Open Carry... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry...


FBGV60
01-23-2007, 13:09
I was interested in open carry laws in MI... I found an awsome thread that explained alot using search. However I am unclear as to what the laws are regarding open carry. Are you telling me that i had to take a 95 dollar Protection in the home class so i could get my CCW. When all i really had to do is open carry? There is no permit required to strap my 23 on and go outside? I ask because i think it would be nice to have my 23 while hunting. But I am 3 months from graduating and I am going into Law Enforcement. Though im leaving the state because there are no jobs i still would hate to have problems 3 months before i look for jobs!


Thanx in advance!

Scooter70
01-23-2007, 15:44
The way it was explained to me is this: While there is no state statute forbidding open carry, almost every city/town in SE MI has their own local statutes against it. So while you're not breaking any federal or state laws, you could (probably) be violating a local one. There have been a few discussions here in the MI forum and I think the general consensus is that concealed is better. Why advertise to the bad guy that you're carrying? Why frighten the little old lady at the grocery store who's "scared of guns" so she calls the cops to tell them that there's a "guy with a gun" in Meijer.

Bumpadrum
01-23-2007, 15:52
Open carry may or may not be "legal", but it is always going to bring a hassle. Always, at least in Michigan.
My one personal association with an open carry situation came when a local decided to mow his lawn with an AR slung over his
shoulder and a .45 on his hip. It ended real bad, especially for one LEO. Keep it covered.

10 Ring Tao
01-23-2007, 18:21
Originally posted by Bumpadrum
Open carry may or may not be "legal", but it is always going to bring a hassle. Always, at least in Michigan.
My one personal association with an open carry situation came when a local decided to mow his lawn with an AR slung over his
shoulder and a .45 on his hip. It ended real bad, especially for one LEO. Keep it covered.

Do tell the rest...

GIJoeCam
01-23-2007, 18:29
Indeed, while it's not illegal, it's going to draw a lot of unneeded and unwanted attention.

I recall hearing a story a few years back about a guy that walked into a Meijers carrying unconcealed in a thigh holster. It wasn't fun... he quoted chapter and verse and had copies of the Michigan laws in his pockets to show the police... the bottom line was that he got a slap on the wrist for disorderly conduct and signed a statement that he would not return to a Meijers again.

As for carrying while hunting, it's not entirely legal... the DNR allows CCW holders to carry concealed while afield as long as no attempt is made to use it to take game with it. I'm not sure about carrying unconcealed without a CCW though... My initial thought is that the DNR would not allow it...

I'll have to peruse the DNR web site I guess...

-Joe

10 Ring Tao
01-23-2007, 18:49
Originally posted by GIJoeCam
I'm not sure about carrying unconcealed without a CCW though... My initial thought is that the DNR would not allow it...

In the FAQ you mention, they say that open carry is ok so long as its obvious you aren't trying to take game. They warn that should you put on a coat or other garment that could cover it, you'd then be concealing it, and in legal peril.

GIJoeCam
01-23-2007, 19:43
I found part of it...

http://michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10953--,00.html
3. Do I need a concealed pistol permit to carry my pistols while walking through the woods near my cabin in Michigan? If not, are there any restrictions on how or where the gun is carried?

MCL 28.422 No license is needed to carry a pistol as long as it is exposed. However, should a person cover the pistol during inclement weather with a jacket or coat or get into a vehicle, the pistol would be concealed, and the carrier would place himself in jeopardy unless he possessed a concealed pistol permit. Per Attorney General's opinion #3158 dated February 14, 1945, a holster, in plain view, is not considered concealed. Department of Natural Resources regulations require a person to have a valid Michigan hunting license if in an area inhabited by wildlife, while in possession of a firearm.

But I think there was another part of the rules that covers hunting with a concealed handgun....

Here's one that confirms it from the hunting rules...

License Requirement - Possession of Firearms and Bows and Arrows
A person taking or attempting to take game and in possession of a firearm, slingshot or bow and arrow must have the appropriate hunting license with them and must produce the license upon the request of a conservation officer or other law enforcement officer.
A hunting license is not required when target practicing or sighting-in a firearm at an identifiable, artificially constructed target, and there is no attempt to take game. A hunting license is not required for the carrying of a pistol for personal protection by a camper, hiker or person engaged in other recreational activities if there is no attempt to take game.

But I thought there was something else... I want to say it was specific to bow season....

