CCW motorist "declines" being disarmed during a stop? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : CCW motorist "declines" being disarmed during a stop?


badlands99
11-05-2011, 18:38
Sorry if this has been covered previously. I did a search with no results.

This blog entry...

http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2011/11/michael-you-are-wrong-wrong-wrong.html

... suggests that motorists in NC who are traveling with a firearm and get stopped by an officer, should notify the officer of their permit and weapon, as required by law, but if the officer decides to retain the weapon for the duration of the stop, the motorist should politely "decline," because that's not required by the law.

I've seen discussions here where some of you think it's silly to take a pistol from a CCW holder, and others firmly believe it's a serious officer safety issue and will always demand to be in control of any firearms at their stops.

I'm not asking your personal policy on this matter, but I'd love to hear from some officers who DO demand to retain the firearm in these cases. What happens when you stop this guy or anyone else who refuses to hand it over? How far do you escalate this? What laws or policies guide your actions?

Let's assume there are no other variables aside from the reason he was stopped, and let's say that it's speeding (8 or 10 over) and there are no further warning signs about this person and he's otherwise being polite and respectful, and not one of these "I pay your salary" type a-holes.

Many thanks in advance for your input on this.

wrenrj1
11-05-2011, 18:43
Interesting, I need to look at my state's laws to see how they are written.

Fumble
11-05-2011, 19:14
This blog entry... ... suggests that motorists in NC who are traveling with a firearm and get stopped by an officer, should notify the officer of their permit and weapon, as required by law, but if the officer decides to retain the weapon for the duration of the stop, the motorist should politely "decline," because that's not required by the law. I wonder if the blogger also suggests that others lick frozen metal flag polls for sport . . . :rofl:

Kahr_Glockman
11-05-2011, 19:17
Or pissing on an electric fence....

jkm
11-05-2011, 19:53
I made a number of stops over the years during which drivers 'declared' that they had or were wearing a weapon. Each time, I simply explained to the person that no-one in the car was to get out of the car for any reason. And, each time, they asked if I wanted it. And I never took it. Except one time, I took the driver's Semi-auto, because he insisted that I take it, explaining that if I had it, then there could be no misunderstanding or mistaken intentions during the stop. I completed the ticket with his weapon lying on the dash of my car, and gave it back to him before he pulled away. He was clearly nervous that I would over react to his having a gun.
I stopped many more drivers who were hunters with guns in plain view in their vehicles, and I'm guessing that I probably stopped hundreds of others who never informed me that they were CCW.....

Dragoon44
11-05-2011, 20:18
The bottom line is this, When you are stopped for a traffic violation you are in fact DETAINED. While detained you no longer have the freedom to decide many things. You don't get to decide whether or not you remain or just drive off. You don't get to decide to simply walk away and you don't get to decide whether or not you remain armed or not. Those are all up to the officer.

Bruce M
11-05-2011, 21:20
I wonder if the blogger also suggests that others lick frozen metal flag polls for sport . . . :rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:



Out of curiosity did the blogger have any information on the success rate of people who have actually declined?

L-1
11-05-2011, 21:59
Technically speaking, in California you are arrested for a traffic violation. However, rather than take you to jail and make you post bail or appear before a judge, you are released in the field on a written promise to appear (traffic citation).

Section 833 of the California Penal Code addresses the issue of dealing with armed persons when there is reasonable cause to make an arrest.

833. A peace officer may search for dangerous weapons any person
whom he has legal cause to arrest, whenever he has reasonable cause
to believe that the person possesses a dangerous weapon. If the
officer finds a dangerous weapon, he may take and keep it until the
completion of the questioning, when he shall either return it or
arrest the person. The arrest may be for the illegal possession of
the weapon.

badlands99
11-05-2011, 22:37
I wonder if the blogger also suggests that others lick frozen metal flag polls for sport . . . :rofl:
I can appreciate that this is amusing to some, but I'm a civilian resident of Charlotte, NC, where there have been several news stories giving us reasons to believe that our PD is not very picky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lZ_-A1_KfI) in their hiring practices (http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13643218) and frankly I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea of my wife handing over her pistol. I just want to know what would happen if she simply says no.

I've seen the phrase "dragged out through the car window" tossed around here on occasion. I couldn't help but be reminded of that when I saw these joking responses, so forgive me for not laughing along with you.

Thanks Dragoon for the serious response, I always look forward to your no-nonsense responses on things. I still wonder what laws or department policies would guide an officers actions in such a case.

I'm a fan of law enforcement and have a tremendous respect for what you guys do. Please don't view me as a cop basher. All I want is to be able to have a reasonable interaction with an officer without causing unnecessary trouble for either of us or escalating a routine traffic stop into something more. And I want to do that without handing over my pistol.

Would it be out of line to ask for a second officer to be present before complying? I'm trying to find a middle ground here.

lawman800
11-05-2011, 22:56
You can always ask for a supervisor to respond to the scene but you don't really get to ask for a second officer to come.

Vigilant
11-05-2011, 23:00
My advice: Read the letter of the law. It should be easily found at the NCDOJ website, under CCW laws. If you still have questions, contact them.

CAcop
11-05-2011, 23:16
I personally am not going to disarm someone over a speeding ticket. Now I will ask for a second officer and explain to the second officer why I want them there. "He has a CCW permit and the gun is on his person. If he pulls it out, shoot him."

If the stop was for anything other than an infraction I witnessed I will disarm them for the dration of the stop.

Ask yourself if you would take a knife away from them on a given stop why wouldn't you take away a gun?

I suspect the author of that website has issues with power and control. Mainly he doesn't like power being exerted on him and hates not having control.

SgtScott31
11-05-2011, 23:19
Just because you don't find it in NC's statutes doesn't mean the officer can't disarm a permit holder. The traffic stop is a detainment. If the officer can articulate a safety concern, he can do a pat-down and/or disarm during the duration of the stop and I don't see any courts having an issue with it. Obviously a safety concern is the fact that the person is armed, whether they voluntarily gave that information or not. What if the officer takes it when you "decline" to provide it as someone suggested? Sue him after the stop? You seriously think there are enough grounds for a 1983 (federal) civil rights violation for disarming during a traffic stop? Good luck with that one.

Bottom line the courts across this country have generally said (in so many words) that officer safety trumps many things when it comes to traffic stops. The legislature in NC doesn't have to write out a specific law in order for the officer to disarm someone during a stop. If you don't agree with it, the last thing you want to do is cause a confrontation during the traffic stop, especially where weapons are concerned. You can complain to the agency, write your local senator, or other democratic things to handle the issue AFTER the stop occurred.

In TN I have the authority to disarm any permit holder if I can articulate a safety concern. I know of officers in my area that have disarmed holders during stops. I have stopped many with permits, but I haven't disarmed any of them, with the exception of a guy we arrested, but he had weed in the vehicle and a weapon with an altered serial number. ATF gained interest in him at that point as well.

On a side note, that guy in the blog is wrong in so many ways. The US Supreme Court has said that officers can remove a driver and passengers from a vehicle without reasonable suspicion or probable cause (check PA v. Mimms & MD v. Wilson). He tries to argue a weapon as "property" implying that the officer is taking it without PC. I don't need PC to remove you from your vehicle and I don't need PC to remove your weapon. It's people like that sending the wrong message that get many others in trouble. It's not theft of property either, which appears to be how he's arguing the case of taking the weapon. That line of reasoning is sad.

efman
11-05-2011, 23:25
georgia case law states that you have to be able to articulate reasoning for taking a weapon during a traffic stop. I'll try to find a link.

OLY-M4gery
11-05-2011, 23:30
Thanks Dragoon for the serious response, I always look forward to your no-nonsense responses on things. I still wonder what laws or department policies would guide an officers actions in such a case.

I'm a fan of law enforcement and have a tremendous respect for what you guys do. Please don't view me as a cop basher. All I want is to be able to have a reasonable interaction with an officer without causing unnecessary trouble for either of us or escalating a routine traffic stop into something more. And I want to do that without handing over my pistol.



Dragoon, I'm pretty sure, is rattling of the USSC ruling related to traffic stops in the Constitutional context.

A traffic stop is a siezure. LEO's can order things be done to go about the business of that stop. Stay in the car, get out of the car, etc, for the driver and any and all passengers. The officer doesn't need a reason or justification for those requests, as the driver and passengers were "siezed" due to the traffic stop.

All I want is to be able to have a reasonable interaction with an officer without causing unnecessary trouble for either of us or escalating a routine traffic stop into something more. And I want to do that without handing over my pistol.

One or the other. Either you don't want unneccesary trouble, or you don't want to follow the officer's directions.

It's like the person on this site that said they would refuse to drop their gun if ordered to do so by the police at gunpoint, because they didn't want to ding up their gun. There's a predictable response to telling an officer you won't comply with their orders.

NC Bullseye
11-06-2011, 00:02
Do you remember the lawyer and what he said on the video you should have watched when you took your NC CHP course? If not you may want to get a refresher course. If the officer stops you and you have declared as required, he may as he sees fit take custody of the firearm.

There's a real simple rule I teach in all of my CHP classes, know the law and know that you NEVER win a roadside debate with a law enforcement officer. They don't work that way. Comply to all requests with courtesy, notate EVERYTHING and later AFTER the interaction, write a formal complaint to their chief or sheriff.

