OCer harassed in Connecticut Subway

[JettaKnight]

t is my understanding that in Indiana, and ONLY in Indiana for purpose of this comment, it is illegal on its face to carry a handgun without a LTCH. Ergo, LE IS allowed to stop and question you regarding your being so licensed when they notice you are carrying a handgun.

How does this logic square with operating a motor vehicle? It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle without a valid license, ergo LE is allowed to stop and question anyone driving? Even in the absence of other suspect/illegal activity?

It doesn't square, hence the reason we, for the most part, don't agree with it.

Is operating a motor vehicle w/o a license a felony? I don't believe so. However, carrying a handgun w/o one is. So...

 

[stephen87]

I read that exactly oppositely of the way that you do.

I found a case which states the open carry of a firearm is NOT RAS. Therefore, by that judges ruling this could have easily turned into an illegal stop. I'm trying to find the name of the defendant, the transcript I found blanked out the name of the defendant.

Http://www.ctcarry.com/permits/unconcealed if you open the link in RAS it's the court case. I'm on my phone now, so when I get home I'll try to find the case.

 

[stephen87]

It doesn't square, hence the reason we, for the most part, don't agree with it.

Is operating a motor vehicle w/o a license a felony? I don't believe so. However, carrying a handgun w/o one is. So...

Not only that, SCOTUS has ruled that an officer may not stop the driver of a motor vehicle just to see if he is licensed.

 

[Libertarian01]

I found a case which states the open carry of a firearm is NOT RAS. Therefore, by that judges ruling this could have easily turned into an illegal stop. I'm trying to find the name of the defendant, the transcript I found blanked out the name of the defendant.

Http://www.ctcarry.com/permits/unconcealed if you open the link in RAS it's the court case. I'm on my phone now, so when I get home I'll try to find the case.

Not arguing at all, but I want to point out that this is in Connecticut, for those not paying close attention.

That is why I limited my comments to Indiana alone, and nowhere else.

Doug

 

[stephen87]

Correct, the issues Chipbennett and I are discussing is limited to CT and have the same standing in Indiana that my LTCH has in California which is absolutely ZERO.

 

[2A_Tom]

I am following both sides. It is not a bad idea to clarify the difference for noobs.

 

[stephen87]

*CT case law in bound*

http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/ef032fa9-0013-4801-bcfc-eefde7244cfa

Page 47 specifically addresses RAS. In the court's opinion, the carry of a firearm does not constitute RAS and therefore the stop and subsequent arrest of this individual was illegal and thrown out.

 

[chipbennett]

t is my understanding that in Indiana, and ONLY in Indiana for purpose of this comment, it is illegal on its face to carry a handgun without a LTCH. Ergo, LE IS allowed to stop and question you regarding your being so licensed when they notice you are carrying a handgun.

How does this logic square with operating a motor vehicle? It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle without a valid license, ergo LE is allowed to stop and question anyone driving? Even in the absence of other suspect/illegal activity?

Driving a vehicle is not per se unlawful. In Indiana, carrying a handgun is per se unlawful.

 

[chipbennett]

*CT case law in bound*

http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/ef032fa9-0013-4801-bcfc-eefde7244cfa

Page 47 specifically addresses RAS. In the court's opinion, the carry of a firearm does not constitute RAS and therefore the stop and subsequent arrest of this individual was illegal and thrown out.

Excellent find!

 

[stephen87]

SOrry I can't find a real name for it. That one has all kinds of name retractions in it.

 

[17 squirrel]

It all goes out the window as soon as one of the LEO's that showed up believed he had reasonable suspicion to question the man walking around town looking into businesses storefronts. That's why multiple business owners called in MWAG..
Reasonable Suspicion instantly is a game changer.

 

[stephen87]

RAS only goes so far. Is it illegal to look in storefronts? If not, then this officer STILL had no reason to demand to see his permit. These encounters were solely intimidation tactics. The fact that they let him walk without looking at any form of ID tells me that they KNEW the had no legal leg to stand on and were attempting to bully this man into complying.

