OH: Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : OH: Should you have to tell a police officer you're carrying a gun?


TBO
01-27-2012, 06:42
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120126/NEWS010801/301250169/Should-tell-police-officer-m-carrying-gun-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|

macville
01-27-2012, 07:00
I don't see how that requirement doesn't trample all over the 5th amendment. Having to tell an officer that you have a firearms could possibly lead to self-incrimination.

RussP
01-27-2012, 07:17
I don't see how that requirement doesn't trample all over the 5th amendment. Having to tell an officer that you have a firearms could possibly lead to self-incrimination.Would you elaborate on that, please.

HarleyGuy
01-27-2012, 07:32
I have no problem at all informing (which I've never had to do...yet) that I am in possession of a loaded and legally carried firearm.
In fact, even if I'm not carrying (which is very rare) I would notify the officer that I have a CPL but that I'm not currenty armed.

Michigan it is mandatory that you notify an officer that you are carrying and a few people have been charged for failure to "immediately" notify an officer which I believe is simply harrassment and/or abuse of authority.

HoldHard
01-27-2012, 07:41
As HarleyGuy posted, in Michigan it's required by law. I drive in Ohio and also have no problem (if it ever were to come up) telling law enforcement that I'm armed. In Michigan, the Concealed Pistol License (CPL) is linked to the vehicles registered in my name. I currently have three of those. One I drive, the second my wife drives and the third our son drives.

When the officer uses his onboard computer system and runs the plate on any of those vehicles, the system indicates that it is registered to a CPL holder. He then approaches the vehicle knowing that there could be an armed individual in that vehicle. From the following quote, it appears that Ohio has the same system as Michigan.

Police who stop someone for a traffic violation will know through a check of the vehicle’s license plate whether that person has a conceal carry permit, Robinson said.

When my son or my wife produce their drivers license, vehicle registration and certificate of insurance, the officer then knows he is not dealing with a possibly armed CPL holder.

Telling an officer you are armed is a common courtesy and I have been told it makes for a much better interaction. In one instance, a friend was not ticketed for speeding and he was stopped twice in less than an hour (he's a slow learner...) by two different agencies. The officers let him off with a warning and the second one he actually decided to obey.

In Michigan, they already know before they arrive at the driver's side B pillar.

Just my 2 cents....

HH

Gperfection
01-27-2012, 07:47
First of all, don't carry if it's not legal to do so. If you are carrying on a CCW permit, it is a very good idea, (even if it isn't required by law in your state) to tell the officer, "I have a concealed weapons permit and I am carrying a firearm". all the while you keep your hands on the steering wheel. The reason I recommend doing so, is that it is safer for you and the officer to know. If you don't say anything and the officer asks you for your drivers license and in reaching into your back pocket for your wallet, your gun happens to flash, things can get very exciting, very fast. I personally don't want a cop shoving a gun in my ear, and don't think it won't happen. Be safe!

glock_collector
01-27-2012, 07:57
Gperfection said it perfectly. This is the best way to handle any interaction with LE and is exactly as I instruct it. The officers that are in my classes also agree, never have I had one say he wanted to see things go down diff. These guys are family men like most of us, good people doing their job and trying to keep YOU and your family safe. Show some respect and common sense.

Gary Slider
01-27-2012, 08:37
I believe Ohio's law is valid. It is the AZ law that bothers me. You don't have to inform but if ask you have to give them an answer. You can't remain silent. If you don't give a valid answer you are breaking their law.


13-3102. Misconduct Involving Weapons; Defenses; Classification; Definitions
1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:
(b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or…

Outdoorsman1
01-27-2012, 09:08
With Wisconsin's (kinda) new CCW Law you are required to inform an LEO if you are carrying concealed only if the LEO asks while offically perfoming his LEO duties. If you are CCW you need to provide a valid CCW License or Permit along with form of WI Picture ID. You are not required by law to volunteer any info unless asked. I was recently stopped for speeding and was never asked so I did not tell... I was given a warning and told to have a nice day... The fact that I was carrying holstered on my right hip w/ jacket covering my fiream was never even discussed...

Open carry is also legal in WI and most current CCW License holder open carried before WI passed it's CCW law, so for most, we still kinda open carry on the hip with worrying if a jacket or sweater "accidently" covers our firearms. Some refer to it as "Casual Carry"...

Outdoorsman1

Kaybe
01-27-2012, 09:08
I have one and will comply with the law. But, why do I have to tell the officer? For years, the training I have received was,' treat them all like they have one'. This was years before the CCW thing. Yet, somehow, officers have something to fear from law abiding citizens. When this was being fought for in Ohio, the head of the Ohio State Highway Patrol stated that CCW means more dead troopers. How stupid is that! Being required to tell officers and so on means more harassment for the citizen. Some with CCW have been face down on the asphalt, cuffed, while the officer verifies the permit. This is so wrong. It is the attitude of "we don't like others(non cops) in our concealed carry club" that breeds harassment. Ohio is hoping to do away with the requirement to notify.

OctoberRust
01-27-2012, 09:08
being required to notify an office you're LEGALLY carrying is irrelevant. Would you like me to also let him know my height/weight right when I greet him also?


Now if you're carrying illegally, then it turns into a 5th amendment violation.

If you're legally carrying, why would the officer need to know you're carrying? It's not like you're going to do anything illegal with it obviously.

If you're illegally carrying, why would you notify the officer of such? If you're already breaking one law, why not break another?

SPIN2010
01-27-2012, 09:44
Just more job justification by a lazy tax wasting lawmaker. What do the actual Ohio peace officers say about the CCW notification? I would believe they would be all for notification (the ones I know are).

All of your CCW info comes back on the plate run (if you are actually the owner of the car) and if a car is legally licensed in Ohio. If it is a borrowed car, just be courteous and tell the officer (while keeping your hands on the wheel) and show your CCW permit when permitted or instructed by the officer.

No matter how you slice it, I am all about police officer safety in a crappy city (i.e. Cincinnati) and if telling them offers a better measure of safety while doing their job. Good!

Note: I have had three CCW events (two dog attacks, and a road rage) here in Cincinnati and all were very professionally conducted by the police/sheriff departments.

Gperfection
01-27-2012, 09:58
With Wisconsin's (kinda) new CCW Law you are required to inform an LEO if you are carrying concealed only if the LEO asks while offically perfoming his LEO duties. If you are CCW you need to provide a valid CCW License or Permit along with form of WI Picture ID. You are not required by law to volunteer any info unless asked. I was recently stopped for speeding and was never asked so I did not tell... I was given a warning and told to have a nice day... The fact that I was carrying holstered on my right hip w/ jacket covering my fiream was never even discussed...



Out of curiousity, was your wallet on the same side as your gun? If so, had the officer not just given you a warning and wanted to see you drivers license, would it have been possible for the officer to see your holstered gun? That's when it can get exciting for you, because the officer was not aware of you CCW permit.

gommer
01-27-2012, 10:06
Have to or not... whatever. If you don't, don't come out whining when you get shot.

Law or not, if I were to have an interaction with the police I would inform them I was legally armed and make sure my hands are in plain view and in a safe place.

In other words, I'd make damn sure if the officer shoots me it's because he's a tool and not me. :dunno:

HoldHard
01-27-2012, 10:09
Out of curiousity, was your wallet on the same side as your gun? If so, had the officer not just given you a warning and wanted to see you drivers license, would it have been possible for the officer to see your holstered gun? That's when it can get exciting for you, because the officer was not aware of you CCW permit.During a traffic stop, the last thing you want to hear from the officer's partner that is securing the passenger side of the vehicle is...
















































"GUN!!"

It might be the very last thing you hear....

HH

Gperfection
01-27-2012, 10:11
I have one and will comply with the law. But, why do I have to tell the officer? For years, the training I have received was,' treat them all like they have one'. This was years before the CCW thing. Yet, somehow, officers have something to fear from law abiding citizens. When this was being fought for in Ohio, the head of the Ohio State Highway Patrol stated that CCW means more dead troopers. How stupid is that! Being required to tell officers and so on means more harassment for the citizen. Some with CCW have been face down on the asphalt, cuffed, while the officer verifies the permit. This is so wrong. It is the attitude of "we don't like others(non cops) in our concealed carry club" that breeds harassment. Ohio is hoping to do away with the requirement to notify.

So, you are the cop, are you telling me that during a traffic stop, the person you pulled over, didn't tell you he/she had a CCW permit and was carrying, then during that stop you see a gun, you wouldn't draw down on the occupant of the car? Sure you treat everyone as if they are armed, but that doesn't mean you draw your sidearm on every traffic stop. I'm just saying that, if I pulled you over and you told me of your legal CCW, I would be glad you did and you might be too. It may, also get you out of a ticket possibly, because the officer may not want to deal with you reaching for things in the car.
Ponder this, just because it's your right, doesn't mean it's always the right thing to do!

A6Gator
01-27-2012, 10:28
Nobody likes surprises. It's not Christmas and it's not your birthday...:supergrin:

xmanhockey7
01-27-2012, 10:30
I don't think it should be a legal requirement. But if you're carrying and get pulled over it's a good idea to tell the officer but it should be your choice.

cowboy1964
01-27-2012, 10:41
The main reason to get rid of the "must inform" requirement is to avoid situations like the Canton one last year.

MODOC GLOCK
01-27-2012, 10:44
I guess I must be lucky, every time I've been pulled over since I obtained my CCW I have informed the officer that I have a CCW and that I have my pistol on me. The whole time mind you my hands are firmly grasping the steering wheel. I also always roll all my tinted windows down and if it's dark out I will turn my dome light on so the officer can clearly see inside my truck. (like I said I have my windows tinted dark.)
But any ways I have never had any issues and I actually have gotten out of a few. All of the cops were very professional.



every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.

faceplant
01-27-2012, 15:36
If I am not required to notify, and my gun is properly concealed then how is he even going to know? Why create a possible problem if there is not one?

58duck
01-27-2012, 15:55
out of courtesy i would inform an officer . . .

residing in ohio, you are obligated to inform an officer . . . they know as soon as they run your plates if you carry . . .

i got stopped for no license plate light while driving my work van (registered to the company, not me personally) the first thing i did was tell the officer that i carried and where the G23 was located. he thanked me. he then told me about the light problem, and sent me on my way.

regardless of what vehicle i may be riding in or driving, i will always inform the officer that i am carrying . . .

Gunhaver
01-27-2012, 16:10
Why? Why does an officer need to know that I'm legally carrying a gun? Key word being LEGALLY. There are plenty of places where you're not required to inform and legal CCW permit holders don't draw and shoot cops just because they have a gun. It would be a different story if we didn't have so many cops who believed that average citizens shouldn't carry guns but that's unfortunately not the case.

It's just another one of those stupid situations where the ones who would comply are not the ones you need to worry about so what's the point? What's that rule we hear all the time? Don't talk to the police. There's a very good reason for that advise.

58duck
01-27-2012, 16:19
Why? Why does an officer need to know that I'm legally carrying a gun? Key word being LEGALLY. There are plenty of places where you're not required to inform and legal CCW permit holders don't draw and shoot cops just because they have a gun. It would be a different story if we didn't have so many cops who believed that average citizens shouldn't carry guns but that's unfortunately not the case.
maybe i just have higher standards . . .

slickt0mmy
01-27-2012, 16:22
Living in Ohio, if these laws pass, I will still inform out of courtesy. I do not think it should be a legal requirement though.

larry_minn
01-27-2012, 16:29
All it took is one PITA officer to turn me off of letting the Police know I am carrying. I was NOT carrying at the time. (thankfully as he was out of control)
I was taking my parents out for a meal. So I was driving their car. We got off interstate and I was going 4 over speed limit. I pulled over, gave DL, was "invited" back to squad.
Officer could NOT understand why car was not in my name. Seems that the two elderly folks in car, it being night was reason they wanted me to drive... He wrote me the ticket then asked if any questions.
I figure "I am already paying for the stop I might as well get something from it" So I let him know that "This is NOT the case tonight, I am not carrying... but if I had been how would you want me to give you this permit?" And I handed him my carry permit. (this was late 90s when MN carry permit was not common)
Well he got VERY upset. He had not been overly professional but he went downhill from there. He taught me NOT to tell Officers in future. Unless I know them I don't. Thankfully not required in MN.

steveksux
01-27-2012, 16:35
I don't see how that requirement doesn't trample all over the 5th amendment. Having to tell an officer that you have a firearms could possibly lead to self-incrimination.If you are legally carrying with the proper permit, it certainly does NOT lead to self incrimination.

Randy

steveksux
01-27-2012, 16:36
As HarleyGuy posted, in Michigan it's required by law. I drive in Ohio and also have no problem (if it ever were to come up) telling law enforcement that I'm armed. In Michigan, the Concealed Pistol License (CPL) is linked to the vehicles registered in my name. I currently have three of those. One I drive, the second my wife drives and the third our son drives.

When the officer uses his onboard computer system and runs the plate on any of those vehicles, the system indicates that it is registered to a CPL holder. He then approaches the vehicle knowing that there could be an armed individual in that vehicle. From the following quote, it appears that Ohio has the same system as Michigan.



When my son or my wife produce their drivers license, vehicle registration and certificate of insurance, the officer then knows he is not dealing with a possibly armed CPL holder.

Telling an officer you are armed is a common courtesy and I have been told it makes for a much better interaction. In one instance, a friend was not ticketed for speeding and he was stopped twice in less than an hour (he's a slow learner...) by two different agencies. The officers let him off with a warning and the second one he actually decided to obey.

In Michigan, they already know before they arrive at the driver's side B pillar.

Just my 2 cents....

HHMaybe it is in Ohio, but MI does not link DL to CPL. You have to go deeper, I believe into LEIN to find that out.

Randy

Clay1
01-27-2012, 17:23
I don't have frequent interaction with police. I'm one of the good guys who walks the straight and narrow.

