[sbarnhardt]

A discussion in another forum that started out as one about a monkey fist lanyard veered off on a tangent concerning gun and/or weapon law differences from one state/area to another. Mr. Paracord, in his wisdom, felt it would maybe be better served in another discussion of it's own instead of essentially hijacking another discussion on another topic. And he's right.

So, I've taken the liberty of starting this one in case anyone else has anything else to impart on gun and/or weapon laws where they live and frequent.

Mr. Paracord, I hope this is what you meant? If not, feel free to correct me and delete this if you need to. No hard feelings if you do. You 'da man!!

 

[MrParacord]

I don't like the fact that open carry (OC) is allowed in my state as well as concealed carry (CC) but yet a lot of people don't know it including LEO's.

 

[sbarnhardt]

I don't like the fact that open carry (OC) is allowed in my state as well as concealed carry (CC) but yet a lot of people don't know it including LEO's.

I'm curious as to your comment. Are you saying you don't like "having" both, or are you saying you don't like it because folks, LEOs included, don't know that?

 

[Ready_Cords]

In today's society, while it may be your right to carry openly, you have to understand that eventually someone WILL call the cops on you, and that some cops will give you a hard time for it because they can.

BTW, I understand that there is a standing federal court decision on record which states that a firearm, carried legally, does not, by itself, constitute probable cause. But, some cops just see a gun and freak out.

 

[sbarnhardt]

In today's society, while it may be your right to carry openly, you have to understand that eventually someone WILL call the cops on you, and that some cops will give you a hard time for it because they can.

BTW, I understand that there is a standing federal court decision on record which states that a firearm, carried legally, does not, by itself, constitute probable cause. But, some cops just see a gun and freak out.

Does not constitute "probable cause" for what?

The people that freak out are more so the ones who have lived most of their lives in an environment like NYC where guns have been pretty severely restricted. They move into other areas, or in the countryside out of town, and all of a sudden are subjected to "good ol' boys/gals" for who guns have been a way of life forever. They just can not understand why folks are being allowed to walk around with their guns, ride around with them in the back window of their pickups, and the "biggy" which is shoot them in the back yard or field beside/behind the house. Cops know whether or not it's illegal. Most of them are going to be "pro gun."

 

[Ready_Cords]

Probable cause to be stopped, searched, questioned, or whatever. In other words, a gun carried legally is not, by itself, a valid reason for a cop to stop you.

I totally agree that most cops are pro-gun. I'm just saying that if you open carry for long enough, you will run into a few who want to hassle you for it.

 

[sbarnhardt]

Probable cause to be stopped, searched, questioned, or whatever. In other words, a gun carried legally is not, by itself, a valid reason for a cop to stop you.

I totally agree that most cops are pro-gun. I'm just saying that if you open carry for long enough, you will run into a few who want to hassle you for it.

When you say "stopped", I assume you mean when you're driving a vehicle of some kind? Or are you talking about just walking say down the sidewalk?

An officer does not have to have probable cause to "ask" you a question. They are free to do that any time, anywhere. They can "detain"you long enough to ask that question, but that doesn't constitute a stop. By detain I mean stop your progress of moving about long enough to ask the question. A search does require probable cause, but pc depends on the situation. Walking down a public street in the middle of the day is a whole different animal as opposed to walking in a similar area in the middle of the night say when folks usually aren't out and about. There's a lot of variables to consider.

 

[Ready_Cords]

You're right, my language wasn't extremely clear. And, there are certainly other mitigating factors. I was thinking more about personal or vehicle searches, or prolonged questioning, with no other cause.

 

[sbarnhardt]

You're right, my language wasn't extremely clear. And, there are certainly other mitigating factors. I was thinking more about personal or vehicle searches, or prolonged questioning, with no other cause.

I think we're pretty much on the same page. However, there are instances where a "warrantless" search "is" legal. Again depending on the circumstances, but an officer can do what folks call a "pat down" search without a warrant. This is sometimes called "for officer safety", which is routinely thought to see if any weapons are present. Plus anything else that can be felt that would readily be identifiable as something illegal. It's something that "can" be done when an officer comes up on a person and wants to ask those questions we were talking about. They can "pat down" for weapons prior to the asking of the questions. Not always done, again depending on the circumstances, in every case. All in all, you can't really say with any certainty that it can "never" be done, nor "can" it be done.

I know Mr. Paracord, here we go veering off again. But it is related.

 

[MrParacord]

I'm curious as to your comment. Are you saying you don't like "having" both, or are you saying you don't like it because folks, LEOs included, don't know that?

Let me clarify. I like the fact that my state has OC.

I dislike how many people including LEO's don't know that OC is legal.

 

[sbarnhardt]

Let me clarify. I like the fact that my state has OC.

I dislike how many people including LEO's don't know that OC is legal.

I could fairly easily understand how the average person maybe wouldn't know about it, but LEOs not knowing about something as significant as that is odd. Is that a widely seen problem, or is it one of those things predominately involving small town departments? There's frequently some agency within the state level hierarchy that disemminates newly passed laws and modified laws to the street level folks.

 

[MrParacord]

I could fairly easily understand how the average person maybe wouldn't know about it, but LEOs not knowing about something as significant as that is odd. Is that a widely seen problem, or is it one of those things predominately involving small town departments? There's frequently some agency within the state level hierarchy that disemminates newly passed laws and modified laws to the street level folks.

I first learned about some of them not knowing when I took my CC class back in 2008. My instructors were active and retired LEO's.

 

[jimmybrayjr]

Put yourself in the police officer place,you stop someone ,who you don't know ,and your not going to get at them,or at the very least have them sitting in an area of confinement of sorts

 

[sbarnhardt]

Put yourself in the police officer place,you stop someone ,who you don't know ,and your not going to get at them,or at the very least have them sitting in an area of confinement of sorts

I'm trying to follow??

 

[MrParacord]

Put yourself in the police officer place,you stop someone ,who you don't know ,and your not going to get at them,or at the very least have them sitting in an area of confinement of sorts

Can you clarify on what your trying to say here?