David Spade Donates $100K to Phoenix PD for AR-15s

[DesertPunisher425]

I'm posting a reply to Ravon's mention of the 1033 program and the article that misrepresented the extent of the program.

First, I'll give you a little break-down of the way things work. The 1033 program is a federal military surplus redistribution program; there is a large number of items that can be transferred from the military to virtually any other local, state or federal government department. There is a program administrator in every state... this is an active duty position withing that state's National Guard. Usually this position is within the Counterdrug Division; a program itself federally funded and executed by the state to support local, state and federal law enforcement in operations consisting of a narcotic nexus.

The 1033 Program distributes everything from older, military-obsolete night vision devices, binoculars, cots, tents, sleeping bags and uniforms to rifles, vehicles and helicopters. The program DOES NOT distribute battle tanks, assault helicopters, missiles, machine guns (in the military terminology, not the ATF's), explosives are anything that could be deemed more destructive than rifles. The decisively slanted article you referenced failed to mention that the M113A2 Tracked Armored Personnel Carriers which are transferred to LEA's do not come with any armament; they are nothing more than a box made of ballistic aluminum alloy with a drive-train and tracks (which the tracks are almost always replaced with rubber tracks to help ensure the roads are not damaged; not that the rubber track pads on the steel tracks do much damage as it is).

The helicopters they distribute are UH-1 (Huey) and OH-58A (Kiowa); The first is a Utility Helicopter capable of transporting a little under 4000lbs, 14 personnel or up to 6 stretchers when used in medevac role; the come without any weapons or armament. Do not confuse the UH-1 with the AH-1 Cobra gunship (which is only sold to other militaries) The second (OH-58A) is a light observation helicopter with a max take-off weight of 2,300lbs, a crew of two and additional seating for two additional personnel. These ARE NOT the Kiowa Warrior (OH-58D) version (which comes equipped with mini-guns and/or 2.75mm rocket pods). So, perhaps you feel that law enforcement shouldn't have the ability to respond to natural disasters with a helicopter capable of moving casualties, or respond to a prison break or lost child with a helicopter capable of aerial observation for several hours at minimum of cost... but most of the public support these initiatives.

And yes, that is exactly the roles those helicopters are used in; fugitive apprehension, cannabis eradication, area observation for warrants and response to natural disasters or medevac operations. How do I know this? Because I've spent nearly four years working in the Counterdrug Division (just the latest of my military assignments); I've worked with various different departments who are currently using surplus military vehicles and helicopters. Through special exceptions in our congressional mandate which set up the CD program I've worked in a great number of law enforcement activities outside of the narcotic nexus... from taking our LAV's (Light Armored Vehicle; 8-wheeled amphibious) to be some of the first responders for hurricane Katrina to assisting in the search for missing children. In almost all of these operations I worked side by side with LEO's who had military surplus equipment (helicopters, vehicles, night vision, FLIR) that greatly assisted them in serving the community through these roles and through more "typical" LE roles.

If you have a problem with the raid's which LEA's are conducting then you need to look at your District Attorney and your local, state and federal judges. Those Officers are doing their job; which is to execute the law in accordance with the officials appointed and elected over them.

There is a statistically insignificant number of officers who violate the law on their own accord; they are usually dealt with through the courts. However, virtually everything you've complained about are nothing more than LEO's doing their job as instructed by the persons elected to public office. No more can you blame a janitor for not cleaning the hall of a school when he's told by his boss to clean the cafeteria than you can blame an officer for serving a warrant requested by the DA and signed by a judge.

Last but not least... LEO's are much less likely to infringe upon your rights than joe snuffy walking down the street is likely to. The difference is, when your rear is in a pinch and you call for help... the LEO won't walk past and do nothing... most citizens will. LEO's can never conduct policing operations without identification. They may not have their name on their uniform, but there is one thing they will always have... something that identifies them as Law Enforcement (and when I'm assisting in a raid, I too go stearl... I don't need a couple dealers hunting me and my family down in the middle of the night). And of course... to say that LE is becoming militarized for the purpose of enacting a military state is itself ridiculous. To have a militarized state, the military must be involved to some extent. Why? Because the military is the last line of defense for your civil rights; when everything else has broken down and failed, the military is by design intended to reset the country on it's right tracks through martial law ("To defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic"). The police alone cannot institute a military state. As far as how they are armed... enough examples of reasons why police need firepower have already been made... I don't need to list anymore.

 

[Mohawk]

Well, there's the straight skinny and very well put I might add.
Welcome to the site D/P 425. Hope you post often. A "third eye" perspective is often helpful on a thread when both sides of a discussion is half right most the time.

 

[amd6547]

I would agree with much of that...However..The military is NOT the last line of defense for our civil rights. WE the PEOPLE are the last line of defense for OUR civil rights.

 

[General Geoff]

Last but not least... LEO's are much less likely to infringe upon your rights than joe snuffy walking down the street is likely to.