/IANAL

 

[17 squirrel]

RAS only goes so far. Is it illegal to look in storefronts? If not, then this officer STILL had no reason to demand to see his permit. These encounters were solely intimidation tactics. The fact that they let him walk without looking at any form of ID tells me that they KNEW the had no legal leg to stand on and were attempting to bully this man into complying.

/IANAL

How do we know that ??? Was this just not a reporters opinion***, we definitely don't know everything that happened..
How do we know that he wasn't constantly grabbing his Rosco ?? Maybe he was acting silly and mumbling to himself 911 zoom zoom crash, while holding old rosco, we just don't know...
We were not there, we have no idea how he was acting walking around town..
He should have just shown his permit and everyone would have been on their way unmolested in short order.

 

[WarJunky91]

How do we know that ??? Was this just not a reporters opinion***, we definitely don't know everything that happened..
How do we know that he wasn't constantly grabbing his Rosco ?? Maybe he was acting silly and mumbling to himself 911 zoom zoom crash, while holding old rosco, we just don't know...
We were not there, we have no idea how he was acting walking around town..
He should have just shown his permit and everyone would have been on their way unmolested in short order.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?

 

[stephen87]

How do we know that ??? Was this just not a reporters opinion***, we definitely don't know everything that happened..
How do we know that he wasn't constantly grabbing his Rosco ?? Maybe he was acting silly and mumbling to himself 911 zoom zoom crash, while holding old rosco, we just don't know...
We were not there, we have no idea how he was acting walking around town..
He should have just shown his permit and everyone would have been on their way unmolested in short order.

Is grabbing his 'rosco' a crime? Is acting silly and mumbling a crime? If so, why was he not placed in handcuffs? Why was he free to leave of his own accord, sans Subway? Why should he have to obey an illegal request/order? Why did the police demand to see ID and when he refused they sent him on his merry way? Something is not adding up and the video is pretty damning. Again, not a lawyer, but having watched both videos of these events and reading a little bit of case law, ,in my non-professional opinion, the things that the police did were pure harrassment, intimidation, and bullying. These officers should be, at the very least, retrained and reprimanded. Especially the officer who got in the gentleman's face and forced him to leave.

So, if it were legal, you would have no problem with being stopped simply to check for a DL? You would be okay with being stopped in the middle of the night while driving home to make sure you haven't been drinking? You are okay with being stopped to make sure that you have not stolen your own vehicle? You see what I'm getting at? All of those things are illegal actions that require RAS to be stopped, however you being behind the wheel of that car does not create RAS. Per the case law that I submitted, in the state of CT, the same applies to a firearm. The simple act of open carry does not create RAS and therefore their encounter does NOT meet the standard of a legal detainment and he was free to leave of his own accord.

 

[chipbennett]

It all goes out the window as soon as one of the LEO's that showed up believed he had reasonable suspicion to question the man walking around town looking into businesses storefronts. That's why multiple business owners called in MWAG..
Reasonable Suspicion instantly is a game changer.

What is the specific, articulable, unlawful activity involved with waling around town looking into business storefronts?

 

[chipbennett]

How do we know that ??? Was this just not a reporters opinion***, we definitely don't know everything that happened..
How do we know that he wasn't constantly grabbing his Rosco ?? Maybe he was acting silly and mumbling to himself 911 zoom zoom crash, while holding old rosco, we just don't know...
We were not there, we have no idea how he was acting walking around town..

What we do or don't know is utterly irrelevant. What the police officers knew or did not know is utterly irrelevant. All that is relevant is the specific, reasonable, suspicion of unlawful activity that the police officers could articulate to justify their actions. In this case, the police did not articulate anything about reports of someone grabbing his firearm, acting silly, mumbling to himself, etc. The only thing the police articulated was that the person was openly carrying a firearm.

He should have just shown his permit and everyone would have been on their way unmolested in short order.

If he wasn't doing anything unlawful, and the police couldn't articulate specific, reasonable suspicion that he was doing anything unlawful, then they can take their demand to show his permit, and pound sand.