A cop gets a "man with a gun" check right.

[ileus]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81688049/


Discuss:

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. That should be the norm, not such a rare event

Officer Lyons gets an A+ grade! Awesome job in community policing.

[spin]

2. A very professional officer. (n/t)

[Common Sense Party]

74. I think the guy filming is a bit of a dick.

I agree that the officer was very professional and nice.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. While I like the way the cop handled the stop, I disagree with the stop

at all. The law says the cop MAY stop and verify that it is unloaded. The law does not say that the cop MUST verify the gun is unloaded.

[RSillsbee]

22. I disagree w/ the stop as well

That said, I don't think the cop stopped him just to verify that the gun was unloaded. The cop stated that he was responding to a MWAG call and that he was checking the gun for his safety.

[Euromutt]

55. A common objection, but as others have pointed out...

...here and elsewhere, the officer was responding to a "man with a gun" call, so he was under some obligation to investigate.

[DWC]

4. This LEO is a professional of the first order. Great post ! n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

5. He was wrong.

You are not required to show ID, but you ARE required (per the Supreme Court) to identify yourself.

[Hoyt]

6. Every policeman should act like that. But, every policeman should stop anyone with a gun and

check out everything about the situation. If the carrier gets stopped every 25 yards, so be it.

[Katya Mullethov]

7. So be what ?

And you could berate them from across the street and cause waves of unbearable shame to wash over them each time they are stopped .

[tortoise1956]

8. I'm not sure how to take your posts...

Sometimes you come across as sincere and passionate. Others, not so much. And then there are your completely clueless responses...

What you are describing is indicative of a police state. Is that what you want? I assume you are not advocating turning over control of our lives to the authorities, but I could be wrong.

Food for thought: if you want to get a point across, you must start by having one in the first place.

[Hoyt]

12. Is it a "police state" when a policeman checks out a guy walking on city street with a friggin gun.

I don't think so. This is the 21st century, in case you haven't noticed.

Heck, you guys say your justification for carrying is the unlikely event you run into a criminal capable of overpowering you with a gun, knife, club, fist, aura or whatever else you can conjure up. I also think if you are carrying a gun, you should be prepared to be questioned by any law enforcement officer who takes their job seriously. I also think it is every citizen's responsibility to alert law enforcement of somebody who might be a fool, or sick, or whatever who is carrying a gun on city streets or in public places.

If you are out in the middle of nowhere, do what the locals are comfortable with in this respect. You are not likely to hurt anyone, if properly credentialed, other than yourself -- and occasionally people who come in your contact.

[tortoise1956]

15. Yes it is...

when the person in question has the right, under the laws of the land, to carry that gun. What you are talking about is harassment, plain and simple.

Hey, I just realized that doing what Hoyt advocated would be profiling. OMG, they're profiling peaceful, legal gun-carrying citizens! Call the ACLU!

[iverglas]

27. dingbat logic

when the person in question has the right, under the laws of the land, to carry that gun.

And the available evidence of that fact is ... is ... is ... what is it again?

When you drive a car on the public highways, the available evidence of your right to do that under the laws of the jurisdiction in question is

(a) the licence plate attached to your car
(b) the driver's licence you must show to an authorized person who requests it

Here, you see, we ain't talking about any of those specious distinctions between cars and guns like "you don't need a licence to buy a car".

We're talking about people out and about in public doing things they are entitled to do under the law of the land, and different treatment of two situations based on ... what was it again?

A person driving around in a car has to display visible evidence that the car is legally registered and produce evidence on demand that they are entitled to drive it in public.

A person walking around with a gun has to do ... I know, I know: nothing! to show that they are legally entitled to do so -- to distinguish themself from someone who is NOT legally entitled to do so, in whom the public and the relevant authorities have a very legitimate interest.

I think I've got it.


Hey, I just realized that doing what Hoyt advocated would be profiling.

Of course you haven't. Unless you are a genuine dingbat.



html fixed

[gejohnston]

39. but the police can not pull you over

simply to see if you have a DL in the US. There must be probable cause of a crime or infraction. If you get pulled over for any other reason, certainly produce it when asked. Plates etc for cars are written in law.

If you can open carry or possess without a permit, then it is (legally) the same as carrying a backpack.

That is the difference. Car plat and DL is required by law. Pistol or carry permit is not. In the US, the latter is not probable cause, depending on the jurisdiction.

[iverglas]

41. but you are ignoring/changing the terms

but the police can not pull you over simply to see if you have a DL in the US.

If there are no licence plates on your car they most certainly can. So how about requiring that guns that are toted around in public be registered, and the toter display the relevant licence plate on their body?

You still couldn't tell whether the person toting was legally eligible do that, but hey, it would be a start.