Your post was very informative, except for this bit, about which you are blatantly wrong. On a percentage basis, law enforcement officers are far more likely to infringe on your rights than joe schmoe. In fact, about half of all of my encounters with law enforcement resulted in the temporary infringement of one or more of my rights without legal justification. Can't say that anywhere near half of my encounters with non-officers has resulted in the temporary infringement of any of my rights.

 

[DesertPunisher425]

Well, I don't know what happened but I'd replied then suddenly my computer did something, changed pages and I lost it! That has to be the most aggravating thing that can happen when on a forum!!! Any-who...

I've not yet figured out how to quote; There's a button on every other forum I'm on, but I've not yet found it here. So I'll do this the old fashioned way!



Geoff-
Did you file a complaint? I don't know the particulars of your situations, and I simply don't want to pass judgement, so I'll say some things about this topic, but not specific to you. Just some things to take into consideration.

Most of the population have no idea what the extent of the laws governing them and those sworn to uphold those laws actually are. With so many people totally oblivious to these legalities, you end up with a LOT more perceived violations of rights than actual violations of rights. This isn't to say it doesn't exist; humans are by nature flawed. But for the number of claims of a violation of a person's rights, I'd venture to guess less than 5% are founded on fact.

Understand, I AM NOT law enforcement; I am military. But, I've been on countless traffic stops, searches, raids and surveillance missions in a law enforcement role. This doesn't mean I'm as knowledgeable as the officers I've worked with, and it definitely doesn't mean I know the law to the letter. But it's given me a great deal more knowledge in the area than most every citizen. Most people think getting a conviction in court is fairly easy to do once you find the guy who did the crime. This is where most people would be wrong. Making charges, and to a lesser extent, civil infractions stick isn't as easy as you'd think. If any of the dozens of persons involved in a case make a mistake, it discredits the entire case. If an officer making a traffic stop violates a persons rights, even briefly... the citation can be thrown out. If he'd LEGALLY done a search, but handled the suspect incorrectly, anything resulting from the search could possibly be thrown out as evidence. Any violation of standing policy or procedure, or law are grounds to have charges dropped; this includes impeding upon some one's individual rights. We (the officer and I) are particularly careful to follow the law concerning what we are doing; if you stray just a little, a guilty suspect could very easily end up walking while the officer ends up on the hot seat. I cannot stress enough how much attention is paid to ensuring that everything is done within the confines of the law. And I've not just worked with one agency; this is universal where ever I've gone. In everything LE related that I've done, I have never once seen a true violation of some one's rights... I have heard unfounded complaints of violations many times though...

If you are ever in the situation where you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint immediately; be detailed. Trust me on this... 99% of the time if you file a complaint and there is some legitimate basis to the complaint, they will take it serious. Why? Because if you filed a complaint, you would be willing to file a law suit or contact the attorney generals office if you feel the investigation to be erroneous. Covering up an officer abusing you isn't worth the attention and punishment. Anyway, if they find your complaint unfounded, politely ask for an explination so you can better understand where the officer's actions fall within the legal limitations.



amd-
I should have clarified... the military is the last government line of defense for your rights. But, if it gets to the point where even that has failed; we as a society are in serious trouble. Anyway, the individual is the one who must decide if they are willing to live in tyranny and oppression or attempt to change their environment.

 

[Old Guy]

Took me a while also...

I've not yet figured out how to quote; There's a button on every other forum I'm on, but I've not yet found it here. So I'll do this the old fashioned way!

DP425,

Hi lite the area you wish to quote, copy same, the line of motifs? that start with B I U above, go to the end of the line, the wee yellow page to the left of the # sign, click on it, Wrap, paste your copied material in that wrap! Bingo.

 

[expvideo]

LEO's are much less likely to infringe upon your rights than joe snuffy walking down the street is likely to.

ROFL!!!

I can tell you from personal experience that this is not true. LEOs for the most part are good people who care a lot about not violating your rights. But there are a lot of them out there, more than just a few bad apples, that do not respect your rights and think that asserting their authority takes priority over your rights. I've had plenty of encounters with police, mostly because I used to speed a lot. I have great experiences about 80% of the time. Not 99% of the time. Not 90% of the time. About 80% of the time. The other 20% either didn't understand how to do their jobs, or didn't care about my rights.

I'm not usually one to make a fuss during the encounter, but I am definitely one to complain after the fact. I can also tell you from personal experience that unless you have a lawyer and are filing a lawsuit, the department will always stand behind their officer's decisions and tell you that they were justified. Always. They will not admit any wrongdoing by the officer. Ever. You will not ever get an appology unless you have won a lawsuit or you have a ton of media support. They will expect your lawyer to prove that their officer did something wrong, and until then YOU are the dirtbag, not their guy.

ETA: I'm not saying that the department is wrong in standing behind their officer, and if your complaint is serious enough (i.e. criminal), their internal affairs department will do an investigation, because they DO care about whether or not they have a bad apple, but don't expect an appology any time soon. Admitting that their officer was in the wrong is just inviting you to walk all over them with a lawsuit.

 

[SaxonPig]

1. Obviously the police need to be armed.

2. Sometimes they deal with situations requiring more firepower than provided by a handgun or a shotgun.

3. I see nothing wrong with a private citizen supporting the police with a donation. To criticize his intelligence for donating to "the government" is not only unfair but says more about the speaker than it does the person making the donation.

