Police mention the following behavioural traits as indicators that someone is armed. Things like:
- frequently touching the firearm for reassurance,
- adjusting the weapon for comfort, or because it has moved out of place,
- an unusual walk or gait, and
- blading their weapon side away from you, similar to the “interview stance.”
The thing is that the property owner has every right to preclude people from carrying weapons onto their property. You have the right to know since that can bring you legal liability as the property owner in some jurisdictions. You are well within your right as a property owner to exclude someone from bringing a firearm onto your property without your permission.
Of course, think if every body called the cops because they suspected someone was carrying on their property--you get the idea why this idiotic idea has been allowed to flourish.
In fact, it's rude for someone to carry a concealed handgun onto another's property, whether a business or personal residence. After all, how do they feel if someone brings a gun onto their property? Especially if the person carrying may have unlawful intent.
I should add that it is probably more frightening to these people that they could be spotted "packing heat" since they like to believe they are inconspicuous. It's probably more frightening and disconcerting to them than having someone grab their gun from them.
Nothing would bother them more than the question "do you have a handgun on you?"
See also:
That is a neat chart and has been around for awhile. It was designed mainly as a training tool for police to spot possible criminals hiding an illegal gun. Most of the content does not apply to a concealed handgun securely carried in a holster. However, the mannerisms such as touching and adjusting do apply to new concealed carriers and I have seen it in public on a couple of occasions.
ReplyDelete"The thing is that the property owner has every right to preclude people from carrying weapons onto their property...You are well within your right as a property owner to exclude someone from bringing a firearm onto your property without your permission."
Property owners do have the right to post signs saying that they do not want people that have carry licenses as customers. Of course CCW holders have the right to not patronize businesses that engage in such discriminatory practices. I can name a dozen large companies that have reversed their stance and removed such signs after pressure from civil rights groups like Ohioans For Concealed Carry. PNC Banks and UDF Convenience Stores are a couple off the top of my head.
"You have the right to know since that can bring you legal liability as the property owner."
That depends upon the state. Some have immunities built into the CCW laws. Ohio is one that says a business cannot be held responsible for the actions of a third party CHL holder if they choose not to prohibit CCW on their property. Conversely though, a business that does post against it cannot be held responsible because they made their store less safe by doing so.
"Of course, think if every body called the cops because they suspected someone was carrying on their property--you get the idea why this idiotic idea has been allowed to flourish."
Fortunately dispatchers are being trained to ask for more detail such as "is he waving the gun around" or "is he threatening anyone" so that valuable police time is not wasted on a licensed citizen with a holstered gun.
Property owners do have the right to post signs saying that they do not want people that have carry licenses as customers.
DeleteNo one should have to do that on private property; it should be assumed you need permission to go to someone's home with your weapon.
I won't go to those coffee places that have people with open carry or who are concealed carry (not so concealed). There is more printing that gun carrier's realize.
No one can tell if someone carrying a gun is legal or not legal, regardless if they have it out or not. In many cases you can't even tell if it is a real gun or a very similar fake.
The prevelance of more people carrying has also given cover to more UNLICENSED people carrying too - because it has become the norm, right up until someone who is not legal does something criminal (or just stupid).
Most of the content does not apply to a concealed handgun securely carried in a holster.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. There are still behaviours that most people will exhibit if they carry a firearm--in particular dress. As I said, someone has to dress to conceal the firearm unless they have something very small and concealable. Still, the firearm will carry some weigh since bullets are made of lead.
Someone carrying a firearm will usually have it on the side of their dominant hand unless they are using cross draw, but one can watch for the lump when the person is walking. As the one article said "If you see a hard bulge in a place consistent with carrying a firearm… well, I think you know what to do."
The real clue is the bulge in a place where one would expect a firearm: e.g., dominant waist side or armpit area. Also, it is nigh impossible to totally eliminate printing no matter how good a holster you use.
There was one method of concealment mentioned in the articles I refer to which could be used by a fat person.
Of course, we have at least two incidents where concealed carry failed to stop a mass shooting (If you are having trouble remembering--does the word Tucson bring up any memories). And yes, there are armed victims: they've been mentioned before.
I have to concur that DG points out the assumption that FWM makes is that all concealed carriers are law abiding citizens.
Agreed. The parts of the graphic dealing with guns carried loosely in jacket pockets, waistbands, etc are what I was saying did not really apply to license holders in most cases since they would usually use a strong holster. The other points, including mannerisms are quite applicable.
ReplyDelete"I have to concur that DG points out the assumption that FWM makes is that all concealed carriers are law abiding citizens."
Yes, I did make that assumption as the point of the article. After all, are not law abiding concealed carriers who we are talking about barring from private property? Or do you really believe that a criminal would disarm if he saw a "no guns" sign?
NO, FWM, the point that Laci is making is that it is up to the carrier to get permission, it is not the default that carrying is allowed.
