OR - Legal to Open Carry ?????

[Chilo45]

Yes it is in my state, but a funny thing happened last Friday afternoon. We made a day trip up to Bend, OR from our small community 125 miles south - and took our dog, Moose, with us (1 year old Pug).

While my wife and granddaughter went into COSTCO I stayed with the dog and we found a grassy shaded area not far from where we parked (it was over 92 degrees). So I set out his water bowl and some of his treats / I started reading a magazine I brought. A short while later I hear a voice say "Do not reach for your gun" and I turned and see five (5) Bend city police officers surrounding me. It seems that a passing citizen called the police and told them there was a man with a gun at COSTCO. One officer asked if he could remove my 1911 full size from its holster and of course I said sure. He then handed it to another officer and then asked for my identification, which I handed over along with my Conceal Carry permit. While he then ran my data, another officer was asking me about the dog and he came over and proceeded to get tangled up in Moose's leash and down he went, rolling down and dragging Moose with him. We all had a good laugh and I asked if they got that on video.

Well I got my gun back along with a Thank You from each officer that I handled this situation properly and they appreciated my understanding. I said it is interesting how many citizens do not understand the laws of our state and our rights to open carry.

The police officer who got tangled up gave Moose a new nickname: Tripper.

[kenhwind]

This is one of the downfalls of open carry.
When Florida passed their concealed carry laws it wasn't illeagal to open carry idon't think, so right away we have nitwits parading up and down mainstreets in municipalities with their guns on, "look at me I got a gun" and within days open carry was made illegal in FL.

[Chilo45]

99.5% of the time when I am away from my home I always conceal with usually an open shirt or a sleeveless (long) lightweight fleece vest. This day I removed the vest to sit out with the dog and..........

I do not like to open carry around the general population for the obvious reasons and do not like drawing attention to myself; just want to blend in but be protected.

The officer getting tangled up in the leash and rolling down was the highlight.

[Aguila Blanca]

Well I got my gun back along with a Thank You from each officer that I handled this situation properly and they appreciated my understanding. I said it is interesting how many citizens do not understand the laws of our state and our rights to open carry.
YOU may have handled the situation properly ... but the police officers did not. If open carry is legal in your state, being seen openly carrying doesn't offer anything to suggest that a law is being broken or a crime being committed. Accordingly, the police should have told the person who called that open carry is legal and not to bother them unless they see a crime being committed. (I guess there should be a more polite way of phrasing it ... but that's their problem, not yours or mine.). Bottom line ... your civil rights were violated. You were interrogated by FIVE armed police officers who had NO PROBABLE CAUSE and NO REASONABLE SUSPICION BASED ON CLEARLY ARTICULABLE FACTS that a crime was being committed.

[Chilo45]

I chalked it up to a slow day in Bend, OR - that they had nothing better to do than respond to a call of " there's a man with a gun at COSTCO".

[d90king]

YOU may have handled the situation properly ... but the police officers did not. If open carry is legal in your state, being seen openly carrying doesn't offer anything to suggest that a law is being broken or a crime being committed. Accordingly, the police should have told the person who called that open carry is legal and not to bother them unless they see a crime being committed. (I guess there should be a more polite way of phrasing it ... but that's their problem, not yours or mine.). Bottom line ... your civil rights were violated. You were interrogated by FIVE armed police officers who had NO PROBABLE CAUSE and NO REASONABLE SUSPICION BASED ON CLEARLY ARTICULABLE FACTS that a crime was being committed.



This is unfortunately far to common. In Pa we have silent open carry laws, that are far to often not know by law enforcement.

I prefer to carry concealed, (except on rare occasions) I however respect the right of others to do as they choose under the law.

I don't care for those who do it simply to rub it in others faces. I believe they can do more harm than good at times.

In Pa there is a very strong movement in this area and they have done a nice job in educating local law enforcement on the law. They have also made great strides on preemptive actions.

[Chilo45]

"You were interrogated by FIVE armed police officers who had NO PROBABLE CAUSE and NO REASONABLE SUSPICION BASED ON CLEARLY ARTICULABLE FACTS that a crime was being committed".
---------------------
I can see your position, but at the same time look at probable cause when the police department received a call that there is a man with a gun at COSTCO. If you were in charge how would you have responded? Clearly the police department did the correct thing by serving ALL of their community; while it may have inconvenienced me a bit I didn't mind as I understood their situation.

