Customer gets into open carry dispute

[Will Carry]

I'm sure he had a legal right to carry but if I had been the cop, I would have tazed him anyway. That is why I'm not a cop.

[crossfire]

We sure like to play "what if" when we don't know all the facts about what happened. I can play too," What if the dog hadn't stopped to take a :poop: , would he have caught the rabbit?" :dunno: Just saying we have only seen one side of the story.

Edited January 17, 2016 by crossfire

[BigK]

Personally, I would have shown my permit and then as politely as humanly possible explained to the cop that I know he has a job to do and it's not an easy one, BUT I was not breaking any laws and that being forced to show him "my papers" to keep from getting arrested is unconstitutional. I would not have filmed it unless I was trying to be an azzhat and cause trouble.

[wjh2657]

While we here in TN are obligated by law to show ID when carrying should we be asked by a LEO,  some other states do not have this same law. In traditional open carry states you are not doing anything illegal so why submit to a violation of your rights just because officer friendly doesn't like you OCing??  If you don't defend your rights firmly when you know the LEO is in the wrong then you may as well lay down and let them do what ever they wish.  Sure, you might be arrested and cuffed...... then its all up the lawyers. One of our rights is to seek redress against violations of our rights. Anyone who successfully sues a municipality for violations and wins I applaud them.  Its the only thing authority understands. Make them pay a large monetary penalty for their overreach. Don't be sheep.

 

In many parts of this country being combative with LEOs doesn't get you arrested. It gets you shot! I am 72 years old. You don't get to 72 by being nasty with cops. Be nice and report the LEO to his superiors later if he is really out of line. Live sheep breathe better than dead goats!

[gregintenn]

If the officers felt they were in the right, why didn't they arrest the guy?  My guess is they knew they had no lawful reason to arrest the guy, and just got upset he questions their unlawful demands.

They didn't appear to have the foggiest clue whether they were right or not. A little training and legal education would go a long way to alleviate situations like this.

[Omega]

In many parts of this country being combative with LEOs doesn't get you arrested. It gets you shot! I am 72 years old. You don't get to 72 by being nasty with cops. Be nice and report the LEO to his superiors later if he is really out of line. Live sheep breathe better than dead goats!

There is a fine line between being combative and asserting your rights.  Unfortunately many LEOs are placed in the position of enforcement of new (and some old) laws they do not understand.  

 

If I were to be approached in a polite manner I would show my permit and carry on, but I would certainly let him know that I was just being polite about it.  In this video, we see it begin after the first contact at Subway, were the LEO told them not to serve him.  He then followed him to a second location where at this point it enters harassment territory so he begins to record, just in case.  

 

If the LEO had probable cause, the situation should of been handled at or just outside Subway.  So in this case, I feel the the LEO was in the wrong, either honestly doesn't know the law or an anti-gunner.  

[btq96r]

The trouble is, the only opinion that matters at the time of the incident with regard to legal basis is the officer's. Countless instances would indicate arguing that point on the spot has no value and only strengthens the officers's resolve. Being a dick about it just makes it worse.

 

The officer's opinion is the only valid one when he is performing his duties within the law.  I'm not convinced he did that here, because if he had the authority to arrest the open carrier for failing to produce a carry permit, he should of.  If that's the case, then his supervisors will deal with it if they felt he erred.

 

But if CT law doesn't require citizens to produce a permit upon request like TN law does, then that officer was using his authority to harass a citizen, and that is a problem.

 

 

We sure like to play "what if" when we don't know all the facts about what happened. I can play too," What if the dog hadn't stopped to take a :poop: , would he have caught the rabbit?" :dunno: Just saying we have only seen one side of the story.

 

I think the only facts that are missing are what exactly Connecticut law has to say on this one.  That's what I'm withholding final judgement for. 

 

We know in Tennessee if asked, someone carrying has to show their permit to an officer.  Even if the officer is an ass about it, or has no reason other than seeing me with a handgun, I have to show him my permit.  I don't like it, because it assumes that carrying a weapon is a crime, but it's explicitly spelled out in the law for our state so I comply.

 

But is it the same in Connecticut?  If the officer had the authority to inspect a carry permit, he should have said so and given a final warning that further non-compliance is a violation of that law and makes the person carrying subject to arrest.  So we either have an LEO trying to badger a citizen into compliance, which is completely unsat, or an officer unwilling to enforce the law, which while lesser of an evil, I'd imagine would be addressed by his superiors.

