CSGV to Anti-Gun Lemmings: SWAT Anyone With A Gun

FullSizeRender

There’s been something of a shakeout in the ranks of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex in recent years. With his bottomless pockets, former mayor Michael Bloomberg boosted the fortunes of Mayors Against Illegal Your Guns. Until, that is, he realized that 1) an embarrassingly large percentage of his membership were themselves illegal and 2) mini Mike doesn’t really make the most sympathetic spokesman for the anti-gun cause. Or anything else, really. The solution: he went out and bought himself (former Monsanto flack) Shannon Watts and Moms Demand Action. Problem solved. Then there’s the Brady Campaign . . .

With the ascendance of Bloomberg’s ultra-well-funded operation, the Brady Campaign’s fortunes have declined. Bummer, right? They just haven’t been able to compete with Mike’s billions and Shannon’s camera-ready, sympathetic schtick and media savvy. And while they were really just figureheads in recent years, the deaths of both James and Sarah Brady didn’t help matters much. Can anyone remember the last time the Brady Campaign moved the anti-gun needle? At all? Anyone? Bueller?

Also taking up some of the oxygen in the anti-RKBA space once dominated by the Bradys are Gabby Giffords’ and Mark Kelly’s Americans for Responsible Solutions. Fortunately for those who care about their gun rights, the ARS is mostly just a spam email generator and fundraising operation. Who knows where all that cash is really going? ARS has no discernible anti-gun advocacy oomph, other than the occasional interview, paid appearance or Congressional testimony by the grievously wounded Ms. Giffords.

So in that landscape, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence seems to have looked around and decided that in order to remain relevant, they had to fill a niche no one else has thought about: that of the bat$hit crazy psychopath at the party. You know the type…there’s always one guy who maybe drinks more than he should, talks a little too loudly and makes everyone else wary and uncomfortable because they’re just not sure exactly what he’s going to do. That’s what the CSGV has become. They’ve decided to differentiate themselves by becoming the Crazy Joe Davola of the civilian disarmament movement.

Case in point: their reaction to yesterday’s theater shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana as evidenced by the advice they offer (above) to their fellow hoplophobes. What’s worse: their followers are totally on board. Some even claim to have tried it already.

IMG_4730

The cops scoff? Try a little persistence. The brain trust at CSGV just keeps egging them on.

FullSizeRender-9

Hold on. It gets better. Let’s add a little racial profiling to the false police report just to see if that provokes the desired reaction.

FullSizeRender-2

Oh wait! Pam has a good idea, too!

FullSizeRender-3

Perfect, Pam. That’s using the ol’ noodle.

Keep in mind that these are the same people who call the NRA a bunch of racist insurrectionist wackos for defending a natural, civil, Constitutionally enumerated right.

To be sure, these people are probably the anti-gun equivalent of “keyboard commandos.” You know, all talk and bluster when typing on their MacBook Pros in their slippers or over a venti half calf vanilla soy latte at Starbucks, but they’d never consider actually doing anything like what they’re talking about in the non-virtual world.

Or so we hope. Because when a lawful gun owner is taken by surprise by an over-the-top police response initiated by one of CSGV’s muddled minions and someone is shot, it could get inconvenient (and potentially very expensive) if the person who phoned in the phony threat report is traced back to the CSGV Facebook page.

comments

  1. avatar FedUp says:

    There have been places (*cough*Milwaukee) where top law enforcement officials openly condoned this practice. I always figured the answer to THAT was to call 9-1-1 every time you saw a cop OCing.
    But I don’t have a ready answer to the Coalition Against Civil Rights encouraging it.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Lawsuits. And throw the entire anti-discrimination, civil rights playbook at them. If you get SWATed thusly, file a lawsuit against the caller for making a false report. If the report was made anonymously and the police acted upon it, file a lawsuit against the police department.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        Not only is it discriminatory and anti-civil rights, but these folks (who, in a tremendous blitz of bravado and chutzpah post under their real names w/ photos) are openly, on a public forum, conspiring to deprive the civil rights of others. Though IANAL, this appears to violate 42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.

        Perhaps the lawyers among us might care to serve the proper authorities with a petition to prosecute these CSGV dipsticks. They wanna SWAT us? Fine, let’s hit back harder.

      2. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Doesn’t help if you’re dead. Remember the guy in Walmart in Ohio carrying the pellet gun? Nothing happened to the cops or the 911 caller.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          That’s because Beavercreek. They threw a fit when a bus route from Dayton opened up, afraid of all the, *ahem*, “thugs” it would bring.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Is Beavercreek a gated community or something? They have a flippin’ Walmart, for God’s sake.

        3. avatar Leonard Washington says:

          That was a sad situation all around. I’m from there and it is a very nice community. I blame all 3. The guy swinging the Air Rifle around like a cheerleader, the caller for making a sensationalized call to dispatch, and the noob cop who shot Crawford. The coroner reported entry wounds to Crawfords side.

        4. avatar Don from CT says:

          It was ok because the guy was black. Disgusting huh?

        5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Liberals hate minorities. I can testify from decades of first-hand experience.

        6. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          News reports indicated his family sued for $75K after a GJ failed to issue an indictment.

          So what’s the value of human life in the US? EPA uses $9M is calculating the cost-benefit of environmental regulations; Stanford dialysis researchers put it at $129,000 (in 2010 dollars) for each additional year of life.

          Seeking only $75K in this man’s death seems terribly wrong.

      3. avatar Jim R says:

        If you survive.

    2. avatar Jeremy S says:

      One time I saw a guy in a Corvette in my neighborhood so I called the cops on him just in case. Had no idea of his intentions and maybe he was going to go 150 mph near my house, which is right near a grade school! Imagine the kids! ugh

      #BanCarsThatCanGoOver70MPH It’s common sense. Nobody needs to exceed highway speed! We need to ban these high-powered, high-speed death machines.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        You beat me to it. Cars are deadly missiles capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 130 feet per second. And we have no idea what any person driving a car intends to do. They could ram your car and kill you. They could plow into a crowded crosswalk and kill untold dozens of people. Where are the clarion calls to dial 9-1-1 every time you see an unknown person driving a car?

        Note: 130 feet per second = 90 mile per hour. I specified vehicle velocity in feet per second because it is a larger and much more scary sounding number.

        1. avatar Tomyironmane says:

          And here I thought it was because the rest of us think “Ok, 230 grain projectile moving 850 feet per second or a 10,500,000 grain projectile moving 150 feet per second…”

      2. avatar Chris in NC says:

        could have been a get-away driver looking for a good escape route after a bank robbery?

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    They’re still not as crazy as ol’ Shannon, who actually endorses her fellow nut-jobs to assault law-abiding gun owners.

    They’ll need to step up their game, if they want to take the Mantle of Crazy away from her.

    1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

      Speaking of that, does anyone have an update on the loon who tackled the elderly gentleman at Walmart?

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Convicted of simple battery in April, nobody seemed to think the May sentencing hearing was worth sending a reporter to.

        http://bearingarms.com/florida-man-found-guilty-battery-attacking-concealed-carrier/

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Here’s the county court record.

          It looks like he got probation, can any TTAG lawyers decode this?

          http://pubrec10.hillsclerk.com/Unsecured/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=7719015

      2. avatar Ray Ficara says:

        The LOON got a well-deserved wrist slap and Shannon Twatts wailed about it long and loud crying “WHY didn’t they arrest the guy with the legal gun?” Then said “Because America.” What a shit bag.

        Ray

    2. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      LOL – “mantle of crazy” is classic.

  3. avatar MattG says:

    In cases like this, I would sincerely hope the 911 operator would quiz the caller about what they see. How many people that are visibly armed? Any injuries? How many shots have been fired?

    And hopefully they realize that the caller is panicking over someone exercising their natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right to bear arms in a public place.

    1. avatar Amfivena says:

      I think the response is highly dependent upon the ZIP code of the call center.

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        ^ Spot on.

    2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Problem is like the Wal-Mart case– the caller can exaggerate quite convincingly and the guy on the phone has no idea. ‘Waving his gun around….’ ‘Pointing it at a woman and kids…’ when he was doing no such thing.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Actually, false reports really are not the problem. Anyone can claim anything. The problem is police response. If the police want to drive out, see what is going on, and then determine what to do after observing the situation, that is fine. What is NOT fine is taking a caller at their word and showing up with hair triggers and a predetermined plan to take down the “suspect” first and then ask questions later.

        Saying it another way, a caller making a report should NOT be an adequate threshold to satisfy the reasonable, articulable suspicion standard for police to “go in hot”. Is a caller report enough reason to observe someone? Sure. Is it enough reason to engage in a consensual encounter with someone? Sure. Beyond that, not so much.

        1. avatar Richard in WA says:

          Right, I’m sure if a CSGV member calls 911 telling them “active shooter” then the dispatcher is going to relay that to the police. They’ll respond in kind, not looking for a consensual encounter and asking questions but with weapon looking to stop a gunfight.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Still, Richard has a point. It remains the duty of the police to establish for themselves a valid pretext for whatever they do to assert the power of the state.

          Even in the extreme case where the 911 caller asserts there is an “active shooter” incident, the police can’t open fire as soon as they arrive on-scene on that basis alone. If no one is firing when they arrive then there is no pretext corresponding to the allegation of “active shooter”. If no one is brandishing, aiming or negligently defying muzzle, trigger or holster discipline then there is no pretext justifying opening fire.

          Depending upon the law in that jurisdiction there may be a pretext to inquire, detain or even arrest a gun carrier. None of these actions could be taken from a PROPER use of the dispatcher’s report of a caller’s characterization.

          Our beef here is, principally, with the response of the cops-on-the-scene.

  4. avatar mike oregon says:

    Have any of the anti-freedom types ever disclosed how they think this will work if they get the laws they want?

    1. avatar Dustin S. says:

      No, because if you go to their page and ask them they delete and block you.

  5. avatar Vitsaus says:

    Playing commie’s advocate or whatever… does some one’s right to call the police when they don’t know what the hell is going on end at my right to walk around with an AK on my back? This is the whole open carry debate really, sure I SHOULD be able to walk around with my AK/HK91/AUG on my back, but if I’m doing that in soccer mom central, I may freak people out. They have the right to call the cops if they think a mad man is walking around… its the core of the debate.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      If you’re doing nothing wrong, then the soccer moms should STFU. Nobody asks the question about whether or not it’s appropriate to burn the American Flag in the middle of things.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      This is what happened in California with handguns–so open carry of handguns was banned. And the mere threat that people might start openly carrying long guns led to them being banned the following year. Which may or may not be good for CCW here, as now the only way to legally carry in any urban area is concealed and with a CCW. (with minor exceptions). We’ll know the answer to this dilemma when the Ninth decides Peruta, and not until, as the Legislature will most assuredly not act. Smart money,says, unfortunately, that the Ninth will reverse and remand to the trial court to reconsider the motion for summary judgment in light of the legal landscape that changed while the case was pending on appeal. Such an outcome would allow the State 9which had refused to become involved earlier) to intervene, and would delay the case for at least three or four more years, i.e., until after the next election cycle to see if the chairs change on the Supreme Court. Yes, it is political. If the anit-gunners are going to lose, the court will assure they at least lose slowly.

      1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

        Interesting point, Mark. I gave some money to California Right To Carry http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org
        Charles Nichols seems pretty sure he’s boxed the 9th Circuit and CA into conundrum that can only result in a victory for gun rights.

