Police Chief plans to stop every open carrier without probable cause

I have instructed my officers to challenge anyone they see carrying a weapon openly to make sure that they have the right to carry a weapon.

-Chief Anderson

Link

Open carry is perfectly legal there. What's more it is not a privilege such as driving. You'd think if a cop was going to start stopping and questioning people it would be over practicing a privilege which requires licensing and registration not a right which has no such requirements.

The title of your post made me think it was about police stopping every motorist to verify that motorist has a drivers license. After reading the article I discovered it was about conceal and carry which is fine but not at all what I thought your thread was about.

Please change your thread title.

reply to post by Dogmire


By design.

On topic, how do you feel about people practicing a right being stopped and harassed simply for practicing that right?

Originally posted by TheSep
Please change your thread title.

Gotta love it when presentation designed to encourage critical thinking and broaden the response pool falls falls on its face.

I dont want "choir preaching" from either of the "gun" sides. I was hoping for some connections to be made. Some minds to expand beyond typical bread and butter positions such as pro or anti gun control.

This is a "papers please" (when there arent even any papers to show) scenario coming from the mouth of an American law enforcement official.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Essentially, that's what he's saying.

I have instructed my officers to challenge anyone they see carrying a weapon openly to make sure that they have the right to carry a weapon.

-Chief Anderson

Link

Open carry is perfectly legal there. What's more it is not a privilege such as driving. You'd think if a cop was going to start stopping and questioning people it would be over practicing a privilege which requires licensing and registration not a right which has no such requirements.

I do not need to openly carry a gun to get to my job, the store, the hospital.
I am so sorry I clicked on this BS hyperbole.


Quick question.
What is the main purpose of a gun?
What is the main purpose of a car?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Dogmire

 

By design.

On topic, how do you feel about people practicing a right being stopped and harassed simply for practicing that right?

Driving a car on US roads is not a right.
Pisspoor analogy gets pissier.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Dogmire

 

By design.

On topic, how do you feel about people practicing a right being stopped and harassed simply for practicing that right?

Driving a car on US roads is not a right.
Pisspoor analogy gets pissier.

Good thing I said this then: What's more it is not a privilege such as driving.

The OP is only a few lines. Is anyone even reading it?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Driving ain't a privilege either pal. The government have twisted the rules so heavily you think it's a privilege.. it's not.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Good thing I said this then: What's more it is not a privilege such as driving.

How is further pointing out the ineptness of your analogy a good thing for you?

The OP is only a few lines. Is anyone even reading it?

Are you reading the responses?
You sucked people in with a troll title that does not even hold up for the duration of the opening post. What did you expect?

reply to post by LErickson


Actually you have a right to travel. By car or any other means, the privilege you speak of comes from your ability to prove you can safely do it to the government.

The purpose of a car is to travel.
The purpose of a gun is to protect your life.

Both are rights, just one is defined in the Second amendment, the other was judicial law.

Please change the thread title as it is misleading. Thought I was going to get into a discussion about Gestapo road tactics and instead find something that has nothing to do with thread title. Kind of like saying "I have free cake" then trying to give everyone prunes.

Originally posted by sirric
reply to post by LErickson

 

Actually you have a right to travel.

I did not say travel.
I said DRIVE A CAR ON A US ROAD.

By car or any other means,

as a passenger.

the privilege you speak of comes from your ability to prove you can safely do it to the government.

You mean the privilege of driving a car on US roads? Isn't that exactly what I said?

The purpose of a car is to travel.
The purpose of a gun is to protect your life.

The purpose of a gun is to protect your life? Since when? I thought the purpose of a gun was to shoot something. Whether or not shooting something protects you or not is quite different. That is like saying the purpose of a car is not to travel but to get somewhere awesome.

I actually shoot quite a bit. It has never been for the purpose of self preservation.
On the other hand, I have never used my car to NOT get somewhere.

Both are rights, just one is defined in the Second amendment, the other was judicial law.

No, one is a privilege, not a right. Sorry but that is reality. Why are you even arguing it?
Protecting your life is a right, sure. Not so positive shooting things is.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I don't see the problem.

Call it an educational outreach program. If people are going to openly carry, then the police are justified in making contact with the people, making sure they are not felons, and offering up some friendly safety tips. As long as it is not "harassment" then I see no problem with it.

For your analogy to driver's licenses (which needs to be taken out of the title, or made more clear btw), but for that analogy, what if the police stopped every person in a giant monster truck, or a race car, or a commercial vehicle, and made sure the person had the correct qualifications and safety measures in place to do such a thing? It seems fair to me, and I am an extreme conservative, but if I were a police officer, I would consider it part of my job to ensure the safety of the citizens under my watch.

