Mandatory Training for OC and CC

[OC for ME]

....[tossing the 'BS sympathy' flag]....Cry me a river.

Try 'camping' out on a mountain top in Afghanistan for X amount of weeks, short break then back to 'camp'. If the job is too taxing, get out and find a less taxing job. LE, like the military, is voluntary.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I've never stopped someone simply for carrying. The individual either had to be acting suspiciously or I knew from previous encounters with the individual that he or she had a felony record.

Thank you for respecting the rights of others!

 

[RyanC1985]

ahah! He sees the light!

A good way to start would be in schools. IMO, all high schools should have a marksmanship class available to any student that wants to take it. I had to wait till college to have that opportunity.

Another thing you'd need to do would be to take the boring out of safety. Don't make it sound like something from a health and safety beaurocrat.

LOL...I never said I conceded the argument. I still have my opinion, I just think the conversation was moving from ideology to personal attacks on both sides. So I thought redirecting towards a middle ground area would bring the topic back to something more productive. i agree offering something in public schools is a great way to ensure everyone has a opportunity to become familiar with firearms. My hunter safety course was a 6th grade elective class which I really enjoyed and helped to expose me to gun safety issues at an early age.

An even bigger problem than the bad apples is the blue wall of silence. Too many cops have this dillusion that they must protect the bad apples over some sort of honor. Well the honor is misplaced. The honor should be to uniform. Protecting those that stain the uniform only serves to stain it more by making the force look bad.

I also agree, many police officers still hide behind the wall but things are changing. That attitude was much more prevelant back in the 80's and early 90s...now thanks to things such as mandatory reporting requirements, dash cams, and citizens with a video recording device on every electronic possible that wall is being dismantled. One reason that blue still gets uneasy reporting on blue is for a reason many private citizens don't think about. As an officer, your greatest safety tool isn't on the gun belt, its back up. Many officers feel if they are labled as a snitch on other officers, other officers might not respond as quickly as they should if a dangerous situation arises. I'm not saying it justifies letting other officers commit acts of violence, but it does officer some insight as to why some remain silent. I think police and private citizens like to group each other as something completely different, but when it comes down to it we all operate off the same principles....self preservation.

 

[RyanC1985]

....[tossing the 'BS sympathy' flag]....Cry me a river.

Try 'camping' out on a mountain top in Afghanistan for X amount of weeks, short break then back to 'camp'. If the job is too taxing, get out and find a less taxing job. LE, like the military, is voluntary.

Really, after all the crap the military gets for being over zealous, and public out cry from non military citizens denouncing and criticizing vets for doing something they couldn't understand...I'm surprised you don't see where I'm coming from

 

[RyanC1985]

Thank you for respecting the rights of others!

I think you'd find most police respect the 2nd amendment right of law abiding citizens...again, its the us versus them mentality that certain groups get that divide the two. Police officers are required to follow the same laws as non police citizens while off duty, 2nd amendment matters to them as well.

 

[Gil223]

I've not rad all 114 posts so I may be repeating something here. A big problem I see with it (at least the mandated course for OC) is that it would justify an LEO to question anyone SHE/HE sees OCing just for the Hell of it.

The LEO may question you today, that doesn't mean you have to answer him/her. Carrying alone probably does not constitute "probable cause" for an interrogation in most jurisdictions. And if you choose to voluntarily answer, "I have a right under the Second Amendment to do so", should be enough of an answer (but, in reality, it would probably just piss them off and make your life a little less comfortable for a few minutes). Pax!

 

[SovereignAxe]

I also agree, many police officers still hide behind the wall but things are changing. That attitude was much more prevelant back in the 80's and early 90s...now thanks to things such as mandatory reporting requirements, dash cams, and citizens with a video recording device on every electronic possible that wall is being dismantled. One reason that blue still gets uneasy reporting on blue is for a reason many private citizens don't think about. As an officer, your greatest safety tool isn't on the gun belt, its back up. Many officers feel if they are labled as a snitch on other officers, other officers might not respond as quickly as they should if a dangerous situation arises. I'm not saying it justifies letting other officers commit acts of violence, but it does officer some insight as to why some remain silent. I think police and private citizens like to group each other as something completely different, but when it comes down to it we all operate off the same principles....self preservation.

