Monday, August 22, 2011

xpd54's guide to traffic stop legal issues


Original Forum Post HERE

by xpd54 » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:50 am
Ok, so when I first talked about a flow chart (in this thread: I didn’t realize the magnitude of what I was going to do. So the flow chart is out. What I am going to do is break down the legalities of traffic stops and what cops can legally do into sections and post each section.

But first, I AM NOT A LAWYER. I am a cop. I have a BA in Criminal Justice, 15 years on the job and 10 years of experience training cops in traffic stops, use of force, firearms and other topics. I will try to give as much case law as possible so you can read for yourself what the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has to say about what law enforcement is allowed to do. I am going to write this assuming the reader has absolutely no idea about the legalities of traffic stops, so if you know a bunch of this already, I apologize. We are dealing specifically with traffic stops, but many of the legal principles pertain to other encounters as well. Most of the court cases I am going to reference are SCOTUS cases, since they pertain to the whole country. I tried to be as accurate as possible, so if I made any mistakes, I will apologize up front.

So let’s get started.

Before we go too far, let me explain binding precedent. Court decisions are only binding within the jurisdiction of the court. Obviously, SCOTUS decisions are binding throughout the US and its territories. However, if the SCOTUS has not ruled on a particular case or topic, the legalities of a particular set of circumstances may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in Ohio we have the following court jurisdictions (dealing with criminal matters, there are other civil courts) which may affect the legality of a particular action performed by a police officer:
- local municipal courts (misdemeanor courts)
- Courts of Common Pleas (the number in each county depends on the population of the county in question)
- 12 different District Courts of Appeals (each covers roughly 4-8 counties)
- Supreme Court of Ohio (SCO)
- Several different US District Courts
- 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals
- Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)

Where I work, my actions are going to be judged by the Xenia Municipal Court or one of the Greene County Courts of Common Pleas, the Second District Court of Appeals, SCO, possibly the US District Court – Southern District of Ohio (Dayton), the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS. In that order. A ruling from a court that is not one of those courts does not have a DIRECT bearing on what I can or cannot do. One of those courts that judge my actions may use another courts decision as part of their own decision, but that other decision does not affect me directly. So what is legal for me to do may not be allowed in Cleveland, or Georgia, or California or vice versa.


First let’s talk about the LEGAL reasons for which a police officer may stop you while you are driving a car. There are 2 main reasons (there are others, but these are the main two): reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) and probable cause (PC). The MINIMUM legal requirement necessary to stop a car is RAS, NOT PC. U.S. v. Cortez, 1981. Many people (including many cops) are confused by this.
So what is RAS? In the Cortez decision, the court said this:
“In determining what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person, the totality of the circumstances -- the whole picture -- must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture, the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. The process of assessing all of the circumstances does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities, and the evidence collected must be weighed as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. Also, the process must raise suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing.”

What can be confusing about RAS is that it is not always an exact science, for lack of a better term, like an obvious traffic violation. RAS can take many forms. I’ll list a few.
- a radio “be on the look out” (BOLO) concerning a suspect vehicle in which the vehicle stopped matches the suspect vehicle. Usually this would be a partial description – approximate year, color, type, etc.
- a caller who calls the police about a suspicious vehicle or a vehicle being operated recklessly. The caller MAY give enough information to justify a stop. Otherwise, the LEO who responds may need to develop their own RAS. An anonymous call, BY ITSELF, does not justify a stop based on RAS. Alabama v. White, (1990) If the Officer corroborates the information, it may be good enough for a stop.
- Officers can develop RAS based on their observations of specific articulable facts and circumstances that they observe. Their training and experience may make the difference between being legally justified or not. For example, I spent four years working narcotics. During that time, I videotaped, witnessed or participated in thousands of drug deals. Based on that experience, the courts will look at my education and experience when it comes to drug dealing in a different light than they would a rookie office 2 weeks out of the academy. So if I’m driving down the street and I witness what I recognize from my training and experience as a hand to hand drug deal, I may be justified in making a stop based on RAS. A rookie who saw the same thing could not draw on that same experience to articulate the facts necessary to make the stop justified.

