"Asserting your Rights when they're being threatened is not something to be frowned upon, even if the manner wasn't ideal."

The manner in which he did it is the problem. Look, if Jason has a problem with the law, he should take it up with the judge, or better yet with the lawmakers. He shouldn't take it up with the cop during a traffic stop.

Traffic stops are incredibly dangerous for the cop, and are the main situation in which cops get killed in the line of duty. The cop has no idea what's going to happen when he pulls a car over. If he sees the driver with a gun, he doesn't know if that driver is law-abiding citizen or a bad guy.

There are two quick clues the cop can use. First, check to see if the person has a concealed carry permit (which would require a criminal background check to weed out obviously bad actors). Jason didn't have one. Strike one.

Second, he can check the guy's attitude and demeanor. Jason had a confrontational attitude. When asked if he had a permit, Jason gave the "I don't need no steenkin' badges" answer. Dumb. Strike two.

Finally, of course, the cop can run the guy's driver's license. Once the cop did that he discovered an outstanding warrant, and Jason's arrest was pretty much inevitable. Strike three.

If we believe 100% of what Jason said, and without hearing the cop's side of things, it appears the cop was an ass, but Jason was an ass and a poor representative for gun owners. If we believe slightly less than 100% of what he said, and other facts come to light, I suspect Jason is going to look even less sympathetic. I personally think the guy is narcissistic and is inviting trouble into his life on purpose, and I don't want to encourage him. I certainly wouldn't want anyone else emulating his bad behavior.

And just to confirm your suspicions, I do think you're sometimes over the line in wanting to confront police. Work it out in court and in the legislature. Don't take it out on the cop.

Les,
Jason had no problem with the law, as he was complying with it!

What he tried to take up with the cop during the traffic stop was the cop's ignorance concerning the law.

& as for taking it up with the judge & leaving the cops alone, again Jason was complying with the law - it was the cop who seemed ignorant. But what do you do; simply obey a cop's demands despite what they are & wait for an appearance in court to defend your Rights? Or would at minimum telling the cop he was mistaken about the law be permissable?

& it wasn't a "we don't need no stinkin' badges" answer - it was a "the law doesn't require a permit for anyone" answer.

Look there's a difference between what I usually argue (doing something because it's a Right despite a law infringing on it) & this (obeying a state law but getting mistreated in part because of it). Jaosn may not have acted perfectly but he didn't do anything that embarasses gun owners as a whole, unless you think we should stay more in the closet.

" Jason had no problem with the law, as he was complying with it!"

Maybe. We don't even know what he's been charged with.

"Jason had no problem with the law, as he was complying with it!"

Yeah, and if I walk into a bank wearing a ski mask I haven't broken the law, but I'm still doing something stupid, and I shouldn't be surprised if the police get called.

"& it wasn't a "we don't need no stinkin' badges" answer - it was a "the law doesn't require a permit for anyone" answer."

If a cop asks "do you have a permit" a wise answer would be "yes, it's in my wallet" (or "no, but I'm not required to") not "I don't have to have one." The first two answers are responsive, the last is confrontational. It's a small point, but it's one of the clues to this guy's attitude. He's on a mission to mix it up with the cops.

"Jason may not have acted perfectly but he didn't do anything that embarasses gun owners as a whole, unless you think we should stay more in the closet."

I think Jason is out to pick fights with cops who are doing their jobs. He could pay his $60 and get a Washington state CCW, but he refuses to do so.

Then when the cops show up out comes his bad attitude. Whenever Jason encounters police he considers it harassment of someone engaged in legal activity. Thing is, the cops don't know whether it's a legal or an illegal activity until they actually speak to him. That's what they're trying to determine by interviewing him. But in Jason's self-centered, self-righteous worldview, that's harassment.

I had a discussion with Darren Copeland back when he still had a radio show. He was talking about how he'd been pulled over by the cops for "driving suspiciously". Well, given the neighborhood he was in, he felt is was reasonable, since his driving pattern matched that of a drug dealer profile.

My point to him though, was that we need to always assert our rights. Even if it will eventually come down to arguing it in court later, I say still there's nothing wrong with doing so right off. There should be nothing wrong with letting a cop know that the reason you aren't being forthcoming with whatever it is the cop wants is because you have rights. And no cop should become indignant or overbearing on that account. Maybe if more people did it, and did it in a controlled fashion, cops would become more accustomed to such a response -- as opposed to the cop-show situation we see where a suspect is screaming "I GOT RIGHTS!" as he's dragged off in cuffs.

There are ideals. In the real world, we've all seen tempers flare over trivial matters, only because someone spoke a little too vehemently, and it sparked a confrontation. Probably this happens with cops more often than others, simply because they deal with so much crap all the time. But they need to learn to handle it as well.

