What if you morally object

[jmur5074]

By the way, if open carry is so accepted, the Brookfield Police would not have sent 8 officers to "investigate" the Culvers restaurant.

Well when a "man with a gun" or similar call is dispatched, the cavalry rolls. I normally don't bring my crystal ball to work with me. I suppose I should though, I could clear calls like that without even responding to them. We don't know when 911 rings if the call is legit. I've gone to barking dog calls when the dog isn't barking, "noise complaints" that turn out to be shots fired or a domestic, and non-injury car accidents that turn out to be fatals. So when a member of the general public (who isn't accustomed to seeing a guy in jeans and a tshirt walking around with a gun on his hip) calls in screaming there's a man with a gun at Valley View Mall, everyone is coming. Blame the public, not us.

No I did not hear of any police officer that had spoken out about Flynn's policy in any press release or other media story.

But did you hear of any police officers "tackling", "taking down", or unlawfully detaining anyone legally carrying a firearm in response to Chief Flynn's orders? I searched, and couldn't find anything. Rather than thinking poorly of the Milwaukee Police department because of one statement their Chief made (again, in response to a new, unfamiliar law) consider the hundreds of men and women below him, who very well may have been rolling their eyes when he said what he said.

[Xiphos]

There is a group called Oath Keepers ( Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic ) that officials pledge to guard the Constitution, that if they are given orders that conflict with our Constitution that they will not comply.

That sounds like the oath of office I took. I don't need to join any special groups to make that commitment, I'm already in one at work.

I am not obligated to obey illegal orders. If I am ordered to violate the constitution I have to refuse. This is not limited to OC. A sergeant tells me to go search a residence and I know that search doesn't fall under a warrantless exception, I cannot follow that order. That stuff happens sometimes because a supervisor may not have access to all the information and is making a judgment call incorrectly. It's all our jobs to point out factual errors and help resolve the situation.

If my chief were stupid enough to direct us to "take down" OC'ers that would be very amusing. I know current law and legal decisions in my state support OC so I would not place myself in that lawsuit by following that order.

I work in a very firearm friendly state and I know how to deal with CCW and OC appropriately. Frankly, I rarely do because they aren't part of the criminal element that I have to deal with at work.

[Bigdaddy1]

Well when a "man with a gun" or similar call is dispatched, the cavalry rolls. I normally don't bring my crystal ball to work with me. I suppose I should though, I could clear calls like that without even responding to them. We don't know when 911 rings if the call is legit. I've gone to barking dog calls when the dog isn't barking, "noise complaints" that turn out to be shots fired or a domestic, and non-injury car accidents that turn out to be fatals. So when a member of the general public (who isn't accustomed to seeing a guy in jeans and a tshirt walking around with a gun on his hip) calls in screaming there's a man with a gun at Valley View Mall, everyone is coming. Blame the public, not us.



But did you hear of any police officers "tackling", "taking down", or unlawfully detaining anyone legally carrying a firearm in response to Chief Flynn's orders? I searched, and couldn't find anything. Rather than thinking poorly of the Milwaukee Police department because of one statement their Chief made (again, in response to a new, unfamiliar law) consider the hundreds of men and women below him, who very well may have been rolling their eyes when he said what he said.

Wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers here. The reason I mentioned the 8 officers was the caller did not call to complain. She called to ask if open carry was legal. The Dispatcher said it was and the caller apologized. No emergency, no problem. Somewhere a breakdown in communications occurred and 8 police officers show up for a non-emergency call. That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

I actually did not hear anything specific against Milwaukee. I was not trying to implicate the MPD. Again I mentioned it to show that it was a relatively recent occurrence and not from a time in history where civil rights were not so well published. Chief Flynn actually stated he would be pro-concealed carry rather than open carry so I wouldn't consider him to be anti-gun.

I think that we may have gotten off on the wrong foot, I really didn't come here to piss anyone off. This site was posted on the OCDO and I checked it out. There were some things I wanted to say about what I knew about the situation and get some of your opinions. As I mentioned before I am acquainted with a few cops (mostly through my kids school) but wouldn't call it social. I apologize for not being more straight forward about my questions and coming about them through the side door, but that is simply my nature.

