A completely reasonable way to deal with the new wave of open carry morons.....

[BadgeBunny]

I understand but I can see how the media/anti-2A lobby might label anyone who open carries as an "activist."

I can see that too. And it's all because of people like HIM ...

 

[BadgeBunny]

The way the situation should have been handled is this: The cop rolls up, steps out of the car, and greets the subjects. He says, "we got a call from a concerned citizen saying someone is walking around with a machine gun. That gun isn't a full auto, is it?" The armed subject says "I don't want to talk about it." The cop says, "well, seeing how I have no reason to suspect that it is, or that it is unregistered if it is, have a nice day." The cop then goes back and tells the concerned citizen that open carry is legal, and that since he has no evidence that the gun is possessed illegally, there is nothing more he can legally do.

That's all fine and dandy until "Mr. I don't want to talk about it" goes and shoots up the park or a movie theatre. Then everyone will want to know why the cops didn't do more. Seriously, folks who want to draw attention to themselves in this way are getting what they deserve. Too bad it just makes things worse on the regular citizen who wants to open carry. (But hey! That's how it is for all of us. Lowest common denominators ... Us fine upstanding citizens are always having to jump though some hoop just because some lowlife took advantage of the system ...)

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If you want attention, you will get it even though it may not be the type of attention you were hoping for. Even if you don't want attention, you will still get it, so don't be surprised or offended when it happens ...

 

[beast1989]

I messaged the guy on YouTube and he responded back pretty promptly. He even offered to give me his personal number to continue the discussion over the phone if I wanted, for various (and obvious) reasons I have no interest in doing that. He appears very receptive to genuine and constructive discussions on the issue but it is clear that he is set in his ways. I will continue to develop a rapport and continue the discussion with the gentlemen in hopes of making a difference in the way he handles his right to OC.

Beast

 

[bulbboy]

We all thank you for that!

 

[Glocktogo]

I agree, the cop was very professional... you could tell he was a practiced public speaker, as well as having good interpersonal skills.

BUT, I don't think there was reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed to allow a stop. I don't think there was there reasonable suspicion of the subject being armed and dangerous to allow the seizure of the gun. I don't think the gun had an immediately apparent incriminating character to allow it's seizure under the plain view doctrine. And obviously there was no warrant to allow the seizure and search of the gun for full auto parts, nor the probable cause that it was an illegal unregistered full auto that such a warrant would require.

I think it is ridiculous to base reasonable suspicion purely on the fact that there are some full auto guns in existence which look like the one in question, when the officer is aware of no other specific facts supporting a reasonable belief that there is a full auto trigger group in a gun. If that were the case, a cop could go to the range and detain everyone shooting an AR-15, to investigate whether it is an unregistered full auto. Or he could stop everyone open-carrying a Glock or Beretta, based on the possibility of it being an unregistered Glock 18 or Beretta 93.

Also, basing reasonable suspicion that a person doesn't have the required tax stamp and documentation, based on their apparent age and type of clothes they're wearing, is pretty iffy too. Not everybody who owns a $10,000 toy always goes around in a tweed suit with a monocle carrying a bag of money.

Now even if there WAS reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, as the cop believed, that only gets the officer the authority to detain the suspect for a sufficient time to investigate the suspected crime. By itself, it doesn't give him the power to search or seize anything except the suspect himself. The cop didn't explain his justification for the seizure of the gun from the suspect, but if it were true that he had RS of him carrying an illegal full auto, I believe that would also give rise to a reasonable suspicion of the suspect being armed and dangerous (which ought to be met any time you have RS of a guy with a gun walking around with a gun committing a felony). This would allow the cop to seize and secure the gun for his own safety, which implies that he can unload it and put it where no one can get to it for the duration of the encounter, or until the RS is dissipated. However, it doesn't give him the authority to tinker with it in order to find out what kind of parts are inside it. A seizure under Terry is not for investigative purposes -- it is purely for officer safety.

The cop might try to justify the seizure under the plain view doctrine, but that has a higher requirement than just reasonable suspicion -- it requires that the object in question must have an immediately apparent incriminating character (along with being observed from a place the cop has a right to be, and something for which the cop has lawful access to). This is not met for the same reasons I stated with regards to reasonable suspicion. Also, for the plain view doctrine to apply, the object cannot be manipulated. It's unlawful character must be immediately apparent based purely on sight. The fact that the cop tinkered with the gun to see whether it was FA or not negates this.