But MOOSE the tripper dog made the entire situation memorable.

[Aguila Blanca]

I can see your position, but at the same time look at probable cause when the police department received a call that there is a man with a gun at COSTCO. If you were in charge how would you have responded? Clearly the police department did the correct thing by serving ALL of their community; while it may have inconvenienced me a bit I didn't mind as I understood their situation.
I respectfully disagree. Police are supposed to respond when there is a crime being committed. They are empowered to enforce the law ... not make up the law as they go. As law ENFORCEMENT officers, they are taught from Day One at the academy that you can't charge someone with a crime unless you can find a section in statute that makes the act illegal. They may try to tell you otherwise, but I have sat in classes with a state prosector as the instructor, and she was VERY clear on that. "No harm, no foul." If you can't cite a section number, you can't make an arrest/citation. Period, end of discussion.

So they need to know the law. Which means they either knew or should have known that open carry is legal. Which, in turn, means that the mere fact of a "man with a gun at Costco" does not in any way indicate any criminal activity. The dispatcher SHOULD have asked what the man was doing. When the answer came back, "Shopping," the correct response should have been, "That's not illegal. Have a nice day. Goodbye."

In fact, if you read up on the judicial history of the Terry case (which created the protocol for the so-called "Terry stop" and "Terry frisk") and the Hibbel (sp?) case, your case doesn't even give the officers the right to require you to identify yourself or even talk to them. Before an officer is allowed under Terry to bother a citizen, the officer must have a "reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed." In a jurisdiction where open carry of firearms is legal, obviously an officer can't claim that the fact you were wearing a gun was a clearly articulable fact leading to a reasonable suspicion of a crime. What was the crime? "Suspicion of lawful activity?" How do you think that would play in court?

I'm glad you are okay with how it played out, but I would not be as complacent over having my rights trampled on. I definitely do not agree with your assessment that the police did the correct thing. You mentioned probable cause, but you don't seem to understand that they did NOT have probable cause. The report did not mention any illegal activity. Probable cause of WHAT?

[Chilo45]

I'm glad you are okay with how it played out, but I would not be as complacent over having my rights trampled on. I definitely do not agree with your assessment that the police did the correct thing. You mentioned probable cause, but you don't seem to understand that they did NOT have probable cause. The report did not mention any illegal activity. Probable cause of WHAT?

To help me better understand you position, how would you, as a police department, respond when receiving a call that someone at COSTCO has a gun? None of us know anything more than just that statement (as that is exactly what the police officer that spoke to me said). Based on only that factual data I concluded that they did the proper thing by investigating.

Every opinion has its merit. have a great weekend.

[Patriotic]

Stop and think about it, if someone called the police and reported someone speeding down their street, or a man carrying a baseball bat or hammer, would the police respond? I would think a logical question to ask on the report of a man with a gun would be “does he have the weapon in his hand or is he threatening someone?”

[rjm713]

I think the original poster has the right idea. The police when they receive a report of a man with a gun they have no idea if its a citizen exercising his legal right or someone mental getting ready to pull a shootout at the Costco corral. If they did nothing and that happened all heck would be raised about the police not protecting the public and rightfully so. Just my .02--YMMV. Ralph

[kenhwind]

Well it is my understanding that COSCO does not approve of members carrying firearms on or in their property/stores.
Open carry is going to be the undoing of carrying weapons period, even concealed.
In Broward County Florida is was in fact at one time, illegal to have a baseball bat in your car, it was considered a weapon. Ho Hum.
Yea, yea, yea, I wasn't there either, but Soccor Moms can drive like idiots, speeding with a car full of children, but your gun is a "OH MY GOD HE HAS A GUN"
Only five cops, gee where was the SWAT team.
I am not against open carry but it has some serious shortcomings.
We can rant and rave about violated rights and due process, but it don't matter, you are suspected until you prove otherwise. Even if they're wrong, the Government, you still have to prove you weren't.

[Aguila Blanca]

To help me better understand you position, how would you, as a police department, respond when receiving a call that someone at COSTCO has a gun? None of us know anything more than just that statement (as that is exactly what the police officer that spoke to me said). Based on only that factual data I concluded that they did the proper thing by investigating.
Simple. In a jurisdiction where carrying a handgun is legal, the dispatcher should ask the caller, "What is the man doing with the gun?"

