Flawless MWAG call caught on tape

[HoughMade]

I believe that was the point of the "function test." Clear the chamber, pull the trigger, cycle action while trigger is still depressed. If the hammer falls again when cycled, it is full auto. If after cycling, the trigger is released and resets without the hammer falling, it is semi auto.

FWIW, that LEO knew his stuff. Well done on his part.

I think I was less than clear. I agree with you. "Reasonable suspicion" does not even mean "more likely than not" (50+% certainty). It is much less than that. The way it was explained in law school is that, even though the numbers are kind of arbitrary:

Reasonable suspicion is 35% or more probable that there is illegality.
Preponderance of the evidence is 50+%.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is, maybe 90+% sure.

The officer does not have to know with certainty that the weapon is illegal to make a stop and check. He just has to have a reasonable suspicion. He does not have to take the subject's word for it...that is decidedly unreasonable.

People may not like the law, but this was thoroughly, completely within the Terry v. Ohio standard. Don't like what the officer did? Change the law, 'cause what his did was well within it. Disagree and think he exceeded Terry? Please refer me to a case where the officer acted similarly and it was held improper.

As for those who say "...but full autos can be legal too..." The officer made it clear at least twice that if it was full auto, he would require additional I.D. as required by federal law. If it was full auto, arrest would not be the next step- checking to make sure he was in legal possession would be. Again, the officer followed the law. Don't like the law- change it.

 

[DemolitionMan]

I have to agree that this was well done on the part of the officer. I got a chuckle when the kid pulled out the old "am I being detained?" line and the cop immediately said "yes." You could almost hear the kid thinking "hey, wait, that's not how this conversation is supposed to go."

The officer did that throughout the conversation, basically refusing to play the JBT role they were setting him up for. Darn it, there goes their lawsuit.

On the "reasonable suspicion" issue...that's a judgement call. I have to wonder how the whole thing would have gone if the boys were not clearly looking to create a scene. My guess is there would have been a brief conversation and a "have a nice day" and that would have been the end of it.

 

[jdhaines]

These types of open carry advocates do nothing to help the overall pro-gun cause. In fact, they do more damage than someone with a "ban all guns" sign. If someone on the fence sees the sign, they'll just examine the way they feel about the issue. If they see these types of idiots, they'll realize that this is a person on the pro-gun side. I don't agree with them, therefore I should be against that cause.

It's one thing to go about your business with a pistol open carried on your hip...it's quite another to be carrying an MP5 look-alike down the street.

 

[Que]

I think I was less than clear. I agree with you. "Reasonable suspicion" does not even mean "more likely than not" (50+% certainty). It is much less than that. The way it was explained in law school is that, even though the numbers are kind of arbitrary:

Reasonable suspicion is 35% or more probable that there is illegality.
Preponderance of the evidence is 50+%.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is, maybe 90+% sure.

The officer does not have to know with certainty that the weapon is illegal to make a stop and check. He just has to have a reasonable suspicion. He does not have to take the subject's word for it...that is decidedly unreasonable.

People may not like the law, but this was thoroughly, completely within the Terry v. Ohio standard. Don't like what the officer did? Change the law, 'cause what his did was well within it. Disagree and think he exceeded Terry? Please refer me to a case where the officer acted similarly and it was held improper.

As for those who say "...but full autos can be legal too..." The officer made it clear at least twice that if it was full auto, he would require additional I.D. as required by federal law. If it was full auto, arrest would not be the next step- checking to make sure he was in legal possession would be. Again, the officer followed the law. Don't like the law- change it.

Yep! Maybe I missed some recent Fourth Amendment cases, though.

We all know that a rough officer can possibly use this same standard to harass gun owners. In this case, the officer didn't do that, which is why I like the stop. Besides, the guys didn't tape what they were doing to even have the MWG call made. I would suspect they weren't just sitting there waiting on the bus. They were out to get noticed and in this case, they were offered the opportunity to garner a full-auto rifle as a member of the reserve PD. I wonder if they took him up on that offer?

 

[iChokePeople]

These types of open carry advocates do nothing to help the overall pro-gun cause. In fact, they do more damage than someone with a "ban all guns" sign. If someone one the fence sees the sign, they'll just examine the way they feel about the issue. If they see these types of idiots, they'll realize that this is a person on the pro-gun side. I don't agree with them, therefore I should be against that cause.