        He’s not an attorney AFIK (don’t find him listed in CA’s bar association records) and is representing himself. I don’t see the NRA or CRPA supporting him. Not sure if he’s a gadfly or has a chance at making a difference.

        Lots of smart, informed folks on this site. Opinions on his chances?

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Not surprised to see the NRA shy away from anything of substance or controversial. They typically jump on the bandwagon after the fact. Not always, but often.

        2. avatar Vitsaus says:

          Danny Griffin called it like it is.

        3. During the en banc oral arguments for Peruta/Richards the California Solicitor General conceded that the “core right” of the Second Amendment extends beyond the curtilage of one’s home, but not to concealed carry -> https://youtu.be/Zzmt_TCBXUM

          For me to win my California Open Carry appeal it was only necessary for the Circuit Court to conclude that the “core right” extends to the curtilage of my home. The State of California now says that it does, and beyond.

          Short of my being hit by a bus before my appeal is decided, I win.

          As for the NRA, here is a link to a brief excerpt from a video the NRA put out last year saying that it supports Open Carry -> https://youtu.be/WqeVj7A3bwg

          And here is a link to NRA lawyer Paul Clement telling the en banc court in Peruta/Richards that states can ban Open Carry -> https://youtu.be/MRgTihlLOHk

          By the way, the NRA said in its Peruta v. San Diego opening appellant brief that overturning California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 would be “drastic.” I do not share this opinion. The provision of the California Gun-Free School Zone Act which extends 1,000 feet from a K-12 public or private school is facially unconstitutional.

        4. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Thanks – glad to see the donation is well-spent. Puzzling that CA’s Heath & Safety Code [11362.768. (b)] prohibits a marijuana dispensary within 600′ of a school, yet firearms within 1,000′ under the Gun-Free School Zone Act.

          Wasn’t aware of the GFSZA. Wonder if I could be arrested for carrying my range bag to the car when parked in front of my home (which is across the street from a school)? Maybe I should decorate it with rainbow farting unicorns and My Little Pony decals.

          Then there’s the gun store less than 1,000 feet away. Bust customers as soon as they step onto the sidewalk? Scary act.

        5. avatar Richard in WA says:

          GayGunOwner – I used to live at the nexus of three gun free zones (within 1000 feet of high school, junior high, and elementary school campuses). I’m in a pretty gun-friendly area but still it only takes one nervous nelly “I saw a man putting assault rifles into his car next to the high school!” to ruin your day.

          There was an incident in Seattle/Shoreline where a man was seen carrying a rifle and wearing camo pants across the street from an elementary school. Someone (likely a school staff member) called the cops, several schools were put in lockdown. They never figured out who the guy was. I figured it was probably just a dude taking his gear to his car, then he left and went to the range or something. There was never a “predator on the loose”, it was just a guy and some people freaked out.

          http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Shoreline-schools-closed-locked-down-after-report-of-man-with-gun-287801621.html

          Different reports on this incident said it was a rifle, said he never talked to anyone, and some think that the staffer made up the story about talking with him to justify the 911 call. Seems likely since there was never a good description of the guy.

          Keep em cased/bagged while loading up and be discreet is my advice.

        6. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Personal property doesn’t fall under the federal school GFZ. Also, if you hold a carry license from the state in which the school resides you are also exempt.

          Stop getting your panties in a wad.

        7. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Danny,
          Found this: http://www.shouselaw.com/gun-free-school.html Fortunately, it looks like there are a number of carve-outs. This is CA’s GFSZA – don’t know about Federal.

          Unlike many CA counties, including neighboring ones, Santa Clara County’s Sheriff has effectively stopped issuing CCWs. Coincidently CCW issuance was virtually halted after press reports surfaced that only those contributing to her election were getting CCWs. Now the excuse is, ‘we’re waiting on guidance from the courts’.

          Some have claimed that registering a security/personal protection company, then applying for a CCW works. Don’t have any specific knowledge.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Also, if you hold a carry license from the state in which the school resides you are also exempt.

          How is this not an equal protection violation? It makes state residents more equal than non-residents, especially in states with reciprocity.

        9. The California Gun-Free School Zone Act (PC 626.9) does provide a number of exemptions which are unreachable due to the bans on carrying loaded firearms (PC 25850) and openly carrying unloaded firearms (PC 26350 & PC 26400).

          “(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
          under any of the following circumstances:
          (1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
          property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
          property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
          firearm is otherwise lawful.
          (2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
          firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
          container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
          This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
          transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
          or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
          accordance with state law.”

          The current prohibition on openly carrying modern, unloaded long guns applies to incorporated cities when one is carrying an unloaded long gun outside of his motor vehicle. Provided one does not carry a long gun on school grounds, the 1,000 feet prohibition does not apply to unloaded long guns in unincorporated county territory within 1,000 feet of a K-12 public school.

          Should I win my lawsuit then it will be legal to openly carry a loaded handgun (or long gun) in one’s motor vehicle, drive into a commercial parking lot and openly carry the loaded handgun (or long gun) into a place of business without violating PC 626.9. Parking on a public street in front of a place of business and then exiting your vehicle with a handgun, loaded or unloaded will still be a violation of PC 626.9.

          I have been criticized for not challenging California’s GFSZ Act (PC 626.9) but it would have been foolhardy to challenge it until there is binding 9th circuit precedent which has held that the Second Amendment extends outside of one’s home.

          And should I prevail, you will not need a government issued permission slip in order to exercise your Second Amendment rights. The so called gun-rights groups (NRA, CRPA, SAF, CalGuns.nuts, etc) all say that the government can require you to have a permit.

          http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=739

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      The OC of long-guns in TX was a very State-specific peculiar case. We PotG should have clarity on this point.

