Now THIS is a LEO encounter!

[Jakeiscrazy]

I was walking out of radioshack near the nimo walmart and got stoped by VB police for open carry, the radoshack employee called them I saw her outside talking to them oh no signs on the door and was not said anything by the employee about it. The officer said it was strange to see someone open carrying these days asked my name and ran it in the system, when they found out I was ok to carry the officer thanked me for carrying and told me he wished every citizen that could legely carry would carry. Will never go to that store again.

I guess that I"m lost though -- this was an OC so why exactly did the LEO have to run your name in the "system" to see if you're okay to carry a weapon?

Could be a check for felonies. That would make OC illegal. Granted no criminal would OC.

[hemifan87]

yeah but in a way im glad they do it just in case there is someone that shouldnt be carrying, they may try something that would make all people that carry look bad so it would be good to get them off the street that way and it really wasnt that bad the officer was a good guy the whole stop only took like 5 mins

[gunderwood]

I was walking out of radioshack near the nimo walmart and got stoped by VB police for open carry, the radoshack employee called them I saw her outside talking to them oh no signs on the door and was not said anything by the employee about it. The officer said it was strange to see someone open carrying these days asked my name and ran it in the system, when they found out I was ok to carry the officer thanked me for carrying and told me he wished every citizen that could legely carry would carry. Will never go to that store again.

I guess that I"m lost though -- this was an OC so why exactly did the LEO have to run your name in the "system" to see if you're okay to carry a weapon?

Could be a check for felonies. That would make OC illegal. Granted no criminal would OC.

No one is safe unless the government and its agents do something. It doesn't have to be effective, it just has to be something.

[drdan01]

I was walking out of radioshack near the nimo walmart and got stoped by VB police for open carry, the radoshack employee called them I saw her outside talking to them oh no signs on the door and was not said anything by the employee about it. The officer said it was strange to see someone open carrying these days asked my name and ran it in the system, when they found out I was ok to carry the officer thanked me for carrying and told me he wished every citizen that could legely carry would carry. Will never go to that store again.

I guess that I"m lost though -- this was an OC so why exactly did the LEO have to run your name in the "system" to see if you're okay to carry a weapon?

Could be a check for felonies. That would make OC illegal. Granted no criminal would OC.

While I don't claim to be an expert on it and am not an attorney, I was of the understanding that Virginia has no stop and identify laws regarding OC. I know that VB has one in the city code but everything that I've read by those qualified to say so is that under Dillon the VB code wouldn't survive a court test. So what I've been told is that all you have to do is to verbally provide your name/address to the LEO and then you must be free to go unless they can show PC. And its been my understanding as it has been explained to me that there is no PC to stop and detain someone simply because they are OC -- that OC is not something that creates PC, it is a constitutional right in VA.

So I guess that my question was on what basis did the VB LEO apparently detain the OP?

[hemifan87]

because the employee at radioshack called them to say I had a gun even though I was just shopping and there was no signs she didnt want me there so she called. If she didnt want me there she should have said so I would have left she just over reacted.

[drdan01]

because the employee at radioshack called them to say I had a gun even though I was just shopping and there was no signs she didnt want me there so she called. If she didnt want me there she should have said so I would have left she just over reacted.

Right, I understand what you're saying (and this isn't arguing with you), but the same question applies because that is her problem...I don't see Radio Shack on ANY of the gun unfriendly lists, so it doesn't appear that they have a policy regarding guys. The question is still what was the PC for the VB LEO to check anything? (perhaps this is just a rhetorical question)

[gunderwood]

because the employee at radioshack called them to say I had a gun even though I was just shopping and there was no signs she didnt want me there so she called. If she didnt want me there she should have said so I would have left she just over reacted.

Right, I understand what you're saying (and this isn't arguing with you), but the same question applies because that is her problem...I don't see Radio Shack on ANY of the gun unfriendly lists, so it doesn't appear that they have a policy regarding guys. The question is still what was the PC for the VB LEO to check anything? (perhaps this is just a rhetorical question)

A far as I can tell there wasn't any. It was legal because he submitted. The courts have ruled LE doesn't need PC if they ask and you agree to it. E.g. a LEO isn't violating your 4th Amendment rights if they knock on your door, ask to come in and you grant them access. The LEO asked, he complied, nothing else to it.

