Man arrested for LEGAL Open Carry!!

[cpd169]

May be true ( I haven't read the book ), but think about it, of course there are going to be more civvie shootings than police shootings, think about the ratio of Officers to Civilians, and guns to Officers and civilians. How many civilians get into active shooter situations? shootings from moving vehicles? shooting AT moving vehicles? running gun battles? barricades? etc.. etc.. Did his research take that into account? Serious question, I have no idea as previously stated, I haven't read the book.

I am pro 2nd amendment, but you know what burns me up? Hearing a CCW'er second guess a police shooting in let's say a running gun battle when they have done nothing but shoot at paper targets and bowling pins. These obviously, are two entirely different arenas, and to put paper target shooting skills against a live shooting situation ( where the target is actually moving and shooting back ) is utterly ridiculous.

I completely agree, that's why I said that there are many reasons for the greater number of times that civilians end up shooting bad guys and hit them more often. But, in my experience most police ranges are completely inadequate and have officers shooting at still targets. Up until a decade or so ago no agency that I had ever worked for as a reserve part-time or full-time officer had even had a multiple target scenario and only one has had us night firing.

I know that larger, better funded agencies have much better training for their officers including live fire training with simunition guns, but I don't work for one and never have. I've never shot a moving target at a police range (except for skeet shooting with a shotgun), it seems that the agencies who built the police ranges I've used were more concerned with liability than about providing realistic training for LEO's. Most don't allow officers to shoot on the move, unless a tactical unit is training.

I have shot moving targets however on a civilian range the owner of which was and is active with the IDPA. I've never had the opportunity to go to Gun Site, Thunder Ranch, Blackwater or any of the other high dollar training centers, but I'm sure that the training offered at any one of them is first class and includes moving targets, shooting on the move, etc.

It ticks me off when anyone second guesses anyone else unless they've "been there and done that" themselves, especially where an individual has been forced to make a life or death decision in a matter of less than a second, be they LEO, soldier or civilian.

[Trempel]

If there is a city ordinance then how is it legal?

That's kind of how I see it. I'm a proponent of civilian carry, concealed or otherwise, but come on. You're violating a local ordinance, so WTF you got to go on? You want to open carry, then either do it where it's legal or do what you can to change the law. Otherwise, there's no need to blame cops for doing their jobs.

[velobard]

That's kind of how I see it. I'm a proponent of civilian carry, concealed or otherwise, but come on. You're violating a local ordinance, so WTF you got to go on? You want to open carry, then either do it where it's legal or do what you can to change the law. Otherwise, there's no need to blame cops for doing their jobs.

Please read more of the thread. State pre-emption allowing OC overrules the local ordinance.

[cmr164]

The one local mention was noted already... find a real news source. Heck the OC folks have had plenty of time to stir some news and if there was even a ghost of a chance thay were right on the preemption angle then lots of news on both the right and the left would be talking this up.

Is it a put up job by OC... walks like a duck and talks like a duck... doesn't prove it's a duck but... is enough for an opinion.

[velobard]

cmr164, I can't imagine this story is newsworthy enough to rank anything more than a mention in the local Police Calls column. In a larger city I doubt it would even rank that high.

[theghostrider]

So how about?



And just in case you don't think that is enough then note the word "another" down below. Then ask yourself why only this org is even reporting this. No news orgs or press... It doesn't take rocket science to smell a rat... I googled this when it first came up and it is an OC put up job.



Last edited on Thu Aug 7th, 2008 03:29 am by Phoenixphire

[/QUOTE]

What your referring to is a grass roots effort. Launching accusations without even so much as doing a little research to track down the source of what you report is hardly evidence. It's more conspiracy theory. Bottom line is, you simply don't know what your talking about, so your providing baseless theory.

[cmr164]

cmr164, I can't imagine this story is newsworthy enough to rank anything more than a mention in the local Police Calls column. In a larger city I doubt it would even rank that high.

I agree 100%. It is just some guy getting a ticket. If there was anything to the preemption argument the the media would have picked up on it. But it isn't news, its just some OC hotdog getting a ticket. The OC arguments about preemption sound a lot like the sovereign republic nutcase arguments for not paying taxes or getting driver's licenses.

