Me vs. Beaverton Police

[R-Rizzo]

I thought so. Thanks. But Sgt. Burke said that if biggie24420 open carried in Portland that he would get arrested and that would hurt his CHL permit. I say how?

IMHO, and all disclaimers apply, but I disagree with that. Portland City Code does not trump Oregon State Law. And the law specifically exempts CHL holders from City of Portland's ban on Open Carry in Public. You *WILL* get the cops called on you, and you *WILL* probably get harrased. But it is not against the law. (Of course that doesn't always mean much)

 

[Father of four]

I understand if the LEO's are called in on a person who opencarried in Portland. But if he does or does not have a CHL permit and has broken no law then everything should be fine. Why the threat of being arrested in Portland for Open Carrying from Sgt. Burke? Excuse me..warning?

 

[R-Rizzo]

I understand if the LEO's are called in on a person who opencarried in Portland. But if he does or does not have a CHL permit and has broken no law then everything should be fine. Why the threat of being arrested in Portland for Open Carrying from Sgt. Burke? Excuse me..warning?

What I think is hilarious the threat from a Beaverton Police Sgt about what Portland Police may or may not do....

 

[Father of four]

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

Rights are like muscle - use them or lose them. The social stigma attached to gun ownership has been carefully crafted over the years by the Brady bunch. The only way to fight back is to do exactly as father of four has done here. I appreciate your having the guts to stand up for our rights.

 

[tkdguy]

I listened to both videos. My impression was that 1) the situation was obviously tense in your voice and descriptions with the offiers, 2) I think you were pressing the limits of their tollerance and politeness, and 3) your conversation with the sargent in the second call was slightly challenging to him--and he appeared to be loosing his tollerance with you. Overall, I think that they handeled the matter very well when you consider what the sargent had to say in the second video. REMEMBER TODAY'S POLICE ARE WIRED TIGHT BECAUSE OFALL THE CRAP THEY HAVE TO DO. SO, WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO BE SOFT SPOKEN AND POLITE AND SEEK OUT INFORMATON THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE YOU.

Remember the walk away: when they leave you they will have an attitude toward's the next open carry chl. YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR OF OPEN OR CHL CARRYING GOOD WILL.

 

[keystir]

I listened to both videos. My impression was that 1) the situation was obviously tense in your voice and descriptions with the offiers, 2) I think you were pressing the limits of their tollerance and politeness, and 3) your conversation with the sargent in the second call was slightly challenging to him--and he appeared to be loosing his tollerance with you. Overall, I think that they handeled the matter very well when you consider what the sargent had to say in the second video. REMEMBER TODAY'S POLICE ARE WIRED TIGHT BECAUSE OFALL THE CRAP THEY HAVE TO DO. SO, WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO BE SOFT SPOKEN AND POLITE AND SEEK OUT INFORMATON THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE YOU.

Remember the walk away: when they leave you they will have an attitude toward's the next open carry chl. YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR OF OPEN OR CHL CARRYING GOOD WILL.

+1

 

[supergenius]

While open carry is allowed, you HAVE to understand the position they are in when people are calling them. Im surprised for lack of a better word at how many "firearm enthusiasts" are so obtuse that they cannot seem to grasp the concept that just because you can doesn't mean that its a good idea (if you dont want to be hassled).

Ive been 3 doors down from a house of people that were massacred by some bubblegum with a shotgun and a pistol back in my college days... guy was walking right down the street with it, walked into a house full of girls and killed like 9 of them or something.

No one called. A point the officer on the phone made about the publics concern. God dammed right they should stop and ask. IF THERE IS SOME THUG DOING IT, AND IS CONFRONTED, THEY GET DEALT WITH, if its a law obiding citizen, they should have no issue with it anyways... The cop was dumb and incorrect about the law... Boo hoo, did he arrest you? No. You won right there.

Im not a big fan of the police and have experienced how ill versed they can be first handed. However, also Im not a big fan of "just because I can I should" movements... Im content with my right to carry being concealed.

Open carry is ASKING to be hassled... What point of that dont people get?

 

[U201494]

You are doing yourself, all CHL holders, and all gun owners wrong. You were walking down one of the busiest streets in our state, blocks from a high school with a gun in plain view, what else could possibly happen? Why would you "need" to open carry in that situation? Sure, the law says you can, but common sense says you shouldn't. The police reacted as police will when they get a call for a person with a gun. The Plaid Pantry owner may know you're cool, but the cops don't. Think about the rest of us when you decide to open carry. As gun owners we have come a very long way in a short period of time with our rights to protect ourselves. Please do not give law enforcement or the liberal media a reason to come after us. We have it pretty good right now and we are making headway across the nation with common sense gun laws. Let's not go back to the bad old days.
Exercise your RIGHT to bear arms and do it in a way that protects that right for all of us.
R.D.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

I listened to both videos. My impression was that 1) the situation was obviously tense in your voice and descriptions with the offiers, 2) I think you were pressing the limits of their tollerance and politeness, and 3) your conversation with the sargent in the second call was slightly challenging to him--and he appeared to be loosing his tollerance with you. Overall, I think that they handeled the matter very well when you consider what the sargent had to say in the second video. REMEMBER TODAY'S POLICE ARE WIRED TIGHT BECAUSE OFALL THE CRAP THEY HAVE TO DO. SO, WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO BE SOFT SPOKEN AND POLITE AND SEEK OUT INFORMATON THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE YOU.

