jayinsat wrote:I, for one, would like to applaud the professionalism of the LEO's who responded to this incident. I believe they showed respect for the Law, the citizens who were expressing their 2nd amendment rights and the citizens who, for fear of seeing an open weapon on a non-LEO, made the 911 call.
Sometimes we forget how tough a LEO's job is. Most people don't know the law. In this post-Columbine, James Holmes "Dark Night Rises" world, people are afraid when they see individuals walking around with open h.g.s in public. Even in a state or municipality where OC has been legal forever, you can expect that, if you OC in public, someone's gonna call the cops. The LEO's will have to respond, disarm you and check your i.d. while they verify there is no real threat. I say, why tie them up from performing real, important duties? It seems to me that the one individual who was OCing was really pushing for a fight a lot harder than necessary. Once he saw the LEO's were not "anti-carry", IMHO, he should have been less stand-offish and more patient. Continue to press for your rights (even if, IMHO, it's not the smartest way to do it) but don't be so aggressive.
If you were in a Luby's and you saw these guys, or three hispanics, blacks or whatever, walk in with open hg's on their side, what would your first thougts be? Would you think "awesome, these guys are expressing their 2nd amendment rights", or "let me put my hand on my ccw, it may be about to go down up in here!". How can you distinguish between some gang bangers or mexican drug cartel members about to do a hit, from an OC practitioner?
Just my 2cents. To each his own.
I am on the other side of that fence. I don't see what the officer(s) did as all that professional. In the first contact the officer started off with "Who do you work for?" and stated that the carrier had to have a permit to carry a gun (not true), stated that the carrier did not have a permit (carrier did have a CCW, but OC is not under the CCW), makes a statement about his communications problem with his ex-wives (considering the relative numbers I would suggest that the communications problems are on his end), and has to be shown where, on the carrier's drivers license, the CCW listing is, and then actually lies and says that's what he asked for to begin with, which is not true. Then, after what I consider to be an illegal detention (only my own opinion), comes back and instead of admitting it's not in his ordinance book and therefore he is wrong (as he stated he would when he walked away) he waffles and says his book may not be up to date but he will research it and write a letter IF he is wrong. He had plenty of time to consult higher ups by radio and I would bet that he already knows he is wrong, but will not back down because he is the law.
And all of the "You have to understand . . ." statements. No, that is not in writing and therefore is not a "have to understand", while the law is in writing, which the officers "have to understand" and that the correct response, after a few seconds of determining that the carrier was carrying legally (if the officer understood the law in the first place) would have been to go back to the original reporting party and inform them that the person they reported is carrying legally and that her call, while well intentioned, borders on being a false report.
) this topic. We've spent the past six summers in OC states. In several different states over that time, I can count on one hand the number of civilians seen actually in OC mode. I hasten to add that I wasn't concerned about printing or showing my CC in those various OC states. OTOH, I'm not overly concerned about printing or 
