Because OC...

[KeeFus]

http://freepatriot.org/2013/11/10/watch-pro-second-amendment-officer-gives-important-lesson-to-open-carry-demonstrator/

[Urban_Redneck]

http://freepatriot.org/2013/11/10/watch-pro-second-amendment-officer-gives-important-lesson-to-open-carry-demonstrator/

Here we have over an hour of wasted patrol time (4 officers X 17 minutes) because a couple of young men need so badly to become "OC heroes" on YouTube. Those young men are of the same needy breed as the "occupy" dweebs.

I live in an OC state. I "incidentally" OC i.e. pumping gas on the way to a match once in while. I hate the idea that OC rights will be eventually overturned because someone's daddy didn't pay enough attention to them.

[LittleLebowski]

This is Romper Room material. Moved.

Also, I am proud of the officer.

[Casual Friday]

Eventually one of these sidewalk second amendment professors are going to make the wrong move in public and get shot. I feel like Five-0 handled the situation properly.

[will_1400]

I'm trying to fathom the lack of reasoning that allowed the rifle carrier to agree that people are worried about crazies and yet can somehow tell that he isn't one of said crazies. And this happened just after the LAX shooting, if I heard that video correctly.

[BaiHu]

If this is the way every officer handles these OC-tards, I think the OC-tards will actually move on to breast feeding in public :p

[Shellback]

I thought they handled it very well. Hopefully it sinks in...

[Tamara]

This is Romper Room material.

On SO many levels. ;)

[Totem Polar]

Where is my "like" icon for the lead responding officer? That guy is a stone professional. Very good job in the face of the ludicrous while on camera. :cool:

[jlw]

The overlying question:

What was the reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause of a crime?

One or the other must be present to conduct a stop. Even with the measured demeanor of of the officers, and even the attention seeking OC thought process at play, there are Constitutional issues with the officers' actions with their response. Being "nice" doesn't make 4th Amendment issues go away.

Note, the officer is telling the citizen that he would "cap" someone just for walking into a gas station while armed. It doesn't matter how much pro-2A verbiage you wrap it in, telling people that you would cap them just for being armed is not pro-2A.

The only difference between what this guy said and what Daniel Harless said is the tone.

[KeeFus]

Speaking of Daniel, he just received $40,000.00 settlement from Canton, OH among other extras. (http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20131105/NEWS/131109669)

I think the officers, especially the contact, did a pretty good job. This may not sit well with a few here but...in light of all the mass shootings in public places that have been so publicised in the news someone that OC's should expect to have someone call 911 on them. I'm not saying it's right...I'm just saying that folks get a bit edgy over these incidents and seeing someone out OC'ing puts folks on edge.

There has got to be some middle ground on this issue and I think these guys did the best they could with what they had. As far as the verbiage I think the LEO was trying to emphasize the precarious situation that the OC'er had put him self, as well as everyone else into, and trying to get him to see what he was doing...not just to himself, but to other 2A loving folks.

[Casual Friday]

The overlying question:

What was the reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause of a crime?

One or the other must be present to conduct a stop. Even with the measured demeanor of of the officers, and even the attention seeking OC thought process at play, there are Constitutional issues with the officers' actions with their response. Being "nice" doesn't make 4th Amendment issues go away.

Note, the officer is telling the citizen that he would "cap" someone just for walking into a gas station while armed. It doesn't matter how much pro-2A verbiage you wrap it in, telling people that you would cap them just for being armed is not pro-2A.

The only difference between what this guy said and what Daniel Harless said is the tone.

I'm not a cop but isn't there some kind of Terry stop thingy?

[BLR]

Let's hope that's the last public funded cent Danny-boy ever sees.

I don't understand why people need to troll cops and involve deadly weapons. I really, truly don't.

[LittleLebowski]

The only difference between what this guy said and what Daniel Harless said is the tone.

I think there's a world of difference between this officer and Harless's intentions/conduct. Perhaps the words are similar but I have a lot more trust in this officer insofar as belief in 2A rights and as a mature human being able to police his community in a responsible, professional manner.

[jmcrawf1]

The overlying question:

What was the reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause of a crime?

One or the other must be present to conduct a stop. Even with the measured demeanor of of the officers, and even the attention seeking OC thought process at play, there are Constitutional issues with the officers' actions with their response. Being "nice" doesn't make 4th Amendment issues go away.

Note, the officer is telling the citizen that he would "cap" someone just for walking into a gas station while armed. It doesn't matter how much pro-2A verbiage you wrap it in, telling people that you would cap them just for being armed is not pro-2A.

The only difference between what this guy said and what Daniel Harless said is the tone.


The officer clearly stated his reasonable suspicion for the stop in the video.

[jlw]

I'm not a cop but isn't there some kind of Terry stop thingy?

He did not meet that standard according to his own statements.


The officer clearly stated his reasonable suspicion for the stop in the video.

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no firearms exception to the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that knowledge that a person is armed is no different that knowledge that they have a wallet (an actual comparison made by the Court).

The officer stated that he stopped the guy solely on the basis that he was armed, and that is not RAS of a crime.


I think there's a world of difference between this officer and Harless's intentions/conduct. Perhaps the words are similar but I have a lot more trust in this officer insofar as belief in 2A rights and as a mature human being able to police his community in a responsible, professional manner.

So, you are okay with an officer saying that he would shoot you just because you walked into a gas station while armed?

[LittleLebowski]

So, you are okay with an officer saying that he would shoot you just because you walked into a gas station while armed?

I believe that in the manner delivered, one was a threat born out of fear, and the other was an attempt to impart to a foolish person the gravity of the situation. Harless has a history of death threats and I'd lay money on the other officer not having a history of death threats. The other officer's attempt to educate the OC fool about how silly his actions were impressed me greatly and what's more, was delivered in a calm and even tone unlike Harless' hysterics.

I cannot speak as to how an officer should conduct themselves in black and white as these two cases show how similar words (on paper) can be delivered in entirely different ways and used for different ends.

[hufnagel]

I'm going to have to dissent on the consensus here and state the cop did a poor job handling the situation. He let is personal predjudices surrounding open carry cloud his judgement and handling of the incident at the outset. There was also his commentary about fishing for an excuse to arrest them. Thinking it is bad enough.... voicing it is worse.

[jlw]

I believe that in the manner delivered, one was a threat born out of fear, and the other was an attempt to impart to a foolish person the gravity of the situation. Harless has a history of death threats and I'd lay money on the other officer not having a history of death threats. The other officer's attempt to educate the OC fool about how silly his actions were impressed me greatly and what's more, was delivered in a calm and even tone unlike Harless' hysterics.

I cannot speak as to how an officer should conduct themselves in black and white as these two cases show how similar words (on paper) can be delivered in entirely different ways and used for different ends.

So, you are okay with someone threatening to shoot you in the head when you are carrying out a perfectly legal act as long as the threat is born out of fear?

These aren't words on paper. They are real time audio-video. In both cases, the respective individuals threatened to murder citizens. One did it in a tirade. One did it calmly. They both committed the same overt act and should face the same end result.

[BaiHu]

I'm not a cop, but it seemed like he responded due to calls of concerned citizens. As for his "capping" someone at a gas station, I think he was making an analogy as to how would people respond to a guy posturing or making a bee line towards a business with a rifle slung on his shoulder. IE at what point does a 2A OC guy start to look like a guy ready to pull a Hollywood shootout?

If the cop was out of line, this is the type of "out of line" I find acceptable as a citizen unless someone could convince me otherwise.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

I'm not a cop, but it seemed like he responded due to calls of concerned citizens. As for his "capping" someone at a gas station, I think he was making an analogy as to how would people respond to a guy posturing or making a bee line towards a business with a rifle slung on his shoulder. IE at what point does a 2A OC guy start to look like a guy ready to pull a Hollywood shootout?

If the cop was out of line, this is the type of "out of line" I find acceptable as a citizen unless someone could convince me otherwise.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So, it's okay to threaten to murder people carrying out a legal act as long as it is part of an analogy?

[jlw]

Folks, his sole articulation for the stop was that the guy was armed, pure and simple. He even states that he would kill the guy for his being armed, pure and simple.

Now, let me get this straight here, a group of practicing gun-toters is okay with being armed, held at gunpoint, and threatened with their own murder simply for being armed, because that is what is being written in a lot of the post here.

The even tone of the officer and the face that his non-murderous statements tend to mirror what the majority here believes does not change the fact that he is threatening to kill someone purely for being armed.

[joshs]

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no firearms exception to the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that knowledge that a person is armed is no different that knowledge that they have a wallet (an actual comparison made by the Court).

The officer stated that he stopped the guy solely on the basis that he was armed, and that is not RAS of a crime.

While that is true in this case, it isn't a crime to open carry in Wisconsin, in many states where it is illegal to carry and a permit is an affirmative defense, like Georgia, an officer has full probable cause when he sees a person carrying a firearm.

[BLR]

Thought better of my comment.

Carry on.

[BaiHu]

So, it's okay to threaten to murder people carrying out a legal act as long as it is part of an analogy?

If I was walking around with a rifle slung around my shoulder, pacing back and forth on a street, I would be surprised if a cop didn't roll up on me and at least ask me what's up.

