Federal judge rules that concealed carry is probable cause of criminal activity

[Jimmy Dean]

I don't think the OP had that issue though. Otherwise it would have been titled Federal Judge rules 30min detention of CCP Holder is reasonable, or something to that effect. I think anywhere from 10-15 minutes would have been reasonable at most, but I don't agree with 30mins. That is unless there was something else going on that we don't know about.



If you think that is something that is kept secret, think again. If I run your driver's license for any reason, I can see your social security number. If that is something you shouldn't be required to give, then why do I fill that in whenever I arrest someone? I may have overlooked it, but I also don't recall seeing anything saying he had to give his SSN.

I don't want people to think I'm making statements for or against this either. I disagree with it taking 30+mins for the entire process. I also think that even IF the law is unconstitutional, it will be repealed. But as of right now, it is still a law that was being upheld. I see no issue with it being ruled probable cause for a stop and detention of someone for questioning.

Carrying a concealed weapon, in Louisiana, is a violation of state law. There are exemptions to this, which means there are ways you can have an affirmable defense. Disagreeing with that would be like saying killing someone isn't reason to stop and detain someone just because it was self-defense.

So, what we are saying here is this?

You cannot stop me when I am OCing because it is legal, and you have no grounds to believe that I am breaking the law, (i.e. not allowed to carry, felon, or whatever the case may be) basically, OC is legal, and you have no reason to believe that I am exempted from that law(s) (or lack thereof in this case)

CC is illegal, and therefore, seeing someone do it is reasonable suspicion of a law being broken, because you have no reason/indication (until after you stop them) that they have a permit/badge and are exempted from the law(s) ?


I know that the wording is a bit confusing, trying to get both paragraphs fairly close in structure for comparison reasons.

 

[Summit_Ace]

So, what we are saying here is this?

You cannot stop me when I am OCing because it is legal, and you have no grounds to believe that I am breaking the law, (i.e. not allowed to carry, felon, or whatever the case may be) basically, OC is legal, and you have no reason to believe that I am exempted from that law(s) (or lack thereof in this case)

CC is illegal, and therefore, seeing someone do it is reasonable suspicion of a law being broken, because you have no reason/indication (until after you stop them) that they have a permit/badge and are exempted from the law(s) ?


I know that the wording is a bit confusing, trying to get both paragraphs fairly close in structure for comparison reasons.

That is it exactly. As soon as you have to ask permission/get a permit it is no longer a right. The only time you truly exercise your RIGHT to bear arms in the great state of Louisiana is when you open carry. Other states like Vermont and Alaska recognize the Constitution further by not prosecuting for concealed carry without permission.

 

[Summit_Ace]

OK, I do agree with the whole, shall not be infringed. But here is the thing.

Until it gets changed, it is still a law. So therefore you must abide by it till it gets changed, or go to jail/receive a citation. So that being as it is, I still see no problem with detaining someone to verify the CCP.

I do not think 30mins was necessary, unless there is something more to the story we haven't read, which is entirely possible. The officers involved appear to just be enforcing the laws of their state, which so far have not been ruled unconstitutional.

I think we have the whole thing backwards. Just likeone is supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. I believe laws should be unconstitutional till proven otherwise. If our legislators had to to prove the laws they make constitutional before they went on the books we would have a hell of a lot less laws. But that would restrict the government rather than the people.

 

[tunatuk]

That is it exactly. As soon as you have to ask permission/get a permit it is no longer a right. The only time you truly exercise your RIGHT to bear arms in the great state of Louisiana is when you open carry. Other states like Vermont and Alaska recognize the Constitution further by not prosecuting for concealed carry without permission.

I am not debating what right it is or isn't, or if it is or isn't a right. What I am operating off of is the fact that the law clearly states carrying a firearm concealed is illegal UNLESS you have a permit.


LexisNexis Law Entry

It states that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Except if you have a permit. Last I checked, this isn't the SIMS video game, and everybody's info isn't in a bubble over their head where everyone else can see it. So I don't know you have a permit.

If I see you conceal a firearm, as far as I know, you are committing a crime. Its that simple. Until I see your permit, which is an exemption, you are committing a crime.

Now as far as open carrying, and being stopped...

I can, and depending on how you act will, stop you. At that point, you are not detained though. It will be a consensual encounter. Meaning you consent to me talking to you. I'm not going to write down your name, or run your firearm. I will ask who you are, and where you're going and all that jazz. You are not detained. If you walk away from me, I have no legal recourse...UNLESS you are acting fishy. And by that, you know what I mean. The same feeling that Joe Q Citizen gets about a person, would be enough for me to prod further, and find out what the deal is. For that, you can see the famous Terry case (the one that legalized Terry frisks).

