open carry? how will it work leo?

[Smoke T/A]

I have to respectfully disagree. Granted, a handgun IS PC to stop someone on Texas, however, an anonymous tip that someone is following the law is not. Tell you what, I'll call into your department and complain about a reckless driver who is driving the speed limit, in the right Lane, but holding up traffic. You go and stop him and we will see how well it holds up. This guy was not breaking any laws, but was stopped, disarmed and questioned by police because somebody just couldn't mind their own business. And in Portland, it wouldn't surprise me a bit of that someone was a card carrying gun hater, as i know someone who lived in Portland for a while and told me they had to get out of that liberal city. Much like Austin is the San Francisco of Texas, so is Portland for Oregon.

Maybe things have changed, but I was taught that you can't arrest someone on the street for failing to give ID, only false ID. Failure to ID is an offense that can be added on after the person is under arrest.

I'm saying in Texas right now (no hypothetical) I would have taken him for UCW which in turn requires him to identify himself. I'm not talking about Class C offenses or traffic stops those are two totally different things.

If we get a call for reckless driver it's pretty easy to get PC to make a stop on that vehicle because most people don't signal 100 ft prior to changing lanes, turning or even completely stop at a designated point or line, they usually stop after a stop sign. Besides you can be arrested for all Class C offenses except for Open Container and Speeding in Texas. They are all considered criminal acts.

Can't take him to jail in Texas for fail to ID for refusing to give his name, address and DOB on a reasonable suspicion stop. He has to be under custodial arrest for that law to apply where a person is compelled to give that information. A person can't lie to the police but not giving your name is not a crime unless in custody.

An anonymous tip alone is not sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a seizure.

Once again he would be in custody for UCW in Texas...really don't like playing the what if game since there is no current legislation to back it up in Texas. A call for service is enough to warrant a investigation. I never said that a seizure was correct in this case. You are putting words in my mouth.

I would even go as far to say if it was a call for service that the guy interfered with the LEO's investigation by not providing proof that he was not a convicted felon and licensed to carry that firearm.

Now if the LEO saw the person carrying the firearm and had no reasonable suspicion other than he was carrying it in an open carry state, the LEO was in the wrong for stopping and detaining the individual.

I always get PC before all my stops that way there is just cause to detain the individual.

[expressfish]

sadly cops are going to do what they want to do, period. We all know how that goes. Now Im not bashing here, my dad is retired pd and a very close childhood friend is in law enforcement too. Theres those that follow rules and some that bend them. Always has been and will be.

[Olphart]

A call for service is enough to warrant a investigation.

I disagree with this part. I've seen too many calls come in and without limited/any screening by dispatchers are sent out to the street cops. Just because Joe Citizen says something's suspicious or illegal doesn't make it so.

[Smoke T/A]

I disagree with this part. I've seen too many calls come in and without limited/any screening by dispatchers are sent out to the street cops. Just because Joe Citizen says something's suspicious or illegal doesn't make it so.

Exactly that's why it warrants an investigation otherwise someone would go to jail on every phone call from that the "average Joe citizen" reports. Do you want the cops to come out and investigate a tip from an average Joe citizen that people are breaking into your house while your away at work? Or should the call be ignored since the average joe citizen has no credibility to report possible suspicious or illegal activity?

I can tell you that I have been on a bunch of BS calls for service and others that aren't. I have an affirmative duty to investigate the calls for service that I am dispatched to wether they are BS or not. When I'm on a call it is my sole job to determine if a criminal offense occurred and take the proper action to protect or prevent harm from coming to the public, individual or 3rd party.

[Thumper]

open carry video both side are right? he has the right to open carry, lawman has the right to check out???????.........http://www.military.com/video/guns/p...2272677473001/

Isn't Tx already an open carry state for long guns? I've never seen a major problem.

[Smoke T/A]

Isn't Tx already an open carry state for long guns? I've never seen a major problem.

You can open carry a long gun anywhere in Texas that is not listed in PC 46.03.

[Olphart]

Exactly that's why it warrants an investigation otherwise someone would go to jail on every phone call from that the "average Joe citizen" reports. Do you want the cops to come out and investigate a tip from an average Joe citizen that people are breaking into your house while your away at work? Or should the call be ignored since the average joe citizen has no credibility to report possible suspicious or illegal activity?

I can tell you that I have been on a bunch of BS calls for service and others that aren't. I have an affirmative duty to investigate the calls for service that I am dispatched to wether they are BS or not. When I'm on a call it is my sole job to determine if a criminal offense occurred and take the proper action to protect or prevent harm from coming to the public, individual or 3rd party.

I understand the BS calls and a lot of what you and I have been sent to are just that. As just one example, if you get a call about a "different race" person walking through a predominately "other race's" neighborhood as being suspicious, what authority do you have to question that different race person? None if that was the sole determination of being "suspicious." You have no authority to identify that person or question what he/she is doing in that area without further information that would lead you to believe that person has committed a crime. You can ask, but I don't have to answer your questions or stop walking to my destination. We no longer live in the 40's and just because a citizen calls this type of call in, doesn't give you any justification, authority, or duty to investigate me for walking through any neighborhood. It is still a call for service and you may have to respond, but you can't legally detain or investigate me, just on the information I've given you.

[dfkoon]

in this instance the kid was right - he was unlawfully detained for legal activity without any justifiable reason. The kid was probably carrying the gun just to provoke the confrontation.

The sad part to this for me is that we have such elements in our society (both bad and good intentioned) that are chipping away at our rights and freedoms.

Gonna go find the post (which I'm sure exists) of the lawmaker who doesn't know magazines are reloadable.

[Smoke T/A]

I understand the BS calls and a lot of what you and I have been sent to are just that. As just one example, if you get a call about a "different race" person walking through a predominately "other race's" neighborhood as being suspicious, what authority do you have to question that different race person? None if that was the sole determination of being "suspicious." You have no authority to identify that person or question what he/she is doing in that area without further information that would lead you to believe that person has committed a crime. You can ask, but I don't have to answer your questions or stop walking to my destination. We no longer live in the 40's and just because a citizen calls this type of call in, doesn't give you any justification, authority, or duty to investigate me for walking through any neighborhood. It is still a call for service and you may have to respond, but you can't legally detain or investigate me, just on the information I've given you.

Ok I think you are missing the point....In my short Leo career I have never been dispatched to a call you are describing above. Those are filtered out from the get go.

All our calls are based on reports of illegal activity and or people being in places they are not suppose to be (suspicious). Like people being in other people's backyards or looking in multiple vehicles and checking door handles at 0300 hrs. I'm not talking about a person of a different ethnicity being in a predominantly white, black, Hispanic etc...neighborhood.

If someone calls and reports that you are doing something illegal I have a duty and right to investigate you and the suspicious or illegal activity. So yes I would have the right to stop and question you until my investigation is complete based on the info I get from the average Joe citizen.

I know people call in an fabricate things just to get us to show up but we still have to investigate. I've taken several people to jail for filing a false report so it goes both ways.

[Olphart]

Joe, I'm not intentionally giving you a hard time. It was your comment that you have the duty and authority to investigate any call for service. The point, and I didn't miss it, is that not all calls for service automatically justify an investigation. I'm glad to know that some of the bogus calls like my example are filtered out in WF. I assure you that is not the case in a lot of cities in this state or others.

[Smoke T/A]

Joe, I'm not intentionally giving you a hard time. It was your comment that you have the duty and authority to investigate any call for service. The point, and I didn't miss it, is that not all calls for service automatically justify an investigation. I'm glad to know that some of the bogus calls like my example are filtered out in WF. I assure you that is not the case in a lot of cities in this state or others.

No worries. I'm sure there are departments that dispatch cops to calls like you described in other city's/states all the time. My statement was based on my experience with the WFPD, that's what I get for assuming other departments are like ours.

In my opinion calls like you described are a waste of my time and are not in the best interest of the public for me to respond to.

On another note I'm all for the law abiding citizens carrying firearms to protect themselves and others from harm. I can tell you from my experience that there are many more bad guys/girls that carry weapons on them than the law abiding citizens that I have come in contact with. No matter what law is passed it will not affect the bad ones from carrying weapons illegally.

Prior to my LEO career I had a CHL and carried religiously everyday and everywhere I could. When I ran into the LEO's I gladly informed them that I was armed and showed them my license if they asked to see it. I never had any problems or got hassled for carrying.

[jmm83164]

If the cop didn't know he was on camera the guy would have been arrested for disorderly conduct or menacing. Probably would have fallen down a couple times and bumped his head getting into the car.
Mike

[Wampuscat]

How would a LEO that does not personnaly know you, know if you are legal to open carry? I would think the same rules on legally being able to carry concealed/open would be the same. For the LEO to determine this you should be willing to show the proper ID to allow a determination to be made. And an LEO shouldn't have to ask twice to see it!

Following this logic, any LEO could "at random" break into your car or house, drag you out into the street, handcuff and detain you; simply because you might not be the rightful owner. The 4th ammendment is our protection against Big Brother's intrusive actions... whether they be unintentional or with malicious intent.

[JW]

If the cop didn't know he was on camera the guy would have been arrested for disorderly conduct or menacing. Probably would have fallen down a couple times and bumped his head getting into the car.
Mike

And would hv been a blatant violation of constitutional rights. Some LEO's need to remember that they are here to protect and serve and not violate the constitution. Thankfully most I know realize that. Hats off to em.

[DaveS903]

If its a Supreme Court case, it's the law in every state.

Sometime but not always.