Put another way, if a guy was walking up and down my street similarly, I'd call the cops and have him questioned. It's not like this kid was walking in a rural farm area where he could be hunting.

As the officer correctly stated, "just because it's legal doesn't mean it makes sense." Put the wrong concealed carry person at dis-ease and they're liable to shoot you for open carrying near their business.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

While that is true in this case, it isn't a crime to open carry in Wisconsin, in many states where it is illegal to carry and a permit is an affirmative defense, like Georgia, an officer has full probable cause when he sees a person carrying a firearm.

First, that is not the law in GA as in the 2010 revamp of GA's carry laws the legislature specifically stipulates that carrying without a GWCL was an element of the crime of carrying without a license rather that the license being an affirmative defense.

Second, OC clearly isn't illegal where this took place as the guy was not arrested. Note that the officer even tried to determine if he had PC for an arrest on being within one of the 1000 foot zones, which he apparently wasn't.

The working definition of probable cause is the facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable an prudent person when using all of their senses to believe that a crime has been committed by the suspected person. Even in a state with notify laws, merely being armed would not be RAS or PC of a crime unless the person failed to notify after being LEGALLY stopped. The mere presence of a firearm without other intervening factors is not RAS or PC of a stop.

[jlw]

If I was walking around with a rifle slung around my shoulder, pacing back and forth on a street, I would be surprised if a cop didn't roll up on me and at least ask me what's up.

Put another way, if a guy was walking up and down my street similarly, I'd call the cops and have him questioned. It's not like this kid was walking in a rural farm area where he could be hunting.

As the officer correctly stated, "just because it's legal doesn't mean it makes sense." Put the wrong concealed carry person at dis-ease and they're liable to shoot you for open carrying near their business.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

There is a huge legal distinction between that of asking someone what is up and that of a show of authority to seize a person. The Court makes a distinction between these two as Tier 1 and Tier 2 encounters.

A Tier 1 encounter would be the officer easing up and something along the lines of "Sir, I see you are carrying a firearm. Would you please show me your ID?"

That is much different that three units with weapons drawn and threats of head shots.

So, I ask, if you are legally carrying, and somebody spots you and calls 911, are you okay with the officers showing up with weapons drawn and threatening to shoot you in the head?

[joshs]

First, that is not the law in GA as in the 2010 revamp of GA's carry laws the legislature specifically stipulates that carrying without a GWCL was an element of the crime of carrying without a license rather that the license being an affirmative defense.

Second, OC clearly isn't illegal where this took place as the guy was not arrested. Note that the officer even tried to determine if he had PC for an arrest on being within one of the 1000 foot zones, which he apparently wasn't.

The working definition of probable cause is the facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable an prudent person when using all of their senses to believe that a crime has been committed by the suspected person. Even in a state with notify laws, merely being armed would not be RAS or PC of a crime unless the person failed to notify after being LEGALLY stopped. The mere presence of a firearm without other intervening factors is not RAS or PC of a stop.

Sorry, I forgot that GA specifically adopted that not having a permit is an element of the offense.

It isn't a question of a "notify" statute, many states draft their concealed carry laws as a prohibition with the permit as an affirmative offense. In these state, where an officer notices someone carrying a concealed firearm he would have PC (he sees the person carrying a concealed firearm, which is prohibited by state law).

Note that I'm not arguing that this should be the law. In fact, I think this is one of the better justifications for constitutional/permitless carry.

[jlw]

Sorry, I forgot that GA specifically adopted that not having a permit is an element of the offense.

It isn't a question of a "notify" statute, many states draft their concealed carry laws as a prohibition with the permit as an affirmative offense. In these state, where an officer notices someone carrying a concealed firearm he would have PC (he sees the person carrying a concealed firearm, which is prohibited by state law).

Note that I'm not arguing that this should be the law. In fact, I think this is one of the better justifications for constitutional/permitless carry.

I do not agree that an officer spotting someone carrying a firearm in and of itself constituting PC for a stop, and neither does the Supreme Court of the United States.

[jmcrawf1]

I do not agree that an officer spotting someone carrying a firearm in and of itself constituting PC for a stop, and neither does the Supreme Court of the United States.

You're interchangeable use of the words probable cause and reasonable suspicion make me question your working knowledge of what you are talking about.

Furthermore, the officer articulated a more detailed, thought out reason than being a man with a gun. His training, experiences, coupled with current events makes it reasonable to think that a person open carrying a long rifle is indicative of a imminent active shooter threat. We don't live in a vacuum and had an officer did the same thing prior to columbine, newtown, aurora, etc they would be praised by the community.

RS is required for a stop. Everyday. THAT is what's outlined by terry v ohio. RS is those articulable facts that an officer believes a crime is, is about, or has been committed. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but terry v ohio allows the officer to make a stop and resolve an ambiguous situation. The officer never had pc. If he did, someone could go to jail. PC is required for ARREST, not a stop. PC of a traffic violation can trigger a traffic stop but that is a different scenario and is not a "terry stop."

You are throwing the 4th amendment stuff around all willy nilly. What you saw was a pro-2nd amendment police officer doing good, effective and legal police work. I for one would commend him on a job well done.

[joshs]

You're interchangeable use of the words probable cause and reasonable suspicion make me question your working knowledge of what you are talking about.

Furthermore, the officer articulated a more detailed, thought out reason than being a man with a gun. His training, experiences, coupled with current events makes it reasonable to think that a person open carrying a long rifle is indicative of a imminent active shooter threat. We don't live in a vacuum and had an officer did the same thing prior to columbine, newtown, aurora, etc they would be praised by the community.

RS is required for a stop. Everyday. THAT is what's outlined by terry v ohio. RS is those articulable facts that an officer believes a crime is, is about, or has been committed. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but terry v ohio allows the officer to make a stop and resolve an ambiguous situation. The officer never had pc. If he did, someone could go to jail. PC is required for ARREST, not a stop. PC of a traffic violation can trigger a traffic stop but that is a different scenario and is not a "terry stop."

You are throwing the 4th amendment stuff around all willy nilly. What you saw was a pro-2nd amendment police officer doing good, effective and legal police work. I for one would commend him on a job well done.

First, based on multiple dicussions on p-f, I would say that jlw has a pretty good grasp on 4A law.

Second, I introduced PC, not jlw. And, I even further confused the discussion by addressing state laws that are not similar to those in question.

Third, what articulable facts exist where a person is open carrying in a jurisdiction where open carry is not illegal to justify a Terry stop.

[Tamara]

Folks, his sole articulation for the stop was that the guy was armed...

You are absolutely correct on this issue, of course.

Is there a level of contact you would consider appropriate for one of your officers noticing someone was openly carrying a long gun in a place or manner where it wasn't illegal, but was unusual?

[jlw]

You're interchangeable use of the words probable cause and reasonable suspicion make me question your working knowledge of what you are talking about.

Furthermore, the officer articulated a more detailed, thought out reason than being a man with a gun. His training, experiences, coupled with current events makes it reasonable to think that a person open carrying a long rifle is indicative of a imminent active shooter threat. We don't live in a vacuum and had an officer did the same thing prior to columbine, newtown, aurora, etc they would be praised by the community.

RS is required for a stop. Everyday. THAT is what's outlined by terry v ohio. RS is those articulable facts that an officer believes a crime is, is about, or has been committed. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but terry v ohio allows the officer to make a stop and resolve an ambiguous situation. The officer never had pc. If he did, someone could go to jail. PC is required for ARREST, not a stop. PC of a traffic violation can trigger a traffic stop but that is a different scenario and is not a "terry stop."

You are throwing the 4th amendment stuff around all willy nilly. What you saw was a pro-2nd amendment police officer doing good, effective and legal police work. I for one would commend him on a job well done.

I am not interchanging the terms.

I am stating that he didn't have RAS nor PC. If you watch the video, he states as much as he says he is stopping the guy because his carrying a gun and then makes a general statement of "in this day and age" and active shooters. He stopped the guy solely due to fact that he is armed.

RAS: The facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent peace officer based on his knowledge training and experience that criminal activity is afoot. Cases references are Terry v. Ohio, Ornelas v. U.S., and U.S. v Arvizu.


PC: The facts and circumstances that would a reasonable and prudent person when using all of their senses to belief that a crime has been committed by the suspected person.

Terry states that an officer must have specific and articulable facts and more than that of a hunch. I see a clear distinction between this stop and the recent case in CA where the Deputy observed an individual dressed in gang clothing in an area known for gang activity where there had been several recent shootings involving the very type of weapon that it appeared the individual was carrying. That is RAS. A guy merely walking down the street with a slung rifle, with no other articulable facts, is not. The officer did not articulate anything that made him believe the armed individual was involved in actual criminal activity, and in fact, he asserted, "I think I know what is going on here." to the contrary.


Just to provide you with a little of my background, January will be 15 years on the job, the last five as Chief Deputy. I am on faculty of two colleges teaching criminal justice and political science.

[jlw]

You are absolutely correct on this issue, of course.

Is there a level of contact you would consider appropriate for one of your officers noticing someone was openly carrying a long gun in a place or manner where it wasn't illegal, but was unusual?


Sure, a Tier 1 (consensual/no seizure) contact would be completely appropriate.

