You try spitting hairs with the police and see just how far that gets you.... Geesh, guys like you need to use a little common sense when reading these posts and not get into a hissy over every little thing someone posts and calling people out... the law is written with a lot of ambiguity in it so as to leave the police a wide range of authority.... depending on a wide range of situations.. it doesn't have to spell out every single specific situation that the law would apply too. You pulled this silly crap over on your FB page 'I Support Open Carry in Oklahoma' and I left it because it was your page.. but don't start silly nonsense over here on the OSA forum.
You try spitting hairs with the police and see just how far that gets you.... Geesh, guys like you need to use a little common sense when reading these posts and not get into a hissy over every little thing someone posts and calling people out... the law is written with a lot of ambiguity in it so as to leave the police a wide range of authority.... depending on a wide range of situations.. it doesn't have to spell out every single specific situation that the law would apply too. You pulled this silly crap over on your FB page 'I Support Open Carry in Oklahoma' and I left it because it was your page.. but don't start silly nonsense over here on the OSA forum.
WTF is this supposed to mean.?
I have rights ,and know the Law. Want me to show my CWP, tell me. STOP the legalese mumbo -jumbo.
Thats the problem ....he said/she said. Read the fxxn laws for yourself.
Now your pullin this silly crap...are you the OSA Judge ,Jury .and last say...I didnt think so...(maybe I dont know?)
If Im carrying Ill show my License, If not then I wont.....Im still concerned that the CWP is somehow connect to your DL
And Im sure not gonna be spittin hairs...does that sound like silly nonsense? Well get over it...have a Good Day!
tRdoc..you may be thinking of this... there is something the courts recognize as a "Show of Authority Seizure"-
A show of authority seizure occurs when two essential elements are in place. First, an officer must have shown some authority. Second, the person being 'seized' must have submitted to the officer’s authority. Until the suspect has submitted – no seizure has occurred.
There are also Terry Stops & Terry Frisks. Terry vs. Ohio
I believe the Terry Stop is what I was thinking of. I don't know the specifics of it, just that it essentially meant that an officer could be considering you "under detainment" in a provisional information-gathering sense, while not necessarily informing you of such. And that it had been upheld by the courts.
I posted this the other day. I think it would be helpful in this discussion...Each carrier must decide themselves how to handle the notification issue, but I hate it when opinions are passed off as law in internet forums, when the law is clear and unambiguous.
This is really easy. The first thing you need to do is to ascertain your status in regards to the officer you are in a conversation with.
Ask yourself the following questions:
1) Did I just get pulled over in my car? If yes then stop here. You must notify immediately.
2) Am I under arrest? If yes then stop here. You must notify immediately. If you don't know, then ask, "Am I under arrest?"
3) Am I being detained? If yes, then stop here. You must notify immediately. If unsure, then ask, "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
4) If you are not detained, then tell the cop, "I really don't have time to visit now. I'm going to just be on my way." Then walk away. No notification was necessary.
......................
............................That's some funny stuff right there....
Wow, David2012, what a jerk. You specifically make inaccurate statements and implied they were law ("...you are only required..."). When corrected you accuse people of "splitting hairs", not using "a little common sense" and getting "into a hissy over every little thing".
If you had just suggested your approach as a practical way to stand back from the legal line without going overboard and not as what is "required" then there would be no need to correct your inaccuracies.
Okiebryan, thanks for once again specifically pointing out what the law says and not making up something as passing it off as law.
Okiebryan, thanks for providing a straight forward method to avoid the ambiguity of certain CCW situations in regards to the law.
For everyone that does not want to understand the specifics of the law or try to determine when they apply (not criticizing, I understand) then I suggest you use David2012's method of notifying anytime you are dealing with an officer acting in his official capacity as a LEO. This is a safe and practical way to go. But please don't pass it off to others as "law".
Why is this a 3-page thread? If you're carrying a weapon, then notify the offficer you are carrying a weapon. If you are not, then don't.
I've been pulled over 3 times when not carrying since I've had my CCW and the officer has never mentioned it. I didn't think that info was even brought up when they run your info, but I guess I was wrong.
I've been pulled over 3 times when not carrying since I've had my CCW and the officer has never mentioned it. I didn't think that info was even brought up when they run your info, but I guess I was wrong.
Thanks ...Thats what I was trying...(just not as eloquently)...to say
Exactly.. way to many jail house lawyers on the forum trying to get everyone to believe their interpretation of the CC law is the only right one.. when even the LEO's aren't sure of the exact interpretation themselves sometime. I just get tired of the few who think they know every $%^# thing there is to know... and then want to force it down everyone elses' throat.
Similar threads
