Seized by the Manchester, New Hampshire PD for Open Carry

[ksnecktieman]

It sounds to me like you are trying to pierce the "blue wall" of officer confidentiallity. The response I expect you to get is that the officer was "Preventing a violent confrontation by removing your options" purely for officer safety, of course.

I think you were treated poorly, but I am not as sure as some that you have a legal complaint. I would like to see this highly publicised to reduce future occurances.

The Sheeple appear to be road hazards on the highway of freedom.

Nice letter, and good luck with whatever action you take. Please keep us informed.

 

[MissileCop]

E-mail sent about a lawyer.

 

[flatrock]

mvpel,

I'm sorry to hear that this happened to you. While I do believe your rights were violated, I'm not sure you'll have a lot of luck convincing a jury of that.

I think your letter was very well written in general, but I think the last part may come back to hurt you in a lawsuit. The analogy of sheep, sheep-dogs, and wolves only appeals to law abiding people who carry guns. The police will may well consider it arrogant, and other people won't like being called sheep. Most importantly the jurors will likely be the people you called sheep.

If you remove the part about the sheep, I think the letter was just about perfect.

The decision to sue is yours, it's your rights that were violated. Personally I might wait to see what kind of response you receive to your letter. Police officers have a dangerous job, and these officers seem to have been responding to a call about a suspecious person with a gun. It sounds like they overreacted, and followed that overreaction with rudeness. I wasn't there so I can't judge wether they were completely out of line, or if they just used bad judgement due to being nervous, and apparently poor training.

If you have to sue in order to get the police to realize that they didn't handle the situation properly, then maybe that's the right thing to do. However, wasting tax money making lawyers rich is something that doesn't appeal to me. See if there's another way to achieve your goals before sueing.

 

[mvpel]

The decision to sue is yours, it's your rights that were violated. Personally I might wait to see what kind of response you receive to your letter.

Flatrock, you and KSNecktieMan are definitely on the same wavelength as I regarding the issue of a lawsuit. I figured I'd start with filing a formal complaint and see how that played out, and engage in some controlled, targeted publicity. I expect to get an urgent phone call within moments after the good Captain finishes reading my letter.

I wasn't content to just let it go and chalk it up to experience as I was advised by some, but I likewise wasn't ready to jump straight into the problematic tangle of the courts and lawyers unless it proved necessary.

I expect that a good attorney would say much the same things as you two have.

 

[mvpel]

Lawyer Contacted

Thanks to MissileCop, I'm in touch with the office of a firearms law specialist in Concord by the name of Penny Dean, and have sent a copy of the letter. Her assistant expects she'll have time to review it tomorrow afternoon.

 

[OldLt]

Time Out

Perhaps you should have used better judgement and not carried the firearm into the bookstore in such a way. What would you expect the officers to do? It is their responsibility to protect the public and safeguard those other people who viewed themselves at risk. They merely prevented a situation from possibly becoming worse by stopping you from acting independently. I commend them for difusing what could have been a dangerous situation. If they lectured you, so what? It is a free country. The officers are as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. Be an adult. Stop whining.

O. L.

 

[Ktulu]

Lawyer Contacted

mvpel, I'm interested to hear what she has to say.

 

[Bikeguy]

OldLt - I'm fairly certain that open carry is completely legal in NH. In other words, the officers BROKE THE LAW by laying hands on mvpel. Nothing new there though.

 

[Ktulu]

OldLT, are you serious? Perhaps mpvel should have "used better judgement (SP)" and decided not to own firearms in the first place. This is still a FREE country and open carry is still legal... ARG!

I'm going to "use better judgment" and cut my reply to you short. There is so much wrong with what you posted that explaining it to you, I think, would be a waste of my time.

 

[sturmruger]

OldLt I see you are kind of new here. If you think that these cops acted correctly then you are going to find yourself in the minority here. Since he did nothing wrong or unlawful I would say they overeacted as will 95% of the people on this board. I think it will be interesting to see what the official PD response is.