DeleteSo then you expect a criminal to ask permission before carrying his illegal gun?
DeleteNo FWM, I expect the asking to distinguish a legal person carrying from an illegal one.
DeleteI expect that the person who doesn't ask should be assumed to be carrying illegally.
But answer me this FWM -- how can YOU tell who is carrying legally and who is carrying illegally, by just looking at them?
You cannot.
When it was the norm for people not to carry, open of concealed, except for those who did so in the course of their occupation, it was much easier to identify who was carrying illegally.
So then you expect a criminal to ask permission before carrying his illegal gun?
DeleteAre you saying that the lawful carriers will ask my permission and I am free to assume that anyone I catch carrying on my property is not acting in a lawful manner? If that is the case, I can take appropriate action?
Do I wait until the shooting starts to find out that the intent was not lawful?
Did you realise that up until recently I could assume that most people carrying were acting unlawfully if they were not in a profession that required them to do so?
More on that later...
"Do I wait until the shooting starts to find out that the intent was not lawful?"
DeleteAccording to some on this blog, you are supposed to wait and determine what an intruders intentions are so why would you not want to wait to determine the intentions of someone entering legally?
If you do not want people on your premises who think lethal force is a good idea as general policy -- people who do not in you opinion have particularly good judgement for example, by carrying a weapon in the first place -- then all that matters is that you do not wish them to be armed on your property.
DeleteIn the case of an intruder, there may be some ambiguity as to why they are there at all - wrong house, etc. In the case of someone entering the premises legally, there is less ambiguity.
I wonder if these guys saw the "no guns" signs in gun free London:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/06/seven-terror-arrests-in-london-after-guns-found-in-car/
Yup, more gun control FAIL.
1. What part of they caught the terrorists did you miss?
Delete2. What part of they were clearly terrorists and did not blend in to the general population carrying guns did you miss?
3. To reasonably determine if a policy works, you look at the total result, it is a tremendous success in terms of low levels of gun crimes including low levels of firearms used in domestic abuses or murder/suicides (unlike here), low gun injuries, low gun deaths.
But they didn't ask permission first.
DeleteFWM, so far as I'm concerned ALL of you gun loons who don't ask permission first are wrong, legal or illegally carrying.
DeleteI'm still waiting for you to outline how you can tell a legal carrying person from an illegally carrying one, by just looking at them.
Of course you can't; but I'm waiting for you to admit it.
Since you cannot, there is no good reason for making the assumption someone is legal.
"Since you cannot, there is no good reason for making the assumption someone is legal."
DeleteThere is no reason to assume that someone is illegally carrying either.
Someone who is not carrying doesn't present the risk of gun violence. Someone who is carrying presents all kinds of possible bad outcomes, both intentional and unintentional.
DeleteTherefore there is no basis for making any assumption that they are legal, sober, sane, safe or any other assumptions that you like to make.
So you admit that there is no basis for assuming anyone is a legal carrier. If you don't know they are legal, it is not reasonable for us to assume they are.
Given the low to nil requirements for handling or carrying even a legal weapon in some states, and given for example the number of felons that the state permits to carry in places like Florida, including the large number of people with criminal warrants out for their arrest, both open and concealed carry are a bad idea and have shown no public benefit.
Public carry is NOT guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, it is simply a stupid idea to appeal to the worst emotions - mostly in men - the NRA came up with to sell more guns for their real clients, the gun manufacturers. Dumb idea, and part of why this is not a free nation, it is simply a more dangerous one.
SO, FWM's solution is just wait until the person does something illegal.
DeleteDumb idea.
BTW, public carry is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment even as reinterpreted by Heller-McDonald.
If FWM were capable of critical thinking he would find those decisions are actually "gun right unfriendly".
FWM, if that is your idea of fail, we could use a lot more of it here.
ReplyDeleteGood point. :) That is what I always tell you and Mike when you post story after story where someone was caught with a gun and I point out that the existing laws must be working. Our B.S. works both ways.
DeleteNot exactly FWM.
DeleteOur reasoning actually holds up under critical scrutiny, and what we advocate results in fewer gun crimes and less gun violence.
That cannot be said of your position or arguments.
Seems the law allows conceal and carry gun owners to go where they want. That's when businesses started putting up "No guns allowed" signs.
ReplyDeleteI would consider it VERY unfriendly, if anyone came on my property with a gun, signs, or not.
I guess I'm old fashioned, but I would consider that uncouth, at best. Certainly no manners, or concern for my safety and not a friendly gesture. They would be asked to leave.
My father has a license to carry and I have told him not to bring his gun when he visits.
Remember, one persons rights end when they infringe on my rights.
The fact that gun owners don't consider that, tells me they don't have the judgment to carry a gun at all.
Of course you should ask permission to carry your weapon onto an individual's private property. But unless a business specifically puts up a sign barring the carrying of weapons, you are assumed to be allowed to carry in said business.
ReplyDelete