**** the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry

[Wildalaska]

Woaaah there Pilgrim...

Im talking about the existence of law qua law...if you take the position that each person decide for himself or herslef what is "moral" or "right", then you cannot object to such unobjectionable (to some) antics as NAMBLA would advocate...

And sorry dragging victimology into it is meaningless..I can drag into to this discussion a bunch of "experts" who would be willing to say that even an eight year old can consent to sexual activity...so where is the harm then...wanna draw psychological lines?? Ya got 15 year olds on this Board....bet many would not object to some of them having a gun..OK hows about sex with Uncle Joe..not OK?

Gee, I can even remeber a thread wherein it was mentioned that some poor schnook who had a fling with an underage girl is forever barred from owning a gun...what outrage!!!!

Anyway THATS the point....a society as a whole makes VALUE judgements embodied in the criminal law....ya dont like it fine...fight it...in a lawful way

But to advocate just breaking a law becasue you think its silly or wrong or violates your rights is NOT a victimless crime...becasue it is a flouting of moral and legal judgements made by society as a whole in order to best promote the general welfare of us all...

And no, I dont equate, in terms of CRIMINAL responsibility, a person that surreptitiously carries a gun, unlawfully, but without criminal intent to a perv who has sexual relations with minors....

Yet I do equate them both in terms of MORAL irresponsibility to society as a whole....

Yep its an extrme example...but the point remains...everyones value judgements are different..its society as a whole who sorts them out


WildandadogwalkerpoppedagrizontheeastsideofAnhoragewitha44todayAlaska

 

[tyme]

Even if you subscribe to the libertarian concept that victimless crimes are not crimes, who decides what's victimless? If you know you're getting the better end of a deal, is it your moral obligation to inform the other person they should't be paying so much? Should it be illegal not to? There will always be victims unless society devolves to Communism. Victims of stupidty, of fate, whatever. They're still victims, and other people often have a corresponding advantage due to the victim's stupidity/fate/luck/whatever.

WA, there are plenty of maybe-victimless crimes without . From TX law...
- Bigamy; step-parent/step-child, even if there's no blood relationship, it's consensual, and both are over 18; homosexual relations
- Ban on private gambling (soon to be repealed because gambling generates tax revenue.)
- Weapon laws (...)
And some obvious others that I can't seem to verify at the moment as being crimes in TX... drugs, prostitution...

Besides "victimless" crimes, whatever those are, there are crimes that exceed the scope of the governing body's jurisdiction, but that would be okay if an identical law were passed by the proper level of government. Pick just about any federal law in the past 60 years passed on the authority of the interstate commerce clause. Some of the laws have had good effects, but that doesn't make them Constitutional.

There are laws that are invalid because they exceed the scope of a level of government (if the fed.gov passed a law punishing criminal assault, for instance, since that power is reserved to the states). There are laws that are invalid because they violate rights reserved to the people. And there are laws that are invalid for both reasons. It's pretty hard for anyone to argue that it's immoral not to obey such federal laws, but WildSocratesAlaska, you're doing as well as could be expected.

(Oh, there's a third reason, namely that a law wasn't passed properly but became law anyway... like CA's new .50 cal ban, courtesy of ghost voting in the CA assembly )

(WA) And no, I dont equate, in terms of CRIMINAL responsibility, a person that surreptitiously carries a gun, unlawfully, but without criminal intent to a perv who has sexual relations with minors...

Can we PLEASE stop spreading this pernicious falsehood? Age of consent is not 18 in Alaska, it's 16. And it's less than 18 in the vast majority of states, not to mention countries. Even in places where it is 18, there are typically exceptions for two people who are underage and within x years of each other. Sex is not an adult privilege of citizenship which no minor can responsibly engage in. Stop suggesting that it is.

It may not be socially acceptable for you or me or whoever to have a relationship with a 16-year-old, but in many places it's not illegal (though it would be in TX), and it's a stretch to say that someone who's 18 is a perv if he dates a 16-year-old.

