Gun On the Street

Hownowcow wrote: »

From what I saw on the video, the police received a report that there was a guy walking around with a gun. I believe that they had a duty to investigate the report. I believe they did investigate the report and satisified themselves that there was no threat to anyone or unlawful behaviour.

There are probably less intrusive ways of doing this.

There was a determined push by the open carry movement in San Diego over the last few years to desensitize the citizenry and police to people wearing firearms (Especially since CCW is not routinely issued, so the only way to be armed was openly). So, they'd be found in the Gaslamp district, walking the beach boardwalk, down the restaurants etc. This wasn't, as Palmy suggests, specifically to provoke a reaction. Though they knew they would probably get one, it wasn't the end goal.

They were nice enough to notify the police when they were having their meetings (again, expecting a reaction). When they first started, sure enough, the calls came in, and the police were dispatched, stopped the citizens, and investigated. Eventually, SDPD had enough of the calls, and simply dispatched an officer or two to always hang around the group, so that citizens would see they didn't need to call the cops all the time. (See http://www.calgunlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wolanyk.jpg , notice background) Finally, SDPD realized that there were probably better things for their officers to be doing than babysitting a group of people who were going out to lunch for a couple of hours, and they started letting the dispatchers filter the calls. The conversation would go like this:
"911"
"There are people with guns standing out front of Starbucks"
"Is it a robbery?"
"No, but they have guns"
"Are they threatening anyone? Are they shouting? Are they brandishing the guns?"
"No"
"Are they wearing guns in their holsters?"
"Yes."
"Sir/Ma'am, it's legal."
"It is?!"
"Yes, Sir/Ma'am."
"Are you going to send anyone?"
"No, Sir/Ma'am. We're not going to send an officer to check on people who are acting legally"

Man-with-gun calls can be handled that way, by simply driving by and looking as aaakev described, it is not necessary to actually stop someone to evaluate a call.

Exactly, I never understood why people open carry, if you can get CCW do it, you don't even need one in AZ, everybody can conceal.

One advantage to openly carrying in AZ... Given the weather in the summer, it can be a bit tricky to effectively conceal without having to wear enough clothing to make you stand out or give you heatstroke. Happily, open carry is legal in AZ for those who don't want to worry about if their sidearm is effectively hidden under their T-shirt and shorts.

No good can come from having your gun on display

Although California is a minority case (as one of six 'shall-issue' States), it is quite likely that the open carry movement here has achieved a fair bit of good. As it currently stands, Sheriffs have full discretion over whether or not to grant you a Statewide CCW permit. Some require that you have a pulse, others that you donated to their election campaign. A lawsuit last year failed on the grounds that the Judge believed that as it was legal to openly carry a weapon (with ammo on your belt), it met the requirement to allow citizens to be armed, and the CCW issuance system was let stand. The open carry movement, particularly in LA and Sacramento, was very effective in garnering negative press (Unlike San Diego, where it went generally unremarked), and the State legislature eventually banned the practice a few months ago. Under the legal precedent now set, it is believed that California shall now become a shall-issue State, after the next court case which is currently in the system is decided. This was a known likely outcome when the open carry movement rejuvenated a few years ago: Most of us would prefer to carry concealed, if given a choice. (I was turned down by my Sheriff, for example. Apparently as an Army officer with a top secret security clearance and 'expert' marksmanship scores, I don't meet her standards for a permit)

Tell you what buddy if want to be a big man and are so concerned about your legal rights go serve your country

Well, it hasn't done me any good in the firearms respect. Secondly, last I checked, service isn't a pre-requisite to being concerned about your rights. thirdly, I'm not alone. This one came over the wire about a month ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-with-soldiers-in-area-around-fort-hood-video/

Fort Hood sergeant (in civvies) and his son are out to go hunting. AR-15 (or similar) on shoulder. Police are called, and intercept him. High point of conversation (if you don't want to bother with the video)

"When you alarm people, and they call us then we come and investigate"
"And did you explain to them what the law is, sir?”
"They don’t care what the law is”
"Do you care what the law is?”
"In this day and age, they’re alarmed when they see somebody with what you have"
"Just because a guy has got a firearm, he’s dangerous?"
"Yes, sir."

