Very professional police officer.

[alelks]

Nice to see encounters like this handled so professionally. My hats off to the officer.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474

[chance]

That was AWSOME!! That officer was truly a professional. What I really hate is douchebags like that guy that want to try the system, all he's doing is making law abiding citizens look bad and giving gun carriers a bad name with LEO.

[hoot72]

I would be alarmed if people who were not law enforcement were walking around with semi automatic machine guns in public...looks like its goin that way nowdays...

Oh well.

[Destrier]

I would be alarmed if people who were not law enforcement were walking around with semi automatic machine guns in public...looks like its goin that way nowdays...

Oh well.


I find people walking around with a slung firearm comforting. The individual in the video is a punk, but at least he is reminding people (maybe not through his comments) through his walks, that this is normal and lawful.

[Barbarian]

Props to the officer.

I find people walking around with a slung firearm comforting. The individual in the video is a punk, but at least he is reminding people (maybe not through his comments) through his walks, that this is normal and lawful.

I like seeing folks carrying weapons, but this guy was clearly looking to make trouble. People like this make us legally-armed people all look like retards.

[Team Sergeant]

I would be alarmed if people who were not law enforcement were walking around with semi automatic machine guns in public...looks like its goin that way nowdays...

Oh well.

Then do not come to Arizona.....;)

I am "alarmed" when I see local, state and federal law enforcement with military style assault weapons, fully automatic machine guns and drones.

[Stingray]

Nice to see encounters like this handled so professionally. My hats off to the officer.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1345502474

Well done officer.
Thanks for posting it Alelks.

[RB]

This will probably raise a few eyebrows and that IS my intent, however, my intent is not to disrespect LEO's in any way, shape, form.

The LEO was very professional, but a few points about legal and illegal need to be made. The LEO should not have touched the weapon. For one, he "detained" and conducted an "illegal search and seizure" at the moment he disarmed the lawfully abiding citizen [LAC] The LEO had no probable cause that a crime was committed by the LAC. The LEO received a call from a "concerned citizen" and although the call was responded to, it was not responded to in the eyes of legality, but was responded to very professionally. There is a difference. Your rights can be violated by a very professional LEO just like they can by the big burly cop that demands a Terry Stop is completely legal because he says so. The point is if you don't know your rights, research them.

The LAC stated that he did not consent to a search. The LEO conducted the search anyway and broke the law, albeit very professionally. Had the LAC truly known the law about OC, he would've stood his ground about non-consent and requested the LEO's supervisor or an FTO. The LEO could plainly see that this was an advocate OC and not an ugly encounter so "officer safety" was not an issue. He also could have stepped in front of the LAC, checked that the gun was not full auto, and that it was chambered in .22 easily. The LEO chose to disarm illegally.

What many who don't carry and fail to realize is that the LAC DID NOTHING WRONG. I KNOW I KNOW..... and I agree, walking down the street sporting what appears to be an evil black gun OC slung is probably not too smart, but it IS NOT ILLEGAL.

As for the stop, professional, yes, well, if you consider about half of the illegal stop professional. Depends on which half you like I suppose.

RTKBA

2c

[PSM]

RB,

What if the law is written to require the LAC to surrender the weapon for inspection? Until recently*, CA allowed OC if the weapon was unloaded. The only way to tell if it was unloaded, and legal, was to surrender it to a LEO when requested to do so.

*When people started legally carrying, though, the legislature changed the law to make it illegal. It may still be legal in the less populated counties.

Pat

[monsterhunter]

RB,

What if the law is written to require the LAC to surrender the weapon for inspection? Until recently*, CA allowed OC if the weapon was unloaded. The only way to tell if it was unloaded, and legal, was to surrender it to a LEO when requested to do so.

*When people started legally carrying, though, the legislature changed the law to make it illegal. It may still be legal in the less populated counties.

Pat

In California when open carry was legal, an individual was required by law to submit to a weapons inspection by a peace officer (if they were in public). To refuse a weapons check was a misdameanor. Most of the open carry folks I encountered were very polite, compliant, and their main goal was to educate. There were the occasional individuals who would try to provoke a more uninformed LEO into screwing up in order to capture it on video, post it on the net, and file suit. The terminology used is very similar to this individual; however, he was on the more mild to moderate side of things.

I would be surprised to find this LEO conducted an illegal search. Many states will allow you to inspect a weapon and to remove it in a safe fashon yourself. There is also case law wich governs these individual state penal codes as well; however, the laws do vary greatly from state to state.

[Utah Bob]

This will probably raise a few eyebrows and that IS my intent, however, my intent is not to disrespect LEO's in any way, shape, form.

The LEO was very professional, but a few points about legal and illegal need to be made. The LEO should not have touched the weapon. For one, he "detained" and conducted an "illegal search and seizure" at the moment he disarmed the lawfully abiding citizen [LAC] The LEO had no probable cause that a crime was committed by the LAC. The LEO received a call from a "concerned citizen" and although the call was responded to, it was not responded to in the eyes of legality, but was responded to very professionally. There is a difference. Your rights can be violated by a very professional LEO just like they can by the big burly cop that demands a Terry Stop is completely legal because he says so. The point is if you don't know your rights, research them.

The LAC stated that he did not consent to a search. The LEO conducted the search anyway and broke the law, albeit very professionally. Had the LAC truly known the law about OC, he would've stood his ground about non-consent and requested the LEO's supervisor or an FTO. The LEO could plainly see that this was an advocate OC and not an ugly encounter so "officer safety" was not an issue. He also could have stepped in front of the LAC, checked that the gun was not full auto, and that it was chambered in .22 easily. The LEO chose to disarm illegally.

What many who don't carry and fail to realize is that the LAC DID NOTHING WRONG. I KNOW I KNOW..... and I agree, walking down the street sporting what appears to be an evil black gun OC slung is probably not too smart, but it IS NOT ILLEGAL.

As for the stop, professional, yes, well, if you consider about half of the illegal stop professional. Depends on which half you like I suppose.

RTKBA

2c
Well, officer safety is Always an issue. You never know. Nice encounters can turn ugly in the blink of an eye.

[Utah Bob]

Then do not come to Arizona.....;)

I am "alarmed" when I see local, state and federal law enforcement with military style assault weapons, fully automatic machine guns and drones.

When I was a cop I too was alarmed at the escalating militarization of the police. I still am.
Whenever I protested the black uniforms, tactical gear, and other things I was accused of being a dinosaur. I'd point to Sir Robert Peel's 9 Principles of Policing. Then they were convinced I was a dinosaur.
Now I'm a retired dinosaur.

[monsterhunter]

When I was a cop I too was alarmed at the escalating militarization of the police. I still am.
Whenever I protested the black uniforms, tactical gear, and other things I was accused of being a dinosaur. I'd point to Sir Robert Peel's 9 Principles of Policing. Then they were convinced I was a dinosaur.
Now I'm a retired dinosaur.

I understand and appreciate where you are coming from as I felt the same way for many years. A few things changed much of the way we must do business. The North Hollywood shootout sent officers scrambling to a gun store in order to borrow weapons just so they could have a better chance at fighting back. Not long afterwards, a friend of mine was hit with automatic gunfire from an AK-47. He and his partner were still able to take out the suspect with their 92FS’s. Their discipline and shot placement made the difference in that battle. Their car was riddled with bullet holes, one in the headrest too.

A couple of weeks after that incident, another couple of my friends were opened up on with an Uzi. They too won the fight.

None of these weapons were acquired legally. I don’t believe they were even stolen. Many of the local gangs are running the dope trade and have international connections. It’s as easy to have these weapons brought in as it is their large supplies of dope. The days of the “Saturday night special” are over and it’s not terribly uncommon for the average patrol officer to run across these folks.

The cartels are in a lot of my old hunting grounds in order to grow their marijuana. They are posting guards, booby traps, and a lot of them are well armed. Some of the grows are being located within just a couple of miles of the local mall.