4. I believe that seale goes over the top in his anti-government rhetoric and his comments are abrasive. He certainly has the right to his opinion but he doesn't have the right to insult those who disagree. I have found that while most people who lean towards a Conservative point of view favor limited government (with less intrusion into our lives and lower taxes), there are some radicals who advocate NO government and they quickly become irate and contentious when confronted with dissenting opinion.

 

[expvideo]

1. yep
2. yep
3. yep
4. mmm-hmm

 

[DesertPunisher425]

ROFL!!!

I can tell you from personal experience that this is not true. LEOs for the most part are good people who care a lot about not violating your rights. But there are a lot of them out there, more than just a few bad apples, that do not respect your rights and think that asserting their authority takes priority over your rights. I've had plenty of encounters with police, mostly because I used to speed a lot. I have great experiences about 80% of the time. Not 99% of the time. Not 90% of the time. About 80% of the time. The other 20% either didn't understand how to do their jobs, or didn't care about my rights.

I'm not usually one to make a fuss during the encounter, but I am definitely one to complain after the fact. I can also tell you from personal experience that unless you have a lawyer and are filing a lawsuit, the department will always stand behind their officer's decisions and tell you that they were justified. Always. They will not admit any wrongdoing by the officer. Ever. You will not ever get an apology unless you have won a lawsuit or you have a ton of media support. They will expect your lawyer to prove that their officer did something wrong, and until then YOU are the dirt-bag, not their guy.

ETA: I'm not saying that the department is wrong in standing behind their officer, and if your complaint is serious enough (i.e. criminal), their internal affairs department will do an investigation, because they DO care about whether or not they have a bad apple, but don't expect an apology any time soon. Admitting that their officer was in the wrong is just inviting you to walk all over them with a lawsuit.

Hmmm... looks like I got this quote thing working. It's a bit different here; in my experience there's usually a button on the individual posting... you click that, it quotes the whole post with the name of the person you are quoting, time a date they made the post. Anyway, irrelevant really...

Onto the reply to expvideo:
I guess you've had a far different experience with law enforcement than I've seen coming from both being the guy getting the ticket (almost always just just traffic tickets back in my teens) to working with law enforcement. I can't say I've always had positive encounters; there have without a doubt been a few times where I would say the officer writing my ticket was a real a**hole. But just because he was a little rude and wasn't 100% professional doesn't mean his behavior violated my rights.

I will stick to my assertion that the vast majority of the time when someone claims a rights violation (and they may sincerely believe it too), in reality everything was 100% within the confines of the law. Like it or not, officers do have considerable leeway to ensure compliance with the law; more so than most people really understand. And people also don't realize that an officer being abrasive and even a bit disrespectful isn't a violation of your rights or illegal; it is certainly unprofessional and almost always against department policy... but not necessarily impeding on your rights

Again, if anyone feels they have a legitimate complaint, file a complaint with the department; I'm not saying they'll come running to you with a written apology and beg for your forgiveness, but I personally know of several instances where an officer was given a reprimand and some mild punishment for rather minor infractions. If you aren't happy with the response, file a complaint with the attorney general, or whatever department/office in your state handles complaints of this nature. If that fails to get the results you feel you deserve, file a law suit... if you actually do have a legitimate excuse, you'll win and should have your legal fees wrapped up into whatever you're awarded. What I'm saying here is unless you've exhausted all of the methods available to you in order to correct a problem, you're not doing yourself, or anyone else a favor. If you file a complaint to the department, they find no wrong-doing and you drop it at that... either you feel your complaint wasn't truly justified, or you're allowing a problem-not only with the officer, but now more importantly... with the department to continue. Many people would argue that it's your job as a citizen to help keep the government and law enforcement in check.

 

[expvideo]

I guess you've had a far different experience with law enforcement than I've seen coming from both being the guy getting the ticket (almost always just just traffic tickets back in my teens) to working with law enforcement. I can't say I've always had positive encounters; there have without a doubt been a few times where I would say the officer writing my ticket was a real a**hole. But just because he was a little rude and wasn't 100% professional doesn't mean his behavior violated my rights.

Yeah, being a jerk is not violating my rights. I'm not talking about that.

I will stick to my assertion that the vast majority of the time when someone claims a rights violation (and they may sincerely believe it too), in reality everything was 100% within the confines of the law. Like it or not, officers do have considerable leeway to ensure compliance with the law; more so than most people really understand. And people also don't realize that an officer being abrasive and even a bit disrespectful isn't a violation of your rights or illegal; it is certainly unprofessional and almost always against department policy... but not necessarily impeding on your rights

I know the law and my rights better than most attorneys. I am not talking about things that were borderline infringing on my rights, I am talking about clear violations of my rights and flat-out illegal conduct. Not my interpretation of things, but clear violations of my rights or of the law.

