Attitude of Some Police re: Open Carry

[handgonnetoter]

Recently in Pierce County, WA, a gentleman was in a Starbuck's enjoying his regular morning cup of starter fluid. He had been comin in for his AM coffee for two years, and during that two years, he had his semi-auto pistol on his hip, as Washington is an Open Carry state. This morning was different, however. A Pierce County deputy sheriff entered the shop and demanded the man's identification. The man refused, rightly, IMHO, as he was doing nothing wrong. He was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. A spokesman for the department stated than when there is a possible threat, the police have the right to investigate. Why do some police figure that your gun is a possible threat, and theirs is not? How does a citizen legally exercizing his Second Amendment rights constitute a threat? I understand the charges were eventually dropped, but as a former LEO myself, I don't see the reason for the arrest to begin with. Does a citizen legally carrying his sidearm in accordance with state law actually equate with a wild-eyed maniac shooting up a peaceful business? I think the deputy owes the gentleman an abject, sincere apology.

I think most police believe they, and only they, have the right to legally carry a handgun. When I was in the Marines, I used to carry way more firepower than most any cops do, but they don't care about that. I think it is a slow process of bending their minds to think that only they can handle themselves with a firearm. Its a sad state of affairs that makes a society slowly change to the point of oblivion, and I am afraid that is where we are going. The way the civilian police (I say that because many of them fancy themselves some sort of military operators) are slowly turning against gun owning American citizens is proof of what I am trying to say.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Hey L.T.: Nope, don't mean that at all. As I said, we are all in a learning process down here as well as other places. As a rule, open carry has not been done for quite some time to the degree people are pushing for now and and that is taking some getting used to by both LEOs and the general populace. This is going to be an educational process showing what our rights are and needs to be done without everybody having a confrontational attitude.

Just a question... I am getting coffee in Starbucks in Washington or in Virginia and a police officer (on duty or not) wants to see my ID to check and see if I am a felon or not simply because I am carrying a gun. In your opinion, what would be the difference between having a confrontational attitude or not?

If I respectfully refuse to show ID am I being confrontational?

If the officer refuses to accept my refusal and will not let me go about my business in peace, at what point do I become confrontational?

You are extremely fortunate in having Washington State provide such protection of your rights as are the people of Texas, Arizona, and all the other states who are more progressive about gun rights.

I must beg to differ with you regarding Texas. They are one of about 10 of the most oppressive states in regards to the right to CARRY a gun. There is no form of permit-less carry in Texas AND there is NO open carry at all.

As for catering to LEOs and willfully relinquishing our rights, no, we do not do that. We push back, but not so far as to get arrested.

Ummmmm...... so then as soon as the officer breaks out the handcuffs we say, "OK, OK, hold on there, officer, there is no need for that.... here you go, sir, here is my ID card?" But at least I exercised my rights up to that point. It just seems to me like that is what you are saying.

I have been in that situation, BTW. Eating dinner in a restaurant when basically the exact same thing happened to me. Except I had already showed him my ID and he continued to harass me only because I would not conceal my gun. He threatened me with writing a citation. I told him go ahead, write the citation, because if he didn't I was going to go back into the restaurant and continue to eat my dinner. He was bluffing. I have learned greatly from that experience.

I think 99% of the cops out there are decent guys and I don't go around seeking confrontations with them. But I am not going to turn belly up for the 1% of bad cops, regardless of if they are twirling handcuffs on their finger or not.

 

[santa]

Just a question... I am getting coffee in Starbucks in Washington or in Virginia and a police officer (on duty or not) wants to see my ID to check and see if I am a felon or not simply because I am carrying a gun. In your opinion, what would be the difference between having a confrontational attitude or not?

If I respectfully refuse to show ID am I being confrontational?

If the officer refuses to accept my refusal and will not let me go about my business in peace, at what point do I become confrontational?



I must beg to differ with you regarding Texas. They are one of about 10 of the most oppressive states in regards to the right to CARRY a gun. There is no form of permit-less carry in Texas AND there is NO open carry at all.




Ummmmm...... so then as soon as the officer breaks out the handcuffs we say, "OK, OK, hold on there, officer, there is no need for that.... here you go, sir, here is my ID card?" But at least I exercised my rights up to that point. It just seems to me like that is what you are saying.

I have been in that situation, BTW. Eating dinner in a restaurant when basically the exact same thing happened to me. Except I had already showed him my ID and he continued to harass me only because I would not conceal my gun. He threatened me with writing a citation. I told him go ahead, write the citation, because if he didn't I was going to go back into the restaurant and continue to eat my dinner. He was bluffing. I have learned greatly from that experience.

