TN state park OC trouble

[dburkhead]

Here is the issue: We have folks here demanding that cops basically 'do something!' Why on Earth should cops be watching, even engaging in conversation with someone doing "nothing wrong?" We all know the reason: This is extremely unusual and odd behavior, so much so that even if it is legal, the rabid 2nd Amendment supporters here want the person checked out. Why? Because there might be _danger_!! Why else would Joe Williams and you understand, and maybe even request, that cops watch someone who is doing nothing wrong? Again, we all understand that this type of behavior is extremely unusual. Not only that, the _only_ real difference here is the cop leveled his barrel higher than the guy with the AK. If you want cops to check out these people doing nothing wrong, because there might be _some_ dangerous issue that needs to be addressed, then they are going to take steps to secure their safety. In this case, what is the best way to confront someone _holding_, in a ready to fire manner, and AK-47? If the cop who pointed the gun at him thought this guy was breaking the law, then putting him at gunpoint was the sound thing to do. However, if he wasn't/isn't breaking the law, and I know that, and you folks make it so I can't take pro-active steps to protect myself when either "watching" him, or speaking with him, then I am going to do neither. I will drive by, cautiously, see it is a "pistol," and leave. I would likely not get that close to the person, as who knows if it is a nut case waiting to blast off a few rounds.

I am not a "blue canary" for all of you folks. I didn't sign up for involuntary suicide. That being said, I try my best to be familiar with as many laws as possible. I can deal with possible "quick draw" type situations, where I am dealing with folks with holstered guns. However, if the target of my investigation already has a drawn gun, I don't see why I can't have my gun drawn as well? And if I feel the need to point it at him/her, so be it.

"Do something" is not license to do anything that strikes your fancy.

You seem to think that when the questions are about this situation and what was done in reaction to it that someone, somewhere else doing something else, is an answer. "What about the guy on a rooftop with a rifle checking out the street with binoculars?" Since the OP wasn't about a guy on a rooftop with a rifle scoping out the crowd with binoculars, it's not really relevant.

You know, I was creating an SF con "hall costume" (kind of Paladin meets steampunk--"Have Slide Rule, Will Travel" kind of thing). I got a western style "cowboy hat" for that and in the course of breaking it in decided I like it. I tend to wear Roper style boots. The high shafts keep water and snow out of my shoes; the smooth, rather than emproidered, leather polishes up nice for when I want somewhat dressier wear; and the bit of heel relieves my plantar fasciitis. I wear jeans a lot and tend to wear dark colors (my wife things I look best in dark colors, particularly black). So basically my attire is often some kind of cross between goth and cowboy.

Now, add in that I carry, sometimes open, usually concealed. So, what, if I'm open carrying or my shirt happens to hitch up over my gun does my look rise to the "extremely unusual and odd behavior"? Can I expect you to be pointing your gun at me should we ever encounter one another on the streets? After all, you might argue that I think I'm Wyatt Earp or John Wesley Hardin or something (I'm a bit old to think I'm Billy the Kid).

Do you respond to every call with drawn guns? After all, you wouldn't be called if there weren't a danger. When our first was born my wife went through some serious post-partum issues. As a result there were several "domestic dispute" calls. I'm told that domestic disputes are one of the most dangerous types of calls. Yet somehow I never was a drawn gun. Enough traffic stops have gone "hot" that pulling someone over for a ticket could be a danger. Do you always approach the car you stop with gun drawn?

The above is intended to illustrate that not all potential dangers are the same nor do they call for or justify the same response.

Yes, you want to go home safely at the end of the day but your safety does not trump mine--not to me anyway. And if you can cite a felon carrying a drawn gun in his hand in a thread about someone carrying an AK pistol slung while failing the fashion police, I can ask what's to stop the next Law Enforcement Officer holding someone doing "extremely unusual and odd behavior" (such as wearing clothes the LEO questions) from being another "Mr. Glock Forty". (I presume you know to whom I'm referring. If you don't, I can post the vid.)

The question that comes to my mind in these threads is: would you consider that Goth Cowboy who is either OCing or whose nominally concealed weapon prints or happens to get uncovered enough of a threat to face him with drawn guns? The responses I see on these threads do not fill me with confidence about that possible encounter.

 

[Indy317]

So, what, if I'm open carrying or my shirt happens to hitch up over my gun does my look rise to the "extremely unusual and odd behavior"? Can I expect you to be pointing your gun at me should we ever encounter one another on the streets?

Open carry, to me at least, and many here, means your gun is holstered. Seriously, how many folks here open carry by physically carrying the gun _in your hand_ while out and about? Have a gun in hand, at the ready, is a complete 180 from a holstered gun, regardless of attire worn.

Yet somehow I never was a drawn gun. Enough traffic stops have gone "hot" that pulling someone over for a ticket could be a danger. Do you always approach the car you stop with gun drawn?

If I go to a domestic and one of the parties has a gun _in_ their _hand_, then yea, I am likely going to have my weapon drawn, and depending on the circumstances, I may even have to point it at the person if the situation warrants. If I go up on a traffic stop and the person I stop gets out of the car, with a gun _in_ their _hand_, then yea, I am likely going to have my weapon drawn, and depending on the circumstance, I may even have to point it at the person if the situation warrants.

The question that comes to my mind in these threads is: would you consider that Goth Cowboy who is either OCing or whose nominally concealed weapon prints or happens to get uncovered enough of a threat to face him with drawn guns? The responses I see on these threads do not fill me with confidence about that possible encounter.

Well, you won't have to worry about this too much longer. With these attention seeking OCing events, my guess is that the vast majority of citizens won't be backing the OCing of weapons. Given the ruling in Heller, it won't surprise me if OCing starts becoming illegal in various states. Too many people out there want to buck conformity, and even some folks here think police should be engaging these folks for doing "nothing wrong." So we either have 911 operators tell folks police won't check out people with guns till they are actually breaking the law (firing them off, shooting people, etc.), ban OCing, or have cops respond to check out these calls and understand that in some cases, law-abiding people may have guns drawn on them. If these attention seekers continue to do the OC thing to raise a stink, I assure you that it will be much easier for a government to ban OCing than to have 911 operators not have cops respond. If the cops don't respond and something ends up happening, they will be sued If the callers to 911 don't get the response they think they should, they will complain to their elected representatives.

