Open carry clash with police caught on video

Bridgeport officers encounter man with gun, camera in downtown stores

Two videos posted on the website Live Leak show discussions between Bridgeport Police and a man carrying a gun about whether the man needs to show them a carry permit when asked.

The man tells police he does have a valid carry permit, and does not have any legal obligation to show the officers.

One video was filmed in a Subway on Main Street. The second clip appears to have been capture in a clothing store. In that clip, the man accuses police of following him, and tells a person in the store his rights are being violated.

An officer at the Subway tells the man police had received a complaint of a man near the restaurant carrying a gun.

Police in each case tell the man that store employees alerted them to the presence of the gun, and the man is refused service. The man, in the second clip, accuses police of coaching people in the store to say they feel threatened.

“I always come in this store, that store,” the man said. “They never say anything to me”

The website CTcarry.com advises gun owners that simply carrying a firearm does not meet criteria police need to detain and search a person.

“The mere fact that you are carrying a firearm unconcealed does not meet the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) necessary to detain an individual. Therefore, there is no statutory requirement for a person to provide a pistol permit when they are not otherwise suspected of a crime. Citizens exercising this right should be aware that they are likely to face harrassment, threats and even unlawful arrest by police officers if they refuse to show their permit on demand by police officers. This has occurred previously, and it was ruled that the officer lacked RAS to stop the defendant.”

 

About author

By participating in the comments section of this site you are agreeing to our Privacy Policy and User Agreement

  • The Fourth Amendment makes it unconstitutional for police to detain people just because thy want to see if they have a license, see the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prouse v. Delaware at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse (no stopping cars just to check licenses). Clearly the Fourth Amendment requires that police leave
    open carriers alone unless the police have “reasonable articulable
    suspicion” (Terry v. Ohio) that crime is afoot. Any police officer
    who demands to see licenses for open carriers just because he wants to see a
    license, is likely to get sued under federal civil rights law at 42 USC 1983,
    which provides for attorney fee shifting if the plaintiff substantially
    prevails. There are a lot of hungry lawyers out there these days, and 42 USC
    1983 is a very useful cause of action when police violate the Fourth Amendment. Learn more about the open carry of properly holstered handguns at OpenCarry.org. And carry on!

    • NepotismIsDomesticTerrorism

      Five bucks says this “Real Amerikin” caps either his child, his cameraman, or himself (in the RIGHT foot, of course) sometime before Election Day in November.
      It’s in the boy’s blood.

© HAN Network. All rights reserved. The Bridgeport News, 1000 Bridgeport Avenue, Shelton, CT 06484

Designed by WPSHOWER

Powered by WordPress