Man Illegally Stopped for Concealed Carry Uses Legal Precedence - Video

[aphdmansoc]

The guy was an ass. Probably out trolling for the exact response he got. Went on the defensive immediately. Judging the officer's demeanor, had the guy shown his permit right away, he and the officer would likely never have had to waste all that time. Common sense folks.

Smokewagon you are starting to make me scared! I'm finding myself agreeing with you.

[Shinsou]

Now if the guy draws it and tries to mug someone, by all means step in. But if there is not a crime, let it be.

So...You'd rather a crime be committed before Law Enforcement steps in?

[MadKaw]

So...You'd rather a crime be committed before Law Enforcement steps in?

Yes. If a law has not been broken, by definition Law Enforcement has nothing to do.
Read ATTENTION law enforcement personnel
The first thing that every police officer does is swear to uphold the Constitution. Unless they believe in and obey that oath we are no longer a nation of laws.

[Shinsou]

Yes. If a law has not been broken, by definition Law Enforcement has nothing to do.
Read ATTENTION law enforcement personnel
The first thing that every police officer does is swear to uphold the Constitution. Unless they believe in and obey that oath we are no longer a nation of laws.

The problem therein is that just because the guy was allowed to open carry and wasn't acting suspicious doesn't mean he couldn't have gone into the nearest convenience store and shot the place up. Not saying anyone would but if crimes can be prevented BEFORE they happen there is a greater likelihood of life and property being saved.

The difficulty lies in identifying the headcases. Unfortunately, they can and often do look like typical (harmless) law-abiding citizens until the lead starts flying.

[sid1]

youtube is loaded with these types of videos. He seems well prepared, and seems he was looking for this interaction. Just seems he had other motives

[Peacemakr40]

I was very impressed with the LEO despite not having a a constitutional study background on open carry. Where the guy filming this messed up was under the US Constitution, 4th amendment, when being detained you are only required to give your name. Maine also requires a DOB. When the LEO asked him for his name, he refused, clinging to his mistaken interpretation of the Constitution. At that point, the filmer's actions became suspicious. Again, thanks to the well trained Police officer, this was overlooked in order to preserve peace. I hope police angencies all over the US review this and laud it as what to do in a similar situation.

[MadKaw]

I was very impressed with the LEO despite not having a a constitutional study background on open carry. Where the guy filming this messed up was under the US Constitution, 4th amendment, when being detained you are only required to give your name. Maine also requires a DOB. When the LEO asked him for his name, he refused, clinging to his mistaken interpretation of the Constitution. At that point, the filmer's actions became suspicious. Again, thanks to the well trained Police officer, this was overlooked in order to preserve peace. I hope police angencies all over the US review this and laud it as what to do in a similar situation.

I don't remember the Fourth Amendment even mentioning names - or birthdates. Being required to disclose your identification may or may not be required by state law, or be something that the courts have interpreted as being allowed - but it is not in the U.S. Constitution.

[ozzy]

CHEESE...Just hide the SOB! Personally I like the fact that no one knows!

[MadKaw]

The problem therein is that just because the guy was allowed to open carry and wasn't acting suspicious doesn't mean he couldn't have gone into the nearest convenience store and shot the place up. Not saying anyone would but if crimes can be prevented BEFORE they happen there is a greater likelihood of life and property being saved.

The difficulty lies in identifying the headcases. Unfortunately, they can and often do look like typical (harmless) law-abiding citizens until the lead starts flying.

I understand the problem but I think you are wrong in your interpretation.
To enforce a law means to compel obedience to that law. By definition, one cannot compel obedience when it is already freely given. Hence you cannot enforce a law that has not been broken.
The concept of proactive policing is fraught with danger. Comparisons are often made between the 1st and 2nd amendments. So, in order to make my point clearer, I am going to use a 1st amendment analogy.
There are restrictions on speech - for instance, you cannot incite a riot. So let's say a group wants to hold a political rally. But the police say that the result of the rally is likely to be a riot and therefore the political rally cannot take place. They are acting in prior restraint. Do you see the danger?
Such a thing happened in 1977 - look up Search - Supreme Court of the United States - the Supreme Court decided that the Village of Skokie could not prevent the Nazis from gathering. Are Nazis nice people? No. Are they a-holes? Yes. Can they be prevented from speaking merely because of that? No.

So, whether a behavior is wise or not - whether it is nice or not - in a nation of laws - unless it is illegal, it must be tolerated.

[aphdmansoc]

What should I do in this circumstance: a group of guys - two or more - come into a restaurant. I see that they are in plain everyday clothes and they are open carrying. Open carry is illegal in Arkansas. By their demeanor - pardon the "stereotyping" here - short hair, in relatively good shape and clean cut appearance. Do I call the police, go to the manager, get the hell out of there, go over to them and ask what kind of gun and ammo are they carrying, pull out a gun and tell them to get on the floor before the police arrive or assume their cops?

And if they are cops should I tell them that I don't like them carrying like that, complain to higher ups both political and in the department?