If the answer is, "He has it in a holster on his belt, and he's looking at cans of dog food in aisle 23," the appropriate response by the dispatcher would be, "That's legal in this state. We can't dispatch an officer unless there is a crime being committed. Thank you for calling. Have a nice day."

In my previous post, I suggested that you read up on Terry and Hibbel. The essence of the Terry decision, which went to the Supreme Court, is that a police officer cannot stop and interrogate you unless he has a "reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed." That's pretty clear. If wearing a handgun on your belt is legal in your jurisdiction, the police have NO basis on which to ask you anything. There is NOTHING to provide the "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that any criminal activity is in action or is contemplated.

One officer asked if he could remove my 1911 full size from its holster and of course I said sure. He then handed it to another officer and then asked for my identification, which I handed over along with my Conceal Carry permit.
When the officer asked if he could remove your pistol from your holster, you had every right to say, "No." And when they asked for identification, you had every right to ask "Why? Am I suspected of having committed a crime? If not, you have no right to ask for my gun or to ask me for identification. Is this a Terry stop? If so, what are the clearly articulable facts leading you to a reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime?"

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution says that the People shall be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. That's what Terry was all about. It established some guidelines as the where the line is drawn between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." When we willingly surrender our rights, we lose them without even knowing we had them.

[kenhwind]

is that a police officer cannot stop and interrogate you unless he has a "reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed."
But in some municipalities they can and do, and do it with the sanctions of the local Govt.

[Aguila Blanca]

But in some municipalities they can and do, and do it with the sanctions of the local Govt.
If they do so, and if the local government sanctions it, it is still a violation of fundamental, Constitutional rights and they get away with it only because nobody has called them on it. That's how we lose our freedoms -- by allowing them to be gradually eroded until we, as a people, forget we even had them.

I urge anyone who has followed this thread to here to fire up Google and search on 'Terry stop." You might also search on "Hibbel," if none of the Terry hits mention it, but I am not certain of the spelling. Hibbel was a case decided post-Terry, in which the question was specifically whether or not police had sufficient "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" to ask Mr, Hibbel to identify himself.

Here's a start"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

[Chilo45]

By the "letter of the law" you are most likely correct and I for one am not arguing with that fact. But not too many things are seen as completely Black and White / Right and Wrong / Legal or Not these days. Interpretation of each situation as it occurs + the state of mind of the individual(s) at that point in time = reaction to said situation. Police officers act on their better understanding of each situation based on the data input to them. As was my case with the Bend Police department and their reaction to me open carrying on the grounds of a commercial business park, even though I was in a fixed area playing with my dog.

Rather than make a deal out of my Constitutional and states right, I allowed and followed the directions of the Bend Police department personnel. I did ask them if I was "in the right" and they responded yes I was, but they needed to respond per the direction of their office.

It was "no skin off my back" to just comply with their requests as I know that I was within my state rights and after my dog tripping the biggest of the officers it made for a good story.

But according to the letter of the law, I agree that they had no probable cause; but since I didn't mind for me it was no big deal.

[legalrights]

In Pennsylvania, persons 18 years of age and older whom are not prohibited by law from owning firearms may openly carry a handgun in plain sight with no license except in vehicles*, cities of the first class** (Philadelphia) and where prohibited specifically by statute.

Ref.: Title 18, ch.61, Subchapter A. Uniform Firearms Act & Commonwealth v. Ortiz

* Open carry in a vehicle requires a valid PA License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) or a carry license from ANY other state. Ref: Title 18 §6106

** Open carry in a city of the first class requires a valid PA LTCF or a carry license from a reciprocal state. Ref: Title 18 §6108, Title 18 §6106

Carrying concealed (with LTCF) or openly in establishments that serve alcohol is allowed in Pennsylvania.

There is no stipulation in neither the PA code nor case law that a PA LTCF holder must carry concealed. Furthermore, lawful open carry of a firearm is NOT grounds for revocation of a PA LTCF as it is neither an illegal nor dangerous act.

[d90king]

In Pennsylvania, persons 18 years of age and older whom are not prohibited by law from owning firearms may openly carry a handgun in plain sight with no license except in vehicles*, cities of the first class** (Philadelphia) and where prohibited specifically by statute.