 

[R.H. Lee]

First, IANAL, so forgive the cut and paste comparison of two legal principles-malum inse vs. malum prohibita.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong in itself; it is an act that is illegal from the nature of theact, i.e. it is inherently evil without any fact of its being noticed or punished; such crimes as larceny, rape and murder areconsidered malum in se. This concept was used to develop the various common-law crimes. This term is to be distinguishedfrom Malum prohibitum or wrongs that are prohibited, i.e.it is not inherently immoral or hurtful, but only wrong by statute, such as parkingviolations.

http://www.objectssearch.com/pedia/get.jsp?page=/wiki/Malum_in_se

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong because prohibited") is aLatin phrase used in law to refer to crimes made so by statute, as opposed to crimes based on English common law and obvious violations ofsociety's standards which are defined as malum in se. An offense that ismalum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards: an example is the lawagainst insider trading, where the simple act of sharing information is clearly not wrong in itself, but only because of itscontext in a larger framework of regulated trading.

The distinction between these two cases is discussed in Washington v. Anderson [1] :

"Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories -- malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction betweenmalum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v.Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905)... Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they aretypically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create thedanger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'""

http://www.objectssearch.com/pedia/get.jsp?page=/wiki/Malum_prohibitum


All laws are not created equal. There is a huge difference between violations of law prohibiting murder, rape and pedophilia (which involve coercion and depredation of an individual (malum in se) and violating laws prohibiting carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, or being in possession of a controlled substance, for example. The latter would be considered "public welfare offenses", (malum prohibitum) are illegal only because they are prohibited by law and not inherently evil.

 

[pinblaster]

It seems to me that if you feel you have a real need to carry a firearm to preserve your life , any law restricting you from carrying a firearm would be a moot point .

 

[Double Naught Spy]

longrifleman said, "Why SHOULD immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?"

People with this sentiment scare the hell out of me, especially when I don't know them and know what they think is stupid and what they think is immoral.

You know, there are idiots out there who think wealth redistribution is moral and that folks who accumulate wealth and don't give it away are acting in an immoral manner and so they justify burglary and robbery on "moral" grounds to justify the immoral acts of the more wealthy and because they feels the laws are stupid and ask questions like, "Why should immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?"

Hell, why stop with pissant little guns? Why not just go with "F**K the law: Illegal carry of explosives"? I could really use some grenades, claymores (not for carry, but they would need to be carried to where they are needed), and a few shoulder-fired missiles as well. You know, the 2nd Amendment and all that, the right to keep and bear arms and the explosives I am interested in having would be considered arms. By citing the 2nd Amendment, I can justify the moral legality of keeping said arms as penned by our Founding Fathers, thereby attaing the self-deceiving perspective that I have attained the moral high ground justification for something obviously not currently recognized as legal in our society.

Why should illegal and immoral laws be obeyed? Simple, because people like me, that you don't know, think they should have explosive arms. Of course, I don't own any and can't even remember actually ever having seen any up close in real life, but there are people out there who think they should own explosives, but don't obey the law and those people scare me because they think they have a morally justified perspective for not obeying stupid laws. Some even believe it is a God-given right. Onward Christian Soldier and all that...

 

[artherd]

Hell, why stop with pissant little guns? Why not just go with "F**K the law: Illegal carry of explosives"? I could really use some grenades, claymores (not for carry, but they would need to be carried to where they are needed), and a few shoulder-fired missiles as well. You know, the 2nd Amendment and all that, the right to keep and bear arms and the explosives I am interested in having would be considered arms. By citing the 2nd Amendment, I can justify the moral legality of keeping said arms as penned by our Founding Fathers, thereby attaing the self-deceiving perspective that I have attained the moral high ground justification for something obviously not currently recognized as legal in our society.

You mean explosives aren't legal?! Sheiiate! I better return all these cases of Tannerite post-haste!


<rolls eyes>

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The trouble is that the police may search you (for “officer safety†reasons) whenever they feel like it. Perfectly “legal;†no probable cause needed.

The police may NOT search you (for "officer safety" or any other reason) whenevr they feel like it. The rules for a Terry stop don't require probable cause, but they DO require at least a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been comitted or is about to be committed, and that the person stopped is a perpetrator or potential perpetrator.