And you're right, we, the honest citizens, should have no reason for the "Stephen Stills response", i.e. "It increases my paranoia, Like looking in my mirror and seeing a police car".

Les, if Jason's account is accurate, I'd say the police went further than just "interviewing" him -- prior to his arrest. And clearly, according to Jason's account, they've engaged in conspiracy to commit perjury. But it's really tough to say, without having been there.

To those who think that having the concealed carry permit would solve things, I have to ask what makes them think so? If the police were willing to ignore his right to legally carry openly, what makes them think they would have been any more respectful of his right to legally carry concealed? If this officer was so antigun that he was willing to ignore state law and the US Constitution, a little thing like a permit wouldn't have stopped him violating the law.

"To those who think that having the concealed carry permit would solve things, I have to ask what makes them think so?"

If WA is anything like Tennessee, the permitting process involves a background check and fingerprinting. That rules out known crooks, so a person with a permit has been vetted to some extent, so there's less need for suspicion on the officer's part. When he asked if Jason had a CCW Jason could have answered "yes" instead of "I don't need one" like a street urchin.

Too, by carrying concealed Jason would almost certainly have avoided the whole ugly incident, as well as previous incidents he's experienced. Going conspicuously armed in an urban environment is just dumb, and not just because of police. With a pistol strapped on your belt the bad guys are going to shoot you first. Living a stealthily-armed lifestyle is the smart way to go.

Jason's "open carry" is sort of questionable, too. In one incident, the gun was shoved into a cargo pocket on his pants with the handle sticking out. Jason says he's more mature now and doesn't carry that way now. After that he attacked a Clipdraw to his gun and started shoving it in his pants with the handle sticking out. The incident at the bank and drugstore involved a gun carried that way, basically Mexican carry. It was only after he was criticized for that incident that he started using a holster. In the incident where he was arrested the holstered gun was shoved between the seats. Is an police officer in a traffic stop not supposed to ask about a gun in plain sight?

Look, Jason may have been carrying that gun legaly, but that's for a court to decide. In the real world, his carry method in the car presented major problems for a policemen. The gun supposedly had no magazine inserted, but could the officer tell that at a glance? And there was a magazine sitting in Jason's lap. Why did he have a gun at his side and a magazine in his lap during a traffic stop? Finally, the law requires that the gun's chamber be empty, but there's no way tell if the chamber's empty by looking at the gun.

Les,'
Are you implying that anyoen who carries openly is a street urchin? (That's a plausible inference from your first paragraph).

Similarly why the hell are you so down on open carry? I can understand the "bad guys will shoot your first" reasoning, but you seem to question the political expediency & possibly the legality of it.

& I don't know if you've heard this or not, but some cops don't view a CCw as a sign of good character. some, perhaps most do, but given the remarks made I doubt these cops would have thought Jason was A-ok cause he had begged for permissio..I mean applied for a permit.

Look the bottom line is Jason was carrying legally. He was wrongly treated in that regard by the cops in question. Whether you think it's the best method or not it's legal (not to mention a Right that laws cannot justly prohibit) & a ssuch comes down to a matter of choice.

I realy have a hard time grasping the idea that he deserved the treatement he recieved because he did not measure up to someone else's standards of etiquette.

One last thing - the presumption of innonce should be something that happens on the street as well as in the court. You say the cop had no way of knowing that Jason's pistol was empty. I say the cop had no way of knowing it was loaded & would have lacked probable cause to push that issue. The citizen should always be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying cops should assume every one they come into contact with is a saint, but neither should they treat someone as a criminal "just in case".

" Are you implying that anyoen who carries openly is a street urchin?"

Nope. I'm saying that anyone whose carry method is to stick a gun in his pants with the handle sticking out in the wind is hard to distinguish from a street urchin. (It's also not terribly safe, since the trigger isn't covered.) After taking some criticism over at The High Road in May, Jason relented on this point and started carrying in a holster.

"Similarly why the hell are you so down on open carry? I can understand the "bad guys will shoot your first" reasoning, but you seem to question the political expediency & possibly the legality of it."

In the majority of cases concealed carry is the most sensible carry method in an urban environment. It's less likely to cause problems like the ones Jason has repeatedly brought on himself, and less likely to get him shot by bad buys. Washington is a shall-issue state. Jason could get the CCW permit for $60, but he won't because he feels that it's an infringement on his rights, so he open carries out of pigheadedness.

"You say the cop had no way of knowing that Jason's pistol was empty. I say the cop had no way of knowing it was loaded & would have lacked probable cause to push that issue."

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect the law was on the cop's side. The gun was in plain sight, with its magazine in Jason's lap. From basic Terry stop law, I think the cop was entitled to inquire about a gun that was both plainly visible and well within the driver and passenger's reach.

