| Author | Post |
|---|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 12:02 am |
|
timf343 wrote: NavyLT wrote: Good luck, Tim, I stand up and applaud you. I wish I were present in LV, I would be willing to be the videographer for a future encounter. Thank you for your bravery in standing up for all of our rights.
Thanks! I assume from your name you're in the service, so I stand up and applaud you sir. The risks you take far outweigh the minor inconveniences I'm willing to deal with. But I do appreciate the encouragement.
I am active duty. I am getting paid for what I do. You are losing money on yours.
|
irish
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
I also commend you for keeping your cool and as a 2nd volunteer to video any and all other exercises of your Constitutional rights.
I will not convey my wishes and wants to the scum who detained you on a public forum.
|
wewd
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:06 am |
|
| Your story floored me. I had no idea the Gestapo is operating in the State of Nevada. Are you sure they didn't make you click your heels and salute before they let you go? Sounds like there needs to be some massive OC get-togethers on the strip in the near future. I wanna see what these jack-boots do with several dozen armed citizens walking down the sidewalk. I would definitely drive out for that one. I'll be the guy with the red triangle armband.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:28 am |
|
I think that's a great idea. To those who volunteered to video tape, this would be a much better way to properly "utilize" you. If we could get 5-10 armed citizens walking down the strip, 2 or 3 cameras would be able to capture it.
Next week is a bad idea. It's July 4 weekend and the strip is PACKED. The following weekend sounds good though.
How about tentatively we say Saturday July 11? I'd like to do it early evening or later to get the heat to die down some.
I'd love to get a picture at the Las Vegas sign with the group facing the camera strong side. Tropicana Hotel has ample surface parking along E Reno and it is approximately a 1.1 mile walk to the sign. I'll go drive down there and see what pedestrian access is like, it might be limited now that the sign has its own parking lot.
Another choice is parking at the Harley Davidson Cafe or Fashion Show Mall and choosing an alternate route/destination. I'm obviously trying to avoid the casinos (Tropicana excepted due to its surface parking in very close proximity to Las Vegas Blvd).
North of Sahara there are lots of residential neighborhoods with on-street parking but far fewer tourist-type destinations.
There's always downtown too. Park at the Neonopolis garage on 4th (pay) and stroll down Fremont St. It's pretty safe now as far east at 8th St, where "Fremont East" begins, in front of El Cortez, and then of course west all the way to Main St. Though under the canopy, I would estimate we're more likely to encounter security rather than police (at least at first).
Anyone have any preferences? As you probably know, I'm open to any of them.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:41 am |
|
Re: Fremont St, anyone have any knowledge on whether this is "private property" or other weird rules might apply?
Also, I just remembered July 10-12 is the Campaign for Liberty regional conference here at Bally's....Congressman Ron Paul and others like that...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/event/2009vegas.php
The Friday night (8-10pm) "Freedom Celebration" is free to the public at the Bally's Event Center. From their email:
Our Friday night Freedom Celebration on July 10 is free and open to the public! Take advantage of this opportunity to bring along family and friends who may have never heard our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity. Friday night's speakers include Mark Skousen, editor of "Forecasts & Strategies" and producer of FreedomFest, Mises Institute Senior Fellow and C4L contributor Tom Woods, and Congressman Paul.
It is a casino, but they're hosting this event.....might be a good event to try to get to OCing so we have a story to share with them if we're denied entry, and if we're not denied entry, to show that responsible gun owners know how to behave inside casinos 
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 297 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 10:53 am |
|
| Tim they are crucifying you on the Nevada shooters board. I just do not understand how some folks do not see the violation of rights. It does not matter to me if some one is "looking" for trouble or not. The Bill of Rights still applies.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 01:55 pm |
|
Steve, thanks for the heads up. I went over and defended myself. We'll see how it goes.
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:50 pm |
|
You do know, I said if I was in LV, I would video! I am in Oak Harbor, WA, though! I hope everything works out well for. I am going to check out Nevada Shooters.....probably a bunch of hide our guns away, don't show our rights, concealed carry only panzies. Oh, did I say that out load - that dang outside voice....
