NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident

[ATW525]

Simply being armed can not be considered evidence of being up to trouble/etc. And that is all the OP had done to be harrassed, he was legally armed.

The decision had nothing to do with the police, Terry stops or reasonable suspicion at all. The issue addressed is whether arming oneself can be considered evidence that one intended to provoke a fight or kill someone beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard required for a criminal conviction).

 

[joab]

Common sense tells me I can't judge the intention behind a law that doesn't exist.

Are you saying that it is not legal to open carry in NH

Obviously the Trooper, who is trained and trusted to make such judgement calls for a living, felt otherwise

Does Terry allow for feelings?
Nope

Your opinion to the contrary would only matter if you set on a court of law with jurisdiction over the incident.

every opinion stated in this discussion carries that same weight
Is there a purpose for that comment or are you simply trying to discredit me because your argument does not hold up?

 

[AntiqueCollector]

The decision had nothing to do with the police, Terry stops or reasonable suspicion at all. The issue addressed is whether arming oneself can be considered evidence that one intended to provoke a fight or kill someone beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard required for a criminal conviction).

SCOTUS decisions are generally written in a way that they can be applied to a variety of situations, and this is a good example of it. The original trial judge tried to claim that being armed was evidence of intent to commit a crime. The SCOTUS ruled otherwise. That can also be applied to this situation, it wasn't just a self-defense case alone. It affected the entire right to be armed to protect ones' self. If being armed could be considered evidence of intent to commit a crime, it destroys the right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense. Being armed is not evidence of an intent to commit a crime. Furthermore, state law in NH and its Constitution protect the right to carry. The police were ignorant of that law or maybe even intentionally ignoring it. And as one earlier poster stated, the Terry case decision does not allow being armed legally to be reason to do a stop.

Again, the OP was well within his rights in NH, the police were not. And last time I checked, this is the "activism" forum not legal & political...

 

[ATW525]

You are missing the most important thing in your insistence that "terry" gave the officer the authority to seize the OP. "There is no gun exception to the requirements of Terry.." see Florida v. J.L. In other words the mere presence of a firearm is not justification for a stop unless the presence or manner of possession of said firearm is itself a crime. There is no getting around that requirement.

Florida v. J.L. says that anonymous tips about illegal firearms are not sufficient cause for a stop. In that situation the police never saw the firearm before making the stop, and Florida argued that there should be an exception that allowed police to perform a stop and frisk based on such tips.

I'm not aware of any anonymous tips in this case, and the firearm was in plain sight and clearly visable to the Trooper.

 

[ATW525]

Are you saying that it is not legal to open carry in NH

No, I'm saying that there's no law that says open carry isn't a crime (and no law that says that it is, other than in motor vehicle).

 

[ATW525]

Again, the OP was well within his rights in NH, the police were not.

Again, I disagree.

And last time I checked, this is the "activism" forum not legal & political...

Point taken.

 

[joab]

159:4 Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be guilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction.

159 goes on to explicitly exclude certain people and certain places, it also describes in detail illegal actions
By not specifically excluding open carry of a loaded firearm while specifically outlawing other forms of carrying a firearm the law allows open carry

So if a law detailing the conditions under with you cannot carry without including open carry ,the law if fact allows open carry, as I said

 

[Don Lu]

I get the point from the OP, but I didnt see any time in the video were the cop said he couldnt leave, nor any place where he asked to leave and was denied. "papers" were never demanded. The only thing I saw that was bothersom was that annoying guy w/the stripes. There are a lot of laws and I dont expect cops to have them all memorized. It wouldnt be a problem for me to produce ID nor would my carry liscence be a problem. While I produced my liscense I may educate him on the rights of the citizen. A search of my vehicle or home is one thing, but as others have said, things would have been over much more quickly If ID was produced. making things go easy is not always a good motivation, but I would not feel bad or bent over if the public and police felt better knowing I was liscenced to carry.

 

[insidious_calm]

ATW,


You still miss the point. While J.L. was about an anonymous tip, the court also addressed guns in light of the Terry decision and held specifically:

This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.

