PDA

View Full Version : NV CCW disarmed and handcuffed for obeying the law


rp55
01-10-2010, 11:24 AM
Vin Suprynowicz (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html) at the Las Vegas Review Journal reports on Charlie Mitchener's encounter with law enforcement:
===========================================

Charlie Mitchener is a 61-year-old general building contractor with an office near Patrick Lane and Fort Apache Road in Las Vegas. He holds permits allowing him to legally carry concealed weapons in Nevada, Florida and Utah.

Over the past three years, his office has been broken into five times. "Three of those occasions involved me interacting with Metro," he wrote to me recently. "Each of the occasions began the same: my introduction, my presentation of my Nevada drivers license and my concealed firearms permit. Prior to today, each Metro officer simply replied thank you, proceeded with his work and then when complete there was a conversation about firearms."

Things were real different at 5:30 a.m, Jan. 3, however, when Mr. Mitchener called Metro to report the fifth break-in at his office.

"Vin, I hope I did not see the future this morning," Charlie e-mailed me. "Today was drastically different."

The responding officer was a lady cop, officer J. Rogers, badge number 13525.

"Upon presentation of my (firearms permit), the officer asked if I had the weapon on me to which I replied yes. She then said to spread my legs and put my hands behind my back. I complied and she then handcuffed me. While doing so, she said that she wanted to make certain 'that we were all safe.' "

Officer Rogers stripped Mr. Mitchener of the Glock 19 he was carrying, took the weapon and locked it in her patrol car.

"Bear in mind that she had yet to clear my office (she was waiting for backup for clearing)," Charlie writes. "So, while remote, there was the possibility that the bad guys were still in my office and would come rushing out, finding me, to their delight, handcuffed. Apparently I was not included in her comment 'that we were all safe.' It is always nice when law-abiding citizens, particularly myself, are disposable.

"An hour or so later, when she had completed her paperwork, she came back in the office; I was in the rear and did not see her enter. She came to me and said that she had put my weapon in the second drawer on the left in the receptionist's desk.

"She then said that she could tell that I was upset with being handcuffed 'like a common criminal.' I explained that I was extremely upset and told her that it was out of respect to her that I provided my (firearms permit) and that the Second Amendment did have some meaning. She replied that the reason she did what she did was because she did not know if I was a bad guy or not. ... I thought to myself, 'How absurd, I apply by the law to obtain permits, and yell it from the housetop that I have a permit and am carrying, just as I presume all bad guys do.'

"I asked if she was following procedure to handcuff me and remove my weapon to which she did not have a good answer, other than I was larger than her. ... It certainly reminded me of the stories in New Orleans after Katrina regarding confiscating weapons from the law-abiding citizens."

Another officer told Charlie that, based on J. Rogers' badge number, she had probably only been on her own for less than six months and was probably not secure in what she was doing. "It certainly makes me want to provide all the information the next time my office is broken into," he adds.

I talked to Charlie on Tuesday. He had called the concealed permit division that morning, and been referred to Internal Affairs, where he reports a detective told him, "It all depends on the officers, that if they think it's the safest thing to do they can do that. And he said it's best not to bring a weapon in this kind of situation."

Ah. So after going through all the rigmarole required to obtain a concealed weapons permit, it's best if a business owner who is the first to arrive at his office in the dawn hours to find it's been broken into not carry a weapon? Where the hell would the cops suggest would be a better circumstance into which to carry our legal self-defense weapon -- a toddler's birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese?

I contacted Metro about this incident Tuesday. Late Friday, a spokesman confirmed Mr. Mitchener's account as "generally accurate," stating the officer "acted in a way that was in the interest of her safety."

Charlie Mitchener followed the law. He has trained at Front Site and with Tactical Response and continues to regularly visit the range. Yet, "In an instant, I am in handcuffs (at 61 years old, this was a first), and there were no bad guys in handcuffs with me, just the guy who thought he was doing things correctly," he writes.

We should not be required to apply for any "permit" to carry a concealed weapon in the first place. Despite this, Mr. Mitchener did everything required of him by law, ordinance and Metro instructions.

The officer handcuffed and disarmed him "so that everyone would be safe"? What a bunch of bull. If the burglar or burglars had emerged, they would have been confronted not by two armed law-abiding good guys, but instead by one small, frightened officer and a handcuffed and disarmed legal occupant. This rendered Mr. Mitchener "safer"?

Please note that if Mr. Mitchener had not followed law, ordinance, and Metro request, if he had carried a firearm in his waistband without ever seeking a permit or informing the officer he had it, the tiny officer would have had no probable cause to disarm him, and he would likely have remained armed throughout the entire encounter. Thus, he was punished, degraded, and treated like a common criminal because and only because he attempted to follow law, ordinance and Metro's legally dubious "instructions."

The cops don't get it. The Constitution does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless such infringement makes an officer of the government feel safer." The biggest reason the American populace are armed was never to fight off bears or wild Indians but to make agents of the government feel unsafe -- really, really unsafe -- should they try to take away our rights. That's why a citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state."

If these arrogant, uniformed employees of ours really want to treat us as the enemy, they may eventually get their wish, at which point they will discover they're vastly outnumbered -- and "backup" is never quite close enough to solve the problem they've created for themselves.

America in 2025, gals: Keep at it, and it can be your own private Afghanistan

JBBenson
01-10-2010, 11:46 AM
Welcome to California.

nick
01-10-2010, 11:48 AM
She probably moved there from CA. At least, her modus operandi fits right in here.

JDoe
01-10-2010, 11:53 AM
If these arrogant, uniformed employees of ours really want to treat us as the enemy, they may eventually get their wish, at which point they will discover they're vastly outnumbered -- and "backup" is never quite close enough to solve the problem they've created for themselves.

How is this kind of talk helping to bridge the gap between law enforcement and non-le law abiding citizens?

What's that thing Abe used to say? Oh yeah...

If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.
-Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

k1dude
01-10-2010, 11:54 AM
That sucks. And I thought Nevada was better than KA. She must be a KA transplant with an attitude like that. She's probably from San Francisco.

k1dude
01-10-2010, 11:55 AM
Doh! Nick beat me to it.

Kid Stanislaus
01-10-2010, 12:21 PM
I hope that guy has enough sense to talk to his lawyer about this clear violation of his civil rights.

shadow-ote
01-10-2010, 12:23 PM
How is this kind of talk helping to bridge the gap between law enforcement and non-le law abiding citizens?

What's that thing Abe used to say? Oh yeah...

Quote:
If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.
-Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)


I see what you are saying, but when LE treats you as the enemy, you could do everything from buying them lunch to polishing their boots..it will make no difference in my opinion. You are armed and possibly a threat to them.

RP1911
01-10-2010, 12:37 PM
Totally different than one of my encounters with Sac Sheriff Deputy a few years ago when my shop had an attempted break-in.

I pulled up just as the patrol car did. He already knew what I would be driving (alarm company let dispatch know.) I came out of the truck and introduced myself and let the deputy know I had my P220 with me and that I had a CCW permit. We both cleared the shop with him in the lead and me as backup.

IrishPirate
01-10-2010, 12:41 PM
I hope that guy has enough sense to talk to his lawyer about this clear violation of his civil rights.

Problem is, a jury will see an unexperienced female officer doing what she thought was necessary at the time to keep herself safe. After she realized there was no danger, he was uncuffed and his gun was (kinda) returned to him. Since an officer's personal safety is always the first concearn and all policy and procedure will support that statement, nothing bad will happen to her and the store owner will get nothing in return.

Now, IMHO, I think it's all a bunch of crap. She shouldn't have cuffed him and treated him like a criminal, and she shouldn't have taken his gun away. She was potentially putting them both in a more dangerous situation because she then took his saftey into her hands and had a duty to protect his life, which meant she had more responsibility and more to do if SHTF. Had she not taken him into "custody" and some bad guys rushed out, she wouldn't have had the obligation to safe his life if SHTF.

I hope she does get charged and does lose, but the reality of it (as far as the OP makes it clear) is that she'll have the law enough in her favor because she was loosely following policey and procedure and no actual harm came to the store owner that nothing will happen. The fact that she's a female officer will play into it (which is total BS) and add to her "safety concern". That's just one more reason why the standards for becoming a police officer or firefighter need to be the same for everyone, and they need to be set HIGH!!!!!!

bodger
01-10-2010, 12:53 PM
That cop violated this man's rights. Doing it in the name of what that officer perceived as "safety" doesn't make it okay.

I hope Charlie Mitchener makes quite a stir over this. If he doesn't, this might become departmental policy with the LVPD.

yellowfin
01-10-2010, 2:56 PM
The cop should be kicked out of the LE profession and sued.

rp55
01-10-2010, 3:50 PM
How is this kind of talk helping to bridge the gap between law enforcement and non-le law abiding citizens?