I think 99% of the cops out there are decent guys and I don't go around seeking confrontations with them. But I am not going to turn belly up for the 1% of bad cops, regardless of if they are twirling handcuffs on their finger or not.

Excellent post. I agree with you 100%. In the small town where I live the police chief is a bully. I know of times he has harrassed people lawfully carrying their guns. The chief even has said that any gun permit he issues would NOT be good outside this county. I know that he is full of baloney and being less than truthfull. I and others have read the RCW regarding a CPL and open carry. My CPL is issued by the county sheriff. The problem is here and other places very few individuals are willing to stand up for their rights. Plus here the local news refuses to publish the times when an individual does stand up for their rights. The chief does not harrass me because I know my rights and exercise them. Like you I do not go around seeking confrontations with leo but Im not going to turn the other cheek. I will respect any leo as long as he(or she) treats me with respect and follows the law. If we do not stand up for our rights who will?

 

[NavyLCDR]

The chief even has said that any gun permit he issues would NOT be good outside this county.

That's interesting.... better look at your CPL, about 1/3 of the way down and make sure it says "State of Washington Concealed Pistol License"!

 

[Seeya]

Recently in Pierce County, WA, a gentleman was in a Starbuck's enjoying his regular morning cup of starter fluid. He had been comin in for his AM coffee for two years, and during that two years, he had his semi-auto pistol on his hip, as Washington is an Open Carry state. This morning was different, however. A Pierce County deputy sheriff entered the shop and demanded the man's identification. The man refused, rightly, IMHO, as he was doing nothing wrong. He was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. A spokesman for the department stated than when there is a possible threat, the police have the right to investigate. Why do some police figure that your gun is a possible threat, and theirs is not? How does a citizen legally exercizing his Second Amendment rights constitute a threat? I understand the charges were eventually dropped, but as a former LEO myself, I don't see the reason for the arrest to begin with. Does a citizen legally carrying his sidearm in accordance with state law actually equate with a wild-eyed maniac shooting up a peaceful business? I think the deputy owes the gentleman an abject, sincere apology.

The individual should file a United States Code 1985 against the officer and charge the officer and any others who conspired under USC title 18 chapter 13, 241 & 242. This will stop this unlawful activity. I would give links but not familiar with this setup yet.

 

[bro.bryant]

just show your ID and let that be it. no time for going down town and tell them to have a bless day

 

[Oldgrunt]

"...when do you quit pushing?"

Hey L.T.: I have read a lot of your posts and agree with a lot you have expressed. You seem to be very knowledgeable and up to date on Second Amendment rights and the gun laws of the various states. I commend you for that, however, you and I disagree on how we would react to given situations concerning encounters with law enforcement personnel. It seems that you want total agreement with your stance which I can not do. After a lot of years on this earth, I have learned that being adversarial or confrontational is not always the best course of action in situations we have discussed. To paraphrase your comment, "...when do you quit pushing...when the cuffs come out?" Yes, I think that would be an appropriate time to shut up and acquiesce to the officer. But the situation would not necessarily end there. I have other avenues that I can pursue to get redress so, why unnecessarily cause an encounter that would make me or any other armed person look foolish? Again, I do commend you for your stance and all the information you impart and always make it a point to read your posts. They do keep things lively!:biggrin:

 

[Kasper]

Hey L.T.: I have read a lot of your posts and agree with a lot you have expressed. You seem to be very knowledgeable and up to date on Second Amendment rights and the gun laws of the various states. I commend you for that, however, you and I disagree on how we would react to given situations concerning encounters with law enforcement personnel. It seems that you want total agreement with your stance which I can not do. After a lot of years on this earth, I have learned that being adversarial or confrontational is not always the best course of action in situations we have discussed. To paraphrase your comment, "...when do you quit pushing...when the cuffs come out?" Yes, I think that would be an appropriate time to shut up and acquiesce to the officer. But the situation would not necessarily end there. I have other avenues that I can pursue to get redress so, why unnecessarily cause an encounter that would make me or any other armed person look foolish? Again, I do commend you for your stance and all the information you impart and always make it a point to read your posts. They do keep things lively!:biggrin:

How do you look foolish for standing up for your rights?

 

[Hammerhead]

I have to disagree with those of you who are advocating the idea of relinquishing your rights when the police begin to bully you.

I cannot say how to react while in Washington, so I'm going to use Indiana law that I'm more familiar with to respond.

In Indiana, we are not required to carry ID with us when we're out in public. If I'm not driving my car, I'm not required to have a driver's license. If I were confronted by a police officer about my OC'd sidearm, and asked for my ID, I can refuse. I am only required to provide my LTCH (license to carry a handgun) upon request. Standing in a business ordering a beverage does not give any PC (probable cause) or RAS (reasonable articulatable suspicion) for any further inquiry.

Even for a Terry stop, there must be a suspicion of a crime or commission of a crime, or a reasonable danger. Carrying of a handgun has been ruled as not enough PC or RAS of a crime. There's also legal precedent thanks to the INSC and the Appellate court that provide even more protections (State v. Washington; Richardson v. State).

I have never had this happen to me, so I can't say I have personal experience, but if a LEO attempted to bully me by whipping out the cuffs and offering me a free ride down to the station, he'd better have more than "he's OCing his gun" as a reason. And my refusal to show ID isn't enough. My LTCH is where it stops, not only because I won't show ID when I'm not required, but because I don't have to.

IANAL, TINLA, YMMV.

 

[Felix]

How do you look foolish for standing up for your rights?

Using "foolish" might not have been the best choice of words but I had no problem understanding the point Oldgrunt was making.

I must say though, as of a few days ago, I was solidly in Oldgrunt's corner and the non-confrontational course he advocates was my approach as well. If a cop's request for an ID seemed reasonable, even if not technically required, I complied without complaint or further questioning. Until...

Until...I received a lengthy, albeit very articulate, PM from one of our members arguing the other side of this question. Not one of those sharp-edge advocacy pieces I sometimes see here on the forum and even in this thread; but, a thoroughly persuasive one which resonated with me. Since I don't have the member's permission to quote him, I'll merely say that his core rationalization for advocating a more questioning approach revolved around ...'where would the [US] civil rights movement be today if Rosa Parks had quietly moved to the back of the bus?'

Rosa Parks, of course, has been widely acclaimed as the "mother of the freedom movement" as a result of her 1 Dec '55 arrest in Montgomery, AL when she refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger.

Now I'm not going to go so far as to get arrested and hauled off to jail but I have decided I'm going to pursue a more questioning attitude with any police officers I come in contact with, whether casually or because I've become a subject of their attention for some reason. And that's going to start with becoming as smart as I can on the nuances of our state's laws with regard to firearms possession and carry. Plus assuming more of an advocacy role and doing more to support those unjustly treated for standing up for the 2A.

 

[santa]

That's interesting.... better look at your CPL, about 1/3 of the way down and make sure it says "State of Washington Concealed Pistol License"!

Yes NavyLT I do have a Washington State concealed pistol licence and have had it many years. My point is in the small town where I live the police chief has given out false and misleading information regarding Washington State concealed pistol licences. This chief has admitted to my face that he doesnt think anybody here should carry a gun. I could go on but you must realize that in some small towns the police are a law unto themselves. Like you I refuse to let any leo violate my rights. I know what the law is regarding the aquisition of a CPL. I aquired my CPL through the sheriffs office as everyone else here does.

 

[Oldgrunt]

:biggrin:

How do you look foolish for standing up for your rights?

Kasper: Everyone should stand up for their rights and doing so does not make one foolish. Knowing when to not stop but go about the same thing in another direction is the key. I will stop short of being arrested or taking a bite out of a nightstick. This is when you use common sense and the law to your advantage. Showing my ID causes me little concern and I don't really see the need for flying up in the rear end about it. There is a lot of bluster on here about what some say they would do in a given situation when, in reality, they might actually do the opposite. You never know until the situation arises. One can only say what they think they would do. Whatever they want to do is fine for me. I wouldn't try to dictate to them the stance they should take nor will I let anyone dictate to me. I just do not see the need to always run around with a chip on my shoulder. I am comfortable the way I am and I am comfortable with others as they are. So, all that being said, have a good day and keep on packin'.:biggrin:

 

[Kasper]

Yes NavyLT I do have a Washington State concealed pistol licence and have had it many years. My point is in the small town where I live the police chief has given out false and misleading information regarding Washington State concealed pistol licences. This chief has admitted to my face that he doesnt think anybody here should carry a gun. I could go on but you must realize that in some small towns the police are a law unto themselves. Like you I refuse to let any leo violate my rights. I know what the law is regarding the aquisition of a CPL. I aquired my CPL through the sheriffs office as everyone else here does.

What small town is this in? I want to make sure that I don't visit a small town with a police chief like that in it. I will make sure to avoid that small town.

Also how does this police chief handle people from other parts of Washington that come to the town armed OCing or badly CCing their arms?

 

[S&W645]

The individual should file a United States Code 1985 against the officer and charge the officer and any others who conspired under USC title 18 chapter 13, 241 & 242. This will stop this unlawful activity. I would give links but not familiar with this setup yet.

241 and 242

 

[S&W645]

Yes NavyLT I do have a Washington State concealed pistol licence and have had it many years. My point is in the small town where I live the police chief has given out false and misleading information regarding Washington State concealed pistol licences. This chief has admitted to my face that he doesnt think anybody here should carry a gun. I could go on but you must realize that in some small towns the police are a law unto themselves. Like you I refuse to let any leo violate my rights. I know what the law is regarding the aquisition of a CPL. I aquired my CPL through the sheriffs office as everyone else here does.

Is he elected or appointed? Either way it sounds like a bad apple that needs removed.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you aren't going to stand up for your rights just because an officer threatens to arrest you, than what is the point of standing up for your rights at all? Just do like the nice officer says right up front. No sense wasting time up until the point arrest is threatened.

 

[Oldgrunt]

If you aren't going to stand up for your rights just because an officer threatens to arrest you, than what is the point of standing up for your rights at all? Just do like the nice officer says right up front. No sense wasting time up until the point arrest is threatened.

L.T.: I think we have beaten this dead horse long enough and we are at an impasse that I don't feel we can resolve. I respect your right to use whatever means you like to assert yourself to a LEO. You may be arrested for your stance and I will wave as you pass in the back seat of the cruiser. Without a doubt, you will emerge victorious in the end because the law will be on your side. My question is, "Why go to all that trouble just to prove a point?" My masculinity is not threatened by showing my ID to a LEO so, while you are taking your ride in the cruiser, I will be drinking coffee and BSing with my friends. Later, you will be knee deep in law suits against the municipality and police force and spending a lot of money (which you may or may not get back) to reinforce your rights. Hardly seems worth it to me but I would not deny you the right to do your thing! Happy trails.:biggrin:

 

[NavyLCDR]

My question is, "Why go to all that trouble just to prove a point?" My masculinity is not threatened by showing my ID to a LEO so, while you are taking your ride in the cruiser, I will be drinking coffee and BSing with my friends.

It's got nothing to do with masculinity. It's called the 4th amendment. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Some people just take that oath to greater length than others.

In your case, you will have to prove that you were coerced into involuntarily showing your ID when not required to do so by law. You will say in court, the officer threatened to arrest me. The officer will say, no, I merely asked him to cooperate by showing me ID and he did so voluntarily.

In my case, the officer will have to prove justification for an arrest.

Which case do you think will be easier to win in court?

Besides, you will never if the officer was bluffing unless you call his bluff. In my case, where it actually happened to me (threatened with citation), the officer was bluffing when I called it.

 

[Kasper]

L.T.: I think we have beaten this dead horse long enough and we are at an impasse that I don't feel we can resolve. I respect your right to use whatever means you like to assert yourself to a LEO. You may be arrested for your stance and I will wave as you pass in the back seat of the cruiser. Without a doubt, you will emerge victorious in the end because the law will be on your side. My question is, "Why go to all that trouble just to prove a point?" My masculinity is not threatened by showing my ID to a LEO so, while you are taking your ride in the cruiser, I will be drinking coffee and BSing with my friends. Later, you will be knee deep in law suits against the municipality and police force and spending a lot of money (which you may or may not get back) to reinforce your rights. Hardly seems worth it to me but I would not deny you the right to do your thing! Happy trails.:biggrin:

This is just my opinion but it is people who think like you do that has caused people like LT and me to have to put up with LEO's who try to do illegal things thinking that they are allowed due to everyone else bending over and giving up their legal rights to avoid being arrested. When you allow LEO's to walk over your legal rights you are reinforcing their bad and illegal behavior.

This is why our rights are where they are at now. During the old west no permit was needed to go from Mississippi to California with your six gun and rifle . But some How it is now seen as a safety hazard if a US citizen did what was done back then without a problem or permit/license.

 

[PHATSPEED7X]

Was the last generation even taught the Constitution in school? Because they sure hell can't say god, gun, or flag in school....