[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Bob K

A friend of mine is a retired cop in the NE. I can't say it's Jpee without his permission but this guy says he'll carry in NYC regardless. I have the right to be able to defend myself and if they ever pulled my license I'll renew my Mi license. This is kind of dumb so we must be bored cause this scenario isn't gonna happen anyway. It is a learning experience though regarding a "pat down". If I didn't know you I wouldn't believe it.

What was Rich's second question?

Never mind, I see it.

Although the anti-firearms typse such as NYC's Bloomberg, and D.C.'a Adrian Fenty, and his puppet Chief Cathy Lanier, continue thier vigilence to keep weapons out of the hands of legal, law abgiding citizens,

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/New-DC-Gun-Restrictions-Unveiled/1$42312 (not sure why this won't link? Cut and Paste for the story!)

the Feds did strike down the law that impacted the citizens of those to states as unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, the state and local restrictions placed upon ownership, don't make it much better in those states.

Sometimes I wonder why God put most of the more beautiful off road, camping, sporting and 4 wheeling lands in the world, in some of the stuipidest politcal chitholes he could find?
Maybe he just needed to give the people some legitimate reason for living there?

Anyway, back to the discussion.
Your friend is in a different category than most here.
Retired LEO's carry under HR 218

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

Even then, many of the restrictions applied to CWP holders, apply to them as well.

That not withstanding, if your friend decides he want's to carrry in NYC, D.C., or anywhere else not authorized by law to do so, and get's caught, he too will deal with the consequences.
It's that simple.

Originally Posted by 85vette

Cop Rule #1: I'm going home in one piece tonight, preferably without any extra holes in me.

Cop Rule #2: I am NOT dispensable.(If I go down, who's gonna save your a$$?)

Cop Rule #3: The bad guy gets it first, anything else moving after that is second. (When I say "Get Down!", get down and don't move)

Cop Rule #4: Any questions, see Cop Rule #1.

All joking aside, we take our safety(and our brothers in blue/green/tan) very seriously. Pat downs, Terry Frisk, are a part of our lives. I can articulate. And I know Gordon can.

I think this whole discussion comes down to: Rules is Rules. Just common sense guys. Is it worth walking on the Daisies to (possibly) lose your right to carry?

, that was very well put!
It's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Rules are rules.
So are traffic laws, and none of us violate those, right?
And you can eventually lose your prioviledge to drive as a result if such abuses continue.
The same is the case with the permit, only it's simpler to lose.

A lot of this boils down to "getting caught."
If you don't bring notice to yourself (ie: do something stupid, get involved in a shooting or act like an azz), most of us will have lkimited interactins with Law Enforcement.

Bottom line is, the OP's question was relative to the sign, it's legality, authority, jurisdiction and impact on CWP holders.
Those concerns have been researched and addressed..

From there, draw your own conclusions and do what you want
I know what I'll do, I won't share that opinion, and "if " my actions were to have any consequences, I'd be prepared to deal with them. That's it.

Originally Posted by Bob K

All good points 85 but I'm looking at it differently. I did not know 'pat downs' were not searches and I do think an officer should have to justify the 'pat down'. Having said that I'm sure any officer that does a pat down has a valid reason.

They do on both concerns. (I may have over simplified the issue in our prevopus conversation, sorry.

I also agree that rules are rules but if I have a need to be there and I see that sign I am not going to give up my right to self defense.

Again, yopu're partially correct.
What would be the "need" to be there in the first place? You'd definately have to articulate that "need" in your defense.
Traversing from one one locatioon to another when no other route is available (then I think thier sign would be unenforceable based on some recent legislative changes), might be one.
An emergency would be another.
Othewise, why would one "need" to be on WMD land?

If you're just out for a walk, going camping, fishing, etc., you knwo where you're going and should have planned accordingly.

Your "right" to self defense has not been abridged.
Your "right" to possess a firearm may have (they're working on that as I previously stated), but not your right to defend yourself.
You simply have to find another means to do so.

I can show you a dozen different ways to do so that the average male of female can accomplish with moderate physcial abilities.
None of them involve firearms, unless it's the one you remove from the bad guy

And even your "rights" to carry concealed (it's actually a priviledge, not a "right") come with restrictions.
Hell, even HR 218 is not a "carte blanc to carry.
It too has restrictions on both active and retired LEO's.

It would serve us well to become intimately familiar with those restrictions if we intend to carry under a license.

What if someone entered that property and never saw a sign?

This is similar to one of the questions I posed to the WMD personnel yesterday in my lengthy phone conversation.
How well are the properties marked and what's the signage like.

Most of the properties are marked only "so-so."
Not really many fences, gates, etc to keep you off/out.

Most are bordered by fire roads/lines, or some other natural boundry, but all are posted.

Frankly, it they're not posted every so many feet (there's a reg for it, but I don't have it available at the moment), they they're going to have problems enforcing the rule.
That said, you'll beat the rap, not the ride
If I were the LEO on scene, and realized this deficiency, I'd probably just ask you to leave.

They would still be guilty but if I was a LEO, saw someone and there wasn't a problem I wouldn't hassle anyone that would be legal on the other side of the property line. A smart azz or trouble maker would be treated differently

And there's the common sense 85 was talking about...on both sides

The person's not causing a problem, "may not" have observed the sign, known they were on WMD property, and the officer is exercising good judgment in asking them to depart.

And you're absolutely correct sir on the last line!
More than one person in my career has "talked" themselves into an arrest

Who's Terry Frisk?

Enjoy...
http://www.answers.com/topic/terry-v-ohio

...or...

The readers digest version:

Under the search part of the Terry doctrine, policy may pat down the detained suspect on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and may then remove any object from the suspect's clothing that by its size or density might be a weapon. An object so discovered is admissible in evidence whether it turns out to be a gun or something else seizable as contraband or evidence; in Michigan v. Long (1983), the Court rejected the notion that to ensure against pretext frisks only weapons should be admissible. (Long also holds, by rather strained logic, that the protective search allowed by Terry may extend to the passenger compartment of a vehicle to which the suspect has access.)

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Major hair splitting, without even a legitimate hair to split. When you are doing a pat down, what the heck are you doing it for? You are SEARCHING for concealed weapons.

Seriously, how else can you define it?

Refer to the above.
(You'd be better off addressing that question to the Supreme Court)

I really didn't want to take the time to address this since I thought most of us would be able to figure out the difference; however, reading some of the responses, I can see that there's a need for definition.

So here's the huge difference in a pat down (Terry Frisk) vs. a search:

Where you can go.....!

...That's pretty much it.

In a search based upon warrant/PC, I can go anywhere and as far as the warrant or PC allows.

I can go INTO your pants/shirt/jacket pockets, remove your hat and check the band, remove your shoes/socks, and as we know from experience, can go as far as a cavity search (in the property faciloity with the proper personnel! I'm not doing it!), and anywhere else necessary to discover evidence and/or contraband (limiting this to the person, nothing else at this time).

In a pat down, it's the outside of the clothing, with specific intent, and then into the clothning only if you the officer, can articulate PC that what you felt from the outside, may be a weapon.

Does that clarify the issue a bit for everyone?

I agree with 85.
As a LEO I've lived this and as a citizen I continue to.
I get up in the morning and go out, with every intention of coming home in the evening the same way I left
If that means you don't as a result of some flawed decision on your part to prevent that objective, so be it