Was wandering and came upon this court decision about open carry.
"Every
part of Shawn Northrup's midsummer evening walk with his wife,
daughter, grandson, and dog was legal -- including the holstered handgun
he openly carried on his hip. But that was not enough to keep Northrup
from being disarmed, handcuffed, and threatened with arrest by a police
officer. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let the officer who illegally detained Northrup escape accountability, exemplifying the kind of judicial engagement that is needed to protect law-abiding citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. "
One thing I found most interesting is that the officer tried to justify
his actions in detaining Mr. Northrup by using the logic often used by
the MOMs in their crusade to pressure businesses into banning all legal
carry in their venues. However, the judge wasn't buying,
"As
Judge Sutton pointedly observed, "While the dispatcher and [911 caller]
may not have known the details of Ohio's open-carry firearm law, the
police officer had no basis for such uncertainty." While Bright argued
that he faced a difficult decision -- "respond to the communities' fear
and the appearance of the gunman" or "do nothing ... and hope that he
was not about to start shooting" -- Sutton rejected this as a false
choice. Absent any actual evidence that Bright was "about to start
shooting," Sutton reasoned, "Bright's hope ... remains another word for the trust that Ohioans have placed in their State's approach to gun licensure and gun possession."
Hopefully this nonsense will soon be ended.
ReplyDeleteI agree FJ, hopefully this experience will serve as a teachable moment for Officer Bright and other members of law enforcement in how not to violate the rights of its citizens.
DeleteHopefully this nonsense will soon be ended.
DeleteI think that with this court ruling, there is indeed a decent chance that this nonsense of police harassment of peaceable practitioners of open carry will soon be ended.
It would be foolish not to call 911 anytime you see someone with a gun who isn't law enforcement or military.
DeleteI think what Flying Junior meant is that soon we'll come to our senses and make open carry a thing of the past. It obviously causes problems that could easily be avoided.
DeleteIt obviously causes problems that could easily be avoided.
DeleteBy cops refraining from being hyper-authoritarian pigs? I think so, too.
"It would be foolish not to call 911 anytime you see someone with a gun who isn't law enforcement or military."
DeleteConsidering how many states allow some form of open carry, including my home state of Minnesota, your standard obviously being practiced extensively. In this case, the police were called, and even though the operator knew open carry was allowed, an officer was dispatched.
Unfortunately, the officer let his attitude overrule his professionalism and the judge is now conducting some remedial training. As is highlighted by the judge, there is an expectation that police officers should know the laws of their jurisdiction.
"I think what Flying Junior meant is that soon we'll come to our senses and make open carry a thing of the past. It obviously causes problems that could easily be avoided."
DeleteThe right to carry openly seems to be moving in the opposite direction Mike.
Jade - why would an open carry law enforcement or military person not arouse suspicion? How do you tell if it is really a military person anyway? Anybody can by camo or a police costume and walk around with a gun. Best to just call the police whenever you see anybody with a gun to be safe.
Delete"Best to just call the police whenever you see anybody with a gun to be safe."
DeleteYes Jade, by all means, call 911 if you see anyone open carrying. Even if you limit it to those not wearing a uniform, it would certainly keep the police hopping.
Currently, there are somewhere around 11 million citizens with carry permits. Of course, this doesn't include states with Constitutional carry and of course the people who can open carry with no permit. Lets be conservative and say that five percent of permit holders choose to open carry. Round that off to an even half million open carry. Something tells me that not many people ascribe to Jade's logic.
It might have something to do with most people knowing the laws in the state they live in.
ss, I appeal to you as the most reasonable commenter. Don't you see the problem of open carry guys being mistaked for bad guys with guns? Are you comletely insensitive to the concerns of average citizens when encountering a man with a gun?
Delete"Don't you see the problem of open carry guys being mistaked for bad guys with guns?"
DeleteMike, in this case, there was nothing to suggest there was anything at all illegal happening. And it seemed that everyone except the person who called 911 knew that open carry was legal.
It seems fairly obvious that Officer Bright was injecting his personal feelings about open carry or perhaps even citizens lawfully carrying into his job and that seems to have resulted in at the very least unprofessional, and possibly illegal behavior.
Citizens who carry are occasionally stopped by the police and most encounters are calm, brief, and trouble free. This event went way beyond that and the charge that was later dismissed was a feeble event to have something to show for some bad decision making on the part of the officer.
Are you comletely insensitive to the concerns of average citizens when encountering a man with a gun?
DeleteIt's not the "average" citizens who panic at the sight of an openly armed person going peaceably about his or her business. That sort is well below "average."
ss, you didn't really answer me. Don't you see the problem? I know this case might not be a good example and I know that most encounters between the police and open carriers are brief, but even those are a problem, no? Even they waste police recourses. What about those in which the open carrier can understandably be confused with a potential bad guy shooter?
Delete" I know this case might not be a good example and I know that most encounters between the police and open carriers are brief, but even those are a problem, no?"
DeleteHow is it any more of a problem than any other police encounter? As a law enforcement professional, its the officer's responsibility to operate under the current laws.
This case is a wonderful illustration of the flawed logic used by the MOMs since Officer Bright seemed to parrot their memes word for word.
As for whether it wastes resources, that is entirely under the control of the officer involved. If he wants to talk to every person he sees open carrying in the belief that they are all potential criminals, that is his decision until he discovers that isn't resulting in any bad guys being caught, or until his superiors tell him to change his ways.
As has often been noted, a bad guy is identified by his actions, not by his appearance. Carrying in a holster while on a walk with your family? Not a bad guy and I don't see how he could be misidentified as such.
