Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

vermonter · Aug 18, 2012

In states were OC or CCW is acceptable and the police are aware of the legality, I have no problem showing the PD my CCW/LTCH, chatting and being on my way. My problem is with how the 911 operators are trained.

Examples:

New Jersey - Caller: There is a man with a gun at 5th and Main. 911: Swat is en-route.

Wyoming - Caller: There is a man with a gun on Main St. 911: Is he doing anything? Caller: No, it is holstered and he is walking down the street. 911: That is legal in Wyoming, have a nice day - click.

Perhaps the police should demand that 911 operators know the law better so their time is not wasted on MWAG calls (in states where it is legal).

Grapeshot · Aug 18, 2012

vermonter said:
In states were OC or CCW is acceptable and the police are aware of the legality, I have no problem showing the PD my CCW/LTCH, chatting and being on my way. --snip--

How about if you were stopped and asked for your permit 10 times within an hour - every time an officer saw you? Would you be a little upset then?

Your response indicates that you would make the encounter consensual - that is your choice, but every time you do that you strengthen the the officer's experience training = demand an extra-legal thing and most will comply - that is pure harassment.

I have never shown my permit(s) when OCing (24/7) and never voluntarily will absenting a law requiring that I do so. My stock and trade answer given with a smile is "No thank you."

Fuller Malarkey · Aug 18, 2012

vermonter said:
In states were OC or CCW is acceptable and the police are aware of the legality, I have no problem showing the PD my CCW/LTCH, chatting and being on my way.

You will never make any headway when trying to break a dog of a bad habit if you reinforce the behavior you are trying to break. You confuse the dog. And nobody wants to deal with an aggressive, confused creature with fangs. Or a gun.

Now. Let's not forgot the first rule of training:

1. Thou shalt be smarter than what thou art training.

And lets review the second rule:

2. You have to anticipate the bad behavior and nip it in the bud. Nip it.

Gunslinger · Aug 21, 2012

Grapeshot said:
That is correct.

Hmmm, uncharacteristically non-loquacious of you..but then, I am a man of few words myself...

op cit: humor, a bit of sarcasm and a long history with my friend Grape...

Gunslinger · Aug 21, 2012

Citizen said:
With butter and salt for me, please. No caramel.

Glad to see they let you out early for good behavior...:>

Gunslinger · Aug 21, 2012

hahah said:
Mr. Citizen,
The Primary sources and reduction of any rights have not been due to Police Officers actions. These rights have been defined more clearly through the years by court rulings and decisions. That is the forum where the actions of Officers and Citizens are weighed and measured and a reasonable balance determined and an opinion produced by the said court.

I do not wish to debate if your search and seizure rights have been reduced or diminished. Take that to the courts. I do not wish to debate or discuss actions or attitudes of the Police Officers. (what does that have to do with guns?)

Can we get back to guns now?

My opinions are my own. I do not represent the opinions of anyone else or any entity.

The guy murdered by cops rarely makes a court appearance. The dirty cop whose ass is covered by the gutless "good cops" rarely sees the inside of a courtroom. Your question of what cops have to do with 2A rights when they trample it and the 4thA is inane.

Gunslinger · Aug 21, 2012

vermonter said:
In states were OC or CCW is acceptable and the police are aware of the legality, I have no problem showing the PD my CCW/LTCH, chatting and being on my way. My problem is with how the 911 operators are trained.

Examples:

New Jersey - Caller: There is a man with a gun at 5th and Main. 911: Swat is en-route.

Wyoming - Caller: There is a man with a gun on Main St. 911: Is he doing anything? Caller: No, it is holstered and he is walking down the street. 911: That is legal in Wyoming, have a nice day - click.

Perhaps the police should demand that 911 operators know the law better so their time is not wasted on MWAG calls (in states where it is legal).

Die Straße frei den braunen Batallionen. Die Straße frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann...

"We must take the guns from the people to make the streets safe for the SS."

A. Hitler

ProbablyTaken · Nov 7, 2012

stargateranch said:
By Law, Yes! However my department policy is more restrictive and does not allow you to be armed. It's not my choice, it's a rule I agreed to follow. I would prefer you to be armed in case I get shot in the face on a traffic stop at least you can defend yourself. Those who do ride with me and cannot be armed I show them how to release my shotgun, where my backup handgun is, and where my m-14 and M-4 are. I show them how to run the radio and call for help if needed. It kinda freaks some of them out (a state senator got the speech one time, what a night). ADDED THIS, there is also a requirement before you ride I must run your criminal history and explain to you that some of what you might see and hear is confidential. And you have to sign a waiver.

Local UTA driver would love to sign-up for one of these Ride-a-longs. Sounds like a good chance to see it from your side. Which department, WJPD? or Unified?

WalkingWolf · Nov 7, 2012

ProbablyTaken said:
Local UTA driver would love to sign-up for one of these Ride-a-longs. Sounds like a good chance to see it from your side. Which department, WJPD? or Unified?