It's one thing to go about your business with a pistol open carried on your hip...it's quite another to be carrying an MP5 look-alike down the street.

+1

 

[griffin]

The officer made it clear at least twice that if it was full auto, he would require additional I.D. as required by federal law.

Can local LEOs enforce federal law? (E.g., illegal immigration is federal law). Can they even demand to see federal tax documents?

 

[EyesDownfield]

Shall not be infringed.

You shouldnt need special permission to walk around with a full auto mp5.

Boo hoo if you are offended.

This.

 

[looney2ns]

Been posted here before.

 

[downzero]

People may not like the law, but this was thoroughly, completely within the Terry v. Ohio standard. Don't like what the officer did? Change the law, 'cause what his did was well within it. Disagree and think he exceeded Terry? Please refer me to a case where the officer acted similarly and it was held improper.

Wrong by even your own cited standard. Terry requires suspicion that someone is both "armed" and "dangerous." One or the other is not enough. And there's plenty of post-Terry SCOTUS caselaw to support that point. Without suspicion of both--even if by the percentages you posted, which I think are actually a bit high--the stop is unreasonable and violates the Fourth Amendment.

What if he said he was removing the rifle for his own safety and that of the person carrying it? Also, to which recent Fourth Amendment cases are you referring? I guess I'm really missing something here.

I would suggest reading a search warrant case, because that's where it will be most obvious.

The Fourth Amendment determination must be made by a "neutral and detached magistrate" in those instances. I don't have a cite for you now, but there have been several cases where the neutrality of the determining judge (who need not be a lawyer) was successfully questioned, and the warrant was thus invalidated.

The police do not make the determination of reasonability, a judge does, typically, in these sorts of cases, after the fact. If the officer can't demonstrate that, at the time of the stop, he met the legal standard for a lawful seizure, the stop is illegal and he is potentially personally liable for the violation of one's constitutional rights.

Usually, the problem isn't showing that the stop was unreasonable and thus illegal, it's showing that you were harmed as a result. What is 30 seconds of your liberty worth to you? Hard to answer--and hard to prove.

The reason for the nonchalant attitude regarding this stop is that the police violate the Fourth Amendment every single day and get away with it. The Fourth Amendment, in most cases, is a right without a remedy for its violation. That's a shame, but that's the world we're living in. As such, the police don't take the Fourth Amendment seriously, unless it is a serious criminal investigation where everything they do will be closely scrutinized, and in those cases, the police department would be foolish to allow inexperienced and/or 'cowboy' officers to even be present at all.

 

[LegatoRedrivers]

I don't know, I think the officer did well on that one. He seemed courteous in the face of obvious provocation. I liked that he didn't say anything about carrying being illegal. Just, "as the firearm appears to be full auto, I just have to verify you have a name and a stamp. It's semi auto? Ok, I'll verify that real quick... yep, semi-auto, and I no longer have PC to detain you. Take it easy."

to the courtious cop, to the dbag "activists" spoiling for a fight

 

[poptab]

Yes master. Thank you master for letting me buy my natural rights back from you, master. Oh please master can I walk here and exercise my natural rights here master?
Oh thank you master. You are a wise and kind master.

 

[Que]

Wrong by even your own cited standard. Terry requires suspicion that someone is both "armed" and "dangerous." One or the other is not enough. And there's plenty of post-Terry SCOTUS caselaw to support that point. Without suspicion of both--even if by the percentages you posted, which I think are actually a bit high--the stop is unreasonable and violates the Fourth Amendment.

Terry leaves much to be desired when it comes to 2A rights versus officer safety. There are no clear answers. Again, unless any of us were there, we do not know if any activity was taking place that caused the MWG call to the PD. So, we do not know if both elements to justify the search were present or not. If I recall correctly, In Terry, the court provided some latitude for the officer to conduct a search for dangerous weapons for the sake of his own safety. In this case, the "dangerous weapon" was visible and carried by someone who may have been reported to be dangerous or conducting a dangerous activity In Terry, they were just standing around looking suspicious and the Court arrived at this present-day standard from that.

Usually, the problem isn't showing that the stop was unreasonable and thus illegal, it's showing that you were harmed as a result. What is 30 seconds of your liberty worth to you? Hard to answer--and hard to prove.

The stop was quick and the search was limited, both standards within the holding of Terry. The officer didn't even pat the guy down or search his companion, which he could have done. He didn't demonstrate the desire to harass anyone, only to do his job.