      I believe that TX was unique in explicitly permitting OC of long-guns while prohibiting OC of handguns. That peculiar law created a “loophole” if you like that the OCT crowd were (practically invited) to drive an 18-wheeler through.

      Contrast TX with FL. OC of handguns in FL is prohibited but there is an exception for hunting and fishing! That is (practically) an invitation to drive a different vehicle through! Our bothers in arms are OCing their handguns with a “long-pole”, string, bobber and hook.

      It’s an obvious absurdity – just a different absurdity – to exploit. The public is invited to consider the absurdity of a Florida law that let’s a carrier OC a handgun with a fishing pole; but forbids him to OC a handgun if he’s not fishing.

      I imagine that in most States OC is legal without distinction between handguns vs. long-guns. In such cases, discretion is called-for. PROVIDED that a parade/demonstration/protest is clearly shrouded as a POLITICAL statement some long-guns may make a positive contribution. To the extent available, muzzleloaders and traditional hunting-type guns should be used in-addition-to or in lieu of modern sporting rifles. I’d expect these tactics to be well tolerated.

      Otherwise, if one can make one’s point by carrying a handgun just as well as by carrying a long-gun, then why allow the Antis to use our own lack of judgement against us? Why go on a pointless stroll by a school when you could walk your dog in your own neighborhood?

      1. avatar JD says:

        Florida exception is hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking AND while going to and from such activities. I always have a fishing pole and hiking stick in my vehicles. The exception is for concealed or open carry. Since there is an outright ban on open carry otherwise and a permit that costs $$$ is required if you want to legally carry Florida is in violation of my rights to bear arms. If I have to ask permission and pay a tax to exercise a constitutionally protected right then its a right denied. I think the exceptions are a way for the state to open a loophole you can drive a train through for a reason.

  6. avatar DaveL says:

    In America, don’t forget, “have ANY doubts about their intent” = “they’re black our brown”.

    I see that “Mary Alice Smith” already got the memo and is off to hunt brown people by proxy.

  7. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    Those ignoramuses must think they are above or beyond arrestable. It will only take one are two prosecutions though and those meat-heads won’t be doing that again. (dropping dime)

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      A guy was killed by police in Ohio due to one of these calls and nothing happened to him or the cops. They know this and they are using fear and police brutality as a weapon now.

  8. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Coalition to Stop Gun Violence gives bad advice.

    1. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

      Not the first time, and surely not the last time.

    2. avatar Chris in NC says:

      Their plan to stop “gun violence” is to use the threat of… err… getting shot by police to stop non-violent gun owners from committing non-violence. Hmmm, me thinks their goal has nothing to do with ending any type of violence as long as they control it.

  9. avatar Rokurota says:

    If the police don’t respond, then the anti-gunners should buy guns and fire some shots themselves. Then when the armed citizen shoots back, finger ’em!

  10. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I don’t care if they’re hopped up on a tall cap, triple-shot half caff, or a small scrap nipple slap half half. That SWATting crap is extremely dangerous and gleeful encouragement to commit it is unconscionably reckless.

    I’m sure it’s fun to fantasize about great misery befalling people you hate. Much of Christianity, for example, boils down to the secret desire to see one’s enemies burn in Hell. This is real life, however, not fantasy and not the afterlife. Real people could get killed or seriously injured by pulling these stunts. That includes innocents, possibly children or even other anti-gunners, whom these ghouls haven’t even begun to consider. Shame on them.

  11. avatar Hoplopfheil says:

    “Don’t feel guilty about infringing upon their freedoms; they’re not real people!”

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Yup. Antis are essentially just modern Nazis except with no real conviction.

  12. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    I love concealed carry. I stand right behind a whole line of these pearl clutching harpies at the local Starbucks. It amuses me to no end to picture them posting this bat shit crazy Internet bravado from their phones while standing a couple of feet away from me. If only they knew…

  13. avatar pod says:

    Shut down their social media profiles:

    Pamela Simowitz-Weber:

    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008580548825&fref=ts

    (Report her for advocating being untruthful to the cops)

    Julee Jäger

    https://www.facebook.com/juleej

    (Report her for false 911 phone calls)

    1. avatar Silver says:

      It’s Facebook. They wholly condone this behavior.

      1. avatar Richard in WA says:

        I have placed many of these reports when they are not just implying violence against gun owners but advocating it directly. Like “We should drag them out of their houses and shoot them and their children” kind of comments – which Facebook then replies saying this does not violate their code of conduct.

        If they were talking about literally ANY OTHER group of people FB would have that pulled immediately. Gun owners are somehow not worthy of “equal protection under the law” in their eyes.

        1. avatar pod says:

          You are so correct. I regularly report posts advocating violence against firearms owners. And to be fair, posts advocating disproportionate violence against any other person. If I flag a racist post advocating punching a black person for being black, Facebook falls all over themselves thanking me. If I flag a post where someone advocates that gun owners should shoot themselves, I get the “Thank you for reporting but we find nothing wrong with this post…” BS.

          Unfortunately the social media giants are all run by anti-gun and anti-Constitution progressives.

    2. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      Or you can share your views with her directly:
      Pamela Simowitz-weber
      Address:
      9078 Millcliff Dr
      Cincinnati, Ohio

      Mobile Version
      Home Phone: 513-521-3849

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Is that accurate? With that info someone could SWAT her at her home. Oh my…

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Julee Jager’s page is dead.

      Sorry, this page isn’t available
      The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Nope, her page is still available.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Ok, why does FB tell me it’s dead?

          Is it because I have no FB account-page?

  14. avatar 277Volt says:

    Might as well call the cops every time they see a male. Chances are he’s a rapist about to get all rapey on someone.

  15. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    We had two SWATings here in mid-Michigan last week. They were the old-fashioned kind where every available car was dispatched to a house for a “murder in progress” though, not a gun carrier in public. And yes, one was online game related.

    Pretty sad when we’re talking about “remember when SWATing was done the old fashioned way?”

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      How many incidents have you guys in Michigan had with OC’s being harassed by the police? Is there a trend?

      Seems to me that the police will learn from their experiences; even if they might learn slowly. If cops start to recognize that their harassment of OCiers turns out to be embarrassments for their departments they will be compelled to act with more restraint.

      Are Michigan police getting the message? If so, I’d expect that your observations would be showing a tapering-off; fewer incidents year after year. Is this happening?

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Not many bad police interactions any more. Most PDs have learned over the last seven years. Grand Rapids can still be touchy, though, as the mayor is very anti-gun. Even when the PDs are called out to schools for parents carrying (OC legal in schools) they are typically respectful. And most schools don’t call. Many have even adopted policies adapting to lawful gun carry. We just have a few who think they are above the law (hence the lawsuits against Clio and Ann Arbor).

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Kind of you to respond.

          An idea: Would it be feasible to compile a white-paper summarizing the record of cases in a given State such as MI or a cross-section of States? I anticipate that the chronology will clearly indicate that any initial successes in prosecuting OCiers quickly turns to an up-hill battle wasting public resources defying the State’s permissive OC laws. The arguments for disturbing-the-peace or disorderly-conduct, etc. don’t pass muster.

          Such a white-paper could be distributed to OC organizations in other States that are just beginning their campaigns. Representatives of these organizations could approach the constabulary and DAs in these jurisdictions notifying them of the forthcoming campaigns promoting OC. The word-to-the-wise will be to treat OCiers respectfully or learn the lesson the hard way. If they insist on testing their own State’s laws in their own State’s courts they may discover the same outcome as recited in the white-paper.

          That they were put on-notice of the legal outcomes in other States but insisted on harassing OCiers may work against them in forthcoming elections.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          MarkPA, no one has successfully prosecuted an OCer here that I know of. Afterward some OCers pursue suing the PD and city. Some have been dismissed (one person looked young, hence “probable cause,” one judge made stuff up out of whole cloth, etc.) but most that are pursued end in an out-of-court settlement of $5K or $10K.

          Felony stops for OCers across the country never end up with valid arrests as far as I am aware. Many PDs will throw whatever charge they can against an OCer and see what sticks. We saw this with the disgusting Texas law enforcement community. They falsely arrested people left and right for anything they could think of: carrying a toy gun, carrying an antique pistol not covered by law, trying to incite fear and panic, etc. Once they tried arresting someone for openly carrying pistol magazines, even though there is no law against it.

          In other states LEOs have arrested people for “brandishing” and other nonsense just for lawfully openly carrying a holstered pistol. That’s why we in Michigan Open Carry wrote a law defining brandishing so that cops couldn’t just make stuff up like they do. We got it sponsored, it passed, and it was signed into law.

          But still that is not enough. Cities and PDs across this nation still willingly violate the law. That is why we have been working with our legislature to craft a law that will personally fine government officials for willful violations of gun laws. Right now there is nothing to stop them from doing whatever they want and you have to spend money to hire an attorney and sue them. Under our proposed legislation, not only would the offenders be held personally responsible, but “interested parties” like gun advocacy groups could legally join in the lawsuit so victims wouldn’t have to slog through it alone.

          I do have a white paper we wrote on this if another state’s gun rights group is interested. Let me know.

          dannylgriffin@gmail.com

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Thanks for the detailed response. Good to know that you have a white-paper that others could use.

          I wonder if the package of maneuvers available to OC groups might include lining up legislators to begin drafting legislation such as you have proposed for Michigan.

          Let’s assume it passes in Michigan. Then, it will be easier for any 2’nd and 3’rd State’s legislature to consider such a bill. Now, then, getting one such bill passed making individual officers liable for violating a person’s gun rights under color of law, what is to stop another bill being passed for individual officers violating some other right of a person they arrest. Do the police in any State want the first bill to pass?

          After explaining the white-paper an OC group could explain to the constabulary and DA that legislators have been lined up to copy the law that Michigan (hopefully would have already) passed.

          I think you are correct that funding is required to pursue police abuse of OCiers. Maybe we need a new OC organization patterned somewhat after the Second Amendment Foundation. Lot’s of PotG feel quite passionate about the OC cause and might be willing to donate to an OCAmeica Foundation. Enough money to fund some litigation.

          Now, suppose such an OCAF capitalized on the existing experience of previous lawsuits by identifying the prerequisites to a successful OC lawsuit. E.g., guy is dressed in a suit and tie; is walking his dog; during daylight hours; more than 1 mile from any school or church . . . Publish these criteria as “best practice”.

          If an OCier gets arrested while following the published best-practice the OCAF would consider undertaking the litigation (without a blanket commitment to do so).

          My inclination is that lots of pissed-off PotG would front the money to try such an idea.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Mark, the law doesn’t make individual officers personally liable any more than they are already. It makes elected officials liable. One can already sue an officer for rights violations. This holds public officials personally liable. They set policy.

        5. avatar MarkPA says:

          Thanks for the correction; sometimes I read too fast and get something screwed up.

          Echoing another reader, thanks very much for the homework you have done and are offering others here.

        6. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Danny,
          Thanks to you and others for all your hard work on this. It benefits all of us.

  16. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Dear Mrs. Beaversnatch;
    Upon seeing someone with a gun, please call 911 and tell them that you see a Black ISIS Muslim going on a shooting rampage while exposing himself and raping lily white blonde Swedish girls. This will get the Officer’s attention and he will shoot all Black Males who are in your vicinity. If elimination of a white man is desired, tell the 911 operator that a white privilege Confederate Nazi is going on a shooting rampage and is exposing himself and raping lilly white sheep.