We’re also carrying more items on our belts. Since the day when the most common uniform of today began, we’ve added radios, Tasers, all different forms of less lethal weapons, added the vest, and whatever other new things come down. It used to be a revolver, a couple of speed loaders, and a set of handcuffs. Throw in having to cross a seasonal river in a wool uniform and I’m ready for the changes.

What sucks is the wrong reaction. What I mean by this is disarming the citizens and tightening regulations on everything. The criminal never did worry about this. I’ve never met a gang member who purchased a firearm and went through a waiting period. But this doesn’t stop a knee jerk reaction from government.

I’m not for the drones and other invasive crap, but I’d sure appreciate an external vest with a suspension system underneath, some pants and a uniform shirt that aren’t made of wool and cost more than a suit. It really sucks having to roll on the pavement, while trying to take somebody into custody without hurting them in $100.00 pants.
End of rant.

[Ape Man]

The black uniform thing bothers me more than it should.

I work with a bunch of people who are technically sworn officers. I guess I should not put the pejorative "technically" in there as the law is the law. But since they are not allowed to carry firearms and they don't do any of the normal law enforcement duties, it is hard for me to think of them as "officers."

Anyway, I come to work one day and all these people are suddenly wearing black uniforms. It was done so that they would look more "professional" and to raise their moral (these are the official reasons given in the minutes).

Its a small thing. But it really bothers me that the color that was good for 100+ years is no longer professional.

[RB]

Great convo!

I read earlier that a majority of the states allow an officer to remove the weapon to inspect. I'd invite you to research Terry as it's a Supreme Court decision and does not allow an officer to "inspect". Terry is not subject to city ordinances, city codes, or state statutes for an LEO to CYA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

I carry a 92FS. There are automatic pistols on the market. An officer here in NC may approach me, and again, I'm a legal 2A advocate, to include OC, but how would he know it's semi or full auto? NC is not a stop and identify state. I don't need to ID myself, nor do you need to inspect my weapon if I'm not doing anything illegal.

I, for the most part, just want to be on my merry way and not be hassled. I'm defending myself as I'm a responsible adult and a veteran and I'm legally able to do so.

You won't catch me walking down the street, slung M4 or Rem 700, camera in hand trying to incite a confrontation, but I do understand that a fight for rights not fought means a lost battle and lost rights every time. They'll take them if you don't know you have them, and you'll be none the wiser.

[XngZeRubicon]

.

What many who don't carry and fail to realize is that the LAC DID NOTHING WRONG.
2c

Agree. And neither did the cop, IMHO. It can be debated that he did, and I'm used to hearing compelling arguments on both sides of that debate.

[monsterhunter]

In order to know if the officer did anything wrong, the state law of the state in the contact would have to be reviewed. I agree with RB that Terry vs. Ohio does not apply here. It is simply a pat down check for weapons during a lawful detention. There is no patdown here but a weapons inspection against the consent of the owner. California is not a stop and I.D. state either but it did provide a requirement to relenquish a weapon for inspection in a public place. I've never conducted a functions check, but just a check to see if it was loaded or not.

I long for days gone by when kids used to walk down the street with their BB guns while heading out into the nearby hills. An older friend of mine had his shotgun in the window rack of his truck at high school so he could hunt quail in the afternoon. Nobody batted an eye. Now people dial 9-1-1 for teens playing airsoft.

I believe we should do everything we can to maintain our deminishing rights. With that being said, I still want my new tactical stuff with a more modern uniform, but with an old school mentality.

[RB]

I played BB tag as a young'un....running the alley's, darting between houses. You knew you weren't "it" anymore when the guy you just shot grabbed his ass a yelped 'cause you pumped the bb gun a few more times than you were supposed to and had good aim.

I truly don't have a problem with "surrender of the weapon" if it's state law and the LEO is as professional as the OP, but in NC, VA, and quite a few other states there is no surrender statute or law.

Keep in mind "surrender" can mean several things, yes, even as professional as the LEO was. Some LEO's think it's OK to take the weapon and "run the numbers" to make sure the weapon isn't stolen. [dumbass probably wouldn't be OCing a stolen MP5, eh] This breaks into the gray line of search and seizure. Gotta know, ask, and confirm to have a good understanding of where you stand with the LEO and the convo.

