Open carry incident in Belle Meade Tennessee 1-23-10 5:15-5:30pm

[kwikrnu]

imported post

If you get judgement then you usually get attorney fees too.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Just be prepared to eat the cost, I have discovered that ANYTHING is possible with the courts and judges!

Exactly.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

SNIP 1. You are correct, they had no RAS for a "Terry Stop" to begin with. You were fully complying with a law which stated that you could only carry an out of the ordinary gun in an out of the ordinary fashion.

2. During a Terry Stop, if the cop has RAS to believe you are "armed and dangerous" (however, it is commonly interpreted that armed makes the dangerous point pretty moot), they may frisk the outside of your clothing for the purpose of checking for weapons - if they discover what appears to be a weapon in a pocket or otherwise hidden on your person, they may remove that weapon. IF they had RAS for a Terry Stop, they obviously had RAS to believe you were armed because they could see it! They do have legal authority to temporarily seize your weapon for officer safety even if you are lawfully carrying that weapon in the open. Since they had no RAS for the Terry Stop in the first place, a frisk without your consent is against the 4th amendment AND even with RAS for the terry stop, searching inside your pockets for other than a weapon that they have evidence of without your consent is against the 4th amendment.

3. During a Terry Stop, the cop does NOT, without RAS of a separate offense committed, have any legal authority to search further than the frisk in #2 above, without your consent, AND has no legal authority to turn the frisk into #2 above into a search for evidence. When the cop ran the serial number of your gun, without your consent, he turned that search and seizure for officer safety into a search for evidence, without any reason to suspect the gun was stolen, and that violated the 4th amendment.

Cites, please.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I don't know a lot about this and am trying to learn. I think if there are a lot of abuses the feds will come in and monitor things. As far as having a case for violating my rights you just have to get the judge to agree the rights were violated and you take it to a trial or settle. Either way the judge rules and makes it easier or harder for cops to violate rights.

suntzu wrote:

What we need are federal prosecutions for 4A violations. Not likely to happen unless the same officer/department is doing multiple violations and showing a pattern of abuse..but even state charges of official oppression would go a long way toward helping the cause of civil/state rights.

LAPD has a "pattern or practice" of violating civil rights. They were under a federal consent decree (monitoring) for years... nobody was ever punished AFAIK, then the decree ended, but since nobody was punished, they've continued with the same federal and state crimes as before, maybe worse. Check out the San Pedro incidents in the CA forum.

ANYTHING goes when it comes to victimizing law-abiding gun owners.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

I am very happy that many of you have come to the point of, finally, realizing that kwikrnu does not deserve your hypocritical fear.

I am only bringing this up because as OC'ers we will not always agree 100%, but it is important to support each other especially as it relates to law.

The same people here still giving him grief, made it blatantly clear that they were certain he was going to go on a shooting spree months ago.

That hasn't happened yet. I questioned that line of thinking a long time ago, and as time moves forward, it only substantiates that Leonard is a sane human being trying to raise awareness that our law enforcement should be expected to know the laws they enforce, and not violate our rights in the process.

Had incorporation occurred already, even the "ee-vile" orange tip would have been a laughable non-point.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Slow, I think of the many reasons why Kwik received the slathering of responses he did initially, from myself included, the MOST common one was the "poor me" attitude that came across and the indignation that was expressed.

Does that make me a tool? Maybe, maybe not. I don't have to agree with the process of change he is trying to achive, I would try other things and slowly escalate over time. To a degree he has but he probably skipped a step or two that would have saved him TONS of trouble --- that I think is where people are trying to communicate with him and get him to adapt his technique of change.

It's hard to be compassionate and understanding when some research and asking for help first could have prevented alot of griefing from both sides - those who support the means employed and those against. Call it style points.

This community as a whole almost needs an operation manual or white paper for conducting change, lol. If you think about it things are starting to get to that point. For the gun owners in the nation that really want to take things to the next level we almost have to have an organized and agreed upon procedure for doing things to a certain degree that could be tailored to a state or community. There is many different ways to do things, then there's the safer way to do things.

1. Research all gun related state laws

2. Research all local community/county gun laws

3. Decide which ones you don't like, order from easy to hard to change

4. Identify key decision makers, start figuring out where they stand on the issues

5. Identify other pro-gun folks willing to take a stand in your area

6. Begin education and outreach to local LEO and gauge what their responses are to OC and how they would handle an OC event - what is their level of knowledge of the law related to firearms?

