'damages' these two clowns allege that are worth $25,000 each plus punitives. My guess is that they'll be lucky if they come away with enough to pay their lawer's fees.

Which will include legal costs, an apology, That is what has typically happened when the cops violate black letter law. Adelanto is still a hick town in many ways, but their police bubbas should not have fallen for this.

to support your contention that the 'cops violated black letter law'.

but since it is your "other", their civil rights don't matter. How does that make you different than the right winger who has no problem with violating the civil rights of OWS protesters? Besides, how often do you win what you seek at first.

"Sir you are detained. You are not under arrest. No, you may not leave until we tell you you can, but you are not under arrest."

no false arrest. They were detained while the cops performed a Terry stop/frisk. All perfectly legal.

Did they have reason to suspect the pistols were loaded? In Texas and Florida, open carry in itself is an offense, but not in California at that time.
Had this happened in Vermont, the cops would say "so?"

so long as the law is that open carry pistols must be unloaded. They are free to check for their own safety and for the safety of the public. No matter how you slice and dice it, there's no legal violation for what the cops did in this case (at least as its reported).

Why were they held beyond that time? That's the basis for the suit.

it took the cops longer to check the firearms and the permits than the 2 guys thought it should have??? Call me naive, but it doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

The cops could have simply check for magazine and chamber (if pistol) or open cylinder (if revolver) total time two minutes on the outside. 14 minutes plus the handcuffing, we'll see.

unloaded is not a danger to anyone. They may not have acted properly, and if they had warrants they would not have attracted attention to themselves.
Most places you ride a bike with the flow of traffic like any other vehicle. Did you ever register and get a tax stamp for your pen gun? It is an NFA item you know.

Then he was a fucking idiot.

And an issue should have been made as he actually could put someone in danger that way.

No need to file legal action. Same with those who carry a gun in public.

Mere legal exercise of a Constitutional Right does not satisfy that requirement.

And no-one was placed in danger.

The cops forgot the rules and the city will have to pay up. Precedents are clear on this one.

Please cite to the clear precedents you're talking about so we can all learn.

Cops are not allowed to just walk up to people involved in legal activities, demand ID and detain people without reasonable cause and a legally open carried pistol does not constitute reasonable cause anymore than DWB does.

Most suits like this do not go to trial since its a clear violation of law and the cities settle. Peruse some of the DU2 posts on this, there have been many. Hoyt has embarrassed himself repeatedly on this topic.

While this was clearly a trolling event, they were happening often enough in CA for the Upland cops to be aware of it and the consequences.

According to another source, the city has already tried to negotiate a settlement. However I am looking for further backup on that before I cite it.

Down at the bottom:

The plaintiffs offered a $100,000 settlement, which the defendants rejected, Birdt said. Each plaintiff will seek $25,000 plus punitive damages in the trial, he said.

about what is a 'clear violation of the law' without anything to back them up. Where in law do you find a case which determined that 'a legally open carried pistol" does not constitute reasonable cause?

How about some facts supporting the statement that "Most suits like this do not go to trial since its a clear violation of law and the cities settle"? BTW, merely giving anecdotal evidence such as 'go look at a bunch of posts on DU' doesn't get the job done.

Finally, the city offering to settle is not indicative of anything, except that they prefer to avoid any PR from this. If this goes to trial, the fact that there may have been settlement talks cannot be admitted into evidence.

It takes 10 seconds to ensure it's unloaded. Any detention beyond that is unlawful

"How about some facts supporting the statement that "Most suits like this do not go to trial since its a clear violation of law and the cities settle"? "

See the checks Chicago has cut or Washington D.C. They paid before the suits went to trial or don't you keep up with the news?

1 - That's your opinion, not a fact. I've asked the same question of you before: How is any detention beyond your ten second rule illegal? Please point me to some law, some legal opinion or some case law that demonstrates that.
2- Those are not facts. Please cite some facts to support the idea that Most suits like this do not go to trial.

Here is what an internet search using "reasonable suspicion definition" yielded:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reasonable-suspicion/
Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as “the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely.” Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an “unarticulated hunch.” It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion.

