Results 1 to 20 of 193

Thread: The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

    Elsewhere I have seen a man with what looked like a AK47.
    Nevada is an "Open Carry" state.

    Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ open carrying of firearms.

    That’s why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms. ...

    On the night of June 24, [Ferrell] holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.

    It wasn’t his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the “live free or die” state, apparently.

    The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn’t consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.

    Bottom line: He hadn’t committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.

    “I understand the need for officer safety,” Farrell said. “These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn’t have even taken my gun.”
    In my opinion, Ferrell was wrong. The right to remain silent applies when there is a question as to whether you committed a crime. If he was confident he was within his rights, he should not told the officers what they needed to know. Absent straight answers, an officer has to assume the worst. That is what I would do.

    See Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTrGD5JltK0

    It would probably be felony assault if he actually rose up over the barrier and pointed the weapon at a police officer, but simply observing from behind the barrier is probably not assault.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 04-17-2014 at 05:51 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •