The Open Carry Argument

[NavyLCDR]

I many states open carry will get you nothing but harassment or arrest because it is either not legal or not tolerated.

Should what is tolerated or not be a basis for us to decide which method of LEGAL carry is right for us? If I evaluate my location and circumstances and decide that open carry is the most effective method of defending myself and my family, and open carry is legal, I don't particularly care about the tolerance of LEO, soccer mom, or the concealed carry only guy who insists on making rude comments to me. I am going to base how I carry my gun on two factors: what is legal, which is most effective.

And there are times when I do decide that concealed carry is best - but "tolerance" has no bearing on that decision.

 

[Mainsail]

I get tired of the argument over open and concealed carry fairly quickly. I many states open carry will get you nothing but harassment or arrest because it is either not legal or not tolerated. If you don't wish to spend time making your point in the back of a squad car you open carry only where open carry is a common practice. Concealed carry or open carry in the most accepted manner will go a long way toward personal protection, meeting legal mandates, and causing less friction from law enforcement and the public.

Washington was like that at one time. Do you know how we stopped the police harassment of open carry in Tacoma and Seattle? We carried openly!

I personally know of an open carrier who walked away with a tidy sum of money for police harassment, and trust me that also stops it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Washington was like that at one time. Do you know how we stopped the police harassment of open carry in Tacoma and Seattle? We carried openly!

Worked in Oak Harbor, WA, as well.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Washington was like that at one time. Do you know how we stopped the police harassment of open carry in Tacoma and Seattle? We carried openly!

Worked in Oak Harbor, WA, as well.

Worked in Kennewick, WA, as well.

 

[GOV5]

"And anyway, you didn't give up your citizenship when you took the oath, right? "

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B N M

Well, sorta they did. LOL! They are under the UCMJ, which is a whole other set of laws.

 

[GOV5]

Exactly what, or how, did you folks do that? I like the idea, whatever it was.
I have asked local cops several questions about gun laws, and I get answers that range from "I have no idea" to incorrect, to spot on. My point is that cops don't know the law as well as most people think they do. Especially when it comes to gun laws.

SO, in my opinion only, if you were getting harassed, it was a definite pro-action directive from a police supervisor. And that would be grounds for a law suit. And as you say, I'm am not anti-cop. But I am "anti-stupid/lazy/oppressive cop!

I'm glad your efforts worked in that city. I have ever experienced that type of treatment. I would probably have been taken to the pokey, because I would have probably exploded when some dumb cop detained me when I was not breaking any laws, when he/she didn't know the laws themselves.

 

[FTG-05]

I get tired of the argument over open and concealed carry fairly quickly. I many states open carry will get you nothing but harassment or arrest because it is either not legal or not tolerated. If you don't wish to spend time making your point in the back of a squad car you open carry only where open carry is a common practice. Concealed carry or open carry in the most accepted manner will go a long way toward personal protection, meeting legal mandates, and causing less friction from law enforcement and the public.

What in the heck does this statement mean?

Who decides what "the most accepted manner" is? How is carrying "in the most accepted manner" going to meet "legal mandates" (whatever that is)?

How is carrying "in the most accepted manner" going to reduce friction from law enforcement and/or the public?

 

[glock2162]

These are all great points for discusion as both sides have some pretty good aguments. personally I carry concealed when at the store or any other place of buisness, but around home i often go outside on my street in the oc mode. we all need to be aware of our surroundings and to decide for ourselves which meathod of carry suits that givin circumstance.

 

[ESD]

And there are times when I do decide that concealed carry is best - but "tolerance" has no bearing on that decision.

Couldn't agree more with this!

 

[ESD]

During the UT training class last March, our UT CWP instructor told us that a) there was no duty to inform in AL and b) he didn't recommend informing the officer unless asked or asked to step out of the vehicle. So not all CWP instructors advise informing upon a simple traffic stop.

That's my policy also. Although in my case, talk is cheap since I don't get pulled over very often; about once every 5 years or so (watch me get a ticket on the way home today.....).

I think Big Gay Al said it earlier...they run our license, they already know if we are CHP. However, Ohio law requires us to inform LE when we are armed only? If they've already run our plate, don't they know we could be, and ask us just the same? Why do we have to have the "duty" to inform them? But as it is, the law here requires it be done that way?

 

[ESD]

I get tired of the argument over open and concealed carry fairly quickly. I many states open carry will get you nothing but harassment or arrest because it is either not legal or not tolerated. If you don't wish to spend time making your point in the back of a squad car you open carry only where open carry is a common practice. Concealed carry or open carry in the most accepted manner will go a long way toward personal protection, meeting legal mandates, and causing less friction from law enforcement and the public.

