Police Department Backs Down After Exceeding Authority on Gun Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
This story is an oldie but goodie,I thought I would revive it to see if anyone else has heard of it or other updates.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3567
by Charles Heller

April 27, 2003

Today [4/26/2003] I had an encounter with 6 of Tucson Police Department's finest. Long story, short point. I held my ground and won.

This morning at Reid Park in Tucson at the band shell I attended a "Support the Troops" rally -- representing KJLL Radio and Liberty Watch. As a free person, I open carried my Glock 27 in a black leather strong side thumb break holster with an offside mag pouch. I wore a KJLL AM 1330 t-shirt and BDU slacks.

About half way through the event, I was at the front, in the shade, next to the News Director Nicole Cox when TPD Sgt. Stoutmeyer walked up. He was eyeing the crowd very pointedly. He was very alert and observant. I struck up a conversation with him for about 10 minutes as he scanned the crowd, then walked off. My open carried magazine was within 20 inches of him.

At about 11:20, I visited the latrine. On the way back, I was politely hailed by 2 TPD officers -- one fellow was named Brown. They told me I couldn't be in the park with a gun. I thanked them for being observant and gave them a business card. (They had not asked for I.D. but I wanted to be open with them.)

I told them, respectfully, that ARS 13-3108 prevented them from regulating my firearms possession when I had a CCW permit -- and I showed them my permit. Brown asked me if that was an ASP in my front belt line. When I replied in the affirmative, he asked to see it, and I handed it to him. He commented how light it was, then hung onto it. (Smart cop. The baton is far more of a threat to him at our range than the gun.) They never took the gun or assumed an offensive posture with me. They asked nicely if I'd wait for their Sergeant, and I said, "Sgt, Stoutmeyer? I just talked to him."

Stoutmeyer came over looked at me, and said, "You? I stood next to you for 10 minutes and saw no gun." I replied, "Yeah, I talked to you in part so you could discuss the gun if you were going to. I was really admiring your alertness. I'm left handed, so that's probably why you missed it standing to my right. As a CCW instructor, I teach people to not miss the obvious." (He winced.)

He told me that the gun was legal only if concealed, according to the Tucson ordinance. I told him that the ordinance was silent on concealment, and that if he tried to enforce what was not the law in a policemen's uniform it would be a deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

"Sgt. Stoutmeyer, what is the TPD policy on officers who exceed their authority?"

"There are sanctions for that."

"Sgt., I can't protect you if you don't obey the law. I am trying to shield you from harm here, and I am not giving you a hard time. If you are not enforcing the law you swore to uphold, what good are laws? 18 USC 241 is a felony sir."

"Good point. I'll call the legal advisor."

"OK. I'll be under that tree over there if you want to talk, except when I'm on stage. Brown said, "What do I do with this? (He was referring to my ASP baton.) I stepped forward and took it as Stoutmeyer said, "It's his."

15 minutes later, Stoutmeyer beckoned me to the tree. "Legal advisor says it must be concealed. If you carry openly then the next guy without a permit will see it and think he can do it without a permit. I have to ask you, since you are tape recording this, to either cover it, put it in your car, or my lieutenant says I have to cite you."

"OK Sgt. This is not the hill I want to make my stand on and disrupt these activities. I'll untuck my shirt so as not to back you into a corner, but we are not through. Please show me the written law that you are enforcing. I am not mad at you personally, but the law is silent on this and you are exceeding your authority."

"I thought you'd say that so the legal advisor is on her way here with it in writing."

"OK. When it gets here, we'll take the next step. This is not my forum, but we are not finished."

20 minutes later, he beckons me over. "OK, here is the law." (Hands me a Xerox copy.)

Tucson City Code, S 21-(3) Relating to recreation. No person in a park shall: (2) Hunt, trap, or pursue wildlife at any time: use carry or possess firearms of any description without possession of a concealed weapons permit issued pursuant to ARS 13-2112.....

"Hey, it says nothing here about concealed. You have a point."

"Yes Sergeant. And if you tell me it has to be concealed, and it doesn't, you have exceeded your authority under color of law. Now the city council may have intended that it be concealed, and if they write the ordinance that way I'll do it. But preemption doesn't give them the authority to regulate that, and if you try to enforce it, what sanctions might you suffer? I'm trying to protect you, sir."

"I'll call the legal advisor."

(At this point, my Title 18 warning card is still rubber-banded to the tape recorder.)

12:50 PM, under the shade tree east of the band shell, witnesses Nicole Cox, Mike Fascetta, John Campbell, Pat Johnston:

"Mr. Heller you are right. The law doesn't say concealed. I apologize."

"Seeing as how you were just doing what they told you, no need for an apology. I am, for the record, tucking my shirt in."

"Thank you for your attitude of not being combative with us."

"Thank you for understanding that government is the servant, not the master. (At this point, State Rep. Randy Graf walks up.) You know, if the North and South had treated each other with the same mutual respect as we did today, there might not have been a war between the states. I just watched 'Gettysburg' last night. I have the Director on my show tomorrow."

"Will this be on the radio?

"Oh, I promise you the oxygen of publicity, Sgt. Stoutmeyer."
 
Do you have a sample of your Title 18 warning card you can post?

Thanks!


BB62
 
Despite three politely worded advisories, Marana's main park still has the old NO Weapons signage up.....in violation of the new law.
 
I would like to know what a title 18 warning card is?? Sounds like it is a card that warns LEO to obey the law.
 
18 USCS § 242 (2004)

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
 
Fedlaw's citation applies only to situations where the rights are violated due to the victim's race, color or country of origin. It says nothing about a white cop stopping a white citizen of the USA and hassling him/her for openly carrying a handgun in a jurisdiction where such carry is legal.
 
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States
This is the part that applies to a white cop stopping a white citizen in a public park.
 
You went looking for a confrontation. What did you accomplish? You nit-picked a statute. Big deal, its called a loophole.

As for the armchair lawyers, 18 USC 242 has been around forever, and is the statute used in DOJ DOR cases. Every cop knows this, your "warning" is discussed in depth during basic training. Its not exactly news.
 
One thing about Title 18 Section 242 is that it does not give an individual the right to private action. You as an individual cannot sue for damages under Section 242. Rather, it enpowers the government (Fed) to take action against a local who is depriving a person of their civil rights.

Check out Title 42 Section 1983 for a private cause of action. That's what you're looking for.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You went looking for a confrontation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't think he was but that's better than just bending over
BT
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
This is the part that applies to a white cop stopping a white citizen in a public park.
Got it. It's the clause about subjecting to different punishments that is limited based on race, color, or nationality. My bad.
 
What I like about this incident

Is that both sides were polite and freedom won.
This is alot better then the recent WA/NH incidents.
 
Got it. It's the clause about subjecting to different punishments that is limited based on race, color, or nationality. My bad.
Hawkermoon, you seem to be focusing on this for some reason. Here's what the FBI says about it on their website (link provided above)
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
and later
The Supreme Court has had to interpret the United States Constitution to construct law regulating the actions of those in the law enforcement community. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.
It doesn't mention anywhere the deprivation of rights has anything to do with race.

Scott
 
Thanks for your kind words

But your giving me way to much credit.
I got this article from keepandbeararms.com last year and saved it to my favorites.
I was not present nor do I know any of the people involved in the original incident.
I posted it to add to the debate on open carry,I saved it because I may move to AZ.
Maybe some one in AZ can call this radio station mentioned in the original article and find the talk radio DJ involved in the incident?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top