What's that thing Abe used to say? Oh yeah...

That was written by the reporter (a noted libertarian) who may have had different motives.

JDoe
01-10-2010, 4:33 PM
I see what you are saying, but when LE treats you as the enemy, you could do everything from buying them lunch to polishing their boots..it will make no difference in my opinion. You are armed and possibly a threat to them.

I understand what you are saying, what I was referring to is the tone of the article written by the (noted libertarian) reporter.

The reporter doesn't get it in that the 2nd doesn't yet apply to the states. Suggesting that citizens are armed for the purpose of being part of a citizen militia and that citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." is in my opinion needlessly inflammatory.

The cops don't get it. The Constitution does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless such infringement makes an officer of the government feel safer." The biggest reason the American populace are armed was never to fight off bears or wild Indians but to make agents of the government feel unsafe -- really, really unsafe -- should they try to take away our rights. That's why a citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state."The reporter goes on to suggest that if the perceived wrongs are not put right then "we" the armed citizen militia could very well be their enemy and that is dangerous and stupid ground to tread upon. What kind of an idiot would go up against the power of the state? I guarantee you that the reporter, Vin Suprynowicz would run away screaming like a little girl at the thought of an armed confrontation with the state.

If these arrogant, uniformed employees of ours really want to treat us as the enemy, they may eventually get their wish, at which point they will discover they're vastly outnumbered -- and "backup" is never quite close enough to solve the problem they've created for themselves.What is the reporter suggesting here? Why can't he speak plainly? Does Vin Suprynowicz (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/handcuffed-disarmed-for-obeying-the-law-81088092.html) mean that there may (a weasel word) be an armed citizen militia going up against law enforcement?

That was written by the reporter (a noted libertarian) who may have had different motives.

Whoops. Sorry about that I'll change the posted by thingy.

Maestro Pistolero
01-10-2010, 4:36 PM
She's created an incentive not to notify, and there is no duty to inform here in Las Vegas, NV. A rookie's move, to be sure. I, too have had several positive experiences in NV. Then last time i was traffic stopped, the officer even declined to take temporary possession of the gun.

BobB35
01-10-2010, 8:14 PM
The reporter goes on to suggest that if the perceived wrongs are not put right then "we" the armed citizen militia could very well be their enemy and that is dangerous and stupid ground to tread upon. What kind of an idiot would go up against the power of the state? I guarantee you that the reporter, Vin Suprynowicz would run away screaming like a little girl at the thought of an armed confrontation with the state.



And herein lies the issue with so many who comment here. A belief that the government can be changed peacefully and with the vote. Maybe 50 or a 100 years ago that would have been the case, but with the situation we have now were more people get something from the government than not and no requirement on citizenship or the ability to vote, things have progressed too far down the path to change. Glad you weren't around 235 years ago...I can just imagine what you would have said to the founder who fought the British and died so this country could be free.

I often wonder as I read these types of posts, EXACTLY what would be the straw that breaks your camel's back. What injust perpetrated by the government would bring out the fighter in you. If you look at the Declaration of Independence, the current government intrusion in peoples live is far worse then what was done back then and yet people still say don't fight the system, just vote people out, yada yada yada. These are the ways that people become slaves.

I have commented before, when LEO's violate your rights and live under a different set of rules then the rest of us, they are the enemy and trying to win them over will do no good.

Roadrunner
01-10-2010, 8:50 PM
There may be an underlying cause here as well. The article says she's a rookie. Maybe whoever trained her, taught her to do that. If this is true, it's unfortunate that an other individual, subject to this treatment, didn't complain about it.

Flopper
01-10-2010, 8:53 PM
What kind of an idiot would go up against the power of the state?

Wow, seriously??

socal2310
01-10-2010, 9:33 PM
Wow, seriously??

Sounds like something Burgoyne or Cornwallis would have said doesn't it?

Ryan

Gray Peterson
01-10-2010, 10:04 PM
Sue that *****!

JDoe
01-10-2010, 10:45 PM
My comments are in blue...

The reporter goes on to suggest that if the perceived wrongs are not put right then "we" the armed citizen militia could very well be their enemy and that is dangerous and stupid ground to tread upon. What kind of an idiot would go up against the power of the state? I guarantee you that the reporter, Vin Suprynowicz would run away screaming like a little girl at the thought of an armed confrontation with the state. And herein lies the issue with so many who comment here. A belief that the government can be changed peacefully and with the vote.