I live in Wis and we don't have to inform as stated earlier until asked. I'm torn between notification or not. If it is a pro gun cop things could go just fine. All departments don't have the same philosophy on dealing with CCW holders. I've heard that some departments will harrass you, because they can.

Two senarios at night for a traffic stop, possible speeding:
Pulled over, get driver's license and CCW in hand
Both hands on steering wheel
interior dome light on
hand officer both driver's license and permit and ask officer what he would like me to do next. Don't use the word gun or weapon in the exchange.

Could turn out great but I could see the officer wanting to disarm me and me face down on the concrete and me getting shot with my own gun. It doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy wanting to notify.

Islander1
01-27-2012, 17:34
To the best of my knowledge, it is required to inform in Ohio. I also believe it shows up if you are the registered owner of the vehicle. Anyway. If I were to be pulled over while carrying, my hands would be on the wheel in plain sight. When the officer approached, my first words would be, " officer, I have a valid concealed handgun license and I am carrying. How would you like to proceed?" I'd rather not be drug out of my vehicle and handcuffed.

Birddog9
01-27-2012, 17:55
Everyone has had to comply and qualify to carry a weapon concealed. So why is it such a big deal to comply with the law your state has put in place while you carry your weapon? If you don't like it then either don't carry or don't comply and don't complain if you get punished for not doing so. Seems pretty simple to me. And as a cop i appreciate when people tell me they are carrying, As it is required here in AR. But here when we run tags it doesn't show on our return. We only get the hit after running the drivers license. So yes when we approach the window if we see a gun then well the rest pretty much is known...

smokin762
01-27-2012, 21:28
As an Ohio resident and CCW holder, I do not have a problem with informing an LEO that I am armed. I have done it on a few occasions. I can understand that surprises are the last thing that the LE wants. If the Duty to inform was taken out of the CCW law, I would be respectful of the LEO and I would still inform them upon contact.

However, I am just not sure the Duty to inform should be in the CCW law. Just like anybody else, I am human and sometimes, I accidently get distracted and forget things, and sometimes I just get too comfortable with things and forget about them. I know, shame on me.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 06:00
In Miami, Iím told officers assume there is at least one firearm in every vehicle they stop. I believe disclosure is a good will gesture toward the officer; however, the comments provided by officers on this subject range from one end of the spectrum to the other. There is no requirement in Florida to inform and since I havenít been stopped for a traffic infraction in the 3+ years that Iíve carried I have yet to do one or the other (tell or not tell). Whichever way I end up going I know better than to use the word ďgunĒ. I would either provide my license to carry or inform I have a license to carry and then let them know I am. Weíll have to wait and see what I end up doing and how it goes.

I believe that if I were a police officer I would be more interested in knowing about those that are illegally carrying, and those are not very likely to tell anyway.

.

ICARRY2
01-28-2012, 08:55
I believe Ohio's law is valid. It is the AZ law that bothers me. You don't have to inform but if ask you have to give them an answer. You can't remain silent. If you don't give a valid answer you are breaking their law.


13-3102. Misconduct Involving Weapons; Defenses; Classification; Definitions
1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:
(b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or…

I think our AZ law is a good compromise between officer safety and forgetting/failing to notify isnt a crime.

Lior
01-28-2012, 09:11
Am torn on this one. Personally I would loathe the idea of being disarmed during a traffic stop and would prefer to DTTTP if all policepeople automatically treated permit holders badly, but I like courtesy too. It's a pity a person being stopped can only control his own attitude and not that of the policeman.

eracer
01-28-2012, 09:17
Ih Florida I am not required to inform during a traffic stop, but I will do so if I'm instructed to exit the vehicle.

I see no compelling reason to inform while I'm still in the vehicle.

I might flash a gun while reaching for my D/L? There's always a chance that I might print or flash while walking down the street. Fortunately, Florida went at least part-way to prevent unnecessary problems when they enacted the new (watered down) open carry law.

Should I walk up to every LEO I pass on the street and inform them that I'm legally carrying a gun? Why is that any different than when I'm in my vehicle and the stop hasn't escalated to Terry, or at least to the point where I'm told to exit the vehicle?

Clay1
01-28-2012, 09:32
Ih Florida I am not required to inform during a traffic stop, but I will do so if I'm instructed to exit the vehicle.

I see no compelling reason to inform while I'm still in the vehicle.

I might flash a gun while reaching for my D/L? There's always a chance that I might print or flash while walking down the street. Fortunately, Florida went at least part-way to prevent unnecessary problems when they enacted the new (watered down) open carry law.

Should I walk up to every LEO I pass on the street and inform them that I'm legally carrying a gun? Why is that any different than when I'm in my vehicle and the stop hasn't escalated to Terry, or at least to the point where I'm told to exit the vehicle?

Please explain "Terry". I've heard the term used before but bluntly don't know what it means. Thanks for the education.

Lior
01-28-2012, 09:36
Terry search = a pat down by police based on "reasonable suspicion". For reasons unbeknownst has been ruled as constitutional.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 09:39
Please explain "Terry". I've heard the term used before but bluntly don't know what it means. Thanks for the education.


The next step up from a consensual encounter is a temporary detention, most commonly called a "Terry stop". No, you're not under arrest. No, you're not free to leave. Traffic stops very closely mirror Terry stuff in terms of LE authority, but they're a big area that I'm posting separately.


I highly recommend you read through this thread Sam Spade posted for those of us that need further education in such matters: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145 (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145) I promise you wonít be sorry you read through it! :)

.

noway
01-28-2012, 09:42
Ih Florida I am not required to inform during a traffic stop, but I will do so if I'm instructed to exit the vehicle.

I see no compelling reason to inform while I'm still in the vehicle.

I might flash a gun while reaching for my D/L? There's always a chance that I might print or flash while walking down the street. Fortunately, Florida went at least part-way to prevent unnecessary problems when they enacted the new (watered down) open carry law.

Should I walk up to every LEO I pass on the street and inform them that I'm legally carrying a gun? Why is that any different than when I'm in my vehicle and the stop hasn't escalated to Terry, or at least to the point where I'm told to exit the vehicle?

Same here

last tme I told a Florida PD ( Miami Beach ) , it drew 6 cop cars. Get this I was stop for suposely turning left on a red at 7th and Ocean. They where more interested in the guns than the suposed it infraction that drew the stop.

That was my last time I volunteer any weapons or ccw status. This includes, walking, driving thru DUI checkpoints, or any other encounter.

Conceal means ...C O N C E A L E D

Gperfection
01-28-2012, 10:01
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Some of you have touched on this. Why not just obey all of the traffic laws, make sure all your lights work on you vehicle and such? That way you cut down dramatically, the chance of being pulled over in the first place.
I don't believe the states that require you to inform, intend for you to inform an officer if you are just walking past one on the street. Now if the officer were to stop you for littering, etc. while walking down the street, you may want to inform him or her, that you are carrying on a CCW. If you don't and they discover it during a pat down, you're going DOWN!

LApm9
01-28-2012, 10:14
Telling an officer you are armed is a common courtesy and I have been told it makes for a much better interaction.

HH
+1

Courtesy is a very important in society. I suspect this courtesy would lessen the pressure for stupid laws.

I really don't want an officer wondering about the bulge at my waistband, just as I don't want him wondering about where my hands are.

Maybe it isn't any of his LEGAL business if I am armed, but I do have the personal choice to lessen his stress level if I choose to. Why should I add stress to his life if I don't have to? Extending a courtesy is not the same thing as surrendering a right.

larry_minn
01-28-2012, 14:32
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Some of you have touched on this. Why not just obey all of the traffic laws, make sure all your lights work on you vehicle and such? That way you cut down dramatically, the chance of being pulled over in the first place.
I don't believe the states that require you to inform, intend for you to inform an officer if you are just walking past one on the street. Now if the officer were to stop you for littering, etc. while walking down the street, you may want to inform him or her, that you are carrying on a CCW. If you don't and they discover it during a pat down, you're going DOWN!

You do understand its really not possible if you travel a lot? I have been pulled over for "One tail light brighter then another" I have been pulled over because "your lic is expired, oh I guess I was wrong" I have gone thru red light BECAUSE as I stopped I notice the lady behind me in SUV is NOT paying any attention. I hit gas/cleared intersection with horn blowing, she finally stopped in middle of intersection. (no ticket) I saw I had room, rather not get smashed up.

With fuel prices I have given rides to others going to same meeting/conference,etc. There is NO REASON they should ever know I carry. If I happen to be pulled over (or be riding when driver is pulled over) my informing will cause everyone else in car. (and by that everyone in 40 miles) to learn I carry.

kensteele
01-28-2012, 16:34
maybe i just have higher standards . . .

Maybe you do it because you are being told (by the law) you have to do it.

If for some reason, you fail to immediately notify, do you consider yourself a criminal? The OH law does.

kensteele
01-28-2012, 16:46
You do understand its really not possible if you travel a lot? I have been pulled over for "One tail light brighter then another" I have been pulled over because "your lic is expired, oh I guess I was wrong" I have gone thru red light BECAUSE as I stopped I notice the lady behind me in SUV is NOT paying any attention. I hit gas/cleared intersection with horn blowing, she finally stopped in middle of intersection. (no ticket) I saw I had room, rather not get smashed up.

No he doesn't understand. He sounds rather naive in some of his posts. I don't mean that in a bad way but there are lot of people who don't understand it's not possible to "prevent" a traffic stop no matter how hard you try. The police can still pull you over even if you have done exactly nothing wrong.

DAIadvisor
01-28-2012, 16:49
In Ohio, when your info is ran through LEADS, the officer will know if you have a CCW permit or not. It is advisable to inform him/her that you're carrying (if you are) at the time.

TDC20
01-28-2012, 17:00
Everyone has had to comply and qualify to carry a weapon concealed. So why is it such a big deal to comply with the law your state has put in place while you carry your weapon? If you don't like it then either don't carry or don't comply and don't complain if you get punished for not doing so. Seems pretty simple to me. And as a cop i appreciate when people tell me they are carrying, As it is required here in AR. But here when we run tags it doesn't show on our return. We only get the hit after running the drivers license. So yes when we approach the window if we see a gun then well the rest pretty much is known...

Birddog9, the article that the OP posted referred to a legislator wanting to change the law from "must inform". I agree with you, if it's the law, you must comply or else not carry.

My opinion is that "must inform" is an ignorant law for several reasons. First, as others have mentioned, it's just like any other "gun control" law. The law-abiding will follow it, but the criminals won't. So if you're pulling over a carload of "gangstas in the hood" and expecting them to tell you they have guns, and not taking any other measures to protect yourself, you're gonna end up dead. On the other hand, is a lawful CCW permit holder actually a safety threat?

I think people are WAY too paranoid about guns. If the law now allows citizens to carry guns in your state, concealed or otherwise, then you have to understand that the people who are legally qualified to carry them are not a threat or danger to the police. It's a fact of life now, and needs to be accepted rather than irrationally stigmatized. I had to get fingerprinted and undergo both a state and federal background check, plus take a course which explained the laws and responsibilities of CCW before I got a permit. Believe me, if I ever get pulled over or am otherwise detained by the police, my CCW weapon is not going to be a safety issue for the officer(s). That is, unless the police decide to remove it from my holster, because then who knows what might happen from unsafe handling? Better and safer to just leave it be and conduct your business and move on.

I've been around guns my entire life as an avid hunter, competitor, and weekend plinker. Every time I see a gun, I don't shout GUN! and run for cover. People on GT are way too paranoid...that's not healthy. :tongueout: The reality is that there are a lot of non-criminal, good citizens carrying firearms now for self-preservation. They are not the ones that need to be suspected, watched, "proned out" on the concrete, or lectured, when they are 100% obeying the law. To do so only erodes the sometimes fragile relationship and support that lawful citizens have of their law enforcement agencies.

"Must inform" does absolutely zero for officer safety. If a CCW holder does not inform because he has the intent to shoot at an officer, then how is that CCW holder any different from any other criminal? I would sincerely hope that every officer takes his/her training seriously about such possibilities about what can go wrong at a traffic stop. In the end, that is what is going to save your life, not the knowledge that the person you just pulled over has a lawful permit to carry a gun.

I am glad that my state does not require to inform. If an officer asks about it, I will gladly state the facts whether I am armed or not. Otherwise, I am not wasting his time, or creating a safety issue - and I'm serious about this, if for some reason he feels the need to temporarily disarm me, I am concerned that he may not be familiar with my weapon or possibly make a mistake in handling it.

I know the police have a tough job to do, but every person who legally carries a gun these days is not a deadly threat.

I honestly believe that nothing has done more damage to the psyche of America concerning guns and gun safety than the Hollywood movie industry.

kensteele
01-28-2012, 17:38
^spot on, tdc. i've said it before, the only purpose for a must-inform law that provides harsh penalties for the first violation is simply to set a trap for honest gun-owners to see how many people get tripped up or accidently caught up. it is only a law to give law enforcement a tool if he needs one.

we have solid proof of this. just look at the states that don't have this law.

if for some reason you have to have the law, the right thing to do is at least suspend the permit on the first violation.

NEOH212
01-28-2012, 18:10
I feel that the state should drop the notification requirement if for no other reason due to what happened in Canton last year. I never liked the idea of being required to notify. With that said, I would still notify the officer that I was carrying if I was interacting with him/her on official business out of respect, courtesy and safety.

It's too easy for a crooked cop to use the notification requirement to hang someone that they don't like just like happened in Canton and I don't want to see that happen again.

