by

Guy Carries Gun Open And Legal, Cites Law & Cops Backdown


open carry detainedIn an incredible video a man is stopped for carrying a firearm openly and legally in Portland Maine. To his credit, Portland PD officer J. McDonald, was polite. However, He was dead wrong to have stopped the man in question. The conversation was straightforward and not heated, which is how it should be, though this conversation should have never happened since it was not illegal for the man to be carrying his weapon.

Because people have a problem with someone carrying a firearm in public does not make it illegal, nor does it give police the authority to detain someone for doing what is legal.

The gentleman cites Delaware v Prouse for being detained without suspicion of any criminal activity.

He then cites US v DeBerry to demonstrate the officer’s reason for detaining him was illegal.

Terry v Ohio is cited because the officer seized his weapon with no reasonable suspicion that the man in question had actually committed a crime.

Finally without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, the officer then asks for the man’s ID which violates Hiibel v Nevada.

Once the officer’s supervisor arrived, the man appealed to him for his weapon and was given it back and on his way.

Not only should the officer learn these laws so that he will not violate them, but gun owners need to know these laws to protect themselves.




Tagged with 
  • robert campbell

    amen I’ll never back down from a cop stopping me for carrying mine

  • robert campbell

    amen I’ll never back down from a cop stoppping me for carrying mine

  • Buck Crosby

    These laws vary from state to state so if someone is going to practice it they have to know the law and above and beyond that because most of the foottroops in law enforcement aren’t that well educated on seldom used laws .

  • MikeJ

    Ignorance of the laws by police officers is rampant. A few years back I was blackmailed(They would steal $10,000.00 of vacation time) into resigning from my job. The chief of police for the college threaten to arrest me in the future once he talks to the Prosecuting Attourney, which never happened because the Castle Doctrine applied to having my concealed carry weapon secured in my car. They used a policy created in 2003 that had been made illegal by a 2007 statute as the reasoning for the threats and intimidation. The saddest part is there is no accountability for these purposly ignorant cival servants who don’t care to follow their oath.

    • Maynard

      Mike J: it is hard to keep up with the laws today since so many lawyers, paticularly the ACLU, are getting laws passed and rulings from liberal courts that beneift the misfits of our society, to the detriment of the rest of us. The ACLU was once known as the Lawyers Guild, a communist front, that was exposed by the US Congress. Its executive board consisted of five very staunch communists. The communist then organized a replacement for the communist lawyers, along with their fellow travelers and dupes, so they created the American Civil Liberties Union and appointed five socialist and communist to its executive board. Chang the names but keep the purpose: to use law to bring down our country and defend our traitors. One of the exceutives, a fabian socilist, later to be a mentor of J.F.K. and a Constitutional Law professor at Harvard, Felix Frankfurther, was later appointed the U.S.Supreme Count Chief Justice. Don’t say it. I know what you thin. You don’t believe it. That kind of thinking illustrates how easily Americans can be decieved by the enemies of our country. What to you think Obama learned as a socalled Constitutional law student at Harvard: To learn how to use and subvert the Constitution and bring down America? Is thius not what he is doing? Find out if he is or ever has been a member of the ACLU. Probably nothing if he is a secret agent of theirs.

  • kategray

    I have heard it said”Ignorance of the Law is not excuse”. But with changing of the laws on a daily basis it is a hard thing to do. But I will assuredly do that now.

  • jimpeel

    Well, I guess we are going for 3 outta 4 wrong. Pursuant to Terry the act of seizing the firearm and the officer holding it during the stop was proper even if the stop itself was improper; because the officers had no reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. The mere act of legal activity is not reasonable cause for suspicion or detainment. The Terry search was improper because the stop was improper; but the Terry search was proper for the situation. I know that sounds strange but read it a few times and the lights will come on.

    So he actually got it right on one out of four of the citations he cited.

    4. The Fourth Amendment applies to “stop and frisk” procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.

    (a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

    (b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a “search” under that Amendment. P. 16.

    5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

    (a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

    (b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

    (c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

    (d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

    (e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

    (f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

    6. The officer’s protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

    (a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer’s hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.

    (b) The officer’s search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

    7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.

    • Maynard

      Jimpeel: There is a big difference between rulling on those who hve oir are suppected of having concealed weapons, as oppsedtothose who have weapons exposed and easily seen.

  • jimpeel

    Apparently, this guy just likes to spew false data. Hiibel was found for the state and against Hiibel and his refusal to give his name. From the link in this story:

    ,blockquote>No. In a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion (the police officer was investigating the assault, and Hiibel was nearby) and involved only a minimally intrusive question (his name). It also did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Hiibel never argued that telling the officer his name would actually incriminate him of any crime. Justice Kennedy wrote, “While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.”

