Can a rifle be carried openly in public

[ATX_Shawn]

Whoa.. this thread got heated.

I honestly don't intend to stir the pot.. I'd just like to propose a question to those LEO's in the room.. Burt, I understand if you choose to opt out. And I apologize if this has already been asked, I read a lot of the thread but not all of it. (if so point me in the right direction and I will be on my way.)

If I choose to carry my rifle slung across my back, and I am approached (which is likely) by PD. What would be the most appropriate way to handle the situation from a citizen's point of view? Keep in mind my goal is to continue about my business as quickly as possible and proceed with my weapon slung.

I understand that from a LEO's perspective he is simply trying to do his job, and go home in one piece. I fully appreciate that an office may ask me to disarm so he can speak to me and I would have no issue doing so. (I think this should be posed as a question, not a lawful command.)

If necessary I am willing to have this conversation privately

 

[Glockster69]

I'm sorry, the person you are trying to reach.................


J/K

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

The best way is to do as the officer asks and be polite-no matter how he may act.

 

[majormadmax]

Active Duty Soldier Illegally Disarmed and Arrested - YouTube

15th

Great, except it is legal for a peace officer to disarm someone (if they reasonably believe a safety risk exists) and he wasn't arrested for the open carry of a rifle but for interference with public duties (Texas Penal Code § 38.15).

So, basically the police officer did nothing wrong and MSG Grisham was rightfully charged. But don't let a little issue like the law interfere with your or anyone else's rhetoric concerning this incident!

 

[Dullandtasteless]

I have read through this entire thread, and feel the need to chime in here.

One problem is the intent to create alarm is open to interpretation. We as gun owners don't normally feel slung over the back is intent to create alarm. Non-gun owners or unknowledgable feel just having it in on your person is intent to create alarm hence the 9-1-1 calls. Personally my interpretation would be magazine inserted.

A couple of years ago my truck broke down 3-4 blocks from home, so I decided to walk. My AR-10, and 2 bolt action rifles 270 and .22lr were in the truck ( not about to leave them there). I slung the DRAGBAG over my shoulder and carried the other 2 rifles in their soft cases. Less then half a block from home an officer pulls up his cruiser points his sidearm at me and tells me to get face down. I did, proceeded to ask him what was the reason for this treatment? His reply "For my safety".
Me "Your safety from what?
Oficer " Your weapons"
Me "They're f@&$ing in their cases! I think you're safe"
A second cruiser pulls up this one a sheriff. Asks the PD officer a few questions, stands me up, asks me a few questions like "why are you walki g down the street with 3 rifles?" He is happy with my answers, and sends me my way home.
I did not appreciate being treated like a criminal for doing nothing illegal, and may have filed a complaint, but a half hour later as my wife drove me to the auto parts store that sheriff was still reading him the riot act.
There are people that are good at their jobs and people that aren't in all walks of life and all careers.

 

[M. Sage]

Great, except it is legal for a peace officer to disarm someone (if they reasonably believe a safety risk exists) and he wasn't arrested for the open carry of a rifle but for interference with public duties (Texas Penal Code § 38.15).

So, basically the police officer did nothing wrong and MSG Grisham was rightfully charged. But don't let a little issue like the law interfere with your or anyone else's rhetoric concerning this incident!

Only if they have RS to detain.

Also:

§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

38.15 only applies if the detention was legal.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Only if they have RS to detain.

Also:

§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

38.15 only applies if the detention was legal.

I think this is where many of us disagree, the RS.

 

[M. Sage]

I think this is where many of us disagree, the RS.

It is.

 

[Dust]

we have a whole thick book of stuff that can be applied. The "citizen" determines the degree used.

simply in need of an attitude adjustment.

A cop threatening citizens. Like I'm back in martial law Japan. No one wonders why cops on the highway cause the most problems.

 

[TwinGlocks]

The best way is to do as the officer asks and be polite-no matter how he may act.