So yes, the notification requirement needs to go.

rball
01-28-2012, 21:21
I live in WI, and carry 99% of the time. Upon getting my license, I ran the scenario through my head - do I voluntarily inform or inform only when asked. Initially I thought that it may be best to voluntarily inform. However, after learning the feelings of CCW by the police chief of the city I live in, and the sheriff of the county I live in, no I will reserve the right to inform when asked. I am not giving any benefit to any cop/deputy - period. The sheriff/police chief's opinion of the current CCW law - poorly written, not enough training, doesn't protect cops, etc. What does that mean to me - their opinion and policy will "roll down hill". While I am sure of the uncertainty that any LEO has when encountering a "citizen", I refuse to give the LEO any advantage. Why? They sure as hell aren't going to give me any advantage. They don't know me from Adam. Also, I have a responsibility to myself to know my rights/laws etc. Much like they know which laws I have violated in which to cause them to confront me. In the past 40 years of my life I have had to deal with the police for 3 reasons. 1. Traffic infractions, 2. Check my fishing/hunting license 3. Questioned about a neighborhood robbery. If a cop pulls me over for doing 5 over give me my ticket and move on. I will deal, in court, as to whether I was doing 5 over or not. If a cop asks me if I have a weapon - I will comply. I will not volunteer that information. Will it mean that I may be looking down the pointy end of his/her firearm? You bet. Am I willing to take that chance? Absolutely. My family will definitely be financially secure if an LEO uses their trigger to scratch that itchy finger. Letting him/her know that I am legally CCWing because it may be the "right" thing to do, or might get me out of a ticket - give me the ticket, because every cop/warden/trooper/deputy that I've dealt with has never had a problem telling me how the law works, and what they are/do. I don't want to sound anti-LEO, tinfoil hat wearing, but I keep hearing/reading about how telling an LEO about something may make them more "lenient" in dealing with you. Sorry, if they are dealing with me - they are dealing with me because of something I did, not because I look like the type of person they want to make friends with or drink beer with.

Roger2fan
01-28-2012, 21:26
I've only been pulled over once and I told the truth and there was no problem..

Giggity
01-28-2012, 21:31
Ohioan here. The issue with the notification law is the word "promptly", which has no concrete meaning in the law. One officer could decide that "promptly" means that you should notify the first time you speak to them, while another officer might determine that "promptly" means you should interrupt him as he approaches your car before he makes it to your window.

A few years back an acquaintance of mine was getting into his car in an apartment building parking lot, apparently matched a description, and was ordered to the ground at (multiple) gunpoint. He was carrying at the time, and it took him 53 seconds to shout out that he had a CHL and was armed. Must have been pretty scary when you have a few AR15's pointed at you, to yell that you have a gun. Anyway, after they found out that he was not the droid they were looking for, they proceeded to charge him under the notification law.

Just one example of why this law needs changed or deleted.

kensteele
01-28-2012, 21:43
Ohioan here. The issue with the notification law is the word "promptly", which has no concrete meaning in the law. One officer could decide that "promptly" means that you should notify the first time you speak to them, while another officer might determine that "promptly" means you should interrupt him as he approaches your car before he makes it to your window.

A few years back an acquaintance of mine was getting into his car in an apartment building parking lot, apparently matched a description, and was ordered to the ground at (multiple) gunpoint. He was carrying at the time, and it took him 53 seconds to shout out that he had a CHL and was armed. Must have been pretty scary when you have a few AR15's pointed at you, to yell that you have a gun. Anyway, after they found out that he was not the droid they were looking for, they proceeded to charge him under the notification law.

Just one example of why this law needs changed or deleted.

That what I mean when I say from zero to criminal in 53 seconds.

Gperfection
01-28-2012, 21:55
No he doesn't understand. He sounds rather naive in some of his posts. I don't mean that in a bad way but there are lot of people who don't understand it's not possible to "prevent" a traffic stop no matter how hard you try. The police can still pull you over even if you have done exactly nothing wrong.

You said I'm "naive" and you also said, "it's not possible to "prevent" a traffic stop no matter how hard you try". It sounds as if you get pulled over, everytime you drive a vehicle. I suppose we should just say the hell with obeying the traffic laws, because your going to get pulled over anyway. What I did say, is; Why not just obey all of the traffic laws, make sure all your lights work on you vehicle and such? That way you cut down dramatically, the chance of being pulled over in the first place. I never implied that if you do so, you would never be pulled over. You are absolutely right, if a cop wants to pull you over, they can always come up with a reason.

Gperfection
01-28-2012, 22:01
I live in WI, and carry 99% of the time. Upon getting my license, I ran the scenario through my head - do I voluntarily inform or inform only when asked. Initially I thought that it may be best to voluntarily inform. However, after learning the feelings of CCW by the police chief of the city I live in, and the sheriff of the county I live in, no I will reserve the right to inform when asked. I am not giving any benefit to any cop/deputy - period. The sheriff/police chief's opinion of the current CCW law - poorly written, not enough training, doesn't protect cops, etc. What does that mean to me - their opinion and policy will "roll down hill". While I am sure of the uncertainty that any LEO has when encountering a "citizen", I refuse to give the LEO any advantage. Why? They sure as hell aren't going to give me any advantage. They don't know me from Adam. Also, I have a responsibility to myself to know my rights/laws etc. Much like they know which laws I have violated in which to cause them to confront me. In the past 40 years of my life I have had to deal with the police for 3 reasons. 1. Traffic infractions, 2. Check my fishing/hunting license 3. Questioned about a neighborhood robbery. If a cop pulls me over for doing 5 over give me my ticket and move on. I will deal, in court, as to whether I was doing 5 over or not. If a cop asks me if I have a weapon - I will comply. I will not volunteer that information. Will it mean that I may be looking down the pointy end of his/her firearm? You bet. Am I willing to take that chance? Absolutely. My family will definitely be financially secure if an LEO uses their trigger to scratch that itchy finger. Letting him/her know that I am legally CCWing because it may be the "right" thing to do, or might get me out of a ticket - give me the ticket, because every cop/warden/trooper/deputy that I've dealt with has never had a problem telling me how the law works, and what they are/do. I don't want to sound anti-LEO, tinfoil hat wearing, but I keep hearing/reading about how telling an LEO about something may make them more "lenient" in dealing with you. Sorry, if they are dealing with me - they are dealing with me because of something I did, not because I look like the type of person they want to make friends with or drink beer with.
Attitude!! You get a ticket everytime you're pulled over, right?

rball
01-28-2012, 22:31
Gperfection - If my post came across as having an attitude, that was not my intent. As for getting a ticket everytime I am pulled over - yep, I've gotten 4 tickets in the 24 years that I have been driving/fishing/hunting. Each ticket that I've gotten (run the stop sign (once), sped (twice), had tinted windows (once)) the LEO explained to me what I did wrong, told me not to do it again, and gave me my ticket. I paid my fines, and moved on with life. My point was - LEO's are there to enforce laws, not be your buddy. Based on the information that I've read on Glocktalk and other forums, voluntarily informing the LEO has resulted in either being let go after some gun talk BS, or, having an LEO get "uncomfortable" with feeling that he/she is no longer "in control" of their situation. If a gangbanger carrying a Glock 40 mexican style doesn't inform an LEO that he/she has a gun, why should I? In talking with LEO's, there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop, and all individuals are viewed as being the lowest common denominator (e.g., gangbanger carrying a Glock 40 with weed in a pair of pants that aren't his).

Birddog9
01-29-2012, 05:28
Gperfection - If my post came across as having an attitude, that was not my intent. As for getting a ticket everytime I am pulled over - yep, I've gotten 4 tickets in the 24 years that I have been driving/fishing/hunting. Each ticket that I've gotten (run the stop sign (once), sped (twice), had tinted windows (once)) the LEO explained to me what I did wrong, told me not to do it again, and gave me my ticket. I paid my fines, and moved on with life. My point was - LEO's are there to enforce laws, not be your buddy. Based on the information that I've read on Glocktalk and other forums, voluntarily informing the LEO has resulted in either being let go after some gun talk BS, or, having an LEO get "uncomfortable" with feeling that he/she is no longer "in control" of their situation. If a gangbanger carrying a Glock 40 mexican style doesn't inform an LEO that he/she has a gun, why should I? In talking with LEO's, there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop, and all individuals are viewed as being the lowest common denominator (e.g., gangbanger carrying a Glock 40 with weed in a pair of pants that aren't his).


Your last part about the stops being routine is correct,there is no such thing. However most of us don't view everyone as "gangsters" or trash. But the simple fact is the world these days is getting ridiculously dangerous, I encourage and believe if your willing to take on the responsibility of carrying and possibly having to deploy your weapon to defend yours or the life of someone else then you absolutely should (as I'm sure everyone here does as well). That being said just because you have obtained a ccw or ccl doesn't necessarily mean your not a threat or won't harm anyone, police included. there's plenty of folks who have gone AWOL who previously didn't have a criminal record or so much as a parking ticket. And once again just my 2Ę :)

Gperfection
01-29-2012, 09:38
http://www.kcra.com/news/29760917/detail.html#ixzz1deMg2iUb
Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you. I aggree with what Birddog9 said. I didn't think every car I pulled over, contained scum of the earth. But then again, there were a few.

rockapede
01-29-2012, 11:53
Could turn out great but I could see the officer wanting to disarm me and me face down on the concrete and me getting shot with my own gun. It doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy wanting to notify.

Why on God's green earth would you notifying an officer that you are legally carrying a firearm result in you getting shot with your own gun? If you're not required to notify and you don't want to, fine, but drop the tinfoil garbage.

larry_minn
01-29-2012, 12:26
Why on God's green earth would you notifying an officer that you are legally carrying a firearm result in you getting shot with your own gun? If you're not required to notify and you don't want to, fine, but drop the tinfoil garbage.

Shot with your own gun? Not as likely. Then again have you seen how Police Officers handle guns? Esp guns they don't know? Friend of mine used to carry a Browning Hi-Power. He was up in Northern MN in late 80s, got pulled over and informed. Officer took gun from holster and (I guess because he was revolver man) was very unsafe with it. Finally gave it back as he couldn't figure HOW to unload it. (hard to belive I know but Glen said he was worried he might get shot the way the muzzle was moving around)
If I was proned out at gunpoint I know I would not yell out. "I HAVE A GUN" either. I would follow instructions and hope I was not shot.

Blitzburgh
01-29-2012, 16:30
Ohioan here. The issue with the notification law is the word "promptly", which has no concrete meaning in the law. One officer could decide that "promptly" means that you should notify the first time you speak to them, while another officer might determine that "promptly" means you should interrupt him as he approaches your car before he makes it to your window.

Anyway, after they found out that he was not the droid they were looking for, they proceeded to charge him under the notification law.

Just one example of why this law needs changed or deleted.

Exactly the problem with the current law... Hell just last year we got some crazy "carry in the car" laws changed. I personally want this changed also.. It should be your CHOICE to notify or not. I would even like it changed to notify if asked by LE. I watched the Akron BS stop.. That video shows whats wrong with the "promptly" law in the books now..

Paul53
01-29-2012, 16:42
TX is a must tell state which doesn't bother me. The CCL number is the same as your drivers license number.

My logic; if I tell a LEO I'm licensed and carrying, he knows I've passed an FBI background check, been fingerprinted and photographed, have learned the laws of CCL, and passed a certain amount of range proficiency.

If I don't tell and he doesn't already know, if he discovers a gun on his own, I'm just some scmuck with a gun and a lot is left to his imagination.

I prefer to tell. It's always gone well that way.

Pimp gun
01-29-2012, 16:51
In my State your not required to notify the officer your carrying but if you get pulled over by the HW Patrol more than likely he will have you get out of your vehicle. I would tell the HWP for sure and I'm not sure about a local and no I haven't had to do anything yet

xXGearheadXx
01-29-2012, 17:00
I had one incident where i was pulled over while carrying. I wasn't familiar with the two card (DL and HCP) technique at the time, so i wasn't able to inform the officer that i had a carry permit and loaded gun until it was my turn to pull the registration out of my glove box, and my gun was sitting on top of it. He was cool, and professional, (though he didn't quite understand reciprocity or that my HCP permitted me to carry concealed) so it was all good.

Looking back on the few roadside tax collections i've had, they were very similar. The LEO controlled the encounter (kept talking, preventing me from speaking or informing) to the point where it could be said i didn't inform "immediately"...thus i could be breaking that (BS) law. Also, is "informing" verbal, or does the card suffice? Too much gray area. If they make this law, the request/command at a traffic stop or encounter should be "license, registration, and carry permit if applicable".

Blitzburgh
01-29-2012, 17:29
Too much gray area. If they make this law, the request/command at a traffic stop or encounter should be "license, registration, and carry permit if applicable".

great idea....

kensteele
01-29-2012, 17:48
You said I'm "naive" and you also said, "it's not possible to "prevent" a traffic stop no matter how hard you try". It sounds as if you get pulled over, everytime you drive a vehicle. I suppose we should just say the hell with obeying the traffic laws, because your going to get pulled over anyway. What I did say, is; Why not just obey all of the traffic laws, make sure all your lights work on you vehicle and such? That way you cut down dramatically, the chance of being pulled over in the first place. I never implied that if you do so, you would never be pulled over. You are absolutely right, if a cop wants to pull you over, they can always come up with a reason.

Ok, my mistake. The way I read your post, sounds like you were implying that blacks/hispanics/asians get pulled over alot because they are bad drivers, don't obey the traffic laws, and have all kinds of equipment violations that others don't have. That sounded rather naive to me but your last sentence makes sense, none of that matters much, you get pulled over for whatever reason the officer comes up with whether it's your right tire touched the solid white line or i couldn't see inside your driver's side window must have been the reflection or your back tire seems kinda wabbly when you made that turn or your headlight flickered a little bit as you approached me thought it was going to go out or a citizen 10 cars back 15 minutes ago 5 mies away by now pointed at you is everything ok....and then go from there. You are definitely not naive, you know this happens.

kensteele
01-29-2012, 17:55
If they make this law, the request/command at a traffic stop or encounter should be "license, registration, and carry permit if applicable".