[velobard]

I agree 100%. It is just some guy getting a ticket. If there was anything to the preemption argument the the media would have picked up on it. But it isn't news, its just some OC hotdog getting a ticket. The OC arguments about preemption sound a lot like the sovereign republic nutcase arguments for not paying taxes or getting driver's licenses.

From what I have read elsewhere (not, not OC.org ) the pre-emption law is real and it has been validated and accepted. Even with that in place I don't see the media hopping onto this bandwagon for a couple of reasons. First, most of the media isn't inclined to promote this sort of cause. Second, it still just amounts to a minor story about a guy getting a simple citation. They know most of their readers won't care about the story, so they use that space in their newspaper to report stuff they consider newsworthy.

I'm anything but an "OC hotdog", but I would be more comfortable if I could OC while I'm doing work around my yard on a hot day. One of the reasons I don't is that I have a highly visible corner lot with a lot of police cars that pass by since the department is nearby and they use these roads just to get to and from the station. Even though there are no local or state laws here against OC, the local police have made it clear that they intend to arrest anyone caught OC, then oblige them to hire an attorney to prove their case in court. I don't have that sort of money to throw around so it's simply not an option.

[SgtScott31]

If someone goes through the time, money and effort to buy a handgun and carry it openly, I do not think he needs financial support to support his cause against the citation he received, whether it was a legitimate arrest or not.

If he is innocent, he can plead such and let the courts handle the situation just like anyone else. Considering the genocide, starvation, cancer and other true emergencies throughout the world that seek financial support, this does NOT fall under the worthiness of donations in my opinion. Just my .02.

[t150vsuptpr]

Even though there are no local or state laws here against OC, the local police have made it clear that they intend to arrest anyone caught OC,

For what?

[CajunController]

For what?

I'd like to know as well, there are no ordinances or bylaws banning it so how can they arrest?

[DAL]

I'd like to know as well, there are no ordinances or bylaws banning it so how can they arrest?

I doubt that the local police acknowledged that there were no laws banning open carry. The open-carry proponent may or may not be right in his assertion about legality,

According to opencarry.org, Missouri is a state that allows local regulation of open carry. I have not taken the time to research the law from a reliable source.

[velobard]

For what?

Good question. Rather than type it all out again, I'll just quote what I said in an earlier post in this thread.

I had a discussion with a local LEO on this topic. After reading the local ordinances on weapons and finding no prohibition on open carry, I called to learn whether I may have overlooked anything. He insisted that open carry is illegal here. He cited the ordinace that states, "Carries upon or about his or her person a knife in excess of 1½ inches, a firearm..." and I pointed out that it actually reads, "Carries concealed upon or about his or her person..." He then mentioned another line that reads, "Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use..." and I said that the rest of the sentence says, "...in an angry or threatening manner." At that point he started sounding upset and insisted again that OC is illegal, so I assured him that I was not intending to OC, that I only wanted some assurance that an accidental exposure would not place me at risk of arrest. I thanked him and ended the call.

I am confident that if I ever decided to open carry (which is not on the table at this time) that the law is clear and I would be exonerated, but because of the stakes involved I would have to pay for an attorney to back me up.

When he started using a more aggressive tone, telling me that he'd been doing this over 29 years, etc. and considering that I'd been referred to him as the "go to" guy for this sort of issue, I backed down and let it go. At that point it was obvious that any further discussion would not be productive. I don't know whether they would issue a citation based on one of the items we discussed or something else, like "disturbing the peace" or, well, who knows. I just know that I can't afford an attorney for something like this, and that I don't care to risk having a firearms-related violation on my record.

A couple of weeks ago, shortly after this call, I turned in my notification to the local police chief for my C&R FFL and they had an officer do a follow-up visit a few days later, knocking on my door at 10:00 at night. My gun was in an exposed holster when I answered the door (I had removed my covering shirt) and I have to admit, after that phone call I felt pretty self-concious even wearing the gun inside my own home.

Edit: DAL, you are correct. MO allows open carry, but there is no pre-emption clause so local jurisdictions are allowed to have their own regulation. In my county that would be problematic because there are roughly 100 jurisdictions (St Louis County) and it would be virtually hopeless to keep track of the ordinances in each one. It makes for a real legal quilt-work. My question to the officer was regarding just this city, since many of my trips out are within the local jurisdiction. BTW, I'm not an "OC proponent", per se. Read my last couple of posts and you should understand the reasons I had for asking.

