Seized by the Manchester, New Hampshire PD for Open Carry

[FedDC]

gander-

Good question. This would depend on the situation and the nature of the call. I have spotted a number of people carrying in VA, but they have CCW so I don't bother with it if that is all I see (Printing). If you ever want a lesson in how to spot CCW, just hang out at the NRA range on a Saturday. A lot of what happens if the person refuses depends on the nature of the call, demeanor of the suspect, location (are they in a schoolyard full of kids, or alone in a hotel room), and mostly the determination of the officer as to what he feels is safe. If the guy is calm and not suspected of anything (as in if he is a witness), he would probably keep the gun. If he is a suspect and might get arrested, the gun is leaving whether he likes it or not. It is better to disarm someone that you think you are going to have to arrest before trying to cuff him because once somebody finds out that they are going to jail, the fight is on. As long as you can keep them calm and talking they are usually pretty easy going because the believe they can talk their way out of jail. This is the time to disarm, when everything is calm, not when they decide for a last ditch effort to escape and start fighting as you try to cuff them.

 

[FedDC]

Dr's offices use some kind of testing equipment that can magnetize your pistol which causes the firing pin to move slowly... It is a common problem among police officers that work around hospitals and it affects all guns. There is a machine that demagnetizes the guns, but I have never seen it...

 

[tyme]

Just stay away from MRI enclosures, or learn how to demagnetize firearm parts. This is not a particularly good reason for disarming people who go to hospitals. Very few people go near MRI machines for related reasons - metal doesn't behave well around them.

http://lists.travellerrpg.com/pipermail/tml/2002-April/150166.html
http://www.afte.org/announcements/offsafetymri.htm

 

[gander]

surrender weapon

FedDC:
Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful reply. I believe much of this thread is based on the conflict between current leo training that you are using and the belief of many non-leo gunnies that they are practicing a fundamental civil right. I believe that open carry is just that. A civil right. To be accosted and disarmed while doing so-even given a 911 call is analagous to being stopped and questioned every time you tried to enter a church. My apologies, it is early/late here in S.Ohio. Couldn't sleep and I am saying this badly. Perhaps I have managed despite myself. My fear is being asked to hand over my firearm during a traffic stop from a jbt who will take my refusal as an illegal act. Vin Suprinowicz has written in the Las Vegas paper that it is sop to disarm all armed persons during a traffic stop. I intend to refuse quietly and politely when/if that happens to me. Hence my original post. I don't expect you to produce a crystal ball and tell me what will happen then. But I do appreciate your insight. My possibly irrational fear is meeting that possibly rare leo who will react badly to my refusal.

 

[FedDC]

The traffic stop issue is a legitimate concern. I know guys that do it both ways. Many times, the ofc will just say not to pull the pistol and keep your hands in view, but I do know some that prefer to remove the pistol, unload it and place it in the trunk, then put the driver back in his car and finish the traffic stop. USUALLY I don't worry about prople with CCW, but I have met a few that I would have disarmed if I had met them in a LE context.

In the LE world, there is a BIG concept called "Right to BE" and it works like this: If I as an LEO have a right to BE in a certain place as part of my job, then I can legally take whatever steps I need to take in order to enforce the law and ensure safety. So, if I had a vehicle stopped for a violation of a law that I have the authority to enforce, I could make the scene safe by disarming the driver even if he has a CCW permit... I probably wouldn't bc most of the guys with CCW are good guys, but I might if he were acting beligerent or making threats. If the Ofc has a right to be there, he can do what he has to do.

 

[NightWolfe]

mvp .. I know it's a bit late (haven't been by THR in a while) .. but good luck man .. you were treated unfairly, and the situation needs to be resolved ..

good luck

 

[gander]

surrender weapon

Again thanks for prompt reply. I hate to nitpick but you didn't really address my question. You decide to disarm, after a traffic stop. Again quiet polite driver on routine traffic stop. Driver says "Umm no thanks, I'll keep the weapon thanks" Now what? The driver is not a suspect and is legally carrying. I would think he has every right to refuse and has given no indication of being dangerous. Again I am/am not asking for your crystal ball.. So what are you going to do. You don't really appear to me to qualify as jbt. Still if you could either give me your thoughts or possibly predict actions of jbt. Thanks again

 

[jimpeel]

LOL, don't worry, if you run into me you will be disarmed so you won't have to worry about my attitude for long

That, Sir, is the very attitude of which he speaks.