You can always make a better case when you're not blinded by flashing lights.

Sharky7
11-06-2011, 00:24
You can always ask for a supervisor to respond to the scene but you don't really get to ask for a second officer to come.

You are nicer than I am. If people try to demand a supervisor, I usually tell them this ain't McDonalds or Burger King, this is law enforcement. I point to the camera and let them know the whole thing is documented and they can put a beef on me later if they want, but right now I'm the highest person they get to talk to. Our supervisors generally won't come out for traffic complaints - they say to get another officer and make sure we record as clear with the audio as we can.

eb31
11-06-2011, 00:37
You are nicer than I am. If people try to demand a supervisor, I usually tell them this ain't McDonalds or Burger King, this is law enforcement. I point to the camera and let them know the whole thing is documented and they can put a beef on me later if they want, but right now I'm the highest person they get to talk to. Our supervisors generally won't come out for traffic complaints - they say to get another officer and make sure we record as clear with the audio as we can.

And you wonder why....

mrsurfboard
11-06-2011, 00:56
If CCW ever became legal in NJ, I would not disarm them. I would, however, insist no one exits the vehicle for any reason, the CCW holder keep his hands in plan sight during the stop and he inform me of all movement toward the area of his weapon during the duration of the stop, as if to get his wallet or such.

BlackPaladin
11-06-2011, 01:00
I have not had any reason to remove a CCWers firearm to date. That being said, if I would have a reason to to remove it (firearm), I am not wasting the time of other officers for the sake of the request.

Not to be taken out of context, I have never ever asked for the CCW to remove or show their firearm. IF, I did somehow want said CCW to not have a firearm during an interaction. This request would be expedient and we are not going to waste time discussing my reasons.

lawman800
11-06-2011, 02:05
And you wonder why....

Our supervisors rather come out and prevent the complaint if they need to be out there. Then again, in socal, ccw's are about as rare as an honest perp so I probably won't have to deal with that too often.

As far as legality, if I can remove you from your vehicle, and make you sit on the sidewalk for the duration of the stop, I sure as heck can take any weapons from you for the duration as well, including a legal folding pocket knife that many people carry here.

SgtScott31
11-06-2011, 02:53
And you wonder why....

It's not common in my area for supervisors to respond just because joe plumber wants to talk to one. If there is a legitimate complaint, they can come to the station and provide a written statement during normal hours. Why tie up the supervisor's time when that's what he's going to tell them anyway? All agencies want written complaints. If it's serious enough (in the complainer's mind) they will follow through. If it's totally fabricated/false and there's audio/video on the officer's end, a written report is enough evidence to cite/arrest for making a false report/statement. I don't see how a supervisor rushing out to the call on request by someone who doesn't like the ticket they're getting is going to solve the issue. I'm personally not going to make the shoulder of the road a side-show courtroom / gripe session. I could go either way, but I'm not going to gig an officer if he tells the person "no" as far as calling his/her supervisor.

Bren
11-06-2011, 06:15
From a legal perspective, I'd say it's just a different application of Terry v. Ohio. If it's a traffic stop, you have the Terry stop 'reasonable suspicion" and if they say they are carrying a gun, then you have the additional reason to believe they are armed. I would say when they decline to be disarmed, that could arguably be the reason to believe they may be dangerous that justifies taking the gun. That's just a quick theory - I haven't researched this exact issue.

Detaining and disarming under Terry is not voluntary, so tough luck for the CCWer.

Bruce M
11-06-2011, 06:27
And you wonder why....


Wonder why what? What a few may forget is that while the complaint by the motorist/violator may be new territory for them, unless the officer is essentially new, he or she has probably dealt with a variety of complaints and the department's administration has probably dealt with hundreds or thousands, and the rules and procedures are most likely well established. My guess is that the a significant number of agencies' response is if one has a complaint, one is free to go to the station and file a formal written complaint. Some agencies most likely feel that a supervisor's time can be better spent, if for no reason other than the type of information necessary for an investigation of the level that could reasonably result in discipline, termination, and/or criminal charges against the officer requires more than someone saying something to a supervisor on the side of the roadway.

KiloBravo
11-06-2011, 06:31
I am not a cop yet OP...but my advice would be to comply with any lawful orders given by a LEO quickly and politely. More especially orders given about anything to do with any sort of weapon. If you try to play Joe Lawyer along side of the road by refusing to give up your firearm after being lawfully detained on a traffic stop, things will only go one of two ways for you...Bad or Worse.

Sam Spade
11-06-2011, 07:47
And you wonder why....

Wonder why what, Mr. Occupy and shoot a cop?

Yes, I'm calling you on it. Please explain your position and defend it---I don't think you have one, or can. Not beyond the need for being treated as "special" like you think you deserve.

Nor do I believe you're a cop. If you were, you'd understand exactly what Sharky said, and wouldn't make the eye-rolling snide comment.

Time to sack up and put up. If you can't, if you don't have reason behind your position or righteousness behind your bile, then maybe it's time to shut up.

Hack
11-06-2011, 08:10
Wonder why what, Mr. Occupy and shoot a cop?

Yes, I'm calling you out. Please explain your position and defend it---I don't think you have one, or can. Not beyond the need for being treated as "special" like you think you deserve. Nor do I believe you're a cop.

My thoughts are similar along this line of reasoning. Case law links and other actual legal references links, please.

fran m
11-06-2011, 08:15
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you are comfortable with. She is under lawful detainment and will have to hand it over. To play this game with officers on a stop will not end well.
Tying up a supervisor during this stupid game also is not advisable.

Doubt she'd get any breaks on any of the traffic violations also.

Al Czervik
11-06-2011, 08:24
The bottom line is this, When you are stopped for a traffic violation you are in fact DETAINED. While detained you no longer have the freedom to decide many things. You don't get to decide whether or not you remain or just drive off. You don't get to decide to simply walk away and you don't get to decide whether or not you remain armed or not. Those are all up to the officer.


That, sir, is assuming the detainee is a reasonable person. They may decide to do whatever they want. :whistling:

steveksux
11-06-2011, 08:29
Wonder why what, Mr. Occupy and shoot a cop?

Yes, I'm calling you on it. Please explain your position and defend it---I don't think you have one, or can. Not beyond the need for being treated as "special" like you think you deserve.

Nor do I believe you're a cop. If you were, you'd understand exactly what Sharky said, and wouldn't make the eye-rolling snide comment.

Time to sack up and put up. If you can't, if you don't have reason behind your position or righteousness behind your bile, then maybe it's time to shut up.And you wonder why people with no idea what they're legally entitled to on a traffic stop get pissed off when they don't get what they want? Just because they're not entitled to it? :rofl: Something like that I suspect... :whistling:

Randy

RussP
11-06-2011, 08:49
And you wonder why....Wonder why what, Mr. Occupy and shoot a cop?

Yes, I'm calling you on it. Please explain your position and defend it---I don't think you have one, or can. Not beyond the need for being treated as "special" like you think you deserve.

Nor do I believe you're a cop. If you were, you'd understand exactly what Sharky said, and wouldn't make the eye-rolling snide comment.

Time to sack up and put up. If you can't, if you don't have reason behind your position or righteousness behind your bile, then maybe it's time to shut up.Well, eb31?

merlynusn
11-06-2011, 09:09
If I stop you and you notify you have a CCW, I most likely won't take the gun. If I do, there is nothing you can do about it. By taking the gun, I can check to ensure it isn't stolen, the serial numbers aren't altered or removed, etc.

If you really have a problem with handing over your gun because of the Marcus Jackson fiasco, then you should know you aren't allowed to use deadly force against a police officer even if they are committing an illegal arrest. In NC, you can resist an illegal arrest, but you can't use deadly force to prevent one.

Likewise, arguing on the side of the road is not the place to do it. If you request a supervisor, then I'll notify my supervisor. They may or may not show up. If your only complaint is that I took your gun on a traffic stop, my supervisor won't care as long as I can give him a reason.

In Charlotte, most times during a traffic stop, a second officer will come by and check on the officer. If you or your wife is really that uncomfortable, ask the officer for a second officer. Call 911 and tell them you are on a traffic stop and would like a second officer to respond. If you don't think you are being stopped by a police officer, put your hazards on, slow down and drive to a well lit area. In the meantime call 911 and tell them what you are doing and they will relay it to the officer.

As for notifying, you are required to notify the officer upon approach or interaction. So the first words out of your mouth had better be "Officer, I have a CCW and am armed."

Mayhem like Me
11-06-2011, 09:22
Well, eb31?

wait he claims to be a cop.?

jdh31313
11-06-2011, 09:27
Since every state is different, I will speak about Georgia. There is a court decision (State vs. Jones) which pertains to traffic stops and seizure. That being said I think the issue is really about whether or not the officer can articulate an officer safety issue. Of course if the LEO can articulate a reason, the court will usually be on the officers side. In any case I don't think a pissing match on the side of the road between an LEO and a CCW holder is ever a good idea.

eracer
11-06-2011, 09:27
The bottom line is this, When you are stopped for a traffic violation you are in fact DETAINED. While detained you no longer have the freedom to decide many things. You don't get to decide whether or not you remain or just drive off. You don't get to decide to simply walk away and you don't get to decide whether or not you remain armed or not. Those are all up to the officer.I'm sure you will agree that I get to decide whether or not my person or my vehicle is searched? (Assuming of course there is no probably cause for such action.) That being said, are you certain that the law allows an officer to disarm me? (Again, if there is no compelling reason not to.)

