# Know your rights



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

This is very interesting:


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

This guy obviously knows his rights!


----------



## WoW. (Aug 11, 2011)

Yes, it pays to know our rights.

But, I also know that it doesn't always pay to excercise them without regard for potential ramifications.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

What good are the rights then, I thought we are innocent until proven guilty. Seems sometimes the cops can arrest you and you have to prove your innocence, or are we just being pertained. As much as I hate the media, at least they do a half assed job of keeping law enforcement in check some of the time:sad:


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

I've been pretty lucky and have dealt with two incidents personally involving open carry. In both incidents when I made contact with the guy he readily provided identification and a pistol purchase permit.

Both acknowledged their right to carry, but understand the position they put an officer in.

Each time I spoke with them for a couple minutes, didn't see anything that indicated a problem and they continued on.

I say I am lucky because most are attention seeking jackwads like this idiot....quite frankly the tape would have been much more interesting if I had been the officer. I have little patience with jackwads.

I support open carry where appropriate, and even more so, concealed carry where appropriate...............but it is these idiots that will ultimately cost rights.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

Tough guy, what were they doing wrong?


----------



## WoW. (Aug 11, 2011)

Outdoorsman17 said:


> Tough guy, what were they doing wrong?


Probably some clown hunting button bucks or some such thing.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

2PawsRiver said:


> Each time I spoke with them for a couple minutes, didn't see anything that indicated a problem and they continued on.


Ignorning the other thread where we've obviously but heads...would it be possible for someone in your position to come to this conclusion simply by observing the citizen rather than attempting to have a conversation with the person? 

It would seem like the attention seekers would eventually just go away if they didn't get any attention.

I realize there are some people who will scream that their rights are being violated simply because the police are observing them (I don't agree with this argument).

I guess my question is- Other than unwanted hostility, what do you gain by trying to have a conversation with somebody in this situation?


----------



## WoW. (Aug 11, 2011)

lang49 said:


> Ignorning the other thread where we've obviously but heads...would it be possible for someone in your position to come to this conclusion simply by observing the citizen rather than attempting to have a conversation with the person?


You mean like when a guy is standing outside the bank just looking around?

Or, when some youthful looking soul is strolling down the street with a gun? What does one do, watch until they look old enough?


Cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. That isn't likely to change one bit over this envelope pushing or anything else involving the nature of their job.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

WoW. said:


> Probably some clown hunting button bucks or some such thing.



Is it not legal to shoot button bucks with an antler-less tag? After all we don't have does tags:lol::lol:


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

WoW. said:


> You mean like when a guy is standing outside the bank just looking around?
> 
> Or, when some youthful looking soul is strolling down the street with a gun? What does one do, watch until they look old enough?
> 
> ...


My question was legitimate- I'm not trying to bash 2Paws...

But as long as we're on the subject, how many convicted felons do you know who are going to stroll down the street with a handgun in a holster for all the world to see? Damn few-


----------



## WoW. (Aug 11, 2011)

lang49 said:


> My question was legitimate- I'm not trying to bash 2Paws...
> 
> But as long as we're on the subject, how many convicted felons do you know who are going to stroll down the street with a handgun in a holster for all the world to see? Damn few-


Why wait for a recidivist when you can pop fresh meat?

Seriously, were all those school shooters convicted felons? Do you know what the rate of convicted felons using firearms to commit a crime is compared to those without convictions using a firearm to commit a crime?

The world is getting to be a crazy place. Heck, how many convicted felons have gotten popped for chewing the face off somebody?

For policing to be effective, it cannot merely be reactionary. As it is, people already complain that the police never show up when they are called.

I don't advocate "papers please" but, when guns are involved (or face chewing) who cares if the guy has a criminal record or not?


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

I'm quite curious now as well... It sounds like you have ways of suggesting to the individual that it's in his best interest that he comply, 2Paws...

That's a tough spot for sure and I realized the laws in MI and ME are probably different, but what do you do??

It was pretty clear that the supervisor understood that they could be in some potential hot water if they continued on with it.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

It's more then just he's open carrying. Merely having a pistol would not warrant contact. There's appearance, time of day, what's being carried etc.

Guy with a child on one hip, wife next to him and a child on the other side, walking down the sidewalk talking with his wife smiling, relaxed................vs lone male, looking out of place, may.

Quality pistol, in a quality holster.........vs a Jennings in an exposed waist band.

There's lots of things to consider and most people who have been walking the earth for a significant amount of time know exactly what I'm talking about.

There are times I have checked people out with no weapon involved, they just seemed wrong. Many people have seen the same thing.....the guy you look at and thought whats up with him.

It's the lesser of two evils............see something that make you go hmm, don't check it out and he walks into a store two blocks down and kills his girlfriend.............or he checks out and whines about being checked out, but all's good.

Young guy with an assault rifle strapped to his back......yeah, I would check him out and if he is so stupid he can't simply produce ID and explain what's going on..........then I don't really care what he thinks.

Bonney, I've been doing this for 33 years. If there is somebody in an area I am responsible for and he needs checked out they will be checked out, the hard way or the easy way, and trust me there is always a hard way if needed..........I guess it's all about what you can live with.

Lang, you know exactly what I'm talking about, that why you and the others dodge a simple question. If your son was getting ready to walk out the door and you see a guy walking up the sidewalk with an assault rifle strapped to him back, you know good and well you would hold your son up till he passed.



> I guess my question is- Other than unwanted hostility, what do you gain by trying to have a conversation with somebody in this situation?


Peace of mind.


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

I can appreciate most of your post. Thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## Andy K (Oct 24, 2005)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non- concealed firearm is generally legal. Officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.
Officers are also reminded there is no general duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to a police officer unless the citizen is being stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

Just curious if that is a quote from the link you have posted.....the link does not work for me and the paragraph on it's own is not accurate.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

Michigan State Police Legal Update

Officers are reminded that the Fourth 
Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable 
searches and seizures. Carrying a nonconcealed firearm is generally legal. Officers 
may engage in a consensual encounter with a 
person carrying a non-concealed pistol; 
however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are 
required to have reasonable suspicion that crime 
is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a 
person on the mere possibility the person may 
be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must 
possess facts rising to the level of reasonable 
suspicion to believe the person is carrying an 
unregistered pistol. 
Officers are also reminded there is no general 
duty for a citizen to identify himself or herself to 
a police officer unless the citizen is being 
stopped for a Michigan Vehicle Code violation.


----------



## WoW. (Aug 11, 2011)

That legal update was feel good only, as there are numerous exceptions to that language that are not even mentioned in the update.

While IANAL, I would certainly caution readers to know the actual laws involved rather than taking the MSP Legal Update strictly on its face.


----------



## GIDEON (Mar 28, 2008)

lang49 said:


> My question was legitimate- I'm not trying to bash 2Paws...
> 
> But as long as we're on the subject, how many convicted felons do you know who are going to stroll down the street with a handgun in a holster for all the world to see? Damn few-


 Damn few, still insinuates that there would be some that would, without police officers doing their jobs, how would the some that would be identified?

Also remember that the United States Supreme court has already ruled that a persons name, identity in its self is non-incriminating, and there for not a protected right under the 5th.


----------

