Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Case law relevant to open carry

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Case law relevant to open carry

    Hey all, this is just my fourth post here and I thought I would ask and see what everyone here knows about relevant Federal case law for open carry, particularly in regards to the 4th amendment.

    So, what do you guys know?

    This is geared towards assessing knowledge and promoting discussion.
    OPEN CARRY CALIFORNIA!

  • #2
    Originally posted by kontemplerande
    Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SRT936 View Post
      Couldn't agree more, I'm tired of repeating myself. I'm going to punch nitrovic for bringing them over here
      In Memory of A Fallen Hero

      Comment


      • #4
        Popcorn n lawn chairs for all!

        Comment


        • #5
          Mеня это не интересует.
          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            I like Snickers bars!!!
            sigpic
            Originally posted by Smurfette
            Lord have mercy. You're about as slick as the business side of duct tape.
            Originally posted by DAL
            You are without doubt a void surrounded by a sphincter muscle.

            Comment


            • #7
              Aaah I see.

              Well, I know most/alot of the Federal (and CA) case law surrounding most of the OC topic and I have used it quite frequently in my IA investigations against overzealous police officers.

              Overall, I just wanted to see how up to speed everyone is on it now. I have been waiting about a month to get my account here validated so that I can work on correcting some patently misinformed posts on this site regarding a lot of firearms law, both statute and case. However, I can see that this will be a hard-fought proposition, considering the wall that many of you have thrown up

              Just my .48 (adjusted for inflation).

              CARRY ON!

              -N8
              OPEN CARRY CALIFORNIA!

              Comment


              • #8
                Right, junior. A student is gonna school us cops (most of us have WELL OVER 10 years on) on criminal law. Go away dude.
                sigpic
                Originally posted by Smurfette
                Lord have mercy. You're about as slick as the business side of duct tape.
                Originally posted by DAL
                You are without doubt a void surrounded by a sphincter muscle.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pullnshoot25 View Post
                  Well, I know most/alot of the Federal (and CA) case law surrounding most of the OC topic and I have used it quite frequently in my IA investigations against overzealous police officers.

                  Overall, I just wanted to see how up to speed everyone is on it now. I have been waiting about a month to get my account here validated so that I can work on correcting some patently misinformed posts on this site regarding a lot of firearms law, both statute and case. However, I can see that this will be a hard-fought proposition, considering the wall that many of you have thrown up

                  Just my .48 (adjusted for inflation).

                  CARRY ON!

                  -N8
                  Haha, first off you can't have an "IA" investigation. Only a sworn law enforcement officer employed by a department in the division of Internal Affairs may initiate an IA investigation. Nice try kid.
                  In Memory of A Fallen Hero

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by FJDave View Post
                    Right, junior. A student is gonna school us cops (most of us have WELL OVER 10 years on) on criminal law. Go away dude.
                    Years on the job doesn't mean you have valid experience. For instance, most cops out here in CA still haven't figured out that they cannot demand/take ID from people unless they have been arrested and accused of a crime (Kolender v. Lawson) and that decision happened over 26 years ago.

                    I jut came for the discussion. No need to be self-righteous about it.
                    OPEN CARRY CALIFORNIA!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JPSO Recruit View Post
                      Haha, first off you can't have an "IA" investigation. Only a sworn law enforcement officer employed by a department in the division of Internal Affairs may initiate an IA investigation. Nice try kid.
                      Three of the four I have initiated have been completed. I am well aware of the process.

                      Perhaps I should have used different wording. However, that error has been corrected.

                      Edit: By "initiated" I mean "filed." (Sorry, I am used to more informal speech. If there is a beterway to reay this information, I am all ears)
                      Last edited by pullnshoot25; 09-20-2009, 10:04 PM.
                      OPEN CARRY CALIFORNIA!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So enlighten us Einstein, how does an outsider conduct an internal........
                        Today's Quote:

                        "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                        Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pullnshoot25 View Post
                          Years on the job doesn't mean you have valid experience. For instance, most cops out here in CA still haven't figured out that they cannot demand/take ID from people unless they have been arrested and accused of a crime (Kolender v. Lawson) and that decision happened over 26 years ago.

                          I jut came for the discussion. No need to be self-righteous about it.
                          Quoting old case law about a law that is no longer on the books doesn't do you any good either.....


                          Start with looking up a little case called Hiibel

                          Here I'll help:


                          In Hiibel, the Court held that a Nevada law[3] requiring persons detained upon reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to identify themselves to a peace officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination. Unlike California Penal Code §647(e) as construed in Solomon, the Nevada statute was apparently interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court as requiring only that persons detained state their names.[4]

                          California Penal Code §647(e) was repealed in 2008 at the request of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.[5]

                          [edit] Notes
                          ^ California Penal Code §647(e) read, in relevant part,
                          “Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (e) who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification.”
                          ^ Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, noted that the law
                          “... provided no standard for determining what a suspect must do to comply with [the law]”, conferring on police “virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.”
                          ^ Nev. Rev. Stat. (NRS) §171.123(3) provides that:
                          “The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.”
                          Today's Quote:

                          "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                          Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            lol complainer... anyways let me throw in my thoughts. Even if it were declared legal to carry open everywhere by the OBAMA himself, it would be stupid to do so, why loose the advantage of surprise and oh wait I'm talking to a non sworn officer about tactics... um the bad guy is going to take your gun and kill you with it and you will feel stupid.

                            I like popcorn.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am well aware of Hiibel. I usually quote it alongside Kolender.
                              OPEN CARRY CALIFORNIA!

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6154 users online. 349 members and 5805 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X