As you can see, the fact that the cops thought the guns MIGHT have been loaded does not rise to the level defined above. If they had asked the gun owners to demonstrate that the weapons were unloaded and that request was refused, then they would have had reasonable suspicion to detain. However, the facts as stated in the article do not justify placing them in restraints.

As for the "Anecdotal evidence" comment, here are some stories you can look at:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17628424?source=rss
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/131178783.html
http://lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=12459
http://madisoneast.channel3000.com/news/news/63707-city-settles-gun-rights-group-over-fast-food-incident

Is this solid enough?

Finally, your statement about settlement talks is just plain wrong:
http://www.dailyjournal.com/cle.cfm?show=CLEDisplayArticle&qVersionID=299&eid=905828&evid=1

You can not only discuss the fact that there were settlement talks, but statements made during these talks can be admitted into evidence under certain circumstances. As a matter of fact, there are circumstances where the disclosure of settlements are required. Read it for yourself.

Anything else, Red Rider?

in front of you then perhaps you have a problem. You are trying to argue legal issues without the benefit of any background or knowledge to do so. Researching the Internet is sometimes helpful but in no way is it a substitute for legal education or training.

'Reasonable suspicion' is an extremely low threshold to meet: only something more than an unarticulated hunch. Cops almost never have a problem meeting it. And it is common practice that cops do not ask the people to simply show them the guns if for any reason they believe there may be danger to themselves or others. It's not clear from the article what attitude the clowns in this case took with the cops when they showed up - if they were belligerent or confrontational no judge is going to say that they acted improperly in detaining the person(s) before searching them and their weapons. In fact you would be very hard put to find any reported case in the U.S. where a court has found that cops could not proceed that way.

Listing three articles that describe instances where a city has decided to settle a nuisance suit for small dollar amounts only proves that Cities, like corporations know that it's easier to pay someone to go away than it is to get involved in litigation. It's strictly a cost-benefit analysis, not proof of any kind that the Plaintiffs were correct.

Finally, I am well aware that under some limited circumstances the fact of settlement talks can be admitted into evidence - unlike you I've actually practiced law (since 1989). But the general rule (which would apply here) is that they are inadmissible. The article you cite to in no way disproves that proposition.

Tell me - if you are indeed a practitioner of the law, why would you not know that there are multiple legal justifications for admitting both offers of settlement, and/or the actual settlement language, into the record? The only real restriction is that they can't be used to prove liability or the validity of the claim. Otherwise, there is no hard and fast bar in federal law on refusing to admit settlement information into the record.

Below is some information concerning federal law, since this case is being tried in a U.S. district court:
\http://www.adrr.com/law1/rule408.htm

And now to get to the meat of this incident - you have appeared to ignore the actual story in your rush to demonize the plaintiffs and bury other posters in legal minutiae. The incident was captured on video, as well as audio. See link below:
http://www.jonbirdt.com/

You will find that immediately after they passed through a door, the police approached them with guns drawn, put them on their knees, handcuffed them, patted them down without their consent (considering that the officers tried to convince them that a patdown wasn't a search, it would seem that they knew they were acting improperly), and generally acted as if the plaintiffs were in the act of committing a crime. To top it all off, they were left in cuffs for more than ten minutes, which is much longer than would have been necessary to check the weapons, determine they were unloaded, and let them go on their way. Try watching the video and listen to the audio, then come back and talk.

Finally, if you read the story at the link below:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/california/ci_20011650

you'l find that a local police captain admitted that the officers should have handled the incident differently. From the story:
"I think the best we can do is we train our officers on how to handle the open-carry people when they know that's what they're dealing with and train our officers how to handle these more high-risk situations of possible robbery suspects, man-with-a-gun type of things," Bonson said. "What we hope for (from) this is that at the point where they become aware of this appearing to be an open carry situation that the officer de-escalates."

Bonson said officers were re-trained on the open-carry law immediately after the incident in July.

"The training was a big part of it just reminding everybody that some of these `man-with- a-gun' calls we go on might be open-carry people," Bonson said. "We need to be prepared to address that appropriately."

