OC (regardless of how uncommon) and GATTTOP were both bull. Therefore, not legit.
If you have a question about proximity, tell me that. Don't start with BS, then try and justify.
Like I said; It went reasonably well, but it shouldn't have happened.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 12:34:26 AM

Screw it...

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 12:50 AM. Reason : ...]

10/14/2009 12:46:06 AM

Restricted: I'm actually interested in what you have to say.

10/14/2009 12:55:49 AM

Sounds like it worked out OK, and they treated you well once they realized you were in the right, but I have a problem with them not allowing you to get a witness or turn on your recorder (even though I think that walking around wired all the time is a little crazy).

10/14/2009 1:12:32 AM

I do have a digital voice recorder that I sometimes carry. Its primary purpose is leaving myself messages and to remind myself of things I need to do. It wasn't with me tonight.
I always have a digital camera with me, and it takes very good video recording. I would have used that to just record the interaction.

10/14/2009 1:14:29 AM

Quote :

"Just from your side of the story it sounds like a legit investigative detention. While OC is perfectly legally except where prohibited by state law, and city/county ordinances, it isn't something you see everyday."

OC'ing, no matter how rare, is not cause for being detained. No matter how close to a free kill zone (school property) and that a local store was robbed recently. It's simple - OC is legal. If you're not breaking any laws, you shouldn't be harassed/illegally detained.

And as for the Sgt calling Daryl back and asking to "call next time you meet" really? really? why? so we can be watched/harassed by RPD? it's a meeting of law abiding citizens obeying the law, why should we need to call? that is unless, RPD wants to attend the meeting and become part of the conversation. What a joke. I respect the police and think for the most part they do a great job. However, it is their job to prevent/stop crime, which can make anyone a target in their eyes and if they are going to enforce the laws, they need to know the laws, and obey the laws. It's sad that these two officers did not know the laws and it shows poorly on the department as a whole. I'm glad they stayed fairly calm and level headed AND actually listened to Daryl and called in to find out the law. This is a failure of the department and should never have happened. Hopefully, the Sgt will keep his word and educate the department.


I hear CCfC is meeting soon and they'll be praying and singing. Better call RPD and warn them



[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 8:18 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 8:12:06 AM

Remember that in the courts that is a reasonable officer standard and not a reasonable person. While OC is perfectly legal, it is not common. Something that is not common warrants attention given its context: The context here is carrying an exposed firearm so close to an institution where firearms are such a huge deal.

On that note, given you proximity to the campus, I believe you have enough RS to warrant an investigative detention to determine if a crime was or is being committed. While GATTTOP is a very broad law, remember that NCSC has ruled that a firearm qualifies and even the NCAG's office has even stated in the writing that "persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms." Hence, your proximity to an institution that strictly forbids firearms and in this post VT-era, I believe based on an officers training and experience, you have enough for an investigative detention.

I could be totally off, but I think it could articulated for an investigative detention. Now if charges came of this encounter...that might not work out too well.

10/14/2009 1:41:54 PM

still, not common != right for detainment. it's been stated in courts, OCing is not RS for detainment. It doesn't matter if you are near a free kill zone. that's like giving someone a speeding ticket because the speed limit decreases ahead even though no law is currently being broken.

also, I believe the courts (I can't remember the case names, but Daryl may know them) it was also ruled that firearms are not dangerous and unusual weapons.

a much better way for the officers to handle this situation, if they just can't follow what the law states and leave him be, would be to approach and simply ask. No attitude, detainment, illegal seizure of the firearm is necessary. Hell, RPD has seen me walking on HB ST with my pistol and they did nothing, not even look back. Thankfully, in my case, the officers knew the law.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 1:51:02 PM

I didn't say that not common is reason for detainment! I said given the context...and you can't use speeding as example because you can articulate that an armed subject so close to a University poses a greater risk to public safety.***

I'm not trying to say one party was right and the other was wrong. I was not there, I don't know what the officers were thinking. But from what I have read on here, and from what i know, I think you can articulate justification on paper.

***I'm well aware you aren't going to shoot up the school, just using this for the sake of argument.

10/14/2009 2:06:17 PM

yeh, I got ya. and if someone was bound to go shoot up a school... well, how many times have those people been walking down the street, OCing? it doesn't happen. people either drive onto campus with their firearms, conceal them, or they probably have a long-gun... while an armed-person near a school may potentially present a threat in an officer's mind, all the facts don't add up to a threat.

In the end, had these officers actually known the law (they admitted they didn't), they certainly would have no RS to detain and most likely wouldn't have bothered anyone. A guy walking down HB ST OCing isn't posing a threat. Someone that does pose a threat does not fit this profile/set of "criteria" (mainly these people would either be concealing or brandishing... not OCing; it doesn't make sense that someone would OC right onto a campus to shoot it up)

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 2:17:58 PM

In NC, a firearm is considered and "unusual and dangerous" weaopon, by case law.