OK. I looked briefly. They are just morons. Well, maybe they aren't, maybe they are reasonable, intelligent people just making moronic statements who find it perfectly acceptable for our rights to be slowly whittled away.
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:55 pm by NavyLT
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:59 pm |
|
It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC.
|
geoffw
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:09 pm |
|
timf343 wrote: It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC.
Thats because many are cops, gun trainers, etc that believe OCing defeats the purpose of having a CCW and eliminates your "tactical advantage".
Which makes sense, but.....OCing is more political than anything else
We had a get togethor at Chilis last night and about 1/2 of us were OCing. Probably 10-15 people.
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:10 pm by geoffw
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:54 pm |
|
geoffw wrote: timf343 wrote: It does seem the vast majority are anti-OC.
Thats because many are cops, gun trainers, etc that believe OCing defeats the purpose of having a CCW and eliminates your "tactical advantage".
Which makes sense, but.....OCing is more political than anything else
We had a get togethor at Chilis last night and about 1/2 of us were OCing. Probably 10-15 people.
It doesn't make sense to me or a lot of others here.
|
Erus
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pahrump, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
bobernet wrote: Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune.
I know for a fact that this sort of stuff is not Metro "policy" any more than driving 100mph+ with no lights and sirens in town is "policy."
Getting the attention of the local brass on this issue will likely lead to some changes.
Good luck, Tim. Let us know what we can do to help.
And for everyone else, a minor word of encouragement - there are good Metro cops out there who believe largely as we do, and are working to educate and change perceptions from within.
Bob
VERY well said Bob.
But I would add that the best way to get the attention of the brass might be that giant lawsuit.
|
Erus
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pahrump, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:01 pm |
|
timf343 wrote: Re: Fremont St, anyone have any knowledge on whether this is "private property" or other weird rules might apply?
Also, I just remembered July 10-12 is the Campaign for Liberty regional conference here at Bally's....Congressman Ron Paul and others like that...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/event/2009vegas.php
The Friday night (8-10pm) "Freedom Celebration" is free to the public at the Bally's Event Center. From their email:
Our Friday night Freedom Celebration on July 10 is free and open to the public! Take advantage of this opportunity to bring along family and friends who may have never heard our message of freedom, peace, and prosperity. Friday night's speakers include Mark Skousen, editor of "Forecasts & Strategies" and producer of FreedomFest, Mises Institute Senior Fellow and C4L contributor Tom Woods, and Congressman Paul.
It is a casino, but they're hosting this event.....might be a good event to try to get to OCing so we have a story to share with them if we're denied entry, and if we're not denied entry, to show that responsible gun owners know how to behave inside casinos
If I am not mistaken, Tim.. (sorry no cite )
Jan Laverty had Fremont declared a state park or something so she could use the police to empty the streets right after midnight on NYE when she was mayor a little way back when.
With the whole "experience" down there I would guess that there is some sneaky reason/N.R.S. they can use to detain/drive you off for OC'ing there.
I could be mistaken.. but my gut tells me this is so. (sad, I remember Helldorado days when I was a kid.. live sixguns on damn near every hip out in front of the Miint and Horseshoe... course I also remember crusing BOTH directions, the "U" turn in the Union Plaza driveway.. on Fremont on saturday nights too.)
And for what it's worth.. I am over the hump in NYE these days, and in a wheelchair, or I would surely come and carry with you on the strip ANYTIME to help stop this blatent abuse of opinion... er I mean authority.
Stick to your guns, Man. You are in the right.
(This incident made me very ashamed of my hometown LEO's. btw.. at least of some of them)
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:04 pm by Erus
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 297 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 11:59 pm |
|
Quote"Sgt Miller continued his lecture and stated that he will stop everyone with a firearm, as that is "enough" reasonable suspicion for him to detain any citizen he so chooses. He said I have to prove I'm not a felon, since a felon in possession of a firearm is a crime. I replied that since this was not Nazi Germany, citizens need not produce their papers to prove they're "legal"."