Again, I am not debating the is a right/is not a right aspect of this. As LEO, I have to operate within what is law at the time. Just because a law gets repealed ex post facto, does not mean that you aren't guilty of having done it 20mins before it was repealed. You can, and would still be convicted of it. At the time of commission, it was a law on the books.

I do think 30mins was a bit long, but I would say 10-15mins at most would be a "reasonable" amount of time to detain someone.

 

[tunatuk]

So, what we are saying here is this?

You cannot stop me when I am OCing because it is legal, and you have no grounds to believe that I am breaking the law, (i.e. not allowed to carry, felon, or whatever the case may be) basically, OC is legal, and you have no reason to believe that I am exempted from that law(s) (or lack thereof in this case)

CC is illegal, and therefore, seeing someone do it is reasonable suspicion of a law being broken, because you have no reason/indication (until after you stop them) that they have a permit/badge and are exempted from the law(s) ?


I know that the wording is a bit confusing, trying to get both paragraphs fairly close in structure for comparison reasons.

Correct, both in LA and GA. I just read GA's law, and posted it in my last post, so see it for all the legal mumbo jumbo.

The gist of 14:95 (I'll go with LA law since I know the RS off the top of my head) is that it is illegal to carry a weapon concealed on your person. That means that the act itself, concealing a firearm on your person, is illegal in and of itself. It requires only the presence of you, your firearm, and the intentional concealment thereof. One of the affirmable defenses, meaning exemption, or something that would allow you to do this, is having a concealed carry permit, a law enforcement commission etc, ON YOUR PERSON. You can be arrested for Illegal Carrying of a Weapon.

The act of open carry of a firearm, is not illegal in and of itself. Meaning it is not a crime unless you violate some section or subsection of 14:95 (airports, courthouses etc etc). You cannot be arrested for Open Carry of a Firearm (ref: Marchiafava v City of Gonzales).

I can have a consensual encounter with you if you are open carrying. I have done it in the past, do it currently, and will continue to do so unless I am told I am violating someone's rights by having a conversation. If I see someone with a gun, I make it a point to go find out who they are and what they are up to. I don't detain them, and have no legal grounds to stop them from telling me to go fly a kite.

I normally do it in a friendly manner, because I am also curious about carry choices people make and always enjoy learning more about firearms if possible. But again, they tell me to go fly a kite, and walk off, all I can do is follow or walk away myself. If they do something, say something or act suspiciously, then I have reasonable suspicion to detain them in order to attempt to gain probable cause to make an arrest if need be...but it wouldn't be for Open Carry, it would only be if they were committing another crime.

An example would be a traffic stop I assisted with the other day. Got out with the guy, and he said he had a .22 rifle in the backseat. Not a big deal, he was still in the car (it was cold, and we are at least somewhat considerate), so I secured the weapon temporarily. It didn't come back stolen, and we were going to let him go. But he said he had been arrested before. So we ran his Criminal History, and learned he had felony convictions.

Once we wrote him his ticket, he was no longer detained, and I was actually in the process of putting the gun back in the car. Once he let that other nugget of information slip, that he had been convicted of drug charges in the past, he was detained again based on reasonable suspicion. We then had probable cause to make an arrest once we recieved the info about the drug charges. He was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Not just because he had a gun in his car. Its because of who he was, and he was in possession of a firearm.

Does that make sense in this whole thing? That is the best example of something along the lines of "open carry" and detention that I can provide off the top of my head.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

Yeah, makes sense I believe.

 

[dzelenka]

Tuna or any other LEO,

Why do you run the serial number of a firearm to see if it is stolen as opposed to any other item in the vehicle - i.e. watch, cell phone, computer, etc. Any of these could be stolen. It seems to me that gun owners are being singled out.

Good story about the stop and subsequent arrest. There are actually a lot of real life lessons that non-LEOs could take away from it.

Dan

PS I want to say that the way Tunatuk described both what he would do and the example of what he did is how I believe an LEO should act. I don't want my question to be interpreted as anything disparaging.

 

[Bayoupiper]

When I have suspicion, I always run high end items like laptops, etc. in addition to firearms.

I thought we all did.................


.

 

[SirIsaacNewton]

Would not have happened if he had one of these

Therefore I am going to buy 3.

 

[dzelenka]

When I have suspicion, I always run high end items like laptops, etc. in addition to firearms.

I thought we all did.................


.