Other than RAS, PC is the most common legal justification for a traffic stop. PC in its most common form would probably be the traffic law violation.
So what is PC? In the landmark case Carroll v. United States (1925), SCOTUS defined PC as: "If the facts and circumstances before the officer are such as to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed, it is sufficient." Clear as mud, huh?

Other types of PC could be:
- a radio “be on the look out” (BOLO) concerning a suspect vehicle in which the vehicle stopped matches the suspect vehicle. This description would have more detail that the RAS version. A license plate, or an Officer may be familiar with the vehicle because he’s dealt with the person/vehicle before.
- After an officer watches an obvious crime in progress


Once the Officer has stopped the vehicle, the SCOTUS has said that certain actions on the part of the police are permissible under the 4th Amendment.

- Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) – SCOTUS said that an Officer can order a driver out of the vehicle without any other justification other than the concern for the Officer’s safety: “The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.” Now, you may wonder why I would want to order someone out of a vehicle that I stopped for a license plate light being out or some other simple violation. Well, there are a couple of reasons. I’ve almost been hit while I was standing at somebody’s drivers’ window. If I can’t get to the passenger side window, I may very well order the driver to come back to someplace that’s safer for me. OR, if I stop a vehicle that has seriously darkened window tint, I may order the driver to come back and talk to me.

- Maryland v. Wilson (1997) – the SCOTUS extended Mimms to the passengers of the vehicle as well. They said: “On the public interest side, the same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver, as in Mimms, or a passenger, as here. Indeed, the danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. On the personal liberty side, the case for passengers is stronger than that for the driver in the sense that there is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense, but there is no such reason to stop or detain passengers. But as a practical matter, passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle, so that the additional intrusion upon them is minimal.”


Now, this is the area which most people want to know about and have the most questions and concerns. The SCOTUS over the course of the last 2+ centuries has determined that there are 13 exceptions to the search warrant requirement afforded by the 4th Amendment. Several apply to traffic stops. They are:
- Stop and frisk
- Vehicle searched based on probable cause
- Consent
- Administrative
- Probation/Parole
- Incident to arrest


Many people are under the misconception that a “search” of a vehicle requires PC. That not exactly correct. A limited search or “frisk” is permissible without PC under certain circumstances. In the case Michigan v. Long (1983), the SCOTUS stated that an officer could search the lunge area of the vehicle (passenger compartment) for weapons if there is RAS that there is a weapon readily accessible in it. This decision goes hand in hand with the landmark Terry v. Ohio (1968) decision which allows the frisk of a person for weapons based on RAS. The requirements set forth in Terry apply to the Long decision. The Officer must:
- Have articulable facts that the person could be armed
- Limit the search to areas in the vehicle which could readily conceal a weapon (i.e., they couldn’t search a film canister – which is commonly used to carry narcotics)

The Long decision also went on to say that if an Officer finds contraband during a legal “frisk” of the vehicle, they are not required to ignore the contraband (drugs in that case) and that the “frisk” then evolved into a search based on probable cause.


A warrantless search of the vehicle based on probable cause is permissible under the Carroll decision referenced earlier. It is considered an exigent circumstance. In it’s US v. Ross decision, the SCOTUS said that a search of a vehicle based on PC can be as thorough as a search conducted with a search warrant. Probable cause can be established by numerous means. Items observed in plain sight, odors sniffed by “plain smell”, the list goes on and on. PC for a stop does not automatically mean there is PC for a search. Like RAS, it can be extremely situation dependent on what equals PC.


A driver who is stopped for a valid reason can give consent to search the vehicle. Consent can be revoked at any time, which means that the person granting consent needs to be in a position to revoke that consent. For example, if the driver of a vehicle grants consent to search the vehicle, then is placed in the back of a patrol car with no Officers staying with him and is not in a position to tell any of the officers that he is withdrawing consent and the officers find something after he tries to revoke the consent, the evidence located should be excluded as “fruit from the poisonous tree”. However, if consent is granted and the Officer finds something that develops probable cause of his own, he no longer needs the consent to search the vehicle. The search has evolved from a consent search to a search based on probable cause.