Remember the walk away: when they leave you they will have an attitude toward's the next open carry chl. YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR OF OPEN OR CHL CARRYING GOOD WILL.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

I am a big guy as well and the argument that you open carried because of the possibility of 'printing' that compact gun rings hollow.
Again, I support the right to open carry but we have an obligation IMHO to stand with law enforcement moreso than the anti gunners. We should make them comfortable with us.
And I am pretty sure the officer needs to know you are recording the phone call. I do not think the person recording the call counts as 'one party' knowing the call is being recorded. It is an important enough point that I would be very sure of its exact definition at this point.

 

[The Quiet Man]

Elected officials and heads of law enforcement organizations are required to manage risk on behalf of the government entity they represent, and ultimately on behalf of the citizens who live within their jurisdiction. When the law enforcement agency receives public notice (a call from anyone) of a "man with a gun", they would be negligent to not respond. Can you imagine the liability potential if they elected to not respond because that someone might be legal... and it turned out the "man with a gun" was listening to the "voices in his head" again before they shot some place up?

You will be challenged when you open carry and someone calls 911. You may believe the "scrutiny" bestowed upon you to be harrassment. You may feel "wronged" if you are completley legal in your open carry. Either or neither may or may not be intended. However, the fact remains that you will be challenged... and nothing is likely to change that. Becoming upset and indignant will not change the economic or social reality we live with today.

Some people don't mind the special attention they bring upon themselves while others prefer to quietly carry concealed to eliminate the issue. Everyone must make their own decision and live with the very predictable results. That is also everyone's legal right.

 

[supergenius]

Elected officials and heads of law enforcement organizations are required to manage risk on behalf of the government entity they represent, and ultimately on behalf of the citizens who live within their jurisdiction. When the law enforcement agency receives public notice (a call from anyone) of a "man with a gun", they would be negligent to not respond. Can you imagine the liability potential if they elected to not respond because that someone might be legal... and it turned out the "man with a gun" was listening to the "voices in his head" again before they shot some place up?

You will be challenged when you open carry and someone calls 911. You may believe the "scrutiny" bestowed upon you to be harrassment. You may feel "wronged" if you are completley legal in your open carry. Either or neither may or may not be intended. However, the fact remains that you will be challenged... and nothing is likely to change that. Becoming upset and indignant will not change the economic or social reality we live with today.

Some people don't mind the special attention they bring upon themselves while others prefer to quietly carry concealed to eliminate the issue. Everyone must make their own decision and live with the very predictable results. That is also everyone's legal right.

Well thought and stated

 

[Karma]

. However, also Im not a big fan of "just because I can I should" movements... Im content with my right to carry being concealed.

Open carry is ASKING to be hassled... What point of that dont people get?

You are not exercising a RIGHT by carrying concealed. You got permission from the state to carry your weapon concealed. Permission can be taken away, a RIGHT can not. The OP is one of the few actually exercising his RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, and I am amazed at the people who don't recognize that.

Hiding a right is not exercising it. We have the RIGHT to free speach. Are you really exercising the right to free speach if you have to say things in private and out of earshot of anyone it might offend? No you are not. You are exercising your right if you go out and say what you have to say, no matter who is listening. If you do not exercise your rights, you are flirting with losing that right.

I choose to carry concealed most of the time. I do so for my own reasons. I'll be god damned if I will condemn someone for exercising their right in the open. Is it reasonable for the police to check the guy out if they see him carrying in the open. Yep. That is reasonable. It is not reasonable to do anything but check him out. They can take their threats and shove them where the sun don't shine as well as any attitude that may accompany those threats. If a police officer is allowed out of the office, they damn sure better know the laws they are supposed to uphold.

 

[smurf hunter]

With rights come responsibilities. Even in the best case scenario, the cops get a call and come check you out. Suppose the arriving officer knows you personally:

"hi Ralph. We got a call that some one was open carrying, but since we now know it was you and you're cool, we'll be leaving now. Have a nice day."

No hassle, no threats, or ill words exchanged. BUT - some law enforcement resources were "wasted" taking the call from the lady walking her poodle across the street and the responding officer checking you out.