Yeah, Les, the law, and the court decisions are on the cops side, in that they allow unwarranted searches for the sake of establishing a safe encounter for the cops -- and for the suspects I suppose too. But we know that this isn't what's really at issue here. The issue is the escalation. And yes, you can argue that's an attitude problem, but attitude goes both ways.

A big part of the problem is exactly the "street urchin" thing. In many peoples' eyes, carrying = thug.

Image how this would have turned out differently if the officer had just asked Jason to clear the pistol. Yeah, I know that's a difficult situation too. But imagine a world where we all know that we have no fear for our gun rights. Would we then be concerned about allowing a cop to inspect our weapon -- knowing we'd get it right back without any troubles? (I'm not advocating just handing your gun over, it's just a hypothetical -- but it does illustrate part of the citizen-cop interaction.)

"Image how this would have turned out differently if the officer had just asked Jason to clear the pistol. Yeah, I know that's a difficult situation too. "

Jed, I know you're trying to be logical, but think about what you're asking. You want the cop - in a traffic stop situation - to tell a suspect to pick up a gun and work the slide, with a magazine sitting in the guy's lap. Not all suspects are well-intentioned Jason T. Bloggers. Some of them are actual bad guys, and the police can't easily tell who's who.

I don't want cops getting killed because they were hopelessly hamstrung by procedures designed to protect Jason's feelings.

"Traffic stops are incredibly dangerous for the cop, and are the main situation in which cops get killed in the line of duty. The cop has no idea what's going to happen when he pulls a car over. If he sees the driver with a gun, he doesn't know if that driver is law-abiding citizen or a bad guy."

You know, I was just thinking something similar.

I don't know if I'm pulled over, if I'm going to get a respectful, law-abiding, law-respecting, knowledgable police officer, or a power-hungry confrontational menance.

Strike one and strike two are meaningless. Only the outstanding warrent is at issue here. And if the police knew about it, then the rest of everything else is moot.

I certainly don't want to reward police like that - they don't need to be using the power and prestige of the state to be enforcing their bigotry and bias.

"Don't take it out on the cop."

If the cop is acting illegally, then what should you do? Call your legislator and ask them to pass a law saying "Oh, and cops _really_ have to follow the law, we really, really mean it?"

"He could pay his $60 and get a Washington state CCW, but he refuses to do so."

And his refusal to do so, other than a practical manner, is wrong how? If open carry is legal, then HE CAN DO IT. If the police are unaware of this, then they should be educated, or fired. There should be zero tolerance for power games from the police. Almost-zero tolerance for ignorance of the law from the police.

"The gun was in plain sight, with its magazine in Jason's lap. From basic Terry stop law, I think the cop was entitled to inquire about a gun that was both plainly visible and well within the driver and passenger's reach."

Inquire, yes. Become confrontational, no. If Jason said "I don't need one", and was correct, then the police officer is guilty of escalating it further. The police officer (as an agent of the State) is constrained by the Constitution - not the citizen. It's that simple. Either you're for being a "constitutionalist" or else you're just "moderately" interested in having a "police state".

"I don't know if I'm pulled over, if I'm going to get a respectful, law-abiding, law-respecting, knowledgable police officer, or a power-hungry confrontational menance."

A cop being at risk of getting killed and a citizen being at risk of putting up with an asshole cop aren't equally risky. One is life-threatening, the other is a nuisance.

"If open carry is legal, then HE CAN DO IT."

It's legal if he's carrying in the manner prescribed for carry carry in Washington state: carrying with the magazine removed and the chamber unloaded. Again, it's probably within the scope of Terry stop rules for the cop to determine whether the gun is, in fact, in a condition that meets the statute. Determining that is not harassment, despite what Jason believes.

"Police state" stuff ignored.

Logical! Heh. Point taken about risk. I know that, because I have a longtime good friend who is a cop.

I guess I'll have to go re-read, but my recollection is that they didn't disarm him until after ordering him from the car. That's just as risky as asking him to clear the weapon. If the officer thinks he (or she) is at risk, he shouldn't return to the cruiser without mitigating that risk, should he.

I'm going to go away and cogitate -- after sleep.

Why should Jason or anyone else get a concealed carry permit when open carry is not infringed upon by law?

First, open carry IS infringed by law, at least partly. Read Jason's post carefully: he kept the gun and the magazine separate because that was the closest thing he could carry to a "loaded" firearm without a permit. Granted, it only takes a few seconds to throw in a magazine and cock the gun, but when under attack, those few precious seconds could easily spell the difference between life and death. What Jason did (or at least, what he claims he did) is exactly the right thing to do in a state that does NOT permit concealed carry. It's a lousy second in states that do.

