Was at ihop with my friends and family after about a hour or so we got up to leave. Since I was alittle over heated I need put my jacket on and right by the door was a mishawaka police officer. He didnt notice my gun at first til I got half way out the door and he freaked out and said "sir sir show me your permit now" which I replied "by law I dont have too" but wanting to leave I showed him anyway which then he teplied "when im somewhere and someone has a gun I will see it thank you"
I find it crazy how I was stopped in indiana a open carry state for open carrying my gun.
A missed educational possibility. You might consider carrying copies of the state statute that demonstrates you do not need a permit for open carry and present it RESPECTFULLY to the LEO that would approach in regard to you OC.
Too bad in Indiana that state law DOES require a permit to open carry! The statute is quoted in post #36.
If a permit is required to carry then we need to know what the permit statute(that I can't find)say.
Probable cause was when the Officer saw the gun. If he didn't have a permit he would have been breaking the law.
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.
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.
No matter what Vermont law says it is still a violation of Federal law to carry within 1000 feet of school property.
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.
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.
Not true. Possibly could fall under RAS only if the state requires a permit to carry open or concealed, but even then, that's pushing it.
Firearms carry laws are generally written in one of two ways (if carry is regulated). The majority of laws are written such that it is only illegal to carry the gun (OC or CC does not matter) without the proper license. In this case, the mere sight of the firearm provides no RAS or probable cause that any statute is being violated, unless the officer has specific knowledge that the person does not have the required license.
Some states' laws are written such that carrying the firearm is an illegal act and the permit provides an exception to the prohibition. In these states the mere sight of the firearm does provide RAS for a detainment long enough for the officer to determine that the person falls under an exception.
Good clarification, Navy. I should have added "where such is legal" or some facsimile thereof.
When I read posts such as some of the ones on this thread where the writers have made comments to the affect that if an LEO saw you OC'ing or received a MWAG call, you could expect to possibly be arrested and taken to jail, or made to eat dirt or similar atrocities to your person, I make it a point to see where they're from. And more often than not, they tend to reside in states with strict gun laws and next to impossible carry laws. This tells me that these folks have been brought up believing police abuse is to be expected when they try to exercise their rights... such as being expected to show and ID. In the more lenient states, I tend not to see so much of this.
Rather interesting I would say.
The logic from, can I see you permit, to papers please doesn't add up. What if I were walking down the street smoking a joint, how do the cops know that I'm not licensed to smoke it for medical reasons, they don't, that's why I'd be asked....I actually don't smoke weed for either reason so I'm not worried about that one.
If you are swerving all over the road while driving you will get pulled over and probably asked "have you been drinking", ..
This falls under the latter portion of navy's view on the two ways laws are written. Smoking weed is illegal unless you are an exception (and is completely illegal federally). So while some states a joint and a firearm are illegal to carry unless there is an exception, most states are not that way.
Comparing something that is illegal with something that is legal, and saying they have reason to question both, is wrong. Comparing a drunk driver to an open carry is far fetched as well. Swerving in your vehicle is on par with waving your gun around, but is in no way the same as carrying a holstered firearm in your everyday life. If you are waving your firearm around in public, or swerving in your car, then yes they would have a reason to confront you, Compare two legal aspects of life, such as driving a vehicle properly and carrying a firearm properly. If you are driving and not doing anything against the law, the police have no RAS to stop you. If you are carrying and not doing anything against the law, the police have no RAS to stop you.
The logic is quite simple... when people come to believe that they MUST provide proof they are engaged in a legal activity then they will have swallowed the idea that ... instead of LE being required to have a legal reason to suspect them they must provide proof to LE there is no reason to be suspected.-snip-
The logic from, can I see you permit, to papers please doesn't add up. -snip-
The point of all these situations is, you are doing something out of the ordinary. When you do something out of the ordinary, that is probable cause to investigate. If you see someone walking down your street and you are pretty dang sure they don't live in the neighborhood, you may go to investigate.
Like it or not, open carrying or even concealing a firearm, is not ordinary by most people's standards. Out side of a gun store or range, I've only seen 2-5 people open carry, oddly one was in IN a LONG time ago and while it caught my eye and I asked someone about it, I wasn't uncomfortable, I thought it was cool, but then again I grew up with guns.
The logic from, can I see you permit, to papers please doesn't add up.
Fourth, the trial court found that Casad did not carry the weapons in a manner that would warrant reasonable alarm. This factor is heavily contested by the parties, primarily based on individuals’ reactions to seeing a gun carried on a city street and whether Casad pointed one rifle barrel toward the roadway. We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.
The police had no other authority to detain Casad. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence seized as the fruit of this unlawful detention.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?