  • jimpeel

    The linked UNITED STATES v. DEBERRY (7th Circuit Court of Appeals) says nothing of the carrying of a firearm not being sufficient cause to stop. The DeBerry case was a post-sentencing appeal that the government failed to give him a time waiver for his being willing to assist them in the case against him. While he was a felon-in-possession there are no particulars on how or why he was stopped. Citing DeBerry, as done in the video, will get you laughed at if the officer is familiar with the case.

    Nowhere in DeBerry does it state that the “A firearm, where legally carried, cannot be the only cause for reasonable suspicion for a stop.” He is totally making that up. In fact, the word “suspicion” appears nowhere in the ruling.

  • Headhoncho

    Good for the police! Even though there was some initial stumbling, they ultimately got it right and they should be commended!!!

  • http://www.joeswebmarket.com Joe G

    If the so called president thinks his idea of trashing the second amendment has come to fruition he is seriously mistaken,apparently he and hilary are delusional in that because they believe somehting should not be must already be*WRONG* we are a society of laws,just because he has no respect for our constitution doesn,t mean he can make his own laws,he realizes that people are afraid to challenge him and will use the race card at the drop of a hat,well sorry barry sotoero we the people are not afraid of you and we will continue to do everything we can to get you out of our White House because you are a disgrace to the office of the president,and i will carry my weapon no matter what you say.

    • John

      Completely agree with Joe G!!

    • Mike88

      It isn’t that the people of this nation aree afraid to challenge Obama, it is that our alleged Representatives and Judges are afraid to challenge Obama because of the alleged race card that he and Eric Holder like to pull out at the drop of a hat. The law abiding citizens of this nation have no problem with challenging Obama and many have.

  • James Marvel

    I don’t see where the last 2 cases give you any rights. Did I miss something in reading them?

  • Einstine

    If the man had been an illegal alien he probably wouldn’t have been stopped, because they might have been afraid of profiling.

  • Terry

    Dave, you apparently have had issues with authority. Your comment is without foundation and certainly without thought.

  • Dave

    Sadly, most cops are some of the stupidest people in the country, the rest are totally incompetent. Just like in the military, most cops are at the lowest end of the totem pole, intelligence and education.

    • Einstine

      Sad Dave, with out the military and George Washington you may not even be here.

    • Maynard

      Dave: I was a cop for 18 years and you do not kow what you aretalking about. If cops are as dumb as you say they are, then ou are dummer!

  • dalek

    Why not just remind them of the 2nd amendment?

  • Jammer

    This citizen had better find another place to live. I can tell you from experience that “he is a marked man”. Every time he shows up in public, no matter it be, walking, riding a public conveyance, or driving motor vehicle, he is going to be harassed for every minor violation that law enforcement can determine. He did prove his point, but at an extreme cost.

    • william spires

      Thats sad that America has come to that but most likely true that when you insist on your rights the criminally insane government wants revenge, especially under obama. Consider the Joe the plumber incident during the 2008 election when obama was embarassed in public about socialism and in less than 24 hrs Joe’s entire life history was illegally obtained and published front page news and was gossip around the water cooler, now that is quick revenge from the new Fourth Reich Gestapo.

    • Mindy

      Should the police retaliate in such a way, then this guy will be able to file civil and criminal lawsuits for harassment, stalking, abuse of police powers and likely a couple more I haven’t thought of. Since the officer in the video showed a courteous and professional manner, I do not believe that this guy is in any danger of that.

  • koldwindblows

    It’s a sad state when ordinary citizens have a better understanding of the laws that the police have the responsibility to uphold and enforce.

    • Tank

      You have to have this knowledge these days because you know our “protectors” do not, and they will make up any old BS to take your rights away from you.

    • Maynard

      I was a policeman for 18 years and uding that time I knew that a person could legally carry afire arm on his hip, whereever, so long aqs it could be easily seen by anyone, particularly a police officer whose responsibiity is to protect the public. The same with hunting knifes and hatchets. Remember dangerous weapons, like ball bats arried out in the open, and deadly weapons like guns are two different things, yet both can kill. Only concealed weapons like guns and knives with a blade over 3 inches long, were considered as deadly weapons and in violation of the law. Carrying a deadly weapon in the open was never a violartion of the law, because the Constitution allowed ll of us the righ to bare arms for self defense of ourselvs, our families and ourproperty, as wellas indefense of our couintry, freedoms and Constitution; and our polioticians better take note of this fact!

  • liberty49

    I will certainly note these cases and pass them on.