[BaiHu]

jlw and folks in the know:

When I heard the video, the stop was caused by a citizen calling about the OC guys. Is this RAS or PC for a stop, I don't know and am deferring to those who do. Second, I also heard the officer getting info about the guy over the radio, b/c he's a usual suspect in what sounded like previous OC/disturbing the peace trolling by these guys. I'd say the officer was way cooler than cops I have seen in other OC trolling video stops.

However, as a citizen in a communist state (NJ) this officer was incredibly cooler than cops have been to me for basic stops (in my white bread suburbia) like "you were planning to make a left turn out of a no left turn driveway, weren't you?" I kid you not.



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

[jlw]

Clarifying questions for the crowd:

Are you okay with being stopped, with stopped meaning show of authority/you are seized and not free to go, merely on the sole fact that you are carrying a firearm?

Do you believe that the fact that active shootings have occurred automatically makes any armed person to be reasonably considered to be in the act of undertaking an active shooting?

[JR1572]

I am not interchanging the terms.

I am stating that he didn't have RAS nor PC. If you watch the video, he states as much as he says he is stopping the guy because his carrying a gun and then makes a general statement of "in this day and age" and active shooters. He stopped the guy solely due to fact that he is armed.

RAS: The facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent peace officer based on his knowledge training and experience that criminal activity is afoot. Cases references are Terry v. Ohio, Ornelas v. U.S., and U.S. v Arvizu.


PC: The facts and circumstances that would a reasonable and prudent person when using all of their senses to belief that a crime has been committed by the suspected person.

Terry states that an officer must have specific and articulable facts and more than that of a hunch. I see a clear distinction between this stop and the recent case in CA where the Deputy observed an individual dressed in gang clothing in an area known for gang activity where there had been several recent shootings involving the very type of weapon that it appeared the individual was carrying. That is RAS. A guy merely walking down the street with a slung rifle, with no other articulable facts, is not. The officer did not articulate anything that made him believe the armed individual was involved in actual criminal activity, and in fact, he asserted, "I think I know what is going on here." to the contrary.


Just to provide you with a little of my background, January will be 15 years on the job, the last five as Chief Deputy. I am on faculty of two colleges teaching criminal justice and political science.


jlw and folks in the know:

When I heard the video, the stop was caused by a citizen calling about the OC guys. Is this RAS or PC for a stop, I don't know and am deferring to those who do. Second, I also heard the officer getting info about the guy over the radio, b/c he's a usual suspect in what sounded like previous OC/disturbing the peace trolling by these guys. I'd say the officer was way cooler than cops I have seen in other OC trolling video stops.

However, as a citizen in a communist state (NJ) this officer was incredibly cooler than cops have been to me for basic stops (in my white bread suburbia) like "you were planning to make a left turn out of a no left turn driveway, weren't you?" I kid you not.



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

Was the stop officer initiated or a result of a call for service?

I'm confused now by the above quoted posts.

JR1572

[jlw]

jlw and folks in the know:

When I heard the video, the stop was caused by a citizen calling about the OC guys. Is this RAS or PC for a stop, I don't know and am deferring to those who do. Second, I also heard the officer getting info about the guy over the radio, b/c he's a usual suspect in what sounded like previous OC/disturbing the peace trolling by these guys. I'd say the officer was way cooler than cops I have seen in other OC trolling video stops.

However, as a citizen in a communist state (NJ) this officer was incredibly cooler than cops have been to me for basic stops (in my white bread suburbia) like "you were planning to make a left turn out of a no left turn driveway, weren't you?" I kid you not.



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

No. See Florida v. J.L. and U.S. v. Ubilies.

I suspect that the guy was a known quantity in the area.

[jlw]

Was the stop officer initiated or a result of a call for service?

I'm confused now by the above quoted posts.

JR1572

Doesn't matter legally, but I believe the officer did reference a call.

[KeeFus]

Was the stop officer initiated or a result of a call for service?

I'm confused now by the above quoted posts.

JR1572

Contact officer says they "received a complaint about you guys".

[JR1572]

Doesn't matter legally, but I believe the officer did reference a call.

Let's play pretend Chief:

I work for you and respond to that call. If I have no grounds to stop him and I do, what punishment would you give me?

Furthermore, I respond to that call, and do nothing because I have no reason to legally stop the person. Then the person who called in the complaint calls back and makes a beef about me doing nothing because I didn't stop the guy. What punishment would you give me?

JR1572

[JR1572]

Contact officer says they "received a complaint about you guys".

I've stopped thousands of people in my career. Some people get the truth why I stop them, some don't. Sometimes the truth would compromise a bigger, ongoing investigation. Think about that...

JR1572

[jlw]

Anyone else note the comment at the end by the officer...

"What an opportunity to learn."

Anyone else note that it had a hint of a giggle to it?

Anyone else think that maybe they have had some incidents with the "OC educates people about their rights" crowd, and that maybe the opportunity was seized upon?

[KeeFus]

I've stopped thousands of people in my career. Some people get the truth why I stop them, some don't. Sometimes the truth would compromise a bigger, ongoing investigation. Think about that...

JR1572

Touché.

[BaiHu]

Anyone else note the comment at the end by the officer...

"What an opportunity to learn."

Anyone else note that it had a hint of a giggle to it?

Anyone else think that maybe they have had some incidents with the "OC educates people about their rights" crowd, and that maybe the opportunity was seized upon?

That's where I was going with my comments. In my mind, this was more of a Deniro and Pacino in the diner scene in Heat than it was anything else. Sorry if that was a bit of an overkill analogy, but you get my point, right?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

Let's play pretend Chief:

I work for you and respond to that call. If I have no grounds to stop him and I do, what punishment would you give me?

Furthermore, I respond to that call, and do nothing because I have no reason to legally stop the person. Then the person who called in the complaint calls back and makes a beef about me doing nothing because I didn't stop the guy. What punishment would you give me?

JR1572

If you stopped a person without proper legal authority to do so, you would face disciplinary action commensurate with your employment history to that point and whether or not your doing so was a result of a lack of training and understanding of law or whether or not it was based in a willful disregard of the law. If it was the latter, the result would be a termination. If it was a willful disregard of the law along with a threat of murder, not only would I fire you, I would prosecute you for a violation of your oath of office, a felony in my state.

If in your second scenario, our policy is that if the Deputy does not observe any RAS of criminal activity they are to meet with the complainant and explain that they had no legal justification to stop the person.

[jlw]

That's where I was going with my comments. In my mind, this was more of a Deniro and Pacino in the diner scene in Heat than it was anything else. Sorry if that was a bit of an overkill analogy, but you get my point, right?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Pacino turned on the cop lights and seized Deniro... ;)

In this case, the officer blew his air horn at the individual and ordered him to stop... and then threatened to shoot him in the head. This was a Tier 2 encounter all the way. The individual was not free to decline the contact, and he was not free to go.

[JR1572]

If you stopped a person without proper legal authority to do so, you would face disciplinary action commensurate with your employment history to that point and whether or not your doing so was a result of a lack of training and understanding of law or whether or not it was based in a willful disregard of the law. If it was the latter, the result would be a termination. If it was a willful disregard of the law along with a threat of murder, not only would I fire you, I would prosecute you for a violation of your oath of office, a felony in my state.

If in your second scenario, our policy is that if the Deputy does not observe any RAS of criminal activity they are to meet with the complainant and explain that they had no legal justification to stop the person.

Chief, what state are you in and what size is your agency? Furthermore, what is the population of your jurisdiction and how is the crime rate? You can PM me that info if you don't want to post it here.

I truly believe that there may be factors involved in the stop that we may not have know or pick up on from just watching the video.

Also, this guy has been stopped before? Is he a habitual OC troll?

JR1572

[BaiHu]

Also, this guy has been stopped before? Is he a habitual OC troll?

JR1572

That was the impression I got.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

Chief, what state are you in and what size is your agency? Furthermore, what is the population of your jurisdiction and how is the crime rate? You can PM me that info if you don't want to post it here.

I truly believe that there may be factors involved in the stop that we may not have know or pick up on from just watching the video.

Also, this guy has been stopped before? Is he a habitual OC troll?

JR1572

I am currently the Chief Deputy of the Oconee County Georgia Sheriff's Office. Our census population is 32k or thereabouts. The agency has 91 total personnel. Our crime rate is EXTREMELY low, and we are proud of it.

My previous 10 years were a bit different. I have also been known to play on a task force from time to time getting into some very different areas than my current digs.

Regardless, the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings apply equally.

---

As to the last question, this is entirely speculation on my part, but the whole thing reads to me that they knew what if not who they were stopping. Again, this is just speculation on my part, and I stand ready to be corrected.

[Lon]

Regardless, the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings apply equally.

---

As to the last question, this is entirely speculation on my part, but the whole thing reads to me that they knew what if not who they were stopping. Again, this is just speculation on my part, and I stand ready to be corrected.

This.

If they did know this guy because he had been stopped before, that makes the situation worse, if you ask me. Presumably, they would know that he: a) was legally allowed to own firearms and b) he's not doing anything illegal.

I wasn't able to watch the video since I couldn't get it to play on my iPhone. If he wants to talk to the guy without threatening him and without "stopping" him, there are plenty of ways he could have handled this. As a trainer for my agency, I would be very critical of any of my guys who handled an OC stop like what is described here. My guys are trained to follow the Constitutional guidelines handed down by SCOTUS and the lower courts as applicable. They are trained essentially the same way Chief JLW described how his guys should handle this encounter.

