TexasCHLforum.com

Brad Mc, I have two different answers to your question because it really does depend on the situation. In the case of a citizen who is doing what he normally does when he gets stopped by the police and he then stands on his rights, I think society is improved by the encounter. In cases like that, I agree that the police need to meet people like this every so often until they learn that people have rights that must be respected.

But in the case of the people who go out looking for a confrontation, I think no one is improved by the stop and society is hurt more in general. The person looking for a stop did not convert anyone and ends up convincing some middle-of-the-roaders that open carry, or whatever the point is, is for nuts and the lunatic fringe and that "normal" people don't do that. The cops usually give the impression of being idiots and thugs and not knowing the law or respecting people's rights. This puts more people and cops in adversarial positions, and I cannot see that as a any benefit to society or anyone except criminals. Police need to work with the citizenry to solve crimes and the citizens need to have some good cops out there to help protect them from the evil.

So, to me, the situation is important on whether or not this is a good thing. For the most part, I am convinced the police need to learn and remember the rights of citizens, but no one learns from forced confrontations.

srothstein wrote:Brad Mc, I have two different answers to your question because it really does depend on the situation. In the case of a citizen who is doing what he normally does when he gets stopped by the police and he then stands on his rights, I think society is improved by the encounter. In cases like that, I agree that the police need to meet people like this every so often until they learn that people have rights that must be respected.

But in the case of the people who go out looking for a confrontation, I think no one is improved by the stop and society is hurt more in general. The person looking for a stop did not convert anyone and ends up convincing some middle-of-the-roaders that open carry, or whatever the point is, is for nuts and the lunatic fringe and that "normal" people don't do that. The cops usually give the impression of being idiots and thugs and not knowing the law or respecting people's rights. This puts more people and cops in adversarial positions, and I cannot see that as a any benefit to society or anyone except criminals. Police need to work with the citizenry to solve crimes and the citizens need to have some good cops out there to help protect them from the evil.

So, to me, the situation is important on whether or not this is a good thing. For the most part, I am convinced the police need to learn and remember the rights of citizens, but no one learns from forced confrontations.

I think your points are reasonable.

There are a couple of other scenarios as well. From your first paragraph, I am very aware of cases where it is simply an ordinary law-abiding citizen open carrying in their daily affairs, and a police stop that goes bad. For example, there is one case in Canton OH where a PA resident was visiting. Although he had a PA LTCF (License to Carry Firearms), there is no reciprocity between OH and PA, so he legally open carried. He was arrested, tried, charges dismissed. They had video of the local police Captain and Lt. discussing they knew he was legally open carrying, so what could they charge him with.

In response to those kinds of police abuses, there have been numerous open carry protests organized by Ohio 2nd Amendment organizations in the locality where the arrests have occurred. These demonstrations have always been held with advance notice to both the police and the press, and have been peaceful. There were anywhere from 20-150 participants. They were obviously videotaped as well.

As a result of these and similar actions, the open carry climate has changed dramatically in Ohio during the last ten years. Even in the large cities like Columbus and Cincinnati, the police are well aware and trained that open carry is legal and does not by itself constitute RAS. When I open carried there, I never had a negative police encounter, even when I was down in the area surrounding the Ohio State University. Imagine someone open carrying in Austin in the area near UT, and have it be completely ho-hum, a non-event.

When we would have open carry meet 'n greets, there would be 15-20 people eating a meal together in a restaurant while open carrying (the restaurant was always chosen for being 2A friendly and OK with the event). It often produced questions from other people, most of whom were surprised to learn it was legal. Their next question was invariably, "Am I allowed to open carry too?"

I will also note that when an ordinary law-abiding citizen gets wrongfully arrested, the only realistic way to have their testimony have credibility is when they have audio and/or video of the encounter. Without evidence, the police testimony is going to be the testimony that is believed in court every time. I don't consider myself someone who has ever sought a police confrontation, but I do consider myself to be prudent. Even now, I am set up to record any encounter whenever I leave the house.

I don't think it makes any sense to be a confrontational jackwagon in general, not just limited to open carry rights. That goes for both people you meet in the street, and for interactions with legislators.