In other words, there is no gun exception to Terry. Whether a gun is visible or not is moot. The mere presence of a gun does not justify seizure under Terry unless the possession or manner of possession of the gun itself is a crime. The officer in question clearly had no terry grounds to justify the seizure. Because there is no law against open carry in NH, open carry alone does not justify the stop. There is simply no way around that fact for those who believe the state should be able to do so. There must be indicia of a crime being, or about to be committed, before a stop is justified. The mere possession of a gun in a lawful manner does not meet that criteria and the court has clearly said so.

As far as this not being "legal & political", I certainly would hope that the discussion of various types of activism and whether or not those actions are legal would fall under the purview of an "activism" forum. I certainly don't want to see well intentioned activists for this cause doing something that would make them criminals. Activism by design will sometimes push the limits. A discussion of where exactly that line may fall is surely legitimate.

As far as activism goes and "in your face style" activities are concerned, I believe they have a place in our cause. Like it or not 'we' are at 'war' with the majority of law enforcement in america with regards to firearms. Every manner of excuse from 'officer safety' to 'it made me feel uneasy' has been used to justify the unlawful infringement upon the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, examples need to be made of those who cross that line, it's the nature of this game. I'm perfectly fine with officers thinking twice, even three times, before they acost someone with a gun simply because they have a gun. If a law isn't being clearly broken they have no business doing so to begin with.


I.C.

 

[Blackbeard]

It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.

This type of OC stop isn't going to go away until OC is much more common. I would give ID if I had it and cooperate fully, hoping to resolve the stop quickly and easily. If I just gave my name, there may be a warrant out for someone with the same name, and bingo I'm going downtown. (I have a common name.)

 

[phaed]

I like freedoms as much as the next guy, maybe even more, but I can not see people starting problems like I believe you did over such a petty thing as an officer asking to see some ID, and that is exactly when you seemingly escalated it. As opposed to what your friend says, no one was accosted and no one demanded ID from you from what I heard.

i don't think you respect freedom as much as you advertise. the cop had no reason to mess with the guy in the first place.

i think he handled himself very respectfully. outstanding job on educating those that clearly needed it.

 

[Don Lu]

It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.

Thats how I feel about it. good analogy !

 

[insidious_calm]

It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.

Apples - Oranges. For starters a skimask conceals ones identity. Now, if the OP had been wearing a skimask in august then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Really, it's a strawman argument you make. Terry clearly states that it is the totality of the circumstances that must be considered. Wearing a skimask clearly out of season would seem to lend a lot towards justification of an investigatory stop. There is no season for firearms, nor any time of day. They are appropriate at all times day and night throughout the year depending on the bearers needs.

Simply carrying a firearm when not otherwise illegal, which is the topic in question here, does not by itself meet the requirements for an investigative stop and the USSC has said as much. Strawman aside, the reality is that the OP was clearly in the right. I am curious though, had he handled it your way would any of you have supported a lawsuit against the offending officers afterward. I highly doubt it.


I.C.

 

[Don Lu]

Not really apples and oranges. If the cop ask you, even in august in the middle of the day "why do you have a ski mask on." the reply would be the same...because I can..and you cant make me take it off.. Then you woulda had some guy w/ a stripped ski mask annoying everyone one waving his hand in front of a cops face.... Per the sentiment I pick up, The OP may have done the same thing even if he swapped the gun w/a ski mask and crowbar, regardless.. Juts seems like he was that dude in Jr. High that thought it was cool to be a wise guy just because.

 

[tnieto2004]

Apples - Oranges. For starters a skimask conceals ones identity. Now, if the OP had been wearing a skimask in august then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Really, it's a strawman argument you make. Terry clearly states that it is the totality of the circumstances that must be considered. Wearing a skimask clearly out of season would seem to lend a lot towards justification of an investigatory stop. There is no season for firearms, nor any time of day. They are appropriate at all times day and night throughout the year depending on the bearers needs.

So now it is illegal to wear ski masks when it is not a winter month? YOUR INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS!

 

[joab]

It's also legal to wear a ski mask and walk around upper-class neighborhoods with a crowbar at night. But the cops are going to stop you and find out what you're doing.