No. That would defeat the purpose of the "must prompty notify" which is to jam up honest citizens...if applicable. :) Well, not really, but....you would think if a police officer really wanted to know, he would ask for a permit before he asked for a DL. Imagine if you found yourself in a "must notify promptly DL state" and when the officer came to your window and immediately started talking about your driving and you DIDN'T promptly notify him that you had a valid DL, you get arrested and your license revoked? How would that go over.

kensteele
01-29-2012, 18:02
TX is a must tell state which doesn't bother me. The CCL number is the same as your drivers license number.

My logic; if I tell a LEO I'm licensed and carrying, he knows I've passed an FBI background check, been fingerprinted and photographed, have learned the laws of CCL, and passed a certain amount of range proficiency.

If I don't tell and he doesn't already know, if he discovers a gun on his own, I'm just some scmuck with a gun and a lot is left to his imagination.

I prefer to tell. It's always gone well that way.

If he discovers your gun, why not clear up his "imagination" by presenting him with your permit. At that point, according to you, he will now know "I've passed an FBI background check, been fingerprinted and photographed, have learned the laws of CCL, and passed a certain amount of range proficiency." What the problem?

TX officers have a pretty good imagination because there are lots of guns in cars in TX.....a ton. Most are not on permit.

Is it true that you are not bothered by TX must-tell statute because there are no penalties if you violate that statute or were you ok with it a few years ago where a violation turned you into a criminal? ;) Because I gotta tell you, as a gun owners, I am always bothered by a law that makes you a criminal for failure to do somethng with a gun or your permit. When it comes to my gun, the crimes are committed when I do something with that gun, not with the permit and not for simply doing nothing. IMO

Rodman24
01-29-2012, 18:27
The notification is also a requirement in SC, whenever you're approached in an official capacity. If they run your identity they will know that you have a CCW anyway.

When I was informed of the notification requirement in my CCW class, I remember thinking it was like a "Contents are very hot!" coffee cup warning. Seems like common sense. When Police officers approach you, anything you can do to ease their mind will also help you. When I notify an officer of my CCW they know that I've had a SLED background check. I've presented it on two occasions and I immediately felt that the officer was put at ease.

Seems like a lot of people think Police officers are paranoid.

rockapede
01-29-2012, 18:38
No. That would defeat the purpose of the "must prompty notify" which is to jam up honest citizens...if applicable.

Food for thought, if something is the law and a citizen fails to adhere, are they, by definition, an honest citizen? The voting booth is the proper setting to change the law and express your rights, not the side of the road during a traffic stop.

kensteele
01-29-2012, 18:56
Food for thought, if something is the law and a citizen fails to adhere, are they, by definition, an honest citizen? The voting booth is the proper setting to change the law and express your rights, not the side of the road during a traffic stop.

Sorry that's not what I was saying at all.

Let's take a state like KS. Not a must notify state.

If tomorrow KS installs a statute that says you must notify else you lose your permit, IMO the sole purpose of that statute would be to see exactly how many honest citizen permits you can revoke.

In my post, I agreed with the OP but mentioned that if OH LEO changed their policy to promptly ask for a "permit if applicable" to satisfy the OH must-notify law requiring permit-holders to promptly notify, I joking said it's not going to happen because then that would leave the officer with less to go on. If the OH law says you must notify, why would the police help you with that burden? They won't. And OH won't change their law in that way because OH actually would prefer if honest citizens.... ;)

kensteele
01-29-2012, 18:58
The notification is also a requirement in SC, whenever you're approached in an official capacity. If they run your identity they will know that you have a CCW anyway.

When I was informed of the notification requirement in my CCW class, I remember thinking it was like a "Contents are very hot!" coffee cup warning. Seems like common sense. When Police officers approach you, anything you can do to ease their mind will also help you. When I notify an officer of my CCW they know that I've had a SLED background check. I've presented it on two occasions and I immediately felt that the officer was put at ease.

Seems like a lot of people think Police officers are paranoid.

Sounds like it works for you and you put the officers at ease. Will that work for me as well? Will I be able to put my officers at ease, too?

cloudbuster
01-29-2012, 19:39
Food for thought, if something is the law and a citizen fails to adhere, are they, by definition, an honest citizen? The voting booth is the proper setting to change the law and express your rights, not the side of the road during a traffic stop.

The answer to your question is a resounding yes. A citizen can fail to adhere to a law and still be an honest citizen.

First, in original common law, and ethically speaking, things are supposed to be against the law because they are wrong. Note the way that works: first something is wrong to do in the eyes of the average citizen, then, therefore, we make it against the law. However, in our current society we have many laws on the books that involve no obvious wrong-doing. They are only wrong because they are against the law. See how that works: first they make something against the law, only then is it deemed to be "wrong."

There are tens of thousands of pages of federal, state and local criminal and civil code: more than a reasonable citizen can be expected to read and memorize. Many laws criminalize behavior that is not readily identifiable as wrong on its face. The law is, or was, supposed to rely on the "reasonable man" theory -- would a reasonable man consider that what he was doing was wrong?

If an honest citizen is violating no obvious code of behavior or moral restriction: he's not robbing anyone, defrauding anyone, attacking anyone, or engaging in reckless behavior, he's just going about his business engaging in some action that has arbitrarily been labeled "illegal" -- this is an honest citizen that has been entrapped by one of a multitude of nearly unknowable statutes.

Most laws against unpermitted concealed carry and notification laws fall into this category: the citizen isn't doing anything that, without the law, we would consider wrong. He's just walking or driving around minding his own business with a gun on his belt or in his pocket. He's not shooting or threatening anyone. He's not committing what an observer ignorant of the law would consider a crime. This person isn't dishonest. We've seen it just in the past few weeks in New York -- an honest citizen is ignorant of New York City law and behaves in a responsible and non-threatening manner when she observes a "no guns" sign and seeks a legal place to check the gun.

She violated a law that criminalized behavior that actually included no common law criminal element. It was something that was wrong because it was a law, not a law because it was wrong.

We as citizens need to be more vigilant that our legislators do not enact laws, or allow regulatory bodies to pass regulations to forbid things that are not in themselves crimes.

The only purpose the Ohio notification law serves, as it now reads, is to entrap otherwise-law-abiding CC permit holders. Think about it -- the person who is really dangerous to the officer is likely the person who A) doesn't have a carry permit and is carrying or B) notifies the officer that they are not carrying when in fact they are. The law doesn't protect the officer from these kinds of people. These are people who are on their way to committing serious common law crimes -- attacking or killing a police officer. They don't care about a concealed carry violation. The honest citizen who merely forgets or mistimes his notification (as the officer in Canton tried to characterize the citizen he stopped) is not a danger whether he notifies or not.

Any officer who assumes that because the person doesn't have a concealed carry permit they don't have a weapon, or accepts someone's word that they're not carrying as an ironclad guarantee of safety, is in my opinion terribly naive and a danger to themselves.

Thus, the notification requirement is of little benefit -- if the officer has reason to suspect a threat, the permit or lack and the notification or lack are irrelevant -- the officer needs to take positive action to ensure his safety. If the officer doesn't suspect a threat, then jacking the citizen around for a simple failure to notify is nothing but harrassment.

I've gotten stopped a few times in Ohio over the years and my most extreme reaction came after I duly and promptly notified -- nothing terrible, but he was clearly very nervous and jumpy about it. You could see the tension in every move. Still, I just had to put my hands on the ceiling while the officer walked around front to check that my headlight was indeed out because I'd hit a deer a couple days before and hadn't had a chance to get it fixed. But clearly his jumpiness was entirely because he knew I had a gun in easy reach, when, really, it's the guy who he assumes doesn't have a gun that's more likely to shoot him.

I was calm and easy-going and polite and certainly not trying to do anything to push his buttons. Got off with a warning -- I was polite and cooperative and the hit was clearly fresh (there was still deer poop on the fender :) ).

Meanwhile I had another stop where I informed the officer that I wasn't carrying (I wasn't) and she simply took me at my word and seemed put at ease by it -- seemed like kind of a silly thing to have faith in to me, because almost by definition someone willing to shoot you is someone willing to lie to you.

So, to reiterate, I don't think the notification law provides the officer with usable intelligence that enhances his safety. If the officer thinks the person looks "hinky" he can simply ask if the person is carrying and if the person has a permit. If the officer is then suspicious about the way the person responds, then he can go on from there.

Rodman24
01-29-2012, 19:53
Sounds like it works for you and you put the officers at ease. Will that work for me as well? Will I be able to put my officers at ease, too?

Probably not. That only works in SC.

I was just sharing my opinion and my experience. You're free to do what you like.

Magnum27
01-29-2012, 20:11
I think that to tell an officer that you have a gun is smart & safe.

kensteele
01-29-2012, 21:15
Probably not. That only works in SC.

I was just sharing my opinion and my experience. You're free to do what you like.

You are correct, in KS we are free to do as we like, we are not bound by absurd law that forces us to utter anything else be a criminal if you don't. However, I know a bunch of folks in the state who prefer to notify the police so yes it probably works here in KS, too.

Bruce M
01-30-2012, 06:16
...
Most laws against unpermitted concealed carry and notification laws fall into this category: the citizen isn't doing anything that, without the law, we would consider wrong. He's just walking or driving around minding his own business with a gun on his belt or in his pocket. He's not shooting or threatening anyone. He's not committing what an observer ignorant of the law would consider a crime. This person isn't dishonest. We've seen it just in the past few weeks in New York -- an honest citizen is ignorant of New York City law and behaves in a responsible and non-threatening manner when she observes a "no guns" sign and seeks a legal place to check the gun.

She violated a law that criminalized behavior that actually included no common law criminal element. It was something that was wrong because it was a law, not a law because it was wrong.

We as citizens need to be more vigilant that our legislators do not enact laws, or allow regulatory bodies to pass regulations to forbid things that are not in themselves crimes.

The only purpose the Ohio notification law serves, as it now reads, is to entrap otherwise-law-abiding CC permit holders. Think about it -- the person who is really dangerous to the officer is likely the person who A) doesn't have a carry permit and is carrying or B) notifies the officer that they are not carrying when in fact they are. The law doesn't protect the officer from these kinds of people. These are people who are on their way to committing serious common law crimes -- attacking or killing a police officer. They don't care about a concealed carry violation. The honest citizen who merely forgets or mistimes his notification (as the officer in Canton tried to characterize the citizen he stopped) is not a danger whether he notifies or not.

....


I wonder if it is possible that the law possibly provides potential safety for the permit holder. I have to think that announcing the presence of a concealed weapon will often end better for the person being interviewed by the police than an encounter will end if the police discover the gun.


And some may believe carrying a gun without at least a background check and possibly some minimum training actually is wrong.

cloudbuster
01-30-2012, 07:18
I wonder if it is possible that the law possibly provides potential safety for the permit holder. I have to think that announcing the presence of a concealed weapon will often end better for the person being interviewed by the police than an encounter will end if the police discover the gun.

An honest citizen should have nothing to fear from an honest police officer regardless of notification. The extensive history of safe traffic stops in states that do not require notification bear this out. I doubt anyone has done a study but I haven't heard anything about a rash of permit holders being shot or wrongfully arrested in states that do not have a notification requirement. Criminalizing the citizen's failure to notify only punishes the citizen. It doesn't meaningfully "protect" him.

The notification requirement always reminds me of a very old Steve Martin comedy routine:

You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. "Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?" First.. get a million dollars. Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'?" Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!" How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal." Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?" Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"


What makes this comedy routine funny is that reasonable people don't forget that armed robbery or theft are crimes, or that they are expected to pay their taxes. But in the stress of a stop by police, reasonable people do forget or fail to notify, for entirely innocent reasons and criminalizing momentary lapses in mere procedure is unjust.

This is true especially in Ohio where there's A) a high probability that the officer already knows the driver is a CCW holder, because the records are tied into the driver's license database and show up clearly on a check -- I've had officers bring it up before I had a chance to (the occasion above where I wasn't carrying -- she started talking as soon as she got to the car and by the time I was able to get a word in edgewise she was already asking about my permit), so a failure to notify is simply a trap as the officer could easily have prompted for the info -- and B) the law states "promptly" but never defines what "promptly" is, which has on more than one occasion (as a previous poster notes anecdotally) been used to harass citizens on the grounds that their notification wasn't "prompt" enough.

And some may believe carrying a gun without at least a
background check and possibly some minimum training actually is wrong.

I suppose some people also believe in the tooth fairy, but both the history of our nation's founding precepts and the extensive modern-day record of safe, no permit carry in Vermont, and now Alaska, Arizona and, I believe, Wyoming, indicate that this belief is as substantial as belief in the tooth fairy and not something a reasonable person would automatically be expected to believe. As a matter of fact, I can open carry in Ohio without permit or proof of training, so the state seems to agree with me even in Ohio, as long as I'm open carrying. Hopefully eventually they will evolve enough to realize that the same truth applies to concealed carry.

Apothecurious
01-30-2012, 09:17
I have no problem telling an officer that I have a weapon on me at all. I am legally carrying concealed so I have nothing to hide. I feel that it benefits both my safety and the officers if they know that I have a weapon on me. I feel that the bill is going a bit too far IMO.

Lee-online
01-30-2012, 17:16
No duty to inform here in PA and because of that, I will not inform.

My pistol is safely in my holster where it will stay. Now if I inform there is a possibility the LEO will disarm me for "his safety" and possibility unload my weapon. Now there is a total stranger handling my firearm. I have no idea if they are competent or not. I think it is just safer for everyone if it stays in its holster and the only way to guarantee that is to not inform.

eracer
01-31-2012, 06:04
However, in our current society we have many laws on the books that involve no obvious wrong-doing. They are only wrong because they are against the law.So sad, and so true.

YtownGlock
01-31-2012, 10:17
As an Ohioan with a CHL, I notify even if I am not being stopped for a LE purpose or reason. Having gone thru OPOTA myself and having the priority of "officer safety" seared into my brain, I notify with any and all type of interaction to put the officer at ease. I've never had any problems, EVER. I don't see how telling a LEO that as a law abiding citizen with a legally obtained CHL that I have a weapon is a violation of my 5th Amendment Right. How is it self-incrimination? I think too many people that have bad run ins with the police because they were in the wrong and not the police, try to change their story to make the police sound like the bad guy(s). Then again, there are time where LEOs do overreact. I personally don't blame them, them number of Officer deaths involving fireams in the past couple years has increased drastically.