If cars being driven on public roads must be registered, why not guns being toted on public streets? This does get us over that whole "cars have to be registered because they are driven on public roads" thing nicely, doesn't it?

If you can open carry or possess without a permit, then it is (legally) the same as carrying a backpack.

Oh, hell, just make it legal to drive a car without a licence, and then we'll have a level playing field.

You may "open carry" without a permit IF you are not LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED from doing so.

So you have just begged the question.

How can it be determined whether you are LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED from toting a firearm in public if no authority may make the enquiries that would establish this?

Don't we get dizzy going in these circles?

[gejohnston]

49. to clarify

not having a licence plate is an infraction. Yes you would get pulled over.

So how about requiring that guns that are toted around in public be registered, and the toter display the relevant licence plate on their body?

If the required it, and the carrier did not have it on his body, then it would be the cop's duty to stop him. Since the law does not, and it is lawful for him to carry, the cop has no probable cause. Our courts have ruled that violates the fourth amendment.

You may "open carry" without a permit IF you are not LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED from doing so.

It is not begging the question in our system. The same way the cop would know if the driver next to him has a suspended or revoked DL, he doesn't unless there is probable cause or witness a traffic infraction, he has no right to pull him over. Same principle applies.

That said, if those laws existed, then the same rules would apply. Since they do not, the question is moot.

[gravity556]

50. I know!

So that Iverglas and 6pack and Iverglas and the rest don't feel unconfortable knowing and not knowing if someone has a gun (and they call us carriers "fearful" "Eeek! Someone, somewhere, someplace-maybe even close by, has a gun! I could be killed!"), how about all folks who have a CCW or other carry permit, have to sew a yellow revolver on their sleeves. That way, we "toters" can recognize each other, and the pro-criminal safety folks will feel better-at least until they get held up by a non-law abiding gun owner (AKA CRIMINAL). Then they'll have to come up with something even more restrictive for law abiding gun owners (not that the criminals will give a fuck-though they'll like the sirt markings so they don't have to risk getting capped when they try to steal a wallet).

How about it, Iverglas?

[iverglas]

51. nah

Let's just prohibit possession of handguns.

Solves the whole problem of figuring out who can tote the blamed things around with them and who can't, and how to tell the difference in a snowstorm ...

[gejohnston]

56. if I may ask a hypothetical

If open carry were legal in Canada, and a cop stopped you just to make sure you were not a prohibited person etc. or just to see your FAC, (or is it PAL? I forgot) even though your behavior was lawful and sober, would that violate the Charter?

[iverglas]

61. it's not really answerable

If "open carry" were legal in Canada, something that makes my head spin for starters, it would come with a whole body of legislation and regulations setting the terms, and it would require a special licence (not just the acquisition/possession licence), and it would require that the licence be produced on request by the appropriate authority.

This is because the situation is the reverse here: you need a licence to possess a firearm, not "anyone who doesn't fall into a prohibited class may possess a firearm". And that just won't be changing, nor would it be different if we all lost our heads and decided to let people promenade around with firearms on display on their persons. Even if we did, I can't conceive of there not being a condition that people have a licence and produce it on demand. Not even Stephen Harper's Conservatives could get away with legislating anything like that, not even in Alberta.

I'm trying to come up with something analogous to being a "prohibited person" in the context of your carrying-firearms situations. Not having any luck. Maybe: you are sitting in a bar drinking and a cop decides to check whether you are a parolee with a condition that you not frequent licensed premises or consume alcohol. No, of course the cop could not ask for your ID in order to run a check on you. They could arrest you if they had reasonable grounds to believe that you were such a person, so as that Toronto police blurb says, it can be in your interests to produce ID to avert that possibility.

But sitting in a bar drinking and walking around in public with a firearm on one's person aren't analogous activities. Not to the mind of anyone I know.

The premise in your question, "If open carry were legal in Canada" just reads like "if up were down and the sky were polka-dotted", in my world, I'm afraid. ;)

[gejohnston]

72. Prohibited person are those prohibited under federal law

starting with the Federal Firearms Act of 1938
convicted felons, any felony for life. That includes Martha Stewart.
ruled by a court as mentally not functional
dishonorably discharged veterans (redundant, since it would require a conviction of a major felony in a miltary court)
fugitives from justice
convicted of domestic violence, for life like felons.

[iverglas]

77. I know .........

What I was saying was that there is no equivalent in Canada so answering your question isn't really possible for that reason among others.

A "prohibited person" here is only a person against whom an actual firearms prohibition order has been made by a court as part of a sentence for a criminal offence. It means they may not possess firearms for the duration of the order, and of course may not be issued a licence to possess firearms (and must surrender any firearms they have and if they have a licence it is revoked).

