Inviting a Stop and Frisk through Open Carry

[Heffay]

Voting is a privilege of citizenship.
The ability to defend oneself with arms is a right.

Voting is a right as well. At least according to the Supreme Court and the people backing the Voter ID laws.

[bstrawse]

The US Constitution ensures my right to vote - and has modified that right over the years through amendments and federal legislation. It's not a privilege.
b

[jshuberg]

Our language has devolved to the point where rights, privileges, and immunities are all lumped together under the term 'right'. However they are all quite different.

Not everyone has the right to vote in a US election. Only citizens can.
However, anyone occupying US soil anywhere on the planet has the right to defend themself against unlawful violence, regardless of their citizenship status or any other qualifiers.

Right are attributes recognized by our government as possessed by all people.
Privileges are attributes associated with citizenship or other qualifiers, and are granted by the government.

Despite the common term 'right to vote', it is in fact a privilege. Language matters - we should make a point to use it correctly.

[ferric021]

Our language has devolved to the point where rights, privileges, and immunities are all lumped together under the term 'right'. However they are all quite different.

Not everyone has the right to vote in a US election. Only citizens can.
However, anyone occupying US soil anywhere on the planet has the right to defend themself against unlawful violence, regardless of their citizenship status or any other qualifiers.

Right are attributes recognized by our government as possessed by all people.
Privileges are attributes associated with citizenship or other qualifiers, and are granted by the government.

Despite the common term 'right to vote', it is in fact a privilege. Language matters - we should make a point to use it correctly.

I disagree but I've moved the discussion to a different thread:
http://www.mnguntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34759
I wasn't sure if people would yell at me for 'hi-jacking' this thread.

[fuller malarkey]

"To make sure he was legal"
I am constantly puzzled why pro-gun advocates are tolerant and complacent about so many requirements imposed before the gov will 'allow' one to exercise a right.

A car is a deadly weapon, the police don't respond to "a man with a car" report.

Not to derail the topic, but in the same frame of mind, who here thinks people should be required to show I.D. before the government will 'allow' one to exercise their right to vote? I think it's interesting that the difference between the left and the right side is simply which 'rights' should require an ID.

You need to show an ID for everything else, why not to vote.

Now if the asked for you to show your IQ for things....well we might be in some serious trouble.

EDITED TO ADD: Between the time I quoted the above post and the time I posted mine, the thread and topic was split. All my reference pertains to open carry and unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Oddly, Minnesota is one of twelve states that prohibit DUI Sobriety Checkpoints. Minnesota has declared checkpoints in violation of its state constitution, Ascher v. Comm. of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 183 [Minn. 1994]; Gray v. Comm. of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 187 [Minn. 1994], and statute requires probable cause. It appears some interest exists in protecting citizen's fourth Amendment rights, and state constitutional rights. Also noteworthy, Minnesota has not passed "stop and identify" legislation...allowing police to stop you without reasonable suspicion, and requiring you to identify yourself, another indication that someone here has concern for their rights to privacy and to travel unimpeded. 24 states do have such legislation on their books.

Writing for the Court in Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren stated,
And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. — 392 U.S. at 21

"Constitutional" means that the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. See Hiibel.

The Fourth Amendment protects personal privacy interests by limiting when and how police can conduct a search of a citizen's house, papers, effects, or physical person.

It is illegal to operate a vehicle upon the roadways without a driver's license that includes endorsements for the vehicle you are operating. It is illegal to carry a firearm in public without a license/permit.

The Supreme Court has held that random vehicle stops to check your drivers license are unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Police officers must have probable cause to stop vehicles or a reasonable suspicion that a driver is violating some law or traffic code. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648

Now, in reading the following:

624.714 CARRYING OF WEAPONS WITHOUT PERMIT; PENALTIES.

Subd. 1b.Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, ..........

What constitutes "upon lawful demand"?

What other situation exists where police can, without reasonable articulable suspicion, stop you and demand ID and investigate you and your activities without cause?

In this situation, the citizen is guilty until they prove their innocence? In qualifying for, and by paying for, a Minnesota Carry Permit, we waive our rights? The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part,

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ..."

Presumption of innocence is a legal right that we all are granted. The burden of proof is thus on they who have question. So, unless I read this wrong, in principle, the the citizen doesn't have to prove anything.

[ferric021]

What other situation exists where police can, without reasonable articulable suspicion, stop you and demand ID and investigate you and your activities without cause?

Drinking Alcohol?

Edit: here's another one: how about the Arizona Immigration Laws?

[Heffay]

What other situation exists where police can, without reasonable articulable suspicion, stop you and demand ID and investigate you and your activities without cause?

Drinking Alcohol?

Drinking alcohol doesn't require an ID.

[fuller malarkey]

What other situation exists where police can, without reasonable articulable suspicion, stop you and demand ID and investigate you and your activities without cause?

Drinking Alcohol?

Edit: here's another one: how about the Arizona Immigration Laws?

I may be wrong, but I don't think you can be rousted walking down the street without probable cause for investigation of drinking alcohol. Ever see the cops round up herds of people getting on and off the metro [or what ever ya' all call the local public transit system] for sobriety testing? "Come on. Get in the chute. Gimme yer papers and blow in the tube".

Dunno about Arizona. Where over 30% of the population is of legal Hispanic heritage, I'd think a civil rights attorney might do real well for themselves taking profiling cases on contingency.

[Heffay]

Dunno about Arizona. Where over 30% of the population is of legal Hispanic heritage, I'd think a civil rights attorney might do real well for themselves taking profiling cases on contingency.