That's just me though. To each his own.

sr975j
01-31-2012, 10:27
id rather notify the LEO as soon as he gets to my vehicle than have it be a surprise when i get patted down.....right?? Because thats when you get thrown to the ground and have a knee in the back of the head while eating pavement.

Sam

hamster
01-31-2012, 10:53
Lots of people here have been saying they inform the officer if needed or not. Good for you. However, I don't think that is what this thread is about.

I think most folks here don't have a problem with the officer knowing their carry status. In fact if asked by an officer, I'd be willing to bet most honest CCW types would not mind answering their carry status.

The point of this thread is if the citizen should HAVE to make the declaration at the first moment of contact as is currently in Ohio law. In my opinion the law as it is written currently puts too much of a bureaucratic burden on citizens who have been verified by the state as being law-abiding.

At the very least they should turn the law around and require the officer make the inquiry. That way most honest people would not be facing a felony for simply forgetting the correct protocol. If the officer asks, I'd think most honest citizens would remember they are carrying or not and give the correct answer.

The way the law / encounter policy is currently structured serves only to add a "gotcha" trap to the process that a legal carrier can fall into, while doing nothing to increase officer safety.

Rodman24
01-31-2012, 19:40
At the very least they should turn the law around and require the officer make the inquiry. That way most honest people would not be facing a felony for simply forgetting the correct protocol. If the officer asks, I'd think most honest citizens would remember they are carrying or not and give the correct answer.

Good point.

cloudbuster
02-01-2012, 14:26
Lots of people here have been saying they inform the officer if needed or not. Good for you. However, I don't think that is what this thread is about.

I think most folks here don't have a problem with the officer knowing their carry status. In fact if asked by an officer, I'd be willing to bet most honest CCW types would not mind answering their carry status.

The point of this thread is if the citizen should HAVE to make the declaration at the first moment of contact as is currently in Ohio law. In my opinion the law as it is written currently puts too much of a bureaucratic burden on citizens who have been verified by the state as being law-abiding.

At the very least they should turn the law around and require the officer make the inquiry. That way most honest people would not be facing a felony for simply forgetting the correct protocol. If the officer asks, I'd think most honest citizens would remember they are carrying or not and give the correct answer.

The way the law / encounter policy is currently structured serves only to add a "gotcha" trap to the process that a legal carrier can fall into, while doing nothing to increase officer safety.

Exactly, hamster. Well said.

cowboy1964
02-01-2012, 15:06
Exactly. The Canton fiasco illustrated perfectly why this is a flawed law.

Flawed law + flawed cop = compounded recipe for disaster

valian
02-02-2012, 11:08
Lots of people here have been saying they inform the officer if needed or not. Good for you. However, I don't think that is what this thread is about.

I think most folks here don't have a problem with the officer knowing their carry status. In fact if asked by an officer, I'd be willing to bet most honest CCW types would not mind answering their carry status.

The point of this thread is if the citizen should HAVE to make the declaration at the first moment of contact as is currently in Ohio law. In my opinion the law as it is written currently puts too much of a bureaucratic burden on citizens who have been verified by the state as being law-abiding.

At the very least they should turn the law around and require the officer make the inquiry. That way most honest people would not be facing a felony for simply forgetting the correct protocol. If the officer asks, I'd think most honest citizens would remember they are carrying or not and give the correct answer.

The way the law / encounter policy is currently structured serves only to add a "gotcha" trap to the process that a legal carrier can fall into, while doing nothing to increase officer safety.

Exactly! Is it courteous, or do I mind, or is it wise, etc., are not the same as having a duty under the law that is a crime. One person in Ohio was arrested because he did not inform promptly enough for the officer... at 55 seconds into the stop.

Also consider that someone with a CHL is required by law to inform whereas someone carrying illegally has no legal requirement to inform.

Bill Lumberg
02-03-2012, 10:32
No! It's much more sporting when they make you find it. Big surprise!

Oooh, that's a bingo! http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmgazwMsEB1qc4cp9o1_500.gif

cloudbuster
02-03-2012, 10:36
No! It's much more sporting when they make you find it. Big surprise!

Oooh, that's a bingo!

That's really not much of an argument.

Pop Smoke
02-03-2012, 12:27
I'm not in Ohio, but my response is NO! If yours is linked to your DL like it is in Mo, then a good cop will discover that you have a CCW permit/endorsement anyway. They need to be trained how to treat the LAC so that we don't have any more Harless repeats.

In Mo we are only required to disclose if the LEO asks.

kensteele
02-03-2012, 16:39
If yours is linked to your DL like it is in Mo, then a good cop will discover that you have a CCW permit/endorsement anyway.

For some folks, it's not about the permit or the firearm. It's mostly about how this information came to light. If the officer hears it right away from your lips to his ear, then you are mostly honest and upfront. If the officer has to learn about it from some other "unauthorised" methods such as his computer or the government databases, then you might be less than honest or probably hiding something. Many many people believe the former and believe the officer will perceive the latter.

Sam Spade
02-03-2012, 17:16
It is the AZ law that bothers me. You don't have to inform but if ask you have to give them an answer. You can't remain silent. If you don't give a valid answer you are breaking their law.

So what's there to bother anyone?

Spirit of 76
02-03-2012, 17:30
If I'm on foot, I'm probably not saying a word about my legally concealed weapon. I believe both a right to be armed, and a right to remain silent.

If I'm being approached at a traffic stop, where cops can understandably be a little on edge, and I'm going to need to move my hands around in areas where he/she won't be able to see them real well - that's when I let them know I am legally armed. That's more for my safety than anything. I don't want his/her partner who is peering through the passenger side window to see my hand on it's way to my wallet slide across a pistol and unload on me.

hikerpaddler
02-04-2012, 05:23
Lumber for the win. As for the issue- if you're a crook, don't tell. Of your a law abiding citizen, be upfront. No! It's much more sporting when they make you find it. Big surprise!

Oooh, that's a bingo! http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmgazwMsEB1qc4cp9o1_500.gif

valian
02-04-2012, 17:08
Lumber for the win. As for the issue- if you're a crook, don't tell. Of your a law abiding citizen, be upfront.

Once again the issue in Ohio is whether a person should be compelled by force of law to inform Promptly when stopped... and of course promptly is not defined.
The issue is not whether it is polite to inform, it is that you become a criminal if you do not inform in the way or in the time any particular officer decides is correct or proper.

Oh and BTW (once again), there is no Ohio law requiring the crook ( read non-chl holder) to inform if carrying a firearm so once again law-abiding gun owners are the only ones who are required to obey, by force of law. another senseless gun law.

The only reason this law was inserted in the original 2004 carry law was to try to appease the Ohio State Highway Patrol who fought the concealed carry in Ohio tooth and nail. It is time to repeal this unnecessary part of the law.

kensteele
02-04-2012, 17:21
Once again the issue in Ohio is whether a person should be compelled by force of law to inform Promptly when stopped... and of course promptly is not defined.
The issue is not whether it is polite to inform, it is that you become a criminal if you do not inform in the way or in the time any particular officer decides is correct or proper.

Oh and BTW (once again), there is no Ohio law requiring the crook ( read non-chl holder) to inform if carrying a firearm so once again law-abiding gun owners are the only ones who are required to obey, by force of law. another senseless gun law.

The only reason this law was inserted in the original 2004 carry law was to try to appease the Ohio State Highway Patrol who fought the concealed carry in Ohio tooth and nail. It is time to repeal this unnecessary part of the law.

+1 TX came to their senses and removed the penalty while keeping the directive compelling you to declare and to my knowledge, not much has changed (except law abiding citizens get to remain law-abiding citizens). OH can do the same.

MySiK26
02-04-2012, 18:01
Maybe I should tell the LEO everything else that I'm doing legally. Officer, I just wanted to inform you that I have a drivers license, and am legally driving. I also have _____ medicine for _____ condition in the center console, for which I have a prescription. etc. etc.

eta: I have informed in the past when legally carrying at a traffic stop. Once I was told to leave it where it was until the stop was over. Another time I was requested to step out of the vehicle and disarmed until the traffic stop was over. I don't like being disarmed. PERIOD.

Sharky7
02-04-2012, 19:00
Could it be that the law that requires people to inform officer is not just for officer safety - but for the safety of the CCW holder?

Just because someone has a driver's license does not mean that they are a professional driver. Just because someone has a license to carry a concealed weapon, does not mean they are a weapons or tactics expert.

No one wants an innocent person hassled or shot. You don't want the perfect storm situation to happen to you. Let's say you match the description of an armed robbery suspect and are stopped on foot - police observe a bulge or outline of a firearm. You start playing internet/commando/wannabe lawyer and refuse officer safety commands....or you reach quickly for your wallet to give the officer your ID which is also in the area of that gun. Do you see how this could end bad?

People do weird things when they are nervous. Auditory or visual exclusion happens and when a bunch of police walk up on you quickly - you may not hear the command to keep your hands out of your pocket.

Why risk the confusion? There's only ONE of you. We all take precautions to carry a weapon for self preservation. Use your mouth for self preservation as well.

Sharky7
02-04-2012, 19:04
Maybe I should tell the LEO everything else that I'm doing legally. Officer, I just wanted to inform you that I have a drivers license, and am legally driving. I also have _____ medicine for _____ condition in the center console, for which I have a prescription. etc. etc.

eta: I have informed in the past when legally carrying at a traffic stop. Once I was told to leave it where it was until the stop was over. Another time I was requested to step out of the vehicle and disarmed until the traffic stop was over. I don't like being disarmed. PERIOD.

Yep, because there is a chance an officer sees that medication he will yell "MEDICINE" to his back up officers and hold you at gun point.....just like the firearm you are carrying.....:upeyes:

Misty02
02-04-2012, 19:34
Once again the issue in Ohio is whether a person should be compelled by force of law to inform Promptly when stopped... and of course promptly is not defined.
The issue is not whether it is polite to inform, it is that you become a criminal if you do not inform in the way or in the time any particular officer decides is correct or proper.

Oh and BTW (once again), there is no Ohio law requiring the crook ( read non-chl holder) to inform if carrying a firearm so once again law-abiding gun owners are the only ones who are required to obey, by force of law. another senseless gun law.

The only reason this law was inserted in the original 2004 carry law was to try to appease the Ohio State Highway Patrol who fought the concealed carry in Ohio tooth and nail. It is time to repeal this unnecessary part of the law.

I didnít think being required to inform was such a big deal until I saw the Canton incident and learning the man was charged with failing to inform in a timely manner.

If a person is not given an opportunity to inform or told to shut up, then doing the right thing becomes rather difficult.

BTW, I truly dislike statutes and other legal documents that use the words ďpromptlyĒ, ďbrieflyĒ and the like without providing a definition, it ends up being defined at the side of the road, worse place imaginable for that sort of thing to take place.

.

MySiK26
02-04-2012, 23:20
Yep, because there is a chance an officer sees that medication he will yell "MEDICINE" to his back up officers and hold you at gun point.....just like the firearm you are carrying.....:upeyes:

It was an exaggeration :upeyes:

IMO, if I get pulled over for speeding, just give me my citation and lets be on our way. No need to disarm me if I'm a CCW holder :dunno: If they ask, I'll disclose... but I don't see myself voluntarily giving them my CWP in the future.

If an officer pulls me over and I ask why I've been pulled over and they say I match the description of a stolen vehicle, they can have my DL and registration to confirm otherwise. If it's concealed, it's going to stay concealed. I don't keep it in my center console or glove box. They'll never know I have a gun on me unless they pull me out and pat me down... don't they need a reason for that?

TBO
02-04-2012, 23:59
It was an exaggeration :upeyes:

IMO, if I get pulled over for speeding, just give me my citation and lets be on our way. No need to disarm me if I'm a CCW holder :dunno: If they ask, I'll disclose... but I don't see myself voluntarily giving them my CWP in the future.

If an officer pulls me over and I ask why I've been pulled over and they say I match the description of a stolen vehicle, they can have my DL and registration to confirm otherwise. If it's concealed, it's going to stay concealed. I don't keep it in my center console or glove box. They'll never know I have a gun on me unless they pull me out and pat me down... don't they need a reason for that?
When you get pulled over, you know who's in the car (you), and what you're capable of.

What does the Cop know when he pulls that car over?

MySiK26
02-05-2012, 00:16
When you get pulled over, you know who's in the car (you), and what you're capable of.

What does the Cop know when he pulls that car over?



That's why they can ask for the cwp. Like I said, I'm not going to voluntarily give that info. It's irrelevant in some cases. Trust me, I believe in making the officer feel safe (in turn, making me feel safe as well), which is why I pull both windows down, dome light on, vehicle off, hands on wheel with DL, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance ready to go. If they ask if there's any weapons in the car, I give them the CWP as well, and advise them where it is. I Have family, and lots of friends in LE.

Gunhaver
02-05-2012, 00:17
When you get pulled over, you know who's in the car (you), and what you're capable of.

What does the Cop know when he pulls that car over?


He knows that if you have any plans to shoot him you're not going to announce that you have a gun first. My legal CCW is not a threat to him so he need not know about it any more that he needs to know about the lug wrench in the trunk that I'm not going to bop him in the head with.

That being said, I have no problem with him knowing and I'm not going to lie if he asks. This could all be solved if every cop made it a habit to ask if you have any weapons in the car first thing every time. If cops are so concerned with your carry status then put the burden to ask on them. That gives you the opportunity to respond and eliminates the possibility that you could simply forget that you have it on you.