 

[Warbow]

Okay. I've been trying to figure this out for the past few days but I can't find an answer. What does "JBT" stand for?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bill St. Clair]

JBT = Jack-Booted Thug

I find it alarming that a cop believes he has the authority to disarm whomever he pleases just because he has the authority to BE there. Most alarming indeed.

 

[mvpel]

FedDC wrote: Good question. This would depend on the situation and the nature of the call. I have spotted a number of people carrying in VA, but they have CCW so I don't bother with it if that is all I see (Printing). If you ever want a lesson in how to spot CCW, just hang out at the NRA range on a Saturday. A lot of what happens if the person refuses depends on the nature of the call, demeanor of the suspect, location (are they in a schoolyard full of kids, or alone in a hotel room), and mostly the determination of the officer as to what he feels is safe. If the guy is calm and not suspected of anything (as in if he is a witness), he would probably keep the gun.

FedDC, would you be willing to come up to New Hampshire and give this lecture to the Manchester Police?

You're essentially repeating my objections to the conduct of the Manchester PD to the letter. All they saw was not "printing," but rather lawful open carry, which is as legal in New Hampshire as licensed concealed carry.

You're talking about the "totality of circumstances" that the Manchester PD apparently failed to assess: the demeanor, location, "if the guy is calm and not suspected of anything," etc.

It occurs to me that I have no idea whether the officers drew their firearms or not, since I didn't see them until one of them had grabbed me. I guess I need to get some witnesses that are willing to talk to me.

 

[12-34hom]

kbr80 to Fed DC -

lol, you try and disarm me, with no pc to back you up, you will end up in a world of trouble, and i'm not talking about a law suit.

Sounds like a personal threat to me, is this the way of "The High Road"???

With the attitude that you consistently display on this board toward's leo's i can see why you're no longer a peace officer.

12-34hom.

 

[Patent Works]

In the LE world, there is a BIG concept called "Right to BE" and it works like this: If I as an LEO have a right to BE in a certain place as part of my job, then I can legally take whatever steps I need to take in order to enforce the law and ensure safety.

The citizen has the right to self defense and the right not to have his property confiscated or taken out of his control. There is no ultimtate right to safety for cops (or citizens) if that means denying the rights of others. Only the right to the means of lawful self defense. A cop has no more right to disarm a lawfully-armed citizen than the citizen has to disarm the lawfully-armed cop.

Q: if the citizen you are detaining for a small traffic infraction, whom you know has a crime-free history and has made special effort at firearms training, decides to say (falsely) "no, I'm not armed", what are you going to do?

This shows that all your "my own safety at all costs" attitude does is to cause honest lawful citizens to lie to you, just like the criminals do. Is that the direction you want public attitudes about "law enforcement" to continue to go?

 

[tcsd1236]

When you sign up, you forfiet your right to safety

Right to safety? Where exactly is that right listed?

As a soldier in the US military, I recognize and accept that I lose a great deal of my rights by taking that oath. One of which is the "right" to be safe.

Once again, where is that right listed? In comparing the military with LE, you forget that in the military you are expected to die for your country if need be. While some officers do in fact die each year, we are not expected to die for our job.

Where in your oath does it say that you have a right to feel safe at the expense of others?

The legal standard in any law enforcement activity that imfringes on individual freedoms is how necessary and reasonable is the infringement against the person weighed against the requirement of society in general to maintain order. Individual rights are not absolute against the interests of society. So to answer your question, it says that in numerous cases far too many to list here.

The problem with LE is that they assume that they DON'T lose that right.

We don't. We try to minimize the potential harm to ourselves and others and yes, some officers die in the line of duty. But...once again, we are not expected to die for our jobs.

Whats your MOS? Do I have a REMF clerk preaching to me about sacrifice and dying?