And if it matters, I work for an agency near Dayton, OH. 25-30+k people depending on whether colleges are in session. 46 sworn. Certified by the State of Ohio to teach the legal block (among other topics) in the Basic Police academy.

[Shellback]

So, you are okay with someone threatening to shoot you in the head when you are carrying out a perfectly legal act as long as the threat is born out of fear?
Nope.

So, it's okay to threaten to murder people carrying out a legal act as long as it is part of an analogy?
Nope.

Folks, his sole articulation for the stop was that the guy was armed, pure and simple. He even states that he would kill the guy for his being armed, pure and simple.

Now, let me get this straight here, a group of practicing gun-toters is okay with being armed, held at gunpoint, and threatened with their own murder simply for being armed, because that is what is being written in a lot of the post here.

The even tone of the officer and the face that his non-murderous statements tend to mirror what the majority here believes does not change the fact that he is threatening to kill someone purely for being armed.
Well said.

I do not agree that an officer spotting someone carrying a firearm in and of itself constituting PC for a stop, and neither does the Supreme Court of the United States.
Good info.

I am on faculty of two colleges teaching criminal justice and political science.
I'd love to attend your classes, seriously.

[BaiHu]

I guess this newb/citizen's question remains: when does one officer draw the line between letter of the law and "keeping the peace"? Specifically when you're trying to keep the peace between OC guy and missus freak out?

For the record, I'd love to have cops like jlw in my area, but I guess I'm used to seeing such picayune police work in my area that this guy seemed like a peach to me :-P

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[JR1572]

I am currently the Chief Deputy of the Oconee County Georgia Sheriff's Office. Our census population is 32k or thereabouts. The agency has 91 total personnel. Our crime rate is EXTREMELY low, and we are proud of it.

My previous 10 years were a bit different. I have also been known to play on a task force from time to time getting into some very different areas than my current digs.

Regardless, the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings apply equally.

Thanks for answering my question.

The agency I work for (Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office) has over 1,500 employees and our Parish has a population of over 433,000. We only had 33 murders in the parish last year. Our neighbor Orleans Parish (New Orleans) has a population of 370,000 and had 193 murders in 2012.

I'm aware of the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings.

I'm also aware that OC'ers are doing this stuff for attention and to get a quick pay day. Sooner or later one of the freedom loving OC'ers are going to get stopped by an inexperienced LEO and neither will back down resulting in someone getting shot and/or killed. I know that they cannot be stopped OC'ing just for OC'ing. If they knew this guy was one of their OC regulars, they should have never stopped him for just OC'ing. If they had a legal reason to stop him, then by all means stop him.

JR1572

[Lon]

I guess this newb/citizen's question remains: when does one officer draw the line between letter of the law and "keeping the peace"? Specifically when you're trying to keep the peace between OC guy and missus freak out?


The line is simple. "Keeping the peace" cannot/should not cross the line into infringing on someone's rights. Telling a caller or complainant "sir/ma'am, I realize you wanted us to do .......; however, that would be a violation of their rights" is a perfectly satisfactory response. A trap many officers (New and old) fall into is this - "somebody called and complained, so I've got to do something. Don't I?" Not always.

Not everyone is going to be happy. The way I look at it, as long as I follow the law and keep to my oath, people can be unhappy. If the only way to keep a caller/complainant happy is to violate someone else's rights, too bad. Complain to my Chief.

[BaiHu]

Damn! I'd rather be policed by you guys while doing something wrong than some of the guys in NJ while doing something right.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[jlw]

Thanks for answering my question.

The agency I work for (Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office) has over 1,500 employees and our Parish has a population of over 433,000. We only had 33 murders in the parish last year. Our neighbor Orleans Parish (New Orleans) has a population of 370,000 and had 193 murders in 2012.

I'm aware of the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings.

I'm also aware that OC'ers are doing this stuff for attention and to get a quick pay day. Sooner or later one of the freedom loving OC'ers are going to get stopped by an inexperienced LEO and neither will back down resulting in someone getting shot and/or killed. I know that they cannot be stopped OC'ing just for OC'ing. If they knew this guy was one of their OC regulars, they should have never stopped him for just OC'ing. If they had a legal reason to stop him, then by all means stop him.

JR1572

I'm familiar with Jefferson Parish. I have a buddy who is a Deputy there.

---

I would agree that it is likely that a clash between the OC crowd and the cops who don't know how to handle it will end up in a shooting.

I teach a class designed specifically around the issue of search and seizure and carry issues. I usually get brought in just after an agency has had an ugly incident. Some of the sessions get pretty sporty.

[jlw]

The line is simple. "Keeping the peace" cannot/should not cross the line into infringing on someone's rights. Telling a caller or complainant "sir/ma'am, I realize you wanted us to do .......; however, that would be a violation of their rights" is a perfectly satisfactory response. A trap many officers (New and old) fall into is this - "somebody called and complained, so I've got to do something. Don't I?" Not always.

Not everyone is going to be happy. The way I look at it, as long as I follow the law and keep to my oath, people can be unhappy. If the only way to keep a caller/complainant happy is to violate someone else's rights, too bad. Complain to my Chief.


Amen, especially on the call = action thing.

[Tamara]

Clarifying questions for the crowd:

Are you okay with being stopped, with stopped meaning show of authority/you are seized and not free to go, merely on the sole fact that you are carrying a firearm?

If the po-po in Indiana see me carrying a handgun, they have the right to inquire as to my legality to tote such. Thanks to a well-intentioned-but-incompetent piece of lawmaking, I have no legal requirement to actually carry my LTCH on my person, which could lead to fun and games (http://www.usacarry.com/forums/indiana-discussion-firearm-news/24203-indiana-law-regarding-leo-demand-see-ppp-2.html#post347103) in the short term.

[MDS]

I live in a great neighborhood. Before I moved in, my wife and I, with the kids in the back, drove around quite a bit, scoping it out. At one point I was pulled over for "going substantially under the limit." There was no traffic, we weren't causing any inconvenience, let alone breaking any law. After running my license and hearing my story, the cop gave us some neighborhood tips and sent us on our way. Did he violate my rights? I don't think so. In fact, I thought if the city pd is bored enough to stop folks for going too slow, that's a good quiet place to live.

By contrast, in my old neighborhood I had the pd searching for a young black male, dressed in black jeans and a black (you guessed it) hoodie, walking the sidewalks and hiding behind bushes when people went by. They found him, stopped him, asked him to go home, and followed him until he left the area. Did the cops violate his rights? I don't think so. In fact, it made me feel safer, though it didn't stop the rash of property crime and a drive-by murder in the 3-block radius during my time there.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not sketch as kittens. (Not to mention dumb.)

ETA: I'll borrow BaiHu's excuse - I may be very desensitized to poor policing, maybe enough to make me a little too comfortable. In any case, I would certainly prefer that cops shy away from depicting murder (justified or not) when "educating" folks during any kind of stop...

[JAD]

. Did he violate my rights? . Did the cops violate his rights?...
In the first case, if I'm following JLW properly (and I'm trying, because huge fan), it sounds like a tier 1 rather than 2 (or v/v) response. They didn't draw down on you and you were free to go. No bad.

In the second case, it sure sounds like he got run out of the neighborhood for being black.

[fixer]

JLW--thanks very much for your informative posts.

[KeeFus]

I've stopped thousands of people in my career. Some people get the truth why I stop them, some don't. Sometimes the truth would compromise a bigger, ongoing investigation. Think about that...

JR1572

The guy who was OC'ing was able to get a copy of the 911 call. The agency in question is the Neenah, Wisconsin PD.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shjIAfUQ-Zo

[Lon]

Ok. Finally watched the video (at least the first five minutes of it). I'm firmly with the Chief on this one. In the proper setting, telling someone that you'll shoot them in the head can be completely justified. In this setting it is not. Fear cannot be a justification for violating someone's rights or in using force (or threatening to do so) against someone.

Listening to the caller and watching the first five minutes of video showed me this is a case of, "somebody called, so we gotta do something".

[MDS]

JLW--thanks very much for your informative posts.

+1 - I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. Maybe you can help? I get the idea of letting the caller know there's nothing you can do....is there any level of questioning the cop in the OP could have done with the oc'er? Maybe just ask if everything's ok, let him know someone called about a suspicious character and ask if he's seen anything?

And if a caller describes a suspicious person walking slowly, looking around, and hiding in bushes, is it ok to question that guy in any way?

If not, it sure sounds like cops have to wait until a crime is more or less in progress before becoming involved in any way. If so, what's the value of patrolling?

Honest questions...thanks again!

[BaiHu]

What mariodsantana said :-D

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[MDS]

In the second case, it sure sounds like he got run out of the neighborhood for being black.

Plenty of black folks live in the neighborhood, including my neighbor who showed security camera footage. The responding officer was black. I'm either hispanic with two Cuban parents, or white as the driven snow, depending on how you read the zman fiasco. ;) Race wasn't a factor.

In a 3-block radius with weekly property crimes ranging from car smash-and-grabs to b&e to finding my truck up on blocks one fine morning, someone was dressed in black, hiding from view, and generally acting like a thief. What are neighborhood patrols for, if not to investigate that kind of behavior?