If I am walking down the sidewalk on Main Street at noon on a Tuesday, minding my own business and not bothering anybody, the police may NOT stop me or search me just because they feel like it. (At least, not legally.)

 

[tyme]

Sure, some cops who are total morons have had evidence from terry stops thrown out because they couldn't support their terry stops with reasonable suspicion.

The standard requires merely an articulable reason for the search. You will never be able to find alternate police witnesses to testify against your arresting officer, saying that what you were doing, your hairstyle, etc. did not constitute reasonable suspicion. They weren't present during the terry stop. The arresting officer was.

Any half-sentient police officer can convince a judge that there was reasonable suspicion to search you. You looked out of place, you were fidgeting, you smelled of drugs or hoppes #9, whatever. The cop doesn't have to be right. He just has to say at the time he believed A, B, and C, and any evidence from the Terry stop and search will be ruled admissible.

It's not so much that the standard for Terry stops is fundamentally unfair. The problem is that it requires no reliable, independent evidence. If a cop thinks you're worth searching, he can make up a valid reason for a terry stop, and the only person who will know it's a lie is that one officer.

Without judicial oversight, the 4th amendment is dead.

 

[MaceWindu]

It's not so much that the standard for Terry stops is fundamentally unfair. The problem is that it requires no reliable, independent evidence. If a cop thinks you're worth searching, he can make up a valid reason for a terry stop, and the only person who will know it's a lie is that one officer.

...and that is why so many people DO NOT TRUST THE POLICE.....and this is why there are SO MANY COP BASHERS in so many forums....I am not saying that I am one, but I DO understand why people they feel that way.

When we live in a place where the police have this kind of power, where he can state you were..."out of place"..or.."acting strange"...then it becomes a POLICE STATE.

Just my $.02

MaceWindu

 

[Powderman]

The trouble is that the police may search you (for “officer safety†reasons) whenever they feel like it. Perfectly “legal;†no probable cause needed.

Negative.

What you are loosely describing here is part and parcel of a "Terry" Stop. (See Terry v. Ohio).

The officer must be able to prove "reasonable suspicion", which is a standard of proof greater than a "hunch", but slightly less than probable cause.

If the officer can articulate through their observations, and based on their training and experience, that your actions are consistent with those of people planning criminal activity, the officer can:

1. Contact you.
2. Identify themselves as a police officer.
3. Ask about your activities.
4. Frisk you for objects that are concerns for officer safety--as in, weapons.

A frisk is NOT a full blown search, and should not be as intrusive as a full blown search.

The actual term for this is "investigative detention".

So, what's the bottom line?

Don't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, or quack like a duck, and you won't be treated as a duck.

 

[tyme]

Powerderman,

The officer's "proof" of reasonable suspicion is nothing more than his word. No independent evidence is necessary.

A cop thinks someone might be carrying drugs, i.e. has an unarticulable hunch. He does a Terry stop and finds a gun and no cwl/chl. When the cop goes to court, guess what? The testimony is that there was a bulge on the suspect's waistline and that the suspect had suspicious mannerisms. The problem is, anyone can have a bulge at the waistline if a shirt/jacket shifts and creates one, and anyone can be classified as "suspicious": walking too fast, walking too slow, not staring at the ground while walking, etc.

As for frisking, the two things that can be found during frisks are drugs and weapons. Since neither should be illegal, Terry stops are unconstitutional. Terry stops may have originally been designed to find weapons, but in practice they are searches for anything. Drugs, weapons, angry love letters that could indicate domestic violence, whatever.

If a criminal isn't worried about being arrested for carrying a gun and/or drugs, do you think the criminal would attack a police officer who strolls up and starts asking questions?

The combination of gun/drug laws and Terry stop&search caselaw results in more risk to officers, not less. Getting rid of either gun/drug laws or Terry stop&search would eliminate that additional risk. The other alternative is to allow safety searches but disallow any evidence discovered, since the search is supposed to be for officer safety and not evidence collection. The latter requires a warrant or probable cause.

 

[Powderman]

I must disagree--but only a little.