There is nothing about this incident that shows "reasonable suspicion". It'll take a while for the case to wend its tortuous path through the judicial system, but I would be willing to wager that the end result will be either a judgement for the plaintiffs or a quiet settlement by the city.. If you want to take me up on that bet, I'll be glad to correspond via PM and set it up.

Next?

my Bar membership information along with my admissions to practice in Federal Court, both Circuit and Court of Appeals. If you have some experience practicing under the Federal Rules of Evidence I'll be happy to discuss the exceptions to Rule 408 further with you. But you can save yourself a whole lot of trouble by reading simply looking at the first line in the article that you cite: "Civil Rule of Evidence 408 excludes settlement negotiations and offers to compromise from evidence if used to prove liability or the validity of the amount of the claim". Most attempts to introduce evidence of settlement talks are done exactly for the purpose of trying to prove liability and for that reason these attempts are almost always rebuffed by the Court. The exceptions are nuances to the general rule and are not all that common. In addition, they have no application to this particular case.

Now, let's talk about the reasonableness standard. First of all, 'reasonable suspicion' is in the eye of the beholder (i.e. what a reasonably well-trained police officer would do in a similar situation - not what you or I think (s)he should do), and courts generally give great deference to peace officers in this regard. Secondly, it is not at all a high standard to meet - basically, in order to fail to meet it requires a showing that the action in question was merely pretextual. If officers are dispatched to a scene on a 'man with a gun' call, how do you imagine it's not reasonable on tbeir part for them to approach the suspect(s) with drawn weapons? Or then Terry stop and frisk them? Or cuff them before doing the frisk? That's standard police procedure which occurs a hundred times a day around the country.

Let's look at the facts as shown on the videotape. What comes across loud and clear are: 1) the cops appeared to be highly professional, respectful and performed their intervention in a calm, quiet manner. 2) I see nothing they did that a jury (much less a Judge) would find to be outside the scope of their normal procedure in these cases. 3) What does come across loud and clear however is that at least one of these two was clearly spoiling for a fight, trying as best he could to provoke the cops. If I were their attorney I would do my best to get that tape supressed. It's very damaging to the Plaintiffs.

You continue to believe that according to your standards the cops took 'too long' by taking ten minutes or so to do their thing. How much of the time was wasted dealing with the Plaintiff who 'refused to be searched etc. and would not otherwise have been consumed is certainly an open question. The Plaintiffs clearly contributed to the stop taking longer than it otherwise might have. You believe that because of this 'delay' there is some compensable damage done to these two. I don't see it. On the other hand (as I stated in my previous post to you) cities often pay off nuisance suits and it would not surprise me if they did so here. Chances are they have insurance to cover this type of suit. If it does go to trial juries are generally very sympathetic to cops and I don't see the Plaintiffs as being sympathetic to a jury. If on the other hand the Plaintiff's attorney can pack the jury with Second Amendment enthusiasts they might prevail. The bottom line is that juries are always unpredictable and I learned many years ago never to bet on what a jury will or will not do.

This has now reached the point of diminishing returns. Arguing points of law with a non-lawyer is always a nonproductive exercise and I should have known better. We'll just have to wait to see how this turns out.

After reading my posts the next day, I realized that I was impugning your professional competence, even if indirectly. That is both insulting to you, and incidentally not conducive to good debate. My apologies.

I do, however, have some sincere comments and questions.

The points that jump out at me when I watch the videos are:
1. After the police have them on the ground and in handcuffs, they do a pat-down while trying to claim that it's not really a search until they reach into pockets. (Paraphrasing - my memory sucks). That would seem to indicate that there was some doubt in their minds that the search was kosher.
2. As I understand what I found on the SCOTUS and Cornell Law websites, a Terry stop is justified when there is reasonable suspicion that criminal has either occurred, is occurring, or will be occurring. At that point, the officer can investigate, as a non-consensual stop if necessary. If he has reasonable suspicion after the initial investigation that the detainee is armed and presently dangerous, he is then justified in performing a Terry search. (I am not a legal professional, and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn lately, so if I have misstated something, please correct me) With that in mind, once the subjects were detained, the officers had sighted the Open Carry pamphlets they were handing out, and the weapons had been inspected and shown to be unloaded, where is the justification to carry out a search?
3. If I were on the jury, the actions taken afterwards - specifically, retraining on how to react to individuals legally open carrying a weapon in public - would weigh heavily against the defendants. Whatever the reason for it, the perception is that the actions of the police were not only inappropriate, but were recognized as such. Not good.

