[SugarBoy13]

Of course, this is Monday morning quarterbacking but, by discussing these kinds of encounters here allows all of us to get better at them. Kudos to Boots for posting this and letting us all add our couch-based observations!

And with that...

Sooo... While waiting to get an answer regarding Middletown's 109-13 to see if it's valid, and knowing that there was no law against OCing in a NCCo Park, I thought I'd take my dog to the Iron Hill "Bark Park" today.

I had OC'd at Middletown's Levels Road dog park for over a year without a problem, so I didn't expect what happened my first day at Iron Hill....

We were at the dog park about an hour; I had a very pleasant conversation with a guy named FrankProbably some NARC that has been assigned to follow you. and gave him a DELOC.ORG card. As I was backing out of the parking space a County cop car pulled up and blocked my way. Like it or not. You have just been detained. This time no one said I was 'detained', and I didn't ask, but again they were polite and courteous.

Since it was quite obvious that they planned on detaining you by blocking your car, I would have pushed the issue by asking "Am I being detained Officer?" as soon as they began their probing questions. They may question you but, unless they have reasonable suspicion that you had or may have been in the process of committing a crime, they can't justify detainment. This is why we ASK? Force the issue and make them answer that it is a detainment. Otherwise you are consenting to them holding you without RAS. If they say "No" then ask if you are free to go.

They knew that what I was doing was not illegal, but I got the "we could charge you with disorderly conduct" speech again. (read: not that the charge would stick, but it would be expensive to defend.)

Although it would have been very difficult for me to do so, keep your mouth shut and just ignore the comment. They have to have intent before they could charge you with that and actually have it stick. It was a scare tactic and total BS and if they do charge you with it, demand that they bring you immediately before the magistrate. I bet it would be thrown out in no time.

The fact that you are OCing is not reason enough to justify detainment, let alone charge you with disorderly conduct.

They knew all about the incident yesterday at Middletown's park (from the county radio?) and it seemed they wanted to know 'why I was doing it again'. I explained that the incident yesterday concerned a Middletown ordinance that I had never heard of before and I wasn't going back there until I had a chance to learn more about it. However, this is a County Park and I knew there was no prohibition here.

They probably heard about it over the radio or during a briefing for that shift and either assumed it was you or were fishing to find out. I doubt they knew it was you until you said something. Another reason to just STFU and don't answer their probing questions. They're playing gotcha games...

I'm not sure how being linked to the incident in Middletown would effect your case but, it is always better to STFU and not volunteer anything. If they have a question that is outside the Name, Address, Destination, Business Abroad, you are not required to answer. It may be better to just not say anything other than the BIG 4. However, if you feel you must say something, here are a few that I have heard from others: "Officer, I don't have to answer that" or "I am not going to answer any more questions Officer" or the TV series favorite but not recommended "I plead the 5th."

Remember, anything you say can and will be used against you. What you say to them will NEVER and can NEVER be used to defend you. So why give them more than they need...

"However, citizens that call 9-1-1 about a MWAG don't know that." So?!?!

"That's true," I said, "but you know it's legal. And citizens that call in should be told that." Good for YOU!

Anyway, because of the 9-1-1 call, they claimed they needed to make sure I was not a 'person prohibited', and that my weapon was 'not stolen'.

BS. I bet they needed your permission first, didn't they...If they really thought you were a person prohibited, they would not have needed to ask for permission before proceeding to drop you and your dog to the ground.

They asked for ID and I verbally answered. Whooo Hoooo! However, they wanted to see my DL 'to make it easier' and I hesitated doing that until I realized I was 'in my car backing up' when they first pulled behind me, so I gave them my DL. DOH! It wasn't a traffic stop so, they didn't need to see your license. Personal preference here. I would not have, like I'm really concerned about making it easier for these guys to find something to bust me on...They also got the s/n from my weapon and ran that 'to see if it was stolen'. I trust my name and weapon s/n are not going into another illegal Delaware database.How did they get the s/n off your gun?