[berserk]

It doesn't seem to me that detaining someone who is open carrying long enough to determine if they have a permit would be a violation of the second amendment, nor the fourth amendment. How the individual officer handled the detention would depend entirely on the situation and the officer. Our actions must be "reasonable" (we don't have to be right all the time), to our superiors and a jury if it came to that.

I don't think that would be reasonable at all. Openly carrying a firearm is not a crime, nor does it support reasonable suspicion of a crime. It can't be used as the sole foundation for a stop.

[MacLean]

It doesn't seem to me that detaining someone who is open carrying long enough to determine if they have a permit would be a violation of the second amendment, nor the fourth amendment.

I'm reasonably certain seizing someone absent reasonable suspicion of a crime is taught in every police academy in the United States when they discuss Terry vs. Ohio.

In the places where open carry is practiced, no permit is required so any detention to determine same would fall flat, legally.

You're correct that it would not be a second amendment violation, but would certainly violate the fourth amendment.

[covman454]

Here in Iowa, a permit is required to carry whether it be concealed or not. There are exceptions to this such as for hunting and trapping. If open carry were legal without a permit, then you are right that there would be no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and there would be no grounds to stop on that basis only.

A detention at that point would violate the 4th amendment. I was using my state as an example, since that is what I am familiar with.

Covman

[Interceptor]

..one statement their Chief made (again, in response to a new, unfamiliar law) ....

.... he made those comments just as the Wisconsin AG was hashing over their relatively unknown open carry law. ...But at that time, it was new, different, and scary, and no one really knew what the law actually was. .....

Chief Flynn actually stated he would be pro-concealed carry rather than open carry so I wouldn't consider him to be anti-gun.

There was no new law and Chief Flynn was aware of current law. WI municipalities have been "getting away with" charging Disorderly Conduct for Open Carry for some time. What changed is that Brad Krause did not roll over and take the citation quietly, nor did Jose Gonzalez with his. In light of these court cases and at the urging of several WI DAs, the AG felt compelled to publish an opinion.
WI has had the Right to Bear Arms affirmed in its State Constitution since 1989. That means that even though the 2nd Amendment was not yet incorporated to the States, WI already had this affirmed as an individual right. This was successfully used to have Concealed Carry charges dropped in 2007 after a Andre Vegas had used a concealed handgun twice to defend himself against attacks, once in 2006 and once in 2007. This happened in the City of Milwaukee. Chief Flynn was intimately aware of this.
Chief Flynn is definitely anti-gun or at least anti-RKBA. He does not support a Concealed Carry permit system because he respects the Right To Bear Arms. He proposed to use a regulated system as a carrot or more accurately a bargaining chip to get more restrictive gun legislation passed. He proposed that in exchange for a permit system, that concealed carry without a permit be made a felony offense. He proposed to eliminate all private firearm transfers in Wisconsin. He proposed a 1000ft felon free zone around gun stores. He wants a sin tax on semiautomatic firearms.
As was pointed out, no cases of anyone being proned out at gunpoint have actually occured since Chief Flynn made that off-the-cuff statement and he has since softened his rhetoric somewhat. I would not want his job. There is alot of violent crime and guns are used for crimes a fair amount in Milwaukee. What I believe he needs to understand is that law abiding adults with guns are not part of the problem. The WI State Constitution affirms our right to bear arms for far more than just the hunting that Chef Flynn and Governor Doyle believe guns are for.

Article I, Section 25: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

[Bigdaddy1]

Wow, some information even I was unsure of. I have some more reading to catch up on.

[121Traffic]

Here in Iowa, a permit is required to carry whether it be concealed or not. There are exceptions to this such as for hunting and trapping. If open carry were legal without a permit, then you are right that there would be no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and there would be no grounds to stop on that basis only.

A detention at that point would violate the 4th amendment. I was using my state as an example, since that is what I am familiar with.

Covman

Not trying to ruffled your feathers, but even if a permit is required by your state, what reasonable suspicion would you have to believe a crime is being committed by an open carrier? Remember, absent any articulation on your part, it's not my burden to prove I'm acting within the law...it's the state's burden to prove I'm breaking it.