Finally, I take offense at the implication that it would require "Second Amendment enthusiasts" on the jury for the defendants to prevail. I am not a knee-jerk gun-toter. I do not carry in public, open or concealed. I rarely fire a weapon anymore, other than occasional trips to the range (every year or two) to see if I can still aim and shoot straight. In addition, I personally feel that the two plaintiffs were pushing hard, even though it is their right to carry. HOWEVER, I am a firm believer in all civil liberties, not just the ones I like. If the police are allowed to act as they see fit, no matter what the law is, we all lose.

I guarantee that the defendants do not want me, or others like me, on that jury.

a very gentlemanly gesture. Way too rare these days (particularly in my profession, unfortunately).

Let me try and address a couple of the points you made:

1. As you correctly state, the cops are at first doing a Terry stop, named after the case that decided its legality. It permits the officers to frisk (not search) a person whom they suspect may be lawbreaking. It is intended to find weapons, and only involves patting down the subject on the outside of his/her clothes. It is not legally a search, which permits intrusive searching, up to and sometimes including body cavity searches. In the video you will note that the officer clearly tries to tell the belligerent one that "it's not a search - I'm not reaching into your pockets" or similar words. And he's right. I didn't see where the cops went beyond the bounds of a Terry stop and turned it into a search.

2. After a Terry stop the cops may still have reason to detain a subject while they continue to investigate. Again, the prime motivation for this is officer safety. When a subject has a firearm, whether openly visible or just discovered officers can (and do) immobilize the suject for their own safety. This involves putting them in cuffs, having them get on their knees, raise their hands, etc. etc. This can continue for as long as the cops feel necessary for them to assess the situation and any potential threat to themselves and/or others. Again, seeing as the cops' only information when arriving on the scene was a dispatch of "man with a gun" I don't find it at all surprising that the cops acted as they did. As I mentioned before, this is a scene that is acted out daily by law enforcement all over the country. I don't see where Plaintiffs' counsel can make the case that the cops' actions were inappropriate, much less 'recognized as such'.

Also, Courts are very supportive of cops and cops' safety. In addition, I don't know if you've ever watched professional police on the stand - most are extremely good and very convincing witnesses, and are rarely scratched by cross examination. And, in addition, we don't have to take the Plaintiffs' word for what happened - we have the tape which shows at least one of the Plaintiffs being a garden variety jerk.

3. I don't think that mention of potential retraining of the police would be admissible, just as evidence of having made repairs after a tort claim is not admissible but even if it were to come in I expect it would be addressed as "doing it out of an excess of caution and our respect for the Second Amendment". I don't see it having much effect.

4. Like you I am not anti-firearms. I have had guns, both long and pistols all my life since age 16 and in the past have hunted. I have kept firearms in my home for protection, and have no problem with people doing so. But my point to you is that these two are not poster children for the Second Amendment, and not with your ordinary jury. Had they kept their mouths shut (figuratively) and not shown that they wanted desparately to pick a fight with the cops they might have a better shot with a jury and the tape really does them no favor. I believe the response will probably be "what a jerk", not "what a misunderstood Constitutional warrior". While the USSCt has held that these two had a right to be openly carrying when and as they did, I don't see 12 carefully picked citizens rewarding them for doing their best to provoke the cops who, as far as I can tell were only doing their job as they had been trained to do. There will undoubtedly be cases much more egregious which help define the new limits to this new right, but I don't think this is one of them. And, with all due respect, I can practically guarantee you that you would not be selected for this jury - your feelings about the case and the Second Amendment in general would have been scrutinized first on your jury questionnaire and secondly during voir dire of the jury pool. My guess is that you would have been excused with the thanks of the Court.