What about if I'm walking in public and an officer believes he sees my weapon printing? He has the right to 'detain' me and question whether or not I have a permit. But does he have the absolute right to disarm me? Are you sure?

Sam Spade
11-06-2011, 09:37
wait he claims to be a cop.?

Would I lie to you?

First off, I already have my CCW. Secondly, I'm a LEO (which just makes my anti-leo post that much funnier lol ) and lastly...I'm about as Muslim as you are intelligent.
From http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18109450#post18109450 now locked.

Judging from his last sentence there, he may have some other history of embellishing facts. (He claims to be a recent convert in other threads. I doubt it.)

Sam Spade
11-06-2011, 09:41
I'm sure you will agree that I get to decide whether or not my person or my vehicle is searched? (Assuming of course there is no probably cause for such action.) That being said, are you certain that the law allows an officer to disarm me? (Again, if there is no compelling reason not to.)

What about if I'm walking in public and an officer believes he sees my weapon printing? He has the right to 'detain' me and question whether or not I have a permit. But does he have the absolute right to disarm me? Are you sure?

We get to frisk and disarm based on a reasonable suspicion. Over in Carry Issue there's a sticky providing the case law and cites showing our authority to do so under the US Constitution. "LE Contacts; Rights and Powers"

groovyash
11-06-2011, 10:05
I'm sure you will agree that I get to decide whether or not my person or my vehicle is searched? (Assuming of course there is no probably cause for such action.) That being said, are you certain that the law allows an officer to disarm me? (Again, if there is no compelling reason not to.)

What about if I'm walking in public and an officer believes he sees my weapon printing? He has the right to 'detain' me and question whether or not I have a permit. But does he have the absolute right to disarm me? Are you sure?

Firstly no I don't agree. Really, what needs to be clarified here is that there are three levels of interaction with the police, you may be familiar with this already or you may not.

Firstly is a mere encounter. Police walk up to you with no belief of any crime being committed and strike up a conversation. In this instance no, you may not be disarmed, searched, or anything else that any other normal person on the street could not do to you.

Secondly is an investigatory detention. In this instance police have some reason which they can articulate to believe a crime may be committed and that you may be involved. This is what constitutes reasonable suspicion as Sam has already stated. It is a lower threshold than probable cause. This is the standard used for traffic stops or a face to face stop of someone on the street. During an investigatory detention you lose many of your rights for a time reasonable for the officer to conduct his investigation. It is also during this time that if a officer can articulate a reason he believes you to be armed (i.e. you telling him you are as required by law for ccw holders in that state) that you lose the right to decide if you can be searched (at least as far as a terry frisk is concerned). You subsequently also lose the right to control any weapons during an investigatory detention.

Lastly is arrest. This occurs once the threshold of probable cause is met. Probable cause can be defined as facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person being stopped has committed that act. The vast majority of traffic stops go well beyond reasonable suspicion and are based on probable cause, such as the scenario the OP gave in this thread. During an arrest you lose a greater deal of decision making over your rights than an investigatory detention and a much more in depth search is allowed by law. Simply because you are released with a citation in hand rather than taken into custody during a traffic stop does not negate the fact that it is an arrest.

The scenario you gave would most likely be a mere encounter, barring the myriad of other factors that could make it an investigatory detention. The scenario the OP gave is in fact an arrest. Apples to Oranges.

packsaddle
11-06-2011, 10:12
I rarely make traffic stops, but if I do stop you and you tell me there is a weapon in the vehicle, I will politely ask you where it is and then advise you to not reach for it. Everything else will then go smoothly and you will be on your way in less than 5 minutes (and probably with just a warning, depending on the circumstances of the stop and your attitude).

However, if I ask you if there are any weapons in the vehicle and you reply with some smart alecky remark like "I don't have to tell you nuthin' pig", then I am forced to assume you are hiding something so expect to be detained alot longer while I wait for another officer to arrive (if available) and possibly a K-9 to arrive (average 1 hour around here) if the circumstances warrant such a request. At a minimum you will be detained longer than needed and you will receive at least one citation, and possibly more before it's all over.

In summary, be honest and polite and you will be treated honest and polite. Be a ********* and expect to be treated like a *********....aka "Golden Rule".

OLY-M4gery
11-06-2011, 10:19
And you wonder why....

Yes, and you don't understand what you are talking about.

Law enforcement confronts citizens about crimes, contraband, driving infractions, makes arrests etc.

Those situations don't get to be put on a "time out" because the person being questioned demands another person at the incident.

The line police officer has been trained, and has the authority to make all the decisions regarding that traffic stop, arrest, etc.

collim1
11-06-2011, 10:39
The bottom line is this, When you are stopped for a traffic violation you are in fact DETAINED. While detained you no longer have the freedom to decide many things. You don't get to decide whether or not you remain or just drive off. You don't get to decide to simply walk away and you don't get to decide whether or not you remain armed or not. Those are all up to the officer.

Yup. Usually I leave it be, its safer that way. However, If something churns my stomach the choice to disarm is not yours.

collim1
11-06-2011, 10:41
I'm sure you will agree that I get to decide whether or not my person or my vehicle is searched? (Assuming of course there is no probably cause for such action.) That being said, are you certain that the law allows an officer to disarm me? (Again, if there is no compelling reason not to.)

What about if I'm walking in public and an officer believes he sees my weapon printing? He has the right to 'detain' me and question whether or not I have a permit. But does he have the absolute right to disarm me? Are you sure?

Reasonable suspicion that you are armed is enough to detain you, search your person, and a "wingspan" search of your vehicle before the stop continues. Whether the person consents or not.

If the person has a CCW and the stop is just for a traffic citation I normally leave the weapon where it is and go on with issuing the citation. But, if you are being stopped as suspect in a crime, suspicious behavior, or if something about you makes me uncomfortable leaving you armed then I am going to disarm you.

SgtScott31
11-06-2011, 10:53
It depends on the carry laws in the applicable states. If the state doesn't require a permit to carry, there have been recent rulings where the officer is required to have RS to detain and/or disarm. In my state (TN) it is illegal to carry a firearm and it is a defense to this if you have a valid HCP. If I see a person carrying, whether open or concealed, I can stop and detain to verify they're carrying legally. You need to know the laws and how your courts are handling LEO interaction with armed persons.

I will reiterate that it will never turn out positive for a permit holder to challenge an officer during the stop/interaction.

lawman800
11-06-2011, 11:44
But... But... Having a ccw'er present deters crime in a 3 mile radius. I guess that gives us more free time to harass them if we find them on a t-stop.

P.S. When I said I would call the supervisor, I am still doing my job in the mean time, and a cite, if appropriate, will still be issued. Asking for a supervisor is not an automatic get out of jail card like some vocal rabble rousers believe. More often than not, the supervisor tells the person they will be in more trouble if they keep it up.

Vigilant
11-06-2011, 12:16
It depends on the carry laws in the applicable states. If the state doesn't require a permit to carry, there have been recent rulings where the officer is required to have RS to detain and/or disarm. In my state (TN) it is illegal to carry a firearm and it is a defense to this if you have a valid HCP. If I see a person carrying, whether open or concealed, I can stop and detain to verify they're carrying legally. You need to know the laws and how your courts are handling LEO interaction with armed persons.

I will reiterate that it will never turn out positive for a permit holder to challenge an officer during the stop/interaction.

This sums up the thought behind my advice to contact NCDOJ. In fact, I would bypass the website, and call. They will tell the OP that he is bound by law to comply.

Also, as many have said, the side of the road is no place to start an argument. Comply now, complain later. We live by that same rule inside the fence, and I follow it on the street as well if I encounter a license check, etc.

groovyash
11-06-2011, 12:37
It depends on the carry laws in the applicable states. If the state doesn't require a permit to carry, there have been recent rulings where the officer is required to have RS to detain and/or disarm. In my state (TN) it is illegal to carry a firearm and it is a defense to this if you have a valid HCP. If I see a person carrying, whether open or concealed, I can stop and detain to verify they're carrying legally. You need to know the laws and how your courts are handling LEO interaction with armed persons.

I will reiterate that it will never turn out positive for a permit holder to challenge an officer during the stop/interaction.

The officer already has R/S in fact he has P/C in the scenario presented (traffic stop). He witnessed a violation of the law in this case speeding and is now arresting the driver via citation. Throwing in the ccw permit is a red herring. If someone is arrested/detained for ANY crime he is in the custody of the officer during the arrest or detention regardless if that means going to jail, being released and charged by summons or follwing investigation released without charge he may be disarmed once detained or arrested. In other words, if he is not free to leave, he is not free to be armed.

Terry requires two things, r/s of a crime and reason to believe the person is armed. We have the crime, and the driver states he is armed. Terry is met.

We wouldn't be required to allow someone to sit in our holding cell while being booked with a gun on their hip because they have a permit. The side of the road is no different just because they are being released with a citation.

efman
11-06-2011, 13:18
The officer already has R/S in fact he has P/C in the scenario presented (traffic stop). He witnessed a violation of the law in this case speeding and is now arresting the driver via citation. Throwing in the ccw permit is a red herring. If someone is arrested/detained for ANY crime he is in the custody of the officer during the arrest or detention regardless if that means going to jail, being released and charged by summons or follwing investigation released without charge he may be disarmed once detained or arrested. In other words, if he is not free to leave, he is not free to be armed.