They had no RAS; should I have handled this differently? Was I intimidated by the "we could charge you with disorderly conduct" claim?

Yesterday, the Middletown police claimed to have a Middletown Ordinance to enforce, which I'm in the process of checking on, but what about the NCCo cops today? Should I have demanded a RAS and detainment before letting them check my gun?YES!

When it was suggested that I get a CC license, I replied that a license was not needed for OC, but I did have one. Then, they wanted to see that too! Why? "To see if it's valid", ... even though a license is not needed for OC? Sheesh!...Chaulk this one up as another example of why you should STFU. The hole just keeps getting dug deeper...

I never wanted to be involved with an in-your-face "Park OC Crusade", and I try to fly 'under the radar' as much as possible, so why am I writing this? To vent a little frustration, and to let others know what might happen if they are ever in a similar situation.

I have no problem with cops doing their job, but it's apparent they don't like OC and have no interest in informing MWAG callers of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Delaware's Constitution.

I try to do everything legally, but I wish I could avoid the unnecessary hassles. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Sorry this is so long...

Overall, I thought you handled it very well! And it gave us another scenario to think about.

[Boots]

Guys... Thanks for the critique, it’s appreciated. While writing the narrations I was just relating the facts, and already knew that several things could have been done better. Your insights have confirmed some of my thoughts, and gave me a different perspective on others. Thanks!

After it’s all over it’s easy to think how you might have handled it better, but all I can say is that I handled it as best I could at the time.

I agree concerning my CCDW comment; it was not necessary and could not have 'helped' the situation. I should have just shut up and listened to his suggestion.

Here are some interesting differences between the 'Middletown Incident' and the 'Iron Hill Park Incident'...

Middletown- 'Officially' detained, handcuffed, disarmed, stuffed in tight backseat of hot vehicle (about 30 minutes). Information provided only verbally, 'warned' (regarding Middletown Ordinance 109-13), asked to leave park, and firearm returned.

Iron Hill Park- Car blocked, but no handcuffs and not disarmed. More of a 'conversational' type encounter. Offered verbal ID but document was requested 'for convenience' (as was pointed out this was not a traffic stop, but I did not wish to contest this request). Actually, they asked me to take the magazine out and hand them the gun so they could check the s/n (to 'see if it was stolen'). However, I felt uncomfortable doing that at the time and let one of the officers take the gun from the holster. (I dislike taking the gun from the holster while away from home unless I'm at a shooting range.) After being checked out, the documents and gun were returned to me and I was allowed to leave. No request was made for me to leave (they knew I was leaving anyway) and no 'warnings'.

The two encounters were different, but all officers were professional, respectful, and courteous. The Middletown incident was much more physically uncomfortable for me, and perhaps an over-reaction by the officers in my opinion, but how is an officer to know for sure how every incident is going to turn out? However, with no RAS, an OC guy sitting in the sun on a bench in the dog park talking to two strangers while his dog runs around seems rather benign to me, but apparently they thought otherwise. (Regarding RAS, I'm guessing the reason no signs are posted at the park regarding firearms is because there is no valid ordinance; but I'm still checking on that.)

Then biggest problem was probably my 'voluntarily' giving up my rights since I see myself as being 'on the same side' as the police and naturally wanting to cooperate.

Anyway, thanks to all for helping in the 'autopsy' of these events. I'm still processing all of this and trying to determine if I need to make any changes to my 'best practices' procedures. And, I hope my comments are helpful to others who may be involved in similar incidents in the future. I know that the experiences of others have been very helpful to me in the past.

Meanwhile, Carry On!

And so, to bed...

[Mr.Skellington]

Seeing how the weather is getting warm, I suggest that those of us who have companions of the four footed type, we should have a DELOC dog walk at the parks.