    1. avatar CoolBreeze says:

      Excellent

  17. avatar Joe R. says:

    Abusive Process Much? At least 911 calls are recorded and can be subpoenaed.

    PS – History has shown that people like this lose.

    If Bloomberg has taken even $0.01 of foreign money for this campaign, there’s a name for that.

  18. avatar LR says:

    I looked up their Facebook post wanting to ask how police were going to do real police work when they spam the emergency operators. It’s funny how restrictive their posts are. They do have a phone number posted. I might give them a call to hear them spin.

    My favorite was their assumption that the civilian would be the one to escalate it to a gun fight. These idiots think that police are immune to adrenaline and fear. I am not the type to sue anyone, but I would own their organization if I were swatted.

  19. avatar FedUp says:

    These comments caused me to look up the disposition of one Michael Scott Foster, who tackled and disarmed a 60 year old black guy who accidentally exposed his CC while getting out of his car at a Florida WalMart.

    http://bearingarms.com/florida-man-found-guilty-battery-attacking-concealed-carrier/

    Convicted by jury of misdemeanor battery, it looks like he was sentenced to 12 months probation, anger management training, and assessed $844 in penalties, costs, surcharges, and probation oversight fees, which he has been paying at $95 per month.

    http://pubrec10.hillsclerk.com/Unsecured/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=7719015

    ATTEND AND COMPLETE ANGER MANAGEMENT,
    NO CONTACT WITH VICTIM OR PROPERTY,
    NO EARLY TERMINATION OF PROBATION)
    Comment: DEFENDANT IS NOT TO HAVE FIRE ARMS, NO CONTACT WITH VICTIM OR VICTIM’S FAMILY, ATTEND ANGER MANAGEMENT, EVALUATION AND TREATMENT; DEFT TO DO EVALUATION AND TREATMENT WITHIN 1ST 60 DAYS

    1. avatar pod says:

      By tackling a guy legally carrying a gun, he made sure he himself can no longer carry a gun. That’s rich…

  20. avatar Table says:

    “Oh my God, there are men shooting guns here!”
    “OK ma’am, where are you at?”
    “I’m at a shooting range, wait, I can’t hear anything!”

  21. avatar Jim says:

    I went and read the FB thread. Wow. I need to go to the range. Anyway, I liked one post where this woman says “and don’t give your phone number to 911 when you call” uhhh….no caller ID in unicorn land?

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Yep, and good luck finding a pay phone these days.

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      There are neither enough palms nor enough faces.

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      Not the brightest bunch, that’s for sure.

  22. avatar Silver says:

    They should do this. Overburden police stations with false claims until the police simply ignore them. Thanks, Coalition to Stop Human Rights.

    I also sincerely believe that anyone who calls the police on a legal carrier should be arrested or sued for harassment. If the SWATing leads to a death, the person who called should be tried as accessory to murder. Make people responsible for their actions.

    Perhaps whenever I see an Obama or Hillary bumper sticker, I’ll call the police and report a reckless driver. After all, I can’t be sure of their intentions.

    CSGV is so fringe insane it’s almost a parody. I have some antigun family members and when I show them CSGV posts, they roll their eyes and call them idiots.

  23. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    This will backfire on them. Police responding to enough of these calls will begin to be desensitized to them. It will become almost a matter of routine to the point of being very, very, low priorities. Since most CCW/open carriers will be quite cooperative it’s only going to reinforce that law-abiding folks aren’t the problem.

  24. avatar pdoggeth says:

    Hey Dan

    A small note: the link to Bloomberg at the Daily Currant…. you are aware that the Daily Currant is like the Onion right? It’s a satire news site. I would probably choose a different example of him not being loved (ie, one that is factual), but the good thing is there are plenty of factual articles of Bloomberg not being loved.

    FYI

    1. Nope, didn’t know. Link updated. It’s not like there’s any shortage of examples.

  25. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    Stop this by reporting it to your state attorney general or state bureau of investigation. Place emphasis on off-duty police or judges being targeted by these freaks.

  26. avatar Silver says:

    I’m imagining one of these soulless witches calling the cops on an open carrying guy then hiding at the end of the aisle, grinning with animal hunger at the coming sight of a free man being oppressed or killed by the almighty state for daring to be free.

    The cop arrives, he and the OCer shake hands. Cop sees everything’s fine because he’s actually sane unlike the witch. They talk, admire each other’s guns, chat about what ranges they go to, then laugh at a couple jokes and say goodbye. The cop’s view of OCers has improved and the OCer had a pleasant chat. The witch froths in rage, her grand Stalinist plan ruined.

    I like that mental image. And judging from how the majority of interactions go, it wouldn’t be far off.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      But what if you go to wal-mart to buy a plastic BB gun and you look like John Crawford III?

      Then what those harpies get to see is “Drop BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM the BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM gun!”

  27. avatar neiowa says:

    Oh stop with the Monsanto BS. Has nothing to do with anything and is just a libtard progressive boogieboogie to scare the mind-numbed Ludite sheeple.

    “BS PR shill Watts” leave it there.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      stop with the Monsanto BS

      You need to get educated on why it makes a difference. You can’t go through life ignorant.

      1. avatar Matt in TX says:

        Of course they can, libtard trolls do it all the time.

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      I had to search the page for the word Monsanto to find out that your idea of “Monsanto BS” is:

      “The solution: he went out and bought himself (former Monsanto flack) Shannon Watts and Moms Demand Action.”

      Forgive me for asking, but WTF is BS about that???

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      Depends upon how it’s done.

      It’s fair-game to point out that she is not just a stay-at-home mom who is volunteering her time to “save the children”. She is a Fortune 500 PR pro. There is nothing wrong with that, per se. Fortune 500 companies are as entitled to speak as is any citizen. They CAN and DO hire PR pros. This is America.