Found it!!
http://michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37706-31578--,00.html
Archery Deer Seasons
During the archery deer seasons, it is illegal to carry afield a pistol, revolver or other firearm while bow hunting for deer, unless the individual is properly licensed to hunt deer with a firearm and is hunting in an area open to firearm deer hunting.
Exceptions: This prohibition does not apply to pistols carried under authority of a concealed pistol license or properly carried under authority of a specific exception from the requirement of a concealed pistol license. This does not authorize the individual to use the pistol to take game except as provided by law. During special antlerless firearm deer seasons, a firearm hunter may carry afield a bow and arrow or firearm.


The way I read it, during rifle season or any other time, you'd be fine carrying unconcealed. During bow season, you've better have a CCW to have the pistol with you.

Now, if you're wandering through the woods not attempting to take game during bow season (which is usually a bad idea on state land anyways), I guess you would be legal to carry unconcealed, but I dunno... could end up in a gray area....

-Joe

Bumpadrum
01-24-2007, 09:16
Originally posted by 10 Ring Tao
Do tell the rest...
OK. I was working as a TV news cameraman. Heard a 'man with a gun' call on the scanner. Downtown Traverse City, in the mansion district. I got there right after the Officer and parked around the corner. The Officer was on the sidewalk talking to the homeowner, who was about 60 feet away and behind his lawnmower. He was telling the Officer, Sgt. Dennis Finch, that it was "his right " to mow the lawn with any weapon he wanted slung over his shoulder. When he saw me shooting video he walked up onto his porch. Sgt. Finch followed him but maintained his distance. They talked for more than an hour. They had known each other for over 20 years due to the homeowners numerous run-ins with the law. This gave me the opportunity to shoot many close-ups, clearly identifying the weapons and John, the homeowner. It also allowed City and County law enforcement to close the neighborhood and circle the house, with me inside the perimiter. At one point John rolled a cigarette and tried to light up with a wooden match. Too windy so he turned his back. For some reason Sgt. Finch saw this as a chance to end the situation. He charged up the stairs but John got around with the AR-15 and ripped off a mag. At this point all the officers surrounding opened up. My tape shows approximately 177 rounds being fired in the initial contact.
Sgt. Finch was hit 10-15 times, starting at his foot, up his leg and across his chest. The closest officer (a female hero) started talking to Sgt Finch and John immediately. Sgt. Finch can clearly be heard saying "I'm ok but I think I'm dying". Then 2 Sheriffs Deputys just charge the porch and drag Sgt. Finch to safety. A police sniper eventually shot John, twice in the chest with an AR, and they eventually dragged him out. Alive.
Sgt. Dennis Finch died that day after 30 years on the job.
I testified in the murder trial and my video put John away for good. He had found out my name, so everytime I covered him perp walking he always screamed at me personally, insisting that I doctored the tape. It made for good TV. The video went up on the bird, worldwide, and when I called the #1 TV station in Detroit they hired me on the phone when I told them that it was my video. But I digress.
Anytime you open carry you will inevitability frighten the sheep, which will alert the sheepdogs.
LEO's will ALWAYS make contact with you if you do it.

10 Ring Tao
01-24-2007, 12:17
And the sad thing is, all he wanted was to be left alone. If they had done that, none of those horrible things would have happened.

Bikenut
01-24-2007, 12:55
Originally posted by Bumpadrum
Anytime you open carry you will inevitability frighten the sheep, which will alert the sheepdogs.
LEO's will ALWAYS make contact with you if you do it.

And not frightening the sheep is a reason to not exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right? I think NOT! The problem is the sheep need to be exposed to the sight of openly carried guns very often so they can get over their paranoid fear of inanimate objects.

No one has the right to not be frightened, or annoyed, or angered, by seeing a gun. But the right to bear arms IS a right. Those who do feel unjustified fear at the sight of a legally carried firearm need to spend some time talking to a psychiatrist... because THEY are the one with a problem. And I am not responsible for making sure other people aren't bothered by their own problems.

Bumpadrum
01-24-2007, 16:47
Originally posted by 10 Ring Tao
And the sad thing is, all he wanted was to be left alone. If they had done that, none of those horrible things would have happened.

In this case the man was a drug-addled trust fund baby with an ax to grind. I am proud of my part in putting him in prison for the rest of his life.

wizzi01
01-24-2007, 16:58
Originally posted by Bumpadrum
In this case the man was a drug-addled trust fund baby with an ax to grind. I am proud of my part in putting him in prison for the rest of his life.