In either case, it's now in court and only time will tell how interested either side is in getting deeply embroiled in a lengthy litigation. My guess is that there will eventually be a small dollar settlement, but who knows? We'll just have to wait and see.

Concerned people called police and they checked the potentially dangerous situation out.

If I walked down the street with a spear gun or sword, I'd expect to be treated similarly.

These guys knew what they were doing. I'll bet my rear they are right wingers, and lightly educated.

Seeing how you're on the "enlightened" side of the issue?

Lightly educated could describe anti-gun people who refuse to learn anything about what they are so against such as yourself.

Cops should have known better, since this was happening all over California at the time. They are the ones who committed the illegal actions and are the ones responsible for the bills to the city.

The Occupy movement, also doing what was allowed under law, were in many cases illegally harassed and arrested. Occupy has also cost many cities a great deal of money with more to come when the courts are done with it. Are you going to blame Occupy as much as you blame those doing open carry demonstrations?

You seem to support these kind of suits against the government agencies when they infringe on things you support. Your claim that this is all the protestors fault in this kind of case rings hollow.

There see, I can make unsubstantiated comments too.

I hope they recover a few hundred thousand $ from the idiot cops and the city.

Maybe then, after they have to close a few libraries and a school or two like they have to in Chicago and Oak Park, the local police and officials will understand they are to enforce the actual law, not what you or those bozo cops would like it to be.

Funny, how Chicago had to pay both the Second Amendment Foundation and anti war protestors big fat checks for screwing around with constitutional rights. Now the libraries are all closed on Mondays and 6 schools are scheduled to be shut down.

Piss poor city management. But keep fighting it in court and running up the bill Rahm.

cops supposed to enforce in this case (aside from the one that says that openly carried pistols shall be unloaded)??

no more no less as far as I can tell.

Reagan) prohibits the carrying of loaded firearms in California. That's exactly what the cops were enforcing.

speaker of the CA assembly. It was passed for the same reason Florida banned open carry in 1893, nothing scares the shit out of a white racist like a black man with a gun.

by that notorious Right Winger Ronald Reagan!

CA and NYC seem to the worst in many ways against the poor.

most of the gun control laws in the south were written by right wingers. Outside on NY, the south tended to have stricter laws for a reason. Hint, it had nothing to do with social justice.
In other places, it had to do with protecting corporate thugs safe from union organizers.
Wyoming's 1887 concealed carry (which includes all weapons, including sling shots) law was about both labor an race.

Vermont AFAIK had neither type of strife, which is why it passed no concealed carry laws, and had the laxest gun laws in the US.

Because most of what Hoyt posts fits the Urban Dictionary definition of "troll":
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

troll
1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

And from Indiana University:
http://kb.iu.edu/data/afhc.html

The content of a troll posting generally falls into one of several categories. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup or mailing list, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings. The result of such postings is frequently a flood of angry responses. In some cases, the follow-up messages posted in response to a troll can constitute a large fraction of the contents of a newsgroup or mailing list for as long as several weeks. These messages are transmitted around the world to thousands of computers, wasting network resources and costing money for people who pay to download email or receive Usenet news. Troll threads also frustrate people who are trying to carry on substantive discussions.

I welcome actual dialogue from posters such as Ellisonz and Starboard Tack. While I disagree with them most of the time, they tend to stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Hoyt, on the other hand, simply makes pronouncements that usually have nothing to do with the thread.

TROLL ALERT!

to see if you were carrying a handgun, knive, or club without a permit?

And this was repeated by every Police Officer that saw you no matter that you were checked five minuits before?

Would you complain and cry that you are innocent of any crime, that they had no right to stop you so many times, that it made you feel like a criminal?