It seems to me that this calls for some "on-the-radar" response

Chip

Agreed. Although, I believe, pets should be optional and video-recorders shall be mandatory. This is nothing short of harassment in both cases.

I think we also discussed having an OC barbecue at one of the NCC parks this summer as well.

Absolutely. I love BBQ's and I'm serious about having one in a public park. The parks are public property and up-kept with state taxes. As a tax paying citizen of Delaware I have a right to use those public parks. I can think of no better way to promote the legality of OC than to host a nice picnic/BBQ at a public park. Kinda leaves no question.

I wasn't too surprised about a (comparatively) small time force like middletown being confused but NCCPD does know better. They know better and the third degree you received without any RAS based on some dipsticks MWAG call was excessive. DL, CCW permit, SN of pistol, threat of bogus charges... all that for a man walking a dog.

[myopicvisionary]

Trying to see a positive... after two LEO encounters, you are still walking around in possession of your firearm.

[Tony T]

Boots,

I still believe that John Thompson should be contacted. I have his contact info if you need it. And I am willing to contribute financially.

As president of the Delaware's local NRA affiliate and a prominent local firearms attorney he is in a unique position to help you.

I believe that one intrusion is a bridge too far. Imo it's symptomatic of today's society. Law enforcement learns what is legal in college and in the academy, but the real otj training is what your local AG's office will allow you to get away with. Can you get away with stopping Boots as he peaceably and legally walks his dog or not? That is their real concern.

I agree with the others, if these actions go unopposed expect it to happen again and again. And expect the next step as the erosion continues in the name of public safety. The 4th and 5th are an inconvenience to law enforcement and anyone who's in favor of them must be anti leo, must have something to hide.

[George]

Guys... Thanks for the critique, it’s appreciated. While writing the narrations I was just relating the facts, and already knew that several things could have been done better. Your insights have confirmed some of my thoughts, and gave me a different perspective on others. Thanks!

After it’s all over it’s easy to think how you might have handled it better, but all I can say is that I handled it as best I could at the time.

I agree concerning my CCDW comment; it was not necessary and could not have 'helped' the situation. I should have just shut up and listened to his suggestion.My last LECTURE from the police, I just stared off into space, while not looking at him. he ended by saying "I take it you don't agree" to which I answered "No"

Here are some interesting differences between the 'Middletown Incident' and the 'Iron Hill Park Incident'...

Middletown- 'Officially' detained, handcuffed, disarmed, stuffed in tight backseat of hot vehicle (about 30 minutes). Information provided only verbally, 'warned' (regarding Middletown Ordinance 109-13), asked to leave park, and firearm returned.I would be off to Middletown to check the ordinance in person. file a complaint if not legal by state law

Iron Hill Park- Car blocked, but no handcuffs and not disarmed. More of a 'conversational' type encounter. Offered verbal ID but document was requested 'for convenience' (as was pointed out this was not a traffic stop, but I did not wish to contest this request). Actually, they asked me to take the magazine out and hand them the gun so they could check the s/n (to 'see if it was stolen')without RAS it was stolen, that would be unreasonable search ...deny consent. However, I felt uncomfortable doing that at the time and let one of the officers take the gun from the holster. (I dislike taking the gun from the holster while away from home unless I'm at a shooting range.) After being checked out, the documents and gun were returned to me and I was allowed to leave. No request was made for me to leave (they knew I was leaving anyway) and no 'warnings'.

The two encounters were different, but all officers were professional, respectful, and courteous.funny how nice they can be either when violating your rights or getting you to waive them The Middletown incident was much more physically uncomfortable for me, and perhaps an over-reaction by the officers in my opinion, but how is an officer to know for sure how every incident is going to turn out? However, with no RAS, an OC guy sitting in the sun on a bench in the dog park talking to two strangers while his dog runs around seems rather benign to me, but apparently they thought otherwise. (Regarding RAS, I'm guessing the reason no signs are posted at the park regarding firearms is because there is no valid ordinance; but I'm still checking on that.)