Terry requires two things, r/s of a crime and reason to believe the person is armed. We have the crime, and the driver states he is armed. Terry is met.

We wouldn't be required to allow someone to sit in our holding cell while being booked with a gun on their hip because they have a permit. The side of the road is no different just because they are being released with a citation.


Good post! I've never heard it explained like that. makes sense :thumbsup:


here is the case law I was thinking of state v jones. http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm

StarfoxHowl
11-06-2011, 14:24
If you really have a problem with handing over your gun because of the Marcus Jackson fiasco, then you should know you aren't allowed to use deadly force against a police officer even if they are committing an illegal arrest. In NC, you can resist an illegal arrest, but you can't use deadly force to prevent one.

What was the fiasco with Marcus Jackson? (other than the obvious question of who the heck is Marcus Jackson).

I'm sure this will be considered an odd question, but I've been out here in the middle of nowhere since 2007 and some news never makes it out here.

Bruce M
11-06-2011, 14:34
Good post! I've never heard it explained like that. makes sense :thumbsup:


here is the case law I was thinking of state v jones. http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm


I don't think that case suggests that police cannot take a firearm from someone but only in this case the reason that the contraband was taken from the guy is not sufficient to allow it into evidence. But I admit I am not a lawyer. Does anyone think the court ordered the contraband to be given back to the driver??

Bren
11-06-2011, 14:51
If you really have a problem with handing over your gun because of the Marcus Jackson fiasco, then you should know you aren't allowed to use deadly force against a police officer even if they are committing an illegal arrest. In NC, you can resist an illegal arrest, but you can't use deadly force to prevent one.


NC and TN still follwo a more old fashioned approach. In KY, you can use NO force against a police officer making an arrest, legal or illegal. The statute says as long as the police are "using no more force than reasonable necessary" but in courts, so far, that means you can use no force to resist arrest no matter what.

Bren
11-06-2011, 15:07
I don't think that case suggests that police cannot take a firearm from someone but only in this case the reason that the contraband was taken from the guy is not sufficient to allow it into evidence. But I admit I am not a lawyer. Does anyone think the court ordered the contraband to be given back to the driver??

I didn't read every word, but it looks like the problem was that the stop was for DUI, so as soon as the officer discovered he wasn't drunk, he had no further reason to detain the guy and search the truck. It ahd nothing to do with whether he could or could not take the weapon and, in fact, the court said that the search of the passenger compartment, under the same circumstances as a Terry pat down:

comports with the United States Supreme Court's directive:


[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983).

State v. Jones, 657 S.E.2d 253, 255 (Ga.App.,2008)

The problem was that:
Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown . . .
Here, no evidence was presented of furtive movements or danger; in fact, the officer candidly acknowledged that the search was merely his standard procedure because any firearm might be stolen.Id. at 255.

That's why I suggested, in my earlier post, that I would argue (might not work) that the refusal to temporarily turn over the weapon could be viewed as an indication that the CCWer believed he needed to be armed, during the traffic stop, which add the final step to the Terry analysis, that I think would support taking the gun. In other words:
Under Terry v. Ohio:
Reasonable suspicion of crime = stop
CCW - reason to believe subject is armed
Refusal to turn over gun during stop = (arguably) reason to believe suspect is dangerous

SUMMARY: The officer in Jones said he didn't think Jones was dangerous, he ONLY wanted to run the serial number. Had he said he took the gun for officer safety (and had he done it while he still had a reason to detain Jones) the results might have been entirely different. Jones says NOTHING about whether the police can disarm a CCWer during a stop.

Bren
11-06-2011, 15:10
Then again, I recently discovered that the supreme court changed the "search incident to arrest" law completely, while I was in Afghanistan, and I have since taught 2 academy classes using the old law, which were completely wrong. Luckily, they were classes for guys who don't have to do vehicle searchs AND who have the right to do a full, warrantless search of a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion (not the police) if they need to, so no harm done.

So I may not know any search & seizure law anymore.

dhoomonyou
11-06-2011, 15:15
The bottom line is this, When you are stopped for a traffic violation you are in fact DETAINED. While detained you no longer have the freedom to decide many things. You don't get to decide whether or not you remain or just drive off. You don't get to decide to simply walk away and you don't get to decide whether or not you remain armed or not. Those are all up to the officer.

sounds as if you decide for yourself, REGARDLESS of your states laws.

OLY-M4gery
11-06-2011, 15:32
sounds as if you decide for yourself, REGARDLESS of your states laws.

Dragoon and that pesky Constitution.

Them 2 guys are making the decisions in concert.

It's a conspiracy man. :thumbsup:

jdh31313
11-06-2011, 15:40
State vs. Jones, 289 Ga. App. 176, 2008
After an officer seized a rifle from plain view and ran the serial number to see if it was stolen, the Court of Appeals ruled that an officer does not have "carte blanch authority" to secure all weapons at a traffic stop. In order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous."

tc215
11-06-2011, 16:10
Each traffic stop is different...I have disarmed some people, others I have not...However, this post about gave me a heart attack:

The officer already has R/S in fact he has P/C in the scenario presented (traffic stop). He witnessed a violation of the law in this case speeding and is now arresting the driver via citation. Throwing in the ccw permit is a red herring. If someone is arrested/detained for ANY crime he is in the custody of the officer during the arrest or detention regardless if that means going to jail, being released and charged by summons or follwing investigation released without charge he may be disarmed once detained or arrested. In other words, if he is not free to leave, he is not free to be armed.

Terry requires two things, r/s of a crime and reason to believe the person is armed. We have the crime, and the driver states he is armed. Terry is met.

We wouldn't be required to allow someone to sit in our holding cell while being booked with a gun on their hip because they have a permit. The side of the road is no different just because they are being released with a citation.

A. They are NOT in custody during a traffic stop. See Berkemer v. McCarty. If they were in custody during a traffic stop, Miranda would apply. The "not free to leave, not free to be armed" is bogus.

B. Terry requires more than R/S and the belief that a person is armed. You must be able to articulate that the subject is armed AND dangerous. Officers conducting Terry frisks without being able to articulate why the subject is dangerous is a hot subject in the federal courts right now. Lots of stuff is getting thrown out because of that.

As has already been pointed out, the courts have ruled that just because someone is armed does NOT mean that you can automatically consider them dangerous.

Here is some good stuff from the FLETC Legal Division:



"Stopping" and "Frisking" a Person are two Different Things: An officer / agent cannot automatically frisk everyone lawfully "stopped" under Terry. In addition to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, the officer / agent must also be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. "Officer Safety" alone will not justify a frisk. The officer / agent must articulate "why" officer safety was an issue (exactly what risk / danger to the officer / agent or others existed). The officer must "explain" why there was a

risk to the officer / agent or others. If the explanation is found to be reasonable, the frisk is good.



All Armed Persons Are Not "Dangerous": Not every armed person is automatically a risk to the officer / agent or others. For example, Wildlife Conservation Officers checking "take for the day" in an authorized hunting area are not likely to frisk every hunter they contact because they are all armed with large caliber rifles. Additionally, many citizens are often "armed" with conventional and unconventional weapons such as pocketknives, pens, flashlights, etc. A suspect "stopped" for suspicion of check fraud, will generally not be frisked simply because he or she has a pen in their pocket.3



Officer Safety Alone Will Not Justify a Frisk: Assuming that a Judge finds proper Reasonable Suspicion to support a Terry stop, a weapon seized can still be suppressed (lost) if a defense attorney can convince a Judge that there was no Reasonable Suspicion that the suspect was "armed and dangerous." Therefore, when an officer / agent answers the question Why did you conduct the frisk? by simply saying "Officer safety" and nothing more Ė there is a great likelihood that the evidence will be lost.



Field Example:
Question: Why did you frisk the suspect?
Bad Answer: Officer safety
Good Answer: I was in fear for my safety because I was patrolling in a one-officer patrol unit, it was 4:30 a.m., the driver had no driverís license or vehicle registration, the carís rear window was broken and I feared the car may have been recently stolen. I know that car thieves use burglarís tools to steal cars and these tools can be used as a weapon against me. Auto theft is a felony offense and in my experience, the stop and / or arrest of a felon by a one officer patrol unit often results in an assault against the officer. I was concerned with officer safety.


http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/the-informer/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/terryfriskupdate.pdf/view

groovyash
11-06-2011, 16:56
Each traffic stop is different...I have disarmed some people, others I have not...However, this post about gave me a heart attack:



As has already been pointed out, the courts have ruled that just because someone is armed does NOT mean that you can automatically consider them dangerous.

Here is some good stuff from the FLETC Legal Division:









http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/the-informer/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/terryfriskupdate.pdf/view

Perhaps you should take some aspirin then.

A. Miranda does not apply under Berkemer (which i am familiar with) because the routine questioning involved in a traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation. Berkemer does NOT state that the detained party is not in custody. Rather it states that the nature of a traffic stop does not sufficiently pressure the detainee to the point of coercion under normal circumstances.

