Me vs. Beaverton Police

[Mudpuppy]

I am an LEO and a firearms instructor at an agency in Oregon. I agree with what a lot of posters have to say here. I also disagree with some. I am all about someones right to open carry, but there is no way in **** I would ever do it. In my opinion (wich may or may not be right...just an opinion!) the whole reason for carrying concealed is because it is just that...concealed. If you are walking around with a firearm in plain view it defeats the whole purpose of even carrying one. For example,if a criminal is armed and wants to rob you at gun point, you may as well say goodbye to your beloved firearm also. When he saunters up and politley engages you in conversation, asks for a light, or directions, or whatever, he already knows you are armed. So with your right hand shoved in your pocket digging out your zippo he sticks a magnum in your face. Then his buddy approaches from behind and takes your gun, wallet,zippo, and whatever else he wants...while you stand there wishing your gun was concealed in case they try to take you or your wife or child and leave.
I would think someone with a legal CHL would feel like a real jack *** when he was explaining to the responding officers that while he was excercising his right to open carry he was robbed, and now his child is spending the weekend with a couple dopers in a meth lab. And dont be fooled for one second if you think a firearm is a deterrent to everybody! A lot of these guys have stared down the barrel of a gun many times or even been shot multiple times, and they are still committing the same crimes.
Please just use your thinking caps fellas. By excercising open carry, you have already given away any element of surprise you may need. Please be safe!
Oh and BTW, coloneltim...your wrong. If you are walking down the road and an officer asks you for your ID, you do have to give it to them. If not, you can be arrested and charged with Failure to present. A chippy charge? yep. But a legal one none the less. You may just fit the description of someone they are looking for.

 

[Cougfan2]

I am an LEO and a firearms instructor at an agency in Oregon. I agree with what a lot of posters have to say here. I also disagree with some. I am all about someones right to open carry, but there is no way in **** I would ever do it. In my opinion (wich may or may not be right...just an opinion!) the whole reason for carrying concealed is because it is just that...concealed. If you are walking around with a firearm in plain view it defeats the whole purpose of even carrying one. For example,if a criminal is armed and wants to rob you at gun point, you may as well say goodbye to your beloved firearm also. When he saunters up and politley engages you in conversation, asks for a light, or directions, or whatever, he already knows you are armed. So with your right hand shoved in your pocket digging out your zippo he sticks a magnum in your face. Then his buddy approaches from behind and takes your gun, wallet,zippo, and whatever else he wants...while you stand there wishing your gun was concealed in case they try to take you or your wife or child and leave.
I would think someone with a legal CHL would feel like a real jack *** when he was explaining to the responding officers that while he was excercising his right to open carry he was robbed, and now his child is spending the weekend with a couple dopers in a meth lab. And dont be fooled for one second if you think a firearm is a deterrent to everybody! A lot of these guys have stared down the barrel of a gun many times or even been shot multiple times, and they are still committing the same crimes.
Please just use your thinking caps fellas. By excercising open carry, you have already given away any element of surprise you may need. Please be safe!
Oh and BTW, coloneltim...your wrong. If you are walking down the road and an officer asks you for your ID, you do have to give it to them. If not, you can be arrested and charged with Failure to present. A chippy charge? yep. But a legal one none the less. You may just fit the description of someone they are looking for.

Best post in this entire thread.

 

[R-Rizzo]

Oh and BTW, coloneltim...your wrong. If you are walking down the road and an officer asks you for your ID, you do have to give it to them. If not, you can be arrested and charged with Failure to present. A chippy charge? yep. But a legal one none the less. You may just fit the description of someone they are looking for.

Do you by chance have an ORS for that? The only one I could find was 807.570 - Failure to Presnet or Carry License, but according to the ORS is only applicable while operating a motor vehicle.

 

[m1gunr]

Taping conversations state by state
<broken link removed>

 

[m1gunr]

Please just use your thinking caps fellas. By excercising open carry, you have already given away any element of surprise you may need. Please be safe!
Oh and BTW, coloneltim...your wrong. If you are walking down the road and an officer asks you for your ID, you do have to give it to them. If not, you can be arrested and charged with Failure to present. A chippy charge? yep. But a legal one none the less. You may just fit the description of someone they are looking for.

You think its giving up the element of surprise.. I see it as a deterrant, who wants to screw with someone clearly armed???

Good thing I Live in Washington where we have have Article 1 Section 7 as well as my 4th Amendment rights and don't have to provide ID on demand to the boys in blue....

 

[Mudpuppy]

You think its giving up the element of surprise.. I see it as a deterrant, who wants to screw with someone clearly armed???

Good thing I Live in Washington where we have have Article 1 Section 7 as well as my 4th Amendment rights and don't have to provide ID on demand to the boys in blue....

Ummmm...the same people who screw with Police officers or soldiers who are also clearly armed! As far as the whole ID thing? I would give an officer my ID if they asked for it because I have nothing to hide. I totally understand why someone who may be involved in something a little sketchy would not want to, but to not show your ID just because seems immature to me...just my opinion. As I said before there are a lot of reasons why an officer may want to ID you, and not all of them are bad. They may be looking for lost dementia patient, trying to find someone who's loved ones were just transported to the hospital under critical circumstances.....you get the picture.

 

[Stomper]

I am an LEO and a firearms instructor at an agency in Oregon....

Oh and BTW, coloneltim...your wrong. If you are walking down the road and an officer asks you for your ID, you do have to give it to them. If not, you can be arrested and charged with Failure to present. A chippy charge? yep. But a legal one none the less. You may just fit the description of someone they are looking for.

Hey Mudpuppy,

You wouldn't happen to know the ORS for that one would you? In another thread I mentioned that adults are required to carry some form of government issued ID for the very reason you mentioned, and was shot down by several posters that I was wrong... but I remember from the days of my youth of being told by an LEO that we were required to carry ID when out in public because we were over 18... and my google-foo isn't turning up the correct ORS so far.


OFF TOPIC:
BTW, I was an Army MP before I re-upped for the Infantry (it was better suited to my temperment and "skill sets"... LOL) and "mudpuppy" was a slang term used for MP's, were you one as well? We were also called "Multi Purpose-Mop Pushing-Mud Puppies"... sadly it was all true!

 

[Mudpuppy]

As a matter of fact, I did just the opposite of you. I was in a light Infantry platoon for 3 years then I re-upped as an MP. So..yep, that's where I got it from. Where were you stationed, and when?

 

[python287]

Biggie-

I personally think you acted like a dickhead. You say you have a CHL - does the term CONCEALED mean anything to you. In this day and age when the police get a report of someone carrying a handgun in public - they are expected to respond and make contact with you.

So instead of acting like a CHL permit holder - which requires certain responsibilities from you - you instead acted like some cheap gunslinger (ie PUNK) who either just wanted to show off that you were a big bad armed dude- or you wanted to force a confrontation with the Local police.

Most CHL holders that I know - never let on that they are carry concealed. It's called responsibility- this isn't the wild west where everyone is going around packing heat. What may be appropriate out in the woods - is certainly not appropriate in a large City.

Personally I don't think you are mature enough to have CHL - and it should be revoked. Or your just a punk that thinks carrying a firearm out in the open so you could walk to the local Plaid Pantry makes you a tough guy.

Proper Concealed Carry is the responsibility of every permit holder to act appropriately - not like some gun slinging punk.

I base this on 32 years in law enforcement dealing with people like you that think that acting like a jerk is your privilege ..

 

[SteelyDan]

Wow Python, acting like a jerk isnt a privilege....it's a right. I'm sorry if it irks cops, security guards or anybody else! I hope you are retired from whatever line of work you were in!

 

[python287]

Wow Python, acting like a jerk isnt a privilege....it's a right. I'm sorry if it irks cops, security guards or anybody else! I hope you are retired from whatever line of work you were in!