Bill Lumberg
02-05-2012, 04:56
No, just use common sense. It isnt difficult to figure out what you should be forthcoming about and what you shouldn't.Maybe I should tell the LEO everything else that I'm doing legally. Officer, I just wanted to inform you that I have a drivers license, and am legally driving. I also have _____ medicine for _____ condition in the center console, for which I have a prescription. etc. etc.

eta: I have informed in the past when legally carrying at a traffic stop. Once I was told to leave it where it was until the stop was over. Another time I was requested to step out of the vehicle and disarmed until the traffic stop was over. I don't like being disarmed. PERIOD.

Blitzburgh
02-05-2012, 06:33
I think this thread started for the simple fact that Ohio's law uses the word "promptly" and that leaves the door open for interpretation.

I have no problem having the le know I have a gun. I do have a problem with legal issues over the word promptly...

Sharky7
02-05-2012, 06:48
It was an exaggeration :upeyes:

IMO, if I get pulled over for speeding, just give me my citation and lets be on our way. No need to disarm me if I'm a CCW holder :dunno: If they ask, I'll disclose... but I don't see myself voluntarily giving them my CWP in the future.

If an officer pulls me over and I ask why I've been pulled over and they say I match the description of a stolen vehicle, they can have my DL and registration to confirm otherwise. If it's concealed, it's going to stay concealed. I don't keep it in my center console or glove box. They'll never know I have a gun on me unless they pull me out and pat me down... don't they need a reason for that?

Do you think everytime you match a description of an offender the officer will tell you the details of the crime or the offense? Sometimes you are stopped in an investigatory stop and informed you are detained, but it's not smart or tactical to let someone know they are a suspect in a serious crime.

RussP
02-05-2012, 06:52
So, you are a certified, card carrying, investigated, finger printed concealed carry permit holder (or whatever it is called in your state), a vetted 'good guy'. No law enforcement officer has anything to fear when in your presence.

You live a nice, normal by all standards life. You're a tax paying, PTA meeting goer, little league/Pop Warner/soccer supporting all american member of society in your community. Law enforcement has nothing to fear from you.

You have and live what others might say is the perfect life.

That's exactly what neighbors of Bart Wayne Johnson said about him. They could not believe the what police told them their neighbor had done.

He was a 29-year-old pharmacist, lived in a spacious home with a wife and seemed to have the perfect life those neighbors said.

One said it was just unbelievable. "They had a nice house, nice cars, a boat, a motorcycle. The only thing missing was the white picket fence." That neighbor thought they had it all.

Not even Johnson, whose court records shows a string of traffic violations but no violent history, knows why he opened fire on and killed Pelham police officer Phillip Davis at 11:50 p.m. one night in early December, 2009.

When he was sentenced to death in June of last year, the judge commented that the confrontation seemed out of character. Bart Wayne Johnson told the judge, "it was."

Would Phillip Davis be alive today if Bart Wayne Johnson had voluntarily told him he did have a gun?

Would Officer Davis be alive today if he had immediately asked Johnson if he had any weapons? He might be, but only if Johnson answered truthfully.

At what point in the traffic stop did Johnson decide to kill Officer Davis?

When Johnson told Davis his brother was a police officer, too, was that to get Officer Davis to relax, let down his guard so he could kill him? Seems like the jury and judge thought so.

Okay, I agree that requiring a permit holder to inform within some indeterminate time period is wrong. Do put the total burden on law enforcement to ask if you have weapons. Just make the penalty for lying substantial enough to be a real deterrent to doing so.

What? You're saying it's none of their business? You don't want to be disarmed, anytime, anywhere? The story about Bart Wayne Johnson, none of that has anything to do with you, you're different? Only bad guys will do bad things to cops.

Good for you. Then you need to advertise somehow, "I am not the next 'Bart Wayne Johnson'," the good guy in everyone's opinion right up until he murdered Phillip Davis.

RussP
02-05-2012, 06:56
I think this thread started for the simple fact that Ohio's law uses the word "promptly" and that leaves the door open for interpretation.

I have no problem having the le know I have a gun. I do have a problem with legal issues over the word promptly...That is the real problem.

RussP
02-05-2012, 07:03
I Have family, and lots of friends in LE.Have you asked them about their preferences, about what their procedures are during traffic stops? Could you tell us about their preferences and procedures. That information might really help others here.

Misty02
02-05-2012, 07:49
Have you asked them about their preferences, about what their procedures are during traffic stops? Could you tell us about their preferences and procedures. That information might really help others here.

I have, RussP and have received conflicting comments, the more you go around asking, the more confusing it gets.

As mentioned before, around here most officers seem to assume there is always at least one firearm in every vehicle. Where the conflicting comments come in is not exactly as to their personal preference but what they believe is the best way to handle a stop once you take in consideration the variety of personalities/training involved.

I donít tell every officer Iíve ever exchanged words with that Iím carrying. But Iíve made the acquaintance of several where the conversation turned to self-defense and licensed carriers. Once it gets there it is really difficult not to ask what they prefer and what they believe is best. Oddly, what they prefer and what they believe is best are not always the same. I should have kept a piece of paper and just add a mark for each side of ďinformĒ ďdonít inform unless you feel is necessaryĒ to have an accurate count of each; if my memory serves me right the "don't" might have had more markings. Among the reasons for not informing Iíve been given are things like encountering officers that donít believe regular citizens should be allowed to carry (Iím told those are few, but vocal and loud nonetheless), then comments about adding unnecessary drama for a rookie over something that is not related to the actual stop, or comments about how some perceive informing as being a show-off or doing so to just get out of a ticket, etc. Those that stated I should tell included reasons such as courtesy ďyou know Iím armed, why not tell me you are as well?Ē etc. Obviously, I have not asked an officer I have not reached a certain comfort level with (I know, Iím a chicken!).

I havenít had to make the decision because Iíve yet to have an interaction where Iím dealing with an office in his professional capacity thus I vacillate between one end of the spectrum and the other.

It goes without saying that I donít wish to make it harder on myself than I have to. I also have a very basic (limited) understanding of the dangers officers face daily and have no desire to add to their stress or concerns.

So, in spite my research, here I am not knowing how I will eventually handle it and which way is actually best. I will answer truthfully if asked though, that much I do know for certain.

.

MySiK26
02-05-2012, 13:07
Do you think everytime you match a description of an offender the officer will tell you the details of the crime or the offense? Sometimes you are stopped in an investigatory stop and informed you are detained, but it's not smart or tactical to let someone know they are a suspect in a serious crime.

How would I know I'm really a suspect of a serious crime and not a "fishing expedition?" What's that??? I wouldn't know, you say? Let's just take their word for it then, not like we have a choice.

All cops must straight as an arrow since they passed all those tests and background checks. Like in any profession, there are bad apples, even if they are few and far between.

Have you asked them about their preferences, about what their procedures are during traffic stops? Could you tell us about their preferences and procedures. That information might really help others here.

Everyone has their own approach. My friend in a county sheriff's office doesn't ask on a routine traffic stop. If given the cwp, he asks where the firearm is, and advises them to leave it there until the end of the stop. I'm sure other's approach differ, but the point is, I still don't feel I should have to volunteer that information. If asked, I will gladly advise. Should I also tell them about the knife, pepper spray, and baseball bats in my truck voluntarily? Everyone has an opinion, and that is mine. Although we may not agree, I respect your opinion as we are entitled to them.

RussP
02-05-2012, 13:24
That's why they can ask for the cwp. Like I said, I'm not going to voluntarily give that info. It's irrelevant in some cases. Trust me, I believe in making the officer feel safe (in turn, making me feel safe as well), which is why I pull both windows down, dome light on, vehicle off, hands on wheel with DL, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance ready to go. If they ask if there's any weapons in the car, I give them the CWP as well, and advise them where it is. I Have family, and lots of friends in LE.Have you asked them about their preferences, about what their procedures are during traffic stops? Could you tell us about their preferences and procedures. That information might really help others here.Everyone has their own approach. My friend in a county sheriff's office doesn't ask on a routine traffic stop. If given the cwp, he asks where the firearm is, and advises them to leave it there until the end of the stop. I'm sure other's approach differ, but the point is, I still don't feel I should have to volunteer that information. If asked, I will gladly advise. Should I also tell them about the knife, pepper spray, and baseball bats in my truck voluntarily? Everyone has an opinion, and that is mine. Although we may not agree, I respect your opinion as we are entitled to them.Sorry, my bad...I thought when you said, "I Have family, and lots of friends in LE," that meant your opinion was based on input from all your family members and all your friends, not just one.

If you ever do ask those other LEOs, family members and friends, do ask, and, if you want, start a new thread discussing their input. It should be interesting. :thumbsup:

MySiK26
02-05-2012, 14:00
Sorry, my bad...I thought when you said, "I Have family, and lots of friends in LE," that meant your opinion was based on input from all your family members and all your friends, not just one.

If you ever do ask those other LEOs, family members and friends, do ask, and, if you want, start a new thread discussing their input. It should be interesting. :thumbsup:

Well ... I could call them and ask I guess... but why bother all of them with their opinions? The last thing I want to talk about when I'm not working is my job, so I try to stay away from conversation like that. Same thing with my firefighter friends, lawyers, etc. If they're passionate about what they do and they want to bring something up, then fine. Talking with others about their jobs has almost become like talking politics... lots of different opinions, and not everyone can have a civil conversation/debate on such topics. I can probably count on one hand how many times I've heard my uncle talk about his LEO career. To each their own.

MySiK26
02-05-2012, 14:03
Russ, I stated that to show that I'm not anti-LE, or some type of internet commando/mall ninja/2bb/whatever... sorry if you thought that I was implying, they ALL have the same stance on the matter. I'm sure they don't!

Dr.Crash
02-05-2012, 14:06
Doesnt matter either way. When an officer runs your plates, if the registered owner has a ccw permit it will show up. That is in the state of Ohio at least

captainstormy
02-05-2012, 14:16
Personally, even if the law passes I will inform. My gun is not far from my wallet, if I have to show my license then they could probably see my gun when I pulled out my wallet.

I don't want to surprise the guy. Yea Canton was a horror story, but its the exception. Im fairly sure that in the end the cop got fires and the case thrown out. Pretty sure that guy will end up with a check from the city too.

I'm an OFCC member myself, but I'm in the minority when I say I don't mind the informing law.

I've had to inform 4 times while carring. Never had a bad experiance.

Sharky7
02-05-2012, 20:09
How would I know I'm really a suspect of a serious crime and not a "fishing expedition?" What's that??? I wouldn't know, you say? Let's just take their word for it then, not like we have a choice.

All cops must straight as an arrow since they passed all those tests and background checks. Like in any profession, there are bad apples, even if they are few and far between.



Please don't try to change the topic.

It's still true that a police officer who believes you just committed a crime may not want to reveal what crime you are suspected of for obvious investigative and tactical reasons.

Choosing to not tell an officer you are carrying a gun is taking unneeded risks. You could easily help control your safety by keeping your hands in view and explaining to the officer you have a CCW.

Sharky7
02-05-2012, 20:11
Doesnt matter either way. When an officer runs your plates, if the registered owner has a ccw permit it will show up. That is in the state of Ohio at least

People are not always in their vehicles.

Police may have contact with you at your home, business, restaurant, pedestrian crossing, railroad crossing, etc.

MySiK26
02-05-2012, 21:18
Please don't try to change the topic.

It's still true that a police officer who believes you just committed a crime may not want to reveal what crime you are suspected of for obvious investigative and tactical reasons.

Choosing to not tell an officer you are carrying a gun is taking unneeded risks. You could easily help control your safety by keeping your hands in view and explaining to the officer you have a CCW.

It is a fact that not all police officers are "gun people." Some don't even believe citizens should own guns, let alone carry them. Last thing I want is one of those over zealous LEO's like the Canton case flipping out on me for exercising my rights. I don't live in a "Must inform" state, and if it's concealed, they will never know I have one (unless they ask.) More than likely, if I'm suspected of a crime, which would be the reason for the stop in your scenario, I'm pretty sure the question if there are any firearms in the vehicle would be near the top of the list.

wprebeck
02-06-2012, 01:24
It is a fact that not all police officers are "gun people." Some don't even believe citizens should own guns, let alone carry them. Last thing I want is one of those over zealous LEO's like the Canton case flipping out on me for exercising my rights. I don't live in a "Must inform" state, and if it's concealed, they will never know I have one (unless they ask.) More than likely, if I'm suspected of a crime, which would be the reason for the stop in your scenario, I'm pretty sure the question if there are any firearms in the vehicle would be near the top of the list.

It's a fact that most permit holders aren't "gun people", either...

It's a fact that not all permit holders are law abiding. I've seen a few folks with permits come into my jail.

It's also a fact that, as an officer, I disclose the fact that I am armed on the rare occasion I am pulled over. Not speeding tends to help, but there is the rare time I get in a hurry. I also pull over as far as I can, so the officer can make a safe approach. The engine gets turned off, if its dark, the interior light goes on, the window gets rolled down, and usually, I have my OL, work ID, and insurance proof ready.

Do I have to? Of course not. Does it help the officer do his job? Yep. And, since i know first hand the sheer amount of stupidity officers deal with daily, anything I can do to make his life easier, I will. Its called "being polite". Try it sometime.

RussP
02-06-2012, 04:12
It is a fact that not all police officers are "gun people." True.It's a fact that most permit holders aren't "gun people", either...Very true.

Bren
02-06-2012, 04:21
Should you have to tell the police? It's a ridiculous requirement for 1 simple reason:
Anybody who tells the police he is carrying a gun, was not a threat to the police before he told or if he wasn't required to tell - anybody who is a threat to the police isn't going to tell them he has a gun.

The "inform" requirement makes exactly as much sense as posting business doors (anybody who obeys the sign wasn't a danger and anybody who is a danger won't obey the sign).

I can't imagine this makes a reasonably intelligent cop feel any better. It seems more like a bone thrown to the hoplophobes when the legislation was going through.

