NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have said all i can on the subject. Were i to state my opinion(s) on this type stunt the post would not be fit for the high road .

I am in no way anti OC do it if you want , You can also deal with the increased police contact that comes from OC in a populated area . Be it done for Education or Irritation its bad form to precipitate such an incident and gains us no supporters of the 2nd.

My take on things as polite as i can voice them .
 
Since when do you have to present government id in California or Texas or anywhere in America as a pedestrian?

Someone ought to site a law or example of this. Seems bogus to me. Same can be said about the federal agent comment too. I wasn't aware the right to remain silent was suspended when talking to ATF agents.

Kansas state law requires you present your driver's license or any state ID to any law enforcement officer or driver's license examiner whenever asked.

You agree to abide to these terms upon issuance of a license, same as giving up your right to refuse a breathalyzer.
 
jaholder1971 said:
Kansas state law requires you present your driver's license or any state ID to any law enforcement officer or driver's license examiner whenever asked.

You agree to abide to these terms upon issuance of a license, same as giving up your right to refuse a breathalyzer.
So you're saying in Kansas you have to show a driver's license even if you're not driving, or even near a vehicle? When you're just walking down the street? I find that very hard to believe, and would appreciate a cite to the applicable statute.
 
I spent 26 years of my life in Kansas and I've never heard of that. To require a person to show a DL or ID card, there would need to be a law stating all state residents must carry ID at all times. There is no such provision that I'm aware of. Additionally, wouldn't the state be required to provide the ID card for free if it required all its citizens to carry it?
 
Interesting little conversation we have here.

I would comply with every order given by a LEO.
Or...
I would comply, but if I thought the LEO was out of line I'd just file a complaint later.
Or...
What's the big deal? Hand over your ID and be done with it.
There are certain things a LEO can ask you to do, and certain things they cannot. Some tings a LEO may ask you to do may seem rather innocent at the time but might not seem so after you've gone about your merry way.

Imagine a LEO asked you to move to the back of a nearly empty bus. Depending on your mood or situation many might do so without thinking twice. Others might find it odd and do so anyway. Some would tell the officer to jump off a bridge. If no one said anything, or only filed a complaint, then how far do you think this might go? People became famous and honored heroes for not going to the back of the bus.

Many people might be surprised to find out how little some LEOs know about the laws they are supposed to enforce. Showing knowledge of your rights and not letting them get away with pushing you around will only make your life better.

You are required to show your government issued ID when asked at any time.
I disagree. I would also like to see the statute that states such. While those that think one is required to produce ID on demand are looking through their state laws I'll point out a certain fellow named Edward C. Lawson.

In some places a person is not even required to give their name to a LEO. In some places a person is required to give a name and address, verbally, when asked. At no time can a person be detained or arrested for the sole reason of not producing an ID on demand. No one needs a license to walk the street.

The LEO had every right to stop the person, he could have been up to trouble carrying a firearm like that.
Yes, he could have been on his way to a bar or a courthouse where firearms are illegal. He could have also been on his way to get groceries, or a newspaper. If the guy looked like he was going into a "gun free zone" then stop the guy at the door, not in the middle of the sidewalk.

The LEO did nothing wrong
The LEO did everything wrong. The only thing he did right was let the guy go when he was done hassling him. The biggest thing the LEO did wrong was not read up on the laws he is supposed to enforce.

The gun toting idiot did everything wrong
I'm not sure he did everything right but I'm pretty sure he got close. Good job.
 
Kansas state law requires you present your driver's license or any state ID to any law enforcement officer or driver's license examiner whenever asked.

You agree to abide to these terms upon issuance of a license, same as giving up your right to refuse a breathalyzer.

BS!!! Cite? I want to see that law, because it's pure fiction.
Your speaking of driving!!! Even then, they must have a reason to pull you over. You cannot be randomly stopped on the street.

Any where the American flag flies you have a RIGHT not to be detained or investigated without cause. The officer must have a specific reason to investigate YOU.
This has been hashed out in the supreme court repeatedly. The police can not stop someone walking down the street unless they suspect a crime is being commited by that person. Never.
That was a standard harassment technique against blacks before the civil rights movement. It is now illegal everywhere in this country.
 