You either have a licence or you don't. There's no issue of determining whether you are eligible to possess a firearm: if you don't have a licence, you aren't eligible.

So as I said, even if we all suddenly went mad up here and decided to allow people to "open carry", there just isn't the slightest possibility this would be allowed without a licence to do that.

I could assume that completely impossible hypothetical, to answer your question, but it would be really pointless. There's no chance in this millennium that Canadians would create a situation in which anyone could walk around displaying a firearm and no one would be able to require that they demonstrate that they are authorized to do so.

That's why I considered a reasonable analogy: a parolee is a "prohibited person" when it comes to frequenting licensed premises and consuming alcohol. I'm sure that parolees are required to identify themself to police when demanded. But can a police officer demand that someone identify themself so they can determine whether the person is a parolee? No, I would say.

A parolee who refused would be breaking the law, but I wouldn't be. I am not required to identify myself to police unless I am driving or committing some provincial offence (I didn't really follow that bit in the Toronto police blurb but it's not really significant).

But again, the analogy to carrying a firearm in public isn't good because they hypothetical you posed just isn't a possible one. It's like saying "assume you can fly to the moon, should you have to show your licence to the astropolice?" ;)

[gejohnston]

79. Even if were legal I doubt anyone would

Hang out in Wyoming. If you see one, it might be hunter getting gas or a transplant from New York going "hey look what I can do" Same with Vermont. Handgun ownership was rare before 1934 in Canada. That is part of why handgun registration then and machine gun registration in the 1950s were a non-issue. The long gun registry on the other hand,

[gravity556]

59. But what about Hackapick violence!

And knife crime, and baseball bat assaults? Do you have any idea how easy it is to kill somoneone with a C02 fire extinguisher?

Or how about you Canadians stay in your own lane, with your hugeley expensive and massively failed gun registration. Americans are far more obstreperous than Canadians-how well do you think that would go over down here?

[iverglas]

63. yeah, well, you see, that's an interesting theory

Americans are far more obstreperous than Canadians

Actually, as I've pointed out here over the years, Canadians are far more obstreperous than USAmericans when it comes to rights and freedoms.

That's why we've had legal same-sex marriage starting something like a decade ago.
That's why we've never had "free-speech zones" (although we've definitely had some bother with international summits, and what a hoohah there has been about all that, with litigation and investigations ongoing as we speak).
That's why prisoners may vote here (and no one has ever been prevented from voting who was not actually in prison).
That's why there are no statutory restrictions on access to abortion services, and (with some illegal exceptions) those services are paid for by the public health plan.
Hell, that's why we have a public health plan.
It's why it's illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in the private sector, and all government programs and benefits apply to gay and straight equally.
It's why we have union rights and all kinds of protections for nonunionized employees.
It's why official language minority groups have schools and hospitals that they operate in their own language.
It's why people challenge refusals to issue firearms permits, and succeed.
It's even why laws against women going topless in public have been struck down.

It's why we have so many more rights and freedoms than you do. Most of the above are because people got up on their hind legs and fought the government and won.

Because we're bloody-minded and litigious when it comes to our rights and freedoms.

As far as I can tell, you're a bunch of wimps down there!

[gejohnston]

73. humm

It's why people challenge refusals to issue firearms permits, and succeed.
It's even why laws against women going topless in public have been struck down.

If Alberta is like sort of like Texas, which is closest to Wyoming? BC? Yukon?
You would have a Florida only if Turks and Caicos Islands joined the confederation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Caribbean_relations#West_Indies_Federation

:think: :dilemma: :thumbsup:

[iverglas]

76. I miss the Turks and Caicos ;)

The proponent of that merger, Maxie Saltsman, was my instructor at university and my (NDP) MP at the time. He had rather a checkered personal life, but I had a crush on him. Our undergraduate research field trip to Ottawa played a role in me going into law, and was part of what got me a rather impressive research job while I was in law school.

Thanks for the memories. ;)

[PavePusher]

18. Mere presence of a firearm does not indicate criminal action...

any more than carrying a notepad and pen is indicitive of libel.

Thought you were a journalist, or something to that effect? Maybe we should have the government check all your public utterences, just to make sure you aren't doing something wrong.

[iverglas]

26. of course it is!

'Cause nooobody is the boss of a gun militant.

[AzWorker]

9. So you advocate what amounts to harrassment??

It used to be common for cops to "stop and talk" to folks that 'looked out of place" in some neighborhoods. I would imagine they would probably "stop and talk" with them about every 25 yds or so.....until they got the message and got back "across the tracks" so to speak...

I was hoping we were done with all that ugly business.......



"Hoyt (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-28-11 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. Every policeman should act like that. But, every policeman should stop anyone with a gun and

check out everything about the situation. If the carrier gets stopped every 25 yards, so be it."

[DonP]

10. I was thinking the same thing

But if it annoys gun owners or restricts their rights, it's OK to treat them all like 2nd class citizens.

Nice "intellectual" company you keep Hoyt.

Go pick up your "I'm with Bull Connor" sweatshirt and "George Wallace for President" button for the rally next week.

[gejohnston]

11. and please remind Hoyt

that he needs to register his pen gun, and how about my Tavor from Canada you and Shares were importing for me?

[Hoyt]

13. GEJ, sorry -- but, your seemingly perverted need/desire for a Tavor ain't my concern.

[gejohnston]

16. If you say so,

:cry: :cry:

[oneshooter]

60. How about the picture, Hoyt! Or was that a lie also. n/t

[Hoyt]

14. Your hero T Jefferson, had hundreds of slaves. And he's not known for even treating them well.

Worse, your comparison of your desire/need to carry a lethal weapon in public to the Civil Rights Movement is demeaning and a joke.

[tortoise1956]

17. FAIL

In spite of your beliefs, the second amendment details a civil right. That's why they named that section of the constitution the "Bill of Rights." In that context, the poster made a valid analogy.

The joke appears to be your refusal to respect those rights you don't agree with. The good thing is that as long as the second amendment is in the bill of rights, we don't have to lie down and submit to the type of police harassment you are advocating.

[PavePusher]

20. Parts of the Civil Rights movement survived and flourished...

by being defended with guns.

But you knew that, you just hate that it worked.

[Hoyt]

21. The most important parts were Non-violent. The oppressors used guns and other vile tactics.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Your knowledge of the civil rights movement is on a par with you knowledge of guns n/t

[iverglas]

31. the Civil Rights movement knew what so many here like to deny

There is such a thing as collective rights, and there is such a thing as collective defence of collective rights.

Any use of firearms in the civil rights movement in the US had precisely fuck all to do with the gun militant agenda. It had to do with people working together to protect one another against the violence directed against them as members of an oppressed minority.

That was the very thing they were working to end: the horrors inflicted on them, individually and collectively, because of that status. They weren't demanding the right to promenade around in public with firearms, or possess semi-automatic weapons. They were demanding the ability to be secure in the exercise their fundamental rights, like life and liberty, and their civil rights, like the right to vote.

What are gun militants working for? What find and noble social objective are they working toward? What admirable purpose do their agenda and their guns serve?

What threat to what exercise of their fundamental rights are they seeking to put an end to, and defend against in the interim?

The civil rights movement DID NOT flourish "by being defended with guns". And you know that perfectly well.

Some members of the oppressed community defended members of that community with firearms while the community worked, through the civil rights movement, to end the threats to their security. The movement itself had not thing one to do with guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. I take it you were busy fighting Jim Crow in Kingston and Thunder Bay during that time.

But were you busier than, say Robert F. Williams, Fannie Lou Hamer, or Charlton Heston?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Beyond that, how would you propose replacing every justice (or at least a majority) on the US Supreme Court, so that

your vision of a "collective right" might get enshrined into law?


I know, I know- the civilizing mission just never seems to end for you, does it?

[iverglas]

36. you seem to conflate yourself and the civil rights movement

Rather arrogant, but whatever.

I didn't refer to anything you know or don't know. I referred to what African-Americans in the civil rights movement knew.

If there's no such thing as collective rights, your Supreme Court doesn't exist. A state is an exercise of the collective right of a people to self-determination, you might recall.

But never mind. Your loony pseudo-intellectual / pseudo-academic blatherings ceased to be of interest to me long ago.

Don't get so antsy, though. I've never said your moronic RKBA is a collective right.

Phew.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Meh. Better than conflating myself with a moderator, or anointing myself...

...Guardian Of Oppressed Groups And Defender Of Progressivism.

[iverglas]

30. it's sad and sick

People of colour, women, religious minorities, gay men and lesbians: centuries if not millenia of persecution and oppression and exploitation, involving enslavement, violence, individual and mass murder, denial of civil rights ("civil rights" actually meaning the rights assigned to members of a society, e.g. ownership of property, the vote) ...

Gun owners: asked by police officers in a liberal democracy to demonstrate that they are not toting guns around in public illegally.

Yes, those are comparable. They are on all fours. They are perfect analogies.


Actually, it's the minimizing of the horrors endured by people of colour, or those other oppressed minorities, by reducing them to "stop and talk", that is horrific. Ugly and rotten and intolerable.

I've often suggested that some of the denizens of this forum take their analogy out for a walk in a forum here at DU dedicated to struggles for the rights of African-Americans or women or the GLBT community and see how it flies.

Has anyone ever taken me up on that? Will no one?

[PavePusher]

19. Yeah, fuck the Fourth Amendment.

Who needs that silly freedom from warrentless searches bullshyte?