By case law as well, OC is not RAS for a stop and/or detainment.

10/14/2009 4:07:14 PM

ha. i googled GATTTOP to find out what it meant, and the first two links were the exact story posted on 2 other message boards.

10/14/2009 4:28:18 PM

Going Armed to the Terror of the Public is a common law charge. Statutory reference to Armed to the Terror of the Public:

§ 14-288.3. Provisions of Article intended to supplement common law and other statutes.

The provisions of this Article are intended to supersede and extend the coverage of the common-law crimes of riot and inciting to riot. To the extent that such common-law offenses may embrace situations not covered under the provisions of this Article, however, criminal prosecutions may be brought for such crimes under the common law. All other provisions of the Article are intended to be supplementary and additional to the common law and other statutes of this State and, except as specifically indicated, shall not be construed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant other provisions of law. In particular, this Article shall not be deemed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant such common-law offenses as unlawful assembly, rout, conspiracy to commit riot or other criminal offenses, false imprisonment, and going about armed to the terror of the populace and other comparable public-nuisance offenses. (1969, c. 869, s. 1.)

There are 4 criteria that must be met:

1) arming one's self with an unusual and dangerous weapon

2) For the purpose of terrifying others

3) goes about on public highways

4) in a manner to cause terror to others.

10/14/2009 4:31:49 PM

wait, I thought firearms didn't meet #1?

10/14/2009 4:52:55 PM

Wow, good job on keeping your cool with cops who seemed to be reaching for reasons to arrest you.

10/14/2009 4:58:57 PM

Firearms do meet #1, unfortunately.
All 4 need to be met though, so it really isn't a problem.

10/14/2009 5:02:03 PM

How does the requirement that it "Goes on about public highways" fit into that part of the statute? I guess it's part of the broader statute that Gatttop applies only to highways?

10/14/2009 5:07:20 PM

^^ah, meant pistols anyway.... well glad you said that then.
^yeh, pretty much.

10/14/2009 5:11:15 PM

^^ Is highway a termanology for high traffic/congested area versus the paved kind? (ie: I-40)

10/14/2009 5:24:02 PM

Highway generally covers public roads.
Last week a guy was on western with a bb gun (rifle) with a laser sight, and was pointing it at people. He was charged with GATTTOP.

10/14/2009 5:30:08 PM

Not to sound like a dick, not trying to be, but what case law says that a firearm does not satisfy element #1? According to the Dec 2007 release by the NCAG, it specifically states the firearms satisfy element #1.

10/14/2009 6:11:34 PM

^I had it backwards. my bad. I hate that law (the way it's written, interpreted, enforced, and abused).

however, I do believe that this law has never held against someone with a holstered firearm (not sure if that's from courts or just arrest/charging records though) thus giving OCers more merit/ammo against illegal GATTTOTP stops & searches.

[Edited on October 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2009 6:14:51 PM

Here are the issues with the stop:

Harlow vs Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 800. A government employee is required to know the law governing his/her conduct.
---"if the law is clearly established at the time the action occurred, a public employee is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity based on good faith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct."

State v Huntley the court clearly states that the mere possesion of a holstered weapon does not constitute GATTTOTP.
"it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun, per se, constitutes no (p.423)offence. For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun." -- State V. Huntley

Similar, but not directly the same: McColley vs Alamogordo Police Dept. Man removed from a theatre for possession of a firearm(legal in New Mexico)briely detained outside then released. Large settlement against the dept. and the officers were not given immunity and he is in the process of suing them individually.

Terry vs Ohio:
Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174 -176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878). 23 And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=392&invol=1

Florida vs. JL:
Held : An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=98-1993

10/14/2009 11:36:49 PM

This discussion needs a theme song:



Truth be told, if someone were available to comment on the detainment to onlookers, it would have been a very informative session that would be pro-OC. Civility in the face of the the law, proper conduct and the end to the encounter seem to sound pretty positive. When it comes to actually getting something hammered out for SCCC, public opinion will be a big pressure against the legislators. As was seen in the Brickyard, there are a lot of people who have always had negative experiences with guns and are quite vehement in their opposition to them. Changing the laws will most likely require many more public exhibitions of good character to gain backing. Just stay calm lowrider.

Only encounter I've had was a deputy responding to a shots fired call who rolled up on to my family's property. When I saw him walking up (was not in visual range of the driveway) I lowered the hammer and holstered my revolver before I inquired, "Problem deputy?". He told me about responding to a shots fired call and was just having to check out the problem. I showed him the target and berm setup, how were weren't in town, and distance from dwellings and he confirmed that no laws were being broken. Apparently a .357 is loud enough to disturb some people a ways away on a Saturday afternoon. Was another good encounter, but was on private property and nobody would know about it.