7. Excercise your rights within the confines of the law as much as you can, as often as you can

8. Start getting your local law makers aware of the issues, tell them you'll vote them out if they don't support change - as a large, coordinated group of local citizens

9. Get your state law makers in line as well- as a large, coordinated group of local citizens

10. Execute and repeat until optimal outcome is achieved

If you want to look at an effective organization, look at the VCDL (http://www.vcdl.org). I do not speak for them, but if you remove yourself from being involved and analyze how they operate, those are basically the steps they use. It's a good model, and it's extremely effective. Why re-create the wheel?

Maybe you folks in TN ARE that organized, but this states reporting thread is in it's infancy. I'm sure you guys use many other boards, I've seen Kwik report on his situation in many of them. I've seen the same responses to his actions by many on those boards similar to what he's received here.

However this does remind me of the behavior of another individual I who has gained notoriety on the interwebz...

http://www.spike.com/video/world-of-warcraft/2671154

 

[Citizen]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Cites, please.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/case.html

Thank you.

There is a reason I used the plural form for "cite." You made severalrepresentations about thelaw. Not all are covered in Terry.

Please review your post. For those representations about the law not addressed in Terry, please modify your post or provide a cite. Links and quotes help.

PS: A link is not a citation.

For other readers, here is forum rule #7

7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

I am very happy that many of you have come to the point of, finally, realizing that kwikrnu does not deserve your hypocritical fear.

I am only bringing this up because as OC'ers we will not always agree 100%, but it is important to support each other especially as it relates to law.

The same people here still giving him grief, made it blatantly clear that they were certain he was going to go on a shooting spree months ago.

That hasn't happened yet. I questioned that line of thinking a long time ago, and as time moves forward, it only substantiates that Leonard is a sane human being trying to raise awareness that our law enforcement should be expected to know the laws they enforce, and not violate our rights in the process.

Had incorporation occurred already, even the "ee-vile" orange tip would have been a laughable non-point.

Slow,

My beef with kwik is that he didn't go before the Belle Meade city council to find out if the city ordinance was indeed enforced. Nor did he attempt to bring to the attention of the city council that the ordinance was flawed and needed to be repealed or amended (since it wasn't enforced anyway). This is what gun carriers are doing in other municipalities in other states, with reasonable success.

All kwik did was confirm the date the ordinance was last changed, to find out if it was "enforceable" according to the State preemption statute.

I don't believe kwik is interested in changing laws. He's only doing what he has for personal monetary gain. Look at all the time he's going to spend persueing a law suit. Why not put that effort into petitioning the city council to repeal their outdated (and not enforced) ordinance, instead. He wouldn't have even needed a lawyer for that.

For those of you that live in other states. You may haveproblems in you areas with LEO, but we don't seem to, here in TN. Has kwik posted anything on these forums about OCers being harrassed in Belle Meade? Nope. In fact, I haven't read hardly any incidences of such, as compared to other states.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Sometimes we have problems here in VA, I think that "most" of the time folks don't. There are always exceptions.

 

[turbodog]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

I don't believe kwik is interested in changing laws. He's only doing what he has for personal monetary gain. Look at all the time he's going to spend persueing a law suit. Why not put that effort into petitioning the city council to repeal their outdated (and not enforced) ordinance, instead. He wouldn't have even needed a lawyer for that.

This. Glad to see I ain't the only one who's suspicious of his motives.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

TF16, I understand yours and Bohdis positioning and I thoroughly respect your approach. I can also respect however, that different people are going to use varying methods to pursue their ends.

I am only claiming that it is fair to say that while you may not agree with kwikrnu's methods, as long as he abides by the law, you still should offer your support where you feel it is applicable. Not everybody will see eye to eye on "how" we conduct ourselves. Not everybody will agree that there is one ironclad method to getting recognition for the injustices we must tolerate, and the unlawful limitation imposed on an inalienable right.

My only purpose for bringing the past up was to emphasize that a lot of you guys jumped the gun, and immediately labeled him as the next Charles Manson, which is unacceptable. I mean the guy is still even hanging around, and sharing his experiences. Regardless of where you stand with him, at least he is observable correct?

Anywho...

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

I think a lot have ignored the reflective clothing I wore. Since when do thieves, robbers, burglars wear reflective clothing and walk where walkers walk for exercise?

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Ok Kwik, remove yourself from the situation for a second and try and be as objective as possible. While I applaud you for going above and beyond for making sure you don't get hit by a vehicle for wearing a vest, look at it from a peace officers perspective for just a second. I'll probably get flammed for that but it is what it is.

