PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry PR


ipser
07-29-2009, 5:43 PM
I was reading through the Open Carry police memos and what struck me is that they almost all seem to imply that the Open Carry Movement is designed to entrap cops and sue them. If this is an accurate picture of how police view the movement then I think it is a serious PR problem. (I am assuming it is not true, of course.)

Am I being naieve to suggest that Open Carry might invest some effort to distinguish political activism from legal entrapment?

locosway
07-29-2009, 5:51 PM
I think you've misread. While police might feel they're being entrapped partly due to their opinion of who owns guns, and their lack of training with UOC, it's certainly not the case.

From my understanding OUC is designed for not only self protection, but also to educate the general public about UOC. The items someone usually carries outside of the firearm is a tape recorder, local LEO memo's regarding the legality of UOC, as well as some handout materials for people who like to become more informed.

To my knowledge there has never been a lawsuit against a LEO or department for doing a 12031 check or anything else for that matter. Although there have been some issues with 4A rights being violated, which really has nothing to do with UOC, it's more of some LEO's feeling they can do as they like without repercussions.

ipser
07-29-2009, 6:10 PM
I think you've misread. While police might feel they're being entrapped partly due to their opinion of who owns guns, and their lack of training with UOC, it's certainly not the case.

That was my understanding. But that implies that the OC movement has a PR problem with the cops. The cops have a misperception that needs to be corrected.

Again, maybe I'm being naieve but perhaps OC members should visit the local police/sherrif station and chat with someone before begining "operations" in the area.

Window_Seat
07-29-2009, 6:18 PM
It could be a "strategy" to get the OC movement "operators" to "prove them wrong" if (or when) they screw up royally in a situation where someone gets arrested and then released because of lack of PC, or I could just be naive.

Erik.

locosway
07-29-2009, 6:20 PM
Most people are raised to the tune that cops have guns to catch the bad guys who have guns. If you are walking down the street, and you don't have a gun, what do you think people have in mind?

There's also a lot of irrational fear of guns. People think if it's black and bad looking then it must come alive at night and hunt down little children.

With that said, most people who organize UOC events DO notify PD and make sure they have the proper warning and documents relating to UOC. The few people who do UOC solo seem to do so in somewhat UOC friendly areas such as SD. Granted SD OUC friendliness came by people doing just that, showing LEO's that it is legal.

ipser
07-29-2009, 6:22 PM
It could be a "strategy" to get the OC movement "operators" to "prove them wrong" if (or when) they screw up royally in a situation where someone gets arrested and then released because of lack of PC, or I could just be naive.
Fair enough. I think the OC movement is cool (I thought about doing it myself when I was much younger but lacked the courage). I just cringe when I read police departments telling their staff that the OC movement is out to hang them. Even if the top dogs are hopelessly politicized, the street cops shouldn't be thinking that they are the target.

ipser
07-29-2009, 6:24 PM
With that said, most people who organize UOC events DO notify PD and make sure they have the proper warning and documents relating to UOC. The few people who do UOC solo seem to do so in somewhat UOC friendly areas such as SD. Granted SD OUC friendliness came by people doing just that, showing LEO's that it is legal.

Ok, that's definitely good to hear. So then it's probably something like WindowSeat suggested.

I'd consider joining such an event only if that were done.

Decoligny
07-29-2009, 6:34 PM
I think this perception by the Police has its roots in the abuses of power that have happened in other states where Open Carry is legal, and police have harassed people and violated their civil rights.

In Virginia for instance, a group of Open Carriers were brought outside of a restaurant that they were eating at and forced to relinquish their legally carried weapons and threatened with arrest if they didn't provide ID.

The police had a lawsuit filed against them.

There are several other instances from different parts of the county. The common factor, other than Open Carry, was an abuse of authority and violation of civil rights.

Since the lawsuit is what got the LEOs attention, they assume that the lawsuit was the goal of the OCers. They fail to realize that the OCer just wanted to be left alone to enjoy exercising his/her legal rights.

The officers began seeing more and more OCers carrying recording devices, which they assumed was to gather evidence to be used in the lawsuits. What they failed to realize was that there would NEVER be a lawsuit if the LEOs themselves didn't abuse their authority and violate citizen's rights.

ipser
07-29-2009, 6:47 PM
In that case, I think OCM should engage in some old-fashioned PR. Maybe invite the cops to dinner at the restaurant.