 

[Patent Works]

OMG, I just realized that I too have been the victim of a JBT! Just last night, I was disarmed by a LEO. I had to take a friend to the ER and the hospital PD took my pistol at the door...

Did he deny you the chance to depart with your gun? Or was this merely a condition of your voluntarily choosing to enter the facility?

If you allow your traffic detaininees the option of leaving immediately without a ticket instead of being disarmed, then your silly analogy applies.

 

[Werewolf]

tcsd1236 claims that mvpel:

I never said you lied. However, in googling your screen name today and reviewing the results, its my belief that you have an agenda, an axe to grind, and this is a convenient incident that you've just been waiting for to push your agenda when and if the incident happened.

Your implication tcsd is that an agenda is a bad thing...

Well I and I suspect many others here would disagree.

Think about this:

"For evil to prevail all it takes is for good men to do nothing".

What you want tcsd is for mvpel to do nothing. To sit by and allow evil to prevail.

We can all see what side you are on!

 

[thefitzvh]

tcsd: when logic fails you, attack the messenger... nice.

MOS: 11B1P - Airborne infantry. You're right, a REMF. Especially compared to the local PD, the heroes of the universe. If you want to question my qualifications to talk about death and sacrifice, we can discuss that in PM. I absolutely resent the implication that I'm not qualified to talk about sacrifice. Do some searching on this forum with my user name and "pentagon." I know that LEOs are not all bad, because I've seen firsthand valor and courage in a few good LEOs. Right now, you and others on this board, in justifying illegal acts committed by police, are doing the same thing to your profession that murderers do to gun owners. You're giving the rest of them a bad name.

Right to safety? Where exactly is that right listed?

I put quotations around that for a reason. the "Right" of you, or anyone, to feel safe when you encounter a law abiding armed citizen is an illusion. The right to bear arms, is NOT an illusion.

Therefore, disarming a law abiding citizen to ensure your safety is patently wrong.

Individual rights are not absolute against the interests of society.

Frightening... absolutely frightening.

Until such point that those rights begin to infringe upon someone elses, then YES, they are absolute. Therefore, since he didn't infringe anyone's rights, his right to bear arms was, and should be, absolute. That ends when he abuses it, which didn't happen in this case.

The legal standard in any law enforcement activity that imfringes on individual freedoms is how necessary and reasonable is the infringement against the person weighed against the requirement of society in general to maintain order.

Well, since there WAS order, no one was running around screaming, no one was dying, and the "suspect" was reading, then I guess you just ADMITTED that the officers were wrong.

Being that it's your duty to serve and protect, I'd say assaulting a citizen under those circumstances is a violation of said duty, and at the very least the cops involved should lose their badges.

But what do I know? I'm just a REMF.

EDITED TO ADD: even if I was a "remf", I despise that term. Every soldier in the military can be killed in hostile action. Even remfs get silver stars occastionally, and many "remfs" are dying in Iraq. Seems to me that they DO know about sacrifice

James

 

[citizen]

Absolutely, cogently, definitive analysis. Thanks, James.
My first, and now that I'm decided, ONLY post to this thread.

 

[FedDC]

Gander-

I will try to explain traffic stops, but honestly my agency doesn't do too many since it is pretty tough to commit a federal crime that I have JD over while driving. We do occasionally do a few when working with local LE, but for the most part, what I am telling you is based upon theory and what I have seen from the local guys I work with. Some of the uniformed guys could probably answer this more fully.

A traffic stop is a very strange animal. The courts have decided that during the stop, you are not under arrest...but you are not free to leave either. It is similar to investigative detention...but different. The general rule is that you can not be detained longer than needed for the purpose of completing the citation and doing any needed record checks. Here comes that word "Reasonable" again. So, during the stop a variety of things can happen. It can stay a traffic stop, or it can escalate into an arrest based upon what kinds of things the officer observes. For example, if he walks up and sees a dead body in the back seat...that might escalate things But on a more realistic note, if the driver presents what the officer on scene believes to be an articulable threat, the ofc is completely within his rights to order the suspect out of the car and cuff him until either the suspect calms down and is allowed to leave, or he is arrested. This can be based upon a number of things like the attitude of the driver (Called talking your way into cuffs) or failing to obey commands to keep his hands visible...or even the officers availability of back up units. If the officer is alone and no assistance is available, he can be far more cautious and cuff much earlier.