10/15/2009 6:29:20 AM

Quote :

"Harlow vs Fitzgerald"

I don't think Harlow v. Fitzgerald absolutely defines that a person, in this case an LEO, has to know his job. This cases had more to do w/ establishing immunity for state officials in federal civil rights court.

Quote :

"Terry v. Ohio"

1+1 rule: if there is one weapon, there is a second.

Quote :

"Florida v. JL"

This case is about predicting future behavior based on an anonymous tip. I.e. someone calls 911 and says that a male is standing at the bus stop with a gun in his shirt (no reasons to stop) vs. someone calling 911 and saying, Mike, a white male wearing a black sweatshirt and jeans, is carrying a gun and at 3pm this afternoon a red car will pull up and he will sell them 5 kilos of cocaine to another white male.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 7:44 AM. Reason : Do you have more on the Huntley case, I could only find that one page]

10/15/2009 7:43:47 AM

I'll look for more Huntley info.
here:
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 3:06:26 PM

What's a good compact rifle?

10/15/2009 3:26:23 PM

Thats from 1843. From what I've read, this law has been pretty much untested in court because its never charged.

10/15/2009 3:36:03 PM

who cares about the date? It still fully applies, and has never been challenged.

10/15/2009 4:40:48 PM

^^^what do you want to do with it?

10/15/2009 10:23:53 PM

I've been thinking of taking some solo mountain bike camping trips, so I'd want something I can either strap over my back or onto the back of a bike.

10/15/2009 11:09:20 PM

^ OK. what do you plan on using/having this rifle to shoot? Small game? Large game? People?

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : also, Low Rider is not by ZZ Top.]

10/15/2009 11:20:22 PM

have you thought about contacting RPD and asking if they had anyone that would like to attend a meeting similar to what you did with campus police? i think it would be a good opportunity for some back and forth dialogue.

10/16/2009 12:09:13 AM

Quote :

"People"

It's mainly a self-defense measure. Unless I get attacked by a bear.

10/16/2009 8:55:48 AM

have you considered getting a pistol?

10/16/2009 9:00:57 AM

Yeah but then I'd have to get a concealed carry permit and a license and blah blah blah blah....

Isn't there a small carbine available? I know Cx4s are under 30".

10/16/2009 9:04:17 AM

I know absolutely shit about guns, hahaha.

10/16/2009 9:07:51 AM

Quote :

"Yeah but then I'd have to get a concealed carry permit and a license and blah blah blah blah..."

license?? there is no license... unless you mean a gov't issued ID...

and you don't need a CCH to have pistol (but if you're carrying in national parks you have to have one now).

10/16/2009 9:31:22 AM

when are you going biking?

it might be worthwhile just to go ahead and take the class and get the permit. A pistol would be alot less cumbersome and easier to maneuver with in a personal defense situation in the woods

10/16/2009 11:40:40 AM

Not for awhile, it's just something I've been planning. I've been looking at solo tents and camping equipment and whatnot, and I figured that it might be worthwhile to look into personal protection while out there as well.

So I figured a rifle would be easier since there's less regulation surrounding it (at least that's what I thought about CCW rules etc.) and I thought if there existed a rather small firearm that was technically a rifle, then that would be good.

I mean, I'm going to have a tent strapped to the bike, so a 2.5' rifle probably wouldn't be much more.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2009 11:48:53 AM

Just pack a bow and arrow, Rambo style.

10/16/2009 1:25:34 PM

Quote :

"I thought if there existed a rather small firearm that was technically a rifle, then that would be good."

A lot of us feel that way. Unfortunately the ATF disagrees.

10/16/2009 3:08:27 PM

Well what are some small rifles/carbines/etc?

10/16/2009 3:22:03 PM

hi point 9mm carbine is cheap and will do what you want i guess

10/16/2009 3:28:42 PM

*googles*

That looks pretty threatening.

But will it take down a 6 foot 7 man in a PCP induced rage?!

10/16/2009 3:30:34 PM

I've got a ruger mini-30 I'll sell ya.

message_topic.aspx?topic=458612&page=50#13363664

Rifle, 4 mags, and 900 rounds of ammo. $600. You can get a folding stock for it so that it's more compact.

Carbine length rifles without spending a ton, you're talking AR-15's, ruger mini-30/mini-14s, ruger 10/22 but I wouldn't carry a .22 for protection.

If you're seriously thinking you might need protection from a bear, you should just carry a shotgun.

10/16/2009 3:33:09 PM

lol. may take a few rounds that's when you need a high powered rifle or a shotgun with buckshot

10/16/2009 3:34:27 PM

Nah I figured the worst would be some crazy person that I'd run into if I went hiking alone in the mountains.

10/16/2009 3:37:36 PM

Quote :

"While OC is perfectly legal, it is not common."

exactly like interracial dating

10/18/2009 4:22:16 PM

load em up

10/18/2009 7:28:11 PM