I am not giving my opinion here on the subject of OCing. I am just stating how I have seen government work, and sometimes it is just easier to use a pen and prohibit an activity that causes headaches for all involved. That is where I see things leading, I guess the future will tell us if I am wrong or not.

 

[dburkhead]

Open carry, to me at least, and many here, means your gun is holstered. Seriously, how many folks here open carry by physically carrying the gun _in your hand_ while out and about? Have a gun in hand, at the ready, is a complete 180 from a holstered gun, regardless of attire worn.

However a gun in one's hand is not the subject of the thread, but a gun slung.

If I go to a domestic and one of the parties has a gun _in_ their _hand_, then yea, I am likely going to have my weapon drawn, and depending on the circumstances, I may even have to point it at the person if the situation warrants. If I go up on a traffic stop and the person I stop gets out of the car, with a gun _in_ their _hand_, then yea, I am likely going to have my weapon drawn, and depending on the circumstance, I may even have to point it at the person if the situation warrants.

Again, none of these things are relevant to the OP. It's the response of the police officer to the gent in TN--and the defense of same by some were--about which I have some concern.

Well, you won't have to worry about this too much longer. With these attention seeking OCing events, my guess is that the vast majority of citizens won't be backing the OCing of weapons. Given the ruling in Heller, it won't surprise me if OCing starts becoming illegal in various states. Too many people out there want to buck conformity, and even some folks here think police should be engaging these folks for doing "nothing wrong." So we either have 911 operators tell folks police won't check out people with guns till they are actually breaking the law (firing them off, shooting people, etc.), ban OCing, or have cops respond to check out these calls and understand that in some cases, law-abiding people may have guns drawn on them. If these attention seekers continue to do the OC thing to raise a stink, I assure you that it will be much easier for a government to ban OCing than to have 911 operators not have cops respond. If the cops don't respond and something ends up happening, they will be sued If the callers to 911 don't get the response they think they should, they will complain to their elected representatives.

Ah, yes, the old "the antis are going to pass laws against it." And how is acting like it's already illegal any better than having laws making it actually illegal? A right unexercised is the same as a right lost.

The antis are going to try to pass laws regardless of whether folk OC or not.

I suspect people made the same kinds of predictions regarding anti-gay response and legislation after Stockton. Didn't work out that way though.

I am not giving my opinion here on the subject of OCing. I am just stating how I have seen government work, and sometimes it is just easier to use a pen and prohibit an activity that causes headaches for all involved. That is where I see things leading, I guess the future will tell us if I am wrong or not.

It becomes a lot easier to do that when supposedly pro-gun people are willing to throw their own under the bus rather than risk "annoying" people who hate us to begin with.

The time for low profile is when one is losing and I've spoken in defense of the NRA's "compromise" in the past because for a very long time the momentum was against us. Polls showed the majority of people favoring stronger gun control (even though most didn't know that much of the "stronger gun control" they supported was actually weaker than already existed). There was no Heller decision. Folk who were even less rabidly anti-gun than Pelosi et al had no problem passing things like the Brady Bill and AWB. And the Supreme Court studiously refused to rule on gun rights.

Today, we have the Heller decision (a small step but an important one), and the very real prospect of incorporation on the docket*. We have Pelosi coming out and publically saying "no" to a new AWB when Holder floated that trial balloon. We have the biggest "gun buy" in history. We have Gallup saying that 53% of the population does not favor stricter gun control laws. Rassmussen (in October) makes it 39% favor (down 4% from March), 50% oppose, with 11% "not sure." Even with high-profile events like the folk OCing (including a slung rifle) near presidential events the number of people who favor stricter gun control has gone down.

The momentum really has changed. Now is not the time to be cowering in fear of what the antis may do but to be deciding what gun-rights supporters are going to do. While one can legitimately argue whether public demonstrations such as that in the OP are the best way to go about that, I do believe that one of the worst ways to do that is to throw the folk who make those kinds of demonstrations "under the bus." The person carrying in TN might not have helped, but the nominally pro-gun individuals making the anti's case for them certainly are not helping.

*Should the five justices who voted for Heller also vote for incorporation, things can get really interesting. Organizations like the Brady Campaign then become organizations advocating the denial of others' civil and constitutional rights. The term for that is "hate group."

 

[Indy317]

Ah, yes, the old "the antis are going to pass laws against it." And how is acting like it's already illegal any better than having laws making it actually illegal? A right unexercised is the same as a right lost.

The antis are going to try to pass laws regardless of whether folk OC or not.

I suspect people made the same kinds of predictions regarding anti-gay response and legislation after Stockton. Didn't work out that way though.

You just don't get it. Lawmakers do things when stuff makes the media. Thousands of pro-massive spending for K-12 types have been trying for decades to pump that industry up. All the while, a small group of people had been calling for them to stop building football stadiums, fattening up administration, etc.. They were painted as the anti-education types. For years, they were laughed at, because we didn't have any issues. That is until two years ago, when folks with $400K homes in older parts of the state, mostly those that had school districts with more lower income students, started seeing their property tax bills skyrocket. In Indy, if you had a $400K home in the IPS district, your property tax bill was $11,000 A YEAR!! Guess what, the lowly numbers of the anti-education group massively swelled to a great many. There were protests down at the statehouse and around the state. Things changed, and they can change in an instant depending on the mood of the general population that votes.

Trust me, if I were to go out day after day armed with my AK-47, constantly scaring people all over this state, our lawmakers would be discussing it. They wouldn't be discussing it unless I did this and started getting on the news all over the place. That is what will happen. Maybe the law will only target rifles, military rifles, or whatever. It might be so site specific, that most of us won't care that much. The fact is, these incidents are happening more and more, and given how many commoners there are vs. pro-opening carrying of AK-47s types, I don't see us winning the battle.

Even with high-profile events like the folk OCing (including a slung rifle) near presidential events the number of people who favor stricter gun control has gone down.

Yup, and most Americans don't support battle rifles being openly worn outside a shooting and or hunting type situation. Again, I am not stating an opinion here, I am just telling you that the elite doesn't like this, and the common person doesn't like this. Republicans will support someone on their side with an AK on their shoulder as long as Democrats are in power, then when the roles reverse, watch for some of those supporters to go into the "Well, that might be a bit much."