So because you think he was "drug-addled" and jealous he had a trust fund he should be put in jail for the rest of his life? I mean we do have rights. Hell I can open carrry on my property in Detroit. If the officer would have just let him be he would not have been shot by his fellow officers. Also, do not think I hate cops. I have life long friends that are officers.

mike23
01-24-2007, 21:47
I must be missing something. What occurred to justify the use of deadly force by the homeowner against Sgt Finch?

I support unabridged rights under the 2nd amendment but this idiot isn't the poster boy I want representing me.

10 Ring Tao
01-25-2007, 00:49
Originally posted by Bumpadrum
In this case the man was a drug-addled trust fund baby with an ax to grind. I am proud of my part in putting him in prison for the rest of his life.

Of course, I was only speaking in the context of him mowing his lawn on his own property at that time.

Just like the woman who got tackled in new orleans, in the context of that encounter, if the cops had just left them alone, everything would have turned out just fine.


Originally posted by mike23
I must be missing something. What occurred to justify the use of deadly force by the homeowner against Sgt Finch?

I support unabridged rights under the 2nd amendment but this idiot isn't the poster boy I want representing me.

True, definitely not a desired poster boy.

However, the other important question to ask, is why was that kind of escalation necessary in the first place? Why couldn't he have been convinced to just put the guns in the house, and a ticket written to make the responders feel like they didn't just walk away without giving some kind of punishment?

If officer safety is really their number one goal, then let the guy make his nonviolent point on his own property. Don't force a situation into one where people with guns, who aren't technically doing anything wrong, are being tackled.

mike23
01-25-2007, 06:58
Originally posted by 10 Ring Tao
Of course, I was only speaking in the context of him mowing his lawn on his own property at that time.

Just like the woman who got tackled in new Orleans, in the context of that encounter, if the cops had just left them alone, everything would have turned out just fine.




True, definitely not a desired poster boy.

However, the other important question to ask, is why was that kind of escalation necessary in the first place? Why couldn't he have been convinced to just put the guns in the house, and a ticket written to make the responders feel like they didn't just walk away without giving some kind of punishment?

If officer safety is really their number one goal, then let the guy make his nonviolent point on his own property. Don't force a situation into one where people with guns, who aren't technically doing anything wrong, are being tackled.


The lawnmower dude had no justification for using lethal force. Any support I might have for him to open carry on his own property ceased when he became violent.

Bikenut
01-25-2007, 10:38
Originally posted by mike23
The lawnmower dude had no justification for using lethal force. Any support I might have for him to open carry on his own property ceased when he became violent.

Actually the lawnmower dude's open carry and his stupid attack upon the officer are two seperate and individual issues. The open carry had nothing to do with the attack other than the gun being available to use during the attack.

We have to be careful to be able to differentiate between the gun and the actions. The lawnmower dude was a loose cannon to begin with (my assumption from his having a history of interaction with police) and his capability of violence was there anyway... regardless of if he had any gun with him at the time.

Anti gun folks love to connect any violent actions to the tool used during that violence. The plain truth is the lawnmower dude would have done something stupid anyway... gun or no gun. And the open carry had nothing to do with his stupid attack on a police officer. After all... he could have have not been open carrying and instead used a gun he might have had just inside the door. The results would have been the same... a violent man used a gun against a police officer without legal justification.

Where the gun was is immaterial. What is important is that a violent criminal attacked an officer without justification... the tool used, or where that tool was, has nothing to do with it at all. Punish the criminal... not the tool, the use of the tool, or where the tool was before use.

Please do not think that the above post means I have any support for the lawnmower dude's actions... I most certainly do NOT! But I do support his right to open carry and because that is a right there should have been (assuming that the open carry is all that was going on) absolutely no interaction from police just for legal open carry. To my mind... assuming open carry was legal where this all took place... the person the cop should have been talking to was whoever made the 911 "man with a gun" call explaining that the lawnmower dude was not breaking any laws... and to get over it.

Please bear in mind I'm addressing a general overview of this incident and I'm sure there are more details as to why the officer decided to take the actions he did... but the simple act of open carry should not have caused any interaction with the police.... or anyone for that matter.

Toxie
01-25-2007, 11:49
And the sad thing is, all he wanted was to be left alone. If they had done that, none of those horrible things would have happened.