Then biggest problem was probably my 'voluntarily' giving up my rights since I see myself as being 'on the same side' as the police and naturally wanting to cooperate.yes you see it!

Anyway, thanks to all for helping in the 'autopsy' of these events. I'm still processing all of this and trying to determine if I need to make any changes to my 'best practices' procedures. And, I hope my comments are helpful to others who may be involved in similar incidents in the future. I know that the experiences of others have been very helpful to me in the past.

Meanwhile, Carry On!

And so, to bed...

[scampbell3]

I will toss in my .2

But others have already expressed very good suggestions, so I will not bore anyone with the same. I do however think that a "open carry dog park day & picnic" is in order. This is not only a chance for us to get together and have a good time, but as a show of quite activism against official oppression.

Chip

[Delawarelaws]

Before you book your picnic you should read this.

New Castle County Code

http://library5.municode.com/default-te ... n=whatsnew

Sec. 24.01.014. Possession of certain knives; discharge of weapons.

No person shall carry a knife upon his or her person having a blade three (3) inches or longer in length or have possession of or discharge a BB gun, air rifle, pistol, firearm, paint ball gun, bow and arrow or any other type of lethal weapon in any park.

[Mr.Skellington]

Before you book your picnic you should read this.

New Castle County Code

http://library5.municode.com/default-te ... n=whatsnew

Sec. 24.01.014. Possession of certain knives; discharge of weapons.

No person shall carry a knife upon his or her person having a blade three (3) inches or longer in length or have possession of or discharge a BB gun, air rifle, pistol, firearm, paint ball gun, bow and arrow or any other type of lethal weapon in any park.

Its unenforceable and it was preempted by state law in 1985. See Title 22: Chpt. 8: Subchpt. VI: § 835..

Welcome to the forum

[Tony T]

Welcome to the forum, DelawareLaws.

There are a number of ordinances currently on the books that are not enforceable because they are invalid.

Interesting username by the way, care to introduce yourself in our new member thread? viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27

DEL CODE § 835 : Delaware Code - Section 835: AMENDMENTS PROHIBITED

(a) This chapter shall not permit the amending of a municipal charter so as to:

(1) Permit the changing of any term of any elected official until the incumbent has completed the term to which the incumbent was elected;

(2) Permit any charter amendment in contravention of any general statute of this State;

(3) Change the qualifications of those entitled to vote at municipal elections;

(4) Change the date for holding of municipal elections;

(5) Enlarge or otherwise alter the power or procedure whereby a municipal corporation may enlarge its boundaries;

(6) Prohibit, restrict or license ownership, transfer, possession or transportation of firearms or components of firearms or ammunition, except that the discharge of a firearm may be regulated; provided that any regulation or ordinance incorporates the justification defenses as found in Title 11. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to invalidate existing municipal ordinances.

(b) No municipal corporation charter which permits nonresident persons to vote in any municipal election or to hold any municipal office shall be amended, pursuant to this chapter, so as to eliminate or limit the right of nonresident persons to vote or hold office, nor shall the percentage of nonresident officials allowed or required be changed.

(c) No municipal corporation charter which provides a method of appeal to the Superior Court for any matter shall be amended, pursuant to this chapter, so as to eliminate or restrict any such appeal.

22 Del. C. 1953, § 835; 53 Del. Laws, c. 260; 65 Del. Laws, c. 133, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;

Delaware State Law
Title 9, Part I, Chapter 3, Subchapter II. County Governments
County Firearms Preemption
§ 330. General powers and duties.

(c) The county governments shall enact no law or regulation prohibiting, restricting or licensing the ownership, transfer, possession or transportation of firearms or components of firearms or ammunition except that the discharge of a firearm may beregulated; provided any law, ordinance or regulation incorporates the justification defenses as found in Title 11 of the Delaware Code.