 

[derekAward]

Perhaps you should have used better judgement and not carried the firearm into the bookstore in such a way. What would you expect the officers to do? It is their responsibility to protect the public and safeguard those other people who viewed themselves at risk. They merely prevented a situation from possibly becoming worse by stopping you from acting independently. I commend them for difusing what could have been a dangerous situation. If they lectured you, so what? It is a free country. The officers are as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. Be an adult. Stop whining.

Oh, sure. Like a person should use better judgment before carrying into, say, a Denny's? Never gonna need your firearm there either. Just to make everything easy, why don't you do us a favor and list all of the public places where "better judgment" suggests a fully licensed permit holder should carry. If your only complaint is that the carry method selected, although perfectly legal, was bound to cause problems, perhaps you would like to distinguish your logic from the following statemet:

A: A woman wearing a "sexy outfit" walking alone, at night, should expect a pervert to rape her.

The woman is breaking any laws. She has a perfect right to be where she is. But because she should have used "better judgment", then, in your mind, she should expect to be raped?

Maybe he expected the cops, who are always trying to sell themselves as "professionals" to act, well, "professionally", not like a bunch of brownshirts. What "harm" were the officers possibly seeking to prevent? Its not as if he walked into the store with a rifle in his hands. The gun was secure in a proper holster. What "independent actions" were suggested by his actions? Does a person, a licensed driver, give some indication by merely driving that LEOs need to arrest because of some unspecified fear that he or she might act independently (whatever that means)?

The situation only became dangerous once these over zealous cops unconstitutionally seizd the person of the original poster. Perhaps you would suggest that if I see a cop being heavy handed with a citizen that I am allowed to physically restrain the cop to "difuse a potentially dangerous situation"?

And you wouldn't have any problem if, should this ever occur to me, that I offer my opinion that the cops are acting like JBT, to the cops? In the smallish town I went to high school in, one cop (in the late 80's & early 90's) liked to tell white kids who wore hats backwards, "you look like a n*****" Was it appropriate for this officer to offer his opinion? If not, please distinguish those opinions it is appropriate for a public employee, acting under color of law, to offer to law abiding citizens, and those opinions which should not be offered? Perhaps that will help us know when we should be offended.

-derek

 

[Werewolf]

OldLt regaled us with this:

If they lectured you, so what? It is a free country. The officers are as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. Be an adult. Stop whining.

Yes it is a free country and those LEO's are free to voice their opinions no matter how asinine they may be but mvpel wasn't free to leave while the arrogant LEO's lectured him and that is an important issue as he had to stand there and be wrongfully humiliated in public. LEO's are supposed to serve us not lecture us like children. They are not our parents and neither are they our masters - some of them it appears don't seem to understand either concept.

 

[P95Carry]

Sorry OldLt ... I too found your post somewhat startling!

I do NOT think mvpel has been whining at all .. what he has been doing is relating an incident which involved an infringement on his rights. It has been said earlier in this thread that it was not so much what the cops did ... as the WAY in which it was done.

BG's don't usually wear a gun openly - neither for the most part do they dress in smart casuals. Any cop responding to someone's concern about seeing a gun ..... could/should have dealt with it more politely and more tactfully ... whilst still being able to have had the ''upper hand'' from the POV of any perceived threat.

From the way this is interpretted .... they ASSAULTED a legal arms bearing citizen ... and if this sort of stuff is allowed to just be ''swept under the carpet'' ... then how do you see that affecting people's right to bear arms? It is being forever eroded ... and so there is a need to make some noise. mvpel's appraoch and letter come over to me as about the ultimate in presentation ... and needs seen by as wide an audience as possible.

Ok .. we have different opinions here .... and are each entitled to our own but again I have to say ... it is disappointing, if not even concerning, to read what you posted. Sorry.

 

[mvpel]

Police Standards

OldLt,

I set forth what I would have expected the officers to do in my letter:

If they had approached me, I would have greeted them politely. If they had requested that I tuck my shirt over my firearm due to the irrational concern expressed by other patrons of the store, I would have politely complied.

Even if they felt the need to have one officer sneak up behind me, ready to tackle me, while another officer engaged me in conversation, that would have been fine too.