Actually, you are mistaken. His wearing weapons like that is ASKING for the attention. That was (obviously) the point. Every other person on this board has already stated that they expect to be hassled if they open carry, do you really think that he didn't either? It is obvious that he was attempting to force a confrontation. Add to that possible mental problems and/or drug use and you have someone who isn't stable to begin with, and he probably should't have been in possession of a gun to BEGIN with.


Your crusade to villanise the police blinds you to that fact that not everyone is like YOU (law abiding and mentally stable). Do a search for Sgt. Dennis Finch and John Clark. John CLark is like timothy mcveigh. Unable to settle matters in a socially acceptable fashon.

Link to the ****bag:
****BAG (http://www.state.mi.us/mdoc/asp/otis2profile.asp?mdocNumber=278785)

10 Ring Tao
01-25-2007, 12:23
As I said before, my comments were only in the context of him openly carrying on that day. I merely posed the question, that if officer safety were really the number one priority, why was it all escalated as it was? What would have happened if he had been left alone, and his cry for attention not appeased like a misbehaving child?

And my words you see as attempted villanizing, are only directed at situations where a precedent is expressed that makes my life as a law abiding citizen more difficult.


I understand positive reinforcement. (http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=7572650#post7572650)

GIJoeCam
01-25-2007, 13:18
Some of you have decried the officer's actions, and anyone can explain what went wrong and why. However, my question would be, "What would you consider the 'proper' response for the officer to the report of a person mowing his lawn with an assault rifle over his shoulder?"

When an officer responds, is it unreasonable for him to ask you to put down the weapon while he talks to you? I'm not a PO and I don't play one on TV, but I don't feel that's an unreasonable request, private property or not. As PO entering that situation, I don't know what's going on or why, all I know is that I've got a a person wearing a weapon that can kill me, and a duty to investigate it. I don't think a peacable request to drop the weapon for the duration of the investigation is unreasonable. Any reasonable person will comply at that point. This guy was, obviously, neither rational nor reasonable.

Now, once the officer has made the request, and the civilian has refused to comply, now what? Was it the officer's duty turn around, walk away, and say, "well, he's not *technically* doing anything illegal, so I'll just let him cut his grass?" I don't think so.

So, now you have a standoff. A person disobeying the direct order of a police officer, and a civilian who doesn't think he's done anything wrong. Again, rational and reasonable people wouldn't likely allow it to get to that point, and wouldn't continue to escalate at that point (again, we're no longer dealing with rational and reasonable). So, now you have a standoff... now what? Is the officer supposed to turn and leave? Call in the SWAT team? Somewhere in between?

I dunno... I think if I was in the PO's shoes, I may have attempted the same thing. I don't think I could have just turned and left. I dunno.

Bumpadrum
01-25-2007, 16:56
Toxie, thanks for the idea, I never Googled them before, or read or saw anything other than my stations coverage. The link to the prison site was an eyeopener. I'm sure nobody here supports John Clark, opinions on open carry notwithstanding.
The one article mentioned his stash. I got the call when the search was executed. I saw it.
It was amazing. He had what I think was a Barrett .50 cal single shot, multiple AR's and AK's. Many other rifles, shotguns and pistols.
And he had a pound of c-4 and caps.

mike23
01-25-2007, 19:16
But I do support his right to open carry and because that is a right there should have been (assuming that the open carry is all that was going on) absolutely no interaction from police just for legal open carry. To my mind... assuming open carry was legal where this all took place... the person the cop should have been talking to was whoever made the 911 "man with a gun" call explaining that the lawnmower dude was not breaking any laws... and to get over it.


Yes, I agree that open carry and this guy's action's are two separate issues. Like I said, this guy isn't a good example. A responsible person wouldn't have used lethal force against the officer.

Ideally, the police would show up, talk to the guy, see that nothing bad is going on and leave.

Bikenut
01-25-2007, 22:04
Originally posted by Bumpadrum
Toxie, thanks for the idea, I never Googled them before, or read or saw anything other than my stations coverage. The link to the prison site was an eyeopener. I'm sure nobody here supports John Clark, opinions on open carry notwithstanding.
The one article mentioned his stash. I got the call when the search was executed. I saw it.
It was amazing. He had what I think was a Barrett .50 cal single shot, multiple AR's and AK's. Many other rifles, shotguns and pistols.
And he had a pound of c-4 and caps.