Say what you want about it, the fact of the matter is that if you don't stand for your rights you don't have any.

[Quaternions]

To get it back on topic regarding the video, did anyone else find it strange that the cop didn't seem to know how to pull the slide back on a pistol and lock it?

Oh, and sorry that this response is slightly delayed, I only just joined these boards based on a friends recommendation.

[SgtBill]

No not strange at all. Police Officers are not sent to school or an academy to learn how to open all types of weapons and make them safe.

P.S. welcome aboard the forum
Bill

[Palladin]

No not strange at all. Police Officers are not sent to school or an academy to learn how to open all types of weapons and make them safe.

P.S. welcome aboard the forum
Bill

+1 The last thing he wants to do is focus his attention on the gun instead of the individual.

[dabigguy]

While I know it is our right to OC, but I must ask this.....why OC? Can you not obtain a CCP? It seems like you are trying to attract attention to yourself.

[sbcpd10]

As a LEO myself let me say that any complaint or call for service from citizens must be answered. Ok so knowing that the only other information you know for a fact or at least are presuming to be fact is that the employee called the police. For all any of us know there were 50 people who saw him in the store with a firearm or in the parking lot going to the store with the firearm that called as well. So the question then becomes what did she/they say when she/they called? PC can be obtained by what information we have at the time. What was going on in the area at the time? For example had there been a few armed robberies? Maybe a few burglaries? Who knows? Depending on the circumstances an officer does have the right to do a Terry stop and in this case he didn't need to pat down anybody because the firearm was in plain sight. So already the officer knows the individual he is dealing with is armed. Of course he is going to check his ID.

Once again not knowing all the information known to the LEO does not allow you to assume that he could only ask for information. Its actually a crime in Virginia to fail to identify yourself to law enforcement. For all the officer knew he could have been a convicted felon, there could have been a protective order out against him(in which case no you can not by law be in possession of a firearm), or he could have been wanted. He was called for a suspicious person with a firearm. He not only could but SHOULD check the person for the above things, run the serial number on the firearm to see if its stolen, and inquire about the person's reasons for being there in that situation.

I personally have no problem with the actions of either party in this case. The problem is so many people think they understand the law and think they understand what rights they have and they really don't know jack about it. I can tell you right now if I had responded to this call and he had refused to identify himself to me then he would have sat in the jail until he did identify himself and to be quite frank the more he whined about what his rights were and tried to tell me about how he was going to sue me the more I would have laughed.

edit* Let me say this though. Why wouldn't you give your ID? Why would you not want the officer to do his job? Not only is he investigating a complaint and protecting the citizen(s) that made the complaint, he is protecting your rights when he goes to the complainant and says "hey thanks for calling, now let me explain to you why this person just walked away. The law says........." Now he just educated some poor left winger who thought they knew everything.

[gunderwood]

While I know it is our right to OC, but I must ask this.....why OC? Can you not obtain a CCP? It seems like you are trying to attract attention to yourself.

In this particular instance it is because it was CA. CA is a may issue state (http://www.handgunlaw.us/) and it really depends on who you are/know.

Now as for OC in VA, that's a different story and has been discussed on this forum many times. There is no law prohibiting the OC of a firearm in VA, thus it is legal. Some people do it because CC is less comfortable or restricts them in clothing (not everyone is a 6' man who can hide a fairly large firearm with no issues). Some do it out of principle because they believe the state should not be infringing on gun rights be requiring the a CHP to carry (i.e. Constitutional Carry). Some do it because they want to educate the public (AKA a right not used is a right you will loose). Some do it because they are between 18 and 21 (i.e. you can't get a CHP in VA until you are 21, but you can legally possess a firearm at 18). Etc.

If the threads already discussing it don't answer your question to your liking, I suggest creating a new thread. I'll warn you though that OC is kind of a love/hate thing...there aren't many people in the middle.

[gunderwood]

As a LEO myself let me say that any complaint or call for service from citizens must be answered. Ok so knowing that the only other information you know for a fact or at least are presuming to be fact is that the employee called the police. For all any of us know there were 50 people who saw him in the store with a firearm or in the parking lot going to the store with the firearm that called as well. So the question then becomes what did she/they say when she/they called? PC can be obtained by what information we have at the time. What was going on in the area at the time? For example had there been a few armed robberies? Maybe a few burglaries? Who knows? Depending on the circumstances an officer does have the right to do a Terry stop and in this case he didn't need to pat down anybody because the firearm was in plain sight. So already the officer knows the individual he is dealing with is armed. Of course he is going to check his ID.