I am in the process of training a new shooter. She only got her permit so she could take a gun to the range, no other reason. She hasn't said she is against people carrying handguns, but I highly doubt she would be for people carrying battle rifles around in public areas. Hell, even her dad, a veteran gun owner, one who leans right, disagrees with common citizens having AKs, ARs, etc.. Every generation is different, and after the school shootings, the presidential protests, and these attention seeking "I want to get the cops called on me" stunts, things won't turn out good for us. Again, it might be very insignificant laws, but who knows.

Heller already said that governments have a right to interfere with handgun ownership. So even if that ruling spreads to all 50 states, we will see just what the future holds. Heller is already going back to the court, because DC said "We have to let you have handguns, fine, you can have revolvers only." This is the nit-pick stuff we will be dealing with for decades, all because Heller left the door open for non-clarified government involvement of handguns. I would hate to see their ruling on the ownership of AKs, ARs, etc.. I just don't have the feeling it would go our way.

 

[dross]

However a gun in one's hand is not the subject of the thread, but a gun slung.... The term for that is "hate group."

You just don't get it. Lawmakers do things when stuff makes the media. .. I just don't have the feeling it would go our way.

I think each of you has articulated the two sides of this discussion of tactics quite well. (I'm assuming that Indy317 agrees in principle with the guy being able to carry.)

The question is whether to exercise our rights in this way at this time, or not. I'm swayed by both arguments and it will take me a bit to make up my mind.

For me, this illustrates how tough it is.

 

[Joe Williams]

I think each of you has articulated the two sides of this discussion of tactics quite well. (I'm assuming that Indy317 agrees in principle with the guy being able to carry.)

The question is whether to exercise our rights in this way at this time, or not. I'm swayed by both arguments and it will take me a bit to make up my mind.

For me, this illustrates how tough it is.

I think there is a middle ground. This guy's approach is... counterproductive... in my opinion. However, OC'ing in the course of daily business, organized events like the OC walk in Indy, etc., can be positives. Non-confrontational, no more in your face than carrying a camera bag, if there's a problem and the gun carrier/s involved handles it properly, everyone around can see that the "whack job" is the person getting in the face of the poor innocent gun carrier/s going just trying to go about their business.

 

[dburkhead]

You just don't get it. Lawmakers do things when stuff makes the media.

And what you fail to get is that the antis own the media. If it weren't for the guy in TN, or the guy in AZ, or the guy in (IIRC, NH) the media would have done what it has always done and found or invented something to use to paint gun owners as "the bad guys."

The argument that "if people do like the guy in TN did, the media will paint gun owners as bad" fails because you might as well say, "if people have ham and eggs for breakfast the media will paint gun owners as bad." The full sentence is "The media will paint gun owners as bad." There are no "ifs" necessary for that.

Thousands of pro-massive spending for K-12 types have been trying for decades to pump that industry up. All the while, a small group of people had been calling for them to stop building football stadiums, fattening up administration, etc.. They were painted as the anti-education types. For years, they were laughed at, because we didn't have any issues. That is until two years ago, when folks with $400K homes in older parts of the state, mostly those that had school districts with more lower income students, started seeing their property tax bills skyrocket. In Indy, if you had a $400K home in the IPS district, your property tax bill was $11,000 A YEAR!! Guess what, the lowly numbers of the anti-education group massively swelled to a great many. There were protests down at the statehouse and around the state. Things changed, and they can change in an instant depending on the mood of the general population that votes.

Actions by the state (between the rates set and the assessments made) cost people money and people started screaming? You make my case. That's exactly why Pelosi said "no new AWB" when the trial balloon was floated. She remembers how many votes it cost the democrats in '94 when the majority of the nation (per the same polls that are showing the opposite now) favored stronger gun control.

Yes, things change. But often they change because they are made to change.

Trust me, if were to go out day after day armed with my AK-47, constantly scaring people all over this state, our lawmakers would be discussing it.

And if you don't, the antis will find or invent something else.

You've heard the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? It's usually told as a cautionary tale about raising the alarm unnecessarily but it can work both ways. Get the antis to be the ones raising the alarm unnecessarily over and over again and they start losing credibility.

The fact that I am armed at all scares some people. That does not stop me from being armed.

They wouldn't be discussing it unless I did this and started getting on the news all over the place. That is what will happen.

As far as the media reports go, it will happen anyway. Or have you not been watching the media? Gun laws in Virginia are blamed for crime in DC. Gun laws in Indiana are blamed for crime in Chicago. Gun shops in the US are blamed for violence by drug smugglers in Mexico. Anytime there's a crime involving guns anywhere, the media calls for guns to be taken away from those who didn't do it. Sheesh, I've seen calls for more gun control in response to knife attacks.

The media is going to do it regardless. If you're going to advocate based on what the media is going to say, then you might as well send all your guns to the smelter now.

Maybe the law will only target rifles, military rifles, or whatever. It might be so site specific, that most of us won't care that much.

And maybe even politicians can see the way the momentum is going and realize that advocating gun control is death to many a political career (and the ones for whom it is not are against us anyway).

The fact is, these incidents are happening more and more, and given how many commoners there are vs. pro-opening carrying of AK-47s types, I don't see us winning the battle.

Consider how many "straights" there are vs. how many people advocating open "gay rights" activism pre-Stockton? I guess you wouldn't have seen them winning that battle either.

However acting as if you have already lost is the same as having already lost.

Yup, and most Americans don't support battle rifles being openly worn outside a shooting and or hunting type situation.

And yet even after well-publicized incidents (the OC gun in New Hampshire, the "assault weapon" in AZ) the predictions of people clamoring for more gun control failed to appear. Support for more gun control fell after these events despite predictions exactly like the one you are making here.

Can you honestly say that you didn't think the same thing about the AZ AR (which, incidentally, shows one of my points about the media--MSNBC painting the incident as "white rage" when the man carrying the AR was black--if the media can't find an issue they'll invent one) as you say here?

Does the fact that it didn't work out the way your position here would indicate not give you any pause at all?

Again, I am not stating an opinion here, I am just telling you that the elite doesn't like this, and the common person doesn't like this.

That the elite doesn't like it is to be expected and, quite frankly, the elite not liking it is probably a good thing. There's a term for situations where the elite get what they like: it's called tyranny.

As for the "common person" I suspect that most really don't care all that much one way or another "as long as he's not hurting anyone." Otherwise, well publicized events such as the AZ AR incident would not have been followed (not claiming a causative relationship, just a sequence of events) by a drop in support for gun control.

