# open carry law student VS Cop



## bruce333

law student = 1
cops = 0

scroll down in the article for the video

» Law Student Takes Cop To School After Being Illegally Stopped For Carrying Gun Alex Jones' Infowars


----------



## NMpops

Glad it went well for him. There is no excuse whatsoever for a police officer to not know the law.


----------



## AirForceShooter

The one that screwed up is the dispatcher.
Man with a gun?
is she shooting it or pointing it at people?
is he threatening people.?
he's just walking along.

Sorry that's not a crime. Have a nice day


AFS


----------



## genesis

First off, I'm not a lawyer, or a police officer. Nor have I ever carried openly or concealed. Wisconsin has an open carry law and just recently passed a CC law, so I'm trying to educate myself. I've watched countless videos on youtube concerning open carry. There are two schools of thought on open carry when stopped by police. One is to take a confrontational approach as the young man in the video did and not co-cooperate with the police, as they did not have reasonable suspicion. The other is to cooperate, show some ID and be on your way. Many don't like the second option, but it to has its merits. One gun show on TV recommended this cooperative approach. Without reasonable suspicion, the police can still make a stop and our subsequent answers to their questions are considered "voluntary" as the officer is not "compelling" a response. Hence he is not violating any of our rights. Police can't "compel" a response without reasonable suspicion. Without reasonable suspicion you need not even tell them your name or show any ID. The rub comes in that, while not actually compelled, most people would "feel compelled" to answer a police officers questions. I've research DeBury V US. It doesn't say the police can't make a stop based solely on one carrying openly. It simple states that carrying openly, in and of itself, is not sufficient for reasonable suspicion. I know some cops, and most of them are decent guys just trying to do their job. They're not lawyers. They're peace keepers. In one sense I can understand the officer wanting to be sure everything is OK. That's what we pay them to do. The other side of the coin is "my rights" and how I choose to enforce them. Some places are more amenable to open carry than others. In the past, a common reason to stop someone for openly carrying was for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. These two laws gave the police very broad powers. In 2009, the Wisconsin Attorney General issued an "advisory memorandum" which states "The Wisconsin Department of Justice believes that the mere open carrying of a firearm by a person, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge from a prosecutor." It doesn't prevent a prosecutor from making the charge. It simply suggests they don't. If you're going to use the confrontational approach with a police officer, know the various case laws supporting your right, and be prepared to not only sight them, but explain them, in detail, to the officer in a polite manner, as the young man in the video did. In a small town with only 5 or 6 cops, I think I may cooperate with the police if they stopped me for open carry. I wouldn't want to become know as a rebel anarchist. Hopefully, after a while, they would get to know me and just ignore me. But each locale and stop is different. So one needs to be flexible in their approach to each stop. That's my two cents worth.

Don <><

Don <><


----------



## Gunners_Mate

genesis, the second option blows, because when you comply with the officers wishes, such as handing over id, or your firearm for that matter, now you are compelled to comply no matter what because you want your id and/or firearm back. 

If you are within your rights stay there, do not, ever illegally forfeit your firearm, else you may never get it back. 

Now I'm not saying be snotty about it, but officers these days are as often in the wrong as in the right, and it does not befit the citizen to knowingly let those in the wrong think they are right, for if we do it may not be long until wrong IS right (legally). and that would suck. a lot


----------



## genesis

Gunners_Mate said:


> genesis, the second option blows, because when you comply with the officers wishes, such as handing over id, or your firearm for that matter, now you are compelled to comply no matter what because you want your id and/or firearm back. If you are within your rights stay there, do not, ever illegally forfeit your firearm, else you may never get it back. Now I'm not saying be snotty about it, but officers these days are as often in the wrong as in the right, and it does not befit the citizen to knowingly let those in the wrong think they are right, for if we do it may not be long until wrong IS right (legally). and that would suck. a lot