In it’s decision in the case South Dakota v. Opperman, the SCOTUS said that the administrative inventory of a vehicle prior to towing is not unreasonable: “When vehicles are impounded, police routinely follow caretaking procedures by securing and inventorying the cars' contents. These procedures have been widely sustained as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Most agencies have policies in place regarding the inventorying of a towed vehicle because of this decision. Items found during this inventory can be used against the owner. Also see it’s Michigan v. Thomas decision.


People on probation or parole give up their 4th Amendment rights most of the time. Probation/parole Officers can search the residence or vehicle of their probationer anytime they wish. Be careful if you have a family member in that situation that wants to live with you. Probation/Parole Officers can search the common areas of a house along with the living quarters of their parolee/probationer. Police Officers do not automatically have permission to search a probationer’s vehicle. We can assist a probation or parole Officer with their search, but we cannot do so of our own accord.


In a 2009 decision the SCOTUS drastically changed the rules when it comes to the search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of the driver or occupant. The decision is Arizona v. Gant Prior to Gant, Officers could search a vehicle incident to the arrest of the driver or passenger, regardless of what the arrest was for (arrested for driving under suspension, search car, find marijuana, charge driver for marijuana). After Gant (I’m making this as simplistic as I can and not going into all the nitty gritty details), an Officer can really only search the vehicle if they can articulate that the vehicle may contain evidence of the crime for which the driver/occupant was arrested. There are some other issues at stake, but they are less important.

I have obviously condensed this topic to its most basic form. I had to, otherwise I’d have to write a whole book on the subject.

So there you go, xpd54’s guide to traffic stop legalities. I’m sure I’ve created as many questions and I have given answers.

About the Author:
Username: xpd54
Location: Dayton Area
Occupation: LEO, firearms instructor
Interests: 3 gun

Packing Heat: More Women Shooting And Buying Guns

More women are packing heat these days. I think this is great. ALL WOMEN, should pack heat as far as I'm concerned. The rapists / thugs will have a harder time picking victims. Plus, to me there's almost nothing hotter than a woman with a gun on her hip, well, I can think of a few things. If you have not taken your wife/girlfriend/fiance to the range you better do it now. You protect yourself she should learn to protect you both.

Watch this video of a young lady teaching you how to field strip your Glock.

Sunday, August 14, 2011



Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when
he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and
usually it’s when he becomes too old or smart enough not to take an ass whoopin.’

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on
a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones
they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take
an ass whoopin’… unknown (but obviously brilliant)


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded
up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of
this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to
all of your friends.



Reason or force?

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly civilized society, people interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the firearm, as crazy as it may sound to some.

When I carry my gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

- Author Unknown

Friday, August 12, 2011

Most people meander through life, oblivious to the world around them.

Most people meander through life, oblivious to the world around them. They are mentally taken up with thoughts of work, personal problems, the hot red-head they just passed, or other trivial things, paying no mind to their immediate surroundings. By being unaware of their surroundings, they place themselves in needless danger.

People typically operate on distinct levels of awareness. There are many ways to describe the levels. Perhaps the most effective way to illustrate the differences between the levels of awareness is to compare them to the degrees of attention we practice while driving. I will refer to the five levels of awareness as “tuned out,” “relaxed awareness,” “focused awareness,” “high alert” and “comatose.”

The first , tuned out, is the state of awareness most exercises when driving in a very familiar area or is enamored in thought, a daydream, music or even their children in the backseat. More and more, cellphones and texting are also causing tune outs while driving. Have you ever gotten in you car and arrived at your destination without even really thinking about your drive? If yes, you’ve tuned out.

The second level, relaxed awareness, is similar to defensive driving. This is a mindset in which you are relaxed but watching the other cars on the road and are looking ahead for potential hazards. If another driver looks like they may not stop at the approaching intersection, you may tap your brakes to slow your car in case he does not. This type of driving should not make you weary, and you should be able to maintain this way for a long while if you have the control to keep yourself at this level, but it is extremely easy to slip back into the tuned-out mode. While practicing defensive driving you still enjoy the trip, the scenery, and the radio, but you do not allow yourself to get so drawn into those distractions that they exclude everything else. You should be relaxed and enjoying your drive, but you still watching for hazards,and keeping an eye on the behavior of the drivers around you.