Bren
02-06-2012, 04:22
When you get pulled over, you know who's in the car (you), and what you're capable of.

What does the Cop know when he pulls that car over?


Well, hopefully he has the common sense to know that anybody who is thinking about shooting him isn't going to tell them they have a gun, so there isn't much point in requiring only those who aren't a danger to tell him.

RussP
02-06-2012, 04:35
Some don't even believe citizens should own guns, let alone carry them.Your comment triggers a lot of questions, but I'll only ask a few right now.

Do you know whether the number of police officers who feel that way is increasing or decreasing?

The number of firearms sold is definitely increasing. The number of applications for concealed carry permits is definitely increasing. The number of gun rights advocates is increasing. The number of successful self defense uses of firearms, or at least the number of reports about them are increasing.

Is the number of people in law enforcement totally opposed to gun ownership increasing or decreasing?

What is it about everyone who wants to legally own a gun owning a gun that police officers don't like these days?

RussP
02-06-2012, 04:37
Should you have to tell the police? It's a ridiculous requirement for 1 simple reason:
Anybody who tells the police he is carrying a gun, was not a threat to the police before he told or if he wasn't required to tell - anybody who is a threat to the police isn't going to tell them he has a gun.

The "inform" requirement makes exactly as much sense as posting business doors (anybody who obeys the sign wasn't a danger and anybody who is a danger won't obey the sign).

I can't imagine this makes a reasonably intelligent cop feel any better. It seems more like a bone thrown to the hoplophobes when the legislation was going through.True and very true...

TBO
02-06-2012, 06:45
Well, hopefully he has the common sense to know that anybody who is thinking about shooting him isn't going to tell them they have a gun, so there isn't much point in requiring only those who aren't a danger to tell him.
There are bad guys carrying a gun who do tell you they have a gun, and tell you it's legal.

There are bad guys who try to get you to drop your guard by being friendly/cooperative.

There is no "guarantee", about anything.

It isn't about "common sense", it's about experience, training, and real world tactics used in, the real world.

cloudbuster
02-06-2012, 06:56
There are bad guys carrying a gun who do tell you they have a gun, and tell you it's legal.

There are bad guys who try to get you to drop your guard by being friendly/cooperative.

There is no "guarantee", about anything.

It isn't about "common sense", it's about experience, training, and real world tactics used in, the real world.


I'm not sure where you're going with your comments. Bottom line, should people be legally required under penalty of law to notify police officers that they are carrying a gun?

If so, why, given that we have a vast body of evidence in states without notification requirements that indicate that notification requirements are not necessary for safe, effective interactions between police and citizens who carry concealed?

Much of this talk reads like the "blood in the streets" arguments of gun control proponents -- when the 50th state is proposing "shall issue" concealed carry, the antis will still be crying "blood in the streets" despite its failure to materialize in the 49 previous cases. Likewise, a legal requirement to notify is rendered unnecessary simply by the fact that we have real-world laboratories to observe what happens when notification is not legally required, and those laboratories have shown that there is no "blood in the streets" in the absence of notification requirements.

TBO
02-06-2012, 06:57
My comments should be pretty clear, they are addressing the quote contained within my post. Nothing more, nothing less.

cloudbuster
02-06-2012, 07:01
My comments should be pretty clear, they are addressing the quote contained within my post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yet you didn't answer my question.

hamster
02-06-2012, 07:36
Could it be that the law that requires people to inform officer is not just for officer safety - but for the safety of the CCW holder?

If that is the case, then the protocol for a traffic stop should be changed so that the first question out of the officer's mouth is "do you have a weapon on you legal or otherwise." The law should simply require honest disclosure.

The officer is more trained.
The officer is a representative of the local government.
The officer is educated in criminal justice.
The officer is the person most at risk in an encounter with a stranger.

IF we accept that knowledge of firearms in the car makes the officers safer, then the only reasonable course of action for everyone's safety is to turn around the law. Require the OFFICER to make the inquiry.


---------
PS. I don't know what idiot wrote the text of the current law anyway. Any lawyer would never allow you to sign any contract that included a vague phrase like "promptly" in any other aspect of life.

Does your mortgage read
"The mortgagee is required to make payments to the bank promptly...."

or

The "Mortgagee is required to make payments on the first of every month in the amount of $x.xx else penalties of x.xx apply compounded daily limited to x.xxx.....

SCSU74
02-06-2012, 07:51
All it took is one PITA officer to turn me off of letting the Police know I am carrying. I was NOT carrying at the time. (thankfully as he was out of control)
I was taking my parents out for a meal. So I was driving their car. We got off interstate and I was going 4 over speed limit. I pulled over, gave DL, was "invited" back to squad.
Officer could NOT understand why car was not in my name. Seems that the two elderly folks in car, it being night was reason they wanted me to drive... He wrote me the ticket then asked if any questions.
I figure "I am already paying for the stop I might as well get something from it" So I let him know that "This is NOT the case tonight, I am not carrying... but if I had been how would you want me to give you this permit?" And I handed him my carry permit. (this was late 90s when MN carry permit was not common)
Well he got VERY upset. He had not been overly professional but he went downhill from there. He taught me NOT to tell Officers in future. Unless I know them I don't. Thankfully not required in MN.


Are the permits not linked to license in Minnesota? Reason I ask it because I am moving back to Minnesota to work as a peace officer. In Texas I assume everyone has at least one gun and probably a knife or two :) that aside whenever we run somebodys license it flashes red, same as a warrant letting us know they have a concealed permit. Normally on a traffic stop if they don't tell me I really don't care, unless they are acting stupid. In tx a condition of your concealed permit is that you will not commit any crime while carrying. In theory if you are speeding or breaking some other traffic law you are violating your license. This more applies to assaults, thefts etc. even if a weapon isn't used in the commission of the crime. My best advice, take it or leave it, is when speaking with an officer please let him know you have a gun. You don't have to, but I guarantee if you are courteous the interaction will go a lot better for you If you tell him rather than him finding out about it later. Most officers tend to get upset when they find out you have a firearm and didn tell them, legally carried or otherwise. Also on a side note any time you are detained by an officer they have the right to disarm you, if you refuse you can be arrested and license revoked. You may not agree, I really don't care, just trying to offer some advice/thoughts from the other side.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

SCSU74
02-06-2012, 07:57
It's a fact that most permit holders aren't "gun people", either...

It's a fact that not all permit holders are law abiding. I've seen a few folks with permits come into my jail.

It's also a fact that, as an officer, I disclose the fact that I am armed on the rare occasion I am pulled over. Not speeding tends to help, but there is the rare time I get in a hurry. I also pull over as far as I can, so the officer can make a safe approach. The engine gets turned off, if its dark, the interior light goes on, the window gets rolled down, and usually, I have my OL, work ID, and insurance proof ready.

Do I have to? Of course not. Does it help the officer do his job? Yep. And, since i know first hand the sheer amount of stupidity officers deal with daily, anything I can do to make his life easier, I will. Its called "being polite". Try it sometime.

Couldn't agree more. When I am stopped (heavy foot :)) I hand him license, insurance, work id and inform him of all guns in the vehicle. Usually just a pistol, but if during my work week I usually have a long gun or two. Dont have to tell him, but it's something I consider a professional courtesy. I would want to know if someone I'm stopping has a gun. You'd be surprised what goes through someone's mind when they receive a ticket or are about to be arrested, people do some weird ****.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

GeorgiaGlocker
02-06-2012, 08:14
When you get pulled over, you know who's in the car (you), and what you're capable of.

What does the Cop know when he pulls that car over?


What do we know about the cop when he pulls us over? Harless threatened to execute Barlett in the back of his car while he was handcuffed.

Bren
02-06-2012, 08:19
There are bad guys carrying a gun who do tell you they have a gun, and tell you it's legal.


Never had that experience or heard of it from any of the cops in the family, agency I work for, classes I teach, etc. I have doubts that the bad guys actually admit they have a gun, when (a) you haven't already found it, and (b) they have any intent of possibly using it.

However, I was a cop before "shall issue" and I've never lived, worked or taught in a "shall inform" state.

Bren
02-06-2012, 08:21
What do we know about the cop when he pulls us over? Harless threatened to execute Barlett in the back of his car while he was handcuffed.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

So this is the one where he said he should "execute him for being stupid" and all the little old ladies decided to pretend they believed that was meant literally, so they'd have something to whine about?:rofl:

SCSU74
02-06-2012, 08:27
Never had that experience or heard of it from any of the cops in the family, agency I work for, classes I teach, etc. I have doubts that the bad guys actually admit they have a gun, when (a) you haven't already found it, and (b) they have any intent of possibly using it.

However, I was a cop before "shall issue" and I've never lived, worked or taught in a "shall inform" state.

Haha whenever we find a gun or drugs or whatever the most common response I get is, " oh that's not mine, these aren't even my pants." :)
Rarely, if ever does someone volunteer info that they are carrying a drug or narcotics illegally.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gperfection
02-06-2012, 09:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky7
Could it be that the law that requires people to inform officer is not just for officer safety - but for the safety of the CCW holder?

Now, there's someone speaking with some common sense. Don't tell the officer you are CCW license holder and you do have a gun in the car (IN THAT ORDER, BY THE WAY), then he/she discovers you do have a gun, now things move very fast and get very exciting for you. Do whatever you want to do in this situation. Common sense wins, in my opinion, law or not!

RussP
02-06-2012, 09:25
Couldn't agree more. When I am stopped (heavy foot :)) I hand him license, insurance, work id and inform him of all guns in the vehicle. Usually just a pistol, but if during my work week I usually have a long gun or two. Dont have to tell him, but it's something I consider a professional courtesy. I would want to know if someone I'm stopping has a gun. You'd be surprised what goes through someone's mind when they receive a ticket or are about to be arrested, people do some weird ****.Yes, they sure do...So, you are a certified, card carrying, investigated, finger printed concealed carry permit holder (or whatever it is called in your state), a vetted 'good guy'. No law enforcement officer has anything to fear when in your presence.

You live a nice, normal by all standards life. You're a tax paying, PTA meeting goer, little league/Pop Warner/soccer supporting all american member of society in your community. Law enforcement has nothing to fear from you.

You have and live what others might say is the perfect life.

That's exactly what neighbors of Bart Wayne Johnson said about him. They could not believe the what police told them their neighbor had done.

He was a 29-year-old pharmacist, lived in a spacious home with a wife and seemed to have the perfect life those neighbors said.

One said it was just unbelievable. "They had a nice house, nice cars, a boat, a motorcycle. The only thing missing was the white picket fence." That neighbor thought they had it all.

Not even Johnson, whose court records shows a string of traffic violations but no violent history, knows why he opened fire on and killed Pelham police officer Phillip Davis at 11:50 p.m. one night in early December, 2009.

When he was sentenced to death in June of last year, the judge commented that the confrontation seemed out of character. Bart Wayne Johnson told the judge, "it was."

Would Phillip Davis be alive today if Bart Wayne Johnson had voluntarily told him he did have a gun?

Would Officer Davis be alive today if he had immediately asked Johnson if he had any weapons? He might be, but only if Johnson answered truthfully.

At what point in the traffic stop did Johnson decide to kill Officer Davis?

When Johnson told Davis his brother was a police officer, too, was that to get Officer Davis to relax, let down his guard so he could kill him? Seems like the jury and judge thought so.

Okay, I agree that requiring a permit holder to inform within some indeterminate time period is wrong. Do put the total burden on law enforcement to ask if you have weapons. Just make the penalty for lying substantial enough to be a real deterrent to doing so.

What? You're saying it's none of their business? You don't want to be disarmed, anytime, anywhere? The story about Bart Wayne Johnson, none of that has anything to do with you, you're different? Only bad guys will do bad things to cops.

Good for you. Then you need to advertise somehow, "I am not the next 'Bart Wayne Johnson'," the good guy in everyone's opinion right up until he murdered Phillip Davis.

RussP
02-06-2012, 10:12
Well, hopefully he has the common sense to know that anybody who is thinking about shooting him isn't going to tell them they have a gun, so there isn't much point in requiring only those who aren't a danger to tell him.There are bad guys carrying a gun who do tell you they have a gun, and tell you it's legal.

There are bad guys who try to get you to drop your guard by being friendly/cooperative.

There is no "guarantee", about anything.

It isn't about "common sense", it's about experience, training, and real world tactics used in, the real world.
I'm not sure where you're going with your comments. The way I read TBO's response, the bold part of it is specific to the bold part of Bren's post.

The second sentence describes what happened when Bart Wayne Johnson told Pelham, Alabama (which does not require permit holders to notify) police officer Phillip Davis his brother was a police officer, right before he shot him in the face, killing him.

The third sentence is just the truth.

The last sentence again responds to Bren's post.

As TBO saysMy comments should be pretty clear, they are addressing the quote contained within my post. Nothing more, nothing less.

...we have real-world laboratories to observe what happens when notification is not legally required, and those laboratories have shown that there is no "blood in the streets" in the absence of notification requirements.Oh, but there has been blood in the street... (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18533233#post18533233)

Here, read the entire story... (http://topics.al.com/tag/Bart%20Wayne%20Johnson/index.html)

ChrisD
02-06-2012, 10:26
I don't that that it should necessarily be required but I think that it is a good idea to inform the officer.

TDC20
02-06-2012, 10:59
In tx a condition of your concealed permit is that you will not commit any crime while carrying. In theory if you are speeding or breaking some other traffic law you are violating your license. This more applies to assaults, thefts etc. even if a weapon isn't used in the commission of the crime.

Are you sure that a traffic violation is a "crime" in TX? Because most states do not consider them crimes. There are exceptions, such as DUI, exceeding the speed limit by an obnoxious amount (30mph in some states, 100mph on an interstate, etc.) but an infraction or moving violation is not considered a crime.

Getting pulled over for 8mph over while arguing with your wife about the checking account balance hardly rises to what a reasonable person would consider a "crime." But maybe in Texas....