Hi Gunners Mate. There is a lot to be said for a "stick to your guns" approach, if the officer doesn't have or can't show reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, the better I get along with a cop, the less chance he'll hassle me. He may "ask" for my ID and ask a few questions to satisfy himself that I'm not doing anything illegal, and send me on my marry way. The next time he sees me, he'll just wave back as I wave at him. I would rather not alienate him if possible. Sometimes that may not be possible. Is this the way I would handle every stop? No. You have to read the situation and decide your course of action. He can "ask" you for ID or for you to turn over your gun, and while you don't have to comply if he doesn't have reasonable suspicion, you're in a situation where two people have guns and one of them is a cop. If something were to erupt, who's gonna win that court battle??? Your refusal to comply with his "request" is probably gonna put him on high alert. Now your safety over-rides your rights. Even when your legally in the right, you can push it to far. Sound judgment is required. You can turn over your weapon and make it clear that you're not doing it voluntarily. And, the police can't confiscate your weapon. If they do, you have legal recourse. Just as you have legal recourse if they arrest or detain you improperly. Ask for a supervisor to come to the scene. I wish it were all just cut and dried, and the person carrying openly and the police both just ignored each other. But in the real world, that's just not gonna happen, at least for awhile. How laws are enforced is up to the Chief of Police and the local DA. They may or may not favor open carry. If they don't, right or wrong, officers may be instructed to investigate every instance of open carry. That will probably change over time if and when more and more people carry openly. Just my 2 cents worth again. Now I got 4 cents in the pot ! Good talk'n with ya Gunners Mate !

Don <><


----------



## FirstTenor

Great discussion by all. I've been reading on the pros and cons of open carry and at this time my opinion is the following: Since I carry for personal protection, I'd rather lawfully carry concealed and not let the criminal know I'm carrying. If worst-case scenario occurs and my family or I find ourselves in need of using lethal force, I'd rather it be a nasty surprise; otherwise, a criminal may plan differently on a surprise attack from which I may be less prepared to respond.


----------



## genesis

I agree with ya FirstTenor.

Don <><


----------



## berettatoter

NMpops said:


> Glad it went well for him. There is no excuse whatsoever for a police officer to not know the law.


I agree with you here. Unfortunately, I think there are probably a lot of police that don't know the law as much as we would hope they do.


----------



## SouthernBoy

genesis said:


> Hi Gunners Mate. There is a lot to be said for a "stick to your guns" approach, if the officer doesn't have or can't show reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, the better I get along with a cop, the less chance he'll hassle me. He may "ask" for my ID and ask a few questions to satisfy himself that I'm not doing anything illegal, and send me on my marry way. The next time he sees me, he'll just wave back as I wave at him. I would rather not alienate him if possible. Sometimes that may not be possible. Is this the way I would handle every stop? No. You have to read the situation and decide your course of action. *He can "ask" you for ID or for you to turn over your gun, and while you don't have to comply if he doesn't have reasonable suspicion, you're in a situation where two people have guns and one of them is a cop. If something were to erupt, who's gonna win that court battle???* Your refusal to comply with his "request" is probably gonna put him on high alert. Now your safety over-rides your rights. Even when your legally in the right, you can push it to far. Sound judgment is required. You can turn over your weapon and make it clear that you're not doing it voluntarily. And, the police can't confiscate your weapon. If they do, you have legal recourse. Just as you have legal recourse if they arrest or detain you improperly. Ask for a supervisor to come to the scene. I wish it were all just cut and dried, and the person carrying openly and the police both just ignored each other. But in the real world, that's just not gonna happen, at least for awhile. How laws are enforced is up to the Chief of Police and the local DA. They may or may not favor open carry. If they don't, right or wrong, officers may be instructed to investigate every instance of open carry. That will probably change over time if and when more and more people carry openly. Just my 2 cents worth again. Now I got 4 cents in the pot ! Good talk'n with ya Gunners Mate !
> 
> Don <><


This is the reason to record the incident. Then it's no longer his word against yours. Yes, an officer can approach you and ask a question or questions. If there is no RAS you do not have to answer and can just go on your way. Now whether or not you may want to do this is entirely up to you. So perhaps it would be better to ask, "Why are you detaining me officer?" Notice I didn't say, "Am I being detained?". The first example implies a response by the officer. If he responds with, "I'm not detaining you", then just wish him a good day and leave.