The exact nature of how "custodial" a summary violation can be will vary from state to state as many states allow the officer to make phyiscal arrest and take the offender forthwith to a judge for traffic violations, others do not.

B. Terry related rulings that are getting thrown out are so because the blanket statement "Officer Safety" is used without sufficient explanation of why. This statement i absolutely agree with. They are not being tossed because officers lack suitable evidence that an armed person is therefore dangerous, instead because they are of the beleive that "for officer safety" is the necessary reasoning.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms is a much more applicable piece of case law.

Dragoon44
11-06-2011, 16:59
sounds as if you decide for yourself, REGARDLESS of your states laws.

Sounds like you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Bren
11-06-2011, 17:00
sounds as if you decide for yourself, REGARDLESS of your states laws.

Or, as the police put it, "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

I always did what needed doing and if somebody didn't like it, they knew where to find me. That, however, is not what I usually give as legal advice to others.

Sounds like you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Yet another popular and accurate police expression.

tc215
11-06-2011, 17:42
Perhaps you should take some aspirin then.

A. Miranda does not apply under Berkemer (which i am familiar with) because the routine questioning involved in a traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation. Berkemer does NOT state that the detained party is not in custody. Rather it states that the nature of a traffic stop does not sufficiently pressure the detainee to the point of coercion under normal circumstances.

The exact nature of how "custodial" a summary violation can be will vary from state to state as many states allow the officer to make phyiscal arrest and take the offender forthwith to a judge for traffic violations, others do not.

B. Terry related rulings that are getting thrown out are so because the blanket statement "Officer Safety" is used without sufficient explanation of why. This statement i absolutely agree with. They are not being tossed because officers lack suitable evidence that an armed person is therefore dangerous, instead because they are of the beleive that "for officer safety" is the necessary reasoning.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms is a much more applicable piece of case law.

Again, you originally stated:

The officer already has R/S in fact he has P/C in the scenario presented (traffic stop). He witnessed a violation of the law in this case speeding and is now arresting the driver via citation. Throwing in the ccw permit is a red herring. If someone is arrested/detained for ANY crime he is in the custody of the officer during the arrest or detention regardless

Depending on the state, traffic citations are NOT the same thing as misdemeanor citations in lieu of continued custody. Berkemer states that:

In this case, the initial stop of respondent's car, by itself, did not render him "in custody," and respondent has failed to demonstrate that, at any time between the stop and the arrest, he was subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest.

So, again, the subject during a traffic stop is not "in custody".

And again, you originally stated that:

Terry requires two things, r/s of a crime and reason to believe the person is armed. We have the crime, and the driver states he is armed. Terry is met.


And again, you left out the "dangerous". Just because a person is armed does not mean you can perform a Terry frisk. This is how we get bad case law.

groovyash
11-06-2011, 19:01
Again, you originally stated:



Depending on the state, traffic citations are NOT the same thing as misdemeanor citations in lieu of continued custody. Berkemer states that:



So, again, the subject during a traffic stop is not "in custody".

And again, you originally stated that:



And again, you left out the "dangerous". Just because a person is armed does not mean you can perform a Terry frisk. This is how we get bad case law.

From Berkemer

"The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule. Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the "freedom of action" of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end, he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. Moreover, the typical traffic stop is conducted in public, and the atmosphere surrounding it is substantially less "police dominated" than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda and subsequent cases in which Miranda has been applied."

Miranda has always been about the actors perception of custody, not the officers legal ability to control the actor. Berkemer affirms this. Furthermore Berkemer agrees that the officer does have power during a traffic stop to further control the actor, and that when doing so Miranda would then apply.

"However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him "in custody" for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda. In this case, the initial stop of respondent's car, by itself, did not render him "in custody," and respondent has failed to demonstrate that, at any time between the stop and the arrest, he was subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest."

Berkemer does not question that police have the power to take someone into custoday for a traffic violation, rather that the method of conducting most traffic stops is not intrusive enough for that person to be considered in custody automatically. The determination for the actor being in custody would be in the method of conducting the stop.



Pennsylvania V. Mimms deals almost exactly with a scenario the OP posted. The driver (Mimms) was stopped for a lighting violation. He was asked to step out of the vehicle by the officer who then observed a bulge in his jacket he believed to be a gun. The only difference between this scenario and the OPs is that the OP notifies the officer that he has a firearm rather than the officer observing it on his own.

From Mimms

"The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimm’s was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of “reasonable caution” would likely have conducted the “pat down.”

The fact that this person was armed while conducting a traffic stop was sufficient to be objectively reasonable that he was also dangerous. Not Forest Rangers and Yogi Bear with his dear rifle shouldered, but a traffic stop within a city.

Now I will give you that some logic follows that a person who advises they are armed is less likely to be a danger than one who coneals the fact however many instances have occurred where people make it known they are armed before committing acts of violence.

We also get good case law, and bad guys off the street from knowing what we are doing.

use2b6L32
11-06-2011, 19:32
I rarely make traffic stops, but if I do stop you and you tell me there is a weapon in the vehicle, I will politely ask you where it is and then advise you to not reach for it. Everything else will then go smoothly and you will be on your way in less than 5 minutes (and probably with just a warning, depending on the circumstances of the stop and your attitude).

However, if I ask you if there are any weapons in the vehicle and you reply with some smart alecky remark like "I don't have to tell you nuthin' pig", then I am forced to assume you are hiding something so expect to be detained alot longer while I wait for another officer to arrive (if available) and possibly a K-9 to arrive (average 1 hour around here) if the circumstances warrant such a request. At a minimum you will be detained longer than needed and you will receive at least one citation, and possibly more before it's all over.

In summary, be honest and polite and you will be treated honest and polite. Be a ********* and expect to be treated like a *********....aka "Golden Rule".


This.

I think all of us can agree that there is at least a semi-custodial relationship during a traffic-stop (depending on your own state law).

My question is why would you (absent anything O/S related) risk an ND (twice) by taking a gun off an otherwise non-hostile/cooperative violator? The gun is much safer wherever it is, instead of having a nervous person handle a gun (twice) that they may have had little training with. I can't see any case where I'd disarm someone just because they're carrying, absent some reason to (hinky behavior, etc).

Be logical. If someone intends you harm, they most likely aren't going to tell you that they have that which they intend to harm you with.

slama683
11-06-2011, 21:04
I'm sure you will agree that I get to decide whether or not my person or my vehicle is searched? (Assuming of course there is no probably cause for such action.) That being said, are you certain that the law allows an officer to disarm me? (Again, if there is no compelling reason not to.)

What about if I'm walking in public and an officer believes he sees my weapon printing? He has the right to 'detain' me and question whether or not I have a permit. But does he have the absolute right to disarm me? Are you sure?

No, you don't. You do get to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the search, but you don't get to decide then and there if the search is lawful or not.

Police, as agents of the government, have powers, not rights.

collim1
11-06-2011, 22:23
Again, you originally stated:



Depending on the state, traffic citations are NOT the same thing as misdemeanor citations in lieu of continued custody. Berkemer states that:



So, again, the subject during a traffic stop is not "in custody".

And again, you originally stated that:



And again, you left out the "dangerous". Just because a person is armed does not mean you can perform a Terry frisk. This is how we get bad case law.


Umm...if you flee from a traffic stop you are subject to arrest for a misdemeanor, therefore you are not free to go.

So you are in custody until the officer allows you to sign a appearance bond (the ticket) and tells you that you are free to leave.

Why do you people come to CT to start these crap threads. This is a carry issues thread.

collim1
11-06-2011, 22:28
In my career, hundreds but less than 1k arrests, only a couple have been for pistol w/o permit. And those were cases of felons in possession of a firearm.

I have rarely disarmed a CCW on a traffic stop. Generally people with people with a CCW act as gentleman including traffic laws. That has been my personal experience.

SgtScott31
11-06-2011, 22:28
The officer already has R/S in fact he has P/C in the scenario presented (traffic stop). He witnessed a violation of the law in this case speeding and is now arresting the driver via citation. Throwing in the ccw permit is a red herring. If someone is arrested/detained for ANY crime he is in the custody of the officer during the arrest or detention regardless if that means going to jail, being released and charged by summons or follwing investigation released without charge he may be disarmed once detained or arrested. In other words, if he is not free to leave, he is not free to be armed.

Terry requires two things, r/s of a crime and reason to believe the person is armed. We have the crime, and the driver states he is armed. Terry is met.

We wouldn't be required to allow someone to sit in our holding cell while being booked with a gun on their hip because they have a permit. The side of the road is no different just because they are being released with a citation.

You are correct with regards to a traffic violation. I'm referring to simply observing someone armed. I have no argument with the traffic violation scenario. As far as the traffic violations being criminal, that is dependent upon the state as well. Some states do not hold traffic violations as criminal infractions, only civil.


My question is why would you (absent anything O/S related) risk an ND (twice) by taking a gun off an otherwise non-hostile/cooperative violator?


Does ND mean a "negligent discharge?" If so, I would suggest you give LEOs a little more credit. If I'm so nervous during a traffic stop that I can't handle a firearm without causing it to discharge, I don't need to be in the profession. There are risks associated with everything. I don't agree with the excuse that one shouldn't disarm a holder just because of a remote possibility of a discharge. To me personally, that is a weak excuse and one that I've heard among the big OC crowds as to why LEOs shouldn't disarm someone during interaction. I guess I shouldn't make traffic stops either because there's a risk I might rear-end you during the process of the stop. Same analogy in my opinion.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post I have only disarmed once, and that individual was subsequently arrested for various offenses. I have also arrested quite a few permit holders who were intoxicated with guns in their vehicle.