Some dude is walking down the street wearing a vest carrying a gun - I don't know what else you may have been wearing - cammo verse jeans or polo pants, in a small rural sleepy town.The fact remains, it was an odd sight for the LEO's to see. If they don't stop you and ask you a few questions to make sure you're not a few apples short of a fruit basket, they will get fried. If they do stop you, they will get fried. It's a no win situation.

You may as well have been naked wearing a tin foil hat okay?

So how about this. You've had two adventures so far. They've both resulted in Police interaction. How about the next place you venture you contact them ahead of time,let them know you are aware of the law, let them know what you will be doing, let them know you don't expect to be harassed. Should you have to do this? NO. But sinceyou don't have a control case, you may as well. If you do these things and do not get harassed, then you'll have a better idea of which route ismore effective in preventing you from being stopped, even for two minutes.....

Or you can continue withwhat you are doing. Whichis legal. But don't expect any sympathy if you do continue without changing.At least not until you've done this50 times and the LEO's know you. Or until you've spent the money for a law suit, or.....

There are alternatives. What's the harm in trying something that's proven to work?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

[size=-1]SNIP Citizen - do you need any further citations?
[/size]

The citesare not for me.It was for the new guys, so they can learn it right from the source. I was already familiar with the material.

Thanks for taking the time to dig that stuff up and post it. Sincerely. Glad you aren't one of those who gives lots of smart-alecky remarks and evasions, or considers himself a law-giver to whom everyone else should listen and just accept what he says.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Ok Kwik, remove yourself from the situation for a second and try and be as objective as possible. While I applaud you for going above and beyond for making sure you don't get hit by a vehicle for wearing a vest, look at it from a peace officers perspective for just a second. I'll probably get flammed for that but it is what it is.

Some dude is walking down the street wearing a vest carrying a gun - I don't know what else you may have been wearing - cammo verse jeans or polo pants, in a small rural sleepy town.The fact remains, it was an odd sight for the LEO's to see. If they don't stop you and ask you a few questions to make sure you're not a few apples short of a fruit basket, they will get fried. If they do stop you, they will get fried. It's a no win situation.

You may as well have been naked wearing a tin foil hat okay?

So how about this. You've had two adventures so far. They've both resulted in Police interaction. How about the next place you venture you contact them ahead of time,let them know you are aware of the law, let them know what you will be doing, let them know you don't expect to be harassed. Should you have to do this? NO. But sinceyou don't have a control case, you may as well. If you do these things and do not get harassed, then you'll have a better idea of which route ismore effective in preventing you from being stopped, even for two minutes.....

Or you can continue withwhat you are doing. Whichis legal. But don't expect any sympathy if you do continue without changing.At least not until you've done this50 times and the LEO's know you. Or until you've spent the money for a law suit, or.....

There are alternatives. What's the harm in trying something that's proven to work?

I carry handguns everyday. Most of the time I open carry. Most of the time I am not harrassed. It isn't in the best interest of anyone that cops trample civil rights. Let's assume the cops are ignorant of the law. Well, ignorance is not an excuse for the average citizen. At worst these cops are knowingly violating rights. I intend to make sure these cops understand that it isn't worth it to harrass someone who appears not to be breaking any law. If they want to walk the fine line of these federal court cases and supreme court decisions they and their employers need to pay up when they cross it.

The cops already know me. From what I have heard Metro nashville put a bulletin out with my name and picture. I have a problem with this because as a law abiding citizen where does government come off targeting a citizen who has committed no crime? The Belle Meade cops said they knew who I was when I was stopped.

The tatic I will use next time is I will not say a word except to ask if I am being detained, am I free to go, that I do not consent to being searched, or my property seized. I will simply hand the cop my carry permit. I've grown tired of telling them the law. I am fluent Spanish speaker I may do this in Spanish. I'm under no obligation to speak to any of these cops. I only need identify myself and show my permit.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

If they don't stop you and ask you a few questions to make sure you're not a few apples short of a fruit basket, they will get fried. If they do stop you, they will get fried. It's a no win situation

Fried for not stopping you how? Can you cite cases where police have been held liable for failure to provide public services? Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982), would all seem to indicate that liability is non-existent.

Regarding the inverse, they almost always get qualified immunity or simply go unprosecuted even for patterns of the most egregious civil rights violations (/waves to LAPD).

So in reality, it's a win-win situation for police 99% of the time. Don't do anything, get away with it, go bat caca insane, get away with it.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

SNIP If he was within the law--they had no business of stopping him.