Ref.: Title 18, ch.61, Subchapter A. Uniform Firearms Act & Commonwealth v. Ortiz

* Open carry in a vehicle requires a valid PA License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) or a carry license from ANY other state. Ref: Title 18 §6106

** Open carry in a city of the first class requires a valid PA LTCF or a carry license from a reciprocal state. Ref: Title 18 §6108, Title 18 §6106

Carrying concealed (with LTCF) or openly in establishments that serve alcohol is allowed in Pennsylvania.

There is no stipulation in neither the PA code nor case law that a PA LTCF holder must carry concealed. Furthermore, lawful open carry of a firearm is NOT grounds for revocation of a PA LTCF as it is neither an illegal nor dangerous act.


All true, but sadly many LEO's don't actually know the law and end up violating law abiding citizens rights on a regular basis. It is getting better but still has a long way to go...

[Aguila Blanca]

All true, but sadly many LEO's don't actually know the law and end up violating law abiding citizens rights on a regular basis. It is getting better but still has a long way to go...
This is true, but the fact is that it does NOT get better when law-abiding citizens passively tolerate blatantly unconstitutional acts by LEOs, thank the officers for their courtesy in violating fundamental Constitutional rights, and then justify it by deciding that nothing is black-and-white.

It IS black-and-white. The law is there, the legal precedents are there in Terry and Hiibel, and the police know about these cases. d90, you folks in PA have had a couple or three fairly widely publicized incidents in the last year or so. One was the soccer mom who open carried at her kids' games. Another was the guy who was arrested for open carrying at a pizza restaurant in -- Scranton? Not sure where but it was extensively discussed on your PA firearms owners forum at the time.

The common factor in such cases is that things get better only when the citizens whose rights have been violated stand up an say "Whoa! That's not what the law says," and follow through until the "authorities" involved get it through their heads that they can't just go along violating the Constitution of the U.S. (and, frequently, their own state constitution at the same time) because they think it's a good way to handle a call.

I am not advocating getting into a knock-down, drag-out fight with the local SWAT team. I'm just saying that it's a moral imperative, if you care about the fate of civilization. to call LEOs on it when they step outside of their authority. Chilo45s case is a classic example. It shows how insidious the problem is. He had his rights blatantly violated, yet he's HAPPY about it ... because the police were polite while violating his Constitutional and legal-in-his-state rights.

THAT'S ... HOW ... WE ... LOSE ... OUR ... RIGHTS.

What's wrong with asking an officer,"What's the purpose of your question? Am I suspected of committing a crime? If so, what's the crime, and what are the clearly articulable facts that lead you to a reasonable suspicion that I have committed the crime?" You can ask this politely. If that causes a police officer to become impolite, belligerent, and "assertive" -- it's time right there to ask him/her to call a supervisor to the scene.

Otherwise, invest in whatever company makes KY Jelly.

[d90king]

This is true, but the fact is that it does NOT get better when law-abiding citizens passively tolerate blatantly unconstitutional acts by LEOs, thank the officers for their courtesy in violating fundamental Constitutional rights, and then justify it by deciding that nothing is black-and-white.

It IS black-and-white. The law is there, the legal precedents are there in Terry and Hiibel, and the police know about these cases. d90, you folks in PA have had a couple or three fairly widely publicized incidents in the last year or so. One was the soccer mom who open carried at her kids' games. Another was the guy who was arrested for open carrying at a pizza restaurant in -- Scranton? Not sure where but it was extensively discussed on your PA firearms owners forum at the time.

The common factor in such cases is that things get better only when the citizens whose rights have been violated stand up an say "Whoa! That's not what the law says," and follow through until the "authorities" involved get it through their heads that they can't just go along violating the Constitution of the U.S. (and, frequently, their own state constitution at the same time) because they think it's a good way to handle a call.

I am not advocating getting into a knock-down, drag-out fight with the local SWAT team. I'm just saying that it's a moral imperative, if you care about the fate of civilization. to call LEOs on it when they step outside of their authority. Chilo45s case is a classic example. It shows how insidious the problem is. He had his rights blatantly violated, yet he's HAPPY about it ... because the police were polite while violating his Constitutional and legal-in-his-state rights.

THAT'S ... HOW ... WE ... LOSE ... OUR ... RIGHTS.