If they had stopped and asked all the spanish fellas at the Home Depot for papers they would be in a world of @#$% right now. This is no different.
|
calmp9
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 12:07 am |
|
bobernet wrote: Metro has never been burned on this particular issue. Everyone usually lets it drop. It will likely only take one successful lawsuit before they start to change their tune.
I know for a fact that this sort of stuff is not Metro "policy" any more than driving 100mph+ with no lights and sirens in town is "policy."
Getting the attention of the local brass on this issue will likely lead to some changes.
Good luck, Tim. Let us know what we can do to help.
And for everyone else, a minor word of encouragement - there are good Metro cops out there who believe largely as we do, and are working to educate and change perceptions from within.
Bob
Agree 100% on this. There are good cops there. It's not fair to make a blanket assumption. I can understand why they stop someone open carrying. They don't know the person from Adam, but it's the way the stop is conducted that's important. This time, it doesn't look like it was legal.
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 297 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 12:13 am |
|
calmp9 wrote:
I can understand why they stop someone open carrying. They don't know the person from Adam, but it's the way the stop is conducted that's important. This time, it doesn't look like it was legal.
So then it is ok for them to come and knock on your door and find out who you are and what you are doing and what you have in your house?
|
VegasGeorge
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 01:42 am |
|
I too live in Las Vegas. I read this post a few hours ago, and it's been bothering me ever since. I finally felt I had to respond.
I don't doubt that Tim is right on the technical legal issues he raises in his post. However, there are lots of instances where I don't want our Metro officers to feel totally constrained by legal technicalities. Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first.
It appears obvious to me that Tim was making every effort to test the technical legal limits of his right to carry. That's OK, but it obviously and predictably resulted in more trouble than necessary. I always carry my photo ID (NV drivers license), my Nevada CFP, and the Blue Card for the gun I'm carrying. I am more than happy to immediately produce those for inspection on request. I will produce them for an officer, and I will produce them for anyone else who expresses a concern about the presence of my firearm. I want people to know who I am and that I am, in fact, one of the good guys. That's because I'm all too aware that there are lots of bad guys out there, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them. It would have been nice if God had issued us white hats and black hats like the director of an old western movie. But He didn't. So, officers and folks in general have a right to be cautious and fearful when they see me with a weapon. The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.
It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:21 am |
|
Back on topic....
This is in no way intended as an impeachment of your actions...you did what you thought best for your own personal circumstances. You didn't want to go to jail that night and did what you felt you must to avoid that happening.
HOWEVER...IMHO...
One should be fully prepared to stand by their position in their lawful activity, even to the point of being arrested and transported to the klink, else those individuals who are Jabbut-inclined will only be emboldened by those who capitulate to their intimidation tactics.
You have apparently come to this same conclusion based upon your stated intent to no longer carry ID when not driving. I applaud you, sir. I have deliberately carried 'sterile' from my very first day. In my pocket I carry only some cash and a BORSE.
Also, bear in mind that in HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. where..
Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault.
SCOTUS held that :
Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown.
Think about that for a moment....according to SCOTUS, absent "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (think: Terry v. Ohio) YOU ARE NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR NAME. Another SCOTUS quote:
Under those principles, an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the identification request is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.
If you get them to admit that you have not broken any laws that they are aware of, then Terry is NOT satisfied, and the identify statute cited in Hiible becomes moot. The protections of the Fourth MUST be satisfied by a VALID 'Terry' stop (read: reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed) for the Nevada statute to be lawfully enforceable.
Further, their attempt obtain ID to 'determine if you were a felon in possession of a firearm' is a blatant violation of the fifth . Yet another SCOTUS quote from Hiible:
Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445.
If you were, in fact a felon, their attempts to compel you to disclose your name/ID is a direct violation of the fifth as it would open you up to criminal charges. (See 18 USC, sec 241)
Remember.....with the law on your side, the further they take you down the yellow brick road, the more solid your case against them becomes.
(All quotes are from HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., and emphasis mine)
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1347 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:25 am |
|
VegasGeorge wrote: I too live in Las Vegas. I read this post a few hours ago, and it's been bothering me ever since. I finally felt I had to respond.
I don't doubt that Tim is right on the technical legal issues he raises in his post. However, there are lots of instances where I don't want our Metro officers to feel totally constrained by legal technicalities. Their job is to protect me, and in my mind that responsibility comes first.
It appears obvious to me that Tim was making every effort to test the technical legal limits of his right to carry. That's OK, but it obviously and predictably resulted in more trouble than necessary. I always carry my photo ID (NV drivers license), my Nevada CFP, and the Blue Card for the gun I'm carrying. I am more than happy to immediately produce those for inspection on request. I will produce them for an officer, and I will produce them for anyone else who expresses a concern about the presence of my firearm. I want people to know who I am and that I am, in fact, one of the good guys. That's because I'm all too aware that there are lots of bad guys out there, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them. It would have been nice if God had issued us white hats and black hats like the director of an old western movie. But He didn't. So, officers and folks in general have a right to be cautious and fearful when they see me with a weapon. The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.
It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.
How did Tim fail to act reasonably? Under the circumstances, there should have been no contact with LE at all. He was conducting lawful activity. Absent illegal acts, he should have been free to move. Instead, he was unlawfully detained.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:26 am |
|
VegasGeorge wrote: SNIP The truth is, open carry although legal is unusual. I'm the one who is doing something different. I feel I have an obligation to willingly reassure anyone who asks by producing my credentials.
It looks like the officers over reacted in the way they initially contacted Tim. But, it also looks to me like Tim failed to act reasonably under the circumstances.
I wrote this post in another thread.
I've made this next point repeatedly across time. Its all too obvious in the reported encounters. You, as a police officer, have to be almost deliberately overlooking it. Or perhaps you yourself have gotten so used to skirting it that you don't even recognize it when it is right in front of you.
It is not the 2nd Amendment that is being violated during illegal detentions over OC'd guns. It is the 4th Amendment that is being violated.
The police are already supposed to know the 4th Amendment case law.
It is not "change" that is being demanded. It is adherence to the existing state of the law that is being demanded.
Now, here is a handy little quote from Terry vs Ohio.1 The US Supreme Court, when writing Terry, thought it worthy to quote it from an earlier court opinion. They must have considered it rather important, eh? Why else would they include it, of all the possible quotes, or even the option of not quoting it and writing their own version diluting this one?
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.
No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint or interference. Unless by clear AND unquestionable authority of law.
I'd say that is a pretty significant statement, showing up as it does right in the very court opinion that started this era's case law on detentions.
When police start recognizing the damned seriousness of a detention, maybe we'll see fewer illegal detentions. Maybe even legal ones that are at the time questionable before a court later decides otherwise, writing a new set of circumstances into the case law.
The seriousness of an illegal detention is not measured by how much can be recovered in a civil suit, or how much a police officer can get in trouble in his personnel file. It is measured against the principle embodied in that quote and others like it.
Just because the courts cannot control illegal detentions except through the Exclusionary Rule does not mean an illegal detention is not damned serious.
It is a bit of a red-herring, a mis-direction to explain away an illegal detention over OC by saying, "the officer didn't know" or "the police just need to learn that OC is legal" or even "we want respect for our 2A rights".
Police do not need to know that OC is legal. All the police officer needs to know, in light of that quote and other 4A case law, is that he does not know it is illegal. Remember the part about "clear and unquestionable authority of law."
Unless the police officer knows to a dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, he has no business doing anything other than a consensual contact. If he is not sure it is illegal, he has no "clear and unquestionable authority of law." If he cannot say to himself, "I have read the statute that makes OC illegal," he has no business doing anything other than calling his boss or a magistrate to find out, or making a consensual contact.
Being unsure, being indignant, being outraged are none "clear and unquestionable authority of law."
Also, many of the encounters and/or illegal detentions reported on this forum include commentary from the cop illustrating their antipathy to OC. Antipathy is not "clear and unquestionable authority of law."