Yes, driving and RKBA are different in that one is a granted privilege and one is a right, but the comparison applies in this case...when I'm driving, you can't just pull me over to check my license status.

[covman454]

121, you bring up a good point, but if you have an offensive weapon on your person or in your possession, then you are required to present to law enforcement that permit upon demand. In other words, if I see you carrying a firearm and I, as an LEO, walk up to you and ask for your permit, you must present it to me for inspection. To keep myself out of court I know that I need a reason to ask, such as a complaint or a criminal offense or I need to be able to articulate my reasons for asking. If you do not present your permit, you will forfeit it and most likely be taken into custody for violating this section. Iowa is pretty liberal in handing out the permits, but there is a class that must be taken and you must show profiency in your marksmanship before you can get one. The code section that I pulled these from is rather long, otherwise I would have posted it in its entirety.

We really don't have a lot of issues with people carrying weapons because most of them never pop up onto law enforcement's radar. The biggest problem we have is that all the non-professional carry permits have a limitation that states they are not valid when the carrier is under the influence of an intoxicant or is in an establishment that serves alcohol and some of them forget that little limitation.

This code section defines offensive weapons and the penalities and also the exemptions to the law.

Chapter 724, Iowa code:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.

This next portion deals with expemtions to the law:

i. A person who has in the person's possession and who displays to a peace officer on demand a valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose conduct is within the limits of that permit. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of this section if the person produces at the person's trial a permit to carry weapons which was valid at the time of the alleged offense and which would have brought the person's conduct within this exception if the permit had been produced at the time of the alleged offense.

The unfortunate thing for us is there is no database for who does and who does not have permits. If we did, then life would be a lot easier. We can get the information during bankers hours.

Covman

[berserk]

Well when a "man with a gun" or similar call is dispatched, the cavalry rolls. I normally don't bring my crystal ball to work with me. I suppose I should though, I could clear calls like that without even responding to them. We don't know when 911 rings if the call is legit. I've gone to barking dog calls when the dog isn't barking, "noise complaints" that turn out to be shots fired or a domestic, and non-injury car accidents that turn out to be fatals. So when a member of the general public (who isn't accustomed to seeing a guy in jeans and a tshirt walking around with a gun on his hip) calls in screaming there's a man with a gun at Valley View Mall, everyone is coming. Blame the public, not us.

I don't run code to "man with a gun" calls unless there is a crime alleged. People who do run code to those calls are not welcome on the call if I am the primary officer. I don't need the kind of guy who assumes that every gun is a crime to come along and fuck up my calls.

The public can run screaming like idiots all they want, I'm still going to respect the rights of the people who I contact (or don't contact).

[lewisipso]

I don't run code to "man with a gun" calls unless there is a crime alleged. People who do run code to those calls are not welcome on the call if I am the primary officer. I don't need the kind of guy who assumes that every gun is a crime to come along and fuck up my calls.

The public can run screaming like idiots all they want, I'm still going to respect the rights of the people who I contact (or don't contact).

This is just a question and nothing more. In this day and age would it not make sense to at least hustle, code if officer deems necessary, to a weapon call? A truck load of information may be lost in transference from caller to E911, to dispatch, to officer, which is how we receive calls. A "man with a gun" call could very well be an active shooter that's moments away from happening. It could be someone carrying a gun across an adjacent parking lot to a gun smith. It could be anything.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying blast, code three, through school zones with nun crossing guards but some of my guys could easily be 10 miles or better away from location of incident. I'm going to respect rights as well but I would feel more comfortable making the determination that a "man with a gun" call is just someone exercising open carry or the like. Or unless the call is clarified through some other form of satisfactory measure.

[121Traffic]

I don't run code to "man with a gun" calls unless there is a crime alleged. People who do run code to those calls are not welcome on the call if I am the primary officer. I don't need the kind of guy who assumes that every gun is a crime to come along and fuck up my calls.

The public can run screaming like idiots all they want, I'm still going to respect the rights of the people who I contact (or don't contact).