[45guy]

There is something about being questioned for no reasonable suspicion that bothers me.  What he was doing was perfectly legal.  I am not in favor of being a jerk at any time but at the same time I should not have to explain to a cop that I am not doing anything illegal.  When I worked in a grocery store if I suspected someone as a shoplifter and I stood in front of them and impeded their moving in the store I had made an arrest and was subject to a law suit.  I was taught never to question/approach  someone unless I  witnessed them concealing merchandise.  Cops have a tough job but we still should not have to explain ourselves for no apparent reason. 

 

I am not anti cop I am pro citizen.

[NextExit]

From the website: http://ctcarry.com/Permits/Unconcealed

 

 

Demands to show permit when stopped

The mere fact that you are carrying a firearm unconcealed does not meet the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) necessary to detain an individual. Therefore, there is no statutory requirement for a person to provide a pistol permit when they are not otherwise suspected of a crime. Citizens exercising this right should be aware that they are likely to face harrassment, threats and even unlawful arrest by police officers if they refuse to show their permit on demand by police officers. This has occurred previously, and it was ruled that the officer lacked RAS to stop the defendant.

[peejman]

If the officers felt they were in the right, why didn't they arrest the guy? My guess is they knew they had no lawful reason to arrest the guy, and just got upset he questions their unlawful demands.

Probable cause to ask for ID is a long way from cause for arrest.

[dawgdoc]

It would seem like one reason to not hand over a permit if not required is that you are being detained as soon as it leaves your hand. If you need a permit to carry a gun, then you can't just walk away while armed if the permit is not in your possession, correct?

It seems like laws like TN's have the effect of persuading more people to conceal even though OC is legal.

[btq96r]

Probable cause to ask for ID is a long way from cause for arrest.

 

And asking for a concealed carry permit is a long way from asking for ID.

[peejman]

And asking for a concealed carry permit is a long way from asking for ID.

 

 

It's the same thing when you're carrying a gun. 

[btq96r]

It's the same thing when you're carrying a gun. 

 

No.  There are differences.

 

An ID is simply a confirmation of who you are, and isn't mandatory to carry.  Not unless CT has an ID requirement for people over a certain age.

 

A carry permit is your legal authorization to carry that weapon, and has to be carried at all time when you are carrying a gun.  Same basis as a drivers license when you are behind the wheel.

 

An officer either has or doesn't have legal authority to compel you to produce the carry permit, and always has the authority to ask to see your license if you're driving.  They can ask for an ID, but it isn't a requirement for a citizen to produce one since they aren't required. 

[LagerHead]

This is why it's so easy to divide the gun community. We all claim, falsely, that we're willing to fight and die for our right to keep and bear arms, but the moment someone actually does fight for his rights by refusing to bow to a cop who just won't take no - a legal no at that - for an answer, we jump all over the guy and call him names rather than supporting his stand against tyranny. Well, I am 1000% on the side of every single person who has ever open carried and refused unlawful orders on the part of police. This is in no way to be construed as a blanket attack on police, by the way. In case you didn't know, you can be pro-liberty without cop bashing. But when a cop asks for something he doesn't have a right to and is told no, he just needs to move his ass right the fuck along. No victim, no crime, no reason for the police to be there, unless he wants a tasty Subway sandwich.

[peejman]

I'm all for a little civil disobedience every now and then, but there's a choice on how to go about it.  Why default to being an adversarial prick?  It's possible to say no, mean no, and not be a jerk.  Clearly this guy doesn't work in sales.  Had he responded politely (or even jokingly.... I'll show you mine if you show me yours...   :dirty:   ), I'll bet the whole encounter would have gone differently.  But instead he decided to go down the "help help, I'm being repressed" avenue and got hassled for his efforts. 

 

And beyond that, what I'm reading says a permit is required to carry a handgun in CT (open or concealed, just like TN), so it's analogous to asking someone driving for their DL. 

[btq96r]

And beyond that, what I'm reading says a permit is required to carry a handgun in CT (open or concealed, just like TN), so it's analogous to asking someone driving for their DL. 

 

The comparison to a drivers license is apples to oranges.  Two completely separate sets of laws for the two, because they are two very different things.

 

In TN it's an absolute requirement to produce an HCP upon request to an officer, no reason needed.  It's that way here in TN, because carrying a pistol is a crime, the permit is just a "defense to prosecution."  I think it's BS that our state puts the presumption of criminal acts on citizens carrying, but that's what it is for the moment.

