TexasCHLforum.com

Bluff controls more people than any law can. If they are legal to carry open then no LEO has any probable cause to demand "their papers" and that should be true in Texas as well. Any law that allows a LEO to check ID any time is unconstitutional. Exercising a legal activity is not probable cause and that is why the LEO was smart enough to back off and eventually leave. All he had was bluff and he knew it so he left.

I agree that if a person is doing nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about in most cases where LEOs are involved because most LEOs are good. However, that is not the point. If that LEO wanted to search the man he could detain him and get a warrant to do so. But, he wouldn't get one because he had no probable cause. I am not suggesting people harass a LEO and that goes the other way too. Leave those who are not breaking the law alone or as a LEO you will be looked on as a tyrant agent of a government that doesn't obey the supreme law of the land that allows us to exercise our rights. That hurts only LEOs and the governments in the long run because the people allow the power they exercise. If they do not obey the Law they will no longer be allowed that power by the people. The point is that to think we are going to support a LEO simply because he/she is a LEO is not true. Obey the Law or we will work to make sure a LEO or government has no power to misuse. Governments are servants of the people and that seems to be conveniently forgotten by both those who make the law as well as those who enforce it far to often.

I support any person legally exercising their rights under the law. I also support LEOs until they break the law. I don't have a problem with a short detention to investigate IF they have probable cause a crime is being committed or has been committed. Go beyond that and I will support punishment to include imprisonment if necessary. I think to support anything less has caused and will cause more perversion of the law.

dicion wrote:He wasn't failing to identify, he was refusing to give ID. If I recall correctly, the laws there are similar to the laws in New Hampshire, the person is required to State his Name, and some other information, they are not required to produce any form of physical identification.

I know Obama was elected but this is still the USA not the USSR. Someone walking down the street shouldn't be arrested because they didn't show their papers when the police demand to see their papers. That's not a free state. That's a police state. Comrade.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=942972

The above video was taken by a man open carrying near an abortion clinic.

The police officer demands ID and is given the runaround by the armed citizen.

It's surprising to me that the cop turns his back on the armed man.

Does anyone think that these open carry situations in public advance 2A
rights, or does it hurt 2A rights?

Concealed means concealed = You don't have to talk to any LEO's about your gun.

I'm just sayin....

SIA

First off let me just say that the guy filming with his phone, the guy carrying, was being an instigater and was in no way(IMO) being a responsible citizen. This guy probably has had a chip on his shoulder regarding law enforcement for a while. Some folks don't really want to change anything. They just feel the need to start drama where there is non. In a world incapable of conflict these sorts of folks would commit suicide for no other reason than that it would attract some attention.
But, I am very much for open carry. To me the 2nd A. affords us the right to carry as we see fit(as long as its safe). If we ceased any activity or gave up any right just because of the iresponseable few, the there would be no driving, no drinking, no hunting, no anything remotely dangerous and we'd all live in giant plastic bubbles like a bunch of gerbales. Open carry like anything else will have its inherant issues. For me they are not worth giving up open carry itself.
I know this will cause some stink but here are some of my ideas to make Open Carry more appealing to the P.C. crowd(a must for passing laws) and to create the feeling of an all together safer society.

1. Like driving or concealed carry you should be required to take training and carry a revockable permit. To be eligable for a permit you would have to meet certain criteria similar to that of the concealed carry criteria.
2. If you decide to Open Carry you must have annual recurrency training to maintain your permit.
3. I believe that there should be some sort registration regarding "who owns what". < To what extent this registration would go I can't say I'm not a lawyer. I just figure that a registration of some sort would encourage proper firearms responsibility.
4. Those choosing to Open Carry are to cooperate to the fullest extent of the law with local, state, and federal law enforcement. I'm tired of the negative stigma that surrounds peace keepers. The majority of cops be they jerks or not, are folks we should support not antagonize. If your gonna rock the boat do it in court not the street.
5. A specific code of conduct should be miantained during actual carry. And infractions against this code should be considered if an issued resulted in legal action. Poor conduct while carrying a firearm and/or firearms whether concealed or not shouldn't be tolerated.

These are just a few of the things I think would make Open Carry in Texas a potential likelyhood. I know this will likely ruffle some feathers especially the registration part but in America I don't have to agree with you or you me.

dicion wrote:

dac1842 wrote:First, I don't know what NC's laws are on open carry. So as a former LEO, this should have been handled a little differently in my opinion. Regardless of the law on open carry, the officer is responding to a call. He observes a person carrying a weapon. He asks for ID. In most states failure to identify to a LEO is a crime in itself. Since the subject was armed the officer has the right to determine if the weapon is being carried legally ( no known felon, etc).
I cant believe the officer backed off. He had reason to ask for ID. Of course there is some things we do not know. But on the surface the officer was intimidated by the camera and back down.

He wasn't failing to identify, he was refusing to give ID. If I recall correctly, the laws there are similar to the laws in New Hampshire, the person is required to State his Name, and some other information, they are not required to produce any form of physical identification. As the guy in the video asks "Am I driving a motor vehicle?" so why should he have to produce his driver's license. At no point did the officer ask for his name, if he did, I'm pretty sure the man was required to give it to him. He probably knew the law on this, and was not going to volunteer it unless directly asked.

This is a similar video in New Hampshire, they actually detail the laws in the video, for the officers:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI[/youtube]

Personally, I think Dave Himself is handling it fine. His friend in the striped shirt though may be going a little overboard in some cases.

"may be going overboard" I would say that's an understatement. The 'friend" was obviously showboating. Guys like that give anyone on the outside looking in cause for distain towards "gun folk".

Looks like they're going after him hard.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009 ... ion_clinic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like he was wrong on the law. He admits he stopped to tape what was going on, which makes him a spectator. NC law forbids spectators (among others) from having weapons at parades or demonstrations, either on public or private property.

One of the problems with demonstrations about our rights under the 2A is to make sure we obey the current law until we get the court to overturn it. He obeyed the overall law allowing open carry and forgot to check all of its permutations. Our laws are almost as badly written with having to check different sections to get everywhere you can or cannot carry.

Here is the law:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegi ... 277.2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That being said, it does look like they're trying to make a complete example of him.

Why did they search his house? what was their reasoning for that?
To me, they're still going overboard.

srothstein wrote:Looks like he was wrong on the law. He admits he stopped to tape what was going on, which makes him a spectator. NC law forbids spectators (among others) from having weapons at parades or demonstrations, either on public or private property.

When no one is holding a sign or shouting slogans, is it a demonstration?

Even if they were holding signs, since they were on neighboring private property I don't think they would meet the definition of "demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions".

They weren't "upon any private health care facility", and they weren't "upon any public place owned or under the control of (government)".

chabouk wrote:

srothstein wrote:Looks like he was wrong on the law. He admits he stopped to tape what was going on, which makes him a spectator. NC law forbids spectators (among others) from having weapons at parades or demonstrations, either on public or private property.

When no one is holding a sign or shouting slogans, is it a demonstration?

Sure, ever hear of a sit in? It can be a very quiet demonstration.

On a more serious note, I don't know what their definition of a demonstration is and that might be a very valid point. Since he had been talking to the guys earlier and admitted he went over to watch, I think it can be stipulated as a demonstration though. I would hate to have to depend on that fine a technical point for my defense, though it (and less) has worked for others in the past.

Even if they were holding signs, since they were on neighboring private property I don't think they would meet the definition of "demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions".

They weren't "upon any private health care facility", and they weren't "upon any public place owned or under the control of (government)".

This is a much better place to be. I must have missed the exact location, but you would appear to eb correct. If it was on a neighboring piece of private property, he may very well be golden.

And yes, Dicion, I agree that they are definitely working hard at making the example of him. I could see the search warrant to prove he has a gun, since the arrest was not made at the scene. But it must have been a very slow police day for them to take this case this far. I have never yet seen a detective with such a light case load that he could waste time on this type of thing without pressure from above (read that as the politicians).