Where did I say anything about changing the government by voting? We have peaceful change happening right now through the courts.

Maybe 50 or a 100 years ago that would have been the case, but with the situation we have now were more people get something from the government than not and no requirement on citizenship or the ability to vote, things have progressed too far down the path to change. Glad you weren't around 235 years ago...I can just imagine what you would have said to the founder who fought the British and died so this country could be free.

What, specifically has progressed too far to change by peaceful and legal means?

I often wonder as I read these types of posts, EXACTLY what would be the straw that breaks your camel's back. What injust perpetrated by the government would bring out the fighter in you.

No one is going to support any kind of extra-legal activities against the U.S. government. If you think this is a tyrannical government I encourage you to travel to other countries and see what kind of restrictions they place on their subjects.

If you look at the Declaration of Independence, the current government intrusion in peoples live is far worse then what was done back then and yet people still say don't fight the system, just vote people out, yada yada yada. These are the ways that people become slaves.

I don't believe that voting is necessarily the way to correct government. Using the courts seems to be an excellent low cost way to effect the change that I would like to see take place which is for all levels of government to respect and adhere to the Constitution. We are on a roll with the Heller decision and it looks like we'll get the 2A incorporated against the states this year. Depending on how that is incorporated we will see additional changes and perhaps even more freedoms. Additionally, some states are throwing down the legal gauntlet on the 10A and looking to restrict the powers of the Federal government as originally intended.

All of this is happening and you want to see Americans fight each other and spill each others blood?

I have commented before, when LEO's violate your rights and live under a different set of rules then the rest of us, they are the enemy and trying to win them over will do no good.

If you consider all LEOs the enemy then you are making enemies of LEOs who would be on your side. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly side of law enforcement and the courts but still I would rather seek change by relying on the constitution, the courts and other peaceful means than seeking change using armed militias.

What kind of an idiot would go up against the power of the state? Wow, seriously??

Taken in context yes. The reporter is suggesting that an armed militia made up of non-LEO, non-military citizens might confront the manufactured enemy--Law Enforcement Officers. That is crazy talk. Any sort of armed rebellion would be squashed like a bug and said squashing be cheered on by people like me who don't want to find out what kind of a mess might be on the other side of a second civil war.

If anyone thinks we live in tyranny please take a trip north or south or east or west. Which country in the world has more freedoms and opportunity than the U.S.?

MP301
01-10-2010, 11:00 PM
"I asked if she was following procedure to handcuff me and remove my weapon to which she did not have a good answer, other than I was larger than her. ... It certainly reminded me of the stories in New Orleans after Katrina regarding confiscating weapons from the law-abiding citizens."

Like if the guy was 5 foot tall, she wouldnt have disarmed him? Right.

If you cant do the job without wetting down your leg, then go elsewhere. Being an LEO comes with accepted risks. Officer safety is not enough to violate anyones rights..

The 61 year old guy calls you for help, tells you he is armed legally even though he is not obligated to and your going to screw the poochlike this?

Stupid

packnrat
01-10-2010, 11:05 PM
can you say law suit.:eek:

.

making lawyers rich one case at a time.

rp55
01-10-2010, 11:15 PM
EXACTLY what would be the straw that breaks your camel's back. What injust perpetrated by the government would bring out the fighter in you.

Well since you asked. In Massachusetts there is a chance a Republican may take Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Shocking-poll-Brown-leads-in-Mass-81076887.html) (and yes I know PP is Dem polling outfit and this poll may a ruse to get lukewarm Dems out to vote). But it would be poetic justice after Kennedy went to all that trouble to urge them to change the law, but I digress. Harry Reid has been reported as saying they will not seat Scott Brown if he wins. I put it to you that such an action by Harry Reid, refusing to seat a duly elected Senator, would be an attempt to overthrow the United States government. That is something Hugo Chavez would try and would be worthy of resisting by whatever means are necessary.

JDoe
01-10-2010, 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by BobB35
EXACTLY what would be the straw that breaks your camel's back. What injust perpetrated by the government would bring out the fighter in you.Well since you asked. In Massachusetts there is a chance a Republican may take Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Shocking-poll-Brown-leads-in-Mass-81076887.html) (and yes I know PP is Dem polling outfit and this poll may a ruse to get lukewarm Dems out to vote). But it would be poetic justice after Kennedy went to all that trouble to urge them to change the law, but I digress. Harry Reid has been reported as saying they will not seat Scott Brown if he wins. I put it to you that such an action by Harry Reid, refusing to seat a duly elected Senator, would be an attempt to overthrow the United States government. That is something Hugo Chavez would try and would be worthy of resisting by whatever means are necessary.

