OCer's experiences with LEO's while carrying openly

[Ruby]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I'd like to talk more about my incident at gun point, and the other illegal detainment, but might not be prudent to do so at the moment.

Tyguy808 were having coffee at Starbucks much later and one of the officers involved in the second incident of mine came in because someone had called the police on us came in said "Oh it's you" and walked right back out the other officer explained that they "now" know it's legal (which I beg to differ they already knew before my incident) but had to check it out because someone called.

The manager and several other patrons were laughing and actually made comments against the guy calling and not us openly carrying our weapons.

The way I look at it is the temporary hardships we might endure make it all that much easier for those who choose to follow in our path after. Mainsail has made Tacoma a much easier place for others who now open carry there. I often liken it to Rosa Parks or others who stood up for what is right even though at that moment it might not have been the easier route.

I have a question for those of you who have been unlawfully detained, arrested, etc. When the incident was over, did you file a complaint or a lawsuit? I think I would at least file a complaint; LEOs need to know their limits if they don't already, and it might save someone some grief down the road. Last night I watched "Busted" and also went to FlexYourRights; one thing that totally surprised me was the fact that the police are allowed to lie to you! Doesn't seem fair, it's a crime if you lie to them.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Yes my second and longest detainment was when I went to file a complaint. Handcuffed and stood out in the hot sun surrounded by officers, yea not fun.

But I am stubborn I went in later and was refused the paper work for complaint, ( a common practice in Police departments it seems). So with the help of SV-libertarian and a few others I sent in a letter of complaint spelling out the violations both federal and state. I ended up having a meeting with another Deputy Chief, when I thought I couldn't get a lawyer, I have one now.

But yes like you I don't like letting "authorities" run roughshod over my rights. Some here are happy with I got them to apologize and that is good for them. Me I am not an apology doesn't ensure they won't trample on your rights again, if all they ever have to do is say I am sorry, it isn't a deterant. The tough part is they know most folks don't have the money to fight them and they rely on this.

I look at it this way you get a speeding ticket as a deterant and to settle "damages" to the state/city/county. Most of us don't get to go in and say "I am sorry" and get off scott free. Lawsuits show make it a matter of principal and if they have to pay for damages and a "fine" for their illegal activities, hopefully it will keep them in check.

As far as the legalities of telling lies to police, some here have made points that isn't necessarily true. Tawnos actually has some posts on it I believe. Me I have learned the hard way it is best just not to volunteer information. And every attorney I know will give you similar advice.

 

[Mainsail]

imported post

Here's a case where the police claimed they were making a "social contact" but the court determined it was a seizure.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=649060MAJ

 

[Ruby]

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

Here's a case where the police claimed they were making a "social contact" but the court determined it was a seizure.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=649060MAJ

Thank you for that, Mainsail. Very interesting reading. That helps clarifiy what a seizure is. I have been told by others on here that ifI am approached by LEOs and they start asking me questions, to ask if I am being detained. So much to learn. It's too bad we (the general public) do not know our rights. We are brought up to bow down to authority and not question it. I have talked to people who didn't know that they are not required to carry ID; heck, I didn't know it either. Just simple things like that, that you would think someone would tell you about. I am very grateful for those on this forum who take the time to do the research and then educate the rest of us.

 

[scubadiver45]

imported post

I was backpacking on the coast inside the Olympic National Park this weekend and two Park Rangers came up on foot and wanted to see proof of a hard-sided, bear resistant container. I was CCing thanks to the new laws and noticed they had sidearms and even tazers. (What do they know that they aren't telling the public, right? I mean, someone wouldn't ever NEED a gun in the wilderness... [/sarcasm off])

My question is, is this a legal search? I had no reason to believe they would have left me alone if I had refused, yet I could have easily had the bear canister in my pack, out of view.

Anyways, I ended up convincing them that my intention was to hang my Igloo cooler up in a tree. They commented that it was quite small to carry enough food for three guys and my response was that it was only breakfast needing to be stowed overnight. They asked if they could look inside and I picked it up and opened it and then set it back down. They 'let us go this time' but informed us of our duty to have proper food storage methods on hand.