Then again, I recently discovered that the supreme court changed the "search incident to arrest" law completely, while I was in Afghanistan, and I have since taught 2 academy classes using the old law, which were completely wrong. Luckily, they were classes for guys who don't have to do vehicle searchs AND who have the right to do a full, warrantless search of a vehicle based on reasonable suspicion (not the police) if they need to, so no harm done.

So I may not know any search & seizure law anymore.


It's a common misconception that the Search Incident to Arrest (SIA) has been changed by the Supreme Court. The court just reminded law enforcement when SIA is practical in AZ v. Gant. Many took this case totally wrong. In its simplest terms, if you conduct a custodial arrest and either (1) the person is within reach of possible evidence or (2) there are possible fruits of the crime in the vehicle, you can conduct the search incident to the arrest. Obviously no officers are going to keep an arrestee out of handcuffs and within reach of his vehicle just so they can search, so most must adhere to either a consent search, an inventory (for towing) or #2, where there is possibly fruits of the crime. Where #2 gigged a lot people in my area (including me) involved the same situation Gant was in. It involved being arrested for driving on a suspended/revoked license. It was normal to arrest the person for the charge and search the vehicle incident to the arrest. If there was anything incriminating found during the search, the arrestee was hit with it. Supreme Court said "nope" and stopped this practice. There is not going to be any evidence of a driving on suspended/revoked charge in the vehicle so the officer is going to need PC, inventory, or consent involving that charge. Now if it's for a DUI, I can articulate possibly further evidence all day long. I know this is sort of off the topic of the thread, but I just had a big cup of coffee. :embarassed:

SgtScott31
11-06-2011, 22:33
Umm...if you flee from a traffic stop you are subject to arrest for a misdemeanor, therefore you are not free to go.

So you are in custody until the officer allows you to sign a appearance bond (the ticket) and tells you that you are free to leave.

Why do you people come to CT to start these crap threads. This is a carry issues thread.

In the eyes of the Supreme Court (and most others), a traffic stop is a detainment, not a custodial situation. I believe it's best to go by how the courts view a traffic stop. Hence why there are times where defense attorneys will argue that a traffic stop went from a detainment to a de facto custodial situation if it went for too long. Just because they're not free to leave does not make it custodial. People who are stopped for traffic offenses have a reasonable belief they are going to be able to drive away, regardless of whether a ticket is issued or not.


And again, you left out the "dangerous". Just because a person is armed does not mean you can perform a Terry frisk. This is how we get bad case law.


It really depends. I can disarm without having RS because my state laws allow me to.

OLY-M4gery
11-06-2011, 23:55
This.

I think all of us can agree that there is at least a semi-custodial relationship during a traffic-stop (depending on your own state law).

My question is why would you (absent anything O/S related) risk an ND (twice) by taking a gun off an otherwise non-hostile/cooperative violator? The gun is much safer wherever it is, instead of having a nervous person handle a gun (twice) that they may have had little training with. I can't see any case where I'd disarm someone just because they're carrying, absent some reason to (hinky behavior, etc).

Be logical. If someone intends you harm, they most likely aren't going to tell you that they have that which they intend to harm you with.

I think the capture from Blackhawk Down may need to be posted. You know Eric Bana indicating his trigger finger is his safety.

Stay off the bang switch.

COLOSHOOTR
11-07-2011, 04:03
I don't think that case suggests that police cannot take a firearm from someone but only in this case the reason that the contraband was taken from the guy is not sufficient to allow it into evidence. But I admit I am not a lawyer.

Exactly. That case was about suppressing the evidence because of how the weapon was siezed not if it can be done. Case law holds true for all similar cases involving any siezed contraband, not just weapons, during any form of detention. As we all you know you have to meet the criteria set by Terry vs Ohio so you can't just do pat downs on everyone because you do them on everyone. The Officer in that case obviously was in need of some remidial training. If he would have just testified to the plain view of the firearm instead of saying he patted down everyone as a matter of "standard procedure" and that he secured the weapon for Officer Safety instead of "procedure" I think that case would have went differently.

jpa
11-07-2011, 08:21
You can always ask for a supervisor to respond to the scene but you don't really get to ask for a second officer to come.

I bet if the motorist says "F you pig I ain't doin S**T!!!" he would get a second officer. Kind of a roundabout way of doing it, but still gets the same end result. Of course at the same time I don't think he'd like what happens after the second officer gets there either....

tc215
11-07-2011, 08:39
Umm...if you flee from a traffic stop you are subject to arrest for a misdemeanor, therefore you are not free to go.

So you are in custody until the officer allows you to sign a appearance bond (the ticket) and tells you that you are free to leave.

Why do you people come to CT to start these crap threads. This is a carry issues thread.

Just because you are not free to go does not mean you are in custody, as Sgt Scott stated:

In the eyes of the Supreme Court (and most others), a traffic stop is a detainment, not a custodial situation. I believe it's best to go by how the courts view a traffic stop. Hence why there are times where defense attorneys will argue that a traffic stop went from a detainment to a de facto custodial situation if it went for too long. Just because they're not free to leave does not make it custodial. People who are stopped for traffic offenses have a reasonable belief they are going to be able to drive away, regardless of whether a ticket is issued or not.



It really depends. I can disarm without having RS because my state laws allow me to.

merlynusn
11-07-2011, 08:54
What was the fiasco with Marcus Jackson? (other than the obvious question of who the heck is Marcus Jackson).

I'm sure this will be considered an odd question, but I've been out here in the middle of nowhere since 2007 and some news never makes it out here.

If you look at the links the OP posted, it'll explain itself. But basically Marcus Jackson was a CMPD Officer who was hired who shouldn't have been. Even after being hired, he should have been fired on two separate occasions before all this happened, but I digress. He then decided to sexually assault several women on traffic stops before an illegal immigrant finally stood up to him. The female had been stopped and assaulted by Jackson once before and she called her boyfriend, who was illegal who came and tried to stop him. He called the police and ended up getting arrested by Jackson for RDO for not hanging up the phone with the police. She then came forward and it all blew up, when all the other women came forward.

CarloTwoGuns
11-07-2011, 10:01
Um , there is no declining to hand it over in Miami .. lol

PinkoCommie
11-07-2011, 10:18
Just because you don't find it in NC's statutes doesn't mean the officer can't disarm a permit holder. The traffic stop is a detainment. If the officer can articulate a safety concern, he can do a pat-down and/or disarm during the duration of the stop and I don't see any courts having an issue with it. Obviously a safety concern is the fact that the person is armed, whether they voluntarily gave that information or not. What if the officer takes it when you "decline" to provide it as someone suggested? Sue him after the stop? You seriously think there are enough grounds for a 1983 (federal) civil rights violation for disarming during a traffic stop? Good luck with that one.

Bottom line the courts across this country have generally said (in so many words) that officer safety trumps many things when it comes to traffic stops. The legislature in NC doesn't have to write out a specific law in order for the officer to disarm someone during a stop. If you don't agree with it, the last thing you want to do is cause a confrontation during the traffic stop, especially where weapons are concerned. You can complain to the agency, write your local senator, or other democratic things to handle the issue AFTER the stop occurred.

In TN I have the authority to disarm any permit holder if I can articulate a safety concern. I know of officers in my area that have disarmed holders during stops. I have stopped many with permits, but I haven't disarmed any of them, with the exception of a guy we arrested, but he had weed in the vehicle and a weapon with an altered serial number. ATF gained interest in him at that point as well.

On a side note, that guy in the blog is wrong in so many ways. The US Supreme Court has said that officers can remove a driver and passengers from a vehicle without reasonable suspicion or probable cause (check PA v. Mimms & MD v. Wilson). He tries to argue a weapon as "property" implying that the officer is taking it without PC. I don't need PC to remove you from your vehicle and I don't need PC to remove your weapon. It's people like that sending the wrong message that get many others in trouble. It's not theft of property either, which appears to be how he's arguing the case of taking the weapon. That line of reasoning is sad.

Yes. This would be basically my read on it. MANY cases clarify the point. LEOs have a broad mandate to control the stop as necessary for safety. This is not an unlimited mandate, and the usual caution to only do what is "reasonable" applies. Disarming a person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon of ANY sort (whether a knife, gun, bazooka, club, whatever) is well within my rights as a LEO. I would make sure I have some way of articulating why I did it, but that goes for just about anything I do. The easiest way to explain it is that I detained the person for whatever traffic violation I observed. Until I have a chance to conduct a brief investigation (check whether the DL is valid, whether they come back clear, etc.), I want to maintain control of the weapon because if I clear the driver and learn that they are a habitual traffic offender with a couple of warrants, disarming them will be more contentious.

I am not saying that I disarm everyone I stop who packs heat. I don't. But I have done it, and the reasons varied. I don't do it when I am almost certain that they will only end up with a warning or a relatively minor ticket. If I am not pretty darn sure that's all it will be, I'll take the gun and return it after we are done. Things get heated over the stupidest BS sometimes, and when they do, the suspect will have one less weapon on them.