In fact, even as a citizen, and a CCW carrier, I still feel it is my duty to check out any potentially dangerous situation. If I see someone with a gun, I strike up a conversation with them, and I feel them out a little bit. I don't directly ask them if they are legal, because I don't have the authority for that, but I do try to get an impression from them if they are nervous, or skittish, or aggressive in nature. We have to identify the threats in our environment.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
what if the police stopped every person in a giant monster truck, or a race car, or a commercial vehicle, and made sure the person had the correct qualifications and safety measures in place to do such a thing? It seems fair to me, and I am an extreme conservative, but if I were a police officer, I would consider it part of my job to ensure the safety of the citizens under my watch.

So then only the people carrying giant monster guns, race guns or commercial guns should be stopped and checked?

In fact, even as a citizen, and a CCW carrier, I still feel it is my duty to check out any potentially dangerous situation. If I see someone with a gun, I strike up a conversation with them, and I feel them out a little bit. I don't directly ask them if they are legal, because I don't have the authority for that, but I do try to get an impression from them if they are nervous, or skittish, or aggressive in nature. We have to identify the threats in our environment.

But there is no indication of a threat when someone simply has a gun on their hip. No different than a pager or phone or Leatherman tool on the hip. Unless we are to follow a series of "what ifs" to the level of paranoia that would justify interpretation of a threat. If we did that we could never stop questioning anyone for doing anything.

reply to post by LErickson


I assume that you may be affiliated with Law Enforcement based on you handel, I might be wrong...

But I am retired LE and know the law, so I won't argue with your reasoning since it is not based on anything other than your gut feeling and opinions.

You are wrong and that's all I will respond to your reply with.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Might change the title to "What if....." just to placate "logical" minded members

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


To get back on point,

The police are within their sworn duty to question anyone that open carry since it is part of protecting the public. If they step over the line by detaining or arresting then I would have issues with this.

You as a citizen has the right not to answer the police or engage in dialog. Remain silent and just provide your ID and more then likely, they will let you move on. Ask the officer, "am I being detained, am I free to go?"

Do not argue or try to assert your "rights". Officers know what they are, their job is to ensure you are not going to harm the pubic so they must question you to find out your intentions with a gun. Just stay polite and don't engage in a legal debate with the officer.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Well, like it or not, in this day and age, seeing a sidearm on someone is a little unnerving. We aren't shooting rattlesnakes on the prairie like we were 150 years ago, and we are never more than a few minutes away from a phone or some help, so carrying a sidearm is only for one particular purpose, and that is self-defense.

Since that is the world we live in, then I think a police officer should be tasked with evaluating any potential risk.

I'm a HUGE fan of Open Carry and CCW, but I also won't mind a bit if an officer stops me and wants to talk about it. No problem, happy to oblige, happy they are both alert and proactive in carrying out their duties.

In my opinion, anyone that takes a simple question as an invasion of their rights, is probably a little hot-headed, and possibly carrying the gun as more of a dare, or a political statement than just a simple exercise of a freedom. If someone wants to carry a gun, because they are good with a gun, and aware of potential dangers, and wishes to pre-empt any potential threat, then good on them! But if they are carrying just to grab attention, shock the onlookers, or initiate a conflict with the police, then they need to rethink their intentions and possibly leave the gun at home. Unfortunately, I have met people that openly carry for exactly that. It is an attention getting device, and then they cry foul when some of the attention is negative.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I wouldnt object to the once-in-a-while stopping and questioning by a respectful officer personally. I do think it's none of their business but it wouldnt ruin my day. It happens around here occasionally. Usually brought on by a paranoid vacationer calling the cops.

What this chief is doing is informing his officers to actively stop and question everyone they see doing it. So now it's no longer really a discretionary thing but a seemingly a vengeful thing with what to me at least appears to be a plan to intentionally wear those who would carry openly down to the point which they no longer exercise the right.

So that means the once-in-a-while encounter can potentially be once-every-block-every-day.

It's one thing to use all available information to discern a potential threat and another thing to go off assuming all individuals with a thing on their hip is a potential threat. That shouldnt be acceptable.

Originally posted by sirric
reply to post by LErickson

 

I assume that you may be affiliated with Law Enforcement based on you handel, I might be wrong...

But I am retired LE and know the law, so I won't argue with your reasoning since it is not based on anything other than your gut feeling and opinions.

You are wrong and that's all I will respond to your reply with.

How am I wrong?
You have to qualify and pay a fee in order to be able to drive a vehicle on a US road.
At any time, that priveledge can be revoked.
How is that a right?
You can educate me or just say "Nuh uh."
I find it hard to believe you were in law enforcement yet you believe anyone that feels the urge can legally get in a car and drive around on US roads.
None of that is true.
The OPs analogy is way the hell off.
Did you not notice I am far from the only one pointing out how insane the title is?

I would love to know how I am wrong. Perhaps it would change my entire view on the thread and the analogy. Can you explain it?