What's wrong with asking an officer,"What's the purpose of your question? Am I suspected of committing a crime? If so, what's the crime, and what are the clearly articulable facts that lead you to a reasonable suspicion that I have committed the crime?" You can ask this politely. If that causes a police officer to become impolite, belligerent, and "assertive" -- it's time right there to ask him/her to call a supervisor to the scene.

Otherwise, invest in whatever company makes KY Jelly.


I am at a little disadvantage in the quote department, but I will do my best.

You are so right in every one of your assertions. Far to often citizens become "sheeple' and are afraid due to intimidation by LE. It is far past the time to stand up and fight for our rights.

The Soccer mom case was just one of a few in Pa recently as you mentioned. She won on all counts, had her license reinstated and has a pending civil case. She has sued on all levels.

The biggest one that just finished in the courts was the John Noble case. He was arrested at a BO rally with his bible and sidearm being openly carried. He was arrested on trumped up charges. He was found not guilty on all counts. He is now going after civil remedies and I have no doubt that he will prevail. You see many more of these incidents surrounding OC harassment than any other.

Personally I do not OC often (probably 70/30 ratio) for tactical reasons and no other. However I strongly support the rights of others to do so.

We all must become more vigilant in standing up for our rights and standing against harassment by those who don't know the law or those who abuse their power.

[Aguila Blanca]

We all must become more vigilant in standing up for our rights and standing against harassment by those who don't know the law or those who abuse their power.
Agreed.

To that I would add only that I consider NOT knowing the law, on the part of an official whose job it is to enforce the law, to be an abuse of power/authority. I write that knowing full well that the laws of any state are far too complex and confusing for any single law enforcement officer to know them all. But (and I know this from my own work in code enforcement ... it has been hammered into us by lawyers from the state judicial branch) if a law enforcement officer can't cite the section of the law he's busting you for -- he/she should not be making the bust. "Well, I don't know but it sure seems like that ought'a be against the law" just doesn't cut it in a legal setting. That's how people like your open-carrying Bible-toter get to sue cities and states ... and win ... because LEOs make stuff up rather than do their homework.

What's so hard about pushing the button on that shoulder microphone and asking the dispatcher to ask the duty officer to look up ___ in the books, and cite the section saying it's illegal. What's that, Sarge? There's no law against it? You mean it's LEGAL? Oops.

Too often, though, it becomes an ego thing for the LEO. Rather than acknowledge that they made a mistake in initiating the "contact," since no law was being broken ... they proceed to try to justify the contact by busting chops and finding something ... anything ... they can actually cite, rather than doing the right thing and apologizing to the person they stopped unjustly, and just walking away from it.

Unfortunately, they teach this attitude at police academies. They teach cadets that the officer must ("MUST!") be in control of the situation. That's why you see a lot of incidents escalate out of all proportion. Here's an example:

A couple of years ago I had a routine question to ask of the firearms branch at state police headquarters. Now, in my work, I talk to people in other departments at the state police headquarters regularly. I know their protocols. I called the firearms unit and was connected to a young, female officer. I started to ask my question and she interrupted me. "Sir, before we go any further I need your name and date of birth."

Me: "No you don't. I am not reporting a crime or an incident, I am calling to ask a routine administrative question."

She: "SIR! I NEED to know your full name and date of birth!"

Me: "I'm sorry, Officer, but you do not need that information to answer my question."

She: "I NEED YOUR NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH!"

Me: --click--

I called back fifteen minutes later, was connected to a male sergeant, got my question answered and had a nice, friendly chat ... all without telling him my name or date of birth. The rookie didn't understand WHY she usually needs to ask for a name and date of birth (because the D.O.B. is the common field used by the database for correlating records and names from reports), but simply because I had the temerity to know that she didn't need that information from me she was on the defensive. And that was counter to her training, so she immediately switched into "Command Voice" mode (that's what they call it in the academy) to assert her control over the situation.

If you watch cops in action you'll see it in play. It's a scary concept, because when they shift into that mode reason goes out the window. Their top priority shifts from figuring out what's happening, to taking CONTROL of the situation. It's the same mental attitude that has led to the escalating abuse of tasers by LEOs. The taser is now not used just to control violent suspects, which is what it was designed for. It is increasingly being used simply to shut people up who have the audacity to question if a cop is doing the right thing.

But we don't live in a police state. Hah!