I think we all agree that John Clark's illegal actions deserve no support what so ever. That much goes without argument. And I think we all agree that the death of an officer is very tragic indeed.

However the fact that he had a "stash" has nothing to do with his legally open carrying. And what part of his "stash" other than the C-4 and caps was illegal? Were the AR's and AK's mentioned because they were full auto or were they legal semi auto's but were mentioned because it sounded "bad"?

I'm trying to point out that it is all too easy to lump in a legal activity (open carrying) with all the illegal stuff that came later. And doing so taints the legal open carrying with an air of illegality by association with the unrelated illegal stuff. This is the distinction that anti gun folks just can't seem to figure out. And we also must be careful to not fall into that ourselves.

Lumping the open carry with the "stash" (most of which was legal and should not have been mentioned at all) and adding it to the illegal actions only serves to sensationalize the whole thing... a favorite tactic of the anti gun crowd. A "See? The dude was a gun toting nut with an arsenal in his house! We gotta protect ourselves from nuts like this by outlawing all guns!" sensationalized frame of mind.

And it is sad to me to see some posts falling right into this frame of mind.

And I also did a search (as suggested) leaving me disgusted with the usual media portrayal of the guy having to be a nut because he owned a bunch of firearms and ammo. Especially the one article that said he had a .50 caliber anti tank gun for pete's sake! I read several articles and apparently the only thing that was illegal was the explosives... none of the firearms were mentioned as being illegal full auto or even as being illegally owned.

I also didn't like the fact that Mr. Clark's belief that the mafia was involved automaticly meant his mental state was suspect. We have no way of knowing if the mafia is involved or not but the implication is plain that this is crazy thinking. But if this really was crazy thinking why wasn't a plea of insanity entered?... Nor did I care for the implication that there was something wrong with him spending his inherited money buying guns. The whole thing was a media circus of epic proportions. And an anti gunner's delight.

And here is food for thought..... I have no doubt that many of the members of GlockTalk legally own enough guns and ammo for the media to portray them as a nut with an arsenal.... whether they open carry or not.

Please read all of the above carefully... it is not supportive of Mr. Clark's actions in any way. It is intended as a wake up call that legal activities can easily be construed as horrific even if they are legal. All it takes is the media to portray it in that way for entirely too many people to accept it without thinking it through.

mike23
01-27-2007, 13:29
Please read all of the above carefully... it is not supportive of Mr. Clark's actions in any way. It is intended as a wake up call that legal activities can easily be construed as horrific even if they are legal. All it takes is the media to portray it in that way for entirely too many people to accept it without thinking it through.

Good point. The MSM will often portray someone with "an arsenal" as a nut. The law-abiding citizen with a number of firearms is certainly not a nut! It's probably clear to most of us that the MSM has a strong ant-2nd Amendment bias.

BTW- does anyone know if Traverse City has an anti-open carry law?

Toxie
01-28-2007, 01:03
A "See? The dude was a gun toting nut with an arsenal in his house!

Problem is, HE WAS. There ARE crazy people out there with guns.




I also didn't like the fact that Mr. Clark's belief that the mafia was involved automaticly meant his mental state was suspect.

Yeah. Only the fact that he had a pound of C4, Blasting capss and shot a LEO shows how his mental condition was real stable. don't look at things in a vacuum. Take the totality of what happened.

officer safety were really the number one priority, why was it all escalated as it was?
Because Officers have a duty to act, and this hunk of crap obviously acted in a way that seemed dangerous. The officer talked to him for an HOUR.

What would have happened if he had been left alone, and his cry for attention not appeased like a misbehaving child?

Very possibly the next cry would have been more urgent, just like a child. People don't buy C4 because it tastes good.

And my words you see as attempted villanizing, are only directed at situations where a precedent is expressed that makes my life as a law abiding citizen more difficult.

I know that I'm not an unreasonable, violent anti-gov/leo person of dubious mental stability. Therefor this "precedent" dosen't apply to me.

Your posts make the most gross overesimplifications, with little or no basis on any real knowledge of policework/law, and then to boot you disreguard any circumstances that are applicable. You simply side with the gun owner, attempting your best to lay blame with the LEO. Thats what "villianizing" is.

Getwild2
01-28-2007, 09:45
Originally posted by Bikenut
And not frightening the sheep is a reason to not exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right? I think NOT! The problem is the sheep need to be exposed to the sight of openly carried guns very often so they can get over their paranoid fear of inanimate objects.