I agree. Copping an attitude + threatening police with litigation + physically resisting + using profanity + not shutting the **** up + not anticipating how other people and police will react to someone openly carrying a rifle = not beating the ride.

 

[CZ guy]

A cop threatening citizens. Like I'm back in martial law Japan. No one wonders why cops on the highway cause the most problems.

Relax grasshopper, I'm retired and have been for several years. You are safe to tell all the law enforcement officers how to act. Isn't that the theme of this website?

 

[Shorts]

Relax grasshopper, I'm retired and have been for several years. You are safe to tell all the law enforcement officers how to act. Isn't that the theme of this website?

Don't paint the entire website in the same color. While we have common deep roots, our details about handling situations are not all the same. You are welcome to leave if you feel this isn't the place for you.

The things I see is citizens don't want to get walked on by LEOs. And LEOs don't want to lose control of the situation.

I asked in another thread (the Boston home search thread IIRC) but I will ask here, when is it appropriate to say 'no'. From what I've read, it is not when in a non-serious situation like hiking with an OC rifle. But then look at Katrina and the gun confiscations there and a 60yo lady got beat up and her guns confiscated for saying no. But that was a more serious situation. What I gather, between citizens being berated for saying 'no' in situations at both ends of the "serious" scale, citizens are never suppose to say 'no'. Is my conclusion accurate?

ETA: Here's my better worded post in the Boston home search on thread:

This is how I feel about the thread of the OC long rifle/LEO confiscating arresting the Sgt. At what point is it ok to speak up and say "no". Is it when under normal, calm, relatively no big deal circumstances? Or is it when It is hitting the fan? Citizens like the Sgt get skewered because he said 'no' in a relatively calm no big deal circumstance (everyone says just comply and be done in 30seconds). But if we take, for example, the gun confiscations after Katrina, any refusal got you beat up and your firearm confiscated like that poor 60yo woman. By that circumstance it was already a situation where it was too big to say 'no' to them.

So, when is it the right time to say "no"?

 

[Burt Gummer]

Great, except it is legal for a peace officer to disarm someone (if they reasonably believe a safety risk exists) and he wasn't arrested for the open carry of a rifle but for interference with public duties (Texas Penal Code § 38.15).

So, basically the police officer did nothing wrong and MSG Grisham was rightfully charged. But don't let a little issue like the law interfere with your or anyone else's rhetoric concerning this incident!

As I mentioned before, this is where the LE practitioners and those who are not familiar with RS differ. Until my 8 month long police academy, I did know understand what RS was or how it relates to law enforcement. Nor was it explained when I got my degree in CJ, and even now while I am working on my masters in CJ. The public is never fully clear on what reasonable suspicion is because they read a statute like UCW and say "oh that guy did not commit that crime" and then fault LE for DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING DUE TO RS of a crime, whether it is UCW, DOC, or any other city ordinance.. This is what happened in this case. You will never be able to explain how reasonable suspicion works, I've tried.


i've tried to explain to friends how investigating 4 guys hiding behind a dumpster at 2am behind a jewelry store led me to arrest them for UCW, POCS, and warrants. Save your time sir, don't try to explain it or tell people how you and the courts do it.

 

[preyn2]

Part of the issue is the person who called 911, and we may never be able to solve that problem...at least not in my lifetime. People who are afraid of a man walking down the street with a gun will call 911 about it, and they will say what they think they need to say to get another person with a gun to go over there and accost that person (anybody see the irony in the situation?).

The call sounds like this (yes, I have taken these calls):

911 dude: 911. Do you have an emergency?

Caller: Yeah, there's a man with a gun at the Booker Ts....

911 dude: OK...that's 905 Bedford, right? Near which building?

Caller: He's out on Thompson Street walking down the sidewalk.

911 dude: What's he wearing, look like, blah blah blah...

Caller: He's wearing and looks like blah blah blah....

Here's where it gets really interesting....