I'm aware of this, and I think it's one of the biggest reasons for the blue wall. It's a cultural thing within the force that has to change; officers need to realize that sticking up for the bad apples makes them look bad as well.

A question to you: do you think that this could be a symptom of the increasing responsibility put on the police? The US's population has increased by 25% in the last 10 years, and we have more ways to become a felon than you can shake a stick at, as evidenced by the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The police seem to have their hands full putting people behind bars for petty crimes like marijuana posession and dealing with three strikes and zero tolerance laws.

This increasing demand for law enforcement seems like it would require a lax standard on those it recruits. We saw the same thing in Iraq when recruitment was low and the testing and criminal history standards were lowered to add to the ranks. I wonder how directly that has been related to the bad apple cases we've seen with them.

 

[RyanC1985]

The LEO may question you today, that doesn't mean you have to answer him/her. Carrying alone probably does not constitute "probable cause" for an interrogation in most jurisdictions. And if you choose to voluntarily answer, "I have a right under the Second Amendment to do so", should be enough of an answer (but, in reality, it would probably just piss them off and make your life a little less comfortable for a few minutes). Pax!

I would be careful about not answering a simple question because it cause the officer to become more suspicious. Also, an officer doesn't need probably cause to conduct a terry stop or field investigation, only RS. Just take the time to inform or educate...officer don't stop people simply ruin their day, it is often genuine concern. Simply state its according to state law its lawful for me to open carry and its for personal protection and you shouldn't have a problem. He might want to run the gun's serial number to ensure it isn't stolen, but there's nothing wrong with that...infact, if you've every had a gun stolen you would appreciate an officer's due diligence to ensure that someone else is walking around with your gun attached to their hip.

 

[RyanC1985]

I'm aware of this, and I think it's one of the biggest reasons for the blue wall. It's a cultural thing within the force that has to change; officers need to realize that sticking up for the bad apples makes them look bad as well.

A question to you: do you think that this could be a symptom of the increasing responsibility put on the police? The US's population has increased by 25% in the last 10 years, and we have more ways to become a felon than you can shake a stick at, as evidenced by the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The police seem to have their hands full putting people behind bars for petty crimes like marijuana posession and dealing with three strikes and zero tolerance laws.

This increasing demand for law enforcement seems like it would require a lax standard on those it recruits. We saw the same thing in Iraq when recruitment was low and the testing and criminal history standards were lowered to add to the ranks. I wonder how directly that has been related to the bad apple cases we've seen with them.

I totally agree...not only is it hard on officers but also on all tax payers. Its our tax dollars supporting the incarcerated while they don't contribute to society.

 

[OC for ME]

Really, after all the crap the military gets for being over zealous, and public out cry from non military citizens denouncing and criticizing vets for doing something they couldn't understand...I'm surprised you don't see where I'm coming from

I do understand....replace military with LEOs.

Run the serial number? Really? So, your premise is that every OCer is in possession of a stolen firearm....until proven otherwise. Great.

No, I have not had any of my firearms stolen, nor have I stolen any firearms. So, my firearms are lawfully mine, lawfully purchased but it appear that that is irrelevant to you.

Again, the premise is that the citizen bears the burden of educating LE on laws that they are trained to and have sworn to uphold. Great.