No one has the right to not be frightened, or annoyed, or angered, by seeing a gun. But the right to bear arms IS a right. Those who do feel unjustified fear at the sight of a legally carried firearm need to spend some time talking to a psychiatrist... because THEY are the one with a problem. And I am not responsible for making sure other people aren't bothered by their own problems.
:agree: :goodpost:

While I do not open carry often, I do every couple of weeks for short trips here and there. Granted my OC'ing is still IWB but with the shirt tucked behind the pistol. It is not entirely "out in the open" but if you looked you would indeed see it.

I agree with the above poster that it is good for people to see someone CCW every now and then, this helps to condition them. Obviously you must take necessary precautions when OC'ing (protecting strong side, even higher awareness, etc) but I believe it is a good right to exercise when appropriate.

If you think about it, if everyone that had their CPL open carried once per week or every other, you'd see someone nearly every day OC'ing. THIS, my friend, would condition the sheep and lower crime.

Bikenut
01-28-2007, 13:08
When I referred to the media sensationalizing someone who happens to own a bunch of guns as a "gun toting nut with an arsenal" I was talking about how it is entirely too easy for the media to villianize a lawful gun owner just on the basis of gun ownership.

And reading some of the posts so far I get a hint of the same hysterical reaction that the media has with the way John Clark's open carry is considered just as illegal as his subsequent actions. One more time...

John Clark may be paranoid with his insistance the Mafia is involved... but open carry is still legal.

John Clark most certainly did engage in illegal acts, illegal acts that I do NOT support in any way...... but his open carry was NOT one of those illegal acts!

The media most certainly DID engage in sensationalism when describing a legal collection of legal firearms legally owned as an "arsenal" in an attempt to paint Mr. Clark in the worst possible light for the single purpose of titillating the audience. If the media were honerable it would have focused on only the illegal actions (and items) of John Clark and the fact that he owned a bunch of legal guns would never even have been mentioned.

*rant on....
We all know all the above is true. What is scary is how effective the media is by seeing posts defending the media's portrayal of this incident by villianizing Mr. John Clark's legal actions. John Clark committed more than enough illegal actions so there is no justifiable reason or need to drag his legal actions into the incident... other than to sensationalize the whole thing so that the media, and those reporting the incident, get to bask in the limelight of pretending to protect everyone from the evil John Clark and, by extension, every other "nut with an arsenal who carries a gun around where it can be seen".

Think about it... would you fit the media's description of a "nut with an arsenal" if you had to legally defend yourself and the incident made the 6:00 news? Good grief! There are people with C&R FFL's that have full auto military small arms in their legal! collections. Does anyone think the media will happen to mention the license or would they just scream about the "Gun toting nut with an arsenal that included machine guns who gunned down a poor robber armed only with a knife. (Put in clip of "poor robber's" mommy wailing about how he was such a good boy) Details at 11."?

The media's hysterical sensationalism pisses me off.... the general public's penchant to swallow this crap disgusts me... and knowing that some gun owners also eat that crap up scares me to no end.
*rant off.........

Now carefully note that nowhere in all of the above is any support for the illegal actions of John Clark.

rollout
01-28-2007, 17:03
Originally posted by Toxie

Your posts make the most gross overesimplifications, with little or no basis on any real knowledge of policework/law, and then to boot you disreguard any circumstances that are applicable. You simply side with the gun owner, attempting your best to lay blame with the LEO. Thats what "villianizing" is.

+100 to this.

GIJoeCam posted : Some of you have decried the officer's actions, and anyone can explain what went wrong and why. However, my question would be, "What would you consider the 'proper' response for the officer to the report of a person mowing his lawn with an assault rifle over his shoulder?""

I would like to see one of you defending the right of this person to open carry answer GIJoeCam's question.

So far all of you seem to be ignoring this question, while defending the right to "open carry", and intimating that it was Sgt. Finch's fault what happened.

And please keep in mind Sgt. Finch had personal knowledge of this dirtbag. Per Bumpadrum's post: "They had known each other for over 20 years due to the homeowners numerous run-ins with the law."

Do you REALLY think Sgt. Finch should just walk back to his cruiser and leave?

Several of you seemed to suggest this.

One of you even suggested Sgt. Finch's appropriate response should have been to question the homeowner who made the original call and give them a lecture that open carry is ok.

