Person openly carrying an AR-15. Reasonable articulable suspicion of crime?

[ElvisL1ves]

@BeenJammin

But what if monkeys fly out of my arsehole?

I understand there’s a lower probability, but it’s still basically a very similar question. :rolleyes:

Go complain to the OP for posting an unrealistic scenario, then. But we do indeed have open as well as concealed carriers, in quantity, as well as a ridiculous number of killings by gun carriers in this country. Laughing at the problem only confirms that you’re part of it.

But maybe you can give it a sincere try: How do YOU tell the Good Guy gun carriers from the Bad Guy type? The legal ones from the illegal ones, if you prefer that question instead?

[BeenJammin]

@ElvisL1ves

How do YOU tell the Good Guy gun carriers from the Bad Guy type? The legal ones from the illegal ones, if you prefer that question instead?

Unfortunately I view loaded questions in the same vein as loaded guns.

Now accuse me of threadshitting. :rolleyes:

[BeenJammin]

How about a sub-paragraph, part II in the threadshitting rule: …and to include questshitting.

[begbert2]

@BeenJammin

Unfortunately I view loaded questions in the same vein as loaded guns.

Now accuse me of threadshitting. :rolleyes:

So wait, in a thread about whether carrying a gun in public is sufficient reason to be suspicious, asking whether a gun carrier can be determined to be suspicious is a loaded question?

[Bone]

@UltraVires

If your Terry investigation does not establish probable cause for arrest, then you must let him go with his weapon.

I don’t think that this procedure is unreasonable at all.

Your entire rationale here makes zero sense. The purpose of the Terry stop is to preserve officer safety - a brief frisk to determine if the person being detained has weapons. A person open carrying clearly has a weapon. That undercuts the entire purpose of the Terry stop.

Further, simply exercising legal rights cannot be the basis for detention. If that reasoning were to be applied, it gives police carte blanche to detain people for virtually anything. That’s bad. Stop and frisk without RAS has lead to some pretty poor results.

[DrDeth]

@UltraVires

If your department does not do Terry frisks for carrying a rifle in your state, then fine, no skin off of my nose. My position is that it can and should be RAS for a Terry stop.

You keep simply making bald declarations that because your department does it a certain way, then so sayeth the law and so sayeth the Lord. I am not making any declarations except that IMHO, the open carry of a rifle (not a pistol)(again, not during a Second Amendment event or with other indicia that the person is not violent) in an urban area in sufficient RAS to believe that a violent crime is afoot…

Why would you need to frisk a person for weapons when they are carrying a AR15 openly? That seems like harassment.

OK, then give us a cite that says it is reasonable suspicion.

You’re not a LEO, afaik. pkbites is. I am a retired Fed. Now yes, in my state, CA it would be and even cause for arrest as CA doesnt have open carry (likely that will change soon, since CA effectively does not have concealed carry either). But in a *full open carry *state, I don’t see how it can be RAS- unless the person is acting oddly otherwise.

[DrDeth]

@UltraVires

I don’t dispute your contention that your AG’s office said that. But realize that that is one lawyer’s opinion on the issue and it is not dispositive of the issue under discussion.

Imagine in Pittsburgh if the shooter drove up in front of the Temple and was being observed by an officer. He pulls an AR-15 out of the trunk, loads it, and then walks down the sidewalk, up the stairs into the Temple. That looks pretty suspicious to me, and really to most people on this issue. If that came out that the police were told that they could do nothing in that situation because all of those acts were perfectly legal under PA law, then the law gets changed.

I want robust Second Amendment rights. Being a dickweed by carrying a rifle in an urban area only harms those, and ultimately presents a real risk to public safety. I’m not saying you can’t own a gun, or carry a gun, or own an AR-15 with whatever magazine capacity you want, or even carry it in a rural or suburban area. But in a city? That to me is too far.

The AG is more than “one lawyer”. I guess you can say “one state”.

The Temple can easily have rules against guns on it’s property.

I agree, it’s a jerk move. (but open carry of a handgun is perfectly OK in open carry states) But it is *not *worthy of a 911 call.

[MikeF]

UltraVires - The thing is, your honest opinion doesn’t matter. Not unless you are a judge deciding on the admissibility of evidence or the meaning of the 2nd or 4th Amendments. You don’t like people walking around cities with rifles displayed. Neither do I. But as long as your law-makers and judges say its O.K., there’s not much you or the police (other than ASKING the person what they are up to, without detaining them or requiring them to answer) can do about it. You say the mere legal open carrying of a rifle is enough for a Terry stop. Pretend you are a cop who is being sued for violating someone’s civil rights because you detained them for carrying a rifle in a legal, open manner. What do you say when you are asked, “What was your RAS that my client was up to no good? Please list the factors that led you to that conclusion .”?

[ElvisL1ves]

@BeenJammin

Unfortunately I view loaded questions in the same vein as loaded guns.

Now accuse me of threadshitting. :rolleyes:

How about I accuse you of evasion instead? :dubious: