A lot of folks are using it to protest that they aren't allowed CCW or loaded OC. I think I'd stick with writing letters, attending rallies, etc. Even the empty holster thing would be preferrable.
A lot of folks are using it to protest that they aren't allowed CCW or loaded OC. I think I'd stick with writing letters, attending rallies, etc. Even the empty holster thing would be preferrable.
I somewhat agree with your statement in bold. They are also expected to investigate to determine whether a law has been broken at all, given reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In the jurisdiction in question, OC is only legal if the firearm is unloaded. That gives an officer RS to investigate. Once the officer determined the gun was unloaded, he obviously had no intention of investigating further. Asking the subject for his name was not unreasonable. Neither was the subject's refusal to give it. The officer noted the decline and went on his merry way without the subjects name. He can however document that he asked for it and was refused. That way his superiors won't think him a failure in investigations 101.
As for polite, there's polite and then there's polite. More information is transmitted through non-verbal cues than spoken words. That's one reason that intent is sometimes impossible to fathom on forums. Sure, the words spoken by the subject were polite, but we can't see the non-verbal cues. The officer was polite, but I had no problems reading his true thoughts on the matter. He went through the motions to prevent a PR disaster, but he most likely thought the subject was acting foolish. I certainly think the subject was acting foolish for carrying an empty gun in the open. Just as entering an intersection on a green light is legal, doing so when a semi is running his red light isn't wise. There is such a thing as being "dead right".
I haven't called the subject names, but anyone can have a personal opinion about anyone else. After all, as you so astutely point out, it's a free country, right?
Yep, and I have expressed mine... clearly but not too obnoxiously I hope!
Last edited:
If I was the cop in the video, I would have seized the weapon due to the subjects lack of cooperation.
Let me explain why.
The officer has no way of knowing if the subject is a convicted felon. When he asked for the guy's name and he refused to give it, he should have kept the gun until he did tell the officer his name. Then, a check could be done to see if he is a CF or not. CFs by law are not allowed to own or possess a handgun. Period.
I know the guy was protecting "his rights" by choosing not to give the officer his name, but what about the police officer? Doesn't he have any rights? He surely can't allow a convicted felon to be walking around the city he has sworn to protect with an iron on his hip now can he?
I'm sick and damned tired of this poor, pitiful "me" generation who swears that the police are only out to do harm to them and are just hiding and waiting for them to screw up just so they can rough 'em up and get their rocks off.
Grow the
up people. 
Kudos to the officer for his composure. I dunno if I coulda reacted thataway.
Let me explain why.
The officer has no way of knowing if the subject is a convicted felon. When he asked for the guy's name and he refused to give it, he should have kept the gun until he did tell the officer his name. Then, a check could be done to see if he is a CF or not. CFs by law are not allowed to own or possess a handgun. Period.
I know the guy was protecting "his rights" by choosing not to give the officer his name, but what about the police officer? Doesn't he have any rights? He surely can't allow a convicted felon to be walking around the city he has sworn to protect with an iron on his hip now can he?
I'm sick and damned tired of this poor, pitiful "me" generation who swears that the police are only out to do harm to them and are just hiding and waiting for them to screw up just so they can rough 'em up and get their rocks off.
Grow the
up people. Kudos to the officer for his composure. I dunno if I coulda reacted thataway.
If I was the cop in the video, I would have seized the weapon due to the subjects lack of cooperation.
Let me explain why.
The officer has no way of knowing if the subject is a convicted felon. When he asked for the guy's name and he refused to give it, he should have kept the gun until he did tell the officer his name. Then, a check could be done to see if he is a CF or not. CFs by law are not allowed to own or possess a handgun. Period.
I know the guy was protecting "his rights" by choosing not to give the officer his name, but what about the police officer? Doesn't he have any rights? He surely can't allow a convicted felon to be walking around the city he has sworn to protect with an iron on his hip now can he?
I'm sick and damned tired of this poor, pitiful "me" generation who swears that the police are only out to do harm to them and are just hiding and waiting for them to screw up just so they can rough 'em up and get their rocks off.
Grow the
Kudos to the officer for his composure. I dunno if I coulda reacted thataway.
I have to disagree here. If the individual was complying fully with all applicable laws, then there's no PC to run him for wants/warrants/convictions. This isn't a traffic stop where the subject broke the law, it's a field interview. Nothing more, nothing less. Once the officer determined that the gun was unloaded as required by law, he had no further RS or PC to detain the citizen any longer. I think he went exactly as far as he should have on the request for service and no further.
Police/citizen relations in some communities have become so adversarial, it's no wonder the citizens are actively out to bust cops. As the professionals being paid to enforce the law, police must be held to a higher standard. The first rule is that it's never personal for the public servant. You're there to enforce the law within the guidelines of departmental policy and community standards. The peace of a law enforcement officer cannot be breached. If every officer remembered this fact before going 10-8, perhaps they'd have fewer confrontations with law abiding citizens.
I have to disagree here. If the individual was complying fully with all applicable laws, then there's no PC to run him for wants/warrants/convictions. This isn't a traffic stop where the subject broke the law, it's a field interview. Nothing more, nothing less. Once the officer determined that the gun was unloaded as required by law, he had no further RS or PC to detain the citizen any longer. I think he went exactly as far as he should have on the request for service and no further.
Police/citizen relations in some communities have become so adversarial, it's no wonder the citizens are actively out to bust cops. As the professionals being paid to enforce the law, police must be held to a higher standard. The first rule is that it's never personal for the public servant. You're there to enforce the law within the guidelines of departmental policy and community standards. The peace of a law enforcement officer cannot be breached. If every officer remembered this fact before going 10-8, perhaps they'd have fewer confrontations with law abiding citizens.
The law states that a person in possession of a handgun must be over 18 years of age and NOT a convicted felon. With the citizen not giving any info whatsoever, neither of those facts could be established.
I'll play devil's advocate here.
Is it acceptable to initiate a traffic stop on an individual obeying all traffic laws on the sole assumption that they might have no insurance or a valid driver's license while they are in control of a vehicle?
The gentleman had broken no laws and the officer knew it. In Oklahoma can an officer stop you from walking down the street, request you identify yourself, and then open an investigation without any wrongdoing?
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the subject in question appeared to be over the age of 18. Now, do you automatically assume that anyone you come into contact with on a call is a fugitive from justice? If not, why would you assume that someone in possession of a handgun who's otherwise fully in compliance with applicable law is a felon? If open carry were passed in OK, do you feel it would be right to assume that everyone exercising that right might be a convicted felon and run them? The presence of a firearm doesn't in and of itself provide PC to run NCIC on a person. It may be semantics, but had the officer run the subject prior to determining that the gun was unloaded, I could agree. After all, the very first rule when dealing with firearms is to always assume they're loaded. That would have been against the law in this case. Once he otherwise established full compliance with the law as fact, he lost the option to demand ID for the purpose of checking for a felony record.
It's a fine line, but a line nonetheless.
I'm just sayin'...
§21-1272.
UNLAWFUL CARRY
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her
person, or in a purse or other container belonging to the person, any
pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle whether loaded or unloaded or any
dagger, bowie knife, dirk knife, switchblade knife, spring-type knife,
sword cane, knife having a blade which opens automatically by hand
pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of
the knife, blackjack, loaded cane, billy, hand chain, metal knuckles,
or any other offensive weapon, whether such weapon be concealed or
unconcealed, except this section shall not prohibit:
1. The proper use of guns and knives for hunting, fishing, educational
or recreational purposes;
2. The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by
statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1
et seq. of this title; or
3. The carrying, possession and use of any weapon by a peace officer
in the performance of official duties and in compliance with the rules
of the employing agency. Any person convicted of violating the
foregoing provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as
provided in Section 1276 of this title.
I would have at least asked for his SDA card. If he refused to provide it, yeah...it wouldn't go in his favor.
Of course, this didn't happen in Oklahoma either.
§21-1272.
UNLAWFUL CARRY
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her
person, or in a purse or other container belonging to the person, any
pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle whether loaded or unloaded or any
dagger, bowie knife, dirk knife, switchblade knife, spring-type knife,
sword cane, knife having a blade which opens automatically by hand
pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of
the knife, blackjack, loaded cane, billy, hand chain, metal knuckles,
or any other offensive weapon, whether such weapon be concealed or
unconcealed, except this section shall not prohibit:
1. The proper use of guns and knives for hunting, fishing, educational
or recreational purposes;
2. The carrying or use of weapons in a manner otherwise permitted by
statute or authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1
et seq. of this title; or
3. The carrying, possession and use of any weapon by a peace officer
in the performance of official duties and in compliance with the rules
of the employing agency. Any person convicted of violating the
foregoing provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as
provided in Section 1276 of this title.
I would have at least asked for his SDA card. If he refused to provide it, yeah...it wouldn't go in his favor.
Of course, this didn't happen in Oklahoma either.
I'm just sayin'...
I would have at least asked for his SDA card. If he refused to provide it, yeah...it wouldn't go in his favor.
Of course, this didn't happen in Oklahoma either.
Why would he need an SDA card? There are a LOT of reasons a person could be legally OCing an unloaded handgun in Oklahoma. The guy could be walking from his house to the gun range a block away.
As for not providing his name, he should have provided it when asked.
I don't think there's any overriding need to establish that he's not a minor and a felon if he has given you no reason to be suspicious of them. There are a ton of things minors and felons can't do and it appears the police don't scrutinize these other cases that heavily. You probably wouldn't stop and question a guy in dress blues just because he might be a felon, or too young to serve.
Similar threads
