SC Folks - SLED Training Video for LEO's RE: Open Carry

[JustKeepSwimming]

Just an FYI...

This was posted by South Carolina Carry, Inc.

For those who have been wondering what law enforcement in SC is being taught about the Open Carry with Training Act, here you go. This is required viewing for all certified LEOs in SC via the SLED training portal. https://youtu.be/VJy9GtAWAbo

 

[Sleazy P. Martini]

So the lesson here is to ignore police and do not answer their questions.

 

[Stogies]

Interesting. Made it pretty clear what goes and does not.

 

[Jeppo]

Clear answer about NC CHP holders behavior in SC.

 

[2ASteve]

Now just saying not wanting to start a war, when have you seen a cop so easy going approaching a unknown man with a gun.
I'd understand he or she stated keep your hands clear etc.
Law abiding citizens will handle themselves in a non threatening manner and can refuse consensual contact politely and walk on at some risk I would think. Saying yes I'm legally carrying goes a long way to defuse any situation. Give sour grapes get the rodeo clown.

 

[2ASteve]

Clear answer about NC CHP holders behavior in SC.

I carry in SC live in NC.

 

[Murtaugh]

Now just saying not wanting to start a war, when have you seen a cop so easy going approaching a unknown man with a gun.
I'd understand he or she stated keep your hands clear etc.
Law abiding citizens will handle themselves in a non threatening manner and can refuse consensual contact politely and walk on at some risk I would think. Saying yes I'm legally carrying goes a long way to defuse any situation. Give sour grapes get the rodeo clown.

Cops need to learn/accept we have guns. The People had guns long before we had police.

Duty to inform needs to go next. They don't have a duty to protect...why do we have a duty to surrender our 4th/5th amendment rights?

 

[surrealone]

...when have you seen a cop so easy going approaching a unknown man with a gun.

I am ruralite but I do travel off/on ... and I open carry most of the time unless I feel like covering up to spare the local PD phone calls from the typical gun-fearing Karens. Thus, I've been said unknown man with a gun plenty of times ... when getting gas, when grocery shopping, when buying lottery tickets, when buying lunch, etc. On all but two occasions (both of which entailed overzealous, rookie cops intent on disarming me -- clearly just out of training/school), the local PD was always easygoing. To be fair, I'm always polite, know how to handle myself nonthreateningly as a firearms instructor, and I do my best to make the cops' jobs/lives easier. They're just doing their jobs, after all...

Let's also call out that I'm a short, white guy with grey/white hair, so there is my height and age working to my benefit .... and certainly white privilege in play (compared to, say, what a black CCH permit holding veteran I know gets when he open carries; we've compared notes).

Some people get on a 'duty to inform' kick, but I find that when I'm approached by an officer and (before even being asked) I state, 'Officer, for our mutual safety I'd like to inform you that I'm a licensed concealed carry permit holder in the state of North Carolina' ... and then I go on to state my carry status (if not openly carrying) and firearm location on/about my person if carrying (which is basically all of the time) ... it tends to set the tone for the conversation that follows ... and I'm usually rapidly on my way without issue (and so is the officer). The interactions are generally positive ones IMHO -- save the few bad apple morons I've run into who insisted on disarming me in states where that's lawfully allowed. (Seriously, unholstering and handling the firearm supposedly for the officer to be able feel safer -- only made us ~both~ LESS safe.) That said, even in states where I can legally carry and there is no duty to inform, I choose to do so, as I find it a beneficial tool when it comes to the tone of the encounter. Put another way -- even if there wasn't a requirement to do so, I would choose to do so, as I feel the personal benefits (to me) outweigh the (nonexistent, to me) drawbacks.

Similarly, counter to armchair tacticians who claim one loses the element of surprise (and who can't name a single standing army that teaches surprise as a DEFENSIVE tactic ... since it's always an offensive one), I feel open carry is superior to concealed carry because it typically ends a violent crime in stage 2 (the 'interview' stage -- where a target is being sized up) of the 5 stages of violent crime -- completely averting attack or the need to draw/use the gun defensively (in all but the most extreme cases). By comparison, the same person carrying concealed may appear to be a juicy target rather than one that can resist, causing the violent criminal to move on to stages 3 and 4 ... and it's only in stage 5 (after the attack in stage 4) when the concealed gun is drawn/used as a reaction.