I have seen cops use Terry stops as fishing expeditions. However, I have also seen what happens when the results of the search get to court. I do not know your background or expertise--heck, you may be another cop or even an attorney--but bear with me.

You can't "frisk a bindle". This means that you can not seize, on a Terry stop, anything which is NOT a weapon--unless you can state emphatically that you KNEW it was contraband.

Example:

You call a person over. You demand to know what they're doing, and then tell them to assume the position. You pat them down, and you feel a mushy, oblong object. A-ha! you say, because you think based on your experience that the object is a bag of weed.

"What's in your pocket?"

"What am I being held for?"

"I said, what's in your pocket?"

"None of your business. You have no reason to search me, you have no reason to detain me."

"Ah-ha! A wiseguy. Trot out the ID, fella."

"I don't think so. You have no reason to hold me, and I will not show you my ID. Screw off, pig!"

You throw your hands into the pocket, and pull out a bag of weed. BINGO!

You arrest for VUCSA, Possession with intent to distribute, and Obstruction of a Police Officer.

Good bust, eh?

So, when you get to court, why does the judge throw is all out, set the man free, and why did your captain give you a look that could have melted iron, and told you to see him in his office ASAP?

It's called the "exclusionary rule". See Mapp v. Ohio.

The person was NOT detained for any type of illegal activity--or even the articulable suspicion of illegal activity. And yes, judges and defense attorneys love to ask these questions. Thus, everything you turned up in the "search" gets thrown out.

Now, since you have NO reason to have stopped the guy, you have detained the person unlawfully. Clear violations of the intent of the Fourth Amendment.

Can you say "Unlawful Imprisonment?"

If you want to have a good read, and learn more about the exclusionary rule, check out Mapp v. Ohio. Read about the antics of the Keystone Kops involved, and the Gestapo tactics used. I'll bet you will have your jaw hitting the floor by the end of the first few paragraphs.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The fact is that we live in a country where the police may stop you for driving five miles per hour over the speed limit on an empty street, having a burned-out taillight, or being in the wrong part of town. If you look clean-cut and don’t resemble the criminal type the cops are usually looking for, then maybe you’ll just be sent on your way.…

~G. Fink

 

[longrifleman]

longrifleman said, "Why SHOULD immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?"

00 Spy, I'm sorry, but your answer doesn't seem like much of an answer. Not so long ago it was illegal to harbor or assist run-away slaves. Should that law have been obeyed?

RileyMc's explanation of malum in se vs. malum probihitum is always a good place to start with this debate.

If were are talking scary attitudes the one that scares ME is the blind obedience to a law just because it is THE LAW. My reading of history tells me that that is the road to the gulag and mass graves. When (when, not if)evil people take over the making of the law what can we do to stop abuses if we all blindly follow without thinking?

Ultimately, we are all responsible for our choices whatever the law says.


I'm personally not too scary an individual. Mostly when people see me they just point their fingers and laugh.


I've also decided to take at least a week off from cop bashing.

 

[gryphon]

All I have to say is that if the Founding Fathers were here to see what we have let "the government" do to us, they'd have leg cramps from all the ass kicking.

 

[Bill St. Clair]

The person was NOT detained for any type of illegal activity--or even the articulable suspicion of illegal activity. And yes, judges and defense attorneys love to ask these questions. Thus, everything you turned up in the "search" gets thrown out.

Now, since you have NO reason to have stopped the guy, you have detained the person unlawfully. Clear violations of the intent of the Fourth Amendment.

Can you say "Unlawful Imprisonment?"

I'm glad to hear that the courts still work this way in at least some places. However, the arrested guy still had to spend a night in jail plus court time and likely money out of pocket for bail before he was released for this unlawful arrest. And for a "law", IMNSHO, with no Constitutional authority to exist.

Yes, I can say "Unlawful Imprisonment." Can you say "Kidnapping?" I consider that to be the proper indictment for an illegal arrest. Kidnapping is a capital offense...

If you want to have a good read, and learn more about the exclusionary rule, check out Mapp v. Ohio. Read about the antics of the Keystone Kops involved, and the Gestapo tactics used. I'll bet you will have your jaw hitting the floor by the end of the first few paragraphs.