The next level, focused awareness, is equivalent to driving in hazardous conditions. You use this level of awareness when you are driving on icy or snow-covered roads, or roads that are filled with potholes. When you are driving in such conditions, you keep both hands on the wheel and you need to have your attention focused on the road and the other drivers. You can't take your eyes off the road or let your attention wander. This is no time for cellphone calls or any other distractions. The level of attention required for this type of driving is extremely tiring and stressful. This can turn a drive that you normally would not think twice about into a totally exhausting drive because it demands your undivided concentration for an extended period of time.

The next level is high alert. This level induces an adrenaline rush, a pair of striped undies, and a deep breath of air all at the same time — “Watch out! There’s a deer in the road! Punch the brakes!” High alert may be scary, but you are still able to function and immediately respond to hazards. You punch the brakes and keep control of your car. The adrenaline dump may even enhance your reflexes. But your body can sustain only short stretches of high alert before become totally exhausted.

The final level, comatose, is what happens when you cannot respond to stimuli, either because you have fallen asleep or, because you are paralyzed with panic. It is this paralysis that is the most concerning in response to situational awareness. This level of awareness — or more accurately, lack of awareness — occurs when a person's brain fails to process information and they simply cannot react to the stimuli. Often after this occurs, a person may go into denial, thinking that “this isn't happening to me,” or they may feel as though they are observing as opposed to actually being involved in the event. Frequently, time will appear to stand still. Victims commonly report this feeling as well as being unable to act or react during the crime.

Now that the different levels of awareness have been explained, let’s identify what level is required at a specific time. Body and mind can both become fatigued, so we must spend several hours each day comatosed while asleep. When sitting at home watching TV, surfing the net, or reading, it is acceptable to be in the tuned-out mode. Some people attempt to maintain this mode in the most inappropriate places (e.g., when they are out at night walking down the sidewalk in an unknown neighborhood, or they will maintain a belief that criminals can make them a victim. Others are completely tuned out as they stroll through their lives that they miss even conspicuous signs of victimization targeted directly at them. They can also be tuned-out due to fatigue or intoxication. It is not unusual to see some tuned-out people pour from airports after long flights. Thugs also frequently prey on intoxicated people.

If you're tuned-out while driving and something happens (e.g., a deer runs into the road or a car slams on the brakes front of you) you will not see the hazard. This means that you will not see the hazard in time causing you to hit it, or you totally panic and freeze, neither is good. This reaction or lack of reaction occurs because it is nearly impossible to change your mental state quickly, especially when going from tuned out to high alert. It is like trying to shift from first gear into fifth and you shudder and stall.

When people are forced to make this mental jump and they panic, they go comatose. This can happen not only when driving but when a criminal attacks someone totally unaware and unprepared. Training can help people move up and down the awareness scale, it is often hard for highly trained persons to jump from tuned-out to high alert. This is why police, federal agents and military receive extensive training on situational awareness.

It is imperative to note that situational awareness does not mean being paranoid or being obsessive about your safety. It does not mean having the thought process expectation that there is a dangerous criminal lurking behind every shrub and in every dark alley. People cannot operate in a state of focused awareness for extended periods, and high alert can be maintained for very short periods before exhaustion occurs. The “fight or flight” reflex can be very helpful if it can be controlled. When it's out of control, a constant flow of adrenaline is not healthy for the body or the mind. When constantly paranoid, one will become mentally and physically drained. This is dangerous and safety suffers because it is difficult to remain aware of your environment when you are a complete nut-job. Operating continuously in high alert is not the answer,neither is being in prolonged periods of focused alert, that can be overly demanding and completely incapacitating. This process causes alert fatigue, even highly skilled professionals, require time to reset.

The basic level of situational awareness that should be practiced most of the time is relaxed awareness, a frame of mind that can be easily maintained infinitely without stress and fatigue found with focused awareness or high alert. Relaxed awareness allows you to enjoy life while maintaining a level of personal security. When you are in an area where there may be danger (which can be anywhere), go through your day in relaxed awareness. Then if your "spidey senses" start to tingle, you can shift easily to focused awareness and examine a potential threat or other threats in the area.