Second, open carry tends to spook people, including cops. It's all well and good to be legally in the right, but what good is it to be "dead right?" Especially when you have a legal alternative that would avoid that risk altogether?

Third, and last, and by no means least, the average cop doesn't know the law to the extent well as you might think. Hell, the average lawyer doesn't, and lawyers are paid to know the law in a way that cops are not. Not every cop can be counted on to know all the details about how close to a "loaded" gun you can carry sans permit without crossing the line, but every remotely competent cop understands that it's OK to carry a concealed pistol in his state if you hold a permit to carry a concealed pistol in his state. I daresay that even Kalifornia Kops understand that much - assuming you are lucky enough to get the permit in the first place. It certainly will not be an issue in a relatively gun-friendly state like Washington.

You've repeatedly mentioned the fee for the permit. I'm not sure I really believe that it's about that, so much as a twisted desire to stand up on principle, but if I'm wrong, and Jason really does want a permit, I'll be happy to lead a "pay Jason's CPP" drive. All he has to do is say the word, and consider it done.

I'm not sure I really believe that it's about that, so much as a twisted desire to stand up on principle,

Yeah, principle be damned! It's compromise we demand!

Wait a sec, I think that's backwards...

Well of course it's about principle.

Can the gov. impose a fee for the exercise of a right? Is Murdock v. Pennsylvania a good ruling, when it implies that a "nominal fee [319 U.S. 105, 114] imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question" is permissible? And what's "nominal".

Or does Murdock even apply? If a person argues that the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude restrictions on concealed carry, then it doesn't.

And I'll just keep repeating that open carry shouldn't "spook" anyone. That's part of the climate of fear that the anti-gun bigots have succeeded in creating, and which we ought to be trying to overcome.

Jed,

First things first. Right now, if you live in Timothy Emerson's Fifth Circuit, the Second Amendment is so weak it may be suspended by a mere restraining order. If you live anywhere else, it's worse. It would be nice if someday the courts would start affording the Second Amendment anywhere near the same level of protection it affords the First, but we're not anywhere close to that point right now, and to act as though we were is a good way to end up in prison, or worse.

Second things second: even if the courts ever do come around on the Second, the absolute best we can hope for is for Second Amendment to enjoy roughly the same level of protection as the First, not more. Given the courts' general tendency to uphold "reasonable" time, place and manner restrictions on speech, the most they would (or, in all likelihood, should) find is a general right to carry, not a specific right to carry openly or concealed, and certainly not a specific right to do either without a permit (provided, of course, that the permit system is not unreasonably onerous, does not vest too much discretion in the issuing authority, etc. etc.). Some of the confusion may be around the meaning of the word "infringe," which is commonly used today to refer to anything that encroaches on anything else, however slightly. I don't think that's the meaning the Framers had in mind. A more likely candidate is the older, now semi-obsolete definition: "to defeat or invalidate." Under that definition, a law allowing open but not concealed carry, or vice versa, or a law requiring an easy-to-get, non-discretionary permit to do either, imposes merely a minor burden on the RKBA; it doesn't "infringe" it.

Xrlq wrote:
"It would be nice if someday the courts would start affording the Second Amendment anywhere near the same level of protection it affords the First, but we're not anywhere close to that point right now, and to act as though we were is a good way to end up in prison, or worse."

And how do you propose we change this situation, since the courts are largely given free rein to do whatever the hell they like unless a.) contradicted by another court, or b.) an amendment to the constitution is passed?

Another comment on another post I read on this topic mentioned that the law might say one thing (don't have the gun loaded), and while a layperson might think that means "no magazine in the gun, and no rounds in the chamber," the court could arbitrarily decide that "loaded" means "no ammo within 20 feet." The only way that will change, short of a constitutional amendment that reminds judges that words mean things, is if we bring the fight to another court and attempt to get our rights restored.

I have to agree with Jed and Addison. Plus, I do think that by taking the job, a policeman assumes a risk. When a person takes a job as a janitor, they assume the risk of coming across all kinds of nasty things in the course of duty. Upon enlisting as a soldier, one assumes the risk that one could be shot, as the risk comes with the job. Upon becoming a policeman, that person should know that they are assuming a risk. If they wanted to avoid that risk, the answer is not to make life hard on everyone else, but quit the job. It's called 'life behind the badge'. Janitors and soldiers face the risks of the job without endangering or infringing upon others - why should cops.
I hope some here read my long comment on my blog as it explains much of what is germinating in my head. Addison is right - I don't know who is behind that badge, a sadistic coprophiliac in need of ego stroking or a good guy wanting to help..
The other point, to me, is this: even if it made life easier, why should I ask 'permission' of my nanny-state government to protect myself. The principle is that we should not have to beg or purchase our freedoms from the State.
My .02