Harry Reid also refused/delayed the seating of Roland Burris too.

I'm curious about somethings so if anyone can answer my questions I'd appreciate it greatly.

1. At what point would Harry Reid's refusal to seat Scott Brown change from a delay in seating to something more serious?

2. What is the legal remedy if Harry Reid refuses to seat Scott Brown?

3. What kind of a can of worms would Harry Reid's refusal to seat Scott Brown until after the Health Care Legislation gets passed create?

4. Anyone want to guess what the size of the Tea Party would be if this happened?

JDay
01-11-2010, 12:10 AM
I understand what you are saying, what I was referring to is the tone of the article written by the (noted libertarian) reporter.

The reporter doesn't get it in that the 2nd doesn't yet apply to the states. Suggesting that citizens are armed for the purpose of being part of a citizen militia and that citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." is in my opinion needlessly inflammatory.


Except there's this part of the Nevada state Constitution.

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

randy
01-11-2010, 12:24 AM
That's what it took for the cop to feel secure in continuing the search.

We weren't there and I'm not going to condem her.

JDoe
01-11-2010, 12:28 AM
Originally Posted by JDoe
I understand what you are saying, what I was referring to is the tone of the article written by the (noted libertarian) reporter.

The reporter doesn't get it in that the 2nd doesn't yet apply to the states. Suggesting that citizens are armed for the purpose of being part of a citizen militia and that citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." is in my opinion needlessly inflammatory.

Except there's this part of the Nevada state Constitution.

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

Yes you are 100% correct however the reporter uses words that imply he is referring to the U.S. Constitution and not to the Nevada State Constitution.

Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

Is substantially different than

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The reporter said...

The cops don't get it. The Constitution does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless such infringement makes an officer of the government feel safer." The biggest reason the American populace are armed was never to fight off bears or wild Indians but to make agents of the government feel unsafe -- really, really unsafe -- should they try to take away our rights. That's why a citizen militia is "necessary to the security of a free state."

JDay
01-11-2010, 12:52 AM
Yes you are 100% correct however the reporter uses words that imply he is referring to the U.S. Constitution and not to the Nevada State Constitution.


Incorporation should never have even been an issue.

Californio
01-11-2010, 7:29 AM
If the Officer lacked the height and weight to do the job without hooking up the contact, I really question whether height, weight and conditioning standards need to be upscaled. Certain Job functions require a physical presence. I have never been in favor of dumbing down job requirements for Police and Fire. Hiring undersized individuals that have to hookup the public at every contact in the name of Officer Safety tells me that individual would be better off in a different occupation and the Public would be better served with upscale physical standards.

Flame Suit On:)

rp55
01-11-2010, 7:41 AM
Harry Reid also refused/delayed the seating of Roland Burris too.

I'm curious about somethings so if anyone can answer my questions I'd appreciate it greatly.

1. At what point would Harry Reid's refusal to seat Scott Brown change from a delay in seating to something more serious?

2. What is the legal remedy if Harry Reid refuses to seat Scott Brown?

3. What kind of a can of worms would Harry Reid's refusal to seat Scott Brown until after the Health Care Legislation gets passed create?

4. Anyone want to guess what the size of the Tea Party would be if this happened?

I really don't think it will come to that. I seriously doubt that Soros/ACORN/SEIU will let this one go without a fight. I suspect it will be very close and they will tie it up in court. As Stalin is alleged to have said, "It doesn't matter who votes. It matter who counts the votes." And Soros has one of his boys in as Mass. Secretary of State. Yet there's ample precedent for the stealing of close elections and I (and probably a lot of other folks) don't think that rises to the level of refusing to seat an elected Senator so they'll probably get away with it like that.

BobB35
01-11-2010, 7:55 AM
That's what it took for the cop to feel secure in continuing the search.

We weren't there and I'm not going to condem her.


Thankfully officer safety doesn't trump your rights. Heaven forbid some tin pot LEO thinks that everyone needs to be naked in thier presencs in order for them to seem safe.

Once again, common sense seems to be lacking here. If this officer doesn't feel safe around armed people, why did they become a LEO in the first place?

JDOE,

Welcome to the tyranny lead by YOU. Thanks for helping - NOT.

nobody_special
01-11-2010, 8:01 AM
Thankfully officer safety doesn't trump your rights.