1JimMarch
07-29-2009, 7:33 PM
Ummm...the cops are partially right. Or should be.

OK, this may not be popular with some folks, but hear me out. Even with the Nordyke re-hearing, it seems likely that the 2nd Amendment will get applied to this state somehow. Remember, the 9th is very split on the 2nd Amendment and of the five votes we know we'll have to swing, one (the top judge around here) is known to be on our side. So we only need a 50/50 split among the rest to win. Failing that, the US Supremes might still bail us out.

What does that mean?

Well California courts have been trying to say that UOC meets the requirement to allow some "bearing of arms" under the 2nd. EVERY single case we can document of harassment and especially assault (guns drawn on us) and above all police memos showing a policy of assault for the exercise of that right undermines the argument that UOC meets the requirements of the 2nd.

There is NO such thing as a civil right that requires you to peacefully submit to guns being drawn on you at random to exercise it...and God help us all if there ever is.

The other issue is even more clear cut. Sheriffs and police chiefs are abusing the hell out of the CCW permit process. Many are outright corrupt.

Cops that work for corrupt bosses have to be presumed corrupt. Period.

ipser
07-29-2009, 7:40 PM
Cops that work for corrupt bosses have to be presumed corrupt. Period.

I hear ya. Maybe I'm just displaying my biases but I prefer targeting gun banning politicians and judges. LEOs are a mixed bag but I think generally they can be won over.

I was browsing the OC forums and there are, indeed, some posters who seem itching to sue LEOs.

I don't really mind if gun banning politicians hate us but I do mind if cops do.

pullnshoot25
07-29-2009, 8:01 PM
Ok, that's definitely good to hear. So then it's probably something like WindowSeat suggested.

I'd consider joining such an event only if that were done.

That is generally how we always roll. However, they only get a 24 hour "courtesy notice" now so they can't try to plan out our activities, harass us too much or waste taxpayer dollars for non-criminal activities.

We try to maintain a friendly yet cautious atmosphere with the cops.

Also, I tried to reverse some of that "they want to sue us!" bullcrap with the Oceanside Police Department memo by collaborating with a Lieutenant up there prior to an event that I wanted to have. Unfortunately, my finals, the uncertainty about O'sides illegal municipal ordinances and threats of extralegal detainments by that very same Lieutenant over 4th amendment issues lead me to break it off.

locosway
07-29-2009, 8:07 PM
I wouldn't say cops under a sheriff who doesn't issue CCW's to the general public are corrupt. Some may not agree with policies, but this IS their career which feeds their families. I can't count the times I've done things at work I didn't agree with, granted it didn't involve rights of the people.

Like I said before, I think most cops sign on to help the public, but over time their judgement gets clouded and jaded. We also have to remember that their primary goal is to go home at the end of their shift. While I do agree they should use a little more judgement and discretion when dealing with UOC I think it may only come with repeated exposure and possibly a lawsuit.

It may only take the ACLU once to sue or reprimand a department before the whole country falls in line with better OC practices.

ipser
07-29-2009, 8:24 PM
Also, I tried to reverse some of that "they want to sue us!" bullcrap with the Oceanside Police Department memo by collaborating with a Lieutenant up there prior to an event that I wanted to have. Unfortunately, my finals, the uncertainty about O'sides illegal municipal ordinances and threats of extralegal detainments by that very same Lieutenant over 4th amendment issues lead me to break it off.

I hope you don't give up on LEOs, generally.

It may only take the ACLU once to sue or reprimand a department before the whole country falls in line with better OC practices.

That would be a bitter victory, though.

locosway
07-29-2009, 8:30 PM
That would be a bitter victory, though.

It may, but as they say... You have to break some eggs to make an omelet.

1JimMarch
07-29-2009, 9:59 PM
I hope you don't give up on LEOs, generally.

I have.

Seriously.

Right now "law enforcement" in California is having an overall negative effect on violence - in other words, they're causing more violence than they solve.

The "War On Some Drugs" causes more violence than any other single factor. Acting to promote bans on self defense is the second biggest factor.

Next: in those agencies where it's obvious the boss is corrupt, that WILL have a negative effect on department morale. It can't be helped. And if the boss is on the take, why not jump on the bandwagon?

Finally, if your paycheck means more to you than your personal integrity, and you're out "enforcing the law" (including obviously bad laws) at gunpoint, something is WRONG. You're dishonoring your profession.