Also, maybe this should be a different thread, we're not really discussing the OP...

[Lon]

+1 - I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. Maybe you can help? I get the idea of letting the caller know there's nothing you can do....is there any level of questioning the cop in the OP could have done with the oc'er? Maybe just ask if everything's ok, let him know someone called about a suspicious character and ask if he's seen anything?

And if a caller describes a suspicious person walking slowly, looking around, and hiding in bushes, is it ok to question that guy in any way?

If not, it sure sounds like cops have to wait until a crime is more or less in progress before becoming involved in any way. If so, what's the value of patrolling?

Honest questions...thanks again!

I'll take a whack at explaining all if this.

As a LEO, I can walk up to anyone in a public place and strike up a conversation with them. Whether or not they want to continue the conversation is up to them. If they tell me they don't want to talk , then on their way they go. Its called a consensual encounter. What I cannot do is actually restrain their freedom of movement and "stop " them without the RAS that Terry v. Ohio describes. Facts that can be articulated. Not hunches or suspicions. Facts.

Walking down the street doing any legal activity; however offensive or alarming it may be to someone, does not rise to the level of RAS. Some states have laws regarding open carry which would allow the police to detain someone open Carrying a firearm. Wisconsin apparently does not. Neither does Ohio. There is no more justification to stop these guys than there would be to stop one of the Westboro Baptist douches.

Depending on the encounter, what started as a consensual encounter can evolve into a stop based on RAS, then into a pat down based on RAS, then into PC for a search and then into an arrest. The mark of a good cop is to know how to work your way through the different type stops seemlessly. Most cops get the obvious PC parts down pat. It is the. RAS stops and consensual encounters that give them problems. Rookie cops especially.

Florida v JL dealt more with anonymous complaints than it did the firearms exception. As an officer , I have to understand that I might not be able to stop someone based on an anonymous call. A call from a person who can later be identified carries more weight. A guy that is hiding in the bushes or doing some other articulable suspicious behavior, can be stopped and questioned. So patrolling and responding to a call is somewhat of an art form. If you look at the RAS and PC standards, have you noticed there are different target "audiences". RAS deals with a reasonable OFFICER, PC deals with a reasonable and prudent PERSON. Because the courts realize that an officer may have a better understanding on what is actually suspicious about a set of facts.

[BaiHu]

Thanks for all of the education guys!

[WobblyPossum]

Near the beginning of the video, the officer says something along the lines of "I'm pretty sure I know what this is," implying that he already believes OC-political-activist dude is an OC-political-activist dude. That sounds to me like he believes there isn't any RAS for the stop, since he implies that he knows no crime is being committed. He then proceeds to detain OC-political-activist dude at gunpoint. I'm with JLW on this. He violated OC-political-activist dude's rights.

[MDS]

Awesome, that makes it pretty clear. thanks!

[KeeFus]

Thanks for all of the education guys!

Agreed! Awesome discussion.

[jlw]

I know this will absolutely shock you guys, but I wrote an article (http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/apparently-tone-does-make-a-difference/) about concerning this...

[Totem Polar]

Clearly, there is more going on here than I had previously thought. I too appreciate the education, and am following in full on sponge mode. Good discussion, indeed.

[BaiHu]

I know this will absolutely shock you guys, but I wrote an article (http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/apparently-tone-does-make-a-difference/) about concerning this...

Thanks jlw!

[LittleLebowski]

So, I thought about JLW said and while I'm still happy with how the officer spoke about the detrimental effects of OC of this type and personally, threats of possible death don't bother me all that much (upbringing, Marine Corps, whatever), I do agree that the officer's threats were not called for and unprofessional. I do think that the officer made a good point about the risk of the OC guy being mistaken for an active shooter.

Anyway, JLW made me think and that's a good thing. Thanks, Chief!

[Chuck Haggard]

I'm going to dump this here because the behavior, while it may be legal, certainly ups the anty quite a bit from trolling OC dude in the OP's video;

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/40-gunmen-armed-with-assault-rifles-terrorize-gun-control-group-at-a-texas-restaurant/


and yes, I get that the article has a slant. Take a look at the pic and tell me the first thing that comes to mind.

[BLR]

Take a look at the pic and tell me the first thing that comes to mind.

You don't want to know the first thing that comes to my mind.

[LittleLebowski]

I'm going to dump this here because the behavior, while it may be legal, certainly ups the anty quite a bit from trolling OC dude in the OP's video;

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/40-gunmen-armed-with-assault-rifles-terrorize-gun-control-group-at-a-texas-restaurant/


and yes, I get that the article has a slant. Take a look at the pic and tell me the first thing that comes to mind.

Words fail me. These gun owners in the article are not my people.

[Tamara]

Take a look at the pic and tell me the first thing that comes to mind.

The first thing that comes to mind is that long gun carry in California died in vain.

The second thing is that the ignorant jackweasel Cletii there wouldn't know good PR if you filled a sock with it and beat them to their knees with the sock.

[Chuck Haggard]

You don't want to know the first thing that comes to my mind.

To quote Cowboy at the end of Full Metal Jacket; "I can hack it".

[BLR]

To quote Cowboy at the end of Full Metal Jacket; "I can hack it".

If you want to know....

Hop on a plane to Dayton. I'll provide all the pig, beer, 223, 12ga, 762, and 45 that anyone can shoot (no 9, because I don't want to go to hell). So long as you can teach me how to run my pump-gun. I wanna run my 870 like a pro. That's the deal. We have 5-15 yotes that need killing, steel that needs shooting, and a hog that needs eatin'. Bring your bivy, cause I live like a bachelor.

[BaiHu]

First thought was: hey, are those guys about to enter the mall in Kenya and help all of those people?? Derp!

Great move OCT, great move :mad:

[RoyGBiv]

Before you get TOOOO uptight, here's the same shot from the front side..

http://truthaboutguns.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-11-at-8.12.33-AM.png

Do I agree with how they are trying to make their point? No.
But that first photo looks more like an ambush than the group photo that it actually was.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/dozens-armed-tea-party-terrorists-threaten-moms-gun-violence/

[BaiHu]

Nice find Roy! Once again MPGIW (drop the 'P' this time) :p

[Shellback]

I'm going to dump this here because the behavior, while it may be legal, certainly ups the anty quite a bit from trolling OC dude in the OP's video;

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/40-gunmen-armed-with-assault-rifles-terrorize-gun-control-group-at-a-texas-restaurant/


and yes, I get that the article has a slant. Take a look at the pic and tell me the first thing that comes to mind.

http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1450087_259654107516788_265370913_n.png

[Tamara]

Before you get TOOOO uptight, here's the same shot from the front side..

I assumed they were posing for a selfie in the original picture, since it's the only logical reason for the kneelers in front.

It doesn't change the fact that they know what the windows on the short bus taste like. When my enemy's trying to paint me with bad publicity, I don't dip the brush for him.


BUT ONE IS GOOD FOR ANTI-GUN PR

If you don't think the bottom picture of the Special-Ed SWAT team posing with their TAPCOed-out SKS's in a suburban strip mall parking lot is just as good for anti-gun PR as the top one, you are not paying attention to the zeitgeist, baby.

[RoyGBiv]

I assumed they were posing for a selfie in the original picture, since it's the only logical reason for the kneelers in front.

It doesn't change the fact that they know what the windows on the short bus taste like. When my enemy's trying to paint me with bad publicity, I don't dip the brush for him.

There's been a lot of buzz about "intimidation" re: that first photo.
Not all of the internets possess your unblinded eyesight.

[Tamara]

There's been a lot of buzz about "intimidation" re: that first photo.

ProTip: To Suzy Soccer Mom sitting in the restaurant, the bottom photo is just as "intimidating" as the top one.

Remember: The bottom photo is what the people in the restaurant SAW, and they still called the cops.

I have a question. Since they outnumbered the anti-gun people inside by ten-to-one, how would they have been any less effective as a demonstration if they'd been carrying signs rather than guns?

[Shellback]

If you don't think the bottom picture of the Special-Ed SWAT team posing with their TAPCOed-out SKS's in a suburban strip mall parking lot is just as good for anti-gun PR as the top one, you are not paying attention to the zeitgeist, baby.

I didn't make it, just posted it. I was just trying to show the actual full photo versus what the anti-gun people are salivating over.

[Tamara]

I didn't make it, just posted it. I was just trying to show the actual full photo versus what the anti-gun people are salivating over.

I didn't think you made it. I was just trying to point out that whoever did doesn't seem to understand that a bunch of people standing there with ZOMG ASSULT WEPNZ are as scary to the non-gun-nuts from the front as they are the side or the back. People are freaking over the guns, not the poses.

We lose sight of that because we are desensitized to them. I believe repeated instances from CA state law to Starbucks store policy have demonstrated that the way to desensitize people is to take them to the range and take them to the gun store, not take the gun store to them.

[TR675]

We lose sight of that because we are desensitized to them. I believe repeated instances from CA state law to Starbucks store policy have demonstrated that the way to desensitize people is to take them to the range and take them to the gun store, not take the gun store to them.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

[jlw]

Well, the very person who booked me to speak at a conference and teach my Interacting With Armed Citizens class does not agree with me on this case.

The conference isn't going to be awkward at all...