I'd highly suggest a digital voice recorder if you plan on OCing a lot. Keep it handy and when someone gives you the stink eye, flick it on and let them know they're being recorded when they approach. Some states very on "notification" of a recording, based on wiretapping laws.

The video is a bit out there, showed the type semi-preferred convo you'd like to have, but don't always. Bully boy LEO's will let you know that they're the ones assigned to protect you, they know guns better than you, and you're not supposed to carry a weapon without his consent.

Knowing your state law is a good counter to the uninformed. I like opencarry.org as an information source, but any question you could have can be found on a whole menagerie of state "carry" forums.

[kgoerz]

I find people walking around with a slung firearm comforting. The individual in the video is a punk, but at least he is reminding people (maybe not through his comments) through his walks, that this is normal and lawful.

No way. We don't live in a society that requires citizens to brandish weapons. We are more evolved then that. It's over the top, unprofessional behavior. Cops have enough on their plate, let alone dealing with this shit head.

[Streck-Fu]

No way. We don't live in a society that requires citizens to brandish weapons.

Open carrying a handgun nor slinging a rifle is brandishing.

[Richard]

Open carrying a handgun nor slinging a rifle is brandishing.

Is or is not? :confused:

I agree with KG - somebody walking around in an urban area like that with an MP-5 slung over their shoulder is certainly not the norm and fits the definition of brandishing (e.g., to display ostentatiously).

Were there more officers like the one in that video or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKA3V_vd07c

Richard :munchin

[monsterhunter]

Keep in mind "surrender" can mean several things, yes, even as professional as the LEO was. Some LEO's think it's OK to take the weapon and "run the numbers" to make sure the weapon isn't stolen. [dumbass probably wouldn't be OCing a stolen MP5, eh] This breaks into the gray line of search and seizure. Gotta know, ask, and confirm to have a good understanding of where you stand with the LEO and the convo.

I've seen this first hand and agree 100% A lot of departments do not educate their officers as much as they should. Some officers think they can do more than the law allows and wind up getting themselves and their departments in trouble. A LEO overstepping his/her authority is a terrible thing.

[monsterhunter]

Open carrying a handgun nor slinging a rifle is brandishing.

I agree. This is a state issue as well. Here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, it must be brandished in a "rude or threatening manner." State case law would not consider a holstered or slung weapon as brandishing.

[Team Sergeant]

I agree. This is a state issue as well. Here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, it must be brandished in a "rude or threatening manner." State case law would not consider a holstered or slung weapon as brandishing.

You can be accused and charged of brandishing a holstered weapon.

I take it you are a concealed weapons instructor? If you are you are wrong and if your not you might want to limit your comments to what you know.

[monsterhunter]

You can be accused and charged of brandishing a holstered weapon.

I take it you are a concealed weapons instructor? If you are you are wrong and if your not you might want to limit your comments to what you know.

I don't know under what circumstances you can be charged in California with brandishing a weapon that is simply holstered. If you were to hold onto your weapon as if posturing you were going to remove it while acting in a threatening manner, you could be arrested an charged. Just walking around with it holstered and empty, as in most open carry situations, would not get you in trouble (before the law changed). In the last 21 years, this section would not even get past the watch sergeant.

I'm not a concealed weapons instructor, but the instructor is not going to be the one making the arrest.

[Team Sergeant]

I don't know under what circumstances you can be charged in California with brandishing a weapon that is simply holstered. If you were to hold onto your weapon as if posturing you were going to remove it while acting in a threatening manner, you could be arrested an charged. Just walking around with it holstered and empty, as in most open carry situations, would not get you in trouble (before the law changed). In the last 21 years, this section would not even get past the watch sergeant.

I'm not a concealed weapons instructor, but the instructor is not going to be the one making the arrest.

Let me school you then, if I'm in a heated argument with anyone and to the point where I'm real pissed off, and I slide my jacket to show you my holstered concealed weapon that's brandishing.