I'm not saying that the guy carrying the AR caused the drop in support for AR. My own views on any positive effect from more open carry whether or handguns or long arms is based on a much slower effect (the idea is to get people used to the idea which can take considerable time). However, any immediate "negative" effect must be minor compared to the forces that are causing fewer people to support gun control or those numbers would not be dropping.

And the numbers are dropping.

Republicans will support someone on their side with an AK on their shoulder as long as Democrats are in power, then when the roles reverse, watch for some of those supporters to go into the "Well, that might be a bit much."

And the only reason they can do that is folk like some here who are willing to throw other gun owners, those who engage in activities of which they, personally, don't "approve", under the bus.

"Divide and conquer" has been the antis strongest weapon. They lead the gun owners up the gallows because they can trust one group of gun owners to tie the noose for others.

I am in the process of training a new shooter. She only got her permit so she could take a gun to the range, no other reason. She hasn't said she is against people carrying handguns, but I highly doubt she would be for people carrying battle rifles around in public areas. Hell, even her dad, a veteran gun owner, one who leans right, disagrees with common citizens having AKs, ARs, etc.. Every generation is different, and after the school shootings, the presidential protests, and these attention seeking "I want to get the cops called on me" stunts, things won't turn out good for us. Again, it might be very insignificant laws, but who knows.

Attention seeking "I want to get the cops called on me" stunts like sitting in the front of a bus instead of properly going to the rear?

The presidential protests were followed by a drop in support for gun control. Again, I don't think those protests are the reason for that drop, but they the predicted backlash just did not materialize.

As for what your new shooter's dad believes, well, we've had that phenomenon for at least 75 years. If we didn't NFA '34 would have been followed by a political bloodbath among the passers. They don't go away just because you try to hide them.

Heller already said that governments have a right to interfere with handgun ownership. So even if that ruling spreads to all 50 states, we will see just what the future holds. Heller is already going back to the court, because DC said "We have to let you have handguns, fine, you can have revolvers only.

Once again you are missing the point. The antis have been arguing the "collective rights" nonsense for decades. Heller shot that down. I never said it was a final answer to the issue, but that it was a step and a sign that the momentum has changed. For a very long time the decisions were almost uniformly against us. There was some hope with Emerson but in the end the Supreme Court denied cert--their usual approach with gun-rights cases. Now, we not only having the Supreme Court deciding in favor of gun rights (a small step, but a positive one), we also have the second gun rights case in as many years going before the Supreme Courts with a pretty good chance of also being decided in our favor.

That, in and of itself is a sea change.

Yes, I know that Heller left much unanswered and still allows a good bit of government regulation (not much of a surprise there--the Supreme Court has generally been reluctant to make such sweeping changes to large chunks of federal and local legislation. They've done it, but not often). However, again it is instructive to take a look at the civil rights history. The activists didn't get everything at once. They'd get a little recognition of rights, then use that chink in the armor to open the crack wider, and wider still in small, achievable steps until today, well, today many think, with some justification, that things have gone too far in many instances.

As small a point as Heller is, it makes official that the 2nd grants the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, not to some "collective." That is a very useful springboard toward winning back more of our rights.

But one thing I am absolutely sure about: running away, or even just returning to the tactics that lost us the rights we've lost in the first place, is no way to win.

This is the nit-pick stuff we will be dealing with for decades, all because Heller left the door open for non-clarified government involvement of handguns. I would hate to see their ruling on the ownership of AKs, ARs, etc.. I just don't have the feeling it would go our way.

You don't have the feeling that it would go our way? I'll go farther than that on the other side. I'll say that the tactic of throwing in the towel from the start will absolutely not go our way.

Here's the thing, I am really, really doubtful of any strategy that is mostly based on not making things worse. Any strategy at all in the long run is going to sometimes work, sometimes not. You're looking for two steps forward for each step back. As long as one has a strategy of moving forward one has the possibility of doing so along with the possibilities of staying about where you are or going backward (nowhere is it writ that the "good guys" will always win). If the strategy is of staying where you are (not offending the antis in this case) then when it fails you move backward. When it "succeeds" you don't move forward. You may slow the movement backward, but such a policy can never move one forward and, eventually, all will be lost. It's a defensible policy when one is already losing. When you're not losing, however, it's a wonderful way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Anyone with any knowledge of US Naval history at all knows one saying of John Paul Jones, but there's another that is perhaps more important, "He who will not risk, cannot win."

 

[finity]

I do find it a bit troubling to see Law Enforcement Officers arguing in justification of the most they can do rather than looking for the least they have to do (when it comes to use or threat of use of force).

I fully agree.

It was in his hand and NOT in a holster. Officers pulled up and got him down at gunpoint.

See above. Without knowing who this person was & his history or without some other form of him communicating a threat, you & the other cops who "got him down at gunpoint" violated his rights. You overreacted. He could have been any other person at all who had any number of legitimate reasons at that moment to happen to be carrying a gun in hand. just because YOU don't like anyone carrying a gun in their hand DOESN'T make it illegal.

the _only_ real difference here is the cop leveled his barrel higher than the guy with the AK.

No. The real difference is that the cop POINTED HIS GUN AT A PERSON DOING NOTHING ILLEGAL & the person he pointed it at had his pistol slung, not in his hand.

However, if he wasn't/isn't breaking the law, and I know that, and you folks make it so I can't take pro-active steps to protect myself when either "watching" him, or speaking with him, then I am going to do neither. I will drive by, cautiously, see it is a "pistol," and leave.

Good. Maybe that's the way that it should be handled in the first place.

I am not a "blue canary" for all of you folks. I didn't sign up for involuntary suicide. That being said, I try my best to be familiar with as many laws as possible. I can deal with possible "quick draw" type situations, where I am dealing with folks with holstered guns. However, if the target of my investigation already has a drawn gun, I don't see why I can't have my gun drawn as well? And if I feel the need to point it at him/her, so be it.

So...That's "your line". You can handle "quick draw's". But what if other LEO's can't? Do they get to approach any OC'er with gun-drawn & pointed at them? So the level of infringement in an encounter should be decided depending on what the cop feels comfortable with not with the evidence (or lack of it) of illegal activity?

If the cops don't respond and something ends up happening, they will be sued If the callers to 911 don't get the response they think they should, they will complain to their elected representatives.

I'm sure you already know that the SCOTUS (which does set precedent for IN) has already ruled that the police can't be sued for failing to respond & protect individual citizens.

