Open Carry, law student owns cop who is ignorant to the law .

[kelroy55]

you prove you are capable of driving well before you drive you don't have to prove it every time you see a LEO

You do if they stop you.

[mkjeeves]

you prove you are capable of driving well before you drive you don't have to prove it every time you see a LEO

You do with weapons under Oklahoma law. CC permit holders are required to inform an officer they are permit holders if they are carrying a weapon and show that permit to the officer if he asks.

[BoulderSooner]

You do if they stop you.

and they CAN'T (well are not legally allowed) stop you with out you breaking the law

[BBatesokc]

and they CAN'T (well are not legally allowed) stop you with out you breaking the law

But, MANY other activities that require a license often allow law enforcement to request to see that license (hunting and fishing to name just two). Additionally, many licensed professional services require a license to be on public display. Also, while a officer may not pull you over to simply look at your license, it is routine for LE to have checkpoints where they check for signs of drunk driving and also insist on you showing your license and insurance. Not to mention, in Oklahoma you are required to have an ID on you in public. Nothing so offensive or even unique about LE asking a gun toting citizen to show their gun license. Its all in how the officer handles the situation - not the situation itself (IMO).

[kelroy55]

But, MANY other activities that require a license often allow law enforcement to request to see that license (hunting and fishing to name just two). Additionally, many licensed professional services require a license to be on public display. Also, while a officer may not pull you over to simply look at your license, it is routine for LE to have checkpoints where they check for signs of drunk driving and also insist on you showing your license and insurance. Not to mention, in Oklahoma you are required to have an ID on you in public. Nothing so offensive or even unique about LE asking a gun toting citizen to show their gun license. Its all in how the officer handles the situation - not the situation itself (IMO).

I agree, I was going to bring up the check points but you beat me to it. In watching the video it was clear the kid was trying to set up the LEO for this exchange so not sure what he did to get noticed by others so the police would be called.

[BBatesokc]

Actually after typing one line in my comment above, I had to give pause. Does anyone know for sure - as in a link - showing that Oklahoma has a 'stop and identify' legal requirement for just any schmoe walking in public? I've been told we do and told we don't. I know for certain, individuals on S. Robinson have been taken to the jail if they don't have an ID and they are identified via their fingerprints, checked for warrants and then released if they didn't have any wants or warrants. Because of that I assumed we did have such a requirement, but I've never actually read the statute.

[mkjeeves]

We need to define "stop". The leo has every right to come up to a person and ask them questions. They do not have the right to detain the person unless they have reasonable suspicion to believe they are committing a crime.

So practically speaking in Oklahoma, if you are walking down the street and a cop comes up to you, by law you have to tell the officer you have a weapon and that you are a CC permit holder. And you have to show it to the LEO if they want to see it. There isn't a lot of other practical options other than trying to evade the officer, which could be very bad for you if they are in fact looking for someone matching your description and are investigating you for possibly having committed a crime.

[BBatesokc]

We need to define "stop". The leo has every right to come up to a person and ask them questions. They do not have the right to detain the person unless they have reasonable suspicion to believe they are committing a crime.

No idea what the legal definition of 'detain' is in Oklahoma - but I'm assuming many people's pre-conceived notion is not the reality. I'm guessing causing any person to give pause (even for a couple of seconds) without informing them they are free to go could be interpreted as being 'detained' (by a defense lawyer).

[BoulderSooner]

We need to define "stop". The leo has every right to come up to a person and ask them questions. They do not have the right to detain the person unless they have reasonable suspicion to believe they are committing a crime.

So practically speaking in Oklahoma, if you are walking down the street and a cop comes up to you, by law you have to tell the officer you have a weapon and that you are a CC permit holder. And you have to show it to the LEO if they want to see it. There isn't a lot of other practical options other than trying to evade the officer, which could be very bad for you if they are in fact looking for someone matching your description and are investigating you for possibly having committed a crime.

and the person has the right to not answer the questions (not specificly talking about CC)

[mkjeeves]

Not if they have a gun. They have to tell the officer when they come in contact with the leo. They can refuse to answer other questions.

[BBatesokc]

and the person has the right to not answer the questions (not specificly talking about CC)

Depends on the situation. You can be a law-abiding potential witness to a crime and forcibly detained as a material witness if you refuse to talk.

Also, 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime being committed is not so black and white.

[kevinpate]

you prove you are capable of driving well before you drive you don't have to prove it every time you see a LEO

(emphasis added)

I dunno, let a LEO see you driving like you don't know what you're doing and you may well be seeing him more than merely in passing.
(been there, done that. conversed my way out of more than a few such instances, paid the others.)

[RadicalModerate]

(emphasis added)

I dunno, let a LEO see you driving like you don't know what you're doing and you may well be seeing him more than merely in passing.
(been there, done that. conversed my way out of more than a few such instances, paid the others.)

So I guess there was no problem with your "Gab Permit" . . . (take that as a LIKE--signed, Edgar. =).

[kevinpate]

Depends on the situation. You can be a law-abiding potential witness to a crime and forcibly detained as a material witness if you refuse to talk.

Also, 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime being committed is not so black and white.

Couple quick points before I get back to what I am breaking from.

Whether someone is detained is based on whether or not a reasonable person would feel they are free to go under the circumstances.

Best as I recall, we don't have a generic stop and produce id law in OK,

reasonable suspicion is definitely shades of fuzzt frayed gray rather than black/white.

Oh, and RM,

[kelroy55]

JMHO but getting dispatched to a report of a man with a gun is reasonable suspicion to ask for ID.

[kevinpate]

JMHO but getting dispatched to a report of a man with a gun is reasonable suspicion to ask for ID.

In an open carry state? Sorry, without more it's pretty much on par with a report of a man with a baseball bat in the parking lot of a batting practice facility.