Terrible analogy
Those two activities together, or even in some cases alone, create an easy to articulate suspicion that a crime may be taking place or about to be taking place

The legislature has specifically excluded open carry of a firearm as a reason to suspect that a crime is being committed or about to be committed, the attorney general has backed them up

 

[pdowg881]

I have heard the "possession of burglary tools" thing on cops before. I'm not sure of the law, but maybe that would apply to snakeing around masked and with a crowbar? So maybe it could be illegal? Just throwing that out there for anyone who knows about that law because I've only heard it used on an episode of cops. I beleive he was charged with "possession of burglary tools" and his suspicious actions supported it.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

And still we have nothing wrong done here. No one did anything wrong except maybe stripe shirt guy.

The Original poster did nothing wrong and the officer, can stop and speak with anyone he pleases. He DID NOT detain or arrest the original poster.

What is everyone arguing about? I've had police stop and ask me questions and I was happy to answer and I knew I was free to leave at anytime.

No one surrendered a right.

No one was harassed.

Nothing to see here folks.

 

[jaholder1971]

I'm not playing this game anymore.

You do this in Kansas, even where OC is legal and you'll likely encounter the police. More than likely because some busybody called them.

Cop an attitude like these 2 did and you'll probably get slapped with a Disorderly conduct charge. Exercising a right while being polite trumps exercising a right while being a jerk all day long.

 

[insidious_calm]

Scorpius,


I have no first hand knowledge of how things are in NH, but here in Kansas if an officer asks you for ID it's not because he wants to send you a postcard. He has done so because he has engaged you in an official capacity. Smalltalk is just that, but a request for ID is an official action of the state and one that must be complied with to the extent of your name and address. I dare say that had the OP kept walking and ignored the officer the encounter would have still occurred, only much more violently. As I stated above, it's not just about what was said but what was implied. Officers of the law project authority by their very nature. If the OP felt he could not leave for fear of what the officer would do then he was in fact detained even if the officer didn't specifically state so.

Also, as I said above, had he handled it your way would any of you have supported a lawsuit against the offending officers afterward? For that matter, do you support the use of punitive lawsuits against officers and their departments as a form of activism against these types of infringments? Should they be made examples of?


I.C.

 

[Blackbeard]

This is starting to sound like the 2A version of the gay pride parade. Instead of, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" it's "We're the ones who have guns, get used to it!"

Look, it took a long time for the antis to get the public mindset into the state it is. It's going to take a long time to get back. Take baby steps. Find out who writes the policies for the 911 dispatchers and inform them that a man with a holstered gun is not an emergency. Get the policy changed. Write to, or better yet meet with your chief of police and discuss the department's policy on open carry. Suggest changes that better support our rights yet still allow them to do their job.

 

[Ford Prefect]

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/t...tification.htm
Kansas is one of the states with these laws on the books.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/t...tification.htm

You don't know the rules either. Where does it say you can be stopped on the side walk and ordered to show you DL? It doesn't. That's illegal. The officer must have cause to stop you before he can ask you for ID. Not in kansas, not anywhere the American Flag flies.

You posted a link to a 70 page Drivers Lisence Manual, that does not mention random stops on the side walk.

Post a quote to back up your claim, not 70 page pdf that do not back up your claim. Your other 2 links don't work at all.

 

[Ford Prefect]

jaholder1971

I'm not playing this game anymore.

You do this in Kansas, even where OC is legal and you'll likely encounter the police. More than likely because some busybody called them.

Cop an attitude like these 2 did and you'll probably get slapped with a Disorderly conduct charge. Exercising a right while being polite trumps exercising a right while being a jerk all day long.

You made a claim, you have yet to back up.
Now you've made another false claim you can't back up. "Copping and attitude is also not a crime. Disorderly charge cannot apply.

 

[Mazeman]

And still we have nothing wrong done here. No one did anything wrong except maybe stripe shirt guy.

Maybe not illegal, but talking on a cellphone while a policeman is asking you questions is incredibly boorish and disrespectful. So he can't be arrested. He and his friend are very un-likeable, and IMHO their behavior is harmful for our cause.

 

[Blackfork]

Congrats and thanks to the New Hampshire gun rights folks for taking a stand and standing together. We could use more of this, not less.