 

[SovereignAxe]

I would be careful about not answering a simple question because it cause the officer to become more suspicious. Also, an officer doesn't need probably cause to conduct a terry stop or field investigation, only RS. Just take the time to inform or educate...officer don't stop people simply ruin their day, it is often genuine concern. Simply state its according to state law its lawful for me to open carry and its for personal protection and you shouldn't have a problem. He might want to run the gun's serial number to ensure it isn't stolen, but there's nothing wrong with that...infact, if you've every had a gun stolen you would appreciate an officer's due diligence to ensure that someone else is walking around with your gun attached to their hip.

You've opened up a can of worms with that one.

I appreciate having an officer's view on this forum, but advocating giving up your 4th amendment rights around here is something that may get you run out of here lol

 

[RyanC1985]

I do understand....replace military with LEOs.

Run the serial number? Really? So, your premise is that every OCer is in possession of a stolen firearm....until proven otherwise. Great.

No, I have not had any of my firearms stolen, nor have I stolen any firearms. So, my firearms are lawfully mine, lawfully purchased but it appear that that is irrelevant to you.

Again, the premise is that the citizen bears the burden of educating LE on laws that they are trained to and have sworn to uphold. Great.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...I never said anything about assuming a carrier has stolen anything. Its routine police procedure. Everytime I pull someone over I run the tag and registration of the vehicle to ensure its not stolen. I don't assume its stolen, its just due diligence for the officer. I'd feel pretty stupid if I conduct a traffic stop on someone and let them go if they are riding around in a stolen car. I'd feel awful if i conducted a stop on someone who happened to be arm and it turned out the gun was stolen. Its a two mintue procedure that can be done without even disarming the individual. I've actually had carriers thank for conducting the brief inquiry because they realize its stolen guns that are most often used in crimes, not registered owners, and they like the fact that officers are out there ensuring stolen guns are taken off the street and out of the hands of criminals.

 

[RyanC1985]

I do understand....replace military with LEOs.

Run the serial number? Really? So, your premise is that every OCer is in possession of a stolen firearm....until proven otherwise. Great.

No, I have not had any of my firearms stolen, nor have I stolen any firearms. So, my firearms are lawfully mine, lawfully purchased but it appear that that is irrelevant to you.

Again, the premise is that the citizen bears the burden of educating LE on laws that they are trained to and have sworn to uphold. Great.

and I'm not sure where "replace military with LEOs remotely fits into the conversation

 

[RyanC1985]

You've opened up a can of worms with that one.

I appreciate having an officer's view on this forum, but advocating giving up your 4th amendment rights around here is something that may get you run out of here lol

There is not breach of search or seizure there...I didn't take the gun from person, I'm just ensuring the gun hasn't been placed on the stolen firearms section of the NCIC database...same procedure used to ensure the vehicles are declared stolen.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I also agree, many police officers still hide behind the wall but things are changing. That attitude was much more prevelant back in the 80's and early 90s...now thanks to things such as mandatory reporting requirements, dash cams, and citizens with a video recording device on every electronic possible that wall is being dismantled. One reason that blue still gets uneasy reporting on blue is for a reason many private citizens don't think about. As an officer, your greatest safety tool isn't on the gun belt, its back up. Many officers feel if they are labled as a snitch on other officers, other officers might not respond as quickly as they should if a dangerous situation arises. I'm not saying it justifies letting other officers commit acts of violence, but it does officer some insight as to why some remain silent. I think police and private citizens like to group each other as something completely different, but when it comes down to it we all operate off the same principles....self preservation.

That blue wall is being chipped away by citizen recordings, dash cams and general outcry when the public becomes aware the police are protecting a corrupt officer.
Truly dismantling that blue line must be done by the good cops.

 

[SovereignAxe]

There is not breach of search or seizure there...I didn't take the gun from person, I'm just ensuring the gun hasn't been placed on the stolen firearms section of the NCIC database...same procedure used to ensure the vehicles are declared stolen.

Think of it this way. If you take my cell phone from me and start looking at my dialed calls to make sure I haven't made any calls to known terrorist organizations, that is a search and seizure of my property. Checking the serial number of my firearm is no different.