It's not about irking cops- it's about acting responsible - as in if you are a CHL permit holder then you have a responsibility to carry your firearm appropriately - instead of acting like some street punk.

And nope I am not retired - as a Police Officer. I just get a little tired of people who think that acting like a jerk is OK. There are already enough people out there who don't like firearms - why add to the problem. After all CARRYING CONCEALED- means just that..

 

[Minisocks]

As I began to walk towards the doors I noticed two uniformed officers coming towards the building and I decided to show them my CHL inside my wallet as I exited the store. They (officers Crino and Bennett) made contact with me and I gave them my IDs and they began to ask me as to why I was open carrying that day. I asked Officer Crino if I had permission to record the situation on my cell phone and he rudely said "NO! you don't have permission"

For future reference, Oregon is a single party permission state when it comes to recording conversations (that is, you don't need every party's permission, just one, if you're part of the conversation, your permission is enough). Second, if you're in a public place you always have permission to record a conversation because there's no expectation of privacy. Third, I understand why you asked because Beaverton cops are dicks.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

For future reference, Oregon is a single party permission state when it comes to recording conversations (that is, you don't need every party's permission, just one, if you're part of the conversation, your permission is enough). Second, if you're in a public place you always have permission to record a conversation because there's no expectation of privacy. Third, I understand why you asked because Beaverton cops are dicks.

The single party dealio is only for over the phone.
Face to face both parties have to agree.
Sounds funny but I am pretty sure it is correct.

 

[KomradRazvan]

Biggie-

I personally think you acted like a dickhead. You say you have a CHL - does the term CONCEALED mean anything to you. In this day and age when the police get a report of someone carrying a handgun in public - they are expected to respond and make contact with you.

Yep.

So instead of acting like a CHL permit holder - which requires certain responsibilities from you - you instead acted like some cheap gunslinger (ie PUNK) who either just wanted to show off that you were a big bad armed dude- or you wanted to force a confrontation with the Local police.

Most CHL holders that I know - never let on that they are carry concealed. It's called responsibility- this isn't the wild west where everyone is going around packing heat. What may be appropriate out in the woods - is certainly not appropriate in a large City.

Personally I don't think you are mature enough to have CHL - and it should be revoked. Or your just a punk that thinks carrying a firearm out in the open so you could walk to the local Plaid Pantry makes you a tough guy.

Proper Concealed Carry is the responsibility of every permit holder to act appropriately - not like some gun slinging punk.

I base this on 32 years in law enforcement dealing with people like you that think that acting like a jerk is your privilege ..

I agree.

But with the rest i don't. He was excercising his 2nd Amendment Right, and was openly carrying, the fact that he had a CHL is what gives him amnesty from beaverton's open carry bans. The problem that he created, in my mind, and i think in the minds of others on here, is the way he went about handling the situation when the police questioned him about it.

Wow Python, acting like a jerk isnt a privilege....it's a right. I'm sorry if it irks cops, security guards or anybody else! I hope you are retired from whatever line of work you were in![/QUOTE

It has nothing to do with professions. OP is a security guard, as am I.

The single party dealio is only for over the phone.
Face to face both parties have to agree.
Sounds funny but I am pretty sure it is correct.

you are somewhat correct. On the phone, you're right, only you 1 party is required, and face to face, all parties have to be if there is an expectation of privacy, but when it comes to public officials, you can. At that time, they are no longer a private person, but a public employee and no longer under covered by that when performing official duties (as in this case stopping Biggie).

 

[RVTECH]

Do you by chance have an ORS for that? The only one I could find was 807.570 - Failure to Present or Carry License

Unless I missed it was this question ever answered?

 

[Karma]

Biggie-

I personally think you acted like a dickhead. You say you have a CHL - does the term CONCEALED mean anything to you. In this day and age when the police get a report of someone carrying a handgun in public - they are expected to respond and make contact with you.