 

With CT, it seems that a request to see a carry permit has to be in conjunction with someone being suspected of a crime to meet reasonable articulate suspicion (to use the language in the link NextExit provided in post 39).  We haven't seen anything to indicate that this person was doing something "suspicious" besides from open carrying.  In CT, best we can tell, it isn't a presumptive crime to carry a weapon like it is in TN.  So it's in that light that we are wondering why the LEO kept badgering him to produce a permit absent any other reason than what amounts to "because an LEO asked."

 

These little nuances make a huge difference when it comes to the rights of a citizen, and the behavior of law enforcement.  Sad to say, it seems CT has us beat on this small topic.

Edited January 18, 2016 by btq96r

[LagerHead]

I'm all for a little civil disobedience every now and then, but there's a choice on how to go about it.  Why default to being an adversarial prick?  It's possible to say no, mean no, and not be a jerk.  Clearly this guy doesn't work in sales.  Had he responded politely (or even jokingly.... I'll show you mine if you show me yours...   :dirty:   ), I'll bet the whole encounter would have gone differently.  But instead he decided to go down the "help help, I'm being repressed" avenue and got hassled for his efforts. 

 

And beyond that, what I'm reading says a permit is required to carry a handgun in CT (open or concealed, just like TN), so it's analogous to asking someone driving for their DL. 

 

Why is the onus always on us subject...er, I of course mean citizens to be polite? Are the police here to uphold and defend the Constitution or are they not? Are they supposedly supposed to protect us or are they not? Do we have 4th Amendment rights or do we not? The cop asked, he was told to be beat feat, and that should have been the end of it. But because he felt he wasn't being respected to a level 9 degrees beyond what he was giving he had to have him kicked out of the restaurant before he could order (yes, I know he didn't do so per se, but in fact that was the result he was both hoping for and achieved) and then continued to follow him throughout the mall without reason.

 

I learned at a very young age that you get respect when you give it. Regardless of the guy's choice of words when he refused to offer up his permit (which we didn't see until he started filming, after the encounter was already in progress), the cop was told no. If he didn't have PC to detain him, that should have been the end of it. Yea, maybe his pride would have taken a little slap on the wrist. Boo hoo. But we're not put on this earth to stroke the ego of government officials who laughingly patronize us by saying we work for them. Yea right. Tell that to the next guy with out of state plates heading east on I-40 who has his property stolen at gunpoint with no charges filed.

[JayC]

CT law only allows a police officer to demand to see a permit when he has RAS the law is being broken.

 

While not a high standard it is significantly higher than TN, which has to check on the request to display a permit.

 

The officer's opinion is the only valid one when he is performing his duties within the law.  I'm not convinced he did that here, because if he had the authority to arrest the open carrier for failing to produce a carry permit, he should of.  If that's the case, then his supervisors will deal with it if they felt he erred.

 

But if CT law doesn't require citizens to produce a permit upon request like TN law does, then that officer was using his authority to harass a citizen, and that is a problem.

 

 

 

I think the only facts that are missing are what exactly Connecticut law has to say on this one.  That's what I'm withholding final judgement for. 

 

We know in Tennessee if asked, someone carrying has to show their permit to an officer.  Even if the officer is an ass about it, or has no reason other than seeing me with a handgun, I have to show him my permit.  I don't like it, because it assumes that carrying a weapon is a crime, but it's explicitly spelled out in the law for our state so I comply.

 

But is it the same in Connecticut?  If the officer had the authority to inspect a carry permit, he should have said so and given a final warning that further non-compliance is a violation of that law and makes the person carrying subject to arrest.  So we either have an LEO trying to badger a citizen into compliance, which is completely unsat, or an officer unwilling to enforce the law, which while lesser of an evil, I'd imagine would be addressed by his superiors.

Edited January 18, 2016 by JayC

[JayC]

I'm pretty sure in TN they can not demand to see your drivers license even if you're driving unless they have probable cause you've violated the law.  I believe there maybe an exception for State Troopers, but generally you're not required to provide ID at check points.

 

No.  There are differences.

 

An ID is simply a confirmation of who you are, and isn't mandatory to carry.  Not unless CT has an ID requirement for people over a certain age.

