Open Carry impact

[A-R]

Cops love it when people play poker with them and call their bluff.

Citizens obeying the law shouldn't be put in that position in the first place.

What position? Can you elaborate?

[Winchster]

I'm suggesting your premise is preposterous. A LEO making a voluntary/consensual contact is NEVER prohibited. The fact you can't understand the difference between consensual and detained is your problem, not the cop's. A non-LEO citizen can REQUEST your ID too. And you can tell anyone (cop or otherwise) REQUESTING your ID to pound sand. The Texas statute specifically uses the term DEMAND in context for a reason. There are instances when a cop can DEMAND your ID (a lawful traffic stop being the situation most are familiar with).

Oh I have a firm understanding of the difference between the two. I also live in the real world, the one that turns your stop from friendly to non friendly the second I tell the cop to pound sand. He is investigating a call dispatch received about a mwag and no matter how fine you want to split hairs or play semantics, there is no other reason to stop me yet. (Remember, we are living in your very short scenario world still. ) You even acknowledge that it would be harassment. I agree with you on that point and merely pointed out that this is exactly what the ammendment prohibits

[rp_photo]

I think we're in for another round of big ugly signs.
Folks will put up both 30.06 and 30.07. If they're gonna put up one, putting up both isn't much of a stretch.

I think we are going to see more 30.06 signs for three reasons. First, there has been so much media attention. This isn't going to stop now, and 30.06 and 30.07 signs will be covered ad nauseam. While local store owners are probably aware of 30.06 signage (at least most of them), there will be pressure from anti groups, well-meaning, ignorant customers, corporate decisions, etc. Second, it will be one of those things, where if you are going to have to put one up, making your entrance look ugly, you might as well put both up. Thirdly, and I hope this doesn't happen often, but I would also not be surprised to see lots more 30.06 signs simply due to poor attempts at concealment where 30.07 is posted (i.e. full size frame in an OWB printing through a thin t-shirt - which isn't concealing anyway).

In the end however, I think it will be a big non-issue, but that will probably take a couple years for everyone to calm down.

The flip side is the fact that violating a 30.06 posting will be reduced to a Class C Misdemeanor.

[skychief12]

Any news about the "Disorderly conduct by displaying a firearm in manner....."

Good question. I see in other states it has been throw out by the courts. Anyone have an update?

[A-R]

I'm suggesting your premise is preposterous. A LEO making a voluntary/consensual contact is NEVER prohibited. The fact you can't understand the difference between consensual and detained is your problem, not the cop's. A non-LEO citizen can REQUEST your ID too. And you can tell anyone (cop or otherwise) REQUESTING your ID to pound sand. The Texas statute specifically uses the term DEMAND in context for a reason. There are instances when a cop can DEMAND your ID (a lawful traffic stop being the situation most are familiar with).

Oh I have a firm understanding of the difference between the two. I also live in the real world, the one that turns your stop from friendly to non friendly the second I tell the cop to pound sand. He is investigating a call dispatch received about a mwag and no matter how fine you want to split hairs or play semantics, there is no other reason to stop me yet. (Remember, we are living in your very short scenario world still. ) You even acknowledge that it would be harassment. I agree with you on that point and merely pointed out that this is exactly what the ammendment prohibits

I did not "acknowledge that it would be harassment"

positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

And you obviously don't grasp the difference because you still call the scenario a "stop" and it is not a "stop". It's a series of questions asked which the person being asked is under no legal obligation to answer.

[Winchster]

I'm suggesting your premise is preposterous. A LEO making a voluntary/consensual contact is NEVER prohibited. The fact you can't understand the difference between consensual and detained is your problem, not the cop's. A non-LEO citizen can REQUEST your ID too. And you can tell anyone (cop or otherwise) REQUESTING your ID to pound sand. The Texas statute specifically uses the term DEMAND in context for a reason. There are instances when a cop can DEMAND your ID (a lawful traffic stop being the situation most are familiar with).

Oh I have a firm understanding of the difference between the two. I also live in the real world, the one that turns your stop from friendly to non friendly the second I tell the cop to pound sand. He is investigating a call dispatch received about a mwag and no matter how fine you want to split hairs or play semantics, there is no other reason to stop me yet. (Remember, we are living in your very short scenario world still. ) You even acknowledge that it would be harassment. I agree with you on that point and merely pointed out that this is exactly what the ammendment prohibits

I did not "acknowledge that it would be harassment"

positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

And you obviously don't grasp the difference because you still call the scenario a "stop" and it is not a "stop". It's a series of questions asked which the person being asked is under no legal obligation to answer.