I think a lot of the "stop being dumb and listen to the cop" views are directly related to being indoctrinated the the cops are the sole authority. Scorpiusdeus lists that he's from California, where we know the cops can be *ahem* enthusiastic at times. No doubt if you were OC a gun there, you're probably in violation of something, thus probable cause for a stop.
Scorp, not everywhere is like California. Here in Ohio, minus a few places, the cops are fair, know what their legal restraints are, and don't go out of their way to hassle people. That does not necessarily mean that they are familiar with every law. I'm sure that if I walked down the streets of Columbus OC, I'd probably get stopped, and likely arrested, but have the charges dropped under the recent pre-emption. This is because that pre-emption is being kept alive by cities unwilling to listen to the state issue a law overrulling their own.

Scorp, and everyone else, please understand that what may be true where you live, is not necessarily the truth everywhere. That also does not mean that our rights are being violated or observed the same everywhere.
 
I totally agree with RedneckRepairs on this issue. I also am not anti-OC, but if you do it, be prepared to take some flak, and don't whine about it when you do. Also the whole not showing ID to police and staying on the phone thing seemed rude, their jobs are hard enough as it is. I have no reason not to identify myself or to cooperate with any reasonable request from a LEO, whether b/c of a law, or out of respect. And that striped shirt guy....he just needed to shut up, he was annoying. If you are going to challenge a LEO's request, tell your squirlly loud mouthed friend to take a hike. He ruined anything this video was trying to acomplish by being a jerk.
 
Schwebel said:
I have no reason not to identify myself or to cooperate with any reasonable request from a [sic] LEO, whether b/c of a law, or out of respect.
For the sake of discussion, would you consent to a random search of your car or person if an LEO requested it? After all, if you have "no reason not to" as you state in the ID request, then would you consent to a search? You know, would you "cooperate with a reasonable request...out of respect?"

Why is it that any infringement of Second Amendment rights is considered vile, but infringement on Fourth Amendment rights are considered "reasonable requests?"
 
I totally agree with RedneckRepairs on this issue. I also am not anti-OC, but if you do it, be prepared to take some flak, and don't whine about it when you do. Also the whole not showing ID to police and staying on the phone thing seemed rude, their jobs are hard enough as it is. I have no reason not to identify myself or to cooperate with any reasonable request from a LEO, whether b/c of a law, or out of respect. And that striped shirt guy....he just needed to shut up, he was annoying. If you are going to challenge a LEO's request, tell your squirlly loud mouthed friend to take a hike. He ruined anything this video was trying to acomplish by being a jerk.
True Stripey Shirt was annoying, but no more annoying than this type of call to subjugation
Cops are not there for respect they are there to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals, period
You may think that you have no reason to provide ID but we know that you have no reason to provide it
When you do provide it he writes it down in that little notebook he had in his hand, why would he do that?
If the incident is over as soon as it's over why would he have the need to record your info?

If their jobs are hard enough why do they want to make it harder by going outside the scope of their job?
Lots pf people have hard jobs, doesn't mean we have to cater to them when they go outside the scope of that job

As for the whining
I just have to assume that you did not bother to ascertain the purpose of the exercise before you made your comment
You can read the OP if you need to
It was fully explained there
 
My thoughts... If you purposely do something to showcase what you're doing, you should expect some sort of incident. In this case it was openly carrying a firearm. While perfectly legal, it does and will casue alarm to those unknowing. I see nothing wrong with the initial stop to question the person about the act. The police have the duty to ensure the safety of the public and if this type of behavior causes alarm well...you get what you ask for. Coming off as a "my right, my right, " polite-mouth (as apposed to beligerant loudmouth) doesn't make the situation better. It gives negative attention to the situation and the cause of what is trying to be done. rathe than playing br big shot, and all the other crap, I bet the outcome would've been much better if handled differently. If it weren't for the video, I'd have thought it was a schoolyard argument. (kids do things just for the attention ya know) I could continue but it's not the place here on THR. Bottom line to my thoughts...if you do something you KNOW will cause a stir and proberly ensure a police contact, you're a freakin' moron. Activist or otherwise, the way one presnts themselves to further a cause says a lot about the casue they belive in and it's the un-knowing public that sees the negative side of this. It's the general public that you want to see positives. This incident did nothing for furthering any pro-gun attitude and proberly even less for carry laws. Good job for making the restof us look like smart-butts. :cuss:
 
know that criminals eat breakfast. However police should not question everyone who eats breakfast. If a police officer asked me why I am eating breakfast, I might tell him that it is none of his business.

Or do you think that eating breakfast is an unimpeachable right and that open carrying is not?

Eating breakast also doesn't alert others to the extent that a firearm does. Really bad comparison!
 