[BLR]

Well, the very person who booked me to speak at a conference and teach my Interacting With Armed Citizens class does not agree with me on this case.

The conference isn't going to be awkward at all...

A little spirited debate never hurt!

[hufnagel]

boy I wish I could sit in on that class.
please tell me you tape them.

[ST911]

Well, the very person who booked me to speak at a conference and teach my Interacting With Armed Citizens class does not agree with me on this case. The conference isn't going to be awkward at all...

Sounds like a conference worth attending then.

[jlw]

A little spirited debate never hurt!

I've done sporty. I was teaching it for a 200+ man agency, and the Sheriff had to stand up, tell his folks that he didn't like some of the stuff that I presented but that he thought that I was right, and that is how they were going to do business. The county attorney was in the room debating against me.

I made sure I was well below the speed limit leaving there.


boy I wish I could sit in on that class.
please tell me you tape them.

I haven't ever taped one, but I might do so if I know I have a good crowd for one.


Sounds like a conference worth attending then.

$60 for four days of training. There is usually a big "name" or two on hand along with a lot of local guys and a couple of armorer classes (Glock, M&P, etc). This year Tiger McKee and one of the guys that helped develop the USMC's Mindhunter program were there. I don't know who the big draw in 2014 is yet. I'll probably end up following some wildly popular dynamic speaker...

[Malamute]

I'd be interested in a copy of a tape of that class, or a similar one on the same subject.

[Shellback]

I haven't ever taped one, but I might do so if I know I have a good crowd for one.

Count me in as being very interested.

[SeriousStudent]

Chief, I would be quite interested as well. I hope you have a safe and interesting conference.

[MDS]

I'd also be interested, I obviously have a lot to learn

[sheriffoconee]

Well, I hope the crowd forgives me this first post in this forum being in this thread, but since the protagonist in the thread is my Chief Deputy I figured I might weigh in. While he sent me a link to this thread, he has no idea I am posting this.
Several of y'all (yes, we are in Georgia) have asked questions he hasn't completely answered so I thought I would clarify a few things.
For instance, IF you apply for a job in our agency, during the initial interview process we ask an applicant to tell us about the differences in Tier 1-2-3 stops, and to explain to us the difference between PC and RAS. Now, we only do this for certified, experienced peace officers. You would be surprised at the failure rate. Some can't even come close, and we tell 'em about it too. IF you don't know the difference between RAS and PC and you are already a peace officer, you can't work for me. IF you don't know how to have a consensual conversation with someone without threatening to shoot them in the head, maybe you outta go back to work at WalMart. Cause you ain't gonna work for me.
Re the video now.
I would have all 4 of those cops standing tall in my office. the contact for his stupid, condescending mouth and the other three cause they let it go on. Here we are, 50 years after McFadden(by stopping Terry) gave us a great tool to go after criminals with, and these boneheads decide to behave in such a threatening and condescending manner to a law abiding, tax paying citizen. Not a ONE of them did anything to stop it.
Anyway, I am through for now, but i will drop by to address any issues that may arise from my first post here. By the way, my name is Scott Berry, I am the Sheriff of Oconee Co Georgia since 1993, with 35 years on the job. I 'spect JLW will vouch for me since he was in Morgan Co today screwing around while I had to work

[TR675]

Well, I hope the crowd forgives me this first post in this forum being in this thread...

Forgiven, and thank you very much for taking the time to post and for your commitment to high standards.

[jlw]

I 'spect JLW will vouch for me since he was in Morgan Co today screwing around while I had to work

It's not my fault the captain wasn't there to provide adult supervision.

[ToddG]

Thanks for chiming in, Sheriff, and thanks for letting us borrow jlw from time to time.

[Totem Polar]

Good stuff...

http://www.dndservices.co.uk/smiley/coke%20and%20popcorn.gif

[sheriffoconee]

I guess y'all get more work out of him than I do. I can't figure out what he does around the office. I am just glad to find where he posts so I know what he is doing

[jlw]

I guess y'all get more work out of him than I do. I can't figure out what he does around the office. I am just glad to find where he posts so I know what he is doing

I spend most of my day trying to keep you out of trouble. It's a good thing I am not paid for my success rate at doing so...

[ToddG]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-lsvqIW_1glA/UkSpSMzIbYI/AAAAAAAAbaA/mFNNETYPiWY/Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.jpg

[sheriffoconee]

True dat, but I should have made you register my account. I had to answer the question "what is the first name of the lead actor of the film Last Action Hero". I had to Google it to find out it was that idiot former Governor of California. I guess I should get out more

[jlw]

True dat, but I should have made you register my account. I had to answer the question "what is the first name of the lead actor of the film Last Action Hero". I had to Google it to find out it was that idiot former Governor of California. I guess I should get out more

No wonder you didn't know who was in that movie. It's a talkie...

[BaiHu]

And this is why I love this forum. Thanks to both of you for chiming, educating and entertaining. As for a tape, I'm in if luck graces us.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[sheriffoconee]

I don't know why y'all want a tape of him droning on about RAS and such. I gotta hear him droning on about all kinds of things. Wakes me up half the time

[BaiHu]

Wait, you two are married :-P

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[sheriffoconee]

Wait, you two are married :-P

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Now THAT was funny. He isn't my type, but we are still friends, but no benefits :(

[BaiHu]

Lol! If he let's you play poker with the guys, I'd say that's a benefit ;-)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[SeriousStudent]

Sheriff, welcome aboard. It's a pleasure to have you and your Chief Deputy here.

Thanks, and stay safe.

[Tamara]

sheriffoconee, I love you, man. :D

I just wish I could vote for you.

[sheriffoconee]

sheriffoconee, I love you, man. :D

I just wish I could vote for you.

You can, you just can't get caught voting' for me. Campaign contributions are always accepted :rolleyes:

[Shellback]

You can, you just can't get caught voting' for me. Campaign contributions are always accepted :rolleyes:

You're a riot! Thanks for your input.

[Tamara]

You can, you just can't get caught voting' for me. Campaign contributions are always accepted :rolleyes:

Heh. :)

This has just thrown me into a funk by reminding me that your brother-in-spirit (http://www.gunsite.com/main/instructors/sheriff-ken-campbell/) one county to the northwest of me is term-limited. :(

[sheriffoconee]

Term limits for a CLEO make no sense at all. I am glad you have local Sheriffs you are proud of.

[ST911]

I haven't ever taped one, but I might do so if I know I have a good crowd for one.

Perhaps you should be on the guest list for Ballistic Radio (sponsored by Kyle's Gun Shop in Finneytown).

Translate operational aspects of the 4A, delineations of RS/PC, for the layman...esp the gun toter.

[LittleLebowski]

Perhaps you should be on the guest list for Ballistic Radio (sponsored by Kyle's Gun Shop in Finneytown).

Translate operational aspects of the 4A, delineations of RS/PC, for the layman...esp the gun toter.

Agreed!

[WobblyPossum]

Perhaps you should be on the guest list for Ballistic Radio (sponsored by Kyle's Gun Shop in Finneytown).

Translate operational aspects of the 4A, delineations of RS/PC, for the layman...esp the gun toter.

I would love to listen to that episode.

[BaiHu]

Ditto!

[LHS]

Perhaps you should be on the guest list for Ballistic Radio (sponsored by Kyle's Gun Shop in Finneytown).

Translate operational aspects of the 4A, delineations of RS/PC, for the layman...esp the gun toter.

This.

[RoyGBiv]

Our next Governor supports OC.
I hope the OC crowd can keep their junk in their pants and not kitten things up before he has a chance to take action.

Abbott calls for 'open carry,' greater privacy protections (http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Abbott-calls-for-open-carry-greater-privacy-protections--231679061.html)

Republican candidate for governor Greg Abbott said Tuesday he supports making it legal to openly carry handguns in public and wants to place stricter limits on state agencies selling personal information from public records.

The Texas attorney general promised that if elected he also would support allowing guns on college campuses. Texas would become the fifth state to make a person's DNA information their personal property under legislation Abbott said he supported during a policy speech to a political rally in Corpus Christi.

It'll be really nice to vote FOR Mr. Abbott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott#Tenure), rather than simply voting against Wendy Davis.

Abbott has described his job as "I go into the office in the morning, I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home."

[Tamara]

Our next Governor supports OC.
I hope the OC crowd can keep their junk in their pants and not kitten things up before he has a chance to take action.

From your lips to God's ears.

[Shellback]

Our next Governor supports OC...

I like the fact that he supports CCW on college campuses as well.

The Texas attorney general promised that if elected he also would support allowing guns on college campuses.

[Totem Polar]

Perhaps you should be on the guest list for Ballistic Radio (sponsored by Kyle's Gun Shop in Finneytown).

Translate operational aspects of the 4A, delineations of RS/PC, for the layman...esp the gun toter.


This.
That.

[jlw]

Y'all probably should talk to the host of the show before inviting me on as a guest. :cool:;):p

[BLR]

Johns easy. He'll have anyone on the show.

[ToddG]

Y'all probably should talk to the host of the show before inviting me on as a guest. :cool:;):p

I think they were talking about the Sheriff. JJ usually only has important people on his show. :cool:

[jlw]

I think they were talking about the Sheriff. JJ usually only has important people on his show. :cool:

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

[RoyGBiv]

I like the fact that he supports CCW on college campuses as well.

