What its like to be stopped for open carry !

[kurt 10/22]

By LEO that do not know the law. This is from March 17 2009, and was recorded by an Ohio resident upon being stopped by LEO of Parma, Ohio.

http://billcarlisle.com/files/Parma-...2009-03-17.mp3

Oh, and Pa law on open carry are almost exactly the same, so I thought you might find it interesting. This individual was able to utilise his voice recorder after being detained.

Here is the link to the original post if you want to see his account of the events, and the ensuing discussion.

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=29271

[markheck1]

thanks for posting that...Flatlander

[granuale]

Thanks! That guy was fucking awesome! I think he did everything right. Great job on asking if he were free to go, getting names and badge #'s, etc. I love how the cop talks about uneducated police. I hope he sues. It is the only recourse to the citizen unreasonably detained.

[fafafohi]

I am hoping everyone that OC has a handy recorder w them, or cell phone w recording capability, this was awsome

[GL23]

By LEO that do not know the law.

[27hand]

I am hoping everyone that OC has a handy recorder w them, or cell phone w recording capability, this was awsome

I was under the impression that it is not legal to voice record a stop by police in the state of Pa. Video is OK. Sound, IIRC, is not.

I'm not sure how to research this aside from asking a forum Lawyer when I attend his Pa Firearms Law class next Sat.

This is a question I will present.

27hand

[jerkin]

Everything you ever wanted to know about recording the police in Pa. http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...police-pa.html

[BerettaRogue]

That was quite the incident. I hope the guy runs them through the wringer for all the trouble and less than proper dealings. Kinda surprising how the Ohio forum decided to clamp down on the efforts after some people started writing letters, I don't know if that would have happened here.

[headcase]

Great post, rep sent.

It was scary how similar my detention was, except of course for not having a running side argument with one particularly aggressive officer.


In an attempt to articulate a thought, this might get winded....

It is telling, listening to this audio, as well as my own experience, coupled with many other accounts, on the mind set of law enforcement and some of the people who complain about OC. You can tell that these officers understood the OC'ers argument about why he shouldn't have been stopped. The lead officer in my detention also understood my argument, which happened to include the "lawful purpose" defense on school grounds, but basically boiled down to "What I am doing is lawful, and while I understand that someone may have complained, you knowing it is lawful, or even not knowing it is lawful, should need some other catalyst, such as observing me doing something you know to be unlawful, before stopping me.".

Let's say that the officers arrived to respond to a complaint of "man with a gun". They see a man with a gun, in a holster, just standing around/walking down the street/looking at a sidewalk display...whatever, and there is no other action, or reason to be suspicious that any other action, that would indicate criminality. What is their purpose in approaching the man? How, and there are a great many members here even who will argue that it is, is this even a tiny bit lawful? The answer is, it is not. It can not be, in a free society. It can not be in a society where the citizens are to be considered innocent of any crime, unless they are proven guilty. It can not be in a society where there must be a good reason to detain someone. Getting back to the scenario stated... The officers see a man with a gun. Let's assume there are two officers, the act of OC is legal where they are, and there is no requirement to show ID.

1.) Between the two of them, neither is aware that OC is legal. They, for some reason, think there is a crime being committed. They stop the man. The man attempts to explain that what he is doing is lawful, but they don't want to be educated by a man they are sure is a criminal and they arrest him. Later on, the legality of what he was doing is revealed and he is released. Why will some people still argue that the officers were just doing what they thought was right?

2.) Between the two of them, neither is sure whether or not what the man is doing is illegal, so they decide to detain him to see if he is doing something illegal. They disarm him, and they engage in an investigation of his actions, including interviewing him, and calling the situation in for review by a supervisor or A.D.A., or someone else. They are extremely polite while doing this, even going so far as to allow him to stand or sit as he feels comfortable, but repeatedly inform him he is not free to go. Since there is a gun involved, at least two more officers have arrived on scene, and the man is being gawked at by every person who passes. After what could be 15 minutes or over two hours, the information that the OC'er was, in fact, not doing anything illegal, comes back to the officers, and the OC'er is released with the inevitable, "Well we just wanted to do our jobs and be sure.", or some similar variation. Why will some, no scratch that, most people argue and accept that this was a good police encounter, because even though the OC'er was held against his will, everything turned out OK and everyone went home safe?

3.) Between the two of them, one has heard that OC is legal, but they decide to approach the man anyway, to ask for ID and feel him out. The man is approached and informed that someone complained about a man with a gun. He says, "So what?". They don't like his manner of speech, and ask him for ID. He asks why, and they tell him that they want to check him out. He again asks why, and they then demand he produce ID or they will arrest him. He declines to show ID, saying that he was doing nothing wrong and they have no right to demand it. They then inform him he is being detained, and order him to assume the position. They disarm him, search him, and remove his wallet. They run his ID for warrants, and his firearm for any hits, and both come back clean. The whole time he is stating that he does not consent to any search, and he does not want them touching his firearm. They then consult with a supervisor saying that the man was uncooperative and can they charge him with anything. They either charge him with something like DC or they let him go. Why will some people, especially LE, argue that his demeanor gave them RAS to detain him, and that he should have just showed them ID?

4.) Between the two of them, one or both are aware that OC is legal. They observe the man for a few minutes, determine that he is doing nothing unlawful, and call in as much, moving on to their next call. Why will some people argue that these officers still had the option to go at least speak to the man to see what was up?


These questions are rhetorical, as there are no good answers, although the are sure to be those who think they can answer them with good, solid, lawful reasons. Whatever reasons might be given, will show what I meant by saying that the audio and the experiences reported, are telling of a mindset. That mindset says that officers can and should, do more than enforce the laws of the land. It says that they can and should, enforce their opinions. It says that they can and should interact with citizens whether or not there is a compelling reason. Because someone complained about something, or because an officer just felt something wasn't right, or because an officer didn't think someone should be doing something, even if those reasons are backed up by the judicial system, are not, and should not be, justification to intrude upon a citizen, ever.


I had a very similar encounter to number 2. In mine, one officer was extremely polite and professional, while the other went on like a raving lunatic. In the end, I was told that I was being released, and my property was being returned to me. I was then informed that if I covered my firearm, I was free to go. If I chose to continue to OC, I was going to be arrested, and I could make my "point" from the county jail, where I was sure to spend at least the weekend. Although I did tell them that I needed a minute to think about it, which seemed to throw them all into a tizzy, I did indeed cover up and leave.

There is no valid reason, at least to a so called "reasonable" person, for there to ever be a stop of someone who is OC'ing, if there is nothing obviously criminal going on. Is it possible the OC'er is a criminal? Sure. Is it possible the OC'er is planning some sort of criminal activity? Sure. But without proof of such, or even some sort of good reason to be suspicious of such, there can be no valid reason to even approach the OC'er. Not if you believe we live under the Constitutions of our Commonwealth and our Country. Many here, and elsewhere, obviously don't believe we do any more.....

[kurt 10/22]

Kinda surprising how the Ohio forum decided to clamp down on the efforts after some people started writing letters, I don't know if that would have happened here.

Do you think it is a coincidence that I spend more time here, than there.