You said, "In many states open carry will get you nothing but harassment or arrest because it is either not legal or not tolerated".

Well, none of us are talking about open carrying in states where it is illegal. That will absolutely get you in the back of the squad car, and then some! As far as toleration goes...preemption takes care of local jurisdictions, local gun laws or bans are illegal if they conflict with the State or Federal laws. The last sentence you posted is why we have laws. They protect us against "friction from law enforcement and the public." But only if Law Enforcement and the public know the laws, before creating unneccessary friction for law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

I feel like any citizen who calls law enforcement in a panic "just" because they see me openly carrying a firearm, has already infringed on my civil right to be legally armed. I've been told more than once that "ignorance is no defense when breaking the law". So who's inducing the panic?....Me for legally openly carrying my firearm, or the uninformed citizen who called LE, and induced panic in them?

Once the public quits criminalizing the act of carrying firearms, then the realization of "seeing" firearms on a regular basis in public, will be a normal activity. But until then, we have to rely on the LEO's knowledge of his state's gun laws, to decide the outcome of our confrontations with them. My lawyer will handle any unlawful actions taken against me by LE, for legally carrying my firearm.

 

[BC1]

I think Big Gay Al said it earlier...they run our license, they already know if we are CHP. However, Ohio law requires us to inform LE when we are armed only? If they've already run our plate, don't they know we could be, and ask us just the same? Why do we have to have the "duty" to inform them? But as it is, the law here requires it be done that way?

I often wondered how that works. When they run the plate before approaching the car does it pop up for the registration owner? Does he know before he approaches the car or does it pop when he runs the DL? What if the driver is not the registered owner?

 

[FTG-05]

I think Big Gay Al said it earlier...they run our license, they already know if we are CHP. However, Ohio law requires us to inform LE when we are armed only? If they've already run our plate, don't they know we could be, and ask us just the same? Why do we have to have the "duty" to inform them? But as it is, the law here requires it be done that way?

In OH and other states that require informing, you're sorta screwed. Not us in AL. It's up to us to decide. Some choose to tell all, some choose not to. I'm in the "choose not to" camp. My life and my safety are just as important as any other human being, including LEO's - why should they be treated special?

Furthermore, I'll start worrying about making a cop feel "comfortable" about my firearm when cops start dismantling the "thin blue line" - Harless should have been fired due to another cop, not a youtube video.

 

[ESD]

I often wondered how that works. When they run the plate before approaching the car does it pop up for the registration owner? Does he know before he approaches the car or does it pop when he runs the DL? What if the driver is not the registered owner?

Yeah, before he's even approached the stopped vehicle, he has run the plate. It will pop up automatically if the vehicle is registered to a CHP. He/she will know that there is already the possibility that there could be a firearm in the vehicle.

I told my wife to keep an eye on the officer when he's approaching the vehicle. If he appears to be clutching his firearm, just put your hands on the steering wheel, and tell him your not CHL and there's no firearm in the car.

The only reason I tell her to do this is because she's disabled with a bad back, and I don't want her to get roughed up by some overly aggressive LEO. Easier just to keep the hands in plain sight, until he/she can determine that the wife doesn't possess a firearm. Sometimes you have to pick which rights to fight for. I can't replace her for merely the inconvenience of a traffic stop.

If the driver is not the CHL, I think the LEO will have that figured out when they hand him their DL. It won't have the registered owners name on it. The driver will just have to explain why they're driving the vehicle I guess?

 

[ESD]

In OH and other states that require informing, you're sorta screwed. Not us in AL. It's up to us to decide. Some choose to tell all, some choose not to. I'm in the "choose not to" camp. My life and my safety are just as important as any other human being, including LEO's - why should they be treated special?

Furthermore, I'll start worrying about making a cop feel "comfortable" about my firearm when cops start dismantling the "thin blue line" - Harless should have been fired due to another cop, not a youtube video.

In a perfect world I too would be in the "choose not to" camp as well. And I don't think my life is any more or less important than LE, or anyone else? I don't think by notifying them if I'm carrying a firearm during a traffic stop is a big enough deal to get excited about. That's just me. I know he's got a job to do, and I just wanna get the traffic stop over as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I still believe in the idea of picking and choosing my battles. Notifying a LEO that I'm CC during a traffic stop isn't that big of a deal to me. And since I'm a law-abiding citizen, why should I be, or feel offended by having to do so? I don't consider this "special treatment". I just think its being honest, and safe to all parties involved.