I also acknowledged in the letter that forgetting to tuck in my shirt after removing my coat "spooked the horses," so to speak, and indicated that I would plan to be more discreet in the future.

But on the other hand, there is the following excerpt from the August 2003 newsletter of the New Hampshire Police Standards & Training Council, forwarded to me by one of our fellow THRoaders:

"Remember that New Hampshire is a state where a person who is not barred by the Brady bill can carry a loaded pistol or revolver in plain sight on their hip in public, and not be violating the law. They can also carry a pistol or revolver that is concealed from view, as long as the weapon is not loaded. They do not need a license in either case. The only time a license to carry is required is if they intend to carry the weapon both concealed and loaded, or loaded in a motor vehicle. Therefore, even though you decide a person who is otherwise not barred from carrying a firearm is not "suitable," they could still carry it openly, virtually anywhere in the state except for a motor vehicle, an airport or a courthouse."

Articulable Suspicion, Vol. 18, No. 8, August 2003, at p. 3

This is the one-paragraph essence of why I have complained to the head of Professional Standards at the Manchester PD.

Just because someone views themseves to be at risk doesn't mean they actually are at risk, and the officers should have known that, as I said in my letter.

This brings to mind one of the officers who addressed the class at the San Jose, California Citizens' Police Academy. He told the tale of a guy who kept calling the police over because there were tiny people living in his carpet, tormenting him and shooting him with lasers, who would all hide when the police arrived.

After the third or fourth call, the officer suggested that the guy wrap his legs in tin foil, so that the laser beams would bounce back to the tiny shooters in his carpet, killing them.

A few days later, he got an enthusiastic call from the guy offering profuse thanks for helping him get rid of the tiny people in his carpet.

Sometimes an officer's job might simply be to hand out tin foil, rather than grabbing and detaining someone who's not breaking any laws.

 

[Ironbarr]

OldLt...

You have just, very successfully, extended this thread to about a dozen or more replies.

 

[OldLt]

Boys

Boys!

Lighten up. It's a big, bad world out there. We can't always have everything our way. Your viewing this incident through a jaundiced eye. As a practical matter, we Americans value our constitutional rights above all else. However with every right, comes responsibility. We must know when to balance the rights of all citizens against our own right to rock the boat. Clearly, carrying a firearm into a public venue in an open carry mode, is bound to cause fear among others. Simply pulling one's shirt over the weapon does not violate your right to carry and protects others from unwarranted concern for their own safety.


O.L.

 

[Leatherneck]

trolls don't deserve an answer.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[mvpel]

A Hobson's Choice

The problem is that while New Hampshire is arguably a shall-issue state, there remains an element of discretion in the "suitable person" language of the statute, allowing the police to arbitrarily deny issuance of a permit to anyone they choose.

It's mentioned above in the excerpt from Articulable Suspicion, and was experienced first-hand by Daniel Pouzzner in Portsmouth. His website tells of his failed attempt to obtain a CCW in Portsmouth despite a clean record, and his NH Supreme Court appeal that was denied without comment.

He currently has no alternative to open carry if he wishes to carry an effective tool for self-defense. If he pulled his shirt over the weapon he'd be violating the law.

He therefore faces a Hobson's choice - either risk concealed carry and a misdemeanor, followed by felony prosecution for subsequent charges, or carry openly and be subjected to harassment by law enforcement acting at the behest of bed-wetters.

 

[kbr80]

OldLt...

Igorance is abundant, just go an read the constitution, educate your self. Read the NH laws concerning open carry. Your line of thinking is wrong, and it is the seed that will grow to help the anti's and their ilk get what they want, a disarmed and dumb America.

The LEO's in question are guilty of assault. Plain and simple. Open carry means just that, the legal right to carry a weapon in plain view. What part of that is in question in your mind?

Good people need to stand up when wronged, otherwise the alternative is not good. Maybe we here will give you something to think about. Its not whining, it called standing up for your rights.