 

A carry permit is your legal authorization to carry that weapon, and has to be carried at all time when you are carrying a gun.  Same basis as a drivers license when you are behind the wheel.

 

An officer either has or doesn't have legal authority to compel you to produce the carry permit, and always has the authority to ask to see your license if you're driving.  They can ask for an ID, but it isn't a requirement for a citizen to produce one since they aren't required. 

 

[peejman]

I'm pretty sure in TN they can not demand to see your drivers license even if you're driving unless they have probable cause you've violated the law. I believe there maybe an exception for State Troopers, but generally you're not required to provide ID at check points.

Driving without a license is violating the law, as is carrying a handgun without a permit.


Some see this cop as the Gestspo, hell bent on cutting the Constitution to pieces, one tiny slice at a time. I see a guy trying to do a job frought with conflicting requirements, morons, and hostility.

Respect goes both ways. The cop asked a simple question, possibly Illegally, because he felt compelled to for reasons we're not aware of, and got treated like dirt for his trouble. I suppose we can agree to disagree on whether or not he deserved it.

[gregintenn]

And asking for a concealed carry permit is a long way from asking for ID.

The hell it is. I nearly always show my carry permit when asked for I.D. A carry permit IS a form of state I.D.

[btq96r]

The hell it is. I nearly always show my carry permit when asked for I.D. A carry permit IS a form of state I.D.

 

I meant from the point of the officer making the request.  Asking for ID and asking specifically for a carry permit are separate things with separate intents.

 

Yeah, the carry permit is a legal form of state issued ID, but when asked specifically to produce your carry permit, not your ID, it's more than just an ID, it's your legal authorization to carry a weapon in public.

[zybysco]

The comparison to a drivers license is apples to oranges. Two completely separate sets of laws for the two, because they are two very different things.

In TN it's an absolute requirement to produce an HCP upon request to an officer, no reason needed. It's that way here in TN, because carrying a pistol is a crime, the permit is just a "defense to prosecution." I think it's BS that our state puts the presumption of criminal acts on citizens carrying, but that's what it is for the moment.

With CT, it seems that a request to see a carry permit has to be in conjunction with someone being suspected of a crime to meet reasonable articulate suspicion (to use the language in the link NextExit provided in post 39). We haven't seen anything to indicate that this person was doing something "suspicious" besides from open carrying. In CT, best we can tell, it isn't a presumptive crime to carry a weapon like it is in TN. So it's in that light that we are wondering why the LEO kept badgering him to produce a permit absent any other reason than what amounts to "because an LEO asked."

These little nuances make a huge difference when it comes to the rights of a citizen, and the behavior of law enforcement. Sad to say, it seems CT has us beat on this small topic.

Maybe you lost me, but...

It is illegal to drive without a license, but an officer just can't pull you over to check your license, right?

If is illegal to carry workout a license, but an officer can stop typy whenever to check type permit?

And gun ownership is a right whereas car ownership is a privilege?

[btq96r]

Maybe you lost me, but...

It is illegal to drive without a license, but an officer just can't pull you over to check your license, right?

If is illegal to carry workout a license, but an officer can stop typy whenever to check type permit?

And gun ownership is a right whereas car ownership is a privilege?

 

Differences between Connecticut and Tennessee.  The topic and videos in question happened in Connecticut, but bear analysis, I'd say.

 

If officers couldn't just pull you over to check your license, then DUI checkpoints would be a no-go, but courts up to SCOTUS have ruled them legal.  Though I'm not exactly happy about that.

 

In Tennessee, yes, an officer can stop you anytime to check your permit if you're carrying.  The part of the TCA for it specifically says "The permit holder shall have the permit in the holder's immediate possession at all times when carrying a handgun and shall display the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer."  Like I said earlier, in Tennessee carrying a handgun is always a crime, and a permit is simply a defense to prosecution.  I'd imagine it was left that way specifically to make sure LEO's can always check without any other reason.  Connecticut has no such language as best we can tell, and open carry being perfectly legal up there, my view is that absent any other factors, the citizen was pestered to the point of harassment by the officer.

 

I'd say after Heller and McDonald, gun ownership is recognized as an individual right.  Carrying off your property, still a work in progress, and for now the government treats it as a privilege only they can bestow in our state.  Car ownership would be classified as reserved to the people (provided the proper taxes are paid, of course), but operating a car on the roads is an entirely different story.  The salient details let the government come in and set up regulatory shop on things like this.