Again, if anyone feels they have a legitimate complaint, file a complaint with the department; I'm not saying they'll come running to you with a written apology and beg for your forgiveness, but I personally know of several instances where an officer was given a reprimand and some mild punishment for rather minor infractions. If you aren't happy with the response, file a complaint with the attorney general, or whatever department/office in your state handles complaints of this nature. If that fails to get the results you feel you deserve, file a law suit... if you actually do have a legitimate excuse, you'll win and should have your legal fees wrapped up into whatever you're awarded. What I'm saying here is unless you've exhausted all of the methods available to you in order to correct a problem, you're not doing yourself, or anyone else a favor. If you file a complaint to the department, they find no wrong-doing and you drop it at that... either you feel your complaint wasn't truly justified, or you're allowing a problem-not only with the officer, but now more importantly... with the department to continue.

That is a good method of getting things done, and some departments do have a good internal affairs devision that will take a complaint seriously. Unfortunately this is not a universal truth, and for the most part the writing a complaint part is just the first step in a long line of steps to actually getting anything accomplished. Most of the time the department will side with the officer, regardless of who was in the right, simply because it would make a lawsuit much easier to win if the department admitted wrong-doing.

Many people would argue that it's your job as a citizen to help keep the government and law enforcement in check.

It's an expensive duty and I'm poor. If you know an attorney that likes to take on cases free of charge, I'd be happy to sue the pants off a half dozen cops I've met.


Since you seem to insist that I am mistaken about what is or is not appropriate conduct, let me give you an example of a situation that I was involved in that was a clear-cut violation of my rights.

My friend was driving down the street and we came to a red light. This was in my hometown which is not particularly large. While sitting at the red light, the three of us in the car (in our late teens at the time, none of us on drugs or drinking or anything like that, not dressed like thugs) all saw a sheriff's department cruiser at the next light down. When our light turned green we ended up in front of the cop car. We were very careful to be doing the speed limit and when the speed limit changed from a 40 to a 30, we were going 30 by the time we reached the sign. We knew there was a cop behind us and we didn't want to be pulled over. If I can make it any more clear, we were not speeding, even slightly, from the moment that we started moving after the red light.

The officer pulled us over. He claimed that we were going 40 in a 30 and 50 in a 40 before that. We all knew that this was not true, but we didn't argue with him. Within a couple of minutes there were two more deputies at the scene (again, small town with nothing to do, the cops were bored). The officer said that he wanted to search the vehicle. My friend, as non-confrontationally as possible, asked him if he had a warrant. Of course he said that he did not. She asked him if he had probable cause. He said, "No I don't, I just think that you have drugs." My friend asked why the officer thought that we had drugs and he got frustrated with our lack of cooperation and said "look, do you want the ticket?"

Not wanting the ticket, we were coerced into a search. We did not consent to the search. Of course, as I said before we weren't drug users and we weren't drinking, so the search turned up nothing. The officers then searched us. This also turned up nothing.

The whole time, we were professional and non-confrontational with the officers. There was absolutely nothing suspicious about us. Nothing at all. I am not holding out part of the story.

Now... does that sound like a legitimate complaint to you, or was that me misunderstanding my rights?

 

[DesertPunisher425]

It's an expensive duty and I'm poor. If you know an attorney that likes to take on cases free of charge, I'd be happy to sue the pants off a half dozen cops I've met.

I hate to say it, because I really dislike them... but the ACLU loves to sue the government... and if it's law enforcement, even better. That aside, if you have a good case, some lawyers will work for a percentage of what the verdict awards you.

Since you seem to insist that I am mistaken about what is or is not appropriate conduct, let me give you an example of a situation that I was involved in that was a clear-cut violation of my rights.

I think you misunderstand me... I'm not trying to judge you either way, but I don't believe it to be the norm. Maybe you've just had a disproportionate amount of bad luck with LE

Now... does that sound like a legitimate complaint to you, or was that me misunderstanding my rights?

Well, as far as the search goes; if an officer implies you are more likely to not get a ticket if you allow him to search, nothing illegal is happening. It is the officer's discretion on if he wants to cite you. Coercing someone into permitting a search isn't illegal so long as the basis is founded in legal fact. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the situation you described if you were speeding. If he said "allow me to search or I'll arrest you for disorderly conduct"... that's illegal.

As far as the basis to pull you over goes... it does indeed sound questionable. Despite what you may have heard, there is no record kept for the radar and laser guns so speeding really amounts to you against him. There were three of you in the vehicle and I assume the officer who pulled you over was alone? If there isn't a record of habitual speeding, there is a good chance that ticket could be thrown out, and the basis of the stop also thrown out; making the search illegal. Three against one with clean records will usually win. Anyhow, given your situation as you described it... I'd have pursued action against the department.

Not that the driver did anything legally wrong, but usually in interactions with law enforcement it's best to limit the amount you speak. She'd have been better off not answering the officer's question with a question of her own and instead simply reply "No, Sir" when he asked permission to search. Answering a question with a question can be viewed as passive-aggressive and argumentative (which can eventually, if allowed to get out of hand can lead to probable cause)... and most lawyers will tell you that the less you say the better. I can't tell you how many times I've gained probable cause through conversation; if you talk to someone for 5 minutes or so, you can almost always get them to say something incriminating to some degree. Of course, very very few times has anyone denied a request to search; you'd think those would be the innocent ones too... nope. Surprising how many guilty people let you search thinking they'll get away. Universally, most people say "sure, go ahead". Had a trucker deny a request once... he had a custom 70's vintage rig and didn't want anyone getting it dirty. Anyhow, I'm getting a bit off topic here!