911 Dude: Ok, sir/ma'am, my partner already has an officer on the way over there. What's he doing now?

Caller: He's still walking...and acting crazy...and waving the gun around....

The internet doesn't adequately convey the caller's tone of voice, so let me describe it to you: The guy isn't doing anything but walking, and I want a cop to come over here and accost him for it. In technical terms, this is what we refer to as a "bullshit call".

However, the caller said, on a recorded line, that the person was "acting crazy and waving the gun around".

This information is relayed to the responding officer. Man with a gun, acting crazy, waving the gun around. Suddenly, a bunch of Charlie sector officers have nothing better to do than tool on over to the Booker Ts and check this fool out. And I mean a bunch of them... Maybe some Edward and Baker guys...both of which are a pretty good ways away...suddenly have business over there too.

So they arrive at the described location, find a man fitting the description, and he has a rifle slung over his shoulder. At this point, he's not doing anything illegal, right? But their information is that he had been "acting crazy and waving the gun around".

How should they proceed at this point? How would you proceed at this point?

 

[Dust]

Relax grasshopper, I'm retired and have been for several years. You are safe to tell all the law enforcement officers how to act. Isn't that the theme of this website?

I don't tell officers how to act, they seem to tell me how to act though. I can go back and post some of your comments if you would like

 

[Texastransplant]

Part of the reason this is a problem is the lack of doing this. When we give up lawful rights and do not use them we tend to lose this over time.

 

[Younggun]

I don't think the debate is over what the law is.

The arguments are revolving around whether or not the the encounter should have ended with an arrest.

I think most of us agree things would have gone much smoother if the MSG had kept a cooler head. The disagreement is if the officers should have done the same or made more of an attempt to diffuse the situation instead of trying to bully the guy in to compliance.

Those in support of the officers are claiming they must insure their own safety and their is little argument against that, however they waited a pretty long time to disarm the man and could(and should) have done so much sooner if they felt they were truly in danger.

With just a little effort put in to conflict resolution they could have ended the situation without arresting the man and he probably would have left with a much better view of LEOs which is always a good thing.

By putting themselves on the same level as the MSG and asking him a few basic questions and explaining that they don't believe he's done anything illegal but have no choice to check out the situation because of a 911 call they could have gotten him in to a dialogue. They could then ask questions about the Eagle Scouts program and relate heir own experiences, etc.

Once things are back to a low stress environment they would likely be able to explain their reasoning to check his identification and he might actually be receptive.


I stead they chose to use force to accomplish their goal and managed to give many a very negative view of their actions and cause a PR nightmare.

None of this is being discussed however because once some sided with the MSG others sided with the LEOs. The first group defended the actions of the MSG so the LEO supports dug their heels deeper and it pushed each side to the very edge and neither willing to admit fault because the other side would latch on without admitting their side could have done differently.

IMO the problem was not the 911 call or a man carrying a rifle. It was the attitude of the man which may or may not have been brought on by what happened before the camera started rolling and an LEO who has either never had conflict resolution training or had to much pride to lower himself e to the level of the man and diffuse the situation using words instead of trying to force his will upon the man.

The man would be on his way, his son would not have a negative view of police, and the police would have had les paperwork to do. Everybody wins.

 

[CZ guy]

Stalking Soldier Arrested, Disarmed by Texas Police: Some facts, opinion, and analysis

And the rest of the story........

 

[OIF2]

Stalking Soldier Arrested, Disarmed by Texas Police: Some facts, opinion, and analysis

And the rest of the story........

Thanks for the link.
Bob

 

[bwalker]

I just found and read this entire thread. It's been very interesting and somewhat entertaining. I think "Younggun"'s last post was spot on and very well put. I thought I would share a video of an open carry stop that shows an officer keeping a cool head while checking on some guys reported by a 911 call. I think they were actually disappointed to have an officer respond that was so level-headed.

Here's the link:

I Love This Cop. Best Open carry Stop Ever - YouTube