[mkjeeves]

Okay, I'm wrong on the letter of the law. But from a practical standpoint, you risk committing a crime by asking an officer if you are being detained before telling them you have a weapon. If they are just asking questions and you have not been detained, you don't have to show it to them. But if you are being detained for reasonable suspicion, arrest or a traffic stop (you match a description of a wanted person) and you start asking questions you have violated the law by not first telling the officer.

Oklahoma Law

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop.

[BBatesokc]

Couple quick points before I get back to what I am breaking from.

Whether someone is detained is based on whether or not a reasonable person would feel they are free to go under the circumstances.

Best as I recall, we don't have a generic stop and produce id law in OK,

reasonable suspicion is definitely shades of fuzzt frayed gray rather than black/white.

Oh, and RM,

July 2007 I asked "am I free to go" and offered to make myself available (with my attorney) the next afternoon and I was promptly handcuffed and sat in the back of a patrol car (windows up, air off) for over an hour as a 'material witness' to, of all things, an arrest of a third party - Donald Pete arrest.

I've been placed in 'investigative detention' numerous times. Which simply means I have to stand or sit there until they say I can go. Investigative detention is an extremely gray area and can be applied virtually any time a officer is dispatched.

Problem is, you take the "I don't' have to talk to you stance" and walk away and you better know every pedestrian statute (and follow them), because they often do and will use them against you for your perceived insolence - like 'walking the wrong way on the side of the road', crossing the street on the wrong side of a vehicle, etc., etc.

[kelroy55]

In an open carry state? Sorry, without more it's pretty much on par with a report of a man with a baseball bat in the parking lot of a batting practice facility.

I don't think I got an answer to this, I may have missed it, if the police get a call about a suspicious man with a gun they should just ignore it because OK has an open carry law?

[BoulderSooner]

I don't think I got an answer to this, I may have missed it, if the police get a call about a suspicious man with a gun they should just ignore it because OK has an open carry law?

if that is the exact wording of the caller ... then yes . .if the dispatcher asked what is suspicious and is he carrying gun in a holster if the answer is "he just is" and yes then yes they should ignore it

[RadicalModerate]

July 2007 I asked "am I free to go" and offered to make myself available (with my attorney) the next afternoon and I was promptly handcuffed and sat in the back of a patrol car (windows up, air off) for over an hour as a 'material witness' to, of all things, an arrest of a third party - Donald Pete arrest.

I've been placed in 'investigative detention' numerous times. Which simply means I have to stand or sit there until they say I can go. Investigative detention is an extremely gray area and can be applied virtually any time a officer is dispatched.

Problem is, you take the "I don't' have to talk to you stance" and walk away and you better know every pedestrian statute (and follow them), because they often do and will use them against you for your perceived insolence - like 'walking the wrong way on the side of the road', crossing the street on the wrong side of a vehicle, etc., etc.

Seems to me that Jim Rockford used to run into these situations about once a week. (except usually it was "down at headquarters" rather than in the back seat of a police car =). Still, I am reminded of an incident in which I was detained by an officer of the law--on account of I accidentally left something at a (home-building worksite) over by MWC or DC--and returned to pick it up (blueprints . . . circ saw . . . drill . . . whatever . . . i forget). The officer stopped me, I assumed the position (first and only time ever) . . . and he "invited" me to sit in the back seat of the cruiser. While he was checking out my license, etc. I noticed that there was a knife on the floor of the backseat and verbally brought it to his attention. "Don't worry about it" . . . he said. I took his advice and in about five minutes, was on my way. I guess that maybe--although I looked like a "biker"/carpenter--(and was!)--he could sense that I once had a career goal of being a police officer. =)

Which makes me wonder . . . isn't the correct phrasing of the topic: "ignorant OF" rather than "ignorant to"?

[Of Sound Mind]

Even as a strong advocate for our constitutionally protected rights and liberties, as a practical matter, I have no problem providing proper identification to a LEO when asked for it, even if I'm not technically required to do so based on SDA parameters. However, I will also maintain my right to remain silent should the questioning go beyond basic ID inquiries.

[kelroy55]

I don't think I got an answer to this, I may have missed it, if the police get a call about a suspicious man with a gun they should just ignore it because OK has an open carry law?

if that is the exact wording of the caller ... then yes . .if the dispatcher asked what is suspicious and is he carrying gun in a holster if the answer is "he just is" and yes then yes they should ignore it

and if that person ends up killing someone 30 minutes later the police get blamed for not investigating.

[RadicalModerate]

Even as a strong advocate for our constitutionally protected rights and liberties, as a practical matter, I have no problem providing proper identification to a LEO when asked for it, even if I'm not technically required to do so based on SDA parameters. However, I will also maintain my right to remain silent should the questioning go beyond basic ID inquiries.

As a matter of practicality, I'd even provide proper identification to an AQUARIAN . . . (fer cryin' out loud =). But it would be expired . . . much like The Age of The SDS. =)

I suppose that, in the final analysis of the OP's Topic (sans YoutubeVid) . . . We can all rally 'round the concept that there is a significant, qualitative, difference between being ignorant to and ignorant of The Law, in terms of "Liberty". No? (i didn't think so . . . =)

Hope They are teaching this is local ESL classes . . . =)

[Teo9969]

Actually, police are dispatched to investigate incidents all the time that have zero proof of illegal activity. One of the most common dispatches is, "check for suspicious subject" because someone called 911 because they simply think someone is acting 'odd' - not illegal, just odd.

Its also not illegal to be in a short skirt walking up and down South Robinson Ave. and get in and out of cars, but police investigate those fine citizens all day long and often detain them for 10-30 minutes at a time.

Not being argumentative, just throwing it out there.

Ummm....BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!