StarfoxHowl
11-07-2011, 11:26
If you look at the links the OP posted, it'll explain itself. But basically Marcus Jackson was a CMPD Officer who was hired who shouldn't have been. Even after being hired, he should have been fired on two separate occasions before all this happened, but I digress. He then decided to sexually assault several women on traffic stops before an illegal immigrant finally stood up to him. The female had been stopped and assaulted by Jackson once before and she called her boyfriend, who was illegal who came and tried to stop him. He called the police and ended up getting arrested by Jackson for RDO for not hanging up the phone with the police. She then came forward and it all blew up, when all the other women came forward.

Thanks.

TexasFats
11-07-2011, 12:44
I don't have a problem with being disarmed, but I would hope that the officer would not sweep my person with my loaded gun while taking it, nor allow it to accidentally point at any passengers in my vehilcle while disarming me.

Also, when the officer takes it, please remember one of the golden rules of weapons safety and "keep your booger hook off of the bang switch on my weapon" while you are lifting it from my person. I have seen officers, maybe rookies (?), both sweep the muzzle across the driver and children in the vehicle while having his trigger finger on the trigger of the driver's weapon. That was scary. Fortunately, his sergeant was there and saw it and gave him a dressing down that R. Lee Ermy would have appreciated.

badlands99
11-07-2011, 16:53
Why do you people come to CT to start these crap threads. This is a carry issues thread.

I'm terribly sorry to have inconvenienced you. I'm sure the moderators will be moving this thread any minute now, since it is clearly misplaced.

pmcjury
11-07-2011, 17:04
I am always curious about the officer saftey position when it comes to disarming someone that is carrying. Assuming the stop is for a minor traffic violation how does a police officer handling an unfamiliar firearm make the situation safer? Not all police are gun guys (or women) and may only be familiar with their issued side arm

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

pmcjury
11-07-2011, 17:16
You are correct with regards to a traffic violation. I'm referring to simply observing someone armed. I have no argument with the traffic violation scenario. As far as the traffic violations being criminal, that is dependent upon the state as well. Some states do not hold traffic violations as criminal infractions, only civil.



Does ND mean a "negligent discharge?" If so, I would suggest you give LEOs a little more credit. If I'm so nervous during a traffic stop that I can't handle a firearm without causing it to discharge, I don't need to be in the profession. There are risks associated with everything. I don't agree with the excuse that one shouldn't disarm a holder just because of a remote possibility of a discharge. To me personally, that is a weak excuse and one that I've heard among the big OC crowds as to why LEOs shouldn't disarm someone during interaction. I guess I shouldn't make traffic stops either because there's a risk I might rear-end you during the process of the stop. Same analogy in my opinion.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post I have only disarmed once, and that individual was subsequently arrested for various offenses. I have also arrested quite a few permit holders who were intoxicated with guns in their vehicle.



It's a common misconception that the Search Incident to Arrest (SIA) has been changed by the Supreme Court. The court just reminded law enforcement when SIA is practical in AZ v. Gant. Many took this case totally wrong. In its simplest terms, if you conduct a custodial arrest and either (1) the person is within reach of possible evidence or (2) there are possible fruits of the crime in the vehicle, you can conduct the search incident to the arrest. Obviously no officers are going to keep an arrestee out of handcuffs and within reach of his vehicle just so they can search, so most must adhere to either a consent search, an inventory (for towing) or #2, where there is possibly fruits of the crime. Where #2 gigged a lot people in my area (including me) involved the same situation Gant was in. It involved being arrested for driving on a suspended/revoked license. It was normal to arrest the person for the charge and search the vehicle incident to the arrest. If there was anything incriminating found during the search, the arrestee was hit with it. Supreme Court said "nope" and stopped this practice. There is not going to be any evidence of a driving on suspended/revoked charge in the vehicle so the officer is going to need PC, inventory, or consent involving that charge. Now if it's for a DUI, I can articulate possibly further evidence all day long. I know this is sort of off the topic of the thread, but I just had a big cup of coffee. :embarassed:

I asked the same question before reading the entire thread. Comparing the risk of a negligent discharge to the risk of you rearending someone is ridiculous at best. An officer has receives training in operating their patrol car. Have they received training in every handgun.

Handling a gun your unfamiliar with would be more akin to driving a manual transmission vehicle if you don't know how.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

trifecta
11-07-2011, 17:18
I am always curious about the officer saftey position when it comes to disarming someone that is carrying. Assuming the stop is for a minor traffic violation how does a police officer handling an unfamiliar firearm make the situation safer? Not all police are gun guys (or women) and may only be familiar with their issued side arm

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Lots of people take a trip to jail right after that stop for a "minor traffic violation". The jail frowns on letting them bring weapons with them. Somebody has to take possession of it on the side of the road. It isn't really as complicated as some of the GT Tactigods make it sound. Firearms are surprisingly similar. They have a a trigger-keep your finger off it. They have a round hole thing where the bullet comes out. Don't point it at people.

Handling a weapon around people isn't my favorite thing, but sometimes it is what needs done.

Sam Spade
11-07-2011, 17:30
I am always curious about the officer saftey position when it comes to disarming someone that is carrying. Assuming the stop is for a minor traffic violation how does a police officer handling an unfamiliar firearm make the situation safer? Not all police are gun guys (or women) and may only be familiar with their issued side arm

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

As a firearms instructor, I've studied a whole boatload of weapons.

None of them go off if you don't fiddle with the trigger. IOW, the risk of a ND is exactly zero while handling even an unfamiliar firearm.

Now manipulating said firearm is a different story. But there's no need to do that to prevent access by the violator/suspect/suspicious guy. Take it, control the muzzle, don't touch the trigger, and place it out of reach. Return it by laying it on the other guy's seat, and let him fiddle with it after you leave.

pmcjury
11-07-2011, 17:33
Lots of people take a trip to jail right after that stop for a "minor traffic violation". The jail frowns on letting them bring weapons with them. Somebody has to take possession of it on the side of the road. It isn't really as complicated as some of the GT Tactigods make it sound. Firearms are surprisingly similar. They have a a trigger-keep your finger off it. They have a round hole thing where the bullet comes out. Don't point it at people.

Handling a weapon around people isn't my favorite thing, but sometimes it is what needs done.

I understand that you get in trouble for taking someone to jail with a gun on them, but thanks for the reminder.:tongueout:

But I would assuming that something usually happens between pulling someone over for speeding and you taking them to jail. And while yes all pistols are similar their are big differences. A glock for example is pretty forgiving if you accidentally put a little pressure on the trigger. A 1911 that is cocked and locked, not so much.

Can you imagine what would happen if, while the officer was removing the weapon from the holster, the gun went off? I doubt that is going to end well for the motorist, and depending on the officer could have catastrophic results.

I realize that this is a fairly small risk, and before you ask I don't know of an incident where this happened. But doesn't everyone that carries, do so to hedge their bets against a fairly unlikely event.


Edit: just wanted to say thanks to trifecta and Sam spade for the reasonable and thoughtful responses

beatcop
11-07-2011, 17:35
In the few times folks have actually told me they're carrying, I've just informed them not to reach for it.

I'm trying to remember the case ? vs Carolina? Or somewhere in Texas where they upheld full custody on an infraction only. That would be a shocker, but would be a quick end to a problem.

wrenrj1
11-07-2011, 18:34
I don't have a problem with being disarmed, but I would hope that the officer would not sweep my person with my loaded gun while taking it, nor allow it to accidentally point at any passengers in my vehilcle while disarming me.


I tend to wear a paddle or IWB holster snapped to my belt. I would request that the weapon and holster come out as one for safety purposes. LEO thoughts?

PinkoCommie
11-07-2011, 19:26
I tend to wear a paddle or IWB holster snapped to my belt. I would request that the weapon and holster come out as one for safety purposes. LEO thoughts?

I'd be totally cool with that.

OLY-M4gery
11-07-2011, 19:31
I am always curious about the officer saftey position when it comes to disarming someone that is carrying. Assuming the stop is for a minor traffic violation how does a police officer handling an unfamiliar firearm make the situation safer? Not all police are gun guys (or women) and may only be familiar with their issued side arm

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Because some people get upset when they get stopped by the police.

lawman800
11-07-2011, 19:37
I tend to wear a paddle or IWB holster snapped to my belt. I would request that the weapon and holster come out as one for safety purposes. LEO thoughts?

Just fully articulate what you want to do and let us know what's up. We don't like surprises, especially when there is a gun involved.

Bren
11-08-2011, 04:31
I am always curious about the officer saftey position when it comes to disarming someone that is carrying. Assuming the stop is for a minor traffic violation how does a police officer handling an unfamiliar firearm make the situation safer? Not all police are gun guys (or women) and may only be familiar with their issued side arm

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Honestly, when I say "not all police are gun guys" I don't mean they know less than the average Glock Talker. I mean they are not gun guys as much as me, but they still have more firearms training and experience than the people spending all day BSing about guns here. Some of you who have no epxerience with the police tend to imagine that statement means they know even less than your fellow GTer. It means they aren't experts, but they are probably more expert than about 80-90% of the posters on this forum (they just know less than 98% of the posters on Brian Enos' forum).