Just in case you don't, here is the case:

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES

 

[Indy317]

Without knowing who this person was & his history or without some other form of him communicating a threat, you & the other cops who "got him down at gunpoint" violated his rights. You overreacted. He could have been any other person at all who had any number of legitimate reasons at that moment to happen to be carrying a gun in hand. just because YOU don't like anyone carrying a gun in their hand DOESN'T make it illegal.

In Indiana, it is illegal to possess a handgun on one's person w/o a license. Until a court rules exact on that law, as it is spelled out in Indiana Code, I believe there is reasonable suspicion to stop someone seen carrying a handgun in Indiana. If a person has the gun in their hand, at the ready, most cops are at least going to have their guns drawn, and I am sure some will have them pointed at the person if need be. Until the courts rule the carrying of weapons, under laws similar to Indiana, don't yield reasonable suspicion, these stops are all "up in the air."

I'm sure you already know that the SCOTUS (which does set precedent for IN) has already ruled that the police can't be sued for failing to respond & protect individual citizens.

Just in case you don't, here is the case:

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES

Protecting individual citizens is NOT what this case was about. At least be honest with your facts. Gonzales was about a lawsuit against police, by a mother, saying police failed in their duties to enforce a court order after the lady's ex-husband violated the order by keeping the kids longer. The kids ended up dead and the ex-husband died in a shoot-out at the police station. There is nothing about "can't be sued for failing to respond & protect individual citizens" printed in the opinion that I could find. The court held in this case: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

 

[finity]

In Indiana, it is illegal to possess a handgun on one's person w/o a license. Until a court rules exact on that law, as it is spelled out in Indiana Code, I believe there is reasonable suspicion to stop someone seen carrying a handgun in Indiana. If a person has the gun in their hand, at the ready, most cops are at least going to have their guns drawn, and I am sure some will have them pointed at the person if need be. Until the courts rule the carrying of weapons, under laws similar to Indiana, don't yield reasonable suspicion, these stops are all "up in the air."

I guess that means that you can stop that person in any way YOU see fit. What's to stop you or any other LEO from getting someone else (who isn't a felon) "down at gunpoint" for the simple act of open-carrying a firearm? Define the restrictions that you or any other LEO have in regard to this "stop". Seeing as you say there is nothing in IN law that states what level of response is OK when "stopping" someone for carrying a gun (with no other evidence of a crime) then it seems you are trying to say that it is completely up to officer discretion.
That, my friend, is one of the scariest things I've ever heard.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure you're still bound by the IN law on use of reasonable force.
Putting someone on the ground for a legal act, IMO, should fall outside of the limits set by this law. If the courts say you can...well...as we've read so many times in this very thread, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Protecting individual citizens is NOT what this case was about. At least be honest with your facts. Gonzales was about a lawsuit against police, by a mother, saying police failed in their duties to enforce a court order after the lady's ex-husband violated the order by keeping the kids longer. The kids ended up dead and the ex-husband died in a shoot-out at the police station. There is nothing about "can't be sued for failing to respond & protect individual citizens" printed in the opinion that I could find. The court held in this case: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

The whole case hinged on the right of police to use discretion. They said if the police have a right to use discretion when deciding to arrest someone or not (& there was no denial that that right exists) or, in that case, enforcing a restraining order by arresting someone, there CAN BE NO obligation on the part of the police to protect an individual or, from inference, to even respond to a call (I think there have been other cases that have addressed that specific scenario that used this case as support for dismissal)

The case may initially have been specifically about violation of a restraining order but generally it came to the conclusion that the police are not bound by any contract to protect any one individual but to protect society in general therefore the police can't be sued on breach of contract or any Constitutional grounds for failing to respond to a call from a (any) citizen for help (unless under the vary rare exception when the law specifically removes that discretion by statute).

in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989), another casewith "undeniably tragic" facts: Local child-protection officials had failed to protect a young boy from beatings by his father that left him severely brain damaged. Id., at 191.193. We held that the so-called "substantive" component of the Due Process Clause does not "requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors".

The procedural component of the Due Process Clause does not protect everything that might be described as a "benefit": "To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire" and "more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it".

Such entitlements are "of course, . . . not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law".

Our cases recognize that a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.

Then they go on to say that even if state law mandates enforcement, there is still some inherent discretion that makes a suit illegitimate.

A well established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.

'In each and every state there are long-standing statutes that, by their terms, seem to preclude nonenforcement by the police. . . . However, for a number of reasons, including their legislative history, insufficient resources, and sheer physical impossibility, it has been recognized that such statutes cannot be interpreted literally. . . . [T]hey clearly do not mean that a police officer may not lawfully decline to make an arrest. As to third parties in these states, the full enforcement statutes simply have no effect, and their significance is further diminished'

The deep-rooted nature of law-enforcement discretion, even in the presence of seemingly mandatory legislative commands, is illustrated by Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S. 41 (1999), which involved an ordinance that said a police officer "shall order" persons to disperse in certain circumstances. This Court rejected out of hand the possibility that "the mandatory language of the ordinance. . . afford[ed] the police no discretion". It is, the Court proclaimed, simply "common sense that all police officers must use some discretion in deciding when and where to enforce city ordinances".

They specifically use the examples of an officers discretion in arresting someone for committing a crime in the officers presence:

That language is not perceptibly more mandatory than the Colorado statute which has long told municipal chiefs of police that they 'shall pursue and arrest any person fleeing from justice in any part of the state' and that they 'shall apprehend any person in the act of committing any offense. . . and, forthwith and without any warrant, bring such person before a . . . competent authority for examination and trial'.

The practical necesssity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this one, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. ("There is a vast difference between a mandatory duty to arrest [a violator who is on the scene] and a mandatory duty to conduct a follow up investigation [to locate an absent violator] . . . A mandatory duty to investigate would be completely open-ended as to priority, duration and intensity").

Here is another explanation:

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

Last but not least here is INDIANA's law that grants immunity to cops who fail to enforce any Indiana law:

IC 34-13-3-3
Immunity of governmental entity or employee
Sec. 3. A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from the following:
.
.
(7) The performance of a discretionary function; however, the provision of medical or optical care as provided in IC 34-6-2-38 shall be considered as a ministerial act.
(8) The adoption and enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce a law (including rules and regulations), unless the act of enforcement constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment.
.
.