 

[CountryBoy19]

The only question I have is why did the officer do a function check?

The "function check" you witnessed was a check to validate the officers suspicions (he did mentioned after taking possession that it did appear to be only a semi-auto) that the weapon was semi-auto. As already mentioned in this thread a very simple process to determine that is as follows:

clear weapon and ensure magazine and all ammunition are removed,
close bolt, put selector on safe and pull trigger, nothing happens right? (if something does happen see below),
move selector to fire and pull trigger,
while holding trigger cycle the weapon,
does the hammer fall when the bolt closes?

If not, verify that the hammer did not fall by releasing the trigger and pulling it again while listening for the hammer to fall. If it doesn't fall, it's likely that it fell when the bolt closed and you didn't hear it (meaning full-auto), it could also mean the weapon is malfunctioning and needs further investigation to determine the true cause and type of weapon

Now, check for additional selector positions that may, or may not be marked on the exterior of the receiver. If there are more positions, check them all the same way as above. Be sure to check the "safe" position as well. It is possible for a weapon to be modified so that it fires full-auto in the "safe" position and a cursory check like this by a lesser educated officer may not catch that.

Edited to fix a typo that made the description confusing...

 

[japartridge]

I've read the entire thread, and I'm torn on this one... yes, I think the officer handled himself in a courteous and professional manner; however, I do think that there was a line crossed. Now I'm not saying that the "boys" didn't get what they had coming, as they were obviously trying to provoke a rights violation; but, I personally did not see anything in that video that should have warranted a seizure and function check. As stated up-thread, having a weapon that resembles an NFA weapon is not, again in my opinion, basis for a seizure.

On top of that, I don't personally think it should be up to a local LEO to make the call on an NFA weapon/tax stamp violation... that's (supposedly) why we have the BATF&E.

I've had a "clear attempt at rights violation" stop, it is not a pleasant experience, especially if you are doing nothing wrong or "suspicious", as was the case with me.

On the other side of the coin, I do agree that these two chuckle-heads were just trying to get a rise out of the officer.

Of course on the other side of that, we shouldn't have to endure any kind of "check" for our natural and constitutionally protected rights; but that is going to mean a whole lot more of us becoming more politically active to fix this mess that our country has become.

 

[thebishopp]

So what if it was a full-auto? Those are legal, too.

I don't know what the fuss is here.

This was discussed in detail back in August.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nse/231061-leo_responds_positively_to_oc.html

There's a 21 page thread on it that no one could (seemingly) miss. Anyway, getting back to the stop, it was suggested in the original thread in August that cops don't have the right to demand to see a federal tax document (tax stamp for full auto).

And as was stated back then, this officer acted well outside the standards established by Terry vs. Ohio and committed a clear and blatant civil rights violation. What is the reasonable, articulable suspicion that the citizen being stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime?

Should cops inspect every AR15 because they might be full auto?

Some of you people...

Don't forget Glocks and Berettas too! They make them in full auto!


Seriously though... I think the problem is we as a society seem to associate gun ownership with being a criminal. This thought process is even a problem among gun owners themselves.


As far as the activists go... people need to keep in mind that they enjoy many of their rights (no matter how watered down they are today) because of a bunch of "chuckleheaded activists".

 

[japartridge]

Don't forget Glocks and Berettas too! They make them in full auto!


Seriously though... I think the problem is we as a society seem to associate gun ownership with being a criminal. This thought process is even a problem among gun owners themselves.


As far as the activists go... people need to keep in mind that they enjoy many of their rights (no matter how watered down they are today) because of a bunch of "chuckleheaded activists".

I disagree with your thoughts that "chuckle-headed activists" are responsible for our rights. Had you said that our rights were gained by a group of "terrorists" (in the eyes of the British Monarch) I could and would agree, however our founding fathers were not a group of boys looking for a wind fall from a law suit; which is what I believe these guys were doing.

However I do still think that there was a line crossed.

 

[ATM]

It was a very polite seizure, but still improper.

How hard would it have been for the officer to just not take the bait?

 

[45calibre]

violation is ok as long as they lay you down smoothly.

 

[griffin]

violation is ok as long as they lay you down smoothly.

And use Vaseline.

 

[GBuck]

It was a very polite seizure, but still improper.

How hard would it have been for the officer to just not take the bait?

How was it improper? Because ATM says so? lol