I found lots of web sites about it. Looks like the Supreme Court eventually did the right thing. I didn't find anything about the aftermath, however. How many of the cops in question are still rotting in a jail cell? How many millions of dollars in damages did Ms. Mapp get from the state of Ohio for her trouble? How much of it came directly from the pockets of the offending officers?

 

[tyme]

Powderman, the exclusionary rule is irrelevant, because LEOs can conduct Terry stop&frisks for just about any reason at all. Even if you pay a good lawyer or you represent yourself and really know what you're doing, chances of getting a court to invalidate a terry frisk are remote.

From your example:

So, when you get to court, why does the judge throw is all out, set the man free, and why did your captain give you a look that could have melted iron, and told you to see him in his office ASAP?

Which is not what often happens. In the officer's experience as a cop, the suspect's bulge, mode of dress, etc. all led the LEO to believe that the bulge was a gun.

Suddenly, all the charges stick.

The only difference is what the officer remembers. If a cop says a bulge looked like a gun and there was a knife or even just some drugs instead, the search isn't questioned.

 

[Powderman]

Tyme, no flame intended--but I believe that you have a somewhat pessimistic attitude toward law enforcement. I'm not saying that you are a bad person--not at all. If I met you face to face, we'd probably be good shooting buddies, if not outright friends.

But, I must differ with you on some points--and yet, agree with others.

Yes, I will say that the court is more likely to side with the law enforcement officer--simply because of the "implied" integrity of the officer. And, that's where I have to differ with what I believe your opinion is.

You see, all of the cops I know--myself included--take our integrity WAY too seriously for that to ever come into question. I literally cannot count the times that I have bypassed what I KNEW was illegal activity--but could not articulate in a court of law.

Or, the times I drove right past crack dealers. Why? Standing on a corner in a group is NOT against the law. I have NO reasonable suspicion that they are breaking the law.

Even if I arrested the person before, I STILL would have no reasonable suspicion to frisk--or even to begin a Terry stop. And, you might ask, what is the threshold for a Terry stop?

It is when a reasonable person would believe that they are no longer free to leave.

How, you might ask, do I know that they're engaged in crime? I patrol a crime infested area--plus, I spent the first 18 years of my life in the inner city of Chicago. I know what drug dealers, prostitutes, rummies, drunks and thugs look like, and how they act.

But, can I articulate that? Can I prove that they are about to commit a crime--or maybe have committed a crime? At that point, no.

All I can do is to park the unit. Some of these folks know me by sight, and they know that it is somewhat of a chess game. I stop the car, and I talk to them. They know I don't have diddley.

They also know that as long as I am there, they will not do any business.

So, in a sense, there is some sense of enforcement. But, more importantly, I am following the letter of the law--I am not infringing on anyone's rights, under color of law. And, until a crime is committed, or I have PC that one is about to be committed or in progress, I will NOT violate the civil rights of any person, of any color, age, sex, orientation, or what have you.

To me, and the cops I hang out with and patrol with, there is no grey area. No acceptable exceptions. There is only black and white.

To me, if you enforce the law--but do not follow the letter of the law--you are no better than the people you arrest.

Again, no flame--but the vast majority of cops will NOT violate the civil rights of the people they contact. It's nothing personal--it's part of the job.

 

[dustind]

Good post Powderman. Edited To clarify: I agree with your stance on rights and the law being black and white.

FWIW I am of the opinion that anyone has the right to carry a weapon assuming it is for self defense, regardless of any laws.

 

[tyme]

But, can I articulate that? Can I prove that they are about to commit a crime--or maybe have committed a crime? At that point, no.

I've already ranted about PC and RS enough in other threads, but the above quoted passage dangerously misconstrues Reasonable Suspicion. Even if you know the difference (and it's obvious in the rest of the comments that you do), a comment like the one above confuses other people who may not completely understand it. It's not really your fault; the standards for RS and PC are poor descriptions of two levels of suspicion, and it's not your fault that they're so difficult to distinguish.