Bush and Hoyt have been Right all along....

[RSillsbee]

23. And if the PD gets sued once a week, so be it

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

[ZombieHorde]

24. I don't understand why the man was stopped and questioned.

Seemed like pointless harassment to me.

[Flyboy_451]

28. LEOs are kinda in a catch 22...

The officer was responding to a call of a man with a gun. While there is nothing illegal about this, there are people that this causes concern for. Had there been no response, and something would have happened, can you imagine the outcry of how the cops did nothing would proliferate? I can see the headlines now..."Police warned of dangerous man and did nothing!" "Police refusing to safeguard neighborhoods!" There are many that come to mind quickly. We are often put into situations that we don't want to respond to, but have little or no choice.

The officer in the video handled the situation well. There was no escalation of the situation by either party. The conduct of the officer was friendly and professional. The officer acted to show response to the community, determine if a threat was present, safeguard the integrity of the department, and foster a good relationship among gun owners. Sounds like a win-win situation and response to me. I would prefer not to have to go on such calls, but that is not for me or other police officers to decide. Our response is largely determined by the community. If they want us to go investigate every such incident of someone acting legally, it kinda makes a good argument for when we can't respond instantly to real crimes taking place. Society is forcing us to act to preserve the appearance of safety rather than letting us act to try to make safety a reality. I know which I would prefer to spend my shift doing, but it seems that many in society think that they know better how to allocate my time on duty...

JW

[ZombieHorde]

29. I don't like it, but your logic is solid. That is a catch 22 for police officers. nt

[iverglas]

33. explain please

The officer in the video handled the situation well. There was no escalation of the situation by either party. The conduct of the officer was friendly and professional. The officer acted to show response to the community, determine if a threat was present, safeguard the integrity of the department, and foster a good relationship among gun owners.

Yeah, blah blah.

How did the officer determine that the person walking around with the gun was not an escaped mass murderer? Or even just a drug dealer, or parolee in violation ...

[Flyboy_451]

37. not quite sure what needs to be explained...

the man in the video was not violating any law. there was no indication of probable cause that he had violated the law. As was stated in the video, you are not required to carry any form of identification on your person. The officer had no legal standing to detain and confirm the ID of this man, therefore checking for wants, warrants or criminal history is not possible to any degree of certainty.

These are the freedoms of privacy and security in our person and articles that our constitution and system of law provide for. The fact that some people in society may be uncomfortable at the sight of a gun in public does not void these freedoms, or change the fact that law enforcement must act within the confines of their powers and restrictions.

[iverglas]

40. oh, well, fine: answer, please

I guess I thought "explain please" sounded more polite.


How did the officer determine that the person walking around with the gun was not an escaped mass murderer? Or even just a drug dealer, or parolee in violation ...


A lot of cha-cha-cha-ing in your post about this, that and the other thing -- but no explanation of how the cop in the video determined that the person he was dealing with was not in unlawful posession of a firearm and unlawfully parading around in public with it.

Yeah, yeah, a cop who is curious about somebody wandering abroad at midnight with a television under their arm also has no basis for concluding the television isn't stolen if the person declines to chat. But there are no homicides/robberies by television, to my knowledge.

As far as I can tell, the cop's time was indeed wasted, because his efforts produced no outcome.

So what's the answer?


These are the freedoms of privacy and security in our person and articles that our constitution and system of law provide for.

Nah, actually, because if that were so, then there would be no restrictions on anyone wandering the streets of Anytown USA with as many firearms as they liked affixed to their person. Your constitution actually doesn't say that. It doesn't provide that no permit for toting a firearm around in public may be required, for instance.

So it doesn't prevent a jurisdiction within the US from providing that someone toting a firearm around in public may be required to provide evidence to a police officer that they are not ineligible to do so, at the very least -- i.e. identify themself, at the very least.


The fact that some people in society may be uncomfortable at the sight of a gun in public does not void these freedoms

And nobody said that it did, pal, nobody said that it did. Did you imagine I said that? If not, why are you inserting it into a post replying to me?

I do most certainly say that the fact that huge numbers of perfectly normal, reasonable people do consider people wandering around in public displaying firearms to be a source of concern is one of many reasons why a jurisdiction may place limits on that practice, one entirely justifiable one of which would be to require that people doing so identify themselves to police when asked.

Do feel free to consult my post 27, which may assist.

Your answer to the original question is eagerly anticipated.



typo fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

42. In fairness

None. Not a damn thing. The suspect refused to identify himself. (not a right) The cop backed down, apparently in the interest of being diplomatic, or in ignorance of police procedure and supreme court rulings, the officer failed to assert that the suspect DID NOT have the right to refuse to identify himself.

A drivers license is not required, but you DO have to identify yourself when asked in this nation.

[iverglas]

45. excuse me?

The suspect refused to identify himself. (not a right)

That hadn't been my understanding but I may not have been paying attention. People in that situation are required by law to identify themselves?

Or, you're saying, people in any situation?

Huh. Sure glad I don't live there.* ;)

But anyhow, the matter could have been dealt with easily by the police officer requiring that the person identify himself, and then doing one of those wants-and-warrants check things?

Of course, if the person had identified himself as Thomas Jefferson, that would have been kind of pointless. I guess I was really getting at something along the lines of prove his identity.



* http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/communitymobilization/newcomer/guides/tps_guide_eng.pdf

In general, you are under no obligation to identify yourself to a police officer. However, there are exceptions, which include the following:
If you are driving a car
If you have committed a Provincial Offence such as a liquor, trespassing, or driving offence

I kind of suspect that if you claim to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you'll have to produce it. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

47. He wasn't carrying concealed.

In this country, when the police demand your ID, you must identify yourself. You don't have to produce an ID card, but if you give a name/address that doesn't check out, you're in big trouble. And they will ask for name and place of residence, and check it.

It's not a very old ruling.


If the person id'd himself with bogus info that didn't check out, the officer would inquire further.
If the person id'd himself with a name that checks out, the officer could then tell if the person was just released from jail/otherwise prohibited.

The officer should have gotten that guy's full name and residence. Should have arrested him for failure to comply. This has already been to the supreme court.

Edit: the subject was obviously trolling as well, carrying a firearm but no ID? Calling bullshit, it was in his pocket.

[iverglas]

52. my last line was part of my footnote

"I kind of suspect that if you claim to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you'll have to produce it." -- i.e. in Canada.


Edit: the subject was obviously trolling as well, carrying a firearm but no ID? Calling bullshit, it was in his pocket.

The whole thing was pretty obviously a gun militant op from start -- promenading around with the thing in public -- to finish.

I'm still rather gobsmacked that individuals in the land of the free and home of the brave have to identify themselves to police or anyone else.

But then I do recall that time we were in DC back in 2003 and my local friend was parking downtown so we could go get lunch, and a uniformed military type demanded our ID ... the co-vivant and I had left our papers back at my friend's place ... and I just said what came into my head: "Uh, we're Canadian, we didn't know we needed ID to park." Fortunately, my friend had her govt employee ID, and her place of employment happened to be Langley ...

[AtheistCrusader]

54. various states have tried to pass requirements for people to provide actual ID

when asked by law enforcement, but those have been overturned, in favor of a 'identify yourself' more general rule. So name, residence, verbally offered to the officer satisfies the requirement.

Of course, an actual criminal fleeing from the law would be under no obligation to give a correct name. Funny quirk of the 5th amendment right not to self-incriminate. :)

Also, being asked to ID yourself would fall under a 'Terry Stop', so the officer needs some sort of reason to ask for you to ID yourself. (Terry vs. Ohio)

[gejohnston]

58. where in DC was this?

Unless you were on a military reservation, military police have no jurisdiction over you. I am sure it is the same there.

[iverglas]

64. the Ronald Reagan building

where the co-vivant was also ordered to stop videotaping the art.



I was fair, mind. I did mention this was 2003. In May. I have no idea what the situation is now.

They weren't military police, they were straight-out military.

I wouldn't have picked that time to travel south (and I haven't been back since), but my dad had died and his stuff was in Florida and there wasn't much choice.

[gravity556]

48. Wow, man.

I've read several of your posts in this thread. I'd have never thought that a video of a police officer interacting with with an openly armed citizen in a polite and professional manner (even hinting that he felt the same way) would generate so much rage and vitriol. Is your hatred of gun and gun owners (particularly lawful gun owners) from the heart or are you just making a mountain of a molehill in an effort to draw someone into responding in a fashion that might get them banned?

If you're trolling to be a dick, not cool dude-same for that other guy H something. If the rage is real, damn, man, talk to your doctor before you give yourself a stroke..

[iverglas]

53. oh no, paco - rage and vitriol!!!!

Yes, I did say, I admit it:


explain, please ...
How did the officer determine that the person walking around with the gun was not an escaped mass murderer? Or even just a drug dealer, or parolee in violation ...


That just seethes with vitriol and roils with rage, I can see it now. And here I thought I'd been concealing it so well.


If you're trolling to be a dick, not cool dude-same for that other guy H something. If the rage is real, damn, man, talk to your doctor before you give yourself a stroke..

I guess the first thing I should be after is sex reassignment surgery. It's covered by the public health plan up here, y'know.


I do want to set your mind at ease, though. I wouldn't want your sleep to be disturbed by worries about me.

If I didn't drop in here occasionally for my dose of chuckles, my life would be a dull one indeed, and my sleeves ravelled with care. This place is a tonic, I tell ya.

[gravity556]

57. So now a gun carrier is guilty until proven innocent?

"explain, please ...
How did the officer determine that the person walking around with the gun was not an escaped mass murderer? Or even just a drug dealer, or parolee in violation ..."

Why would a parole violator, escaped mass murderer or drug dealer walk the streets with an obviously holstered and open carried firearm? And I've noticed (the show COPS tends to provide myriad examples of parole violators and drug dealers, not only to I never see them with a nice Milt Sparks rig or even a Galco Fletch. Hell, not even a kydex Uncle Mike's) is that folks who are doing illegal things and the cops walk up, there's usually an entertaining police chase.

You want the cops hassling everyone with a gun instead of maybe dealing with the group of gentlemen down the street selling small packages of what appears to be rock cocaine. Brilliant! As a go along plan search anyone wearing clothing depicting or glorifying drug use (since we're already tossing the 4th amendment). Plus, think of all the dopers who won't be sending cash to the cartels so that they can buy more icky guns.

[iverglas]

65. hey, don't ask me!

Why would a parole violator, escaped mass murderer or drug dealer walk the streets with an obviously holstered and open carried firearm?

They do tend to do some dumb things, I'm sure you've noticed, though. Otherwise the prisons would be empty.


Now you explain.

This, once again, was my question:

explain, please ...
How did the officer determine that the person walking around with the gun was not an escaped mass murderer? Or even just a drug dealer, or parolee in violation ...

And this is your "question":

So now a gun carrier is guilty until proven innocent?

So instead of seeing what I typed, did you see this? --

"People displaying firearms on their person in public where it is legal to do so should be locked up."

I think you must have. Because that is the necessary implication from your "question": that I proposed that people be punished unless they can prove their innocence.

You do know what "innocent until proven guilty" actually means, right? It doesn't mean that anyone is innocent. It is a presumption that appies in a trial, and it means that no one may be punished until they have been proved guilty of a crime. I'm quite pleased to tell you that my second cousin four times removed is an important architect of this principle, which he called "the golden thread that runs through the English law", as oft quoted by Rumpole of the Bailey.

So, since I have not proposed in any way that anyone be treated in any way as if they were guilty of anything at all, what are you on about?

Don't stick a "so" in front of something you are making up to make it look like I said it. And have the courage to make your claim directly without that curious little question mark stuck onto the end of it.

If you're wanting to ask whether I said or meant something, ask me.

If you're wanting to say I said or meant something, say it.

Oh look, I see you do know how to do this: come right out and make a false statement in which you attribute a desire to me that I do not feel:

You want the cops hassling everyone with a gun instead of maybe dealing with the group of gentlemen down the street selling small packages of what appears to be rock cocaine.

Good show. Try to remember now that if you're going to make false statements, they don't call for question marks. And that if you want to ask questions, you do so in a civil manner if you want answers.

[iverglas]

32. I wonder whether that would be

because the video very pointedly does not tell you.

[Hoyt]

38. Police doing their job when man walks down street with a gun on hip.

I would expect them to do the same if I walked down street with a machete, spear gun, or small bomb.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. The officer didn't do his job.

You don't get much right, do you?

[gravity556]

62. Why? Those are all legal items.

Well, maybe not the bomb, but there's nothing illegal about a machete or a spear gun. If you were wearing flippers and were in downtown Phoenix, you might get a ride for a psych eval, because there's no place close to spear fish...

But AZ has a long tradition of open carry of firearms. Our state's constitution reads; "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

That's why our cops don't act like a 9 year old girl with a spider on her when they see and armed citizen going about his way. I've heard from police dispatchers who get calls from folks that just moved here from some land where the only guns they see are used to shoot aliens on TV or cop shows. Dispatchers ask what the carrier's demeanor is (Is he waving the gun around?) "No he's not waving the gun around! He's eating pancakes! Please, send someone quick!" "Ma'am open carry of a firearm is legal in Arizona. Please don't call again unless he is taking the gun out of the holster. Abuse of 911 is illegal"

[iverglas]

66. ooh! eek! it's a nine-year-old girl!

Yes, girls, the silly shrieking things.

And no, gun militants are not misogynist.

Oh look, more.

"Ma'am open carry of a firearm is legal in Arizona. Please don't call again unless he is taking the gun out of the holster. Abuse of 911 is illegal"

Yes, it's always the silly busybody wimmin doing these things to the menz. Poor menz.

[Hoyt]

70. I'd rather police and others don't have to worry about some guy who can't leave home w/o gun or two.

[Euromutt]

71. The police have to worry because someone else did and called 911

The latter's decision to worry is entirely their own choice. Thus, insofar as there is a problem, it could just as readily be resolved by people understanding that it's legal to open carry where they live (assuming it is) and not freak out over some guy open carrying.

I just can't quite wrap my head around how you manage to maintain such a blatant double standard of what you consider "irrational fear" (not that there's such a thing as "rational fear" but I digress); if a private citizen chooses to carry a firearm in public because they want to be able to defend themselves in the event they become a target of violent crime, their fear is overblown and morally reprehensible, but if someone calls 911 at the mere sight of a holstered handgun on the hip on an individual who is not otherwise behaving in any manner that indicates criminal activity, their fear is perfectly understandable and must be deferred to.

Maybe you could take a page out of Officer Lyons' book there; see how he doesn't seem to be worried, or berating the open carrier for "polluting society" or similar bollocks? He has to check on the guy because he got a call, and he does in a calm, competent, non-escalatory manner. Learn.

[ileus]

75. paranoid people should leave gun owners alone, and cops wouldn't have to "worry"

[ZombieHorde]

69. In some areas of the US, that is all the cops would do. nt

[ileus]

34. Problem here is we all know if someone open carries they're in clear.

You don't see many criminals that will risk open carry. In fact I'll assume zero.

[gravity556]

44. That cop is the epitome of professionalism.

No power trip, no snide "you people and your fucking guns", he didn't throw the guy on the ground, none of the other bad behavior that has caused a fair number of open carriers to start recording police encounters.

Citizen was law abiding, complied with the cop, provided the required information and they shook hands and parted amicably.

According to some pro-criminal safety types here, the gun owner was just a random twitch from suddenly blowing away the cop and anyone standing in the area, blah blah blah..

[iverglas]

46. this place can always be counted on

for the giggle of the day, several times over.

According to some pro-criminal safety types here

:rofl:

And no, what's your name, I am not laughing with you; I am laughing at you!




typo typo always a danged typo

[GKirk]

80. Was your belly laugh because of

the misplaced hyphen?

I'am sure it should have been pro criminal-safety types. Do I need to explain
the difference to you?

[Euromutt]

67. I love the way he's totally au fait with being recorded.

"Well, this should look good on YouTube," making sure the camera gets good shot image of his face and verbally identifying himself to the camera by name, department and badge number. This is a police officer who is supremely confident that he is acting within the bounds of his authority and has absolutely nothing to hide.

As a private citizen, a card-carrying ACLU member, and a proponent of transparency in government, I tend to get suspicious of cops who get overly defensive about being recorded while performing their job, and even more so when they resort to arresting and having prosecuted individuals who are recording them on bogus charges of "wiretapping" or "interfering/obstruction," because it is entirely reasonable to wonder what do they feel they have to hide? They're agents of the state, public officials endowed with certain powers not granted to private citizens, for the purpose of enforcing public order and safety; they have these powers on what is ostensibly a mandate from the citizenry, and for the purpose of serving the citizenry, so why do they want their actions to remain concealed from the general citizenry, unless it's because they routinely overstep the bounds of their authority and they know full well that they do?

Cops in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts should look to Officer Lyons as an example of how a cop should behave.

[iverglas]

78. I love the way you think you speak many languages

That little translation you gave us from the German somewhere around here was bad enough English, but this, I guffaw.

I love the way he's totally au fait with being recorded.

Did you really mean to say he was totally informed ... uh, with ... being recorded?

I'm totally au fait with French, mon cher. Toé, not so much.

You sure he wasn't totally de rigueur with being recorded? vis-à-vis with it?

Maybe he was froid with it, or bas with it.

:rofl:

[ileus]

68. It was unloaded basically a fancy rock...cops have plenty of options for dealing with rocks.

[GKirk]

81. Lot's of misunderstandings posted in the comments to the linked video

"This is fake, you have to have a ccw license
to carry, it can not be openly displayed, and
when asked for identification, you shall give
it...."

For starters he wasn't carrying concealed. And open carry
is legal in some states and not an issue in a subset of some
of those states. Secondly, supplying ID is not required in all
jurisdictations at all times.

BTW- anyone know what state this was? I'm guessing IL or CA.

[Euromutt]

82. Hint: there's no city called "Oceanside" in Illinois...

Well, okay, the first Sesame Street feature film, Follow That Bird, had a town called Oceanview, IL but that's muppets for you.

It's Oceanside, CA, south of Camp Pendleton and north of San Diego. Illinois does not permit public carry at all, open or concealed, except if you're a city alderman. And if you're something else in local government, it's illegal but the cops will overlook it.

[GKirk]

83. LOL! I guess the town name should have been a clue n/t

I said n/t

[X_Digger]

85. Looks like the officer read his training memo..

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Oceanside-OpenCarry_training_memo-2009-03-12.pdf