WTF?

Don

mike23
01-28-2007, 17:46
If you think about it, if everyone that had their CPL open carried once per week or every other, you'd see someone nearly every day OC'ing. THIS, my friend, would condition the sheep and lower crime.

In general, I agree with this. Guns seem alien to a lot of people and really shouldn't be, especially considering how many people are currently carrying (concealed).

That being said, I believe for most private citizens, carrying concealed provides an element of safety against having someone grabbing their pistol. Cops carry their pistols in a Level 3 holster for a reason.

A cop asked my CCW class, "How many contacts do you think I have that involve a gun?

Everyone spoke up, "10%, 20%...50%, etc..." His reply, "100% of the contacts I have involve at least one gun, MINE." His point was don't ever think that your pistol can't be taken away in a scuffle. You can't use your gun to prevent a wrestling match and during one the BG could get a hold of your pistol.

I support OC and agree it would be in general a crime deterrent but it should be carefully considered. Over-confidence as a result of being armed could lead to a unpleasant encounter.

Bikenut
01-28-2007, 18:55
Originally posted by rollout
Some of you have decried the officer's actions, and anyone can explain what went wrong and why. However, my question would be, "What would you consider the 'proper' response for the officer to the report of a person mowing his lawn with an assault rifle over his shoulder?""

I would like to see one of you defending the right of this person to open carry answer GIJoeCam's question.

So far all of you seem to be ignoring this question, while defending the right to "open carry", and intimating that it was Sgt. Finch's fault what happened.

And please keep in mind Sgt. Finch had personal knowledge of this dirtbag. Per Bumpadrum's post: "They had known each other for over 20 years due to the homeowners numerous run-ins with the law."

Do you REALLY think Sgt. Finch should just walk back to his cruiser and leave?

Several of you seemed to suggest this.

One of you even suggested Sgt. Finch's appropriate response should have been to question the homeowner who made the original call and give them a lecture that open carry is ok.

WTF?

Don [/B]

Actually I'm beginning to question why Sgt. Finch allowed the situation to escalate (read that carefully.. I'd like to know what else happened... I'm not questioning Sgt. Finch's decisions!) and I'm wondering what law Mr. Clark violated requiring further police action other than asking Mr. Clark how he was doing that day while mowing his lawn with his guns. John Clark's actions (open carry) were legal. What transpired that made Sgt. Finch feel justified in upgrading the response? A history of interaction might cause an officer to want to check if the guns were legally owned or Mr. Clark's responses might have caused concern for his frame of mind... and then Mr. Clark refusing to cooperate would be the law broken... but the open carry was legal.

And, whether some like it or not, those who make 911 "man with a gun" calls concerning legal open carry should have an officer explain what legal open carry is... and to not bother them with calls concerning legal activities.

Now... someone answer me this:
What exactly, does legal open carry have to do with the crime/crimes that John Clark committed?

What exactly, does legally owning a bunch of legal firearms have to do with the crime/crimes that John Clark committed?

Why exactly, were these things even mentioned by the media if not for the express purpose of sensationalizing the event to the fullest and to inspire public outcry?

As for the comment made that by mowing his lawn with a rifle slung over his shoulder meaning Mr. Clark was looking for trouble.... geeewhizzzz... I carry shotguns, rifles, and pistols around from my house outside to the shed when I'm working on them quite often. I'm not looking for trouble, I'm looking to work on my gun! So what is the big deal? Just because it isn't something seen everyday and is therefor so far out of the ordinary it absolutely MUST be threatening?

I, for one, am NOT "siding with John Clark" for Pete's sake!!!!! I am siding with the right to keep and bear arms in a legal manner! Those who are bent out of shape with John Clark's open carry are forgetting that doing so only helps lose the right to bear arms... openly or concealed. Regardless of the reason Mr. Clark was mowing his lawn while armed (even with a rifle) he not only had the right to do so... but doing so was not a crime. And it was not a crime no matter what someone might think of it.

John Clark fired upon, and killed, Sgt. Finch. That terrible tragedy, and being in possession of explosives, are the only crimes committed. All the rest needs to be kept in perspective.

Tito
02-05-2007, 12:52
When the police are called to scene with a dude mowing his lawn with an AR15 and a .45, and dude is babbling about the mafia and drooling all over himself they should just leave and everything will be o.k.:rofl: