Just stoped for open carry in ihop


Probable cause was when the Officer saw the gun. If he didn't have a permit he would have been breaking the law.

A gun openly carried in a holster is not probable cause or RAS for a stop.

Edit: What navy said one post up. Additionally, they can't pull you over while driving for the sole purpose of checking your license and registration.
 

Thanks for the responce

Section (a) does not mention property only buildings and bus,s. So therefor I am not in violation of a. What I'm I missing? Does anyone else have to weigh in on this issue.??

The first provision says that you can't have a firearm on school property. The second says that you can't have one to harm someone. You will still violate (a) even if you don't violate (b). If you violate (b) you will have two charges against you. Also keep in mind that Federal law has a 1000 foot gun free zone around school property. It doesn't apply if you have a CPL from that State but since Vermont doesn't have a CPL that wouldn't apply.
 
Officer: "sir sir show me your permit now"
Citizen: "Why?"
Officer: "Because I said so"
Citizen: "Am I being detained?"
Officer: "Sow me your permit"
Citizen: "Have a nice day Officer" and leave.

And your under arrest. Failure to comply with an officer. Obstruction of governmental administration.

You don't walk away just because he doesn't answer your question. This has happened thousands of times in America. My attorney always advised I have the right to remain silent but never try to control the encounter.
 
See my post #18 directly above. The mere sight of a gun in no way is probable cause that the person carrying it is not legal to do so, just like the mere sight of children with an adult is in no way probable cause that the person is a kidnapper or sex offender.

Or how about this one: is an officer sees me talking on a cell phone, is that probable cause that the cell phone is stolen or that I am stealing cell phone service with an illegally modified cell phone? So it would be OK for the officer to request that I hand over my cell phone so he can run the serial number?
That's stretching your logic pretty thin. You don't need a license to have children or a cell phone. If the cops get a man with a gun call you can bet you'll be showing them your license either on the spot or down at the station. I'm not saying the cop was being professional but claiming no probable cause won't get you very far in court, but it might get you a ride to jail.
 
A gun openly carried in a holster is not probable cause or RAS for a stop.
What about if everyone in the hood decides to do it? How do we separate the hoodrats from the honest store owner walking home? There must be some line to delineate when its OK.
 
Thanks for the responce

Section (a) does not mention property only buildings and bus,s. So therefor I am not in violation of a. What I'm I missing? Does anyone else have to weigh in on this issue.??
No matter what Vermont law says it is still a violation of Federal law to carry within 1000 feet of school property.
 
And your under arrest. Failure to comply with an officer. Obstruction of governmental administration.

You don't walk away just because he doesn't answer your question. This has happened thousands of times in America. My attorney always advised I have the right to remain silent but never try to control the encounter.

You've been behind enemy lines far too long.

If the Officer is stupid enough to conduct a false arrest I'll gladly take the payday. I wore a badge long enough I'm not afraid of an idiot wearing one.
 
What about if everyone in the hood decides to do it? How do we separate the hoodrats from the honest store owner walking home? There must be some line to delineate when its OK.

What difference does carrying a gun make? Let's just stop anyone we feel like and make them produce ID to check them out. According to your reasoning a cop at the entrance to Wal Mart checking every person for outstanding warrants on their way in would be OK.

You've been behind enemy lines far too long.

If the Officer is stupid enough to conduct a false arrest I'll gladly take the payday. I wore a badge long enough I'm not afraid of an idiot wearing one.

Thank you. It is really a sad state of affairs in America when most of our rights are upheld in the courts because criminals are using them to try to get out of conviction for a crime they actually committed rather than honest, law abiding citizens standing up for them day-to-day on the streets. After all, you've got nothing to hide, therefore just comply, comrade.
 
Maybe we should just all wear our CPLs in a clear badge holder around our necks so everyone can feel at ease and now that we are a "good guy." Or, like this, with our CCW permits:

crw_8497.jpg
 
So if I'm OCing and a Leo walks up and says show me your permit and I have to show it to him and people in this forum agree with that it makes me think that far more libs will agree with that. Why the ef do they make such a huge deal about asking immigrants for their papers? They don't have to show them and they're not even here legally. I am a us citizen, I am well trained , I have numerous creds for my line of work far past the normal CCE course, and I'm the one who will be harassed. Chasing the wrong rabbit on this one. Next it will be barcode tats and implanted micro chips if we don't somehow make a stand. I think if someone is acting normal than no reason to question. You are not supposed to be pulled over until you have broken a law. If you are pulled over while driving and did not break a law and it is proven whatever happens past the first " do you know why I pulled you over?" doesn't count. Should be the same with people. Israel knows how to profile people but here it's too racist or politically incorrect. BS
 
The other approach: bring donuts and coffee once a month to the local precinct and get to know the local LE. They won't forget you and it would be a good time to discuss the issue. May not want to oc in the station though.
 
alduane:281544 said:
See my post #18 directly above. The mere sight of a gun in no way is probable cause that the person carrying it is not legal to do so, just like the mere sight of children with an adult is in no way probable cause that the person is a kidnapper or sex offender.

Or how about this one: is an officer sees me talking on a cell phone, is that probable cause that the cell phone is stolen or that I am stealing cell phone service with an illegally modified cell phone? So it would be OK for the officer to request that I hand over my cell phone so he can run the serial number?
That's stretching your logic pretty thin. You don't need a license to have children or a cell phone. If the cops get a man with a gun call you can bet you'll be showing them your license either on the spot or down at the station. I'm not saying the cop was being professional but claiming no probable cause won't get you very far in court, but it might get you a ride to jail.

In most places you don't need a license to open carry either. WA is one of those places. So what if he asks for my permit? I can say I don't have one and I don't need one to open carry, and I shouldn't need one because I had one before the state granted me another, it's called the 2A. If there are unconstitutional laws that make a good person a criminal, then good people belong in jail. I won't give up my rights, even if that means I have to spend a night in jail, it's sad to hear others don't care for their rights as much as I do...I guess in the end, if more people are not like me, my rights will be gone at some point anyways.
 
Probable cause was when the Officer saw the gun. If he didn't have a permit he would have been breaking the law.
With that kind of logic the cop sees your car and searches it, or with that logic you are checking into a hotel and the cop says let me see your marriage license, or with that logic as stated above you are with your kids and the cops says let me see your ID you might be a sex offender.
To not have that kind of logic we should learn to read.
Here is the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
I live in Indiana too (just east of Indianapolis)and had a problem with a LEO once. Took me five minutes to inform him of the law, found out he was rookie, first time by himself, since then no problem.
 
Indiana is not a traditional open carry State like Michigan is. In Indiana they have a permit to carry a handgun. You need the permit to carry openly or concealed.
Can you cite a statute please?

alduane may not have a citation, but I do:

Link Removed

IC 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without a license or by a person convicted of domestic battery; exceptions
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.


The word concealed does not appear in the above statute. HOWEVER, just because a cop sees a gun does not give rise to probable cause that the above statute is being violated. The officer would be required to have probable cause to believe that the person carrying the gun did not have the license, such as recognizing them as a known convicted felon.
 
What I find disturbing is how many people actually think it is perfectly fine for a person in authority (LEO) to ask for ID.

There is a fine line between "asking" for ID... and being trained to... "Show me your papers!".

And the greatest lie in that training is the oft heard... "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be afraid of."

Well... if I have nothing to hide exactly why is someone looking for something that isn't there?

Think about the difference in mind set in my words above. Because it is the difference between being presumed innocent of any wrong doing... and being considered guilty unless able to prove innocence.

And having a police officer expect a person to "show your papers!" for no reason other than that police officer "doesn't know if you are a good guy or not" or "doesn't know if you are carrying legally or not" IS being considered guilty and IS requiring you to prove your innocence.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top