By the way ... I can understand morons prone to saying 'I've got a gun!' as their means of informing officers ... not wanting to be required to inform them of their carry status. If that's the best some people can come up with regarding how they will deal with a duty to inform when it comes up, perhaps they shouldn't be carrying ... or perhaps they deserve whatever Darwin Award comes their way.

 

[David Hall]

I need to save this video to show North Charleston Police Dept. how they are doing it wrong(insert big sarcasm emoji). Last run in with them I had, for half of a third brake light out got me pulled over, handcuffed, vehicle searched, accused of transporting and distributing drugs. Seven LEO vehicles and 10 LEOs. An hour later they finally told me what they pulled me over for. By the grace of God, I had left my pistol on my desk that morning(yes, I have a cwp). They let me go with a warning, two weeks later they shot a man in the back 6 times that they had pulled over for a broken tail light. Yea, I can see that not answering and blowing off a police officer going as well as it did in that video.

 

[Murtaugh]

I am ruralite but I do travel off/on ... and I open carry most of the time unless I feel like covering up to spare the local PD phone calls from the typical gun-fearing Karens. Thus, I've been said unknown man with a gun plenty of times ... when getting gas, when grocery shopping, when buying lottery tickets, when buying lunch, etc. On all but two occasions (both of which entailed overzealous, rookie cops intent on disarming me -- clearly just out of training/school), the local PD was always easygoing. To be fair, I'm always polite, know how to handle myself nonthreateningly as a firearms instructor, and I do my best to make the cops' jobs/lives easier. They're just doing their jobs, after all...

Let's also call out that I'm a short, white guy with grey/white hair, so there is my height and age working to my benefit .... and certainly white privilege in play (compared to, say, what a black CCH permit holding veteran I know gets when he open carries; we've compared notes).

Some people get on a 'duty to inform' kick, but I find that when I'm approached by an officer and (before even being asked) I state, 'Officer, for our mutual safety I'd like to inform you that I'm a licensed concealed carry permit holder in the state of North Carolina' ... and then I go on to state my carry status (if not openly carrying) and firearm location on/about my person if carrying (which is basically all of the time) ... it tends to set the tone for the conversation that follows ... and I'm usually rapidly on my way without issue (and so is the officer). The interactions are generally positive ones IMHO -- save the few bad apple morons I've run into who insisted on disarming me in states where that's lawfully allowed. (Seriously, unholstering and handling the firearm supposedly for the officer to be able feel safer -- only made us ~both~ LESS safe.) That said, even in states where I can legally carry and there is no duty to inform, I choose to do so, as I find it a beneficial tool when it comes to the tone of the encounter. Put another way -- even if there wasn't a requirement to do so, I would choose to do so, as I feel the personal benefits (to me) outweigh the (nonexistent, to me) drawbacks.

Similarly, counter to armchair tacticians who claim one loses the element of surprise (and who can't name a single standing army that teaches surprise as a DEFENSIVE tactic ... since it's always an offensive one), I feel open carry is superior to concealed carry because it typically ends a violent crime in stage 2 (the 'interview' stage -- where a target is being sized up) of the 5 stages of violent crime -- completely averting attack or the need to draw/use the gun defensively (in all but the most extreme cases). By comparison, the same person carrying concealed may appear to be a juicy target rather than one that can resist, causing the violent criminal to move on to stages 3 and 4 ... and it's only in stage 5 (after the attack in stage 4) when the concealed gun is drawn/used as a reaction.

By the way ... I can understand morons prone to saying 'I've got a gun!' as their means of informing officers ... not wanting to be required to inform them of their carry status. If that's the best some people can come up with regarding how they will deal with a duty to inform when it comes up, perhaps they shouldn't be carrying ... or perhaps they deserve whatever Darwin Award comes their way.