      But, be not deluded. The Moms Demanding Action really consist of a hired “gun” shall we say with a professional background in shaping a professional-sounding message. How many more Moms are on the payroll we don’t really know for sure; don’t see a lot of them so perhaps there are more than the one pro on the payroll.

      Whether the message is professional astro-turf or the heart-felt message of a volunteer, you have to listen for the content and see if it represents sound reasoning. We don’t make policy decisions to bypass Constitutional rights based on heart-string pulling.

      I’d mention Monsanto as a mere statement-of-fact to support the meme that she was a pro for a Fortune 500 company. I’d avoid any intonation that there is something wrong with the fact that she worked for Monsanto vs. AT&T or Zenith. Monsanto is simply a successful for-profit corporation and that’s just fine.

      If the listener has some opinion regarding Monsanto then the listener will draw whatever conclusion s/he draws. We are not responsible for those conclusions, whatever they might be.

  28. avatar Grindstone says:

    OC has been legal here for 3 years, never had an incident, plenty of OCing going on, never heard of a SWATting.

  29. avatar JJTAK says:

    While I am not advocating this policy, statistically it would be more prudent to call the police every time you see an African American male between the ages of 17-35 in public, because that portion of society commutes much higher numbers of violent crimes compared to the segment that legally owns firearms.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      How racially insensitive of you to point out obvious facts.

      Should you be ashamed of yourself?

      Oh, never mind. This isn’t a fact-based society anymore.

  30. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Yeah posting your real name and advocating criminal behavior is not too bright…those so inclined could make life a living h#ll for these doofuses…

  31. avatar Bob109 says:

    Here is a message for these bozos: SWAT me, and face life ruining retribution. I have the money to sue any one of these bozos into oblivion, and then sue them again. Do these people realize that the mere act of conspiring to SWAT someone is a crime? Obviously, they do not care who gets hurt or killed by their actions. What a despicable group of people.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I have the money to sue any one of these bozos into oblivion, and then sue them again.”

      They are funded by a multi-billionare.

      Not millionare, BILLIONARE.

      If you actually have that kind of money, please consider a nice donation to The Second Amendment Foundation or other gun rights groups.

  32. avatar CoolBreeze says:

    I doubt they’ll call. They would have to wake from passing out after hyper ventilating when seeing a…..GUN!!

  33. avatar gsnyder says:

    The dangerous act of calling in a SWAT is no better behavior is some ways than a murderer themselves. The suggestion to say you are truly in danger is heinous. Do these people not comprehend what they are doing? Did they not understand the children’s story of crying wolf? Do they know the people they are calling in on are likely clean as a whistle, and then some? Is it any wonder the pro-2A side despises the anti-2A campaigns and people?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “The dangerous act of calling in a SWAT is no better behavior is some ways than a murderer themselves.”

      Yep.

      What we need is a law that makes Swatting attempted murder.

  34. avatar Sam I Am says:

    RF –

    You live just down the street from the Texas statehouse. Maybe forwarding this article to the AG would be useful?

    Left Texas 10yrs ago, but thinking a plea for people to commit a crime would be a crime itself.

  35. avatar John Dennis says:

    These are the zombies that your mom warned you about.

  36. avatar Chris Mason says:

    “My son says when, not if, he sees that in public in Texas, he’ll call, sounding very frightened and mention that the person who has a gun “has an accent” or “is dark skinned” and you can be sure the PO-leece will be there PDQ…”

    This might work, actually. Because at least then the police will (hopefully) be looking for the wrong person and no one will get hurt. Brilliant plan!

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      So liberals are stupid racists.

      1. avatar Chris Mason says:

        That seems to be the case.

  37. avatar John S. says:

    This is what the anti gunners want as an end game, so many lawful gun owners SWATTED with bogus MWAG calls that they act like a bunch of communists in the 50’s and are forced to hide their beliefs and guns for fear of being lit by an out of control, unaccountable police force. We need to stop this , now.

  38. avatar Glenn says:

    What is Shannon Watt’s Home Address?

  39. avatar Joe says:

    Much of this depends on the situation. I live a street away from an elementary school in one of the most anti towns in the US. Actually had a neighbor call 911 because she saw me loading a pair of cased rifles into my car which was parked in front of my house. The caller reported MWAG. An officer was less than a block away and pulled up quickly no siren just lights. He saw what was going on and asked me where I was going. I responded “to the range”. He checked my FOID, said “have a nice day”, explained the 911 call and reason for interaction. He then told me he was going to pay a visit to the 911 caller to chew her out over a false report. Could have gone a lot worse.

  40. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    This:

    “This will backfire on them. Police responding to enough of these calls will begin to be desensitized to them. It will become almost a matter of routine to the point of being very, very, low priorities. Since most CCW/open carriers will be This will backfire on them. Police responding to enough of these calls will begin to be desensitized to them. It will become almost a matter of routine to the point of being very, very, low priorities. Since most CCW/open carriers will be quite cooperative it’s only going to reinforce that law-abiding folks aren’t the problem.”

    So, remain calm. Apologize for the burden inflicted on the cops …. by the knucklehead making the unjustified call. Ask for follow-up information to see if you can help with dealing with these “harassment” complaints burdening the police.

    Can you say: “blow-back?” Oh, who looks like the crazies, now? And being crazy-go-nuts about non-issues dirties up their claims of any other thing.

    Yep. They’re getting desperate. We should help them do this. Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

    Aaaaaand … I do think this is a wonderful opportunity for a class action lawsuit. The social media postings and all the comments as evidence, of course. Maybe a proceeding like that could be funded by, oh, I don’t know, a gun hobby association. Maybe a national one. One that people pay dues to. So that they can work together supporting their common interest, in, for example, rifles.