By the way, you could have refused them searching your person; the driver authorizing them to search the car doesn't not mean your right to deny a search of your person is forfeited.

 

[Hostile Amish]

I didn't know an AR-15 cost $2000.

 

[DesertPunisher425]

I'm guessing that's with accessories. Figure about $900 for the rifle, add an ACOG or EOTECH, some extra mags, a vehicle mount/lock, spare parts for the armorer... maybe some cases, perhaps some simunition kits...

 

[General Geoff]

If you are ever in the situation where you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint immediately; be detailed. Trust me on this... 99% of the time if you file a complaint and there is some legitimate basis to the complaint, they will take it serious. Why? Because if you filed a complaint, you would be willing to file a law suit or contact the attorney generals office if you feel the investigation to be erroneous. Covering up an officer abusing you isn't worth the attention and punishment. Anyway, if they find your complaint unfounded, politely ask for an explination so you can better understand where the officer's actions fall within the legal limitations.

Not worth my time and effort to file a civil suit for fifteen minutes of my time lost. Every time it's happened to me, it's because I was openly carrying a handgun. In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court has ruled specifically that open carrying a firearm does not constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a stop or detainment. It's happened to me twice already though. They ask me for my license to carry (which is NOT required to carry openly in this state, outside of Philadelphia), I ask why, they tell me to shut up and show it to them. Then they give me a stern talking to, tell me to leave it in the car while I'm in "their town," that it's not the wild west, that they don't like responding to man with a gun calls, etc. etc.

All this when they never had a legitimate reason to bother me at all. Next time it happens I'll simply ask, "Am I being detained?" And if they answer with yes, I'll just shut my mouth and wait for them to stop lecturing me, then ask if I'm free to go.

For the record, there are multiple other lawsuits that have been filed in Pennsylvania for the exact same thing that's happened to me. I just don't feel that it's worth my time and expense in hiring a lawyer, yet. I might if it happens again. I did send the chief of police a letter complaining about the one incident, though.

 

[Cyborg]

Spade Did Good

I don't like David Spade m'self. Would rather spend 8 hours with a room full of siamese cats sharpening their claws on a blackboard and singin' at the top of their lungs than watch anything with Spade in it (wouldn't watch the series he was in a few years back even though it had the beautious Laura SanGicaomo in it). But what he did for his home town police dept was a good thing.

the police don't want civilians "backing them up" because having civies back up the police is a recipe for a legal nightmare

I don't know where you live but post 9/11 Texas instituted a system to do just that. After 9/11 they took CHL licensing away from whatever agency had it and put it under the Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol, Texas Rangers and a couple other things). They also changed the former Texas Commission of Private Security (the agency that regulated all private security including security companies, alarm installation/monitoring companies and Security Officer licensing) to the Private Security Board under DPS. Now all CHL licenses and Commissioned (armed) Security Officer licenses are issued by DPS and in case of a local emergency the county Sheriff can get a list of CHL/CSO licenseholders who can be drafted to be armed backup for the police.

As for the whole "militarization of the police" thing, that point is long past moot. "Posse Commitatis" has been pretty much gutted and members of the U.S. Armed Forces are either already serving or preparing to serve as domestic security troops. Add to that the movement towards a national security force under HSD and the point is moot.

Hopefully Barama and the left will not have the stones to actually USE the power they have (getting congress critters to do what they already want to do requires very little political capitol) and gut the 2A. But if they choose to do so then they will and the structure to do it will be in place. PLUS we private citizens will have little chance of stopping them since we will be facing the best trained, most experienced troops on the planet when it comes to urban warfare.

All you guys who so certain that nothing is really happening - and everyone else for that matter -should pop over to Mike VanderB's blog and read this entry http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-rationalized-every-new-outrage.html

Brrrr.

Cyborg
My new watchword is "security by obscurity".

 

[DesertPunisher425]

Not worth my time and effort to file a civil suit for fifteen minutes of my time lost. Every time it's happened to me, it's because I was openly carrying a handgun. In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court has ruled specifically that open carrying a firearm does not constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a stop or detainment. It's happened to me twice already though. They ask me for my license to carry (which is NOT required to carry openly in this state, outside of Philadelphia), I ask why, they tell me to shut up and show it to them. Then they give me a stern talking to, tell me to leave it in the car while I'm in "their town," that it's not the wild west, that they don't like responding to man with a gun calls, etc. etc.

All this when they never had a legitimate reason to bother me at all. Next time it happens I'll simply ask, "Am I being detained?" And if they answer with yes, I'll just shut my mouth and wait for them to stop lecturing me, then ask if I'm free to go.

