Here is the Training Outline below that is a direct result from the Loveland CO incedent.........
Pay close attention to the first 2 topics....
"'STRIKING THE BALANCE'

A training session to explore the interplay between a citizens’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment and a police officer’s right to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment for officer safety purposes.

Topics to be Covered

• A citizen’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court
• A police officers right under the 4th Amendment to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures.
• The three types of police/citizen contacts.
o Consensual contacts
o Investigatory stops
o Arrests
• The constitutional underpinnings for those police/citizen contacts.
o Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
o Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).
o Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009)
o Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
o People v. Ealum, 211 P.3d 48 (Colo. 2009)
o United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993)
o
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid investigatory stop.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting an investigatory stop.
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid frisk for weapons.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting a frisk for weapons.
• The legal requirements for a consensual search for weapons.
• The difference between probable cause for an arrest and reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
• Relevant Colorado statutes dealing with weapons offenses.


Presented by Clifford E. Riedel
Assistant District Attorney
8th Judicial District of Colorado"

Florida was recently very close to passing an open carry law. Instead of passing the open carry law, they ammended the concealed carry law. As a concealed carry permit holder, you can no longer be charged for brandishing a firearm if you inadvertently expose your weapon.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: In your example, the police disarmed the person. He apparently had CCW. All the police really needed to do was to ensure he had a permit and once that was determined. He should have been allowed to go on his way. The police erred per the settlement in actually taking the weapon from a licensed person. Again, just like the driver's license, a permit to carry is a privelidge. All one needs to do is to show the permit and move along.

2nd amendment states its a right. Our current government views it differently, but once again that is illegal.

http://www.salon.com/news/d.../police_surveillance

quote Why we need to police the police Cops don't like it, but cellphone videos are an important check on brutality By David Sirota Cellphone videos are good for cops What's good for the police apparently isn't good for the people -- or so the law enforcement community would have us believe when it comes to surveillance. That's a concise summary of a new trend first reported by National Public Radio last week -- the trend whereby law enforcement officials have been trying to prevent civilians from using cellphone cameras in public places as a means of deterring police brutality. Oddly, the effort -- which employs both forcible arrests of videographers and legal proceedings against them -- comes at a time when the American Civil Liberties Union reports that "an increasing number of American cities and towns are investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems." Then again, maybe it's not odd that the two trends are happening simultaneously. Maybe they go hand in hand. Perhaps as more police officers use cameras to monitor every move we make, they are discovering the true power of video to independently document events. And as they see that power, they don't want it turned against them. But wait -- why not? Though you'd expect that uncomfortable question to evoke dissembling, Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Jim Pasco was quite straightforward about it. Police officers, he told NPR, "need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be." He added that law enforcement authorities believe "that anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving -- an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad -- could cost him or some citizen their life." Obviously, nobody wants to stop officers from doing their much-needed job (well, nobody other than budget-cutting politicians who are slashing police forces). In fact, organizations such as the NAACP have urged citizens to videotape police precisely to make sure police are doing ALL of their job -- including protecting individuals' civil liberties. This is not some academic or theoretical concern, and video recording is not a needless exercise in Bill of Rights zealotry. The assault on civil liberties in America is a very real problem and monitoring police is absolutely required in light of recent data. As USA Today reported under the headline "Police brutality cases on rise since 9/11," situations "in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims' civil rights increased 25 percent" between 2001 and 2007. Last year alone, more than 1,500 officers were involved in excessive force complaints, according to the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project. Considering this, Pasco has it exactly wrong. We should want more officers feeling "apprehension" about breaking civil liberties laws, we should hope more of them "give a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences" will be if they trample someone's rights and we should crave an immediate "chilling effect" on such violations. That's what the practice of cellphone recording is supposed to do -- not mimic the national security state's Big Brother culture, but prevent that security state from trampling our freedoms. Law enforcement officials, of course, don't like the cellphone cameras because they don't want any check on police power. So they've resorted to fear-mongering allegations about lost lives. But the only police officers who are threatened by cellphone cameras are those who want to break civil liberties laws with impunity. The rest have nothing to worry about and everything to gain from a practice that simply asks them to remember the all-too-forgotten part of their "protect and serve" motto -- the part about protecting the public's civil rights. * David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

quote Originally posted by deezil: You can choose to see it anyway you wish but even the ACLU disagrees with you that this guys rights were indeed violated. "Based upon Mr. Miller's account and LPD's own reports, no reasonable officer could have believed Mr. Miller was doing more on Oct. 7, 2008, than 'lawfully exercising his right under . . . law to possess a gun in public,' " the ACLU said." Also,The Loveland CO Fellow did not need a permit. Open carry is legal where he resides.

The ACLU? Well hell yes they don't agree with me or most of the rest of Americans on a whole lot of issues. Regardless, it's all about perspective.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: The ACLU? Well hell yes they don't agree with me or most of the rest of Americans on a whole lot of issues. Regardless, it's all about perspective.

Or it could just be about not violating someones Civil rights?

You missed the part where the female cop told the kid they were answering a complaint. Person saw him carrying and was worried and called the cops so yes they had probable cause.

quote Originally posted by deezil: Again....they can ask for someones I.D all they want... Said person does not have to present it unless the officer states there is probable cause. No Probable cause and they illegaly detain him means they are violating HIS Civil rights.......

quote Originally posted by HIOSILVER!: You missed the part where the female cop told the kid they were answering a complaint. Person saw him carrying and was worried and called the cops so yes they had probable cause.

Sorry but you are wrong. It is legal to open carry (in his state) so someone calling and saying a guy is walking down the street with a gun on his hip is NOT probable cause. Now if he was ranting and raving with the gun in his hand then thats a different story.

quote Originally posted by JimmyS: Sorry but you are wrong. It is legal to open carry (in his state) so someone calling and saying a guy is walking down the street with a gun on his hip is NOT probable cause. Now if he was ranting and raving with the gun in his hand then thats a different story.

Could be true, so does that mean police are not supposed to investigate, enquire when another citizen calls in a concern? Pretty iffy line there in my opinion. Please do not construe from my comments that I am a gun control advocate but, I do see both sides of the coin. One person's rights do not cross the line of my rights, just as my rights do not and should not intrude into yours.

------------------
Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Similar to a driver's license, you are supposed to have it on you when you drive, failure to show proof results in consequences. I see no violation of anyone's rights if required to show proof of either a CCW or a driver's license.

Problem with this example is they can no more pull you over to ONLY see that you have a drivers license, then they can stop you on the street to see if you have a permit. You have to have done something wrong first, to start that ball rolling in either case.

Kevin