 

[ESD]

In OH and other states that require informing, you're sorta screwed. Not us in AL. It's up to us to decide. Some choose to tell all, some choose not to. I'm in the "choose not to" camp. My life and my safety are just as important as any other human being, including LEO's - why should they be treated special?

Furthermore, I'll start worrying about making a cop feel "comfortable" about my firearm when cops start dismantling the "thin blue line" - Harless should have been fired due to another cop, not a youtube video.

As far as the "Harless" incident goes....he has had a history of making poor decisions under stress. His actions were disgraceful, and he made himself famous on youtube, but more importantly, the video can now be used to train other police in the "do's and don'ts of handling similar stops in the future. Harless was more concerned with looking like the "victim cop", then he was with handling the situation politely and professionally. I'm glad the guy didn't get shot by Harless. And his threats against him were in "my opinion"...criminal. And I say, "thank God for that video"!

 

[GOV5]

I think they run the license AFTER they stop you, not before. They usually don't have time to run the plate while they are in pursuit of stopping a vehicle. That's the reason you see stories of officers getting in fights and sometimes shot at traffic stops. They don't know what they got until they run the drivers license. The plate doesn't link to the crime computer, the drivers license does. The plate just shows who owns the car.

If your DL says one thing, and the plated says another, expect some time in the back of the squad car. LOL!

 

[FTG-05]

As far as the "Harless" incident goes....he has had a history of making poor decisions under stress. His actions were disgraceful, and he made himself famous on youtube, but more importantly, the video can now be used to train other police in the "do's and don'ts of handling similar stops in the future. Harless was more concerned with looking like the "victim cop", then he was with handling the situation politely and professionally. I'm glad the guy didn't get shot by Harless. And his threats against him were in "my opinion"...criminal. And I say, "thank God for that video"!

All true, but I hope you're not missing my point: His behaviour was well known inside that department - he had several other incidents, the youtube video wasn't the first. My point was that he should have been fired long ago due to the actions of his own department, not just because a video got out on the internet.

And I agree with your previous comments: I have no problem with people making their own decisions on informing an officer or not. I only disagree with being forced to do it.

Thanks,

 

[NavyLCDR]

If your DL says one thing, and the plated says another, expect some time in the back of the squad car. LOL!

And why is that? There are plenty of legitimate reasons for the driver's name not to match the registered owner's name. And heck, it says right on my vehicle registration, "Not proof of ownership."

Borrowed the car. Couples living together, not married. Child driving a step-parent's vehicle with different last names. Recently purchased in a private sale. Married woman driving a parent's car.

Give me a break. Like I said earlier, is the GOV in your screen name short for government? It sure seems as if you like to come up with any excuse to justify illegal detainment of citizens by police.

 

[ESD]

I think they run the license AFTER they stop you, not before. They usually don't have time to run the plate while they are in pursuit of stopping a vehicle. That's the reason you see stories of officers getting in fights and sometimes shot at traffic stops. They don't know what they got until they run the drivers license. The plate doesn't link to the crime computer, the drivers license does. The plate just shows who owns the car.

If your DL says one thing, and the plated says another, expect some time in the back of the squad car. LOL!

Actually, your license plate is run as soon as he/she has you pulled over. Not when you are being pursued? And it is the LICENSE PLATE that tells the officer if that vehicle is registered to a CHL. That is what the Sheriff's Dept. told me when I picked up my CHL the first time. After he/she has observed your DL or CHL, he may still run your information to check on wants and warrants. And probably will to see what kind of driving record you have as well. Just because you have a CHL, doesn't mean you didn't just commit some other crime recently? What I mean is...just because they know your a CHL by running your license plate, and by viewing your CHL, doesn't mean you didn't just beat your wife that day, or commit any other crime that would disqualify you from being a legally armed citizen any longer?

So by running your plate, and then your DL, and or your CHL; LE can check and double check any information that has to do with you, and your vehicle?

YOU SAID, "That's the reason you see stories of officers getting in fights and sometimes shot at traffic stops. They don't know what they got until they run the drivers license." I'm sorry, but I don't believe this to be the case at all? The reason, I believe you see stories of officers getting in fights and sometimes shot at traffic stops, is because they are dealing with criminals, not law abiding citizens? And it doesn't matter at that point whether they run the drivers license or not, does it?

Too many scenarios can be debated at a traffic stop. I'm certainly not going to entertain the idea. I just wanted to share with you that YES in OHIO they know you are CHL when they run your plate. They already have your name, address, etc... That's just the plate. Then they may ask to see your DL, registration, maybe even your CHL?