He is a Utah trooper, if you read through the postings you will see where he posted a news article about himself and arresting some citizen for dressing in black clothing.

rpyne · Nov 8, 2012

stargateranch said:
By Law, Yes! However my department policy is more restrictive and does not allow you to be armed. It's not my choice, it's a rule I agreed to follow.

So you agree to allow your department to violate the law you have sworn to uphold?

53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9); and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
(7) Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.

MAC702 · Nov 8, 2012

We went over this. He was referring to a ride-along. UT state law specifically says that your right to be armed in a vehicle is subject to who is in control of the vehicle. The police DO have the law backing them up if they require you to be disarmed while in their car. Yes, "their" car, meaning they are the ones in control of that vehicle. The law doesn't address ownership of the vehicle, so you can't argue it is public property.

turborich · Nov 8, 2012

I think that some of you were so harsh that he may have left the forums. I see his last post was several months ago.

While most of the folks here are very considerate, there are a few here who do their best to pick fights. :banghead:

WalkingWolf · Nov 8, 2012

turborich said:
I think that some of you were so harsh that he may have left the forums. I see his last post was several months ago.

While most of the folks here are very considerate, there are a few here who do their best to pick fights. :banghead:

It may also have helped him move on that he violated his own department policy by discussing active cases.

PistolPackingMomma · Nov 8, 2012

turborich said:
I think that some of you were so harsh that he may have left the forums. I see his last post was several months ago.

While most of the folks here are very considerate, there are a few here who do their best to pick fights. :banghead:

This is the internet, not Sunday school. He chose to take his ball and go home after he was called out on some of the things he stated. Yes, some people do try to pick fights, but imo, that was not the case here.

Citizen · Nov 8, 2012

turborich said:
SNIP While most of the folks here are very considerate, there are a few here who do their best to pick fights.

If it involves a cop with unAmerican, anti-rights views, I'll wear that label. You only need one hand and part of a second to count the number of pro-rights cops who've shown up on the forum. The bad ones show themselves pretty fast by what they write---and what they don't write.

Cops have very thick skins. A bit of verbal hammering is not going to hurt their feelings. If an anti-rights cop leaves the forum, its not because of verbal hammering. Its going to be more in the area that he wasn't all that committed to supporting rights in the first place and was here for some other reason. The cops who do respect rights and are committed to open carry are still here.

rpyne · Nov 8, 2012

MAC702 said:
We went over this. He was referring to a ride-along. UT state law specifically says that your right to be armed in a vehicle is subject to who is in control of the vehicle. The police DO have the law backing them up if they require you to be disarmed while in their car. Yes, "their" car, meaning they are the ones in control of that vehicle. The law doesn't address ownership of the vehicle, so you can't argue it is public property.

This argument doesn't wash. The law prohibits the agency from making ANY rule restricting firearms on public or private property. You are confusing separate parts of Utah Law. 53-5a, the preemption statute, refers to what government entities may or may not do. 76-10-500 et. seq. covers what is and isn't legal for carrying a firearm and provides certain exemptions.

While the police own the car and control the car, the preemption statute prohibits them from creating or enforcing the rule the you can't carry in "their" car.

MAC702 · Nov 10, 2012

The state preemption law does not preempt other state laws.

rpyne · Nov 10, 2012

MAC702 said:
The state preemption law does not preempt other state laws.

The state preemption law DOES clearly state that is UNLAWFUL for ANY state or local government agency from creating or enforcing ANY rule restricting the use or carrying of firearms unless specifically authorized by the legislature by statute.

53-5a-102(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.

What part of that is unclear?

Show me where the state law allows the highway patrol or police department to formulate a rule prohibiting carry in their cars. A simple statement that permission of the person in control of the vehicle is needed, does not give the agency the authority to formulate or enforce such a rule. How would this be any different than a city posting no firearms signs on city parks or other city property?

MAC702 · Nov 10, 2012

rpyne said:
The state preemption law DOES clearly state that is UNLAWFUL for ANY state or local government agency from creating or enforcing ANY rule restricting the use or carrying of firearms unless specifically authorized by the legislature by statute....

Not really, no.

UCA said:
53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; ...

If you are on a ride-along, you are in a vehicle that is not under YOUR possession or YOUR control. Therefore the state preemption law does not prohibit them from having this rule.

UCA said:
53-5a-102(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.

In the section you quoted, it should be obvious this is on property, not in a vehicle.

rpyne · Nov 10, 2012

MAC702 said:
Not really, no.

If you are on a ride-along, you are in a vehicle that is not under YOUR possession or YOUR control. Therefore the state preemption law does not prohibit them from having this rule.

Again, show me the Utah State Code section that gives then the authority to make such a rule. It doesn't exist.

Police officer looking for respectful dialoge

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member