The only reason we don't have it today is that it's been killed in committee by a RINO-appointed "D" chairperson the past 2 sessions (2011, 2013). Abbott, and even more directly, the LT Gov, will need to deal with a Congress that has enough D's supporting a RINO speaker that all the speaker needs is a handful of supporters from his own party.. not a big hurdle.

I'm looking forward to an opportunity to ask both Mr. Abbott and the LTG candidates about this in a public forum, hopefully soon (I missed an opportunity in October while traveling).

/OT

[KeeFus]

Y'all probably should talk to the host of the show before inviting me on as a guest. :cool:;):p

It would be a good show! I'd love to get you here to educate 41 others I work with...

Here (http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020090909841) is a "published" opinion from the US District Court in New Mexico which relates to 2A and the 4th A.

And here (http://www.examiner.com/article/alamogordo-police-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit) is where it was settled by Alamogordo, NM PD.

[jlw]

It would be a good show! I'd love to get you here to educate 41 others I work with...

Here (http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020090909841) is a "published" opinion from the US District Court in New Mexico which relates to 2A and the 4th A.

And here (http://www.examiner.com/article/alamogordo-police-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit) is where it was settled by Alamogordo, NM PD.

Would NC POST recognize the class?

[John Ralston]

I think they were talking about the Sheriff. JJ usually only has important people on his show. :cool:

But you were on it... :confused:

[jlw]

But you were on it... :confused:

Twice.

[ToddG]

Twice.

Because I'm doubly important. Or because I often have no plans on Sunday night. Either or...

[KeeFus]

Would NC POST recognize the class?

Training & Standards (http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/831a884b-7b81-42bf-aa64-6d725bbbd49e/Criminal-Justice-Education-and-Training-Standards.aspx) dictates our training every year. NC began to mandate yearly in-service in the early 2000's. Prior to that there was no minimum level of in-service that was required (exception firearms, which is required once per year). Now that we have mandatory in-service it's whatever topic they want us to be trained in. The usual ones are firearms, legal update (which hasn't address this particular issue yet), JMST, Haz-Mat, etc. For a few years there was a 'chiefs choice' block that could be anything. My understanding now is that T&S has taken that option away.

It would be a great class because there is some confusion over the OC stuff. Especially with officers wanting to charge people with "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public (http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4022)". Whenever I hear folks say that its like fingernails on a chalkboard...I heard that yesterday after I sent the 911 call and video via email to LEO's at my department...

Along with that email I asked if it could be a training item in 2014...I haven't heard anything back yet...don't expect I will.

Like I said in PM with you. When I first started this thread I thought they did an ok job. After really dissecting it you are 100% right.

[cclaxton]

http://gawker.com/5963079/nobody-rushing-to-move-into-university-of-colorados-gun-dorms

Are we really spending our capital on the right priorities?

We should be working for National Concealed Carry or National Reciprocity and for Parking Lot Firearms Rights (When we are not allowed to take inside certain buildings).

We should be working to ensure we have laws that protect gun ranges and dealers from liability lawsuits.

We should be working to ensure we have laws that protect lawful defense of home, self and others.

CC

[Tamara]

Are we really spending our capital on the right priorities?

We should be working for National Concealed Carry or National Reciprocity and for Parking Lot Firearms Rights (When we are not allowed to take inside certain buildings).

So, basically you want to reduce the number of Victim Disarmament zones that you, cclaxton, have to encounter in your day-to-day life, and tough noogies to all those students and professors.

[jlw]

Training & Standards (http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/831a884b-7b81-42bf-aa64-6d725bbbd49e/Criminal-Justice-Education-and-Training-Standards.aspx) dictates our training every year. NC began to mandate yearly in-service in the early 2000's. Prior to that there was no minimum level of in-service that was required (exception firearms, which is required once per year). Now that we have mandatory in-service it's whatever topic they want us to be trained in. The usual ones are firearms, legal update (which hasn't address this particular issue yet), JMST, Haz-Mat, etc. For a few years there was a 'chiefs choice' block that could be anything. My understanding now is that T&S has taken that option away.

It would be a great class because there is some confusion over the OC stuff. Especially with officers wanting to charge people with "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public (http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4022)". Whenever I hear folks say that its like fingernails on a chalkboard...I heard that yesterday after I sent the 911 call and video via email to LEO's at my department...

Along with that email I asked if it could be a training item in 2014...I haven't heard anything back yet...don't expect I will.

Like I said in PM with you. When I first started this thread I thought they did an ok job. After really dissecting it you are 100% right.

GA requires 20 hours per year minimum to maintain arrest powers. There are a few topics that are required annually or on other time frames. Outside of those required topics, we are free to develop our own courses for credit. My class on this topic is a two hour credit course.

[RoyGBiv]

http://gawker.com/5963079/nobody-rushing-to-move-into-university-of-colorados-gun-dorms
"Separate but equal"

Does this fall under the Godwin umbrella?

[cclaxton]

So, basically you want to reduce the number of Victim Disarmament zones that you, cclaxton, have to encounter in your day-to-day life, and tough noogies to all those students and professors.

Of course I am sympathetic to their cause, but my point had more to do with the priorities of gun rights. I just think the whole college carry thing is a distraction from the more important work we have to do. Some famous person said, "Pick you battles," and I would choose to focus on that which benefits the most.

The number one cause of death on college campuses is alcohol-related....

CC

[jlw]

We have a similar legislative problem in GA. The pro-carry lobby insists on an all-encompassing bill to try to fix all of problems in one fell swoop. I think it would be more effective to separate out the major issues into their own bills. If you get a win on any single bill you still get improvement.

[Tamara]

Of course I am sympathetic to their cause, but my point had more to do with the priorities of gun rights. I just think the whole college carry thing is a distraction from the more important work we have to do.

College students and faculty would disagree.


Some famous person said, "Pick you battles," and I would choose to focus on that which benefits the most.

"I would choose to focus on that which benefits me the most." FTFY.


The number one cause of death on college campuses is alcohol-related....

College students and faculty on urban campuses often live off campus in downmarket neighborhoods (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3346-Shooting-incidents-in-the-news&p=174756&viewfull=1#post174756) and commute to and from school/work through some extremely shady neighborhoods and are often prohibited BY LAW from having a gun at their destination, no matter if it's locked in a zippered case inside a locked gun vault in the trunk of their car. A felony is a lot worse than getting written up at WKRP for having a gun in your trunk.

[ST911]

College students and faculty on urban campuses often live off campus in downmarket neighborhoods (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3346-Shooting-incidents-in-the-news&p=174756&viewfull=1#post174756) and commute to and from school/work through some extremely shady neighborhoods and are often prohibited BY LAW from having a gun at their destination, no matter if it's locked in a zippered case inside a locked gun vault in the trunk of their car. A felony is a lot worse than getting written up at WKRP for having a gun in your trunk.

Surely, you're mistaken.

Oh yeah...


University student shot outside Centennial Hall
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/01/27/university-student-shot-outside-centennial-hall

A University of Minnesota student was shot outside Centennial Hall late Monday night following a string of crimes police believe to be connected...

And if you walk another block or so to a large park, you may find yourself accosted by assorted vagrants.

Oh yeah... This is also the block that UM Med Center is on, which restricts its patients, personnel, and visitors from carrying within.

[Totem Polar]

College students and faculty would disagree.

College students and faculty on urban campuses often live off campus in downmarket neighborhoods (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3346-Shooting-incidents-in-the-news&p=174756&viewfull=1#post174756) and commute to and from school/work through some extremely shady neighborhoods and are often prohibited BY LAW from having a gun at their destination, no matter if it's locked in a zippered case inside a locked gun vault in the trunk of their car. A felony is a lot worse than getting written up at WKRP for having a gun in your trunk.


I am with Tam on this one. Recently a hot topic in the shooting news thread (again, per Tam, above) given that two college seniors in my town just chased away a parole violator trying to force his way into their campus-owned-but-off-campus apartment. 10mm Glock is generally > street skell, so that part went ok, but the kids were facing expulsion--not insignificant when one considers the loss of 3 1/2 years of investment in a school that costs almost 48k a year.

Fortunately, public outcry was immediate and vociferous; ultimately resulting in probation, not expulsion. Rather than lose the degree (while still owing the loans) all those guys have left to worry about is not getting mugged between now and may, since they are currently minus the Glock and 12 bore they used to own, courtesy of campus security.

[Alaskapopo]

He did not meet that standard according to his own statements.



The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no firearms exception to the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that knowledge that a person is armed is no different that knowledge that they have a wallet (an actual comparison made by the Court).

The officer stated that he stopped the guy solely on the basis that he was armed, and that is not RAS of a crime.



So, you are okay with an officer saying that he would shoot you just because you walked into a gas station while armed?

You would have to ignore a lot of signs coming into a police station against weapons to just walk up. At that point your either disarranged and bent on killing cops or just stupid. Either will get you some extra attention. It would not be the first time a police department has had people come in and start shooting. Open carry is as stupid as it gets in my opinion.
Pat

[John Ralston]

all those guys have left to worry about is not getting mugged between now and may, since they are currently minus the Glock and 12 bore they used to own, courtesy of campus security.

They did get them back...but they are being stored with the Lawyers.