This is the wrong attitude. If the citizenry have a problem with something, they have their own mechanisms of addressing it. Getting the police involved when people are legally minding their own business is a mockery of the concept of people who take an effort to research and follow the law, instead pandering to the ignorant.

Systemic Risk wrote: »

It seems crazy however, that this man can walk through a city street with gun in hand and not be asked to prove he holds it legally and to provide a licence/permit or even an id card.

Why?

It is estimated that there are some 2 million unlicensed drivers in California alone (and about 24 million licensed). In other words, just under one in ten people in California are driving illegally. They are almost three times as likely to have an accident as a licensed driver (according to CA DMV), and cars kill more people in the US than firearms do. Is it reasonable for police to start randomly pulling people over to see if they have a driver's license? After all, if they have one, it only takes a minute or two, and 2,800 people were killed on California's roads in 2011. Doing some quick maths, finding those illegal drivers would save some 500 lives a year.

But no. It is an established law that police in the US cannot arbitrarily pull people over absent any evidence of wrongdoing. If you have done nothing wrong, and have given no indication of doing anything wrong, then you should enjoy the priviliges of protection against search and detention.

The courts have addressed this for firearms as well. The Supreme Court, for example, has ruled that police may not search a man not displaying a weapon, even if an anonymous tip came in explicitly identifying him as having one.

More directly on point, the 4th Circuit last month (One level below the Supreme Court) unanimously ruled that carrying a gun in a place where it is legal to do so is not sufficient grounds to stop the firearms holder.

Excerpt:

The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. Additionally, the Government avers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "go about their business while allowing a stranger in their midst to possess a firearm." We are not persuaded.
Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections
for lawfully armed individuals in those states.

The 4th Circuit covers North and South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.

The 3rd Circuit ruled in a similar case in 2000, that covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. (And the Virgin Islands, where the case originated). In this case, the court stated

This situation is no different than if Lockhart had told the officers that Ubiles possessed a wallet, a perfectly legal act in the Virgin Islands, and the
authorities had stopped him for this reason. Though a search of that wallet
may have revealed counterfeit bills-the possession of which is a crime under
United States law, see 18 U.S.C. § 471-72-the officers would have had no
justification to stop Ubiles based merely on information that he possessed a
wallet

Going further back, the 10th Circuit in 1993 also found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.

Although that leaves still 37 States where Federal courts have not issued an opinion, State courts have also issued rulings, so I know you can add Washington, Arizona, Georgia Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Florida to the list that this issue has been settled.

Had he been a criminal planning to use the gun in a violent crime this act alone could have discouraged him.

Had he been a criminal planning to use a gun in a violent crime, he could also have concealed his firearm and avoided police interference that way too.

Fair play to the police men in this situation. They ascertained that the man was not a threat and let him on his way. I hope the man's attitude does not put them off approaching and questioning all persons with carrying guns.

I doubt it will.
The question is if the courts will do so.

One of the you tube comments was from a person from that city and he said that if a person wants to carry a legally held firearm in public, then it must not be concealed. It must be held in plain view unless that person has a special permit to conceal. I would feel very nervous in a situation where I saw a person walking towards me with a gun in hand, especially if I know that the police have no power to even check for a permit.

Again, the people you want to be nervous about tend to carry their firearms concealed. Usually because they're prohibited from carrying one in the first place. The courts have left the open or concealed debate up to the various State legislatures, as they can best decide which is the best method to permit in their State. The 'traditional' view is that carrying concealed weapons is the act of scoundrels and miscreants, lawfully armed people have nothing to hide. The 'modern' view is that guns scare people, and in the interests of not panicking people, weapons should be concealed.

That said, most States don't care, and permit either/or.

NTM