Where in anywhere in jmur's post did he even mention running code? He just said the everyone's coming. Yes, I know you work for a large agency where "everyone" means something close to 20 cops per district. I would say jmur's comment is reasonable if "everyone" means 4 or 5 or even 6 cops, most of whom are coming to back you up to make sure you go home at EOW. Nowhere did he mention anything about anyone coming to "fuck up" your call. Besides...even if I'm rolling routine to the call, and might not even talk to the subject in question if he isn't doing anything illegal, I like knowing that "everyone" is at least heading my way in case we are dealing with a shithead. If you don't agree with me on that point, you and I have very different priorities.

[jmur5074]

I don't run code to "man with a gun" calls unless there is a crime alleged. People who do run code to those calls are not welcome on the call if I am the primary officer. I don't need the kind of guy who assumes that every gun is a crime to come along and fuck up my calls.

The public can run screaming like idiots all they want, I'm still going to respect the rights of the people who I contact (or don't contact).

Not only did I not mention "running code" like 121 said, I never said anything about disrespecting the rights of the people I contact.

But when a "man with a gun" call is dispatched, I see no problem with getting everyone coming (and where I work, "everyone is 4-6 officers). Considering my safety, the safety of my co-workers, and the safety of the general public, I'd rather get there quickly and find out it's a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm than take my time, or go alone, to find out its a mental case on his way up the bell tower to hunt people.

I'm sure glad I don't work with you.

[Jks9199]

If it's a simple "man with a gun" call, with no other evidence of illegal activity, my view is that it absolutely is a direct, rapid response -- but not an emergency. I work in a smaller agency, and I don't mind if most of the guys on the street respond to the area, but I only want one or maybe two as backup. The others can be close, but I don't need to turn a relatively simple call into a giant scene, either. Like anything else -- everything turns on the particulars of the call. If there's other indications of illegal activity (brandishing the gun, drug dealing, drunkenness, whatever)... that changes things.

Maybe it's just because open carry is legal in Virginia, hunting is legal and not uncommon, even in relatively urban or suburban area... but I don't automatically assume a guy with a gun call is an automatic crime call. Take it seriously, go in prepared and cautious -- but don't go running around like you're about to take down Bin Laden, either.

[MacLean]

Our dispatchers are pretty good at screening out man with a gun calls.

Is he doing anything other than carrying it in a holster? No? Thank you for calling, but that isn't a crime.

[berserk]

lewis:
If your guys are coming from that far away, then it makes sense for them to run code to a lot of calls that I wouldn't even hustle to. As far as "man with a gun" calls go, if the guy is shooting the gun, threatening someone with it, or even just waving it around or otherwise acting the fool then I say bring as many guys as you can as fast as they can get there.

I'm not trying to say that we should never run code to armed parties, just that the mere fact that someone has a gun (absent any allegation of a crime) is not a reason to run code. There's no crime, there's no emergency, there's no reason to break out the more dangerous driving.

We get a lot of calls for things like "there's a man with a gun sitting at the bus stop," or "there's a man who is walking through the mall and he's got a gun on his belt." Calm people, not causing a problem, and no allegation of anything suspicious.

121, jmur:
"The cavalry rolls" must have a very different meaning for you guys than it does for me. I've never heard of an all-cars-go that gets a routine response, but whatever. I'm not criticizing officers who roll by to check on their buddy's calls, either.

If you guys don't have any officers on your watch who you would just as soon keep off of all your calls, then you are truly fortunate. I work with a lot of really top-notch officers, but there are also several who will show up on my calls, make a lot of bizarre mistakes, create issues, and then leave me in the position of trying to unfuck what should have been a simple problem. Whether it's bad tactics, making up their own search & seizure laws as they go along, or just forcing issues that don't need to be forced, some people do more harm than good. 121, I don't know what your priorities are, but I'm not interested in the kind of help that makes my job more complicated and more dangerous.

MacLean:
Maybe your dispatchers could put on a class for our dispatchers.

[countybear]

This thread has been completely and irrevocably de-railed.

LEO's please feel free to move your discussion to the appropriate area.

Locked.