[GardoneVT]

College students and faculty on urban campuses often live off campus in downmarket neighborhoods (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3346-Shooting-incidents-in-the-news&p=174756&viewfull=1#post174756) and commute to and from school/work through some extremely shady neighborhoods and are often prohibited BY LAW from having a gun at their destination, no matter if it's locked in a zippered case inside a locked gun vault in the trunk of their car. A felony is a lot worse than getting written up at WKRP for having a gun in your trunk.

Another point-crime stats at many colleges are deceptive . I know at my university, a DUI arrest I personally witnessed on campus never made it into the college crime blotter. Why? Because the CITY police were the arresting officers, not the CAMPUS PD who are sworn LEOs themselves- so the incident , on campus, involving a boozed up student, was included in the city blotter. A convenient situation for the university.

Looks real good when the stat monkeys and Joe & Jane Parent read the University crime stats- "O look, there's few reports of assaults , DUIs and such. Must be a safe place, so why do people need guns again?" :rolleyes:

[Totem Polar]

They did get them back...but they are being stored with the Lawyers.

I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

[helothar]

Surely, you're mistaken.

Oh yeah...



And if you walk another block or so to a large park, you may find yourself accosted by assorted vagrants.

Oh yeah... This is also the block that UM Med Center is on, which restricts its patients, personnel, and visitors from carrying within.

Not to mention the armed robbery of a student inside a campus building just this past Monday.

e: At the University of Minnesota

[JAD]

You would have to ignore a lot of signs coming into a police station against weapons to just walk up.

Gas station, not cop shop. Though I see people with guns walking into the police station all the time.

[Shellback]

Gas station, not cop shop. Though I see people with guns walking into the police station all the time.

There are more than a couple videos posted of people going into police stations fully armed, open carrying. The police don't like it, but where the videos took place it's not illegal, so they can't do much about it other than get steamed.

[David Armstrong]

College students and faculty would disagree.
SOME college students and faculty would disagree. Some would not.

[ST911]

Another point-crime stats at many colleges are deceptive . I know at my university, a DUI arrest I personally witnessed on campus never made it into the college crime blotter. Why? Because the CITY police were the arresting officers, not the CAMPUS PD who are sworn LEOs themselves- so the incident , on campus, involving a boozed up student, was included in the city blotter. A convenient situation for the university.

Looks real good when the stat monkeys and Joe & Jane Parent read the University crime stats- "O look, there's few reports of assaults , DUIs and such. Must be a safe place, so why do people need guns again?" :rolleyes:

Campus crime statistics and all the buffoonery associated with them can be a multi-page thread of its own.

[ToddG]

GA requires 20 hours per year minimum to maintain arrest powers.

Even for reservists?

[ToddG]

Of course I am sympathetic to their cause, but my point had more to do with the priorities of gun rights. I just think the whole college carry thing is a distraction from the more important work we have to do. Some famous person said, "Pick you battles," and I would choose to focus on that which benefits the most.

Given the disproportionate number of spree killings that occur in or around schools, one would think it's a rather obvious place to start. There's also the less obvious fact that encouraging people to own and possibly even carry when they're young and in college might help counter the general liberal/anti-gun messages they will be getting in school.


The number one cause of death on college campuses is alcohol-related....

What current Gun Safe Zone do you want to change because the number one cause of death there is felonious assault?

[KeeFus]

Even for reservists?

In NC, yes! If you are sworn you have to get the training. After a certain time period your certification is pulled. IIRC, after 3 years you have to go back through BLET (Police Academy).

..........................................

So yesterday I submitted the email I sent to my agency to the UNC School of Government. They blogged it today (http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=4531).

[sheriffoconee]

Well, contrary to what some people seem to think this thread has nothing to do with gun rights or the 2nd amendment. This is a 4th amendment discussion. The fact there HAPPENS to be a gun involved in this case has nothing to do with it. This is purely a 4th amendment issue.

[MDS]

Thanks, Sheriff and others. This thread has me thinking differently about 4a issues and I'm slowly reading and educating myself. Learning has occurred, I appreciate it.

[Tamara]

Any thread that's been up for more than one page is bound to veer more than a westbound UGA alumnus on 78 on an October Saturday evening.

[Shellback]

Here (http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020090909841) is a "published" opinion from the US District Court in New Mexico which relates to 2A and the 4th A.

And here (http://www.examiner.com/article/alamogordo-police-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit) is where it was settled by Alamogordo, NM PD.

Both interesting reads. Thanks.

[sheriffoconee]

Any thread that's been up for more than one page is bound to veer more than a westbound UGA alumnus on 78 on an October Saturday evening.
It's NOT THAT BAD is it???

[jlw]

Even for reservists?

Yes. There is no legal distinction for reserve peace officers in GA. They have to go through the full academy and maintain the same training requirements.

[ToddG]

Yes. There is no legal distinction for reserve peace officers in GA. They have to go through the full academy and maintain the same training requirements.

Well at least I don't have to be nice to your Sheriff anymore. :cool:

[jlw]

Well at least I don't have to be nice to your Sheriff anymore. :cool:


Just as well. I am not sure that we could get you up to speed on the firearms stuff.

[ToddG]

Just as well. I am not sure that we could get you up to speed on the firearms stuff.

First you pour the powder down the muzzle...

[sheriffoconee]

First you pour the powder down the muzzle...

You must been in my academy class We have to knap flints for a week before they gave us any powder

[jlw]

Instapundit picked up my article. It's currently topping the 6000 read limit and is easily the most read article on the site to date by over 1000 reads.

[Mr_White]

Instapundit picked up my article. It's currently topping the 6000 read limit and is easily the most read article on the site to date by over 1000 reads.

Nice! Thanks for the education on these aspects of the 4th Amendment.

[RoyGBiv]

Instapundit picked up my article. It's currently topping the 6000 read limit and is easily the most read article on the site to date by over 1000 reads.

Deservedly so.

[Tamara]

First you pour the powder down the muzzle...

First a 1911, now this. It's a slippery slope, indeed! :eek:

[ToddG]

You must been in my academy class We have to knap flints for a week before they gave us any powder

You know, I'm not even going to bother Googling that. Tam will explain it to me.

[Chuck Haggard]

You know, I'm not even going to bother Googling that. Tam will explain it to me.

And with pictures of knapping tools that feature Mastodon Ivory and Mother of Pearl handles, artfully laid next to a rare N frame.

[RoyGBiv]

The only reason we don't have it today is that it's been killed in committee by a RINO-appointed "D" chairperson the past 2 sessions (2011, 2013). Abbott, and even more directly, the LT Gov, will need to deal with a Congress that has enough D's supporting a RINO speaker that all the speaker needs is a handful of supporters from his own party.. not a big hurdle.

I'm looking forward to an opportunity to ask both Mr. Abbott and the LTG candidates about this in a public forum, hopefully soon (I missed an opportunity in October while traveling).

/OT

Following up on the quoted post... Didn't want to start another thread..

Jerry Patterson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_E._Patterson) is running for Lt. Gov. against David Dewhurst (both "R")
Jerry is "the father of CHL in Texas"

Here is an ad that's attributed to him... I'm still trying to locate the source.
http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/jerry-patterson-gun-ad.jpg

Not only is he a friend to 2A, but he's got a solid reputation as a legislator and civil servant.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=70565


Jerry Patterson is recognized as the "father of CHL in Texas" and rightfully so. He worked tirelessly to pass SB60 in 1995, as did Rep. Bill Carter and his staff. Jerry didn't merely put his name on the bill and file it, he worked daily to garner support and guide the bill through the legislative process. The usual procedure when working with a Senator or Representative is to spend most of one's time talking to staff members. Not so with Jerry; every time I called I talked to him directly and his enthusiasm for concealed-carry was contagious. He was never to busy to talk about SB60, he was always receptive to suggestions/changes, and he cared solely about passing the bill rather than getting public recognition. (He got that too, but it was neither his doing nor his motivation.) He has spoken publicly in support of gun owners and expanded Second Amendment rights since 1995 and I believe as Texas Land Commissioner he was the first elected official to change his agency's personal policy to allow CHL's to carry guns in their offices.

Jerry truly is the "father of CHL in Texas" and he's a very protective Dad!

Chas.

Abbott / Patterson 2014. OC might just make it.

[JV_]

I hope a clueful supporter of his will offer some grip advise.

[RoyGBiv]

I hope a clueful supporter of his will offer some grip advise.

21 minutes. The O/U was 15 minutes. :D

Note to self... If I'm ever dumb enough to be photographed holding a gun, be sure to grip properly. Lol!

[KeeFus]

Open carry person relieved of his weapon....

Happened in Fayettville, NC.

http://www.wral.com/gun-stolen-at-fayetteville-walmart-causes-panic/17211426/

[Cypher]

I hate these videos they're all the same. The open carrier asks "Am I being detained?" and if the cop says "No" the OC argues with the cop until he IS being detained THEN tells the cop he doesn't have valid grounds to detain him.

I fully support your right to make your own decision about open carry but don't go out LOOKING for trouble then bitch when you find it

[Casual Friday]

Reading this thread again makes me realize how much I miss Todd being active on the forum.

22599

[JAD]

Amen, but it also reminds me of how glad I am that JLW is here, and I was able to attend one of his classes.