Possibly borderline harassing then not full acknowledgement, granted.
And you continue to play word games. It will absolutely become a stop when I tell a cop that requests my ID as a result of a dispatched MWAG call, to pound sand.

Look, I get it, you're most likely a LEO and you are probably one of the many that would approach your given scenario with an open mind. And obviously feel justified in doing exactly what you described. I will never tell a cop to pound sand when asked, not because I don't feel like I'm within my rights to do so, but there is virtually zero chance of it going "my way" by doing so in your scenario. There is a very, and I mean very, fine line between the definitions of ask and demand. If it's one, I can tell him to pound sand, if it's the other, I can't, legally. And curbside lawyering never works out for the citizen.

[A-R]

I did not "acknowledge that it would be harassment"

positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

And you obviously don't grasp the difference because you still call the scenario a "stop" and it is not a "stop". It's a series of questions asked which the person being asked is under no legal obligation to answer.

Possibly borderline harassing then not full acknowledgement, granted.
And you continue to play word games. It will absolutely become a stop when I tell a cop that requests my ID as a result of a dispatched MWAG call, to pound sand.

Look, I get it, you're most likely a LEO and you are probably one of the many that would approach your given scenario with an open mind. And obviously feel justified in doing exactly what you described. I will never tell a cop to pound sand when asked, not because I don't feel like I'm within my rights to do so, but there is virtually zero chance of it going "my way" by doing so in your scenario. There is a very, and I mean very, fine line between the definitions of ask and demand. If it's one, I can tell him to pound sand, if it's the other, I can't, legally. And curbside lawyering never works out for the citizen.

You hit the nail on the head. It is a very fine line. I understand you don't like that it is this way (how do you think LEOs feel, who have to walk this fine line all day every day?), but the LEOs don't make the rules - most simply do their best to abide by them while pushing right up to the edge of the rules so as to be able to do their jobs. And LEOs do this job to protect YOU.

Do you honestly think any meaningful percentage of LEOs wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm gonna harass a bunch of people today, because it's so much fun to tip toe around the eggshells of jurisprudence while arguing with folks who think they're legal experts, but in reality are only experts in pontificating their own opinion of what the law should be"?

[Winchster]

You hit the nail on the head. It is a very fine line. I understand you don't like that it is this way (how do you think LEOs feel, who have to walk this fine line all day every day?), but the LEOs don't make the rules - most simply do their best to abide by them while pushing right up to the edge of the rules so as to be able to do their jobs. And LEOs do this job to protect YOU.

Thing is, there's no reason to push right up to the edge of the rules. The rules are there to protect both of us, and I know plenty of officers that don't need to push the edge to do their job. They just do it within the confines that the rules allow. As to LEO's doing their job to protect me? That is not the focus of law enforcement. The courts have held The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.", so peddle those wares somewhere else.

Do you honestly think any meaningful percentage of LEOs wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm gonna harass a bunch of people today, because it's so much fun to tip toe around the eggshells of jurisprudence while arguing with folks who think they're legal experts, but in reality are only experts in pontificating their own opinion of what the law should be"?

No. I firmly believe that the VAST majority of LEO's wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm going to do the best job I can do today, and hopefully come home safe"
I will state this again, If I'm doing nothing illegal by walking down the sidewalk, openly carrying my holstered pistol, there is not one single reason in the world any LEO should be able to walk up and ask to see my license. The amendment to the bill, prevents openly carried firearms from being the SOLE reason I be questioned. Whether that's informal or formal makes no difference.
My turn to ask, Do you honestly think it's ok to approach someone that is not breaking ANY law and impose yourself into their afternoon?

[A-R]

You hit the nail on the head. It is a very fine line. I understand you don't like that it is this way (how do you think LEOs feel, who have to walk this fine line all day every day?), but the LEOs don't make the rules - most simply do their best to abide by them while pushing right up to the edge of the rules so as to be able to do their jobs. And LEOs do this job to protect YOU.

Thing is, there's no reason to push right up to the edge of the rules. The rules are there to protect both of us, and I know plenty of officers that don't need to push the edge to do their job. They just do it within the confines that the rules allow.

As to LEO's doing their job to protect me? That is not the focus of law enforcement. The courts have held The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.", so peddle those wares somewhere else.

That SCOTUS opinion is often misinterpreted and incorrectly used to suggest cops do not have a duty to protect. That ruling merely states an individual citizen cannot seek redress for LE not protecting that individual citizen (I.e. police are not your personal private security guards). But that ruling does not absolve LEOs from a general duty to protect. Such duty is spelled out in typical LE Agency policy and codified in Texas law (in other words if you shirk your duty to protect, you lose your job):

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.13. DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.
(b) The officer shall:
(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;
(2) execute all lawful process issued to the officer by any magistrate or court;
(3) give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officer's jurisdiction, where the officer has good reason to believe there has been a violation of the penal law; and
(4) arrest offenders without warrant in every case where the officer is authorized by law, in order that they may be taken before the proper magistrate or court and be tried.
(c) It is the duty of every officer to take possession of a child under Article 63.009(g).

Do you honestly think any meaningful percentage of LEOs wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm gonna harass a bunch of people today, because it's so much fun to tip toe around the eggshells of jurisprudence while arguing with folks who think they're legal experts, but in reality are only experts in pontificating their own opinion of what the law should be"?

No. I firmly believe that the VAST majority of LEO's wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm going to do the best job I can do today, and hopefully come home safe"
I will state this again, If I'm doing nothing illegal by walking down the sidewalk, openly carrying my holstered pistol, there is not one single reason in the world any LEO should be able to walk up and ask to see my license. The amendment to the bill, prevents openly carried firearms from being the SOLE reason I be questioned. Whether that's informal or formal makes no difference.

Want a "reason"? How about the First Amendnent, does that work for you? Just because someone has a badge does not mean they don't also enjoy the same rights to free speech as you and everyone else. A cop can walk up and ASK you anything they want. You can respond or not however you chose.

You cannot seem to grasp the concept that ASKing and DEMANDing are two completely different actions. There is really nothing more to discuss until you grasp this concept.

My turn to ask, Do you honestly think it's ok to approach someone that is not breaking ANY law and impose yourself into their afternoon?

See my answer above. If someone without a badge walked up and asked you about your open carry gun, would you get all butthurt about that? What if a non-LEO stranger asked if you had a license for your gun, would that violate your rights?

But put a badge on someone and he can only take specific actions at specific times under specific situations that fit your worldview? If you don't want someone to "impose" upon you, the politely refuse to answer, or ignore and keep walking. You have a right to not be FORCED to identify yourself. You have no right to live in a bubble and never be approached nor questioned about anything by anybody. You have a right not to answer. You don't have a right to not be questioned.

[Taypo]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

[A-R]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

[Winchster]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

[A-R]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

Devils advocate: unless it is readily apparent by casual observation that you're NOT violating rule or law, then an LEO has a responsibility to investigate further, especially if requested/instructed to do so by superiors and/or concerned citizens.

[Winchster]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

Devils advocate: unless it is readily apparent by casual observation that you're NOT violating rule or law, then an LEO has a responsibility to investigate further, especially if requested/instructed to do so by superiors and/or concerned citizens.

Exactly, and the casual observer could easily be the LEO observing no violation and reporting back that no violations have been observed. Now, if ANY violation of any law is observed then the LEO can stop and do whatever he chooses. However, the mere sight of a holstered pistol should never be the sole reason for the questions.

[mr1337]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

Devils advocate: unless it is readily apparent by casual observation that you're NOT violating rule or law, then an LEO has a responsibility to investigate further, especially if requested/instructed to do so by superiors and/or concerned citizens.

Wrong. Police must have a reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime, not a reasonable suspicion that you are not committing a crime.

Now, of course, the police have every right to investigate whether or not a crime is being committed, in this scenario, as long as the subject is not detained without reasonable suspicion.

If we didn't have 4th Amendment protections, police could just stop everyone and detain them until they confirmed no crime was being committed. They could pull over every car and search every house, just to make sure nothing illegal was inside.

A firearm, when carried lawfully, does not constitute reasonable suspicion. (Black v. US, 4th Circuit) So if a cop doesn't know if you have a license or not, the standard of reasonable suspicion is not met. He has no reason to think you don't have a license. However, if the cop knows you are a felon (or otherwise lack a license) due to his/her previous interactions with you, the cop does have reasonable suspicion.