Or would you accept it as a cost of living a less dangerious life?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

would I be a wagon? Until such time as you can point me to real life examples of someone to whom this has happened it doesn't really affect my views on the subject. Certainly in the actual case we're discussing nothing of the sort happened. The law is clear that (at the time of this encounter) open carry firearms had to be unloaded. Cops check this for their own safety as well as for the safety of the general public (these bozos weren't carrying their hardware in the woods, but at the entrance to a large public mall). As much as it apparently pisses some people off, there's nothing illegal about what the cops did here, hysterics notwithstanding.

Nothing illegal was happening, there was no reasonable cause, the stop was clearly illegal and was most likely against department policy as well.

It was a troll and those two bubbas bit on it. Now the city will have to pay.

So these guys are the moral equivalent of extortionists?

They were lawfully exercising their rights and the police transgressed. For that reason, the City of Upland will have to pay.

It was going on all over CA at the time...those particular LEOs were just being dumb.

...from the taxpayers in light of no real egregious injustice is flawed. Damn this system that feeds the lawyers and bilks the taxpayer!

IMHO these guys could have exercised their First Amendment rights without toting, but they made a choice to provoke. I for one have objected to the confrontational tactics of Occupy. There are much better ways to protest.

The law (as it was when this occurred) was that openly carried firearms had to be unloaded. The cops got a report that two clowns were sporting their prized Glocks (or whatever) at the entrance to a crowded mall. They checked to see if the guns were unloaded as required by law. How does this equate to DWB? And where is the 'black letter law' violation you posted about?

At the time this occured...

DWB = a completely legal activity.
Open carry = a completely legal activity.

a mall where two jokers are standing around with guns on their hips is pretextual?

Two black men were standing in front of a mall that "appear" dangerous?

The thing you are having a hard time wrapping your head around is that the activity that they were engaged in was 100% legal.

Just as it is 100% legal to be black and shopping at a mall. It was the exact level of legal to be open carrying at the same mall.

doesn't represent any potential danger to life or property. Two guys with an open show of weapons does. The point isn't whether what they were doing was legal - it's conceded that it was. The point was the cops acted in a prudent, legal fashion to determine if what they were doing was legal or not.

whether or not the police actually did act in a legal fashion. And, given that it was apparently a 15 minute hand-cuffed detention for a behavior that the police reasonably should have known was legal, and which could have been confirmed with a very quick check to see if the guns were loaded, there's a strong case to be made that the officers over-stepped...

that asked if this was equivalent somehow to SWB (standing while black), and I responded that I didn't think it was comparable.

I don't know how the police can reasonably assume that someone's openly carried firearm is unloaded without checking. The only complaint I keep hearing is that the cops took too long to check. I suspect the Plaintiffs will have a hard row to hoe in Court to convince a judge that the 15 minute detention was overstepping.

"The point was the cops acted in a prudent, legal fashion..."

You state that as a truth, but in fact it's the entire question. As far as I can tell, the only thing the police were allowed to check was whether or not the firearms were unloaded; they have the right to check, but how long do you think that takes?

So the question is: was 15 minutes, cuffed, on the the ground, a minimally-intrusive detention for the purpose of a legal check, or was it an attempt to humiliate and intimidate people engaged in activity and speech that these officers didn't approve of? Given that the chamber of a firearm can be checked in about 30 seconds, I think the onus is on the officers to explain why they acted so aggressively...

He has also advocated the chasing down and detaining of CHL holders by civilians so that the cops could "check their papers".

Do you always butt into posts that you aparently have no need to?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

I wasn't aware that posting a response on DU was "butting into posts that (I) apparently have no need to". Thank you for informing me of the new rule. BTW, I notice you haven't addressed any of the points I raised in my answer to you.

in this thread. Let's see:

1. Citizens taping cops is wrong
2. Civil rights lawsuits are frivilous
3. Cops hassling people obeying the law is fine if they're people you don't like

Any more you'd like to add?

I didn't cut/paste the entire article.

More than 4 paragraphs from the same article.

Consider these posts in comparison:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101470349
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101470497
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101470085

I'm sure those guns were scary....scary holstered firearms.............ooooooooooh scary.

Scary unloaded holstered firearms

constitutes a "loaded" firearm?

Empty gun + bullets in the same zip code = loaded gun