Not particularlypickingon Suntzu. Just using his comment as a jumping off point to address something.

Wehave to be a little careful deciding on the basis of insufficient information that an LEO lacks reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) for a detention.

In situations where we do not know the content of a possible exaggerated911 call,or what was told to the police officer by the dispatcher or maybeanother exaggerating driver a few blocks down the street at 7-Eleven, we have to remember that it is not so muchwhat the person was actually doing that matters, but what information the LEO had.

It is because there may be a difference between what the person was actually doing and what the cop thought he might be doing, that it is called reasonable articulable suspicion.

Because we can rarely know for sure whether the cop has other information that is sufficient for RAS, Iwant to wait until at least the incident report and/or 911 call recordings are obtainedbefore deciding whether I think RAS existed.

This extends to being stopped yourself. You have almost know way to know for sureduring theencounter whether the LEO actually has RAS. This is why Iadvise compliance with all orders (while politely and verbally refusing consent.) If the cop does have RAS that you don't know about, non-compliance may result in legal trouble...and lumps and bruises.

Thiscan even includea situation where, during the encounter,you knowall the things the cop saw and heard and was told---but had no idea a court had already ruled some of those thingsare enough forRAS.

And, (the hardest one tofigure out), it can include you knowing all the things the cop saw and heard and was told, and you think it is not RAS, but your set of circumstances have never been ruled on by a court, the cop arrests you for non-compliance (obstruction?), and thenyour trial judge decidesthose circumstances did amount to RAS.

No thanks. I'll just politely, verbally refuse consent while complying with orders and wait for the incident report/911 call recordings.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

That was a good post let me add to it. A cop who had no RAS can, after the stop, make up a RAS story and put it in his report. It is always going to be for the court to decide if there was RAS or not. More often than not I would guess they side with the cop.

 

[jayspapa]

imported post

While I am not 100% behind kwik because of how he is going about doing his thing , I do agree that he was wrongly detained. When he cited chapter and verse as to what made his AK47 pistol legal to the police, that should have been the end of it after a quick check by said police.

As to this idea that any of us should have to contact the police and let them know where we are going to be and what we are going to be doing so we can sorta have their permission... I say this >>> B S !!!

I will never call and ask them if it is ok if I go down this street and then back up that street while packing a gun. They ( the police) can WANT me to tell them but they better not hold their breath waiting.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I carry handguns everyday. Most of the time I open carry. Have you been doing this like the rest of us,with a handgun holstered? :shock:Have you been doing this in BelleMeade? :shock:If so, isn't that in violation of Belle Meade's city ordinance? :shock:If so, this would mean that you knew all along that Belle Meade didn't enforce that old ordinance. Most of the time I am not harrassed. It isn't in the best interest of anyone that cops trample civil rights. Let's assume the cops are ignorant of the law. Now, what law would that be? Are you talking about the old Belle Meade ordinanceforbiding the carry of a firearm, except for Army/Navy black powder revolvers that must be carried "in hand"? Why would BMPD need to know about that old ordinance if they don't enforce it? Well, ignorance is not an excuse for the average citizen. At worst these cops are knowingly violating rights. Care to cite other instances where Belle Meade PD have been violating yourrights? I mean, we haven't been hearing about OCers being harrassed in Belle Meade.I intend to make sure these cops understand that it isn't worth it to harrass someone who appears not to be breaking any law. Keep going like you are and it may be you that will be getting a lesson about not harrassing LEO for just trying to do their job. Their human, ya know, just like we are, and subject to error now and then, like we are.If they want to walk the fine line of these federal court cases and supreme court decisions they and their employers need to pay up when they cross it. And you're not walking a fine line of your own? This "crossing the line" and having to "pay up" goes both way.

The cops already know me. From what I have heard Metro nashville put a bulletin out with my name and picture. Ya see how easy it is to get a reputation?I have a problem with this because as a law abiding citizen where does government come off targeting a citizen who has committed no crime? Who was targeting who last friday evening? Wasn't it you that was baiting them?The Belle Meade cops said they knew who I was when I was stopped. Seems your reputation precedes you. :lol:

The tatic I will use next time is I will not say a word except to ask if I am being detained, am I free to go, that I do not consent to being searched, or my property seized. I will simply hand the cop my carry permit. I've grown tired of telling them the law. I am fluent Spanish speaker I may do this in Spanish. I'm under no obligation to speak to any of these cops. I only need identify myself and show my permit.

My response in red.