What are you talking about? Of course it does, and this is enforced by the courts. :censored:

bodger
01-11-2010, 8:19 AM
So-called "child safety" trumps (tramps) your rights as well.

I'm still in utter disbelief that someone was recently issued a CCW in Sac County, but it had a 1000' school zone restriction clause attached.

So someday, God forbid, a rogue cop shoots up a school yard. Then they'll make cops lock up their guns within 1000' of a school too. Then it will be completely gun free in the true sense of the word.

Oh, except the criminals.Forgot them.

gunsmith
01-11-2010, 8:39 AM
while I was never handcuffed, they were never happy that I had a gun.

vantec08
01-11-2010, 8:46 AM
This confirms what I already know: more and more, police are becoming politicized bureaucrats who are concerned with themselves and what THEY want. About 90% of the justification for the 2nd amendment (Federalist Papers etc) had to do with the public not being outgunned by the standing army. For dam good reason. And I got news for those of you who claim the AW registration requirement in CA is just for bureaucratic reasons, there is only ONE reason for registration - - -- to preceed confiscation. Police personnel, like military personnel, will probably have to make a decision: to turn on the public or not. This is the position political "leadership" has put them in. They are pushing the envelope of an armed insurrection. Not suggesting its imminent, just the facts ma'am.

pullnshoot25
01-11-2010, 11:17 AM
What a joke. Very sad.

bwiese
01-11-2010, 11:30 AM
This unfortunate circumstance appears to revolve around how the law was written - in the positive vs. the negative.

One way of writing a law is, "It is a felony to do XYZ." Later on down the list, "Section (a) does not apply if the person doing XYZ has valid approval card from the Dept. of Grand Muckamucks".

So we start out as a negative with occasional exceptions, which I think was this case.

The other way is, "A person shall be allowed to do XYZ if <compliance>..."

Liberty1
01-11-2010, 8:03 PM
This unfortunate circumstance appears to revolve around how the law was written - in the positive vs. the negative.

One way of writing a law is, "It is a felony to do XYZ." Later on down the list, "Section (a) does not apply if the person doing XYZ has valid approval card from the Dept. of Grand Muckamucks".

So we start out as a negative with occasional exceptions, which I think was this case.

The other way is, "A person shall be allowed to do XYZ if ..."

This is why there needs to be some unlicensed non-criminal method of exercising the "right". Most states (28) have open carry (with Vermont and Alaska including concealed carry) as that method.

Nevada has Unlicensed Open Carry. I doubt the NV officer could have lawfully disarmed the reporting person and detained him in cuffs for "no crime" open carry as she did for CC.

jdberger
01-11-2010, 8:22 PM
Well since you asked. In Massachusetts there is a chance a Republican may take Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Shocking-poll-Brown-leads-in-Mass-81076887.html) (and yes I know PP is Dem polling outfit and this poll may a ruse to get lukewarm Dems out to vote). But it would be poetic justice after Kennedy went to all that trouble to urge them to change the law, but I digress. Harry Reid has been reported as saying they will not seat Scott Brown if he wins. I put it to you that such an action by Harry Reid, refusing to seat a duly elected Senator, would be an attempt to overthrow the United States government. That is something Hugo Chavez would try and would be worthy of resisting by whatever means are necessary.

I'd be interested in your source for this.

nobody_special
01-11-2010, 8:22 PM
This unfortunate circumstance appears to revolve around how the law was written - in the positive vs. the negative.

One way of writing a law is, "It is a felony to do XYZ." Later on down the list, "Section (a) does not apply if the person doing XYZ has valid approval card from the Dept. of Grand Muckamucks".

So we start out as a negative with occasional exceptions, which I think was this case.

The other way is, "A person shall be allowed to do XYZ if <compliance>..."

Are any state concealed-carry laws written in the second fashion? I doubt it.

As Liberty1 said, this is a very good motivation to obtain some means of legal unlicensed loaded carry, otherwise the right to carry is meaningless.

artherd
01-11-2010, 8:51 PM
Totally different than one of my encounters with Sac Sheriff Deputy a few years ago when my shop had an attempted break-in.

I pulled up just as the patrol car did. He already knew what I would be driving (alarm company let dispatch know.) I came out of the truck and introduced myself and let the deputy know I had my P220 with me and that I had a CCW permit. We both cleared the shop with him in the lead and me as backup.