You're aware of MVPel's situation, right? That was not an isolated instance of a bad beat cop. It was a detective and several other cops, plus a dispatcher who thought nothing of sending the aforementioned cast of cops descending upon a law-abiding citizen based on a crackpot report that didn't allege any crime.

You can walk like a person, talk like a person, and behave like a person. Someone may still call 911 to report you. An assortment of cops may then arrive, steal your property, take you into custody on suspicion of being a duck, and release you after a lecture about how you should try harder to act like a human.

I don't take any offense at your comments, and I hope you don't take offense at mine. Just do a search for posts by sendec, liliysdad, feddc, or any of the other resident LEOs who don't support your philosophy about Terry stops at all. Their departments and peers don't seem to care, which leeds me to believe they're the same. Furthermore, unless you've changed jobs since you posted in another thread, you don't work in an urban police department. It was a thread about some people hanging out on the hood of a car, and being questioned by police. Sendec suggested that any cops unable to create reasonable suspicion out of any given situation shouldn't have a job. He's an admitted LEO.

Even if bad cops in cities were exceedingly rare, which unfortunately they are not, one bad cop is all I need to ruin my day. Every time I think about why I need a chl in order to carry a firearm, the answer is that there are bad cops who may search me without cause. If all cops were like you, I would have carried when I lived in San Francisco.

 

[Powderman]

Could not get to the thread--but, you're probably mentioning the fact that I am a Tribal cop. You are correct...

however, my jurisdiction includes about 1/4 of the City of Tacoma, WA, all of the City of Fife, WA, part of Milton and Edgewood, WA, out into Puget Sound (clams and fishing areas), back to the city limits of Puyallup, and some other areas. We are cross-commissioned by the City of Tacoma and Pierce County Sheriff's Dept. to enforce RCW, our Tribal Code, Tacoma's Uniform Court Docket and Pierce County Statutes.

On a normal patrol night, the only trees I see are made of concrete and steel.

 

[Sistema1927]

My state (New Mexico) just instituted CCW this year. During my CCW class, one of the instructors stated: "I have been carrying concealed, legally and illegally, for fifteen years."

I wasn't the only one in the class who was chuckling about this, except, in my case, it was closer to 25 years.

 

[sendec]

Tyme,

You have an uncanny knack for taking things completely out of context. Any attempt at a discussion is fruitless. I'll tell you what I've told others: go to school. Any cop who cannot tell the difference between lawful and unlawful activity should be out of a job. Any cop who observes illegal activity and cannot articulate probable cause should be out of a job.

"Admitted LEO" - what will you admit to? Thrill me with your knowledge. Impress me with the breadth of your experience. Astound me with your education and training. What bar are you a member of? How long have you been a cop? Where did you do your graduate study? Er, how many times have you been arrested? Your knowledge has to come from somewhere, or did it just emit from a sphincter?

By all means you are entitled to your opinion. People used to be of the opinion that the world was flat, too,

 

[Don Gwinn]

Sendec, Powderman was doing an admirable job of discussing the topic in polite and courteous fashion until that last post of yours. You might think about whether you want to undo that for the sake of insulting people.

The moment this thread goes (more) personal, I'm going to pull the plug and decide what to do with the individual offenders from there.

 

[sendec]

Huh?

What does what Powderman had to say have to do with what Tyme had to say?

"I don't take any offense at your comments, and I hope you don't take offense at mine. Just do a search for posts by sendec, liliysdad, feddc, or any of the other resident LEOs who don't support your philosophy about Terry stops at all. Their departments and peers don't seem to care, which leeds me to believe they're the same. Furthermore, unless you've changed jobs since you posted in another thread, you don't work in an urban police department. It was a thread about some people hanging out on the hood of a car, and being questioned by police. Sendec suggested that any cops unable to create reasonable suspicion out of any given situation shouldn't have a job. He's an admitted LEO."

Well, I take offense to this, and I'm the bad guy? Who is insulting whom here? I want him to support his assertion and state his qualifications. I want some evidence or facts. If he has free reign to cast aspersions just say so. Is this a level playing field or what? All in all, worthy of Alan Dershowitz.