I would hope that running serial numbers would be standard "when you have suspicion". What I am trying to find out is why, so it seems from the LEO's postings, firearms are routinely run no matter who the driver is. i.e. if I were stopped, middle aged white male, squeaky clean record, etc., why would the serial number of my pistol, or any of the many rifles that may be in my truck, be run. What would warrant that action? Is mere possession of a firearm without anything else sufficient cause to run its serial number? If so, why?

Dan

 

[Bearco]

I would hope that running serial numbers would be standard "when you have suspicion". What I am trying to find out is why, so it seems from the LEO's postings, firearms are routinely run no matter who the driver is. i.e. if I were stopped, middle aged white male, squeaky clean record, etc., why would the serial number of my pistol, or any of the many rifles that may be in my truck, be run. What would warrant that action? Is mere possession of a firearm without anything else sufficient cause to run its serial number? If so, why?

Dan

The focus is the evil gun rather than the suspect.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I would hope that running serial numbers would be standard "when you have suspicion". What I am trying to find out is why, so it seems from the LEO's postings, firearms are routinely run no matter who the driver is. i.e. if I were stopped, middle aged white male, squeaky clean record, etc., why would the serial number of my pistol, or any of the many rifles that may be in my truck, be run. What would warrant that action? Is mere possession of a firearm without anything else sufficient cause to run its serial number? If so, why?

Dan

Dan, as I am sure you are aware, it is generally policy to run any serial number on a firearm. The logic is because they are very vulnerable to theft and are often used in Felony crimes. The intent is to see if it is stolen or wanted for connection in another crime.

It is similar to how every plate is run that is pulled over. Many plates that are not pulled over are run. The intent is to check and see if they were stolen.

Not you, but many will argue, well you don't run my cell phone, my radio, etc, and they can all be stolen. I would hope most could see the difference there. That said, not everyone is run.

Often, it is not a policy perse, but a standard practice. That said, many officers do have discretion similar to the fact that i do not necessarily run every person I stop for warrants.

 

[charlie12]

I had my gun ran in a stop one night. Been having a CHP for about 13 yrs never had a ticket, only been stopped 3 times since I was 15 yrs old and wasn't breaking any laws then they were fishing, never driven without insurance, never even had a expired sticker.
But he was had to run my gun. Why would I keep my **** together for 57 yrs. and then CC a stolen gun.

I think they run them because they can and just like traffic stops late at night, they might get lucky and catch big fish.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I had my gun ran in a stop one night. Been having a CHP for about 13 yrs never had a ticket, only been stopped 3 times since I was 15 yrs old and wasn't breaking any laws then they were fishing, never driven without insurance, never even had a expired sticker.
But he was had to run my gun. Why would I keep my **** together for 57 yrs. and then CC a stolen gun.

I think they run them because they can and just like traffic stops late at night, they might get lucky and catch big fish.

So you were stopped for absolutely no reason? You were not breaking a single law?

 

[Bearco]

Even with the multiple times I USED to be pulled over, I have never had a gun ran or been disarmed. I also have never been pulled over on the south shore or Baton Rouge.

 

[sraacke]

Even with the multiple times I USED to be pulled over, I have never had a gun ran or been disarmed.

Same here. Each time the officer acknowledged the firearm, told me to keep it holstered and, after running my plates, sent me on my way.

 

[charlie12]

So you were stopped for absolutely no reason? You were not breaking a single law?

First time he told me the reason for the stop was he couldn't read my plate. My plate is a Army vet. plate with 3 numbers, both plate lights were working and I heard him call in the plate for before he stopped me. (his plate light was out)

Next a Trooper stopped me because he couldn't tell what was in the back of my truck. When he got out of his unit he saw it was newspapers and said he was sorry for stopping me. Really a nice guy, need more like him.

Last time passed a deputy that was looking for a shooting suspect driving a white truck, I was driving a blue truck. The suspect was 5'6" with a gotee and tattoos. I'm 6'5" with no gotee and no damn tattoos.

So no I wasn't breaking any laws.

The funny thing is the first two stops were in the same driveway.

 

[dzelenka]

Even with the multiple times I USED to be pulled over, I have never had a gun ran or been disarmed.

Same here. I have been pulled over everywhere, in many states. I used to have a car that attracted attention. The fact that I may have driven it a bit sportly and didn't bother with such trivia as license plates or brake tags may have been a contributing factor.

 

[FishingBack]

My father once got pulled over because they wanted to know what was in the back of his truck. It was a deer cart.

 

[tunatuk]

my rule of thumb for running a serial number on a gun is this:

If I end up with the gun in my hands for any reason, I run it. meaning if I disarm you, or feel the need to secure your weapon, it gets run. if you keep it in the glove box, and don't need to go in there, it doesn't get run.