What if he said he was removing the rifle for his own safety and that of the person carrying it? Also, to which recent Fourth Amendment cases are you referring? I guess I'm really missing something here.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Flawless MWAG call caught on tape
- Thread starter popsmoke
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
What if he said he was removing the rifle for his own safety and that of the person carrying it? Also, to which recent Fourth Amendment cases are you referring? I guess I'm really missing something here.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
While I agree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment, I am not going to hold that against the officer on the street who doesn't get to enforce the law he would prefer to exist. My issue is that he does not have any particular reason to believe that it is a full-auto weapon.
Those guys were looking for attention. I guess mommy didnt hug them enough as a child. I bet if a real bank robbery shootout occured right across the street you'd see the cops standing tall and those two yahoos speeding off on their moped.
I believe that was the point of the "function test." Clear the chamber, pull the trigger, cycle action while trigger is still depressed. If the hammer falls again when cycled, it is full auto. If after cycling, the trigger is released and resets without the hammer falling, it is semi auto.
FWIW, that LEO knew his stuff. Well done on his part.
So if I am outside of your house dressed in dark clothes with a ski-mask and gloves on carrying a TV, you want an officer to assume that I am the homeowner and am just dressing in a costume and taking the old TV out for a stroll just because I can?
Also, the MWAG call itself would then be a valid reason for the stop, because they have no reason to suspect it may be a false accusation, do they?
So the only acceptable cop in your opinion is like Judge Dredd? How can they make any decisions if everything can only be decided to be reasonable by a court down to the last detail? These "crimes" are in no way important enough to waste the court's time when there are more pressing issues at hand.
I think it was a good stop.
I like the inspection and function check,followed by the immediate return.
I think of it this way.If the weapon looks military,and has a military counter part the officer has reasonable suspicion it may be a full auto.
It is not the officers fault we have laws that make owing full auto weapons restrictive,but it is the law.He inspected the weapon,it was not a full auto and he immediately returned it and would have been done with the stop in less than a minute had the two people looking for attention shut up.
If I walked down the street with an AR or an AK I would hope to be treated as well as this officer treated these two.If an officer stopped and did a function check to be sure it was indeed a semi auto and returned my weapon immediately I would consider that a good stop. If he then told me he was glad to see me using my second amendment right,have a good day...that would be a bonus.
I say well done officer.
I like the inspection and function check,followed by the immediate return.
I think of it this way.If the weapon looks military,and has a military counter part the officer has reasonable suspicion it may be a full auto.
It is not the officers fault we have laws that make owing full auto weapons restrictive,but it is the law.He inspected the weapon,it was not a full auto and he immediately returned it and would have been done with the stop in less than a minute had the two people looking for attention shut up.
If I walked down the street with an AR or an AK I would hope to be treated as well as this officer treated these two.If an officer stopped and did a function check to be sure it was indeed a semi auto and returned my weapon immediately I would consider that a good stop. If he then told me he was glad to see me using my second amendment right,have a good day...that would be a bonus.
I say well done officer.
Last edited:
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
You equate being armed with engaging in behavior in an unauthorized location which would tend to indicate a burglary in progress? This seems like quite a stretch.
The officer must assume that it isn't my property to make it suspicious behavior, so no. I just want to point out that your argument that it is wrong in all cases to put the burden of proof on the citizen allows me to burglarize your house because I could be legally moving out in the middle of the night with a mask because I don't want to be seen.
Assumption is unavoidable, but I will admit it can go too far. But, when people carry long guns in public, of the same make as full auto weapons, for no apparent reason, it is completely justified to ensure they are being lawful. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
So what if it was a full-auto? Those are legal, too.
I don't know what the fuss is here.
This was discussed in detail back in August.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nse/231061-leo_responds_positively_to_oc.html
There's a 21 page thread on it that no one could (seemingly) miss. Anyway, getting back to the stop, it was suggested in the original thread in August that cops don't have the right to demand to see a federal tax document (tax stamp for full auto).
And as was stated back then, this officer acted well outside the standards established by Terry vs. Ohio and committed a clear and blatant civil rights violation. What is the reasonable, articulable suspicion that the citizen being stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime?
Should cops inspect every AR15 because they might be full auto?
Some of you people...
Last edited:
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Oh the mayhem that can bring! It is a shame I am getting too tired for this. Maybe tomorrow.
lol it is getting late. I know that the idea can be used for very bad things, but many good ideas suffer from this. I guess that statement taken literally is a little more general and bold than I wanted it to be. In this situation the needs of the safety of many outweigh the needs of a few guys trying to get off on how lawful they are being. They were not wronged in the process, in fact they desired for the confrontation to occur in the first place. Nothing truly unjust occurred.
This is more me trying to apply a bit of philosophy to the situation, but it doesn't invalidate the argument that a "no assumptions, period" policy would generally not be a good thing, because it could be easily taken advantage of.
These stupid licenses/permits/tax stamps are really at fault here, IMHO. It is illegal to be asked (out of the blue) for your paperwork when you are openly carrying a handgun, but that makes it impossible to enforce the license (assuming you don't do something to legally warrant the officer's request).
They're counting on the "broken taillight" scenarios to enforce the law, and that leads to these kinds of situations where neither party is wrong. You don't need to prove that you're lawful, but they have to respond to the MWAG call.
Bits of paper to prove you "earned" your Constitutional right by complying to BS regulations should truly be removed from our laws.
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
The proper response to a MWAG call is A) have the 911 operator interrogate the caller as to their observations of the MWAG's actions. Do their descriptions of what he's doing with his gun remotely approach a description of a criminal act? B) Officers arriving on scene and getting eyes on the suspect should just do that, observe. If they don't see him doing anything illegal, then chances are he wasn't doing anything illegal for the caller to see either, and the caller should be chewed out as a panicky hoplophobe. C) Only if the officers observe blatantly and clearly illegal conduct, backed up by actual, current training on and knowledge of the laws they believe he is breaking, which in and of themselves would warrant making contact (the broken taillight scenario), should they approach and subsequently check the documents.
Nowhere in that is there any assumption except that the person being (generally anonymously) reported to the authorities is innocent of any wrong doing until the authorities observe something which could hold up in a court of law. Mere possession of a long gun is not a crime in Indiana. If an IN LEO observed someone walking down a city street with an MP5, I'd expect them to be left alone unless the LEO already had an affirmative knowledge of their identities as well as their status as a felon, making the observation of possession RAS of a crime.
Nowhere in that is there any assumption except that the person being (generally anonymously) reported to the authorities is innocent of any wrong doing until the authorities observe something which could hold up in a court of law. Mere possession of a long gun is not a crime in Indiana. If an IN LEO observed someone walking down a city street with an MP5, I'd expect them to be left alone unless the LEO already had an affirmative knowledge of their identities as well as their status as a felon, making the observation of possession RAS of a crime.
public servant
Grandmaster
Yep. They had to be walking away thinking, "Well, that didn't work out the way we planned."
And then as someone else pointed out, went quietly back to mom's basement.
Without getting into all the (what they can't do stuff), I think the officer was professional in how he handled the situation. He quickly checked said Firearm and returned without going to his car, or asking for I.D. These 2 BOYS where just looking for trouble. Almost bet they have not walked down the street since that day with the MP5 for attention. just my
, and my wife says that isn't worth much LOL
iChokePeople
Master
- Feb 11, 2011
- 4,556
- 48
One of the little basement dwellers mentions Oregon, I'm assuming that's where it is.