 

[Indy317]

I guess that means that you can stop that person in any way YOU see fit. What's to stop you or any other LEO from getting someone else (who isn't a felon) "down at gunpoint" for the simple act of open-carrying a firearm?

For LEOs in Indiana, right now? Nothing that I know of. For LEOs in New Mexico who see someone open carrying, they are pretty much "on notice" that they can't do anything because it is legal. So I think they are also backed by not even checking out these folks since OCing in New Mexico isn't against the law. Until the supreme court of Indiana, or a district court in Indiana, rules on what actions amount to reasonable suspicion when someone is CCing or OCing a handgun in Indiana, this is still up in the air here.

Define the restrictions that you or any other LEO have in regard to this "stop". Seeing as you say there is nothing in IN law that states what level of response is OK when "stopping" someone for carrying a gun (with no other evidence of a crime) then it seems you are trying to say that it is completely up to officer discretion.

Yes. I believe that right now, until courts rule otherwise, how any individual officer would deal with someone they witness carrying a handgun in Indiana is up to the officer. Some might put those people down at gunpoint, others might just un-holster their weapon, others might not do anything with their sidearms.

That, my friend, is one of the scariest things I've ever heard. OTOH, I'm pretty sure you're still bound by the IN law on use of reasonable force.

#1: What law would that be? If you are going to talk IN laws, please cite them.
#2: There is another thread on this similar subject. A guy, who it was later determined was legally carrying a handgun, was detained at gun point. His lawsuit failed. Will that become nationwide law? Depends on if it makes it way to the US Supreme Court. The thing is, "reasonable force" doesn't have a fixed definition. These aren't issues of people who are said to "might have a gun." I am talking about situations when officers actually _see_ a gun. The level of allowable force changes when the officers _knows_ there is a firearm involved.

Putting someone on the ground for a legal act, IMO, should fall outside of the limits set by this law. If the courts say you can...well...as we've read so many times in this very thread, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Well, then folks like you, and others, shouldn't call the police when you see someone walking down your street holding an AK-47, or Glock, in their hand. Don't call the cops for someone OCing, CCing, and/or holdings guns in their hands until _after_ they start doing something illegal. That right there would mitigate these encounters.

Now, there will be times when officers themselves will witness someone with a handgun. If an officer decides to stop that person for an investigation on a violation of Indiana's handgun carry law, they may or may not feel the need to put the person on the ground. If this happens, and that person feels the officer is wrong, they need to file a lawsuit. Then we will finally get an answer.

 

[finity]

For LEOs in Indiana, right now? Nothing that I know of.
.
.
Until the supreme court of Indiana, or a district court in Indiana, rules on what actions amount to reasonable suspicion when someone is CCing or OCing a handgun in Indiana, this is still up in the air here.

Yes. I believe that right now, until courts rule otherwise, how any individual officer would deal with someone they witness carrying a handgun in Indiana is up to the officer. Some might put those people down at gunpoint, others might just un-holster their weapon, others might not do anything with their sidearms.

Well I guess that puts anybody here who OC's (Kirk, ATM, others) on notice that we have at least one LEO who thinks it's perfectly acceptable for police to put you on the ground at gunpoint if they want to..& there's probably nothing you can do about it.

#1: What law would that be? If you are going to talk IN laws, please cite them.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.

etc
etc

This law pertains to arrest. A "stop" is not an arrest so I would venture to say that pointing a gun at someone & putting them on the ground for nothing more than OC'ing is outside the limits of that law, but I see you disagree.

#2: There is another thread on this similar subject. A guy, who it was later determined was legally carrying a handgun, was detained at gun point. His lawsuit failed.

There was also a recent thread about a guy from that same state who was disarmed & his gun taken for nothing more than OC'ing. He got a settlement from the district where the cop was employed. If you want me to cite the case again I can, but I already did in that other thread.

The thing is, "reasonable force" doesn't have a fixed definition. These aren't issues of people who are said to "might have a gun." I am talking about situations when officers actually _see_ a gun. The level of allowable force changes when the officers _knows_ there is a firearm involved.

That's the funny thing. Courts & juries decide what's reasonable all the time. Sometimes they get it wrong. Most times I'd say they get it right.

You are arguing that LEO's should have more leeway than the average individual to use force on someone who by all appearances is doing nothing but OC'ing a gun in a legal manner.

Well, then folks like you, and others, shouldn't call the police when you see someone walking down your street holding an AK-47, or Glock, in their hand. Don't call the cops for someone OCing, CCing, and/or holdings guns in their hands until _after_ they start doing something illegal. That right there would mitigate these encounters.

Now you're going to start making assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do? I don't think I've ever stated my actions on seeing someone OC'ing with a gun in their hand.

Now, there will be times when officers themselves will witness someone with a handgun. If an officer decides to stop that person for an investigation on a violation of Indiana's handgun carry law, they may or may not feel the need to put the person on the ground. If this happens, and that person feels the officer is wrong, they need to file a lawsuit. Then we will finally get an answer.

 

[XDinmyXJ]

"loud pipes save lives"

Haha, that is very true. ask the guy in Mt. comfort who hit my rear bumper on his BMW bike. Man, I felt bad about that but I don't know where the dude came from! Not sure if it was my fault or his. No damage to my Jeep or his bike though.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

First, I think it would be instructive for me if you could articulate your belief on what a court SHOULD hold regarding this subject. Hiding behind the courts doesn't get us very far when the courts make mistakes, and they do all the time.

Second, I'm not clear how you think I should exercise my rights regarding carry, dress code, and expression. Since there is so much debate about what is appropriate, you should help me understand where the appropriate lines should be drawn so that I can squarely fit within your conception of my rights. Please feel free to elaborate in detail so I and all other carriers will know how to exercise our rights should we encounter you in your official capacity in the future.

For LEOs in Indiana, right now? Nothing that I know of. For LEOs in New Mexico who see someone open carrying, they are pretty much "on notice" that they can't do anything because it is legal. So I think they are also backed by not even checking out these folks since OCing in New Mexico isn't against the law. Until the supreme court of Indiana, or a district court in Indiana, rules on what actions amount to reasonable suspicion when someone is CCing or OCing a handgun in Indiana, this is still up in the air here.