Yes, it's your right, but if the behavior results in a consistent waste of tax payer resources, there's a point where you're just being antagonistic.

I happen to agree with Burke's analogy to holding a racially charged sign on the sidewalk. It's your right, but be prepared to alienate and upset people.

 

[pchewn]

Elected officials and heads of law enforcement organizations are required to manage risk on behalf of the government entity they represent, and ultimately on behalf of the citizens who live within their jurisdiction. When the law enforcement agency receives public notice (a call from anyone) of a "man with a gun", they would be negligent to not respond. Can you imagine the liability potential if they elected to not respond because that someone might be legal... and it turned out the "man with a gun" was listening to the "voices in his head" again before they shot some place up?

A couple of comments on this.

1) The police are not "liable" for not responding. You cannot sue the police for not protecting you. You can sue the police for denying you your civil rights.

2) What SHOULD happen is this:
CALLER to 911: "Man with a gun! Man with a gun! Hurry"
DISPATCH: "Are you in any danger?"
CALLER: "No, he has a gun in a holster and is washing his car. He has a gun RIGHT HERE IN THE PARKING LOT!"
DISPATCH: "Is he threatening anyone?"
CALLER: "No, like I said, he is washing his car. HE HAS A GUN!"
DISPATCH: "It is not illegal to have a gun."
CALLER: "Really?"
DISPATCH: "Yes. Is he making any threatening gestures or any other suspicious behavior?"
CALLER: "No."
DISPATCH: "If there is no threat, the police will not be responding. OK?"
CALLER: "Well.... I guess so. You are sure it is OK to wear a gun?"
DISPATCH: "Yes, it is"
CALLER: "OK, bye"

The dispatch should take care of filtering these panic "MAN WITH A GUN" calls.

 

[The Quiet Man]

A couple of comments on this.

1) The police are not "liable" for not responding. You cannot sue the police for not protecting you. You can sue the police for denying you your civil rights...

I believe I said "on behalf of the government entity they represent". Do you really think the City of Beaverton would not be sued by survivors and families of deceased victims if the PD failed to respond to a reported "man with a gun" who ultimately shot people? Do you really think dispatchers are in a position to "filter" panic calls and decide whether or not to send officers? Tell that to any Mayor, Police Chief, or City Attorney and see what the response is.

 

[pchewn]

I believe I said "on behalf of the government entity they represent". Do you really think the City of Beaverton would not be sued by survivors and families of deceased victims if the PD failed to respond to a reported "man with a gun" who ultimately shot people? Do you really think dispatchers are in a position to "filter" panic calls and decide whether or not to send officers? Tell that to any Mayor, Police Chief, or City Attorney and see what the response is.

The answer to both questions is YES.

Yes (I really do think the city would not be sucessfully sued)
Yes (I really do think that dispatchers do filter the calls they receive to see which ones merit response.)

 

[R-Rizzo]

You are not exercising a RIGHT by carrying concealed. You got permission from the state to carry your weapon concealed. Permission can be taken away, a RIGHT can not. The OP is one of the few actually exercising his RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, and I am amazed at the people who don't recognize that.

Hiding a right is not exercising it. We have the RIGHT to free speach. Are you really exercising the right to free speach if you have to say things in private and out of earshot of anyone it might offend? No you are not. You are exercising your right if you go out and say what you have to say, no matter who is listening. If you do not exercise your rights, you are flirting with losing that right.

I choose to carry concealed most of the time. I do so for my own reasons. I'll be god damned if I will condemn someone for exercising their right in the open. Is it reasonable for the police to check the guy out if they see him carrying in the open. Yep. That is reasonable. It is not reasonable to do anything but check him out. They can take their threats and shove them where the sun don't shine as well as any attitude that may accompany those threats. If a police officer is allowed out of the office, they damn sure better know the laws they are supposed to uphold.

As I was sitting here reading the comments thinking, really? How can form a response that doesn't come off as i'm sounding like a douche... Then I came across yours. Words cannot express how much I agree with your post, I think you nailed it perfectly. I think... I love you Bwahahahaha..

But in all seriousness. I do agree with this statement. Yes the police to have a duty to check it out. But once he has determined the OP is legal, that is the end of it. I will not have my rights infringed or compromise my safety for other peoples "feelings". Especially the "sheeple". Whether I choose to open carry or conceal carry is between God, My Wife, and Myself. Why do you feel the need to walk down the sidewalk. You could get mugged, you should've know better. Why do you feel the need to drive a car to work? You should ride a bike it's safer. If I am conducting myself in a civilized, lawful, manner then the Govt or anyone else for that matter does not get to tell me how to do that.

 

[R-Rizzo]

And this is just one example, and yes I know it's wikipedia, but i'm feeling lazy-ish now....

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been demonstrated over and over again, that police have no duty to protect an individual from criminal attack. Even after several calls and reports of criminal activity taking place.