If a potential threat is simply a false alarm, you can down-shift to relaxed awareness and carry on. If you determine that the potential threat is a real threat, watching it allows you to take preventative actions to avoid it. You may never need to shift to high alert, because avoided the threat early on. But, once in focused awareness you'll find it easier to shift to high alert if the thugs guys lurking in the alley start coming toward you and look as if they are reaching for weapons. The chance of you going comatose will be greatly reduced when you shift from focused awareness into high alert rather than being caught by surprise and your brain is forced to shift to high alert from tuned-out.

If you must go into an area that is known to be dangerous, you should gear yourself up to focused awareness when you are in that area. An increased level of awareness is prudent when engaging in common tasks, such as visiting an ATM or walking to your car in a dark parking lot. The relatively simple nature of these routine tasks can make it easy to tune out and expose you to easily avoidable hazards. When the potential danger zone has been passed, you should shift back to a state of relaxed awareness.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Almost a year since my first Open Carry.

For the uninitiated, "Open Carry" is the peaceable, unconcealed carry of a firearm by a law abiding citizen. For example, in a holster, on a belt in plain view.

As I look back on how scared I was to Open Carry that first time, I now realize it's no big deal. Every time I see Law Enforcement, I can't help but still think in the back of my mind that there is going to be some kind of confrontation.
I've open carried in almost every business I regularly patronize, except my bank, I just feel weird about open carrying there. It's the one place I mentally can't bring myself to OC.

My main goal when I’m out and about (besides whatever I went out and about to do) is to go about my business and not be the victim of a violent crime. And thusly, I carry my firearm everytime I go out, and I also try to follow all the other standard safety practices like having good situational awareness, staying out of known high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have an overall goal of going through my whole life without being forced to shoot anyone because I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for an idiot's death.

Carrying a concealed firearm says almost to anyone that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, says that criminals admit they will avoid an armed person or home during the victim selection process. That only makes sense, right? Criminals might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinct of self preservation we all have.

Yesterday while OCing at my favorite locally owned hardware store, one of the employees asked me about the law pertaining to OC. I explained it to him and he said cool, and then uncovered a nice shiny 1911 and said "I hate covering this thing up." I told him to stop by the forum for more information, and my house for some shooting!

I just got done talking to the electrician that was here, giving an estimate for a whole house generator, about OCing and CCing, he asked me who teaches classes for cc in this area and was going to go take a class soon.

This is a big part of why I OC, the positive encounters I have with people. I also feel that back in the day, a gentlemen wore his firearm on the outside visible to all, and it was the scoundrels who concealed it.

show that criminals simply do not use holsters for their weapons, and they prefer to conceal their weapons. If you think about it, this makes sense, as criminals generally will not want to draw attention in any way before or after they commit a crime.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

I like free stuff.

If you would like a free sample of this product, just email your name and address to and ask for a free sample.

From the MFR. website:
WEAPON SHIELD™, the ultimate lubricant, cleaner and preservative, has been aggressively designed and formulated for the Shooting Sports Industry, Military and Law Enforcement. WEAPON SHIELD™ cleans, removes lead, lubricates, guards against extreme pressure and wear, and protects from corrosion better than any other product to date. This distinquishes WEAPON SHIELD™ as the ultimate tool in the total care and maintenance of all firearms and weapon systems.
There is no room for weapon dysfunction

Extensive testing and evaluation has proven WEAPON SHIELD™ improves bore accuracy due to its Advanced Boundary Film (ABF) Technology, which reduces coefficients of friction between the bullet and bore surfaces assisting in the ballistic movement of the bullet and improving bullet flight.

I like free stuff.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Yesterday was great!

Yesterday was a great day. I had a few friends over to do some shooting and my wife and son came out to shoot. Nothing I can think of makes me happier than my family shooting with me. My son really liked shooting the AR-15 pistol.

7yrs old and he already loves firearms!

My wife enjoyed it as well!

Stay armed, stay alert, stay safe... Piece be with you!

A positive OC day

Today I ate lunch at Arby's in Chardon while open carrying of course. When we arrived a County Deputy was just getting his order, he looked at my glock and left. A few minutes later a different deputy walked in and got his lunch as well nothing was said no issues nothing.

Kudos to the Geauga County SO for knowing I was doing nothing wrong. I hope all OC encouters are like this in the future.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Stay armed, stay alert, stay safe... Piece be with you!