But I also believe that rights not exercised are rights that are lost, and it is often the pioneers that are the ones with the arrows in the back.

nightmare69 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

He may have not been looking for a confrontation. Most everyone who has a modern cellphone has a video camera and alot of people record interaction with LEOs just for proof. Cops know that they cannot approach someone for a legal activity, but they do it anyway. If I lived in a all white neighborhood and saw a black guy driving down the road and called the cops do you think they would waste their time to stop him?

That is incorrect. An officer can contact anybody they wish, including somebody that is not doing anything wrong. That is a consensual encounter. The person is free to leave at any time.

I believe the people out there trying to be confrontational hurt more then they help. They are the ones that keep trying to egg the leo's on even when they won't play and are just doing their job. I would be curious how much real footage there is out there of these incidents, but when the leo's do the right thing they don't air it as that is against their agenda of drama.

That is true but the video I posted was not a consensual encounter, the law student asked a few times if he was free to leave, the LEO would not give him his gun back and let him leave.

I am not referring to the video, but the comment that an officer cannot approach somebody for legal activity.

It was not nice for her to refuse to sit in the back of the bus, but everyone knows her name now. She did what was right. we gun owners dont have to be extra good citizens so no one will take away our right. if it is a right, a constitutional right, then live as such.

Texas_Blaze wrote:It was not nice for her to refuse to sit in the back of the bus, but everyone knows her name now. She did what was right. we gun owners dont have to be extra good citizens so no one will take away our right. if it is a right, a constitutional right, then live as such.

I think there weren't any open seats in the back but otherwise

If a person can lawfully O.C. - why do they have to 'walk on eggshells' concerned they may upset others?

It's not provocation if it's legal, is it?

While I personally don't care to O.C., if it becomes legal in Texas and someone is lawfully O.C.ing, why should they be concerned about stepping on toes?

If the law is on the books, but O.C. folks are constantly stopped, I.D., checked etc. then it's not really legal is it?

Abraham wrote:If a person can lawfully O.C. - why do they have to 'walk on eggshells' concerned they may upset others?

It's not provocation if it's legal, is it?

While I personally don't care to O.C., if it becomes legal in Texas and someone is lawfully O.C.ing, why should they be concerned about stepping on toes?

If the law is on the books, but O.C. folks are constantly stopped, I.D., checked etc. then it's not really legal is it?

You can open carry a long rifle in Texas, perfectly legal. I promise that you will draw unwanted attention from everyone and will have a cops called. At the end of the day though its legal and nothing they can do.

Abraham wrote:If a person can lawfully O.C. - why do they have to 'walk on eggshells' concerned they may upset others?

It's not provocation if it's legal, is it?

No more than public prayer or religious clothing.

Can you imagine the uproar if cops questioned Muslims simply for prayer or hijab discernible to ordinary observation? Would any politician get very far suggesting that Muslims shouldn't provoke people by praying, or suggesting a law against the adhan? Would they be able to get reelected in any major city?

So why are we expected to be extra tolerant of those who trample our rights?

nightmare69 wrote:

Abraham wrote:If a person can lawfully O.C. - why do they have to 'walk on eggshells' concerned they may upset others?

It's not provocation if it's legal, is it?

While I personally don't care to O.C., if it becomes legal in Texas and someone is lawfully O.C.ing, why should they be concerned about stepping on toes?

If the law is on the books, but O.C. folks are constantly stopped, I.D., checked etc. then it's not really legal is it?

You can open carry a long rifle in Texas, perfectly legal. I promise that you will draw unwanted attention from everyone and will have a cops called. At the end of the day though its legal and nothing they can do.

Might want to read up a bit, before making such a definitive statement
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.42.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"
Just who's "opinion" on what is "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" counts in an initial LEO contact, citation, confiscation, and arrest?
Do you think it is the accused's opinion that counts or matters in the decision to cite/ arrest them?

I believe not.. It is the opinion of the sheeple that called 911 and the LEO responding... one or both of those decide that long rifle is alarming to them, and that your carrying it in the open was calculated to cause said alarm.. ... Have fun,, see the judge on monday.