Now tell me if you're a law enforcement officer or a clerk that works for them? And yes I was a certified concealed weapons instructor.

[monsterhunter]

Let me school you then, if I'm in a heated argument with anyone and to the point where I'm real pissed off, and I slide my jacket to show you my holstered concealed weapon that's brandishing.

Now tell me if you're a law enforcement officer or a clerk that works for them? And yes I was a certified concealed weapons instructor.

I see what you are talking about. I'm was simply refering to a standard non threatening open cary situation. Somebody just walking down the street with an unloaded handgun. But then again, this is now illegal here.

In the situation you mentioned, the indivudual would be arrested and charged with brandishing. There are other situations where just possessing a holsterd weapon would be cause for arrest as well, but again, I was only referring to otherwise legal open carry. In the situation you mentioned "rude or threatening manner" is clearly demonstratred.

As for my qualifications: I'm a field sergeant with LASD.

[Team Sergeant]

I see what you are talking about. I'm was simply refering to a standard non threatening open cary situation. Somebody just walking down the street with an unloaded handgun. But then again, this is now illegal here.

In the situation you mentioned, the indivudual would be arrested and charged with brandishing. There are other situations where just possessing a holsterd weapon would be cause for arrest as well, but again, I was only referring to otherwise legal open carry. In the situation you mentioned "rude or threatening manner" is clearly demonstratred.

As for my qualifications: I'm a field sergeant with LASD.

I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn...... ;)

[monsterhunter]

I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn...... ;)

I've been schooled by civilains, trainees, and all kinds of folks. I can learn from anyone and will never know it all. What I have often found is the civilian who spends time to educate themsleves on state and case law, on one issue, will often times know more than the law enforcement officer.

[Team Sergeant]

I've been schooled by civilains, trainees, and all kinds of folks. I can learn from anyone and will never know it all. What I have often found is the civilian who spends time to educate themsleves on state and case law, on one issue, will often times know more than the law enforcement officer.

When I was in "training" for my weapons permit and license I paid no attention to the weapons portion of the training, but listened to "everything" that was discussed about the legal aspects of concealed carry.......

[Badger52]

Let me school you then, if I'm in a heated argument with anyone and to the point where I'm real pissed off, and I slide my jacket to show you my holstered concealed weapon that's brandishing.
Yup, bingo. It varies by state; in fact, up here all the other person has to do is state they felt "threatened" and it's not brandishing anymore - now it's simple assault.

Part of the drudgery of the recent shall-issue law was taking all this into consideration. Most instructors of any worth/credentials using a recognized curriculum cover all this. (Many folks took classes to get non-res permits from other states before the shall-issue law passed.) As TS points out these terms matter because they have real meanings in court and can affect personal freedom and property (your money, lots of it).

Until the shall-issue law passed in WI there was NO legal mechanism for concealed carry. The law was completely mute on the subject of open-carry. It was the only legal recourse to someone, with the exception of active/retired LEO (via the LEOSA, which created another "special class" of people).
:rolleyes:

The overarching notion that simply carrying openly is brandishing is incorrect and a wrong starting point. Up here where so-called "brandishing" was the only method available to a law-abiding citizen, conduct & totality of circumstances is what's going to largely determine the outcome. And that means conduct by both the responding officer(s) and the subject of the contact. (Unless you live in certain areas of Milwaukee in which case you could get treated like you might have an explosive vest on, said behavior having caused them to pay out large amounts of bak-sheesh in civil judgements from time to time. Their Stasi-like Chief is still there but, hell, it's Chicago-Nord.)

[Leozinho]

http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/30/unusual-fourth-amendment-second-amendment-case/




Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying an AK-47 Pistol with a Thirty Round Clip In a Public Park: An Unusual Fourth and Second Amendment Case

Orin Kerr • August 30, 2012 12:48 pm

The case is Embody v. Ward, handed down today by the Sixth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Sutton. It begins:

Tennessee law allows individuals with gun permits to carry handguns in public places “owned or operated by the state” such as “public park[s]” and “natural area[s].” Tenn. Code § 39-17-1311(b)(1)(H). The statute defines a “handgun” as “any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches” that is “designed, made or adapted” to be fired with one hand. Id. § 39-11-106(a)(16).