Once again not knowing all the information known to the LEO does not allow you to assume that he could only ask for information. Its actually a crime in Virginia to fail to identify yourself to law enforcement. For all the officer knew he could have been a convicted felon, there could have been a protective order out against him(in which case no you can not by law be in possession of a firearm), or he could have been wanted. He was called for a suspicious person with a firearm. He not only could but SHOULD check the person for the above things, run the serial number on the firearm to see if its stolen, and inquire about the person's reasons for being there in that situation.

I personally have no problem with the actions of either party in this case. The problem is so many people think they understand the law and think they understand what rights they have and they really don't know jack about it. I can tell you right now if I had responded to this call and he had refused to identify himself to me then he would have sat in the jail until he did identify himself and to be quite frank the more he whined about what his rights were and tried to tell me about how he was going to sue me the more I would have laughed.

edit* Let me say this though. Why wouldn't you give your ID? Why would you not want the officer to do his job? Not only is he investigating a complaint and protecting the citizen(s) that made the complaint, he is protecting your rights when he goes to the complainant and says "hey thanks for calling, now let me explain to you why this person just walked away. The law says........." Now he just educated some poor left winger who thought they knew everything.

If I'm on foot, all you will get is my name and address. If you unlawfully disarm me, I'll be seeing you in court. Sorry, just because you have a job to do doesn't mean you can violate my rights. Use your head, no felon walks around with a OCed firearm because they know the odds of you showing up to investigate are much higher.

[sbcpd10]

As a LEO myself let me say that any complaint or call for service from citizens must be answered. Ok so knowing that the only other information you know for a fact or at least are presuming to be fact is that the employee called the police. For all any of us know there were 50 people who saw him in the store with a firearm or in the parking lot going to the store with the firearm that called as well. So the question then becomes what did she/they say when she/they called? PC can be obtained by what information we have at the time. What was going on in the area at the time? For example had there been a few armed robberies? Maybe a few burglaries? Who knows? Depending on the circumstances an officer does have the right to do a Terry stop and in this case he didn't need to pat down anybody because the firearm was in plain sight. So already the officer knows the individual he is dealing with is armed. Of course he is going to check his ID.

Once again not knowing all the information known to the LEO does not allow you to assume that he could only ask for information. Its actually a crime in Virginia to fail to identify yourself to law enforcement. For all the officer knew he could have been a convicted felon, there could have been a protective order out against him(in which case no you can not by law be in possession of a firearm), or he could have been wanted. He was called for a suspicious person with a firearm. He not only could but SHOULD check the person for the above things, run the serial number on the firearm to see if its stolen, and inquire about the person's reasons for being there in that situation.

I personally have no problem with the actions of either party in this case. The problem is so many people think they understand the law and think they understand what rights they have and they really don't know jack about it. I can tell you right now if I had responded to this call and he had refused to identify himself to me then he would have sat in the jail until he did identify himself and to be quite frank the more he whined about what his rights were and tried to tell me about how he was going to sue me the more I would have laughed.

edit* Let me say this though. Why wouldn't you give your ID? Why would you not want the officer to do his job? Not only is he investigating a complaint and protecting the citizen(s) that made the complaint, he is protecting your rights when he goes to the complainant and says "hey thanks for calling, now let me explain to you why this person just walked away. The law says........." Now he just educated some poor left winger who thought they knew everything.

If I'm on foot, all you will get is my name and address. If you unlawfully disarm me, I'll be seeing you in court. Sorry, just because you have a job to do doesn't mean you can violate my rights. Use your head, no felon walks around with a OCed firearm because they know the odds of you showing up to investigate are much higher.

You do not understand a thing I just said. Its ok because most citizens do not understand. I have the right to disarm you during my investigation into the complaint. By giving me your name and address you have identified yourself and in finding that there is no crime being committed your firearm would be returned and you would be on your merry way. In that situation what are you going to sue me for smart guy? How did I violate your rights? Look I am as pro gun as the next guy but a lot of pro gun guys think they know what they are talking about for one when they do not and they also are so sure that every cop that comes along is going to try and violate their rights. Get over it.