[t150vsuptpr]

Based strictly on what you provided, I would again ask "for what", as it seems you corrected the officer, or else he in effect said
"laws? we don't need no steenkin laws".

I mean after all, when I read that post (both times ... I saw it the first time BTW)

He insisted that open carry is illegal here. He cited the ordinace that states, "Carries upon or about his or her person a knife in excess of 1½ inches, a firearm..." and I pointed out that it actually reads, "Carries concealed upon or about his or her person..." He then mentioned another line that reads, "Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use..." and I said that the rest of the sentence says, "...in an angry or threatening manner." At that point he started sounding upset and insisted again that OC is illegal

I sort of imagine he's both embarassed at being corrected by a civilian, and enlightened once the embarassment subsided, maybe appreciative even ... or he's a fool to arrest after such an exchange.

I wasn't there, I cannot speak outside the context of a total acceptance of your post as "gospe", and we both know I have no idea of it's accuracy in reality though.

[velobard]

One other point I thought was interesting when I read the local weapons ordinance...it was interesting to learn that I was an "outlaw" when I was a kid and carrying around my Boy Scout knife. Not a single pocketknife for sale at the local Walmart is less than 1.5". I started browsing some of the ordinances for other nearby suburbs and many of them have identical wording except they don't specify length, so any pocketknife is technically illegal. The last time our local ordinance was revised was back in the '50s.

I didn't call with the intention of trying to challenge this guy, I just wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking something. I'm hardly an activist for OC (though I do respect that others should have the choice) so I don't have much intention of ever testing his intentions.

[Steve in PA]

I'd like to know as well, there are no ordinances or bylaws banning it so how can they arrest?

This is the situation in PA. There is no law stating OC is illegal, therefore it is legal. There is no law for anyone to be arrested for based on this.

Some officers have tried to use disorderly conduct charges, however none of them fit. The only one that could even remotely considered is (a)(4), however this law states .........."creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor".

By law........OC is legal in PA, therefore it is a legitimate purpose of the actor. The fact that some people see a gun and freak out is, well..........too bad. A group of Hell's Angels sitting on their motorcycles my freak out some people, but unless they are doing something wrong for which they can be cited or arrested for, the mere act of seeing them isn't against the law.

[Tucker6900]

I agree 100%. It is just some guy getting a ticket. If there was anything to the preemption argument the the media would have picked up on it. But it isn't news, its just some OC hotdog getting a ticket. The OC arguments about preemption sound a lot like the sovereign republic nutcase arguments for not paying taxes or getting driver's licenses.

Regardless of how you think, what you say, do, if you actually took the time to look up the Preemption Law in Michigan, and stopped babbling, you would actually see that we are correct about the law, period.

And he didn't just get a ticket. He WAS ARRESTED, actually arrested, written a misdemeanor appreance ticket, his weapon was siezed, and he was released. If the local ordinance was actually enforceable, then not only would he lose his weapon, but his right to carry said weapon, and that, my friend, is a big deal.

[Dinosaur32]

Getting a "ticket" in a case like this is a real gosh-darn actual arrest. The only difference is that the perp is not put through the system.

[cpd169]

I agree 100%. It is just some guy getting a ticket. If there was anything to the preemption argument the the media would have picked up on it. But it isn't news, its just some OC hotdog getting a ticket. The OC arguments about preemption sound a lot like the sovereign republic nutcase arguments for not paying taxes or getting driver's licenses.

I disagree with you here completely. The main stream media is very anti-gun, the last thing they'd want to report is that a state has a preemption law making local gun restrictions illegal. My home state of Alabama has preemption laws and the media didn't say a thing about it when Birmingham's Mayor recently recommended an ordinance making it legal to seize someone's vehicle if there was an unlicensed handgun inside it, even if the driver/owner didn't know anything about it. Of course, his idea was quickly scrapped after he was informed that it wouldn't be enforceable by the AG. The media didn't release that information. They only release the news that they like unless they have no other choice, i.e. the United States Supreme Court's decision in the Heller Case.