General Categories > Carry Issues

When is handgun considered concealed?

<< < (5/8) > >>

OnTheFly:

--- Quote from: Dan W on December 06, 2014, 11:54:59 AM ---The only thing that will change law enforcement's attitudes are lawsuits, like false arrest and conspiracy to deny one's fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms under force of law

--- End quote ---

Maybe, but why wouldn't a Sheriff or Chief of Police want to avoid falsely accusing innocent people, wasting their officer's time, spending unnecessary money, and risking a lawsuit that makes their force look like a troop of circus clowns?  Maybe it is a power thing or the inability to admit they can make mistakes. 

I would think if they were truly good law men/women, they would consider these factors and make sure their officers have the right interpretation of the law.

Fly

davep:
Fly, the first thing a Sheriff, or Chief of Police would do is check with the County Attorney to see if the charge could be beat based on the arguements we have just presented. If the CA thinks they will have trouble getting a judge to rule in their favor, they will make a change. I would bet that is why the County Attorney waived the charge in this case.
To be fair to our County Sheriff's Offices, and City Police Depts., it wasn't any of theirs that made the contact.
Dave

DenmanShooter:

--- Quote from: OnTheFly on December 06, 2014, 10:58:42 PM ---I would think if they were truly good law men/women, they would consider these factors and make sure their officers have the right interpretation of the law.
--- End quote ---

Let me recount a encounter.  Nothing to do with guns.

Several years ago when my now adult son was 18, he was pulled over by a certain NSP because he had blue accent lights in his car. (Not flashing in his window or on his dash, just accent lights around his dash instruments and etc., common today even from the factory) The NSP officer wrote him a ticket and told him there was no waiver, he had to go to court. 

I called the Captain of the headquarters and complained.  I asked him to please present a reason for the stop.  He would not.

I asked if I could review the tape.  He said I could not.

I asked if my attorney could review the tape.  He said "You don't want to get an attorney involved" .  I told him it was his officer who made it a required court appearance and if my son had to go to court he was not going without an attorney. 

The captain called back later in the day and said he reviewed the tape and my son was very courteous during the stop but that he would not over rule his officer.

The local judge told me he had already told the NSP never to bring anymore of these (his words) "bull**** charges" to his court again or he would immediately throw them out.  The NSP was deliberately mis-interpreting the statute they were using to make these stops and issue these citations and he wanted no more of it.

In addition, I found out the officer in question was notorious for pulling over young drivers and if he couldn't get an MIP he would write them up for something else regardless.

Needless to say, my son was off the hook but it still cost me $200 for the attorneys time.

So, yes, LEO will knowingly and willfully stand by obviously wrong arrests and citations because they can't be seen as going against their officers.   

This was the only bad encounter I have ever had with the NSP or basically any LEO and I admit to the un-Christian like sin of holding a grudge against the a-hole officer who wrote the ticket and Captain Ruiz can KMA.

Dan W:
How do you think this notion that an undefined requirement of "in plain sight" with no statutory language as a basis has survived all these years. It continues because there is no downside.

Consider this...they can have the best of both worlds if they continue to arrest and charge in this manner and let the ones that stand up and fight for their rights off the hook. No harm no foul. Right?

Same thing was going on in Omaha when they defied the Legislature and continued the illegal practice of requiring handgun registration for CHP holders. NFOA ended that crap when we sued along with the SAF.

State of Nebraska was denying CHP's to legal resident aliens, and they knew it was not legal, yet they waited until the NFOA and SAF sued before they would act to change the law

If you really want to effect a change in the training and practices of LEO's on the street in regard to open carry, you are going to have to make their bosses  see the downside in messing with the 2nd

davep:

If you really want to effect a change in the training and practices of LEO's on the street in regard to open carry, you are going to have to make their bosses  see the downside in messing with the 2nd
[/quote]

Dan,
Sadly I do believe you are correct. Talking doesn't seem to effect much change on the street. As the old saying goes; " Ass chewings are free. If you want it to change, you're gonna have to make cost something".

If the NFOA wants more info on this, I will see if the person wants to share more details with them...not on the forum.
Dave

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page