The legal bills for the Maricopa county sheriff's office is unbelievably huge. It's entertaining. It's quite the cottage industry to use the Sheriff Joe Retirement Plan.

[ferric021]

What about the street vendors selling falafels out of a cart during lunch hour in downtown st paul?
Do they need a permit to sell falafels? Are they doing something conspicuously illegal that would warrant being asked to see a permit?

[ferric021]

I may be wrong, but I don't think you can be rousted walking down the street without probable cause for investigation of drinking alcohol.

I could be wrong too, but I'm pretty sure it's possible. How else does anyone get an underage drinking ticket? What gives the cop probable cause to determine that someone may or may not be inebriated and underage?

Edit: and if your response is 'because they look drunk and young' then how is that different from probable cause being 'they look like they are carrying a firearm' ?

[bstrawse]

I may be wrong, but I don't think you can be rousted walking down the street without probable cause for investigation of drinking alcohol.

I could be wrong too, but I'm pretty sure it's possible. How else does anyone get an underage drinking ticket? What gives the cop probable cause to determine that someone may or may not be inebriated and underage?

Edit: and if your response is 'because they look drunk and young' then how is that different from probable cause being 'they look like they are carrying a firearm' ?

To be clear since we're mixing topics, a law enforcement officer doesn't need probable cause to start up a conversation with someone. Of course, in most situations, there's no obligation for an individual to agree to continue that conversation

Even a Terry stop only requires reasonable suspicion.

When I worked in law enforcement, we made several arrests for illegal consumption that started with a casual conversation. Statements made by the individual, or other observations, led to reasonable suspicion, then probable cause - and later to arrest.

[fuller malarkey]

Some other thoughts....

624.714 CARRYING OF WEAPONS WITHOUT PERMIT; PENALTIES.

Subd. 1b.Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1. A violation of this paragraph is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25.

Petty misdemeanor for "failing to produce ze document". How will it look on the ol' ICR if the "perp" is beaten/killed for a petty misdemeanor?


Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.

Doesn't say you shall be shot, beaten, jailed or sodomized for "failing to produce ze document". And your weapon isn't up for grabs. Does the statute not say "not subject to forfeiture"? If "someone" attempted to seize your weapon for "failure to produce ze document", would that not be an unlawful act on the part of the person doing the seizing??



(b) A citation issued for violating paragraph (a) must be dismissed if the person demonstrates, in court or in the office of the arresting officer, that the person was authorized to carry the pistol at the time of the alleged violation.

(c) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder must write a sample signature in the officer's presence to aid in verifying the person's identity.

(d) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder shall disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.

Doesn't say "surrender your weapon" there, does it?

My input is in bold. Just food for thought.

[tman]

Some other thoughts....

624.714 CARRYING OF WEAPONS WITHOUT PERMIT; PENALTIES.

Subd. 1b.Display of permit; penalty. (a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1. A violation of this paragraph is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25.

Petty misdemeanor for "failing to produce ze document". How will it look on the ol' ICR if the "perp" is beaten/killed for a petty misdemeanor?


Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.

Doesn't say you shall be shot, beaten, jailed or sodomized for "failing to produce ze document". And your weapon isn't up for grabs. Does the statute not say "not subject to forfeiture"? If "someone" attempted to seize your weapon for "failure to produce ze document", would that not be an unlawful act on the part of the person doing the seizing??



(b) A citation issued for violating paragraph (a) must be dismissed if the person demonstrates, in court or in the office of the arresting officer, that the person was authorized to carry the pistol at the time of the alleged violation.

(c) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder must write a sample signature in the officer's presence to aid in verifying the person's identity.

(d) Upon the request of a peace officer, a permit holder shall disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.

Doesn't say "surrender your weapon" there, does it?

My input is in bold. Just food for thought.

I do believe that it's time for you to put your money where your mouth has so boldy gone. You've agitated and stirred on this topic in two dififerent forums. Strap your pistol on in plain sight and start walking around. Downtown MPLS, downtown St. Paul, Mall of America, Southdale Mall. Take notes and report back.

If that type of activism isn't for you, let us know WHAT you're ACTUALLY DOING to change the law to something more in-line with whatever your personal views may be.

[fuller malarkey]

I may be wrong, but I don't think you can be rousted walking down the street without probable cause for investigation of drinking alcohol.

I could be wrong too, but I'm pretty sure it's possible. How else does anyone get an underage drinking ticket? What gives the cop probable cause to determine that someone may or may not be inebriated and underage?

I'd think that would be simple enough.....someone that appears to be under age.....the odor of alcohol, and all the verbal and non-verbal indicators that one may be under the influence of a mood altering chemical. Slurred speech, faltering gait, eye condition, movement and response, all could be determined during a consensual contact, establishing the reasonable suspicion.


Edit: and if your response is 'because they look drunk and young' then how is that different from probable cause being 'they look like they are carrying a firearm' ?

Gotta go back to the first part with kids and booze....I'd think it difficult for the officer to determine anything if the kid was smart enough to wiggle out of the consensual contact. Too many variables in the scenario.....and I'm not familiar with Minnesota juvenile statutes. Can a kid be charged with "being inebriated while a minor"? Or was the charge "minor in possession"? Was said kid in the company of people known to the officer to be below the legal age to consume, giving him reason to suspect this kid is a minor, too?

I contend the comparison of the requirement to be licensed to drive and free of unwarranted intrusion being protected by federal court rulings based on the fourth amendment and the similarities with requiring a permit to carry a handgun is more fitting.