 

[txgho1911]

I feel like spending this weekend

In public. Open carry all weekend. I think I'll visit Barnes and Noble. There is a Borders in town also. Several different malls and I expect to be asked to leave every last one of them. Here in Indy they (simon Property Group) named one of these malls The Fasion Mall. I know of a man in Bloomington In who open carried for most of a year to test peoples reactions.
http://www.paulhager.org
I do not believe one misguided TROLL should reduce this thread in every good and bad point discussed and mulled over by participants or lurkers.
If every proper person where allowed to own, buy, practice shoot, and carry their own M60 without question; there would be no threat of terorism or violent crime in the US.
mvpel
Thank you for sharing this experience with us. If there is a hard lesson to be learned here those smarter among us may want to learn by others mistakes. We Have eyes! We see the reality!

 

[Brian Dale]

mvpel,

Beautiful letter. I think that spending two hundred bucks at Barnes & Noble after this foolishness occurred was a masterstroke on your part. It showed them, in a language that every merchant must understand, that you're a calm, rational individual, and that you've got money to spend (a) with them, (b) with their competitors, or (c) on lawsuits, if you become convinced to follow that option. Well done, sir.

 

[derekAward]

Lighten up. It's a big, bad world out there. We can't always have everything our way. Your viewing this incident through a jaundiced eye. As a practical matter, we Americans value our constitutional rights above all else. However with every right, comes responsibility. We must know when to balance the rights of all citizens against our own right to rock the boat. Clearly, carrying a firearm into a public venue in an open carry mode, is bound to cause fear among others. Simply pulling one's shirt over the weapon does not violate your right to carry and protects others from unwarranted concern for their own safety.

Ms. Parks, you just need to lighten up. Its a big, bad world out there. We can't always have everything our way. Your viewing this incident through a jaundiced eye. As a practical matter, we Americans value our constitutional rights above all else. However with every right, comes responsibility. We must know when to balance the rights of all citizens against our own right to rock the boat. Clearly,a black woman sitting in the front of the bus is bound to cause discomfort among others. Simply moving to the back of the bus or even standing does not violate your right to ride the bus.

Does this really sound reasonable to you, LT?

We will never be secure until the right to keep and bear arms is regarded as a fundamental civil right, given the same protection as choosing where to ride on the bus, what water fountain to use or access to the public swimming pool. Long before the Jim Crow laws segregating our communities, the southern states all passed laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons. First, by "negros", alone. Then, after those laws were struck down, by everyone, but only enforced against those people that didn't have the same skin complexion as the local sheriff. For evidence of this fact, note that prior to 1964, there is NO RECORD of a white person in Missouri ever being charged with carrying a weapon where that was the sole charge.

-derek

 

[OldLt]

Mr. Award,

It was not my intention to make a racial issue of this. I resent your doing so.


O. L.

 

[Brian Dale]

Mr. Lt,

It is a civil rights issue.

 

[cordex]

OldLT,
I agree that mvpel should probably have concealed. Also, when in the car, one should probably avoid taking cell-phone calls, however that doesn't justify your being run off the road by a police officer (or anyone else) if you happened to take a call on your cell while driving around.

Open carry does come with different risks than concealed carry (and I usually avoid it), but it is not wrong, nor does it justify the response it got in this case.

As to:

They merely prevented a situation from possibly becoming worse by stopping you from acting independently. I commend them for difusing what could have been a dangerous situation.

1. Prior restraint ("stopping you from acting independently") is wrong. Otherwise, I'd be perfectly within my rights to slam people against the shelves at the hardware store to prevent them from hitting me with axe handles, right?
2. Initiating physical violence generally does not diffuse a situation. I would propose that mvpel was the one who prevented the situation from becomming worse, not the police.

If they lectured you, so what? It is a free country. The officers are as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. Be an adult. Stop whining.

Why are the officers allowed to use their position of authority to force mvpel to listen to their opinion and are commended for that, but when mvpel writes a polite letter to their bosses (the proper route for complaints) he's whining?

This reminds me ... a week or two ago, Kcustom45, his fiancee, another friend and I were having a bite to eat at Steak 'n Shake when we noticed that another patron was open-carrying (we were carrying concealed). A stainless PPK in a cheap SOB holster. Curiously enough, no police were called, no one was thrown against the walls, no one was lectured about carrying. Ahh ... things are good around here.