You highlighted one of the "nonexistent" drawbacks...if the topic of guns didn't come up for no reason you wouldn't be caught in the process of handling guns for "safety."

You are entitled to start conversations however you like but duty to inform is a clear violation of our rights in addition to being another trap to give cops an excuse to detain/search/charge people. If it makes you happy to bend over and be subservient in the hopes of being on your way that is your business...it shouldn't be the law. For everybody's safety...guns don't need to be involved in interactions that don't require guns. The cops should assume everybody has guns and act accordingly.

Lots of people like having their boots licked, but if they are intent on hassling you, no amount of boot licking is going to help you. Boot lickers make things hard for the rest of us.

 

[surrealone]

You highlighted one of the "nonexistent" drawbacks...if the topic of guns didn't come up for no reason you wouldn't be caught in the process of handling guns for "safety."

You are entitled to start conversations however you like but duty to inform is a clear violation of our rights in addition to being another trap to give cops an excuse to detain/search/charge people. If it makes you happy to bend over and be subservient in the hopes of being on your way that is your business...it shouldn't be the law. For everybody's safety...guns don't need to be involved in interactions that don't require guns. The cops should assume everybody has guns and act accordingly.

Lots of people like having their boots licked, but if they are intent on hassling you, no amount of boot licking is going to help you. Boot lickers make things hard for the rest of us.

Precisely which right is legally violated by a 'duty to inform' ... and how? I ask because I'm unaware of a single right that is legally violated or infringed upon by this obligation imposed by some states. Note the key word, here: 'legally' -- meaning I expect more than just mere opinion or assertion on this. It's one thing to allege a violation of a right ... and quite another to substantiate it. Since you've alleged a rights violation, I am now demanding that you back it up with supporting case law ... since I've searched for it, before, and failed to find such.

If you can't, don't, or won't substantiate your allegation with support grounded in legal fact(s), then I'll be forced to dismiss it as mere opinion ... due specifically to a lack of supporting facts.

 

[noway2]

Even the precious 4th circus has declared that the presence of a firearm, even a visible one, does not meet the standard of presumption of a crime being or having been committed. Consequently, if it should not meet the requirement for a non consensual encounter.

As far as the stupid duty to inform, might as well make it a duty to inform if you’re wearing a colostomy bag. Guns should be like any other bit of personal property. Of course you won’t find legal doctrine about this, but when has the bloviating of the political puppet masters ever been a definition of fundamental right and wrong. Its purely a tyrannical proposition and the idea that you need to inform the crown’s men that you have a tool to defend yourself is pure BS, seeing as one is rarely in as much danger as when they’re around cops. That this duty is a rare statute in this empire, one mostly happening in leftard dung holes should tell you something.

You may feel good about it, and think you’re setting up some sort of professional encounter, but that’s just an opinion. That things go sideways even once as a result of this duty, when again having a gun is not indicative of a crime or a criminal, should be enough to do away with it.

 

[Murtaugh]

Precisely which right is legally violated by a 'duty to inform' ... and how? I ask because I'm unaware of a single right that is legally violated or infringed upon by this obligation imposed by some states. Note the key word, here: 'legally' -- meaning I expect more than just mere opinion or assertion on this. It's one thing to allege a violation of a right ... and quite another to substantiate it. Since you've alleged a rights violation, I am now demanding that you back it up with supporting case law ... since I've searched for it, before, and failed to find such.

If you can't, don't, or won't substantiate your allegation with support grounded in legal fact(s), then I'll be forced to dismiss it as mere opinion ... due specifically to a lack of supporting facts.

The same rights that would be violated if you were forced to tell the officer you are transporting cocaine/bombs/humans or if you were required to answer the question "how fast were you are going." Search for those and it will give you a clue.

Who are you to put demands or expectations on me? You probably have a lot of explaining to do on that "surprise is an offensive maneuver" and "open carry is better than concealed carry" and Darwin stuff but I am not going to demand proof you have the slightest idea on how any of that works because that is kind of rude, and you are already dismissed.