Ok, another thought...Pretty clear it's a whole activist thing here. In the past what other activist have there been? A LOT! Take a think about some of them and how they see thier side and thier beliefs as the only true and absolute correct way. The word itself even congures up a sort of negative feel because of the extreme tunnel vision and inabilty to see the whole picture. They focus solely on thier vision, thier views, thier beliefs. That gives the public a bad view of the activists and thier cause.
Anyways, there's surely better ways to get one's message across.
 
Anyways, there's surely better ways to get one's message across.
Tell me a better way that lawfully walking down the street committing no crime.
And can you point to another "activist" that has ever tried this approach?

What are the chances that this is a known Freestater hangout that is loosely monitored by the police?
Would collecting names and info look any different then?
 
BlkHawk73 said:
Eating breakast also doesn't alert others to the extent that a firearm does. Really bad comparison!
The extent to which it "alerts" others is irrelevant, as would be a black man eating at an otherwise all-white lunch counter "alerting" other patrons. Either it's a right, or it's not.

And speaking of that, here's what the New Hampshire Attorney General has to say on open carry: "...open carry is regarded as a Right, and though any citizen may call the police if they observe someone carrying a gun openly, that citizen's 'annoyance and alarm' does not override the Right to carry openly."

As far as other states go, I can't speak for them, but here it's regarded as a right, recognized by the Chief LEO in the state.
 
After reading all this, I also think this cause is doomed. :uhoh: NJ is the future folks. Come here and you will see what is in store for NH and the rest of the country. If you don't like what you see as your future, then give this guy some credit and support while there is still time to make a difference.

I just don't understand how Dada (OP) or anyone who chooses to do something that is completely LEGAL, should be burdened with the expectation of, or actual harassment from Police. Prior to the stop, Dada did NOTHING wrong. OC is LEGAL in NH, period. What Dada SHOULD expect, is the right to go about his business WITHOUT harassment from anyone, because he was doing NOTHING wrong. I would also hope he could expect more support from the 2A community.

One parallel I could think of. Lets pretend this video was all about voting, the way you look, and not OC. What if Data were hassled by authorities because he "looked" a certain way, and because of that, he expected to be hassled on the way to the voting booth, and so he decided not to vote? Think that's ever happened in America? Should he have behaved differently? Would you be more supportive?

For those who think the Police have a duty to check him out to determine his motives, why stop there? Maybe we all should all be stopped before leaving home every day and questioned by a qualified official as to our intentions that day. Sounds good to me. Maybe a quick questionnaire or thought-scan? It wouldn't take up too much of your time, and after all the government's job is to protect the public. The police just want to make sure, ya know?

Maybe most here don't like OC because they fear the dirty looks of the little sheep or expect to be hassled by cops. Well, how do you think that paradigm will ever change unless more people do it? How will it ever change in people's minds that (guy+ gun = OK) and not (guy+gun=nutjob) ???? Maybe some more letters to the Senators will help. :rolleyes:

I don't OC because I live someplace where I WOULD get arrested. I will never never never never have that legal right here in NJ. So, arguments aside of weather or not it was in good taste, or rude, or whatever, if you do not defend and exercise your rights, whatever they are, you WILL lose them. Once they are gone, they will never return.

Come to Jersey to see the future.
 
The extent to which it "alerts" others is irrelevant, as would be a black man eating at an otherwise all-white lunch counter "alerting" other patrons. Either it's a right, or it's not.
My only exception to that statement would be that right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Legal or illegal is all that matters( I know that's what you meant, but someone was going to comment)

"...open carry is regarded as a Right, and though any citizen may call the police if they observe someone carrying a gun openly, that citizen's 'annoyance and alarm' does not override the Right to carry openly."

Good research
Anyone care to respond as to how the officers were just doing their job in contradiction to what their boss thinks their job is?
 
joab said:
My only exception to that statement would be that right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Legal or illegal is all that matters( I know that's what you meant, but someone was going to comment)
You are exactly correct, of course. Poorly worded on my part.
 
And speaking of that, here's what the New Hampshire Attorney General has to say on open carry: "...open carry is regarded as a Right, and though any citizen may call the police if they observe someone carrying a gun openly, that citizen's 'annoyance and alarm' does not override the Right to carry openly."

The quote is actually from Chief Donovan of Salem, NH (relating what the State AG has informed his staff on the issue of open carry), but you left out the rest, "We are obligated to investigate the complaining citizen’s complaint, but once it is determined that there is no substance to the complaint, the citizen openly carrying must be allowed to carry on with his/her business."