You did mention that how one might want to respond to such encounters is entirely up to them and I agree. I also live in a small town with just a few police officers and a chief. The chief has known me for nearly 13 years so I doubt he would ask me anything were he to see me OC'ing (I think he has but I don't know this). I have only been approached by an LEO one time in the 17 years I have been carrying and that was in a local upper crust grocery store (Wegman's). Seems there was a MWAG call coupled with "acting suspicious". The officer who approached me never asked for a name or ID, and asked all of, as I recall, three questions then the conversation turned immediately to completely away from what he approached me for. It was VERY obvious to me that he felt he was wasting both his and my time, that the call was ridiculous, and I got the distinct impression he was embarrassed for having to bother me. The contact lasted for less than 90 seconds.

Police officers are pretty good judges of people though they see them through a negative light. Remember, they see pretty much all spectrums of society, from the best to the worse... and more often than not, the latter. So it's natural their opinions of people in general tend to be a bit jaded. If they see a "normal" person going into or exiting a store and just walking normal and they just happen to have a gun on their hip, they're going to watch them. But they will pretty quickly know whether or not this individual needs more than a casual look or not. The average OC'er heading to his car with a purchase is not going to appear threatening or questionable. The fact that he is armed might give an LEO a pause, but that's pretty much it. This is what I have observed in five years of OC'ing in my area. They might look for a moment but that's all. Several have given me the thumbs up sign, waved at me and smiled, and said things like 'Morning" or similar. Never anything like, "Hold up a moment there buddy". There may come a time, but it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## skullfr

recording an encounter I think is good for the reason they have car cameras to protect them also.These are trained professionals but all professions are not 100 % correct all the time.We all have bad dr stories.I hear ccw for tactical but I dont want anyone around me to know.We all have a fav lil store we stop at frequently.If you are in there and it is robbed,what stops the clerk for yelling"you got a gun shoot him."You just lost all advantage.
This is a personal decision but this is just my opinion


----------



## SMann

skullfr said:


> We all have a fav lil store we stop at frequently.If you are in there and it is robbed,what stops the clerk for yelling"you got a gun shoot him."


Why does the store clerk know you're carrying? It's called _concealed_ carry for a reason. Your post was a little confusing, so if you were talking about open carry I couldn't tell. I like the idea of recording the encounter if possible. Maybe a smart phone with a built in video recorder should be added to the list of every day carry gear.


----------



## Haas

I'm curious how this would have played out if the gun carrier had indeed been a bad guy. If he robbed a store or bank shortly after this encounter, and shot a person in the process, this cop would probably be getting a lot of heat from the families of the victims.
I see this as a sticky situation from both sides. Seems to me some simple cooperation wouldn't hurt, but that's just me.


----------



## skullfr

Sorry about not being more clear.I was talking about OC.And I carry concealed and no one knows but immediate family.Now days most carry a cell with recording ability.But phones are also a killer of SA.Look at the text accidents.Sorry as I am not the most eloquent sometimes.


----------



## jd4life

I agree about cops they think they know the gun laws and have no clue. I called my police department to ask them how much longer and that I have the utah pistol permit already would that expedite the process? The police woman told me it is illegal to have outof state gun license. I said ok hang up and lol what an idiot


----------



## landis_lawton

Please keep in mind before I say another word, this is just my opinion. First, you always want a police officer to be in a calm state of mind when he/she is talking with you. Stress invites bad judgement calls in everyone. Whats wrong with answering a question or two if you have done nothing wrong or its not going to put you into a bad situation? Second, though I feel there is nothing wrong with open carry, I prefer to always carry concealed. That allows me to have the upper hand as to how I may handle a situation I may find myself in. Presenting a fire arm is not always the best way to defuse a situation. I proved this in down town Detroit Michigan a few years ago when a young man approached me and asked for my wallet. I was carrying but all I did was look at him and asked in a firm voice, Have you lost your entire F _ _ _ ing Mind? He looked at me and ran away. Now, yes, it could have turned ugly at that point but I was prepared to make my next move, that would have been putting my .45 in his face if he presented a stronger threat than he did with his demand.