THAT'S IT - I'M MOVING TO CALIFORNIA! :)

Maestro Pistolero
01-11-2010, 10:10 PM
:rolleyes:Using the logic of this officer, a group of officers walking on to shooting range, would have to draw down on everyone, in order to keep everyone safe.

nobody_special
01-11-2010, 10:54 PM
:rolleyes:Using the logic of this officer, a group of officers walking on to shooting range, would have to draw down on everyone, in order to keep everyone safe.

They don't have to, but if they were investigating something (and let's face it, an officer can always find some cause to investigate) then I believe the courts would hold that to be reasonable.

See, here is the thing:

I hope that guy has enough sense to talk to his lawyer about this clear violation of his civil rights.
Sue that *****!

I'm pretty sure that any court would laugh at a lawsuit over this, and then promptly dismiss it.

Is it right? No, but this is the world we live in.

Now, let's look at another scenario: say that I was out for a walk in the park with my wife. Further assume that my wife and I both have licenses and are legally carrying concealed, holstered firearms. (Obviously we're not talking about California here.) Now, a police officer spots my wife's gun and behaves in this manner, i.e. draws and points a gun at my wife. Frankly, in my opinion that should be aggravated assault or ADW at least, and justification for me to shoot. If that person were anyone but a police officer, it would be. In this case, the law actually creates a public danger by allowing an officer to deploy deadly force when no threat is present.

Maestro Pistolero
01-11-2010, 11:52 PM
Pointing a gun at an innocent person is never safe.

randy
01-12-2010, 12:18 AM
Thankfully officer safety doesn't trump your rights. Heaven forbid some tin pot LEO thinks that everyone needs to be naked in thier presencs in order for them to seem safe.

Once again, common sense seems to be lacking here. If this officer doesn't feel safe around armed people, why did they become a LEO in the first place?

JDOE,

Welcome to the tyranny lead by YOU. Thanks for helping - NOT.

You are wrong but it's nice to have ideals. If an LEO stops you in your car for whatever reason, they believe you have a firearm and can demonstrate to the court a good reason they felt you had a firearm. You are going to exit the car put on the curb maybe handcuffed and your car is going to be searched. Officer safety for the win.

randy
01-12-2010, 12:38 AM
I've read some of the senarios on here what if the BG's were there you'd have two people armed, if my wife and I were walking etc etc.

How about the ccw holder just capped his partner in the back and the cop showed up too quick. Now would she have been justified?

Maestro Pistolero
01-12-2010, 12:58 AM
What is going to happen if a fourth of the population gets CCWs? Are LE's going to spend all their time cuffing and disarming lawfully armed citizens? Where's the end of this? At some point common sense has to step in.

Nevada LE doesn't do this as a matter of practice, and there has been NO safety risk to LE from license holders. The FBI background check and training are significant. She won't be officially reprimanded, but you can bet she'll take some ribbing from her fellow officers. And she should.

rp55
01-12-2010, 8:21 AM
I'd be interested in your source for this.

That sentiment was expressed in several articles including AP on Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_go_co/us_kennedy_successor).

The stakes are so high Democrats won't rule out taking as long as a month to certify the election results — should Brown win — to prevent a Republican from assuming the seat until the Senate completes its work on Kennedy's hallmark legislation.

Maybe should have been clearer to say that they will not seat him immediately but after what they did for the bozos in NY-23 and CA-10 (swearing them in the next day) if Brown wins (and yes it looks like a pretty big if) and they delay unreasonably to keep him from voting on health care there will be trouble. The Tea Parties are gearing up for it even though it looks like the health bill is going to collapse on it's own.

jdberger
01-12-2010, 9:34 AM
That sentiment was expressed in several articles including AP on Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_go_co/us_kennedy_successor).

The stakes are so high Democrats won't rule out taking as long as a month to certify the election results — should Brown win — to prevent a Republican from assuming the seat until the Senate completes its work on Kennedy's hallmark legislation.

Maybe should have been clearer to say that they will not seat him immediately but after what they did for the bozos in NY-23 and CA-10 (swearing them in the next day) if Brown wins (and yes it looks like a pretty big if) and they delay unreasonably to keep him from voting on health care there will be trouble. The Tea Parties are gearing up for it even though it looks like the health bill is going to collapse on it's own.

It looks like there's a bit of misunderstanding regarding the process.

The SENATE doesn't "certify the election results". The STATE does. It's the STATE of Massachussetts (or the politicians in power in that State) who've suggested that they may delay the certification of the election (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249).

Not Harry Reid.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

rp55
01-12-2010, 10:06 AM
It looks like there's a bit of misunderstanding regarding the process.