    Where’s the NRA “quit harassing our members” legal fund?

  41. avatar Another Robert says:

    Is CSGV Ladd Everitt’s baby? Does he ever testify in front of Congress? Or appear on major news outlets? If so, someone needs to throw those “dark-skinned” and “accent” quotes in his face and ask if he condones that sort of thing.

  42. avatar Terry in Oregon says:

    So as a licensed armed security guard, this disturbs me. We open cary on the job while wearing body armor, and while interacting with the public at large. From their advice I could see one of their members calling the cops for an “active shooter” and reference the aurora, co shooting to get a swat level response. In that event the person who called into 911 should be charged with wreckless endangerment or even up to negligent homicide depending on the result.

  43. avatar Lane in Birmingham, Alabama says:

    If anyone has any doubt as to the brainlessness of the people we’re talking about here, check this out.

    I was SWATed from inside a business I was servicing.

    I am an armored car company courier. I wear a bullet resistant vest (with my company name emblazoned on front and back) and my uniform resembles those worn by local law enforcement. My gun leather is police standard issue. My primary weapon is carried in the holster per SOP.

    I was INSIDE of but walking OUT of a local arts and crafts store, after having completed a contracted delivery, I was met by local LEO’s who just shook their heads when they realized I was the reason they were dispatched. NEVERMIND THE 5 TON ARMORED CAR SITTING IN FRONT OF THE STORE. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD PLACE MY LIFE IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA?

    Thankfully, due to the high degree of professionalism and training of both local LEO and myself, a possibly nasty CQB confrontation was averted.

    This experience leaves me with absolutely zero tolerance for ignorance with regard to this topic. If you liberal panywetters ever do something like this again………..I’ll be very wealthy when the circus is over. That’s not a threat, that’s a certified guarantee. Don’t mistakenly think you can remain anonymous!

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Scary story. Why are you waiting for the next time? Why didn’t you pursue the 911 caller on this incident?

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      I echo Mark’s questions. Why are you waiting for the next time? Why didn’t you pursue the 911 caller on this incident?

    3. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      Lane,
      Glad it turned out OK for everyone. Assuming you could obtain the call record (Public Records Act) and ID the caller, what practical legal recourse does one have? Since no harm, no foul, I’m assuming not much. Plus the time and expense of pursing what might be ultimately fruitless.

      Unless there’s a pattern of chicken little behavior, not sure what our options are.

      1. avatar Lane in Birmingham, Alabama says:

        Filing a false report is serious enough to warrant prosecution.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        “Since no harm, no foul, I’m assuming not much.” I see your reasoning; however, I reach a different conclusion.

        Suppose there are a series of incidents where people drive the wrong-way down a one-way highway. They don’t have a collision. No harm, no foul!

        We’ve not embraced this philosophy in legislative matters in recent decades. If what you are doing is arguably a danger to public safety then that behavior is subject to legal sanction.

        In any State where we can collect 3+ incidents of SWATing a law-abiding gun-carrier under circumstances manifesting NO HINT of public danger then the PotG from that State can approach their legislators. They can call-out for the public safety implications of tolerating this practice. References can be made to disasters in other States where someone got killed because a caller provided an inflamed characterization of what she observed.

        Let’s take care not to make this a “gun” thing. Any time a call is made to 911 there is a duty of care to represent the observations in a way that does not mislead toward jeopardy to the public safety. The police have as much interest as we do in punishing hoax 911 calls of any sort.

        These Anti-nuts are not going to stand-up against legal action against them. If we can get even a misdemeanor law with a $50 fine for such calls that will serve our purposes. Look at the press-release: ‘Ms. Smith of Podunk Hollow was found guilty of making a false or misleading 911 call about a man-with-a-gun and fined $50. Ms. Smith admitted that she is a card-carrying member of Moms Demand Action. Mr. Jones of the State NRA affiliate remarked . . . ”

        See to it that any person threatened or injured by such a false or misleading 911 has a right to prosecute the cause-of-action. Then, any innocent bystander in the vicinity could pursue the caller even though the DA wants to protect her.

        This is a political opportunity every bit as much as it is a threat to public safety.

        1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Thanks Mark. Am on good terms with several in local PD & SD command staff and police union. Will ask how much of a problem (SWATing general , bogus gun threats in particular) this represents; don’t have open carry in CA so mileage may vary elsewhere.

          Can’t see it getting much action unless it is a problem. Stay tuned.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Probably won’t get the 3 incidents I guess would raise eyebrows in CA.

          As the OC movement develops the phenomena should be expected to emerge in other States. I don’t really care if any police department suffers enough from the phenomena to raise a concern. Doubtlessly, they have other fish to fry.

          Nevertheless, if there are 3 incidents in the State of Confusion then there are 3 Chiefs/Sheriffs who can be called to testify about these incidents. They will have to testify that false or misleading 911 calls are a potentially serious problems that ought to be nipped in the bud.

          I have an FCC license to operate a radio transmitter. I’ve long been aware that it is a federal offense to transmit a “false or misleading signal”. Such a practice is consistent with our common law contempt for the crime of fraud. Legislators should be sensitive to such a risk and should want to CYA by making sure that there is an applicable law before a really tragic incident occurs that would have been illegal if only the legislature had taken this threat seriously.

  44. avatar Peter says:

    So, when the police receive a few dozen calls a day about an “active shooter” how long until a real shooting is ignored for critical minutes?
    Perhaps these loons need to reread The Boy who cried Wolf.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Yes, but in the end there WAS a wolf.

  45. avatar PeterK says:

    I like how they pretend they ever DON’T have doubts about someone with a gun. It’d be cute if it wasn’t painfully ignorant and borderline sociopathic.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email