And what happens when you run my gun's serial and it does come back stolen? I didn't steal it, I bought it at the pawn shop. Maybe the guy that turned it in there stole it. At the very least you're going to seize my firearm that I paid a month's salary (or more) to acquire, and at the worst you're going to arrest me because you think I'm the one that stole it.

This is the reason the 4th amendment is there, so we don't have to deal with this sort of headache our founding fathers (and their fathers and so on) had to endure under tryannic rule. I shouldn't have to go to court and plead my case and be out thousands of dollars in lawyer fees because you thought you were doing us all a service by shredding up and then ******* on the Constitution.

edit: lol sorry, didn't realize putting a double S in the act of urinating was a censored word.

 

[RyanC1985]

Think of it this way. If you take my cell phone from me and start looking at my dialed calls to make sure I haven't made any calls to known terrorist organizations, that is a search and seizure of my property. Checking the serial number of my firearm is no different.

And what happens when you run my gun's serial and it does come back stolen? I didn't steal it, I bought it at the pawn shop. Maybe the guy that turned it in there stole it. At the very least you're going to seize my firearm that I paid a month's salary (or more) to acquire, and at the worst you're going to arrest me because you think I'm the one that stole it.

This is the reason the 4th amendment is there, so we don't have to deal with this sort of headache our founding fathers (and their fathers and so on) had to endure under tryannic rule. I shouldn't have to go to court and plead my case and be out thousands of dollars in lawyer fees because you thought you were doing us all a service by shredding up and then ******* on the Constitution.

edit: lol sorry, didn't realize putting a double S in the act of urinating was a censored word.

By using that logic, a police officer would not be allowed to to conduct any type of investigation given the fact that there is always a chance that an innocent person got caught up in the mix. It happens alot actually, and there are protocols in place to protect the individual. For example, the pawn shop is required to keep a registry of all gun sales, the officer then checks and confirms that the gun carrier indeed bought the firearm fromt he pawn shop and is cleared of any wrong doing. As for the seizure of the gun, its still a good seizure because its still stolen property and belongs to the original owner which is where it would be sent back to

Also, the gun's serial number is always posted on the exterior of the gun usually on the slide or grip. Plain view doctrine says if the officer can view it, it does not meet the requirements of unreasonble search or seizure.

 

[RyanC1985]

By using that logic, a police officer would not be allowed to to conduct any type of investigation given the fact that there is always a chance that an innocent person got caught up in the mix. It happens alot actually, and there are protocols in place to protect the individual. For example, the pawn shop is required to keep a registry of all gun sales, the officer then checks and confirms that the gun carrier indeed bought the firearm fromt he pawn shop and is cleared of any wrong doing. As for the seizure of the gun, its still a good seizure because its still stolen property and belongs to the original owner which is where it would be sent back to

Also, the gun's serial number is always posted on the exterior of the gun usually on the slide or grip. Plain view doctrine says if the officer can view it, it does not meet the requirements of unreasonble search or seizure.

can view it it's original condition* ie.without taking it apart

 

[RyanC1985]

can view it it's original condition* ie.without taking it apart

Remember, i can't detain someone, ie pull them over or stop a pedestrian, without a reasonable suscipicion that a crime has occurred. It can be as simple as speeding or a tail light out but its breaking the law none the less...given that it is a separate charge to conduct a crime while in possession of a firearm (whether its used or not) If a person breaks the law in anway, it gives the officer the right to question the firearm. Now in most cases for minor offenses like speeding or vehicle infractions, the officer will simply check the gun and if it checks out...send the individual and his gun on their merry way. But the fact that the officer stopped the individual for a potential crime, checking the firearm falls well within the parameters of the 4th amendment

 

[OC for ME]

Actually, all of my firearms do not have the serial number in plain view when holstered. The firearm must be seized, for officer safety of course, then the serial number is in plain view. So, your plain view rule does not apply until my property is seized, unlawfully in my view, by you.