[/font][/color][/font]

 

[dross]

Now, there will be times when officers themselves will witness someone with a handgun. If an officer decides to stop that person for an investigation on a violation of Indiana's handgun carry law, they may or may not feel the need to put the person on the ground. If this happens, and that person feels the officer is wrong, they need to file a lawsuit. Then we will finally get an answer.[/font][/color][/font]

The problem we citizens have with this point of view is that all we have keeping us "off the ground" is the good graces of a particular police officer.

They say that the most efficient government for the citizens is a benevolent monarchy. The problem is that we can't demand this benevolence, but only hope it continues to be bestowed on us.

 

[Joe Williams]

Well I guess that puts anybody here who OC's (Kirk, ATM, others) on notice that we have at least one LEO who thinks it's perfectly acceptable for police to put you on the ground at gunpoint if they want to..& there's probably nothing you can do about it.
snip

I have no problem taking a police officer to federal court if one is so contemptuous of the Constitution as to willingly violate not only my 2A rights but also my right to protection against unlawful search and seizure. There are obviously police officers willing to hide behind the ruling of one judge who made his decision based on personal feelings and not Constitutional rights, while at the same time being so stupid as to ignore multiple other rulings covering what is and is not lawful detention, and lawful search and seizure. I suffer no heartburn whatsoever at the concept of going to court to protect my rights from some buffoon who hides behind a badge, while at the same time dishonoring it and the law he claims to honor while he/she pisses on the Constitution. In the long run, it'll just put a few pennies in my wallet, and strike yet another blow for citizen's rights.

Edit: It does bear pointing out, of course, that I've yet to have a problem, ever, with a cop while OC'ing. Most, whether they like it or not, simply won't cross the line to citizen harassment simply to try to force their personal opinions on free citizens. There's a lot of cops out there, though, and there's bound to be some that simply can't maintain that level of professionalism.

 

[Indy317]

Well I guess that puts anybody here who OC's (Kirk, ATM, others) on notice that we have at least one LEO who thinks it's perfectly acceptable for police to put you on the ground at gunpoint if they want to..& there's probably nothing you can do about it.

WHERE did I write it was "perfectly acceptable for police to put you on the ground at gunpoint if they want to?" I have only two people on ignore:
One who only types in huge text and the other was someone who totally misquoted me..a/k/a lied. Unfortunately that thread closed and I was not able to call that person out on his/her misstatement.

This law pertains to arrest. A "stop" is not an arrest so I would venture to say that pointing a gun at someone & putting them on the ground for nothing more than OC'ing is outside the limits of that law, but I see you disagree.

Anytime a person's freedom is restricted, they have, in the _general sense_, been arrested. Too many people believe "arrested" only means taken down to jail, booked, etc. If your freedom is restricted, you have been arrested, detained, held, stopped, etc.. The courts have ruled that officers can detain others based on various reasons. The detainment may or may not last a while, it all depends on how various factors unfold. I have not said I agreed or disagreed with putting someone at gun point for OCing. Please point out where I wrote such, as my own opinion, so I can correct that. I am not giving my opinion, because this isn't cut and dry. I am just stating facts such as the recent federal court case that said a guy couldn't sue because he was put at gun point.

As far as the limits of the law, here is an example:
A call comes in of a guy stealing something, say a radio from a car. I get there and the victim states that nothing is missing from the car, there is no damage or forced entry, but there is evidence that someone entered the car. I get a good description of the suspect from the witness. At this time, the only crime that I _might_ have is unlawful entry into a vehicle. There is nothing missing, so not theft. It would be hard to prove intent since there is also no forced entry. This is a misdemeanor crime, one that an officer can't arrest on without witnessing. It is likely the goal of the suspect was theft, as is the case with most of these kind of calls. As such, I still have enough to stop and detain this individual to obtain his identification. I can't arrest him, but I do have a right to restrict his freedom in an investigation in a criminal matter. Now say I find this guy, five minutes later, and he is OCing, or carrying a gun in his hand. Most courts are going to agree that an officer is justified in pointing their gun at such a suspect. Why? Because the suspect is _known_ to the officer to be armed, and not just with a stick, or screwdriver, or pocketknife, but a firearm. Now forget about any other criminal act. Say an officer sees this person was just OCing, or carrying a gun in his hand, he still might be in violation of an Indiana law, one that restricts the carrying of handguns upon a person. If both suspects in these cases end up having valid permits, both of these cases are just "stops." However, the level of force an officer is allowed to use depends upon what the officer can articulate. If the officer can articulate that they were stopping someone suspected of a crime, they will likely be justified in drawing down on such a person (because the officers sees the person armed with a gun).

Basically, LEOs are allowed to pull their guns, even if they don't know 100% if the person they are pointing their guns at is going to jail. It is all about the complete picture, which is why LEOs don't pull their guns on some investigations and they do in others.

There was also a recent thread about a guy from that same state who was disarmed & his gun taken for nothing more than OC'ing. He got a settlement from the district where the cop was employed. If you want me to cite the case again I can, but I already did in that other thread.

Yea, New Mexico. The case has _nothing_ to do with Indiana law. In Indiana, OCing and CCing a handgun is illegal. One can only do so with a permission slip from the government, and/or be a member of an exempted class. New Mexico law is 180 degrees different from Indiana. In New Mexico, one can _legally_ OC, no license/permit required. Witnessing someone OCing in New Mexico means nothing. Witnessing someone OCing in Indiana could mean the person is witnessing a criminal violation of the law.

You are arguing that LEO's should have more leeway than the average individual to use force on someone who by all appearances is doing nothing but OC'ing a gun in a legal manner.

Where did I argue this? Please cite me.

Now you're going to start making assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do? I don't think I've ever stated my actions on seeing someone OC'ing with a gun in their hand.

True enough, but I would ask for the same consideration.

First, I think it would be instructive for me if you could articulate your belief on what a court SHOULD hold regarding this subject. Hiding behind the courts doesn't get us very far when the courts make mistakes, and they do all the time.

Second, I'm not clear how you think I should exercise my rights regarding carry, dress code, and expression. Since there is so much debate about what is appropriate, you should help me understand where the appropriate lines should be drawn so that I can squarely fit within your conception of my rights. Please feel free to elaborate in detail so I and all other carriers will know how to exercise our rights should we encounter you in your official capacity in the future.

I have never given my opinion, though others are writing that it is as if I am in agreement with cops jumping out of cars with guns drawn. I am not going to give my opinion, as these situations are not static, they are dynamic. OCing in a holster is different than OCing with the gun in your hand pointed down which is different than OCing while having a loud yelling match with another person. I will tell you this, the one case I had were a person was OCing, I didn't take him down at gun point, I didn't even disarm him. I just informed him of the rules of the property. Every situation is different, there is not much more I can say than that.