The SENATE doesn't "certify the election results". The STATE does. It's the STATE of Massachussetts (or the politicians in power in that State) who've suggested that they may delay the certification of the election (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249).

Not Harry Reid.

Actually, the Senate (as per the Constitution) makes it own rules for membership. Seriously. Yes Massachusetts certifies but the Senate (controlled by Democrats led by Harry Reid) seats him. Did you miss Harry Reid when he channeled George Wallace and locked out Roland Burris? Do you think he will just politely seat a new senator that will doom his health care plan. Harry isn't going to be re-elected and he knows it. That's why he ignoring the will of the majority of the people of the State of Nevada. But he's damned the torpedoes and is going to go down with all flags flying. He does get some props for that.

jdberger
01-12-2010, 10:09 AM
Actually, the Senate (as per the Constitution) makes it own rules for membership. Seriously. Yes Massachusetts certifies but the Senate (controlled by Democrats led by Harry Reid) seats him. Did you miss Harry Reid when he channeled George Wallace and locked out Roland Burris? Do you think he will just politely seat a new senator that will doom his health care plan. Harry isn't going to be re-elected and he knows it. That's why he ignoring the will of the majority of the people of the State of Nevada. But he's damned the torpedoes and is going to go down with all flags flying. He does get some props for that.

Perhaps.

But that's speculation.

I was looking for the source of this assertion:

Harry Reid has been reported as saying they will not seat Scott Brown if he wins.

I never found it and it was never supplied. ;)

Maestro Pistolero
01-12-2010, 11:13 AM
Off Topic

nobody_special
01-12-2010, 11:33 AM
I've read some of the senarios on here what if the BG's were there you'd have two people armed, if my wife and I were walking etc etc.

How about the ccw holder just capped his partner in the back and the cop showed up too quick. Now would she have been justified?

Of course a police officer is justified in deploying force in that situation.

The difference (this is important!) is the behavior of the individuals. In one case, you have someone who engaged in violent illegal activity, in the other case you do not.

randy
01-12-2010, 1:40 PM
Of course a police officer is justified in deploying force in that situation.

The difference (this is important!) is the behavior of the individuals. In one case, you have someone who engaged in violent illegal activity, in the other case you do not.

You don't know what happened until you investigate. Until you investigate you hook up the possible perp.

rp55
01-12-2010, 3:52 PM
Perhaps.

But that's speculation.

I was looking for the source of this assertion:



I never found it and it was never supplied. ;)

I had to go through my browser history to see where I saw it and it was actually (I think) a liberal (http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/09/advice-on-what-to-do-when-harry-reid-refuses-to-seat-a-senator/) site. I had followed a link there and did not read the article in its entirety. So yes it is entirely speculation.

nobody_special
01-12-2010, 4:17 PM
You don't know what happened until you investigate. Until you investigate you hook up the possible perp.

Yes, but in one case you have a dead body and a person with a gun. In the other, you have someone minding their own business, and no body. See a difference there?

hawk84
01-12-2010, 6:30 PM
How is this kind of talk helping to bridge the gap between law enforcement and non-le law abiding citizens?

What's that thing Abe used to say? Oh yeah...


Quote:
If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.
-Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

the same can go for LEOs that are not convincing law abiding citizens that they are your friends

Bhobbs
01-12-2010, 6:46 PM
I am not trying to be sexist here but if the woman had to handcuff the man she should be trying to help to feel safe what happens when she confronts a man that won't comply? I saw a video were a woman cop was beaten down really bad by a averaged sized guy. Does allowing small framed females to be cops do anyone good?

too old for this
01-12-2010, 10:17 PM
What I was told to do in my HD training course. If faced with a potential break-in while you are at home or return home to find that there has been a break-in and don't know if they have left your place or not. Call 911, give the operator not just your address but tell them exactly what you look like and that you are armed. When the police arrive, immediately offer to give your gun to them in a non-threatening manner -- once they see that the gun is legal and that all danger to you and THEM is gone, they will most likely return the gun [probably unloaded]. Cops are people and they are trained to have a legitimate fear of guns held by unknown persons. Their rules, state laws, and the U,S, Constitution probably take back seat to their desires to return home alive when the work day is over.

The lady cop was a rookie and probably scared as well as under trained.

randy
01-13-2010, 12:47 AM
Yes, but in one case you have a dead body and a person with a gun. In the other, you have someone minding their own business, and no body. See a difference there?

They don't know about the body until they investigate.