There are several points I made that you completely skipped over. You focused on one thing and one thing only and once again you are assuming that no convicted felon walks around with an open carry weapon. If its one thing I can tell you about criminals its that they are not the smartest people in the world. Why do you think they are criminals? Not to mention there are other reasons as I stated above that someone could be unlawfully carrying a firearm. Next time you want to reply to my post take your time and read it. If you think I am wrong you should go research it. Not only am I an LEO but I have a degree in criminal law and I am an instructor in law enforcement.

[gunderwood]

As a LEO myself let me say that any complaint or call for service from citizens must be answered. Ok so knowing that the only other information you know for a fact or at least are presuming to be fact is that the employee called the police. For all any of us know there were 50 people who saw him in the store with a firearm or in the parking lot going to the store with the firearm that called as well. So the question then becomes what did she/they say when she/they called? PC can be obtained by what information we have at the time. What was going on in the area at the time? For example had there been a few armed robberies? Maybe a few burglaries? Who knows? Depending on the circumstances an officer does have the right to do a Terry stop and in this case he didn't need to pat down anybody because the firearm was in plain sight. So already the officer knows the individual he is dealing with is armed. Of course he is going to check his ID.

Once again not knowing all the information known to the LEO does not allow you to assume that he could only ask for information. Its actually a crime in Virginia to fail to identify yourself to law enforcement. For all the officer knew he could have been a convicted felon, there could have been a protective order out against him(in which case no you can not by law be in possession of a firearm), or he could have been wanted. He was called for a suspicious person with a firearm. He not only could but SHOULD check the person for the above things, run the serial number on the firearm to see if its stolen, and inquire about the person's reasons for being there in that situation.

I personally have no problem with the actions of either party in this case. The problem is so many people think they understand the law and think they understand what rights they have and they really don't know jack about it. I can tell you right now if I had responded to this call and he had refused to identify himself to me then he would have sat in the jail until he did identify himself and to be quite frank the more he whined about what his rights were and tried to tell me about how he was going to sue me the more I would have laughed.

edit* Let me say this though. Why wouldn't you give your ID? Why would you not want the officer to do his job? Not only is he investigating a complaint and protecting the citizen(s) that made the complaint, he is protecting your rights when he goes to the complainant and says "hey thanks for calling, now let me explain to you why this person just walked away. The law says........." Now he just educated some poor left winger who thought they knew everything.

If I'm on foot, all you will get is my name and address. If you unlawfully disarm me, I'll be seeing you in court. Sorry, just because you have a job to do doesn't mean you can violate my rights. Use your head, no felon walks around with a OCed firearm because they know the odds of you showing up to investigate are much higher.

You do not understand a thing I just said. Its ok because most citizens do not understand. I have the right to disarm you during my investigation into the complaint. By giving me your name and address you have identified yourself and in finding that there is no crime being committed your firearm would be returned and you would be on your merry way. In that situation what are you going to sue me for smart guy? How did I violate your rights? Look I am as pro gun as the next guy but a lot of pro gun guys think they know what they are talking about for one when they do not and they also are so sure that every cop that comes along is going to try and violate their rights. Get over it.

There are several points I made that you completely skipped over. You focused on one thing and one thing only and once again you are assuming that no convicted felon walks around with an open carry weapon. If its one thing I can tell you about criminals its that they are not the smartest people in the world. Why do you think they are criminals? Not to mention there are other reasons as I stated above that someone could be unlawfully carrying a firearm. Next time you want to reply to my post take your time and read it. If you think I am wrong you should go research it. Not only am I an LEO but I have a degree in criminal law and I am an instructor in law enforcement.

No, I understood what you said. When you ask me for my firearm, I'll ask you if I am under arrest or being detained. If you answer in the affirmative, I will ask you for RAS or PC. If you can't articulate it, I will ask you again if you are detaining me. If you answer yes, I will inform you that you are unlawfully detaining me and I intend to press this in a court of law unless you stop immediately. If you say no, I walk away. Have a nice day. FYI: I'll probably record you too.

There is no way I'm handing a gun over to anyone unless I legally have too. A call for you to investigate is legally not RAS or PC. The US has not (yet) degraded into a police state where I have to show you my papers just because you ask. Yes, most people will comply, but they don't have too...yet. Have a nice day.

