Posted on 07/11/2008 3:00:00 PM PDT by marktwain
You say it well. Open carry is “permitted” in most states. Here in the Republik of North Carolina we have a real cool law. You can be charged with “brandishing a weapon to the terror of the people”.This make open carriers subject to arrest that would cost tens of thousands of dollar to fight and win.
/johnny
/johnny
He believes the incident began because another patron in the restaurant was "unhappy and uncomfortable that someone had a firearm in a holster on their hip" and called the police. He does not know who placed the initial 911 call.
This sounds like a lie to me. The caller called 911. The 911 system knows who is calling on land lines. I'm sure the 911 system can log a cell phone. If not, the phone company can tell them.
We should know what the caller said to the police. Saying people are brandishing weapons seems odd to me. This is a term more likely used by the few familiar with law or obligations of carrying arms. The ordinary caller is not going to say brandish. Brandish does not apply to holstered side arms. It means more to wave or display weapons aggressively as to threaten.
Drag the caller into the law suit too. Maybe he is a well to do liberal who needs a lesson in Constitutional rights and lying to the police intending to cause harm to others.
The officers have a duty to determine if their is probable cause for an arrest. If they are negligent in their determination, they are liable, it seems to me.
“Drag the caller into the law suit too. Maybe he is a well to do liberal who needs a lesson in Constitutional rights and lying to the police intending to cause harm to others.”
“The officers ordered Judy Banks to stop recording “under threat of being arrested for violation of the federal wiretap law,”
If cops can do this (They can, they have and it sticks) then they can take your guns and or otherwise do as they damn well please.
A wire tap invades a discrete circuit. A citizen recording a public servant in a public place is tapping NOTHING save the ether.
These guys strapped on guns they apparently had no intention of using—so what was their point? To force a legal precedent? Good luck with that. As long as they put themselves into the hands of the very corrupt system that ignores the Constitution as it damn well pleases (as this incident clearly demonstrates) they will accomplish NOTHING. If you put on a gun use it. If you can’t——THEN DON’T PUT IT ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
George Washington would have opened fire (if he were there in the first place)
If this was a case of cops just walking in for dinner, seeing patrons and demanding ID, then I would agree with you. That wasn't the case.
The present state of the law in Kaleefornia is that you must have a permit for carrying a concealed firearm. You will be arrested for violating the CCW law. However, if you choose to openly carry a loaded firearm, you will still be arrested.
Per Penal Code 12031:
12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
I'm not dancing around it. I'm saying it doesn't apply to requiring identification. They can ask all they want. There is no requirement to cooperate under the 5th amendment. Just don't lie.
And if a citizen call alleging a crime is all it takes for jack-booted thugs to descend, demanding ID and detaining non-law-threatening citizens, we're already in a world of hurt.
/johnny
And that's just NOT true.
/johnny
If the person that complained was not available, then they have to start from ground zero.
Does one need a permit to put his bible,koran, newspaper in brief case, book bag or under his coat concealing it.
Guns are to the 2nd that books,newspapers and movies are to the frist.
I don't think the Founders would have agreed with that. They recognized a right of free and unimpeded travel; many rights of way have changed over the years so as to preclude their use by any means other than a motorized vehicle.
All 911 lines have caller ID but if the caller blocks it they can not tell who is calling
Jack-booted thugs... It was a criminal investigation, it has always been common practice to identify those the police speak with, and failure to produce identification is cause for detention until identification is established. Personal identification has never successfully been argued as a protected right under the 5th, and I believe it goes completely against the intentions of the 5th to even lay that claim. Is there a case where this has been established?
Bottom line, there are very limited places and circumstances when you are required to show ID.
/johnny
What percentage of people of whom the cops check ID will be felons? Does it seem like they're limiting their actions to cases with anything even remotely resembling probable cause?
That having been said, what if the cop were to discretely ask the waiter to replace the suspect's water glass while being careful to only touch the rim, and then to later retrieve that water glass (again only touching the rim)? The cop could then suggest to the suspect that, if he prefers, the cop could run his prints. See what the reaction to that would be.
The Federal court case that said that felons filling out a BATF firearms questionnaire can use the 5th pretty much abrogates your assumptions. And that decision is much more famous that the black guy jogging in Houston.
You don't have to cooperate. At all. Period. Just don't lie.
/johnny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.