----------



## berettabone

If they want to see some ID, show it to them....but never surrender your firearm or consent to any searches......


----------



## goNYG

berettabone said:


> If they want to see some ID, show it to them....but never surrender your firearm or consent to any searches......


Bingo. Take the damn driver's license if you want officer, don't much like the picture anyway. Firearm? No way.


----------



## Steveboos

I would have to Disagree with giving the officer any information. You do realize they are violating your rights when they start asking questions. Police are LEGALLY allowed to coerce you into answering questions. If they don't have a call for a MWAG, they will say that they do in order to get you to start talking.

Best advice i can give anyone is to NEVER talk to the police for any reason, at any time. Every lawyer would agree 100% with that statement. Nothing good comes from talking to the police and they will do whatever they can't to get more information out of you. So stand your ground, Ask if you are free to go or if you are being detained. If he says your being detained simply say "I will not speak any further without a lawyer present"

Easy stuff!


----------



## niadhf

Steveboos said:


> I would have to Disagree with giving the officer any information. You do realize they are violating your rights when they start asking questions. Police are LEGALLY allowed to coerce you into answering questions. If they don't have a call for a MWAG, they will say that they do in order to get you to start talking.
> 
> Best advice i can give anyone is to NEVER talk to the police for any reason, at any time. Every lawyer would agree 100% with that statement. Nothing good comes from talking to the police and they will do whatever they can't to get more information out of you. So stand your ground, Ask if you are free to go or if you are being detained. If he says your being detained simply say "I will not speak any further without a lawyer present"
> 
> Easy stuff!


Yep. Good advice. Ask AIFTG. AIBD. And either walk away (if you are not being detained) or say I want a supervisor and my lawyer,the STFU!


----------



## Benny1636

Haas said:


> I'm curious how this would have played out if the gun carrier had indeed been a bad guy. If he robbed a store or bank shortly after this encounter, and shot a person in the process, this cop would probably be getting a lot of heat from the families of the victims.
> I see this as a sticky situation from both sides. Seems to me some simple cooperation wouldn't hurt, but that's just me.


If the cop were looking for a robber who fit the mans description then he would then have suspicion and the man would have had to show id...


----------



## Haas

Benny1636 said:


> If the cop were looking for a robber who fit the mans description then he would then have suspicion and the man would have had to show id...


That's not quite what I was saying. At the point where the police officer contacted this guy, he would not have robbed anyone yet. Thus, fitting a description of a robber wouldn't apply yet. But, if this encounter happened, the guy robbed a bank 5 minutes afterwards, and someone got shot and killed in that process, these cops would probably get a lot of heat for not being more forceful.


----------



## jakeleinen1

Man I hate cops sometimes X( Why do I wanna become one again?


----------



## Benny1636

Haas said:


> That's not quite what I was saying. At the point where the police officer contacted this guy, he would not have robbed anyone yet. Thus, fitting a description of a robber wouldn't apply yet. But, if this encounter happened, the guy robbed a bank 5 minutes afterwards, and someone got shot and killed in that process, these cops would probably get a lot of heat for not being more forceful.


Yes but you cant violate the rights of innocent civilians in order to possibly prevent future crimes. Otherwise, why not make it illegal to carry at all, in order to prevent any gun crimes commited by legal firearms?


