Front Yard Open Carry

[TexasCajun]

Unfortunately, the police have a duty to respond to all calls.

There is absolutely no duty to respond to a call about legal behavior. I'd say that the duty to respond, if there is one, is to go see the people that called in MWG and explain the law to these folks.

A lot could be resolved neighbor to neighbor with a simple conversation instead of calling the PD.

And exactly how are the police supposed to determine what is actually happening (whether the behavior in question is legal or not) without directly responding to the call?????

Based on the available information, there could be enough unreasonable behavior to go around. Heck, it could actually turn out to be a nexus of unreasonable where you have a militant pro 2a guy bent on making the YouTube hall of fame surrounded by the most ardent Blomberg-Obama acolytes. If this were the situation, I believe the cops would be forced to put everyone on notice that another call to the neighborhood would result in everybody going to jail. But most likely, the true situation probably lies somewhere in the middle. So the cops can either continue to respond to the calls, inform the neighbors about exactly what constitutes a credible threat, or ask the guy to take up a different hobby.

[Panda]

What if I call 911 to report somebody walking around in a Batman costume. The police might show up to investigate but if no laws are being broken there is nothing for the police to do. If I continued to call 911 to reportthe Batman impersonator, I would expectt reasonable cops to get more annoyed with me than with Batman. I certainly wouldnt expect them to complain that video is stopping them from harassing Batman on trumped up charges.

[TexasCajun]

Well if you think that a "man in a batman costume" call equates to a "man with a gun" call, then there's not much I can say that's gonna help you.

[anygunanywhere]

To be fair, you posted:

Unfortunately, the police have a duty to respond to all calls.

Therefore the batman costume is a valid response and the cops would have to respond.

Well if you think that a "man in a batman costume" call equates to a "man with a gun" call, then there's not much I can say that's gonna help you.

Nothing in your post ranked calls.

Anygunanywhere

[Cedar Park Dad]

To be fair, you posted:

Unfortunately, the police have a duty to respond to all calls.

Therefore the batman costume is a valid response and the cops would have to respond.

Well if you think that a "man in a batman costume" call equates to a "man with a gun" call, then there's not much I can say that's gonna help you.

Nothing in your post ranked calls.

Anygunanywhere

What about "man in a batman costume with a gun!" call? I'd bet that would get a response.

[anygunanywhere]

To be fair, you posted:

Unfortunately, the police have a duty to respond to all calls.

Therefore the batman costume is a valid response and the cops would have to respond.

Well if you think that a "man in a batman costume" call equates to a "man with a gun" call, then there's not much I can say that's gonna help you.

Nothing in your post ranked calls.

Anygunanywhere

What about "man in a batman costume with a gun!" call? I'd bet that would get a response.

Everybody knows Batman did not carry a gun.

Anygunanywhere

[cb1000rider]

And exactly how are the police supposed to determine what is actually happening (whether the behavior in question is legal or not) without directly responding to the call?????

Based on the available information, there could be enough unreasonable behavior to go around. Heck, it could actually turn out to be a nexus of unreasonable where you have a militant pro 2a guy bent on making the YouTube hall of fame surrounded by the most ardent Blomberg-Obama acolytes. If this were the situation, I believe the cops would be forced to put everyone on notice that another call to the neighborhood would result in everybody going to jail. But most likely, the true situation probably lies somewhere in the middle. So the cops can either continue to respond to the calls, inform the neighbors about exactly what constitutes a credible threat, or ask the guy to take up a different hobby.

I'm not advocating that they don't respond. I'm advocating that they start with the person making the complaint before they detain someone for lawful behavior.
How should they respond:
Ma'm: Is the neighbor pointing the gun at anyone?
Ma'm: Is he acting in a threatening manner?
Ma'm: Has he fired the gun?
Ma'm: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?

Based on the response to those questions, then they either provide some legal advice to the person making the complaint or they investigate the Man with A Gun. If the neighbors provide untruthful information, they've got a problem.

How is this any different than a neighbor calling the police on me for riding a motorcycle in my own yard? I might be illegal if I'm riding without a license, but you won't know until you stop me and ask me for my license.. The default action cannot be to "assume" a crime is in progress, otherwise we all can be stopped and questioned. There has to be some culpable suspicion of a crime that is being committed or is about to be committed.

[Dragonfighter]

Everybody knows Batman did not carry a gun.

Anygunanywhere

[drjoker]

Yeah, only the liberal anti-2A Hollywood version did not use guns. The original Detective comics version had a gun on his "utility belt".
http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/ba ... -guns.html

Hollywood has told this and other lies so many times that people believe these lies. As Adolf HItler says, "When you lie, lie big and when you tell it enough times, the gullible public will start to believe it." DNA tests show that he is actually part Jewish. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/2 ... 93568.html Hitler's father was Alois Hitler. Alois Hitler's mother Maria Schicklgruber did not list a father on his birth certificate and she was working as a maid in a Jewish house at that time. Next time you turn on the stupid box, I mean TV, remember, 99.9% of what you see on TV are LIES. Use the internet. It is the great truth finder.

Everybody knows Batman did not carry a gun.

Anygunanywhere

[ Image ]

[nightmare69]

Deberry v US says a firearm lawfully carried cannot be the only cause for a stop. So I could open carrys rifle lawfully and legally the police could not stop me right?

[anygunanywhere]

Yeah, only the liberal anti-2A Hollywood version did not use guns. The original Detective comics version had a gun on his "utility belt".
http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/ba ... -guns.html

Hollywood has told this and other lies so many times that people believe these lies. As Adolf HItler says, "When you lie, lie big and when you tell it enough times, the gullible public will start to believe it." DNA tests show that he is actually part Jewish. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/2 ... 93568.html Hitler's father was Alois Hitler. Alois Hitler's mother Maria Schicklgruber did not list a father on his birth certificate and she was working as a maid in a Jewish house at that time. Next time you turn on the stupid box, I mean TV, remember, 99.9% of what you see on TV are LIES. Use the internet. It is the great truth finder.

Everybody knows Batman did not carry a gun.

Anygunanywhere

[ Image ]

I'm sorry.

Mom did not let me buy many comic books.

Anygunanywhere

[EEllis]

And exactly how are the police supposed to determine what is actually happening (whether the behavior in question is legal or not) without directly responding to the call?????

Based on the available information, there could be enough unreasonable behavior to go around. Heck, it could actually turn out to be a nexus of unreasonable where you have a militant pro 2a guy bent on making the YouTube hall of fame surrounded by the most ardent Blomberg-Obama acolytes. If this were the situation, I believe the cops would be forced to put everyone on notice that another call to the neighborhood would result in everybody going to jail. But most likely, the true situation probably lies somewhere in the middle. So the cops can either continue to respond to the calls, inform the neighbors about exactly what constitutes a credible threat, or ask the guy to take up a different hobby.

I'm not advocating that they don't respond. I'm advocating that they start with the person making the complaint before they detain someone for lawful behavior.
How should they respond:
Ma'm: Is the neighbor pointing the gun at anyone?
Ma'm: Is he acting in a threatening manner?
Ma'm: Has he fired the gun?
Ma'm: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?

Based on the response to those questions, then they either provide some legal advice to the person making the complaint or they investigate the Man with A Gun. If the neighbors provide untruthful information, they've got a problem.

How is this any different than a neighbor calling the police on me for riding a motorcycle in my own yard? I might be illegal if I'm riding without a license, but you won't know until you stop me and ask me for my license.. The default action cannot be to "assume" a crime is in progress, otherwise we all can be stopped and questioned. There has to be some culpable suspicion of a crime that is being committed or is about to be committed.

And if the persons only response is "He's acting strange?" then what. Not everyone is eloquent enough or has the self awareness to adequately explain why something is making them nervous. One of the big deals is here is the whole "spidey" sense and being ready when we are out but that goes away when we go home? How about some of the physical signs of mental impairment thru illness or drugs? Would you make fun of someone calling the cops because the guy was "twitchy" or "shifty eyes"? How about heavy sweating? Pro gun is one thing but it's not a violation of anyone's rights to let the cops know about a concern.

[Cedar Park Dad]

And if the persons only response is "He's acting strange?" then what. Not everyone is eloquent enough or has the self awareness to adequately explain why something is making them nervous. One of the big deals is here is the whole "spidey" sense and being ready when we are out but that goes away when we go home? How about some of the physical signs of mental impairment thru illness or drugs? Would you make fun of someone calling the cops because the guy was "twitchy" or "shifty eyes"? How about heavy sweating? Pro gun is one thing but it's not a violation of anyone's rights to let the cops know about a concern.

Agreed, there's not enough info on this. He could be a normal dude on a big piece of property and occasionally carries, being harassed by anti gunners, or inversely a slathering nutjob, harassing the neighbors and spoiling for a fight.

[cb1000rider]

Deberry v US says a firearm lawfully carried cannot be the only cause for a stop. So I could open carrys rifle lawfully and legally the police could not stop me right?

I'm not an attorney, so your mileage may vary:

You are correct in a legal sense. They cannot detain you without an reasonable (articulable) suspicion.

Just be aware that there is nothing stopping and officer from "investigating" and "asking" questions. They can approach you. They can ask. It's a very fine line between an officer asking and inquiring to commanding compliance. You may not be aware when it shifts from asking to commanding.

Also be aware that if you were reported by a neighbor and that neighbor provided an articulable suspicion, such as pointing the gun, acting in defined unusual way, they can detain you. It matters not if it is true. And you're not going to know either way up front, so you're disadvantaged.

Generally the way you can get a LEO to tell you if you're just being "asked" or if you're being "detained" is by asking him/her if you're free to leave. If the answer is no, you're detained. If there is no answer or the answer is yes, continue on your way.

Also note that in Texas, people exercising these rights have been arrested and at least one of the more recent incidents hasn't made it through the court yet.

[nightmare69]

Deberry v US says a firearm lawfully carried cannot be the only cause for a stop. So I could open carrys rifle lawfully and legally the police could not stop me right?

I'm not an attorney, so your mileage may vary:

You are correct in a legal sense. They cannot detain you without an reasonable (articulable) suspicion.

Just be aware that there is nothing stopping and officer from "investigating" and "asking" questions. They can approach you. They can ask. It's a very fine line between an officer asking and inquiring to commanding compliance. You may not be aware when it shifts from asking to commanding.

Also be aware that if you were reported by a neighbor and that neighbor provided an articulable suspicion, such as pointing the gun, acting in defined unusual way, they can detain you. It matters not if it is true. And you're not going to know either way up front, so you're disadvantaged.

Generally the way you can get a LEO to tell you if you're just being "asked" or if you're being "detained" is by asking him/her if you're free to leave. If the answer is no, you're detained. If there is no answer or the answer is yes, continue on your way.

Also note that in Texas, people exercising these rights have been arrested and at least one of the more recent incidents hasn't made it through the court yet.

Thanks, Im not looking to rock the boat but knowledge is power. Im not going to open carry my rifle down the street unless the zombies are after me.