I've never personally been stopped, though I don't normally open carry. Plus the Chief and most of the officers in the PD here know me and presumably know I have a permit.
I've seen people open carrying in stores and have detected no concern from others around him. No one running away or calling 911. Though perhaps no one noticed. A lot of people tend not to be very aware of what goes on around them.
Here is a good example of the police acting professionally in a situation where a citizen has a gun,
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/man-holds-would-be-carjacker-gunpoint-until-police/nmL4Z/
"How is it any more of a problem than any other police encounter?"
DeleteBecause it's completely unnecessary and avoidable and might take police away from more serious matters.
Mike, the police have these things called radios. If they are talking to someone about a traffic violation or someone who isn't doing anything illegal like open carrying and a serious matter comes up, then they will cut the less serious matter short and head for the more urgent matter.
DeleteMight have been tougher for Officer Bright since he had the guy cuffed and in the back of his police car. But we both seem to agree that his actions were a little over the top.
Because it's completely unnecessary and avoidable and might take police away from more serious matters.
DeleteSo you agree that peaceable open carry of firearms is not a serious matter? That, of course, makes you correct about the police involvement in the first place being "unnecessary and avoidable."
Yes, peacable open carry is not a serious matter. But, as I've shown many times, the folks who do that are often indistinguishable from bad guys with guns on their way to do harm. That's the problem.
Delete"But, as I've shown many times, the folks who do that are often indistinguishable from bad guys with guns on their way to do harm."
DeleteIf there is a true reasonable suspicion, then an officer can conduct a Terry stop. Otherwise, if there is no reasonable suspicion, then there should be no stop.
Officer Bright wouldn't be having these problems if he had just talked to Mr. Northup, however he took it a bit beyond that. I'll have to see if I can find anything else on the encounter.
Here are some interesting parts from the judgment that didn't make it into the original article. I wonder what happened to the video mentioned during the encounter.
Delete"A passing motorcyclist stopped to complain about Shawn's visible firearm. The stranger, Alan Rose, yelled, “[Y]ou can't walk around with a gun like that!” But “[O]pen carry is legal in Ohio!” Denise responded. Id. at 28. As the Northrups walked away, Denise and Rose exchanged increasingly unprintable words until he was out of view (and earshot).Rose called 911, reporting that “a guy walking down the street” with his dog was “carrying a gun out in the open.” R. 39 at 22–23. When asked what type of gun the guy was carrying, Rose replied, “A handgun, and he's telling me it's legal to carry out in the open.” Id. at 23. That's right, the dispatcher responded, it's legal “[i]f you have a CCW”—a concealed—carry weapon permit. “I'll get a crew out though.” Id. The legality of Northrup's behavior threw Rose for a loop, prompting him to add: “I'm not going to call a crew out if it's legal to carry a gun out in the open.” Id."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1700723.html
So after being told that open carry is legal, apparently the caller didn't feel the need to have an officer respond.
We now come across two different versions of the encounter. First Officer Bright,
"At that point, according to Officer Bright, Shawn pulled out his cell had been—“in what [Officer Bright] believed to be furtive movement.” phone, then “moved his hands back toward his weapon”—where his cell phone Id. Bright asked Shawn to turn around with his hands over his head. Id. at 38. Rather than comply, Shawn “kept asking” why Bright was there. Id. And rather than answer, Bright “walked up and unsnapped and temporarily took possession of his firearm.”
While Mr. Northrup says,
"Shawn adds these details. Before Officer Bright emerged from his car, Shawn began holding his phone (and leash and arms) out in front of him to record the interaction. Bright walked up with “his hand on his firearm,” announced that if Shawn “go[es] for the weapon, he's going to shoot,” and refused to answer any of Shawn's questions, such as: “[W]hat was going on?” “[A]m I free to go?” “[A]m I under arrest here?” R. 28 at 33–35. After Bright disarmed Shawn and explained he was responding to a call, Bright demanded Shawn's driver's license and concealed-carry permit. Shawn gave Bright his license, but Denise told Bright to look up the permit himself, prompting Bright to threaten to “arrest [Shawn] for inducing panic right now.”
I'm wondering what happened to the video. Such a video, if it exists, would determine who's account was accurate. I couldn't find it, maybe its waiting to be submitted in the suit.
The judgment is pretty short and an easy read. I'd invite everyone to take a look and see what you think afterwards.
Open carry causes more trouble than it solves - which brings up a question - why do it? What's the point? If it's just to antagonize people and police who don't like it, that makes it pretty stupid and juvenile, don't you think?
Delete. . . why do it? What's the point?
DeleteThe rationale of course varies from person to person, but for some, the idea is to "normalize" the practice. If people start seeing it every day, all but the most bed-wettingly fearful will become at least partially accustomed to it. It is also the case that drawing from concealment is generally not as fast as can be done from an openly worn holster.
Yeah, like the guy in the airport last week. You never know when something's gonna happen.
DeleteAnd I doubt very seriously if open carry will ever achieve the result of normalization. It sure doesn't seem to be happening yet.
You never know when something's gonna happen.
DeleteTrue. You don't.
And I doubt very seriously if open carry will ever achieve the result of normalization.
Maybe, maybe not. Attitudes change. Not so long ago, it seemed highly unlikely that so much of the country would drop their weird hangups about same-sex marriage. In some areas, open carry of holstered handguns is apparently already not considered a big deal. Will that spread to everywhere? I suppose I kinda doubt it. Will it spread farther than it has so far? I suspect it will.
Open carry of long guns is, admittedly a pretty tough sell. I don't see the cud-chewers ever getting over their irrational terror of that.