----------



## SouthernBoy

For those who are of the mind to "Just show the ID. If you haven't done anything wrong, then don't worry about it". This mentality feeds the police to push a little further, intrude a little more, and step on civil rights again and again. 

Remember the bank robbery last summer in Aurora, Colorado? The police chief issued orders to detain everyone at an intersection. People were removed from their cars, handcuffed, and made to sit for while their cars were searched. This is highly illegal. Now suppose one of these folks had been armed, openly or concealed - doesn't matter. He most likely would have found himself shoved to the ground, face down with knee in back. Again highly illegal.

Police want bodies. They will look, ask, quiz, and search if possible until they find something they can hang on you. I highly recommend you good people read "You & The Police" by Boston T. Party. A short, concise little handbook that contains many things you need when dealing with our employees who carry guns.


----------



## Haas

Benny1636 said:


> Yes but you cant violate the rights of innocent civilians in order to possibly prevent future crimes. Otherwise, why not make it illegal to carry at all, in order to prevent any gun crimes commited by legal firearms?


Yes, I agree. It's kind of a catch 22. More often than not, the very people who bitch about cops not doing enough, are the same ones that bitch when the cops do too much. 
This is why I'm a proponent of CC, but not open carry. When the general public sees a person walking down the street or sidewalk, with a big ol' pistol at his side, someone will get paranoid and nervous about it, and call the cops, which seems to be what started this incident.


----------



## imntacrook

Good answer!


----------



## jakeleinen1

Haas said:


> with a big ol' pistol at his side, someone will get paranoid and nervous about it, and call the cops, which seems to be what started this incident.


You know and this just brings me back to one of my frusterations with this society.

A gun in itself means nothing, its a tool. Yet the mainstream society has a built up paranoia when they even see PICTURES or TOYS that look like guns.

You know what, that means their is something wrong with them. I CC because as mentioned by Haas, people are paranoid, but I do respect people who OC because people's paranoia is really not my problem.

As my brother says, if people are worried about a guy walking down the street with a gun openly, maybe they should carry a gun (instead of infringing upon MY right to do so)


----------



## Haas

The main thing that makes people nervous about open carry, is in this day and age, it's not typical to see anyone carrying. In the days of the wild west, when everyone carried, it was no big deal because everyone did it, and it was a common site. But in today's society with the rash of freaks that go and shoot up everyone in a school or theater, it's got everyone on edge, and as soon as they see that gun on someones hip, it's panic time.


----------



## jakeleinen1

Haas said:


> The main thing that makes people nervous about open carry, is in this day and age, it's not typical to see anyone carrying. In the days of the wild west, when everyone carried, it was no big deal because everyone did it, and it was a common site. But in today's society with the rash of freaks that go and shoot up everyone in a school or theater, it's got everyone on edge, and as soon as they see that gun on someones hip, it's panic time.


But heres the funny thing. Mass shooting sprees and killings are not more common then they were back in those days.

I know the FEAR of mass shootings is more common but that is because of the media.

Nothing to fear but fear itself. Theres a quote that never gets ingrained in people's heads these days. They use the fear to manipulate us. In my opinion, Mind control is real and they have us figured out pretty darn well...


----------



## SouthernBoy

Haas said:


> The main thing that makes people nervous about open carry, is in this day and age, it's not typical to see anyone carrying. In the days of the wild west, when everyone carried, it was no big deal because everyone did it, and it was a common site. But in today's society with the rash of freaks that go and shoot up everyone in a school or theater, it's got everyone on edge, and as soon as they see that gun on someones hip, it's panic time.


Keep in mind that you're talking about your perspective in your state of Wisconsin. What you have written is not the case is a number of other states and mine is one of them.

