say to themselves, "Well, it's in a holster, he is not committing any crime in our presence, we do not have any report of him actually committing a crime, let alone one involving a firearm, therefore without reasonable suspicion it is illegal for us to ask him for ID, so there isn't anything we can legally do, let's go back to the donut shop."

The absolute most that the cops could have done legally would be to ask him his name so they could check for prohibiting factors against firearms ownership, but, even then, they could not legally detain him because they had no reasonable suspicion of any crime having been commited nor any crime commited in their presence.

Someone - anyone - please explain how the police are supposed to tell the difference, on sight, between "innocent citizens who are breaking no law" and criminals.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your point, DHJenkins. Let's apply this to persons driving vehicles. How are cops supposed to know, on sight, the difference between a law abiding driver and a person driving with a suspended or non-existent license? Now, let's say they stop you for one reason only - to verify that you have a valid driver's license. Let's say they yell at you from 20 yards away, "Get over here!". Let's say they cuff you and stuff you in their cruiser while they wait for your license number to come back from the check. Then they release you and say, "Well you aren't illegal, have a nice day". How would YOU feel about that? What's the difference? There is much more chance that you would be driving without a valid license than there is a citizen carrying a firearm in a holster in an OC state is doing so illegally.

It is legal to drive a car, but sometimes you have to go thru a DUI checkpoint, where they ask for credentials, make sure you are legal, and if you are, they let you go.....

And LT, an orange shirt is not dangerous. A pistol is, no matter how you slice it, no matter how responsible YOU are, the next guy with a pistol may be in idiot... And that is what the LEO's need to watch for.

Click to expand...

Just to throw in my two cents, I don't support DUI checkpoints. However even if I did, driving a car is not a right specifically protected by the US Constitution. Bearing arms is, along with freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

As far as danger, a holstered pistol is not inherently dangerous, any more than a knife clipped to a belt, or a metal pen in the pocket. All can be used to hurt others, but none will act of their own accord. Barring the extraordinarily unlikely situation of someone carrying a damaged or archaic gun which is capable of firing without the trigger being pulled, a holstered gun will hurt no one.

: On a much lighter note away from the main point of discussion, I will ask if perhaps this incident happened last fall because if you were wearing shorts, t-shirt & sandals in Minnesota in early March ; that LEO was probably more concerned about posssible nutcase with a gun than sheeple who panic at the sight of a holster and blued steel... Just sayin.

Someone - anyone - please explain how the police are supposed to tell the difference, on sight, between "innocent citizens who are breaking no law" and criminals.

Click to expand...

The 'innocent citizens' are the ones who aren't visibly breaking the law. The 'criminals' are the ones the LEO has probable cause to suspect are.

Since open carry is lawful conduct, there is no probable cause.

Can somebody take a few of the fish out of this barrel? I'd like a bit of a challenge!

DHJenkins said:

Someone - anyone - please explain how the police are supposed to tell the difference, on sight, between "innocent citizens who are breaking no law" and criminals.

Click to expand...

Simple! The law abiding citizen will be obeying the law, a criminal will be breaking the law. The firearm has no relevance.

There is still nothing in you profile to indicate where you live. Can you at least narrow it down to a continent or country for us?

the police need the money they would lose in a lawsuit. Exactly, nothing like getting hit in the pocketbook to make you change your ways. you send an official complaint, there MIGHT be a general memo sent to all the officers and they MIGHT understand and follow it. You file a suit and the Mayor, board of Supervisors, will make sure it doesn't happen again. And you'll have some extra money to buy more guns to open carry. May I suggest a Desert Eagle or Casull w/a 8" barrel.

Perhaps they were a little over zealous, but they acted correctly, they investigated a man parading around town displaying a deadly weapon....

Click to expand...

No, they did not act correctly. "Sir, do you have a license? Yes? Have a nice day then" would have been acting correctly.

Plus you have to assume someone (or several folks) obviously called the police on this one, they have a duty to investigate.

Click to expand...

They also have a duty to know the laws that they should be enforcing (or things that they shouldn't be enforcing as the case may be).

Someone - anyone - please explain how the police are supposed to tell the difference, on sight, between "innocent citizens who are breaking no law" and criminals.

Click to expand...

When last I checked, criminals don't carry their weapons openly in holsters. Especially not while they grab some food with their girlfriends. Also, the OP was calm, polite, and cooperated with the officers.

"Someone - anyone - please explain how the police (or anyone) are supposed to tell the difference, on sight, between "innocent citizens who are breaking no law" and criminals."

no problem this is simple.

Are they breaking the law?

Yes! They are a criminal.