As far as disarming the driver if he has a CCW, this has to be based upon the totality of the circumstances along with how the officer perceives the situation. Also, the officer can do things based upon his past experiences, so if for example he has had someone with a CCW try and kill him on a traffic stop, it would be easy for him to explain in court why he decided to disarm another CCW holder on a stop. Legally speaking, the ofc could disarm the driver for the duration of the stop. I have seen it and usually it is no big deal, the ofc gets the driver to step out and the ofc places the driver’s gun in the drunk of the driver’s vehicle. The gun is not confiscated or anything like that and I have never seen the driver cuffed for just having a pistol. In reality, 99.9999% of the time, having the pistol is no problem, but if the officer feels he has the need to disarm the driver and the driver refuses to comply...well, that just became an articulable circumstance to get the driver out and take the pistol and place it in the trunk. I have never seen this happen and I doubt that it would, but in theory the will of the officer is not flexible on a traffic stop. We have to be in charge of the situation and it is not a negotiation. My personal theory has always been that I will be as nice to the people I come into contact with as they let me be. IF they are nice and polite, so am I...but if they want to get ugly, it can get just as ugly as it needs to in order for me to do my job.

Like I said though, most of the above is in theory. I haven't seen anybody getting dragged out of their window bc they refused to give up their glock with a CCW permit and I doubt that I ever will.

 

[deanf]

In the LE world, there is a BIG concept called "Right to BE"

I have to take exception to this "right to be" concept. When you are exercising your authority as a LEO, you have ceased to be a man, or even a citizen. You have become The State. The State has no rights, only powers or authorities granted to it by the people.

 

[cordex]

FedDC,
While I might not like it, I can understand that at times an officer might need to disarm someone who is being interviewed.
However, in the example you sarcastically brought up when you were disarmed going into the, the officer tapped you on the shoulder, explained the reasons for taking your weapon and (presumably) had you hand it to him.
That was as it should be.

If the officers had approached Mvpel, asked him to allow them to take his weapon and done so in a polite and professional fashion (as opposed to forcably disarming him from behind before identifying themselves as officers - something that could easily lead to disaster), I doubt we would have seen this thread (or if we had, my guess is he'd have gotten far less support for a lawsuit). The arguement could be made that they were doing so to prevent him from drawing down on them before they could react, but that argument has no limit and can be used to excuse any action on the officer's part.

I'm still curious as to what would happen if I called in a "Man driving car" or "Man with a pocket knife" or "Man ordering a chicken sandwich".

 

[tcsd1236]

tcsd: when logic fails you, attack the messenger... nice.

Not attacking you; just want to see what your qualifications are. Don't want some Chairborne Ranger thumping his chest about the dangers of being in the military when s/he wont get within 15 grid squares of flyiing bullets.

Therefore, disarming a law abiding citizen to ensure your safety is patently wrong.

Totality of the circumstances and / or SOP. Since we have no way to know that you are a "law abiding citizen " ( there is no neon sign flashing over your head with that indicator), there is no way that you can say it is "patently wrong" to disarm someone we come into contact with in an official capacity.

Frightening... absolutely frightening.

That IS , however, the guidelines that the Courts go by; individual rights versus societies need to infringe on those rights at some level for the public safety.

Until such point that those rights begin to infringe upon someone elses, then YES, they are absolute. Therefore, since he didn't infringe anyone's rights, his right to bear arms was, and should be, absolute. That ends when he abuses it, which didn't happen in this case.

See above; his rights are not absolute.

Well, since there WAS order, no one was running around screaming, no one was dying, and the "suspect" was reading, then I guess you just ADMITTED that the officers were wrong.

Not at all. He just as easily could have been a criminal casing the place and the officers happened to be proactive and catch the guy before he acted. Just because the crime hasn't occured yet doesn't mean that one is not in the near future or possibly even occuring without the officers knowledge until they check things out.

 

[TheBluesMan]

This flame-fest is over.