Did I consent to search here? Could he then have continued to search me and confiscate my sidearm? Any answers would be appreciated. thx

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

When I'm in the woods Im a minimilist and go as light as possible am I breaking the law because I don't carry Bear proof containers ( I would think anything Bear proof would way a ton).

Why were you cc'ing?

 

[Ruby]

imported post

scubadiver45 wrote:

I was backpacking on the coast inside the Olympic National Park this weekend and two Park Rangers came up on foot and wanted to see proof of a hard-sided, bear resistant container. I was CCing thanks to the new laws and noticed they had sidearms and even tazers. (What do they know that they aren't telling the public, right? I mean, someone wouldn't ever NEED a gun in the wilderness... [/sarcasm off])

My question is, is this a legal search? I had no reason to believe they would have left me alone if I had refused, yet I could have easily had the bear canister in my pack, out of view.

Anyways, I ended up convincing them that my intention was to hang my Igloo cooler up in a tree. They commented that it was quite small to carry enough food for three guys and my response was that it was only breakfast needing to be stowed overnight. They asked if they could look inside and I picked it up and opened it and then set it back down. They 'let us go this time' but informed us of our duty to have proper food storage methods on hand.

Did I consent to search here? Could he then have continued to search me and confiscate my sidearm? Any answers would be appreciated. thx

By complying with their request, yes you consented to their search. It sounds to me like they were more concerned with your safety than anything else. Beyond that, I don't know. I don't know if they have the same authority as LEOs. I would assume they do. It would have been awkward if they wanted to search your backpack and you refused after they had searched your food container. It would immediately raise suspicion. I would not think he could confiscate your sidearm as it is now legal to carry in a national park. I think we (gunowners) need more clarity about what park rangers can and cannot do. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

 

[amzbrady]

imported post

Ruby wrote:

scubadiver45 wrote:

I was backpacking on the coast inside the Olympic National Park this weekend and two Park Rangers came up on foot and wanted to see proof of a hard-sided, bear resistant container.:what:I was CCing thanks to the new laws and noticed they had sidearms and even tazers. (What do they know that they aren't telling the public, right? I mean, someone wouldn't ever NEED a gun in the wilderness... [/sarcasm off])

My question is, is this a legal search? I had no reason to believe they would have left me alone if I had refused, yet I could have easily had the bear canister in my pack, out of view.

Anyways, I ended up convincing them that my intention was to hang my Igloo cooler up in a tree. They commented that it was quite small to carry enough food for three guys and my response was that it was only breakfast needing to be stowed overnight. They asked if they could look inside and I picked it up and opened it and then set it back down. They 'let us go this time' but informed us of our duty to have proper food storage methods on hand.

Did I consent to search here? Could he then have continued to search me and confiscate my sidearm? Any answers would be appreciated. thx

By complying with their request, yes you consented to their search. It sounds to me like they were more concerned with your safety than anything else. Beyond that, I don't know. I don't know if they have the same authority as LEOs. I would assume they do. It would have been awkward if they wanted to search your backpack and you refused after they had searched your food container. It would immediately raise suspicion. I would not think he could confiscate your sidearm as it is now legal to carry in a national park. I think we (gunowners) need more clarity about what park rangers can and cannot do. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Did I miss something.

 

[Ruby]

imported post

amzbrady wrote:

Ruby wrote:

scubadiver45 wrote:

I was backpacking on the coast inside the Olympic National Park this weekend and two Park Rangers came up on foot and wanted to see proof of a hard-sided, bear resistant container.:what:I was CCing thanks to the new laws and noticed they had sidearms and even tazers. (What do they know that they aren't telling the public, right? I mean, someone wouldn't ever NEED a gun in the wilderness... [/sarcasm off])

My question is, is this a legal search? I had no reason to believe they would have left me alone if I had refused, yet I could have easily had the bear canister in my pack, out of view.

Anyways, I ended up convincing them that my intention was to hang my Igloo cooler up in a tree. They commented that it was quite small to carry enough food for three guys and my response was that it was only breakfast needing to be stowed overnight. They asked if they could look inside and I picked it up and opened it and then set it back down. They 'let us go this time' but informed us of our duty to have proper food storage methods on hand.