Edit: I had the Sheriff called out many times on me for target shooting. They knew better than to push what you are suggesting. They ask questions, but never asked me to disarm.

[sbcpd10]

we can argue this all day long but you do not understand not just written law but case law. i am not going to sit here and argue with you about it. I hope we never encounter each other because it will not end very pretty. Your attitude and demeanor speak enough about why you would be suspicious to begin with. Quite frankly you can ask me what my PC is all day long and I don't have to tell you anything. I am not saying I wouldn't, however there is no law saying an officer must give you his PC. The first person I am required to give PC to in Virginia is the magistrate when I take you before them for charges. You really need to be careful how you approach things or you might find yourself in a very bad predicament.

edit* lol your edit is ammusing to me. for one thing you are talking about a completely different situation. once again though you are failing to understand the totality of the circumstances are vastly different in every case

[gunderwood]

we can argue this all day long but you do not understand not just written law but case law. i am not going to sit here and argue with you about it. I hope we never encounter each other because it will not end very pretty. Your attitude and demeanor speak enough about why you would be suspicious to begin with. Quite frankly you can ask me what my PC is all day long and I don't have to tell you anything. I am not saying I wouldn't, however there is no law saying an officer must give you his PC. The first person I am required to give PC to in Virginia is the magistrate when I take you before them for charges. You really need to be careful how you approach things or you might find yourself in a very bad predicament.

I went through this last year with a friend because the police did exactly what you said. Guess what? He walked with no charges or ever having to see the inside of a court room, but decided not to sue. What they tell you for basic LEO training is the short story.

You don't have to tell me anything, but neither do I.

If we did encounter each other you would find that while firm, I am polite. I will not comply with your unlawful order, but I'm not a jerk. I have always been respectful of LE, but that doesn't mean I am a push over someone with an authority complex. I'm a citizen, not your play toy. Get over it.

[sbcpd10]

once again all situations are different...... i have told you that over and over again, you seem to think everything is black and white but that is not the case there are many shades of grey. once again i hope you never have a negative encounter with law enforcement but it seems to me you probably already did and are most likely anti-law enforcement now because of it. you keep saying i would be giving unlawful orders but you have no clue what a lawful order is. you think you do but you do not. do not bother replying to me. you say you are polite but firm but i can tell you that you come across as abrasive and arrogant. that is your right to be that way if you choose and i hope it works out well for you in the end but you really have no understanding of anything i have said so there is no point in continuing this conversation. good luck and have a nice day.

[gunderwood]

once again all situations are different...... i have told you that over and over again, you seem to think everything is black and white but that is not the case there are many shades of grey. once again i hope you never have a negative encounter with law enforcement but it seems to me you probably already did and are most likely anti-law enforcement now because of it. you keep saying i would be giving unlawful orders but you have no clue what a lawful order is. you think you do but you do not. do not bother replying to me. you say you are polite but firm but i can tell you that you come across as abrasive and arrogant. that is your right to be that way if you choose and i hope it works out well for you in the end but you really have no understanding of anything i have said so there is no point in continuing this conversation. good luck and have a nice day.

The problem is you skip over the most important thing. My compliance.

In order for you to lawfully do a Terry Stop or a Stop and Frisk, you must have reason to detain me. I won't comply with your order to disarm me unless you do have a reason to detain me, but I won't resist either...at least not until lawyers are involved. The primary problem you face is that a phone call does not give your RAS to detain anyone. When we meet on the street, you can not legally detain me without RAS. If you aren't detaining me I can walk away. If you do detain me, what RAS are you going to tell the court? You can't If you don't have RAS, you and I are just passing on the street. I only have to ID myself, which doesn't include my ID (as a side note, you guys will hold on to the ID so while you aren't legally detaining a person, they aren't free to leave...slick).

Do us all a favor and ask the magistrate what happens if you get a call and the person only does the legal minimum; identify themselves. How do you legally escalate it to a detention? Are you really prepared to provide RAS? They will likely tell you that you weasel to around it by getting compliance from the person; i.e. if the person complies you don't need RAS, which is what they base most of your training off of, how most people behave. If compliance isn't provided, and particularly if they are recording you, you're SOL.