 

[surrealone]

The same rights that would be violated if you were forced to tell the officer you are transporting cocaine/bombs/humans or if you were required to answer the question "how fast were you are going." Search for those and it will give you a clue.

Who are you to put demands or expectations on me? You probably have a lot of explaining to do on that "surprise is an offensive maneuver" and "open carry is better than concealed carry" and Darwin stuff but I am not going to demand proof you have the slightest idea on how any of that works because that is kind of rude, and you are already dismissed.

The so-called 'right to remain silent' is, in fact, not codified as such within our Constitution. However, the thinking behind the so-called 'right to remain silent' IS codified as the Fifth Amendment provision that no person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself -- hence its applicability to your speeding and cocaine/bomb/human transporting examples, as they are all criminal activities (unless the bomb transporter is properly licensed).

HOWEVER, because the obligation/duty to inform only applies to those individuals lawfully carrying, simply carrying isn't criminal for that person ... and thus, discussing one's carry status doesn't fall under Fifth Amendment protections because one isn't being compelled to be a witness against him/herself.

Regarding who I am to put demands or expectations on you -- I can put demands on or have expectations of anyone I like, the same as you. That doesn't guarantee those demands or expectations will be met, but I can still make those demands and/or express those expectations -- as is my First Amendment right. (Since you're so effing big on rights, I'd have thought you'd have been well aware of this without me having to point it out.)

And I -did- explain myself regarding 'surprise' -- no military in the world teaches surprise as a defensive tactic; it is ALWAYS offensive in nature. (Reminder: we are permitted to carry for defensive reasons, not offensive ones -- hence anyone who says you lose the element of surprise when carrying concealed is implying you're carrying concealed for offensive reasons. Are you a hit man??? I hope not...)

 

[MostWanted]

Great video, thank you for sharing it. The only thing that got my attention was the way he said "other indication of criminal conduct". As if to say that simply carrying a weapon was one indication of criminal conduct.

 

[Murtaugh]

The so-called 'right to remain silent' is, in fact, not codified as such within our Constitution. However, the thinking behind the so-called 'right to remain silent' IS codified as the Fifth Amendment provision that no person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself -- hence its applicability to your speeding and cocaine/bomb/human transporting examples, as they are all criminal activities (unless the bomb transporter is properly licensed).

HOWEVER, because the obligation/duty to inform only applies to those individuals lawfully carrying, simply carrying isn't criminal for that person ... and thus, discussing one's carry status doesn't fall under Fifth Amendment protections because one isn't being compelled to be a witness against him/herself.

Regarding who I am to put demands or expectations on you -- I can put demands on or have expectations of anyone I like, the same as you. That doesn't guarantee those demands or expectations will be met, but I can still make those demands and/or express those expectations -- as is my First Amendment right. (Since you're so effing big on rights, I'd have thought you'd have been well aware of this without me having to point it out.)

And I -did- explain myself regarding 'surprise' -- no military in the world teaches surprise as a defensive tactic; it is ALWAYS offensive in nature. (Reminder: we are permitted to carry for defensive reasons, not offensive ones -- hence anyone who says you lose the element of surprise when carrying concealed is implying you're carrying concealed for offensive reasons. Are you a hit man??? I hope not...)

The right to remain silent has been codified in case law. Anything you say can be used at trial hence the MANY ruling(s) on the issue...the trial essentially begins at the first interaction.

Yeah, you can demand anything you want. I said "who do you think you are", not "stop making demands." I was dismissing your demands and expectations.

I suppose the rest of it comes down to whether you believe you have rights or privileges when it comes to "keep and bear arms". Looks like you are a privilege guy. Please point to me where possessing/presenting your govt issued permit is codified in "shall not be infringed."

The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, in the same way that freedom of religion protects your right not to be religious. The fifth amendment applies to other circumstances.


An ambush is a very basic defensive tactic, and it's supposed to be a surprise.

+1 on both. Ambush very quickly came to mind for me as well but military doctrine has zero relation to self defense court cases so I didn't elaborate.