For the record, there are multiple other lawsuits that have been filed in Pennsylvania for the exact same thing that's happened to me. I just don't feel that it's worth my time and expense in hiring a lawyer, yet. I might if it happens again. I did send the chief of police a letter complaining about the one incident, though.

Although it is my opinion that open carry in populated area's is inviting trouble, or in the very least... attention, no one should be harassed for doing so when it is legal. This is one instance where I understand what your talking about; My state makes no laws regulating the open carry of firearms, and because we have a preemption law regarding firearms, no city is authorized to have a law against open carry. However, this preemption law has not been around that long (5-10yrs) and to say it's rare for someone to open carry in anything resembling a populated area would be the understatement of the century. So, many people (sometimes to include law enforcement) don't realize the laws that cities and townships at one point had are no longer valid. This has lead to a huge amount of legal issues both for the cities, townships and counties, but for individuals as well. I spoke with one of the assistant attorney generals for the state and he specifically said although not illegal, it's generally going to cause more headache than it's worth and bring you unwanted attention from nearly everyone you meet. Apparently his office deals with the legal issues resulting from open carry on a regular basis- from the local governments, law enforcement and citizens.

My personal views are, when in populated areas, keep it concealed; it's easier and causes less headache.

It is best to just let them say what they want the continue about your business; getting into an argument or disagreement with an officer and having a gun strapped to your side is usually not going to go favorably!

 

[expvideo]

Not worth my time and effort to file a civil suit for fifteen minutes of my time lost. Every time it's happened to me, it's because I was openly carrying a handgun. In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court has ruled specifically that open carrying a firearm does not constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a stop or detainment. It's happened to me twice already though. They ask me for my license to carry (which is NOT required to carry openly in this state, outside of Philadelphia), I ask why, they tell me to shut up and show it to them. Then they give me a stern talking to, tell me to leave it in the car while I'm in "their town," that it's not the wild west, that they don't like responding to man with a gun calls, etc. etc.

All this when they never had a legitimate reason to bother me at all. Next time it happens I'll simply ask, "Am I being detained?" And if they answer with yes, I'll just shut my mouth and wait for them to stop lecturing me, then ask if I'm free to go.

For the record, there are multiple other lawsuits that have been filed in Pennsylvania for the exact same thing that's happened to me. I just don't feel that it's worth my time and expense in hiring a lawyer, yet. I might if it happens again. I did send the chief of police a letter complaining about the one incident, though.

I had an open carry incident as well. I did file a complaint about the officers detaining, threatening and physically man-handling me. Their police reports lied and said that I said and did some things that I did not that would have justified those actions, and the department wrote me a letter about how the officers had done nothing wrong. I did nothing to provoke the kind of illegal and inappropriate treatment that I got from the officers, but they managed to collaborate a neat little story about how I was acting agressive and hostile toward them, so it was all ok. As long as you write the report the right way, apparently that's all that the internal affairs department looks at. Nevermind that I had witnesses.

 

[DesertPunisher425]

As for the whole "militarization of the police" thing, that point is long past moot. "Posse Comitatus" has been pretty much gutted and members of the U.S. Armed Forces are either already serving or preparing to serve as domestic security troops. Add to that the movement towards a national security force under HSD and the point is moot.

I must correct you on the above misunderstanding...

Posse Comitatus is very much alive and well. For the last 20 years the only domestic operations title 10 federal active duty troops have conducted are with the various JFT's (Joint Task Force)... which is drug smuggling operations and that is almost entirely limited to open waters and border areas. There is a clause within PC which makes an exception to Federal troops conducting law enforcement within the US for the war on drugs. This exception is rather narrow and would never allow federal troops to conduct the types of narcotics activities usually handled by local and state police. Long story short, they are limited to operations involving international smuggling/production. The only exception to this has been natural disaster response (Hurricane Katrina). So for the last 20+ years nothing has changed concerning Posse Comitatus.

With concern to the south west border operations, and to a much smaller extent, the north border, Title 32 State Active Duty National Guard troops are being used; this is precisely one of the roles the National Guard was intended to fill when it's mandate from congress was issued in 1903. These are not Federal troops; they are controlled by the Governor of the state they originate from. Posse Comitatus ONLY applies to Title 10, Federal Active Duty.

 

[General Geoff]

It is best to just let them say what they want the continue about your business; getting into an argument or disagreement with an officer and having a gun strapped to your side is usually not going to go favorably!

The problem is that the police are either ignorant of the law, OR they choose to ignore the law and substitute their own opinions on the matter. By covering up, I'm just acquiescing to the notion that guns are somehow taboo, and should be kept out of sight. By carrying openly, I am demonstrating to anyone who notices, that guns not only exist but they are prevalent, and are perfectly safe to carry every day without issue.

 

[DesertPunisher425]

I had an open carry incident as well. I did file a complaint about the officers detaining, threatening and physically man-handling me. Their police reports lied and said that I said and did some things that I did not that would have justified those actions, and the department wrote me a letter about how the officers had done nothing wrong. I did nothing to provoke the kind of illegal and inappropriate treatment that I got from the officers, but they managed to collaborate a neat little story about how I was acting aggressive and hostile toward them, so it was all ok. As long as you write the report the right way, apparently that's all that the internal affairs department looks at. Never-mind that I had witnesses.