Also, I am not hiding behind courts. I am just relaying what courts have ruled. If folks don't like court rulings, they need to do what Joe Williams stated below:

I have no problem taking a police officer to federal court if one is so contemptuous of the Constitution as to willingly violate not only my 2A rights but also my right to protection against unlawful search and seizure. There are obviously police officers willing to hide behind the ruling of one judge who made his decision based on personal feelings and not Constitutional rights, while at the same time being so stupid as to ignore multiple other rulings covering what is and is not lawful detention, and lawful search and seizure. I suffer no heartburn whatsoever at the concept of going to court to protect my rights from some buffoon who hides behind a badge, while at the same time dishonoring it and the law he claims to honor while he/she pisses on the Constitution. In the long run, it'll just put a few pennies in my wallet, and strike yet another blow for citizen's rights.

You seem to understand how things work. If folks don't like how things are going down, they need to sue. Judges are making lots of laws in this country, and the only way to get in front of a judge is to file a lawsuit. I disagree on the fact that you would get a few pennies in your wallet. If your the first "test case," you may not get anything personally, but a judge could rule "from here on out...."

Edit: It does bear pointing out, of course, that I've yet to have a problem, ever, with a cop while OC'ing. Most, whether they like it or not, simply won't cross the line to citizen harassment simply to try to force their personal opinions on free citizens. There's a lot of cops out there, though, and there's bound to be some that simply can't maintain that level of professionalism.

My guess is that lawsuits have already been discussed. I am also going to go out on a limb and say that most lawyers won't want to take such a lawsuit unless the person filing it pays by the hour, instead of the lawyer taking 1/3rd+ of any settlement. People continue to want to use other court rulings to back either side, which really doesn't affect what happens in Indiana. What we are talking about is very specific, very narrow. The federal ruling about the Seymour PD case doesn't deal with the _carrying_ of handguns. The New Mexico case deals with an action by a citizen that wasn't even unlawful in New Mexico, regardless of who was doing it. The Massachusetts case is based on Mass. law, not Indiana. The Virgin Islands case is based upon an anonymous tip. Officers didn't witness the person with a gun in that case, yet they took action anyway. The best we can hope for is that the Mass. case is taken to the US Supreme Court to have a hard, nationwide ruling.

 

[finity]

Yea, New Mexico. The case has _nothing_ to do with Indiana law. In Indiana, OCing and CCing a handgun is illegal. One can only do so with a permission slip from the government, and/or be a member of an exempted class. New Mexico law is 180 degrees different from Indiana. In New Mexico, one can _legally_ OC, no license/permit required. Witnessing someone OCing in New Mexico means nothing. Witnessing someone OCing in Indiana could mean the person is witnessing a criminal violation of the law.

Sorry, but the case was from Georgia. You were the one who keeps saying it was New Mexico even after I pointed out differently.

Here it is again:

http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/richmond_carry/Doc%2011%20Consent%20Order.pdf

I have never given my opinion, though others are writing that it is as if I am in agreement with cops jumping out of cars with guns drawn. I am not going to give my opinion, as these situations are not static, they are dynamic. OCing in a holster is different than OCing with the gun in your hand pointed down which is different than OCing while having a loud yelling match with another person. I will tell you this, the one case I had were a person was OCing, I didn't take him down at gun point, I didn't even disarm him. I just informed him of the rules of the property. Every situation is different, there is not much more I can say than that.

The problem is you condone it with your silence. You state unequivocally that it is acceptable (by law, by policy, by custom - whatever) for an officer to take someone down at gunpoint for purely OC'ing. You don't speak against the practice so a reasonable person could conclude that you agree with it.

Dynamic or not I can't see how you could be hesitant about giving your opinion about the very specific scenario of one of your fellow LEO's taking someone down at gun-point for JUST OC'ING WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING.

I'm glad you haven't done it but by not speaking out about it you validate others opinions about it.

Sorry you feel the need to throw down the "ignore button" threat. To each his own.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

But what do you think the ruling should be? I really don't understand how you think this should come out. If you were that lone justice left to break a tie and write the majority opinion, what would you lay down as the rule of the land for police and private person alike to deal with? What would be the policy and principle considerations that would drive your decision?

I struggle to discern where you draw the line on acceptable action. It would seem that with the vast majority of hypothetical situations, a pattern of values, principles, and policy concerns would emerge in a pattern that would allow prediction of outcomes in other various and less similar situations. There has to be more than, "we . . . hope . . . to have a hard, nationwide ruling," because that ruling could be bad and applied nationwide, or it could be bad and narrowly tailored to just Mass, or it could be good and narrowly tailored, or it could be great and applied nationwide? How do you know when you look at the opinion where it likely falls on the spectrum?

The best we can hope for is that the Mass. case is taken to the US Supreme Court to have a hard, nationwide ruling.

 

[Indy317]

Sorry, but the case was from Georgia. You were the one who keeps saying it was New Mexico even after I pointed out differently.

Here it is again:

http://www.georgiacarry.com/county/r...nt%20Order.pdf

The Georgia case doesn't even touch on this issue. The officer stopped a guy OCing, the courts say _nothing_ about the validity of this stop for the most part. Second, the deputy argued some sort of safety reason for the stop. Even after he was aware the guy was military, meaning he was legal, the deputy then took the gun. If you look at what the court ruled against, it was not only against the seizure of the firearm, but _also_ (they use the word 'and') requiring the guy to come pick it up.

The problem is you condone it with your silence. You state unequivocally that it is acceptable (by law, by policy, by custom - whatever) for an officer to take someone down at gunpoint for purely OC'ing. You don't speak against the practice so a reasonable person could conclude that you agree with it.

Now you're going to start making assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do? I am not allowed to put words in your mouth, but you can in mine. Thanks, and good-bye.

I'm glad you haven't done it but by not speaking out about it you validate others opinions about it.

Now you're going to start making assumptions about what I would or wouldn't validate?

Sorry you feel the need to throw down the "ignore button" threat. To each his own.

Well, I don't care to engage in conversation with those who write false statements about me, when they can't back it up. It is hilarious that you are allowed to make claims about me because of what I don't write, yet you jumped all over me for doing the same thing to you.