4949shooter
11-08-2011, 04:44
Here in the peoples' republic of NJ, we don't have many motorists carrying firearms in the car legally. I can only remember one time dealing with a guy with a pistol carry permit in NJ. He was involved in an accident. I don't remember how I got the weapon in my possession, but it was a Beretta Cougar in .40 cal. The CCW guy and myself had a long and interesting conversation about handguns. I was intrigued by the Cougar, and I think I offered to buy it from him if I remember correctly. All the other people I have had contact with who were carrying weapons were criminals (who were disarmed), hunters with a valid hunting license, and people traveling legally through NJ with unloaded, cased weapons.

Can an officer carte blanche seize every weapon just for the sake of seizing it? It's as clear as mud. Though...if you consider Terry vs. Ohio, as well as some other cases, the US courts have given police officers the tools they need to protect themselves. If you can articulate the reason why we took possession of the weapon we as police officers are covered and acting within the scope of the law. This is an extreme example. In other areas of the country, it appears that weapons can be seized for "safekeeping." If the local courts permit this act then I am fine with it. It doesn't mean I would do it on every stop though. But if I feel uncomfortable, the weapons are mine for the duration of the encounter (my personal feeling).

I have seen countless times where subjects are removed from vehicles for sobriety tests or questioning. If they have a visible knife or other potential weapon on their person, this weapon is removed for the safety of all persons present. If the subject is not placed under arrest the weapon is returned at the end of the stop. This is a slightly different scenerio though, because once an occupant is removed from a vehicle the encounter has just risen to the next level.

The bottom line is, be cooperative with the police officer. It will make your day and his go much easier.

Panzergrenadier1979
11-08-2011, 05:19
I carry off-duty 99% of the time. Thus, Iíve planned ahead as to how I would handle myself during a traffic stop. The thing is, after informing the officer/trooper/deputy that I am an armed, off duty officer, I fully plan on being disarmed by my brother/sister LEO for the duration of the stop.

And I have no issues with this at all.

Those that get heartburn over the thought of an LEO taking control of their weapon during a traffic stop need to swallow their pride and simply deal with the fact that it is a reality of life and not the fulfillment of an overly fantasized, politically oppressive act by a government official.

That being said; for me, personally, a traffic stop resulting from a summary vehicle code violation is usually not enough for me to feel the need to disarm a driver who is legally caring a firearm on their person or transporting a firearm(s) in their vehicle. Normally I will just ask the driver where the weapon is located, that they stay in the vehicle, and that they keep their hands on the steering wheel and away from the weapon for the duration of the stop. 9 or 10 minutes later they are free to leave with either a traffic citation, or, more likely, a written warning and all is well.

Now if the driver acts in any way angry or defiant towards any of these reasonable requests then they will be disarmed for the duration of the stop.

SgtScott31
11-08-2011, 08:42
I don't have a problem with being disarmed, but I would hope that the officer would not sweep my person with my loaded gun while taking it, nor allow it to accidentally point at any passengers in my vehilcle while disarming me.

Also, when the officer takes it, please remember one of the golden rules of weapons safety and "keep your booger hook off of the bang switch on my weapon" while you are lifting it from my person. I have seen officers, maybe rookies (?), both sweep the muzzle across the driver and children in the vehicle while having his trigger finger on the trigger of the driver's weapon. That was scary. Fortunately, his sergeant was there and saw it and gave him a dressing down that R. Lee Ermy would have appreciated.

That blows my mind. The cardinal rule of firearms training across the U.S. for LEOs is to NEVER have your finger inside the trigger guard unless you are firing the weapon.

SgtScott31
11-08-2011, 08:47
I carry off-duty 99% of the time. Thus, Iíve planned ahead as to how I would handle myself during a traffic stop. The thing is, after informing the officer/trooper/deputy that I am an armed, off duty officer, I fully plan on being disarmed by my brother/sister LEO for the duration of the stop.

And I have no issues with this at all.

Those that get heartburn over the thought of an LEO taking control of their weapon during a traffic stop need to swallow their pride and simply deal with the fact that it is a reality of life and not the fulfillment of an overly fantasized, politically oppressive act by a government official.

That being said; for me, personally, a traffic stop resulting from a summary vehicle code violation is usually not enough for me to feel the need to disarm a driver who is legally caring a firearm on their person or transporting a firearm(s) in their vehicle. Normally I will just ask the driver where the weapon is located, that they stay in the vehicle, and that they keep their hands on the steering wheel and away from the weapon for the duration of the stop. 9 or 10 minutes later they are free to leave with either a traffic citation, or, more likely, a written warning and all is well.

Now if the driver acts in any way angry or defiant towards any of these reasonable requests then they will be disarmed for the duration of the stop.

Very good post. So many holders take the disarming personally and an "intrusion" of "their rights." This is not in my mind at all if I elect to remove the weapon. The #1 (sometimes #2 depending on the year) cause of on-duty deaths of LEOs is gunfire. This year alone there have been so many killed by gunfire, including a couple who were simply shot sitting at a redlight. It has nothing to do with the individual holder, but in all honesty we don't know you from adam. In 2008 there were just over 300 permit holders in TN that lost their permit due to FELONY convictions. That is a fraction of the total amount of permit holders in the state, but as a LEO I am simply not going to take the risk to ASSUME everyone that has a permit is Mary Poppins. I'm going home to my wife and kids at the end of the day. If that means I have to hurt someone's feelings by disarming them, then so be it. Again, I have only disarmed on a couple of occasions, but it's my decision and no one else's when I'm interacting/investigating.

SgtScott31
11-08-2011, 08:52
I asked the same question before reading the entire thread. Comparing the risk of a negligent discharge to the risk of you rearending someone is ridiculous at best. An officer has receives training in operating their patrol car. Have they received training in every handgun.

Handling a gun your unfamiliar with would be more akin to driving a manual transmission vehicle if you don't know how.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

What's ridiculous is assuming officers can't handle a firearm without causing it to fire. I don't care what make, model, type (semi or revolver), it's not freakin rocket science. Keep your finger off the trigger and there isn't a problem. I don't have to be an expert in firearms to take one off of somebody and understand not to put my finger near the trigger in the process.

StarfoxHowl
11-08-2011, 09:40
I asked the same question before reading the entire thread. Comparing the risk of a negligent discharge to the risk of you rearending someone is ridiculous at best. An officer has receives training in operating their patrol car. Have they received training in every handgun.


I have been rear-ended by a patrol vehicle. The officer was out of the car, standing at my window when his car started humping mine. That ended that ticket, which would have been totally bogus in the first place, but that's a different thread.

Now, as far as ND's go, in the last four months we've had seven ND's on our base here in Afghanistan. And these are weapons that the soldier is very familiar with, their own. Casualty count... Three dead clearing barrels and one dead civilian.

Now, while the chances are low, given enough time and enough encounters, stuff happens.

lawman800
11-08-2011, 10:55
I carry off-duty 99% of the time. Thus, Iíve planned ahead as to how I would handle myself during a traffic stop. The thing is, after informing the officer/trooper/deputy that I am an armed, off duty officer, I fully plan on being disarmed by my brother/sister LEO for the duration of the stop.

I have been stopped a few times and never been asked to disarm. After I identify myself, I just keep my hands away from my waistline and we conduct business as usual and they never made mention of it.

Booker
11-08-2011, 14:03
Here's my smart ass soultion to the problem of being disarmed by the Man.

Carry 2 guns. Surrender one to the Cop when asked and that still leaves you one to fondle!

Roering
11-08-2011, 14:24
Here's my smart ass soultion to the problem of being disarmed by the Man.

Carry 2 guns. Surrender one to the Cop when asked and that still leaves you one to fondle!

"Officer, you asked for my gun and I gave it to you. You didn't say anything about my pistol."

It would be funny until arrested I guess.

Bruce M
11-08-2011, 16:15
... The thing is, after informing the officer/trooper/deputy that I am an armed, off duty officer, I fully plan on being disarmed by my brother/sister LEO for the duration of the stop.

...


Don't blow by a previously terminated trooper at a buck and a quarter and my guess is you probably will be neither disarmed nor cited. But I might be wrong. :supergrin:

lawman800
11-08-2011, 19:05
Here's my smart ass soultion to the problem of being disarmed by the Man.

Carry 2 guns. Surrender one to the Cop when asked and that still leaves you one to fondle!

Don't be fondling your weapon in front of cops. As a matter of fact, don't reach for your firearm either.:whistling:

Con43
11-08-2011, 20:10
It really depends. I can disarm without having RS because my state laws allow me to.



So there.............:fishing:

SCSU74
11-10-2011, 10:39
Seems like everyone here has a gun on them. Personally if they are acting right I have no need to take their gun. I would much rather not have them put hands on a weapon just to take custody of it


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

lawman800
11-10-2011, 13:43
If it's a 10mm, I wouldn't touch it. The energy emanations would disintegrate any living tissue within 3 feet.

wrenrj1
11-10-2011, 18:41
Just fully articulate what you want to do and let us know what's up. We don't like surprises, especially when there is a gun involved.

You bet! While not having experience of being stopped while CCW, I'm all about communicating my suggestion prior to any actions taken, hands on the wheel etc. Communication is a good thing.

Dragoon44
11-10-2011, 19:18
CCW motorist "declines" being disarmed during a stop?


IS IT SAFE???


http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z222/Dragoon44_bucket/AV-37-1228768613.jpg