The problem with what you state is that folks who think this way are viewing things through tainted lenses. They fail to take into consideration that what may be the case in one state is not the case in others. Where I live, about 35 miles from Washington, DC, we just don't see what you have described. I am not going to say that there are zero problems with open carry, but it is darned close to that here. I have openly carried over the past 5 1/2 years into restaurants (many of them - two this week), small town festivals, police stations/precincts, stores, banks, gas stations, big box businesses, liquor stores, our state capital, legislators' building and offices, and on an on. And in this entire time, I have only had one negative encounter. That was from a man in a McDonald's in August 2009 who claimed he was a retired LEO. However judging from his accent, he was not from Virginia... most likely from the northeast.

So blanket and general statements are just that. And while they may have some basis in fact for specific areas, they are NOT true for the entire nation.

Now one other thing about open carry that is constantly brought up as a reason for not carrying in this mode and that is "you are going to be the first person taken out by a BG". Well, this just doesn't seem to be happening. Has it happened? I know of one case in my state but the man went back into the business and was disarmed and shot by his own gun. Is it a possibility? Of course it is. Is it likely to happen? History has not shown this to be the case.

For the record, I support both modes of carry and I do both. Most of the time I open carry and I have what I believe to be excellent reasons for this (of course, I owe no one a reason or excuse). And there are times when I deem it to be in my interests to conceal. But there is this. In my state, concealing a sidearm is the queer thing to do; the exceptional thing, whereas to openly carry your firearm is the normal thing (read that as standard or default thing). I say this because no permit is required to open carry, but one must obtain permission from their employees to conceal. So open carry is normal whereas concealed carry is abnormal based upon the requirement of a CHP to conceal.


----------



## SouthernBoy

jakeleinen1 said:


> But heres the funny thing. *Mass shooting sprees and killings are not more common then they were back in those days.
> *
> I know the FEAR of mass shootings is more common but that is because of the media.
> 
> Nothing to fear but fear itself. Theres a quote that never gets ingrained in people's heads these days. They use the fear to manipulate us. In my opinion, Mind control is real and they have us figured out pretty darn well...


Yes they are. Mass shootings in the later 1800's were quite rare... almost non-existent. The same goes for murders by firearms. And if we look at the period between 1950 and 1960, mass shootings were also quite rare. We didn't begin to see an upturn until the mid-60's.


----------



## Haas

SouthernBoy said:


> Keep in mind that you're talking about your perspective in your state of Wisconsin. What you have written is not the case is a number of other states and mine is one of them.
> 
> The problem with what you state is that folks who think this way are viewing things through tainted lenses. They fail to take into consideration that what may be the case in one state is not the case in others. Where I live, about 35 miles from Washington, DC, we just don't see what you have described. I am not going to say that there are zero problems with open carry, but it is darned close to that here. I have openly carried over the past 5 1/2 years into restaurants (many of them - two this week), small town festivals, police stations/precincts, stores, banks, gas stations, big box businesses, liquor stores, our state capital, legislators' building and offices, and on an on. And in this entire time, I have only had one negative encounter. That was from a man in a McDonald's in August 2009 who claimed he was a retired LEO. However judging from his accent, he was not from Virginia... most likely from the northeast.
> 
> So blanket and general statements are just that. And while they may have some basis in fact for specific areas, they are NOT true for the entire nation.
> 
> Now one other thing about open carry that is constantly brought up as a reason for not carrying in this mode and that is "you are going to be the first person taken out by a BG". Well, this just doesn't seem to be happening. Has it happened? I know of one case in my state but the man went back into the business and was disarmed and shot by his own gun. Is it a possibility? Of course it is. Is it likely to happen? History has not shown this to be the case.
> 
> For the record, I support both modes of carry and I do both. Most of the time I open carry and I have what I believe to be excellent reasons for this (of course, I owe no one a reason or excuse). And there are times when I deem it to be in my interests to conceal. But there is this. In my state, concealing a sidearm is the queer thing to do; the exceptional thing, whereas to openly carry your firearm is the normal thing (read that as standard or default thing). I say this because no permit is required to open carry, but one must obtain permission from their employees to conceal. So open carry is normal whereas concealed carry is abnormal based upon the requirement of a CHP to conceal.