That would appear to be what occured in the video unless I'm missing something. The police investigated, found no crime and everybody went on their way.

Also, further down in the same letter he mentions, "Also, open carry does not include carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle." Which is true... it's generally a crime to carry a loaded handgun in motor vehicle. With an exception for people with Pistol & Revolver permits. If the trooper had seen the OP leave his car with the pistol, it seems perfectly reasonable for him to investigate what would appear to be criminal activity under normal circumstances.
 
ATW

IIRC the original poster does have a weapons permit. What you are saying is that it is reasonable for an LEO to investigate someone leaving a vehicle while performing an action that it would take a licence to do legally.

How many people are accosted by police while leaving their vehicles to make sure they have valid drivers licenses while performing no other suspicious or illegal activity. Heck I can go down town and see many people leaving their vehicles all the time in front of police and not see them being checked..

No, it does not seem reasonable to me.
 
BS!!! Cite? I want to see that law, because it's pure fiction.
Your speaking of driving!!! Even then, they must have a reason to pull you over. You cannot be randomly stopped on the street.


http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/dlhb.pdf

Very top of page 8. Must have it on person while driving and present to LEO, judge or DL examiner upon request. Don't like it, turn in your DL, I didn't make the rules.

After more looking I cannot find the exact statute #, but here's another reference:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/liberties/2004/0621identification.htm

Kansas is one of the states with these laws on the books.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/liberties/2004/0621identification.htm
 
So Dada, were you detained? Were you not allowed to walk away? Did you ask him if you were being detained? If you weren't being detained then this whole video is just a conversation on the sidewalk between a few guys. How did the cop do anything wrong besides asking for ID? And even then, he asked him for it, he didn't demand it.
I agree with Redneckreparis and others on this.
I would rather not have someone like the OP lobbying for 2A rights.I agree that shock value is good but there is a fine line where it is more damaging to the intended message than helpful.
 
ATW

IIRC the original poster does have a weapons permit. What you are saying is that it is reasonable for an LEO to investigate someone leaving a vehicle while performing an action that it would take a licence to do legally.

How many people are accosted by police while leaving their vehicles to make sure they have valid drivers licenses while performing no other suspicious or illegal activity. Heck I can go down town and see many people leaving their vehicles all the time in front of police and not see them being checked..

No, it does not seem reasonable to me.

Getting out of a car is perfectly normal activity for a licensed driver. Getting out of a car while open carrying in downtown Manchester, NH is an abnormal activity for a concealed permit holder. I live here and I can count the number of people I've personally seen doing it on one hand and still have four fingers and a thumb left over. I would consider the notion that the police shouldn't take an interest in you in those circumstances to be unreasonable and utterly ridiculous. If your going to do something outside the social norms, you're going to attract attention to yourself.

I'm not against open carry by any means, but I think if you're going to put your firearm out for public display you need to be able to accept what comes with that. Personally I value my right to privacy and choose to keep my firearms private by the use of concealment.

I would also be appalled if the police had laid hands on somebody for legal open carry, confiscated their gun or slapped handcuffs on them. However none of that occured. They approached, asked some questions and eventually left, all the while keeping remarkably cool in the face of the unpleasent gentleman in the striped shirt. Ooooh... what big mean bullies they were... they must've violated his civil rights because they asked questions... multiple times even. How horrible! And when he didn't cooperate, what did they do? Did they break out the rubber hoses? No... they asked again! The nerve of them! What tyrants!
 
The quote is actually from Chief Donovan of Salem, NH (relating what the State AG has informed his staff on the issue of open carry), but you left out the rest, "We are obligated to investigate the complaining citizen’s complaint, but once it is determined that there is no substance to the complaint, the citizen openly carrying must be allowed to carry on with his/her business."
It's my understanding Donovan was, in fact, quoting the AG opinion, and not paraphrasing. No matter, really. The point is, there is no requirement to stop someone to investigate the complaint. If the "offender" is simply walking down the street, i.e. breaking no law, once the officer determines that, there is "no substance to the complaint."

My objection is not that he was stopped, but that the original officer was ignorant of the facts surrounding OC, and that he had to be "educated" by the other responding officers. I also thought the "Girl Scout" poster thing made the officers look petty. "Are these yours!? They can't be posted here!" Oops.

BTW, it's a pet peeve, but words mean things. It's a Pistol and Revolver License, not a permit. No one is asking for nor granting permission for anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top