The way the situation should have been handled is this: The cop rolls up, steps out of the car, and greets the subjects. He says, "we got a call from a concerned citizen saying someone is walking around with a machine gun. That gun isn't a full auto, is it?" The armed subject says "I don't want to talk about it." The cop says, "well, seeing how I have no reason to suspect that it is, or that it is unregistered if it is, have a nice day." The cop then goes back and tells the concerned citizen that open carry is legal, and that since he has no evidence that the gun is possessed illegally, there is nothing more he can legally do.

Your interpretation of the stop is duly noted. Carry on!

 

[hrdware]

That's all fine and dandy until "Mr. I don't want to talk about it" goes and shoots up the park or a movie theatre. Then everyone will want to know why the cops didn't do more. Seriously, folks who want to draw attention to themselves in this way are getting what they deserve. Too bad it just makes things worse on the regular citizen who wants to open carry. (But hey! That's how it is for all of us. Lowest common denominators ... Us fine upstanding citizens are always having to jump though some hoop just because some lowlife took advantage of the system ...)

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If you want attention, you will get it even though it may not be the type of attention you were hoping for. Even if you don't want attention, you will still get it, so don't be surprised or offended when it happens ...

That's just it...the cops can't legally do more. Everyone wants the cops to do their jobs and not overstep their bounds until something happens. Then everyone wants to know why the cops didn't overstep their bounds and violate someones rights.

 

[henschman]

That's all fine and dandy until "Mr. I don't want to talk about it" goes and shoots up the park or a movie theatre. Then everyone will want to know why the cops didn't do more.

The way the cop handled it in the video, how would it have prevented the guy from going off and shooting up a park or movie theater? The guy was given his gun back with a loaded magazine and sent on his way.

If it is lawful for citizens to be armed in public, there is nothing the cops can do in this kind of situation other than making consensual contact, and staying close by and keeping a watchful eye on things. The latter is probably the best option if they are actually concerned about the possibility of a massacre. Just stay close and follow the guy around from a position where they can quickly take him down or put one through his brain stem if he starts doing anything threatening.

 

[beast1989]

That's just it...the cops can't legally do more. Everyone wants the cops to do their jobs and not overstep their bounds until something happens. Then everyone wants to know why the cops didn't overstep their bounds and violate someones rights.

That's where personal responsibility comes in. As long I am on this planet I am going to think of it sort if like being in a boxing ring and I will protect myself at all times.

 

[David2012]

I messaged the guy on YouTube and he responded back pretty promptly. He even offered to give me his personal number to continue the discussion over the phone if I wanted, for various (and obvious) reasons I have no interest in doing that. He appears very receptive to genuine and constructive discussions on the issue but it is clear that he is set in his ways. I will continue to develop a rapport and continue the discussion with the gentlemen in hopes of making a difference in the way he handles his right to OC.

Beast

Of course you gave him the web address for the OSA forum so he could come enlighten everyone on our 2nd amendment rights and how we too can make similar videos, since we will be going open carry in November?

I wouldn't mind the little dweebs like him and their videos if only they would use a little style and humor in drawing attention to themselves. I'd like to see them get out in public dressed in wild outfits like Pro Wrestlers from the 70's & 80's such as Rick Flaire, Randy "The Macho Man" Savage or Jesse Ventura used to wear... maybe some colorful feather boas. I'd watch his videos just to see if the cops could keep a straight face & not laugh.

 

[BadgeBunny]

The way the cop handled it in the video, how would it have prevented the guy from going off and shooting up a park or movie theater? The guy was given his gun back with a loaded magazine and sent on his way.

If it is lawful for citizens to be armed in public, there is nothing the cops can do in this kind of situation other than making consensual contact, and staying close by and keeping a watchful eye on things. The latter is probably the best option if they are actually concerned about the possibility of a massacre. Just stay close and follow the guy around from a position where they can quickly take him down or put one through his brain stem if he starts doing anything threatening.

You know perfectly well that not everyone carrying a gun has a heart of gold ... And I, too, thank you for elaborating on exactly how law enforcement should do their jobs, given the resources they have at hand. Like I said, you want to draw attention to yourself, fine and dandy, but don't expect all that attention to be adoring crowds patting you on the back for showing them the light ... And don't take it out on the cops if they find themselves in the position of having to respond to a call about "a man with a gun" ... A little courtesy from those of you determined to make spectacles (yes, that is my humble opinion ) out of yourselves will go a long way towards "educating" our dumb, hick, hillbilly JBTs ... sheesh ...