Armed with knowledge of this law and one thing more — a Draco AK-47 pistol — Leonard Embody went to Radnor Lake State Natural Area, a state park near Nashville, Tennessee, on a Sunday afternoon. Dressed in camouflage, he slung the gun with its eleven-and-a-half-inch barrel across his chest along with a fully loaded, thirtyround clip attached to it.

Embody anticipated his appearance at the park would attract attention—he carried an audio-recording device with him—and it did. One passer-by spontaneously held up his hands when he encountered Embody. Two park visitors reported to a park ranger that they were “very concerned” about Embody and the AK-47. R.22-3 at 5. And an elderly couple reported to a ranger that a man was in the park with an “assault rifle.” Id. at 6.

Two more predictable things happened. A park ranger disarmed and detained Embody to determine whether the AK-47 was a legitimate pistol under Tennessee law, releasing him only after determining it was. And Embody sued the park ranger, claiming he had violated his Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we.

(someone gripes about usage of "clip" in three, two, one...)

[RB]

Nice story Leo! I guess the park rangers are educated now, eh?

I'll admit it kinda sucks that the park rangers are probably driving gators after giving up their suburbans due to the lawsuit, but sometimes education can be costly to an uninformed LEO.

As far as carrying an "unloaded gun".....well that's just an oxy-moron to me. It's a hammer at that point, not a gun. Would you bring a hammer to a knife fight? A hammer to a gun fight? Ummm.

The GREAT thing about NC is that there is no stop and identify with OC because you are not breaking any laws. Carry all you want, keep it in the holster in public until something bad happens. Legal.

OC is allowed and legal in NC because THERE ARE NO LAWS IN NC AGAINST OPEN CARRY. That's true in quite a few states as well. Because many states do not write laws saying you can't OC, you can. Look for an OC law on the NC books. There isn't one, not one. It's an "unalienable right" as given to us by God and our insightful fore-fathers to defend ourselves.

The last paragraph represents the OC advocate in the film. Although I think he's a jackass as well, he's out there advocating our inalienable right to carry a gun, a loaded gun ( well, KINDA loaded in Kali), whether it be OC or CC. If you don't raise awareness, they'll take your rights with unannounced board meetings, city council meetings, and state ordinance hearings and you'll never know it until you can't carry anymore and are arrested. You can't karry a loaded gun in Kali because Kali says you kan't. :rolleyes:

Although I don't advocate his method, I do advocate his message.

[The Reaper]

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

[RB]

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

I'm not sure if the highlight is your quote, opinion, or interpretation, but it's entirely inaccurate when applying the charge to OC/CC in NC.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/northcarolina.pdf (Aug 17, 2012)

By common law in North Carolina,

it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon,
for the purpose of terrifying others,
and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others.

So this is a "3 pronged" violation. You must be armed, AND it must be your specific intent to use your weapon to terrify people, AND you must be on a public highway (which under NC law is defined as ANY roadway, sidewalk, or thoroughfare that is maintained by ANY governmental body)

If you do not meet ALL THREE of these criteria, you are NOT committing the violation of GAttTotP.

and: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?72092-GATTTOTP-NC-Firearms-Laws


GAttTotP in NC is on the books but falls into the brandishing phase as mentioned before. NC Magistrates have laughed many LEO's out of court for attempting to use GAttTotP for folks OCing. There have been many many arrests/detainments for simply OCing, but the NC LEO's as well as the populace are becoming more educated towards this charge, thus the digital voice recorder and knowing where you stand during a street interview with an LEO.

IANAL, but a majority of LEO's that respond to MWAG calls these days are a whole lot more educated on how to handle that call than they were in, say, 2010 due to the vigilance of Grass Roots North Carolina and other involved organizations that choose to educate by legally OCing everywhere, handing out pamphlets showing that OC is legal, and holding OC rally's and lunches/dinners in just about every city/town in NC.

This started as a Kali thread, sorry to hijack with NC