If it were local PD, did you go to your state law enforcement? Attorney General? Governor's office? Seek legal counsel?

There's a trend I'm getting at here... if you feel you have a reasonable complaint and you don't exhaust all methods available to get resolution... you shouldn't be complaining that a system failed you which wasn't fully used.

Let me put it like this...

Your first line supervisor, the guy directly above you, we'll say "Joe"... he sees you in the bathroom at work one day, just you, him and your buddy "Jim"... says a bunch of nasty stuff and sucker punches you in the stomach. So you go to his boss- "John" and make a complaint. Well "Joe" and "John" hang out a lot on the weekends, drink beer after work... yada yada... John talks to Joe, comes back and says be doesn't believe you and John. Now, there are several departments that your team fall under which have bosses higher in the food chain... there's even a rep at corporate HQ and a union rep you could talk to. But guess what? If you fail to take it any further... it's your choice to accept what happened as "okay" and move on. It's kind of like the old saying "don't bring me a problem without a solution"... Don't complain unless you've exhausted all avenues to fix the problem. Yes, the problem should have been there in the first place... Yes, the first stop you made failed to resolve the issue; both of these are not your fault. But instead of whining about it, how about taking step two, or step three. Only the weak stop and complain when faced with adversity; the strong push harder until they reach their goal.

 

[DesertPunisher425]

The problem is that the police are either ignorant of the law, OR they choose to ignore the law and substitute their own opinions on the matter. By covering up, I'm just acquiescing to the notion that guns are somehow taboo, and should be kept out of sight. By carrying openly, I am demonstrating to anyone who notices, that guns not only exist but they are prevalent, and are perfectly safe to carry every day without issue.

Don't think I'm arguing, but more along the lines of debating...

Carrying a gun in the open in public is taboo. That's why you get the reactions you get. Is it right that it's taboo or that people aren't comfortable? No, but the fact is... they are. And when such a TINY percentage of the population carries guns concealed, and an even smaller percentage of those occasionally carry open... is it really any surprise that it's viewed unfavorably?

I would argue that guns are not prevalent in public, and most people I think would agree. I'd guess 90-95% of gun owners do not carry a firearm in public, openly or concealed. Want a test of this? Watch a cop walk into a store where there a children... usually they look at his gun. Why? Because they don't regularly see people walking around with guns. Children pay little attention to things that are "prevalent" or a normal occurrence. But they focus right in on things obscure and abnormal.

Now I'll be the devil's advocate... To people who don't carry guns... which is the vast majority of the population... Seeing someone who is not law enforcement openly carrying a gun in a populated location screams "gun nut", "looking for attention", "dangerous" and any various other negative thoughts. That's why people call the police for "man with a gun"; the last thing they are thinking is: "oh, he's carrying a gun... guns must be safe... he must be safe... he must know how to safely handle that gun... Well gee, that must mean that carrying is quite common!"

People inherently don't trust others with things capable of easily taking some one's life... which is why I'm always careful who's handling firearms around me, why I prefer to drive when I'm in a car... Why is that the case? Because people by nature are also inherently irresponsible, don't generally think things through, act on impulse... the list goes on. Would you really, honestly support the idea the everyone should be armed with no training and no screening as to mental capacity? I don't... I've dealt with far too many idiots in my life. And most people don't know what is required to be able to carry (automatically elevating the concern for safety); and in some instances, to carry you only have to be able to legally own a gun. Does that make sense? Some would say yes... I say no; I know far too many gun owners who are incompetent and don't handle firearms in a safe manor. I have to go to a hunter's safety class to hunt, I have to go to a concealed carry class to carry concealed. But somehow to openly carry all I have to do is be legal to own a pistol? What, all of the safety and legal concerns of the other two actions are non-existent for open carry?

 

[General Geoff]

Why is that the case? Because people by nature are also inherently irresponsible, don't generally think things through, act on impulse...

Liberty is not guaranteed safe.

Would you really, honestly support the idea the everyone should be armed with no training and no screening as to mental capacity? I don't...

Yes. Absolutely. Though it's not a requirement, it's a right; in other words, exercisable at one's own discretion.

I say no; I know far too many gun owners who are incompetent and don't handle firearms in a safe manor.

Either avoid them or teach them proper gun handling skills. It should not be a matter of law, any more than mandatory carpentry class be required before purchasing a circular saw. More government regulation is never, ever the answer. More/better education almost always is.

 

[DesertPunisher425]

Either avoid them or teach them proper gun handling skills. It should not be a matter of law, any more than mandatory carpentry class be required before purchasing a circular saw. More government regulation is never, ever the answer. More/better education almost always is.

So you believe safety education is important... just not important enough to make it manditory.

Difference here is that in almost 100% of circular saw accidents, the operator is the one who is injured; unfortunately this isn't the same for firearms accidents. The problem here is, there are thousands of gun owners who don't know safe handling practices... and given the age of many of them, no one has told them in the 30+ years they've owned guns. So obviously you can't rely on other citizens to police up the practices of each other with great effect. More on this below...

Liberty is not guaranteed safe.

No, it isn't; but there are reasonable precautions taken for liberties of higher risk... more on this below...

Yes. Absolutely. Though it's not a requirement, it's a right; in other words, exercisable at one's own discretion.

Within the confines of the law and with the minimum of risk to someone else's rights and liberties (one of which would be a reasonable expectation of safety).



I'm getting the feeling that you're of the belief that zero gun control of any type is the ideal situation.

Would you want anyone able to see over a steering wheel allowed to drive without required education and licensing? Because the argument on zero oversight in firearms is a pretty good correlation.

-Most states require a hunters safety class, then licensing to hunt. The hunters safety class is exactly what it says it is; to inform prospective and new hunters of the legal parameters in which they are required to conduct their business as well as identify common-sense safety measures in an effort to reduce harmful or fatal accidents. Licensing usually serves several purposes to include population control, funding for administration of the department handling hunting and fishing, and it also usually serves as identification that you are qualified to hunt.

-Concealed Carry classes, which most states require in order to get your license to carry cover legal concerns that most citizens are unaware of prior to taking the class, ensure familiarity with firearms and common sense safety measures. The license, although serving many purposes, some of which may or may not be less noble depending on who's opinion you're getting... identifies that you have the requisite training to carry.

-Automobile licenses and driver's training... The drivers training is required for virtually all young drivers, and many new drivers (depending on the state); this training teaches you the rules of the road and the laws governing our streets and highways. It also ensures that you are reasonably competent behind the wheel of a vehicle and not an unnecessary danger to others.

-To fly an airplane, you must go through training and be licensed by the FAA; the training serves the purpose to familiarize you with the aircraft, what laws of physics apply and how to fly that aircraft. It also teaches you the rules of the air and the laws governing maned flight. One of the most pressing purposes for this training is to minimize the risk of you crashing your plane into Mr and Mrs Smith and family's house, killing two adults and four children.


I could go on and on with examples of why common sense regulations are necessary. You may very well feel that the government should have zero control over the activities of its citizens but most people are a little less anti-government than that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about big government, restricting how much horsepower my car can have, telling me I can't own guns that hold any more than one (1) round of ammunition at a time or only allowing employees of the federal government to fly aircraft. However... I do feel that it makes sense to have required safety and introductory classes, and sometimes licensing for certain things that hold a higher risk to others than most things. These include, driving a car, flying an airplane, being a commercial truck driver, captaining a boat for hire (or any boat for that matter), Hunting, Carrying a weapon concealed... and some extras... owning firearms and Carrying a weapon in the open. It is common sense that when you obtain a device that is an elevated risk of being potentially destructive to others that you be required safety training; virtually everything else in the US which has a high probability of injuring others requires some sort of safety class. People don't complain about that, but make mention of required safety classes for firearms and common sense regulations baring felons and the mentally deficient and all hell breaks loose... Required safety classes are suddenly "the first step in taking away my rights!" when in reality, nothing is being taken away as is the case with various other gun control measures already in place. You're just ensuring new gun owner spends a Saturday afternoon becoming familiar with guns and safe handling. Doesn't the NRA advocate firearms safety classes to all new owners and shooters?


Just a brief summery of my feelings on open carry...
-It's inviting trouble, right or wrong... justified or not... no one with any reasonable sense would say open carry in a populated location is not going to draw un-do attention. It's a fact of life in society today.
-A required gun safety class for owners of firearms would be a reasonable step toward education and reduction of firearms related accidents.
-Combine an concealed carry and open carry class into one; make one license cover both and most importantly, cover the law concerning both types of carry (Mr. no training, carrying open may not know that you can be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon without even touching your visibly-holstered pistol).
-Ensure independent instructors screen their students for safety, common sense and responsibility (most instructors I know do this already)
-Write in an exception to licensing for open carry when hunting.
-Maintain current laws barring Felons and Mentally deficient from owning firearms.

 

[General Geoff]

Would you want anyone able to see over a steering wheel allowed to drive without required education and licensing? Because the argument on zero oversight in firearms is a pretty good correlation.

Sure. Do you honestly believe that the joke we call the current licensing procedure prevents anyone who wants a license from getting one? I'm absolutely certain that if you were to abolish drivers' licenses completely, you'd have NO statistical increase in traffic accidents.

I could go on and on with examples of why common sense regulations are necessary.

Do you work Obama or something? You probably want to see .50BMGs reclassified as NFA weapons, and magazines restricted to 10 rounds as well. After all, it's only common sense. Hell, while we're at it, why not pass a law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of them being stolen? After all, what upstanding citizen wouldn't want to report stolen goods anyway? Unless of course they didn't realize one of their guns was stolen until well after the fact, and then when the police recover their stolen firearm, they come arrest them for failing to report it stolen through no fault of their own. Or how about a law requiring registration of all guns? After all, with all these licensing procedures you want in place, what's to stop someone from lending a gun to someone who's unlicensed?

The bottom line is that privileges are licensed, not rights.