Did I consent to search here? Could he then have continued to search me and confiscate my sidearm? Any answers would be appreciated. thx

By complying with their request, yes you consented to their search. It sounds to me like they were more concerned with your safety than anything else. Beyond that, I don't know. I don't know if they have the same authority as LEOs. I would assume they do. It would have been awkward if they wanted to search your backpack and you refused after they had searched your food container. It would immediately raise suspicion. I would not think he could confiscate your sidearm as it is now legal to carry in a national park. I think we (gunowners) need more clarity about what park rangers can and cannot do. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Did I miss something.

What do you mean did you miss something? Did I say something wrong? He asked if he consented to a search. I was just trying to be helpful with what little I know. If you can be more helpful to the OP, please do. I am far from being an expert and didn't claim to be.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

scubadiver45 wrote:

I was backpacking on the coast inside the Olympic National Park this weekend and two Park Rangers came up on foot and wanted to see proof of a hard-sided, bear resistant container. I was CCing thanks to the new laws and noticed they had sidearms and even tazers. (What do they know that they aren't telling the public, right? I mean, someone wouldn't ever NEED a gun in the wilderness... [/sarcasm off])

My question is, is this a legal search? I had no reason to believe they would have left me alone if I had refused, yet I could have easily had the bear canister in my pack, out of view.

Anyways, I ended up convincing them that my intention was to hang my Igloo cooler up in a tree. They commented that it was quite small to carry enough food for three guys and my response was that it was only breakfast needing to be stowed overnight. They asked if they could look inside and I picked it up and opened it and then set it back down. They 'let us go this time' but informed us of our duty to have proper food storage methods on hand.

Did I consent to search here? Could he then have continued to search me and confiscate my sidearm? Any answers would be appreciated. thx

You consented to a search of the cooler by opening it up and showing them the contents. Unless there was something unlawful inside it then they had no RAS or PC to search you or your pack.

 

[scubadiver45]

imported post

I was referring to the new firearms law tacked on to the Credit card reform bill last February that made it legal for law abiding citizens to carry firearms into National Parks.

I was CCing because: (1) I am liking the idea of OC more and more, but I am just still not there yet (2) I was in mixed company/ friends of friends that I didn't know what their stance was and I just wanted to enjoy my time on the beach without having to answer for myself.

 

[Mainsail]

imported post

I OCd my G20 to Mount Jupiter (in the Forest not the Park) on Saturday- no drama. 14¼ miles and 3700' of elevation gain.

 

[gsx1138]

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

I OCd my G20 to Mount Jupiter (in the Forest not the Park) on Saturday- no drama. 14¼ miles and 3700' of elevation gain.

I really want to start hiking but that makes me out of breath just reading it.

Great info everybody.

 

[amlevin]

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

Acting "Under the Color of Law" is using their position to compel you to comply with an act or order which they have no legal authority to demand. (intimidation)

Also see RCW 9A.36.070which covers coercion. It prohibits anyone fromusing a threatwhich would prevent them from going about a lawful activity. The threat of confinement (arrest) is an act of coercion if you are going about a lawful activity.

Too bad it is only a Gross Misdemeanor.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

scubadiver45 wrote:

I was referring to the new firearms law tacked on to the Credit card reform bill last February that made it legal for law abiding citizens to carry firearms into National Parks.

I was CCing because: (1) I am liking the idea of OC more and more, but I am just still not there yet (2) I was in mixed company/ friends of friends that I didn't know what their stance was and I just wanted to enjoy my time on the beach without having to answer for myself.

CC or OC just carry, I personally like the feeling of OC way better easier access and less worry for me. I understand you wanting to break in slowly though but sometimes if you are hanging with friends it becomes a good topic of conversation with your buddies and a chance to educate fellow 2A folks or folks who haven't even thought about it.

 

[acmariner99]

imported post

My only encounter with LEO's was with Everett PD just after I showed up in state. They only let me know that many people here are not used to civilians carrying a firearm so I should be wary of that. They said I ought to get a CPL to make LEO encounters easier -- which I did and they asked if I was a frequent carrier -- probably to acertain how many calls they would get and in what area. It turns out that encounter worked to my advantage when I encountered a real nut about a week later (see scary target encounter).