E.Marquez wrote:Might want to read up a bit, before making such a definitive statement
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.42.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"

Personally, I think it is a ridiculous law. Disorderly conduct shouldn't be used as a club to criminalize lawful activity.

nightmare69 wrote:

Abraham wrote:If a person can lawfully O.C. - why do they have to 'walk on eggshells' concerned they may upset others?

It's not provocation if it's legal, is it?

While I personally don't care to O.C., if it becomes legal in Texas and someone is lawfully O.C.ing, why should they be concerned about stepping on toes?

If the law is on the books, but O.C. folks are constantly stopped, I.D., checked etc. then it's not really legal is it?

You can open carry a long rifle in Texas, perfectly legal. I promise that you will draw unwanted attention from everyone and will have a cops called. At the end of the day though its legal and nothing they can do.

There's plenty they can do. Chances are you will win the war, but the battles cost you a lot more than it cost them.

I don't know about other areas of town, but where I live, once a week (Exaggeration) we have a school lock down because of a gun seen by a kid or staff member and most of the time, it's an airsoft, bb or water gun. I'd hate to see how this works with OC as every kid and teacher is trained to call even if they think they see a gun.

baldeagle wrote:I think the more that LEOs get used to Americans asserting their rights, the better off we'll all be. The Americans so asserting had better be right, however, because if they are breaking the law they will go to jail.

Anyone in a state that accepts open carry should know better in the first place...And they should know that they are in for additional scrutiny from law enforcement if someone observes them carrying and do not understand that the state accepts this activity...

From what I have seen, the people conducting themselves in this manneer who tape their encounters are there to make a statement, they WANT to be seen, they WANT law enforcement to be called to their location and make contact...Whether you agree with their doing this, or not, is not the issue...

In states that allow open carry of a firearm to be conducted by the citizenry, but do not really like it, are where we are seeing a lot of these videos being produced...

The issue to ALL of this is, are YOU being a good ambassador to the Second Amendment??? Is YOUR statement you are making for the right reason, or are YOU looking for 15 minutes of fame??? I mean, when you look at this objectively, you have to establish the reason...No matter how harsh or negative the assumption may be...It may not be someone like myself who is a pro-Second Amendment citizen...It may come from someone who is not...And public perception is critical to such a hot button topic these days...

As far as these checkpoints go, I have never had a problem with them...Our trip to California last year, was uneventful...We were never asked to be searched at those checkpoints between Houston and San Diego...Only the obvious question(s), "Are you American citizens?", to which I wanted to answer "no", we're Japanese...

I wanted to, but I had reservations to the authenticity of my answer...

Not giving law enforcement, or the community in general a reason to suspect you is, in my opinion, been the best policy for years...

I would love to do some things to promote our cause, but the opportunities, and public opinion at this time are not condusive to certain peoples sensitivities...And we are folks that do value those sensitivities...We may not like it, but we need to be good ambassadors first...

There will ALWAYS be people who will never see it our way...The more we do within our smaller circles of friends and family, is more important to making statements, and video-ing encounters with law enforcement, or pressing the issue with those checkpoints...

No need to give them any excuses...

Just my opinion...

"As far as these checkpoints go, I have never had a problem with them..."

clarification...

My problems with them go beyond the issue of my right to keep and bear arms...

I would answer their main question to determine my citizenship...And that does have a slight rub with me in the first place, but I will be through the stop, and not be subjected (and will refuse) to any additional searches of my person or property...

They'll have to get a warrant to conduct that if they want to go to that trouble...

I will not give any reason for that to happen...

texanjoker wrote:

He may have not been looking for a confrontation. Most everyone who has a modern cellphone has a video camera and alot of people record interaction with LEOs just for proof. Cops know that they cannot approach someone for a legal activity, but they do it anyway. If I lived in a all white neighborhood and saw a black guy driving down the road and called the cops do you think they would waste their time to stop him?

That is incorrect. An officer can contact anybody they wish, including somebody that is not doing anything wrong. That is a consensual encounter. The person is free to leave at any time.

I believe the people out there trying to be confrontational hurt more then they help. They are the ones that keep trying to egg the leo's on even when they won't play and are just doing their job. I would be curious how much real footage there is out there of these incidents, but when the leo's do the right thing they don't air it as that is against their agenda of drama.

That's absolutely untrue:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=N30TagPCNE4[/youtube]