So instead of acting like a CHL permit holder - which requires certain responsibilities from you - you instead acted like some cheap gunslinger (ie PUNK) who either just wanted to show off that you were a big bad armed dude- or you wanted to force a confrontation with the Local police.

Most CHL holders that I know - never let on that they are carry concealed. It's called responsibility- this isn't the wild west where everyone is going around packing heat. What may be appropriate out in the woods - is certainly not appropriate in a large City.

Personally I don't think you are mature enough to have CHL - and it should be revoked. Or your just a punk that thinks carrying a firearm out in the open so you could walk to the local Plaid Pantry makes you a tough guy.

Proper Concealed Carry is the responsibility of every permit holder to act appropriately - not like some gun slinging punk.

I base this on 32 years in law enforcement dealing with people like you that think that acting like a jerk is your privilege ..

Personally, I think you sound like a dickhead and should have your 1st Amendment revoked. How about that?

I am tired of all of the people deciding how others exercise their Second Ammendment RIGHTS! You may not find it appropriate to open carry in a city, but who the **** are you? I don't care what you find appropriate.

Would I open carry as a general rule in a big city? Nope. I don't find any advantage to it at all, but I am not going to sit here and tell someone else they can't do it just because I choose not to.

I don't know what this guy's intnetions were. I guess that must be the measure of the legality of a constitutional right now huh? A bunch of people need to sit around and decide if they THINK his intentions were right?

This is the thing. It isn't about what you would personally do. There is a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. How individuals choose to exercise that right is a personal choice that should be supported by all who hold this right dear. Just because you personally might not own a assault rifle doesn't mean that you shouldn't support the right of someone else to own one.

If we don't get our crap together, none of us is going to have a right to own a bb gun.

 

[RVTECH]

My intentions were to have this be a learning experience and show that we have rights

So what do we (or should we) expect from our rights? Should we be able to exercise them without the expectation they may be challenged purely because they exist?

 

[sweetbeard]

another fail thread.

 

[m1gunr]

recording laws of the 50 states
<broken link removed>

So by some of the comments of some folks on this forum you feel that if i was watching a kids ball game by myself I should show ID that I am not a pedophile ...??? Some of you folks are clearly CC and I get that but some of us feel we have nothing to hide and thus carry our weapons OC AS ALLOWED BY STATE LAW.


Federal court
A Dec. 4, 2008, declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia could rattle the law enforcement establishment's legal underpinning.

In a case involving Zachary Nelson Mead, the court adopted a settlement in a case declaring that seizing a firearm for no reason except that it was openly carried violated the Fourth Amendment's protection again unreasonable search and seizure.

Mead filed a federal civil rights action after a Richmond County sheriff's deputy, Tadum Townsend, stopped him outside a Kroger grocery store as Mead was returning to his car from shopping, according to federal court records. Mead was carrying an exposed handgun in a holster on his belt.

In Georgia, a person must have a firearms' license to carry such a firearm openly, though Mead had a military exemption from the law. Even so, he had the license.

Without his consent, the court stated, the deputy seized the pistol, even though Mead handed the officer both his military identification and the firearms' license.

Though the sheriff's department eventually returned the firearm, Mead sued, contending the deputy had no probable cause to believe Mead had or was about to commit a crime and had no reasonable 'articulable' suspicion that he was committing or about to commit a crime.

As the court noted in summarizing Mead's arguments, federal case law allows officers to conduct investigatory stops without a warrant only if "the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." To make a showing that he or she in fact had reasonable suspicion, the court continued, "[t]he officer must be able to articulate more than an 'inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch of criminal activity.'"


In addition....
On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

 

[python287]

I Oregon if you are going to record a conversation in public - you MUST tell the person the conversation is being recorded- doesn't matter if you are a LEO or a citizen. if you don't do that you can be arrested.. Over the phone is much different..

As for bearing arms - with that right comes responsibility -