No! They are an innocent citizens who are breaking no law.

we don't live in that crappy movie "Minority Report" where we punish people for actions they are about to do without proof. If you find a draw out blueprint to commit a crime you can arrest a man for intent. You however cannot arrest a man for a plan in his head. When as a society did be become so scared of each other that a preemptive strike became acceptable to use? That what this was a misguided preemptive strike on what the LEO thought was a possible criminal. This was a misguided "attack" and a failure. It's the Bush Doctrine taken to the local level. At least when the U.S. makes a preemptive strike they do it on more facts than "he has a gun, so therefore he might be a criminal."

If you consider it sad that our legal system is reactive and not proactive then you are one of the sheple. Infringing on ones rights because you fear what people are capable of is just plan wrong.

When you open carry you invite that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

Well, what if you were told that because you were part of this forum, you would be cuffed daily, and have your house searched illegal weapons? With the explaination being, "Being part of a forum that talks about guns might mean that you are a criminal."

I've been surprised that I haven't been stopped and talked to more than I have. I usually make it a point to open carry a lot. But on the other hand, if I'm not doing something wrong, why would I be inviting that sort of thing?

...and I yearn for the opportunity to invite such attention.
Unfortunately, Texas prohibits open carry.
p

Yes, by all means. Let's make our fellow citizens nervous so they pass more gun control laws.

You're suppose to herd sheep, not spook them.

Grey Mana:

It's probably too late now, but if you were startled by the cop and had whiplash, you should self-assess you potential injury. If you were cuffed & put into the back of a cruiser, you should self-assess for injuries. If you might have been injured, you should see a doctor for that joint and back pain.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever read on The High Road. I am also perplexed that your signature seems to contradict your advice:

VIII. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
X. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

Click to expand...

You do realize that suing the PD just costs taxpayers money right? Unbelievable!

On a separate note, why do Open Carry Stories always start out with a detailed description of the person open carrying?

I am wearing nothing but shorts/tshirt/sandals with only wallet/gun on me, with keys in left hand and beverage in right.

Click to expand...

It's not like we thought you had on a KKK outfit with combat boots and a satchel full of grenades.

There are a lot of people on here that don't seem to understand two seminal things;

1) Legislation.

There's no such thing as a "law which allows" something. Things are legal unless expressed legislatively to be prohibited. To go further, some legislation may exist which prohibits the criminalization of an action, or prohibits legislation barring something. A prime example of this is The Constitution of the United States. If you haven't read it, I would highly recommend it.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I'm blown away at some of what I'm reading here.

2) Liberty. Cops have to follow rules. Lots and lots of rules. There are thousands and thousands of pages of Supreme Court precedent concerning the application of the Fourth Amendment during vehicular stops ALONE. If they don't follow the rules, and they step on your rights to any degree whatsoever, you can, and should, sue them blind. In most places in the U.S., openly carrying a handgun is legal without a permit. The fact that cops may harass you for this is NOT OK and should not deter you from exercising this right. The chances of being harassed, yes, ILLEGALLY HARASSED, by the police may be there. Worst case scenario assuming you're mindful of your local laws, they illegally arrest you for a day. In return, everyone's Second Amendment freeedoms will be made more mainstream, and you'll have a million dollars.

Not bad.

Thanks to the OP for sharing.

Funderb, Grey mana clearly said "That's worth money." End of story.

publiuss wrote:

Exactly, nothing like getting hit in the pocketbook to make you change your ways.

Click to expand...

If by "change your ways" you mean "increase taxes," sure. If the police have a money shortage because of a lawsuit, they are going to take it out of everyone's pockets, not have a bake sale or absorb the loss by downsizing.

Successful lawsuits cost everyone but the person who sues. Money doesn't grow on trees. I think people around here need econ lessons.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/lawsuits_make_us_less_safe.html

Good article.

Stossel is on the money, and if you read more about his stance he has a lot to say about why the legal system privileges lawyers so much (hint: almost all judges and 40% of politicians are lawyers).

I open carry 90% of the time. I've never been hassled anywhere.

"DO YOU KNOW WHAT FRICKEN' CONCEALED CARRY MEANS?"

"DO YOU KNOW WHAT KISS MY ASS MEANS?"

Yes, by all means. Let's make our fellow citizens nervous so they pass more gun control laws.

You're suppose to herd sheep, not spook them.
__________________

Click to expand...

And your points are irrelevant idealogical drivel.

Rights not exercized are lost. Period.

This is a liberty loving, free country, OC is legal. You don't like it? Tough.

Some people may be uncomfotable with a transvestite around, it gives you no more cause to call the police on them than in this situation.

Hiding guns to make people feel safer will not have any effect on the mentality of an anti-gun person any more that openly carrying it would.

Yes, by all means. Let's make our fellow citizens nervous so they pass more gun control laws.

You're suppose to herd sheep, not spook them.

Click to expand...

I drive a Miata. Pickups with raised suspensions make me very nervous. Please herd me and not spook me and lower all of your trucks. Otherwise, I will be forced to attempt to make all raised trucks illegal, or at least ask the cops to stop you and check you out because I, in my Miata, am nervous.