I'm not necessarily dis-agreeing with you here, but, I've been to quite a number of other states, (of course, not all) and I saw no one open carrying ever. If your state has people open carrying, with very few issues, that's great, I applaud it. But, I'd be willing to bet, what's seen in my state is probably more common than what's seen in your state. 
I'm sounding argumentative here, but I'm not trying to be. Just talkin'.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Haas said:


> I'm not necessarily dis-agreeing with you here, but, I've been to quite a number of other states, (of course, not all) and I saw no one open carrying ever. If your state has people open carrying, with very few issues, that's great, I applaud it. But, I'd be willing to bet, what's seen in my state is probably more common than what's seen in your state.
> *I'm sounding argumentative here, but I'm not trying to be.* Just talkin'.


No, you're fine.

A number of states' citizens are pretty easy going and acceptable when seeing people open carry. Your best bet is to visit opencarry.org and peruse the state forums to see how it is in the states. And most of the members on that site are more than willing to give you information.

In the "earlier" days of OC'ing in Virginia, there were some incidences of negative and uninformed police encounters (uninformed on the part of the police, that is). Those were quickly addressed and the involved individuals told how to conduct themselves when encountering armed citizens. We even had situations were we swarmed town council meetings, while armed, to voice our concerns. The word did go out and the requisite corrections were made. When there are problems of this kind in my state, it is more often in the southeastern part (Tidewater). Up where I live, negative encounters are extremely rare to nearly non-existent.


----------



## LePetomane

I don't have a problem with open carry. What I do have a problem with are these smart asses who walk around OC'ing with a video camera just looking for a confrontation. They're no different than those who elect to show their CC permit at a traffic stop.


----------



## Haas

LePetomane said:


> I don't have a problem with open carry. What I do have a problem with are these smart asses who walk around OC'ing with a video camera just looking for a confrontation. They're no different than those who elect to show their CC permit at a traffic stop.


Yeah, me too. But your comment about the people showing a CC permit during a traffic stop is interesting. When I took my CC class, they were telling us that to show it during a traffic stop, or any other interactions with the police, is the right thing to do. We were told, and this is by a person who actually was and still is currently a cop, that showing it will be appreciated by the officer. ???


----------



## LePetomane

I don't think that there is a correct answer to this. Either way is a gamble. Speaking for myself, I would not. I think you run the risk of a police officer with anti-gun views giving you a rough time, all within the confines of legality. Besides they run your drivers license and find it in their database anyways.


----------



## TAPnRACK

In MI you are required by law to inform an officer that you have a CPL during a traffic stop or official encounter (not casual like simply walking by and saying "hello" )... or your gun license can be revoked. 

These videos are posted by individuals attempting to get law enforcement attention and set the tone for the entire interaction. I see too many individuals "baiting" cops into arguements and throw out case law and statutes that they've memorized in preparation for their anticipated encounter. Most officers are simply responding to a call of a suspicious man with gun... it's no different than a call of someone walking down the street looking in cars, in the fact that when the officer arrives he may simply see this individual walking down the street. He very well may have been up to a suspicious activity or actually looking into vehicles. Police have an obligation to at least stop the individual and assertain if something is amiss. 

Before people start condeming cops for doing their job and commending these idiots with cameras and personal agendas... you should ask yourself how hard is it to simply ID yourself if you've done nothing wrong... instead of arguing and drawing more attention to yourself. 

I'm all for OC & CC... but feel CC makes more sense. I value individuals rights too... but what do you really gain by being uncooperative?

You can't have your cake & eat it too... people want police to be proactive and stop crime but don't want them to investigate a call regarding a MWG? What if he was doing something suspicious? The officer dosen't know, and being difficult only raises suspicion even further.

I see both sides to this issue and feel a lot of cops are not always up to date on every law as some are not enforced often or that situation has never presented itself to an officer. We are human... after all.

End rant.


----------



## Haas

Well said!! ^^^^^


----------

