This is the the OP's first time being harrased by the JBTs for OC.
In fact at this gas station location OP had been harrased before!
Because it's second nature for JBTs to ask for DL to know who you are when they stop you. While OP was not (yet) driving he was at a gas station with his car and was going to drive away so the JBT figured OP would have DL instead of just state ID or military ID.
@???
OP is active reserve IIRC.
@OP
Disappointed that JBT did not put his boot on your neck.
I'm sure "you know who (female)" would have LLLOOOVVVEEEE if that happened to you.
Which gas station did this happen at?
I frequently OC through Hobart on my bicycle because the bike path passes through there. There is a stretch where on bike path ends, and you have to ride through town to pick it up again on the other side of town. I have been passed on the street by Hobart squads and have never been questioned about my OC. Seems like there is always that one person who has to make things difficult.
Good luck getting a positive resolution on this. Please follow up.
For all the intelligence LEOs seem to think they are operating from in justifying the seizure of "a" firearm, I am amazed at the disregard for the possibility that others exist. Except now we get into the meat of the 4th. Searching for and seizing any others would be a clear violation of the 4th. The reality of that statement throws into doubt the legality of confiscating a holstered one in plain sight absent any other reason to take it. Which makes me think it boils down to a power trip, "you will respect my authorit-ay" action. "I can go this far and be questionably legal, but if I go farther on the same logical basis I used to confiscate the first gun, I'm crossing the line, so I'll just do what I can get away with doing."
And shouldn't the whole encounter have stopped right there?
But that would require additional $$ for training the dispatchers that they would not be comfortable with (getting accurate descriptions of the OCers actions to determine if there is truly a threat, or just a threat perceived by a bedwetting anti gunner). I dont think any reasonable amount of training would prepare a desk jockey dispatcher to interpret the situation via an untrained caller. Not saying I wouldnt like to see it happen myself. "Caller, it is legal to carry a firearm in a holster. Is this man yelling? acting erratically? What? He's just pumping gas? Get a clue caller and stop reporting legal activity." One misstep of a dispatcher telling a caller to go away would be percieved as disastrous if 20 minutes later the same guy used the gun for an illegal act. The antis would pounce on that trying to tell the sheeple if the cop had only gone to harass the OCer while he was still within his rights the later illegal act would not have been committed.
At least they could better inform the officers: "MWAG reported, but no illegal activity suspected." which hopefully could result in a friendly "hey there. whatcha up to? Just pumping gas? OK. Somebody called saying you had a gun and I had to make sure you werent up to no good. Looks to me like you are fine. Have a nice day citizen."
Come to think of it, is there any time dispatch will tell callers to pound sand?