I have read of too many illegal detentions on this forum. I have been harassed twice myself (includes one 4A violation, one attempted 4A violation, and one 5A violation--an ID document demand.) I have read or seen videos of too many violations of other people that did not involve OC.
I have read of illegal detentions in the court opinions where the conviction was overturned. If the conviction was overturned because the detention was illegal from inception, the cop hardly had "clear and unquestionable" authority of law.
I have read or heard of too many instances of the Blue Wall of Silence, which would barely need to exist if it were not hiding violations or outright crime.
I have a first hand report from people I consider credible of an entire shift of police lying to protect 2-4 members of that shift. I found this astounding. The cops lied not because they were afraid for their own personnel files. They lied soley to protect their pals. An entire shift!! Not one cop told the truth!! Not one. And, the chain of command ignored obvious inconsistencies in the internal affairs report, forwarding those inconsistencies in the department's written public response to the complaint.
What is being demanded is not recognition of 2A. What is being demanded is adherence to 4A.
Why a demand? Why the strenousness and zealousness? A combination of several factors:
An illegal detention is a damned serious matter. Even a legal detention is a serious matter, and deserves an appropriate level of attention to its legal justifications from an LEO.
I am convinced that it is not uncommon for LEOs to violate 4A.
I have read on this forum of four police departments that did not change their ways with the "nice" approach.
I have read on this forum a memo from a group of retired chiefs, etc who were telling the recipient LE departments that OC was legal. In that memo they used language such as "[no matter how indignant you feel]" and "[no matter how much you disagree with it]" OC is legal. Damning choice of words. That they estimated they had to say that in order to get their point received says volumes about what they think is the real state of affairs in LE regarding the 4A.
The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence tells me police are more loyal to themselves than the people they are supposed to be serving. And have a lower ethic than is acceptable. Also, I'll just mention the word "testi-lying". And ask how frequent lying on the witness stand must be for a word like that to come into common understanding in police circles.
Police have the power of the State behind them. That is a lot of power.
Less, shall we say, stringent efforts have not worked to clean up police on the 4A, as observable by the current state of things. Obviously police can't or won't clean themselves up on it.
Thus, I am going to advocate the maximum level of feasible and not illegal effort to intimidate 4A-violating police into at least outwardly respecting the 4A.
If we only insist on respect for 2A by police, we miss the much broader picture on 4A.
No apologies. No Mr. Nice Guy with a cop who misuses his position in violation of the 4A.
And based on that Supreme Court quote above, a reprimand in a personnel file is nothing compared to the seriousness of an illegal detention. A little money out of the city's coffers and/or the cop's pocket is nothing compared to repeated violations of the principle in that quote above. Remember, I am talking all illegal detentions here. Not just 4A violations connected to OC.
We are not talking about getting 2A accepted by police. Those who do miss the mark. It is adherence to the existing law, 4A law, law that is supposed to be already well understood and recognized by police, that I demand. Whether it involves guns or not.
1. Its the first quote the court indents in Section I.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
The technicalities of which VegasGeorge spoke are actually called rights. And the courts have refined them to the nth degree with regard to police and guns. Meaning the courts have had a long look at the subject over time, giving lots of consideration to the limits of police authority regarding guns. Trust me when I say the court almost always sides with officer safety. There is no need to give away more to the police. The courts have already taken care of it.
In that the police have plenty of authority when it comes to guns. I am not going to lose any sleep over demanding they observe what is left of our 4A rights during a police encounter.
It is about the 4th Amendment, not the 2nd. The OCer has no special responsibility beyond complying with the law. The police don't need to know that OC is legal in order to stay inbounds of the 4th Amendment.
I'm betting, based on the police behavior reported that this was not the first time these cops violated someone's 4A rights. I really doubt they said to themselves, "Oh, here is a guy with a gun. Today, for the first time in my career, I am going to violate someone's 4A rights."
Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:43 am by Citizen
|
Current time is 12:24 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|
|
|