In the case of an LEO encounter after the commission of a crime, then I would definitely say inform...before you get yourself shot! You're likely not going to need the gun or permit ever again, anyway.

GeorgiaGlocker
02-06-2012, 11:08
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

So this is the one where he said he should "execute him for being stupid" and all the little old ladies decided to pretend they believed that was meant literally, so they'd have something to whine about?:rofl:
Let's see who is stupid. Officer Harless was FIRED from the Canton PD for his stupidity. :rofl::rofl:

MySiK26
02-06-2012, 12:13
It's a fact that most permit holders aren't "gun people", either...

It's a fact that not all permit holders are law abiding. I've seen a few folks with permits come into my jail.

It's also a fact that, as an officer, I disclose the fact that I am armed on the rare occasion I am pulled over. Not speeding tends to help, but there is the rare time I get in a hurry. I also pull over as far as I can, so the officer can make a safe approach. The engine gets turned off, if its dark, the interior light goes on, the window gets rolled down, and usually, I have my OL, work ID, and insurance proof ready.

Do I have to? Of course not. Does it help the officer do his job? Yep. And, since i know first hand the sheer amount of stupidity officers deal with daily, anything I can do to make his life easier, I will. Its called "being polite". Try it sometime.

I agree that not all permit holders are "gun people" or law abiding citizens. The way I've seen some cwp holders handle a gun, is downright scary :shocked: I also agree 100% that not all cwp holders are law abiding citizens, I've witnessed it first hand. Any thug who's never been in the system can obtain a cwp in Florida, but that's another issue altogether.

With the exception of notifying the officer, we have the same approach to making the stop feel as safe as possible for myself and the officer(s). I can, and have always, been "polite" with LEO interactions.

Your comment triggers a lot of questions, but I'll only ask a few right now.

Do you know whether the number of police officers who feel that way is increasing or decreasing?

The number of firearms sold is definitely increasing. The number of applications for concealed carry permits is definitely increasing. The number of gun rights advocates is increasing. The number of successful self defense uses of firearms, or at least the number of reports about them are increasing.

Is the number of people in law enforcement totally opposed to gun ownership increasing or decreasing?

What is it about everyone who wants to legally own a gun owning a gun that police officers don't like these days?

Russ, I would have to guess that the number of officers who fall in that category are the minority, but they exist nonetheless. I would also ASSume that trend is decreasing. Until the law changes, I'll put the burden on the officer(s). I do KNOW one thing, my uncle, cousin, brother in law, and friends in LE are pro gun. On the other side of the spectrum, I know a guy that grew up across the street from me (same age as me) who never fired a gun until he went through the academy. I also think he's a friggin jerk, even though I've always had a good relationship with his brother and parents.

Let's see who is stupid. Officer Harless was FIRED from the Canton PD for his stupidity. :rofl::rofl:

Not that I'm sticking up for Officer Harless, but I can see where he's coming from. I absolutely think he overreacted. Any person in a leadership role needs to know how to remain calm and keep their cool. Bad things happen when you lose control of a situation, which obviously happened and the repercussions confirm. Watching the video also raises a couple questions on my end. From what Harless says, I can infer they were in a known prostitution area. He was giving a known prostitute "a ride", with a guy in his back seat who's name and DOB didn't come back from dispatch. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." Harless obviously cares for his community that he serves, and probably lives in or near by, and was understandably upset with what was going on. I'd be pissed too if I thought someone was picking up a prostitute in my community that I live and work, and possibly have a family in. Prostitution often goes hand in hand with other crimes. I hope the best for Officer Harless and his family, and that maybe he gets some type of anger management assistance.

SCSU74
02-06-2012, 13:04
Are you sure that a traffic violation is a "crime" in TX? Because most states do not consider them crimes. There are exceptions, such as DUI, exceeding the speed limit by an obnoxious amount (30mph in some states, 100mph on an interstate, etc.) but an infraction or moving violation is not considered a crime.

Getting pulled over for 8mph over while arguing with your wife about the checking account balance hardly rises to what a reasonable person would consider a "crime." But maybe in Texas....

In the case of an LEO encounter after the commission of a crime, then I would definitely say inform...before you get yourself shot! You're likely not going to need the gun or permit ever again, anyway.

Yep, only thing we cannot arrest for is a ticket solely for speeding or solely for an open container. Everything else you can be arrested for an taken to jail an your vehicle can be towed. I say "can" because the majority of the time a ticket is written and you are released. Any ticket you receive is an "arrest" you are just released to pay the fine at a later date. The reason I mentioned it is because it gives us an option for uncooperative people. Dont want to give me your Id? That's fine you're going to jail, don't want to disarm? That fine you're going to jail and I'll take your weapon and concealed license. Things go much smoother if you are cooperative.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

cloudbuster
02-06-2012, 13:42
The way I read TBO's response, the bold part of it is specific to the bold part of Bren's post.

The second sentence describes what happened when Bart Wayne Johnson told Pelham, Alabama (which does not require permit holders to notify) police officer Phillip Davis his brother was a police officer, right before he shot him in the face, killing him.

The third sentence is just the truth.

The last sentence again responds to Bren's post.

As TBO says

Oh, but there has been blood in the street... (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18533233#post18533233)

Here, read the entire story... (http://topics.al.com/tag/Bart%20Wayne%20Johnson/index.html)

How would the Johnson incident have gone differently if there was a notification requirement? Right, if it had happened in Ohio, in addition to being sentence to death for first degree murder, he'd also be guilty of a misdemeanor failure to notify. Great.

Second, extreme anecdotal incidents are not evidence for or against a policy. They're sheer emotionalism. Of course nobody ever wants to see someone like officer Davis die, but the fact is that nobody on this thread has provided a shred of persuasive objective evidence that states with legal notification requirements are safer for officers or citizens than states without notification requirements.

My confusion with TBO's statements wasn't the meaning of the individual statements. I understood them. What I didn't understand was how they related to the thread topic. Even yourself -- it seems from earlier posts that you oppose notification requirements, but then you make the "oh there has been blood in the streets" statement. In the context of the thread topic, one could take it that you mean there has been blood in the streets because people have not been required to notify, and I'm not sure that's what you meant.

Yes, in a very literalistic sense there has been "blood in the streets" but the phrase is a reference to the common anti-gunner claims that if concealed carry is allowed in a state that it will be "like the wild west" with "blood in the streets" while the reality is that this is not the case -- concealed carry laws have no sparked increased violence. It doesn't mean that people with concealed carry permits will never engage in unwarranted violence. Of course there will be officers who are killed in the line of duty during traffic stops in states that have no notification requirement, just has has happened in states with a notification requirement. That seems to me to be more a comment on the human condition than a considered argument for the efficacy of notification requirements.

cloudbuster
02-06-2012, 13:54
Okay, I agree that requiring a permit holder to inform within some indeterminate time period is wrong. Do put the total burden on law enforcement to ask if you have weapons. Just make the penalty for lying substantial enough to be a real deterrent to doing so.


This I can agree with 100%. I can't remember the legal term for it, but lying to a police officer about whether you're carrying a deadly weapon when he's asking you in the line of duty falls into a category of actions that indicate criminal intent.

If carrying the weapon is legal for you, you have no reason to lie -- it's not a fifth amendment issue.

If carrying the weapon is illegal for you, you can "refuse to answer on the grounds that you would be incriminating yourself" but if the officer has stopped you for a traffic stop or other legitimate reason, court cases have pretty firmly established that the officer has the power to ensure that you are not armed to protect his own safety, and refusing to cooperate is only going to get you searched, and there's not a court in the U.S. that's going to blame the officer.

I don't know if this would have saved Davis -- there's no law that can protect you from being lured off your guard and making mistaken judgment about somebody. We don't live in a perfect world. There's no sure way to tell the good guys apart from the really smooth operators or seemingly normal people who are just about to go round the bend. Unless you want to drag everyone you stop out of their car at gun point and cuff them, there's no way you can be sure. You can't ask for perfection. You just have to make the best compromises you can that respect the rights and safety of both the officer and the citizen as much as possible.

But it's clear to me that the Ohio notification laws protect neither the officer nor the citizen. They only add to the ways an encounter can end badly.

Followup thought: If it was part of Officer Davis's regular protocol to ask "Are you carrying a weapon?" it might have helped him out. Lots of people have "tells" when telling a deliberate lie in answer to a direct question. It's possible Davis might have noticed something even in a negative response that would have put him on his guard. Not a guarantee, but as I indicate above, guarantees aren't possible.

RussP
02-06-2012, 14:25
How would the Johnson incident have gone differently if there was a notification requirement?According to reports, those on the defense side say Johnson had some demons riding with him that night that influenced his behavior. Would he have notified if required by law? No one knows. Would Officer Davis have disarmed him if he had? No one knows. Hopefully, someone will interview Johnson, ask all the questions and publish the answers so we all can learn.Right, if it had happened in Ohio, in addition to being sentence to death for first degree murder, he'd also be guilty of a misdemeanor failure to notify. Great.Could happen.Second, extreme anecdotal incidents are not evidence for or against a policy. They're sheer emotionalism. Of course nobody ever wants to see someone like officer Davis die, but the fact is that nobody on this thread has provided a shred of persuasive objective evidence that states with legal notification requirements are safer for officers or citizens than states without notification requirements.You are correct. Let's dehumanize all evidence and rely solely on the hard numbers. That's always better, yeah, don't cloud things up...

You are also correct that no evidence, no objective numbers, have been presented to support mandatory notification. Could be, and probably is true that mandatory notification is not the way to manage the issue. My confusion with TBO's statements wasn't the meaning of the individual statements. I understood them. What I didn't understand was how they related to the thread topic.Again, Bren made a comment. TBO responded to THAT comment, not the OP. It's that simple. Even yourself -- it seems from earlier posts that you oppose notification requirements, but then you make the "oh there has been blood in the streets" statement. In the context of the thread topic, one could take it that you mean there has been blood in the streets because people have not been required to notify, and I'm not sure that's what you meant.While I did not quote anyone, my post and references to Officer Davis' murder was directed to those who say police should not fear the good guys, those with carry permits. Only bad guys kill cops.
Yes, in a very literalistic sense there has been "blood in the streets" but the phrase is a reference to the common anti-gunner claims that if concealed carry is allowed in a state that it will be "like the wild west" with "blood in the streets" while the reality is that this is not the case -- concealed carry laws have no sparked increased violence. It doesn't mean that people with concealed carry permits will never engage in unwarranted violence. Of course there will be officers who are killed in the line of duty during traffic stops in states that have no notification requirement, just has has happened in states with a notification requirement. That seems to me to be more a comment on the human condition than a considered argument for the efficacy of notification requirements.It is, yes.

RussP
02-06-2012, 14:26
This I can agree with 100%. I can't remember the legal term for it, but lying to a police officer about whether you're carrying a deadly weapon when he's asking you in the line of duty falls into a category of actions that indicate criminal intent.

If carrying the weapon is legal for you, you have no reason to lie -- it's not a fifth amendment issue.

If carrying the weapon is illegal for you, you can "refuse to answer on the grounds that you would be incriminating yourself" but if the officer has stopped you for a traffic stop or other legitimate reason, court cases have pretty firmly established that the officer has the power to ensure that you are not armed to protect his own safety, and refusing to cooperate is only going to get you searched, and there's not a court in the U.S. that's going to blame the officer.

I don't know if this would have saved Davis -- there's no law that can protect you from being lured off your guard and making mistaken judgment about somebody. We don't live in a perfect world. There's no sure way to tell the good guys apart from the really smooth operators or seemingly normal people who are just about to go round the bend. Unless you want to drag everyone you stop out of their car at gun point and cuff them, there's no way you can be sure. You can't ask for perfection. You just have to make the best compromises you can that respect the rights and safety of both the officer and the citizen as much as possible.

But it's clear to me that the Ohio notification laws protect neither the officer nor the citizen. They only add to the ways an encounter can end badly.

Followup thought: If it was part of Officer Davis's regular protocol to ask "Are you carrying a weapon?" it might have helped him out. Lots of people have "tells" when telling a deliberate lie in answer to a direct question. It's possible Davis might have noticed something even in a negative response that would have put him on his guard. Not a guarantee, but as I indicate above, guarantees aren't possible.Good post...

pirateguy191
02-06-2012, 14:42
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

So this is the one where he said he should "execute him for being stupid" and all the little old ladies decided to pretend they believed that was meant literally, so they'd have something to whine about?:rofl:

Really funny one right there. Have you ever been threatened with execution from a lunatic police officer? What a ******.

Bren
02-06-2012, 15:10
Really funny one right there. Have you ever been threatened with execution from a lunatic police officer? What a ******.

No, but as a lunatic police officer I have actually threatened numerous people with execution. Usually using more descriptive terms. :rofl:

You people sure scare easy.:rofl:

On the other hand, I like people who scare easy - saves me a lot of work.

SCSU74
02-06-2012, 15:11
No, but as a lunatic police officer I have actually threatened numerous people with execution. Usually using more descriptive terms. :rofl:

You people sure scare easy.:rofl:

On the other hand, I like people who scare easy - saves me a lot of work.

Hahaha




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

GeorgiaGlocker
02-06-2012, 17:08
No, but as a lunatic police officer I have actually threatened numerous people with execution. Usually using more descriptive terms. :rofl:

You people sure scare easy.:rofl:

On the other hand, I like people who scare easy - saves me a lot of work.

You are more mentally challenged than I thought. Your name isn't Harless, Jr, by chance is it?

kensteele
02-06-2012, 17:11
The reason I mentioned it is because it gives us an option for uncooperative people. Dont want to give me your Id? That's fine you're going to jail, don't want to disarm? That fine you're going to jail and I'll take your weapon and concealed license. Things go much smoother if you are cooperative.


Aren't there separate statutes in TX that cover these events? Are you not committing a crime in TX if you don't present your DL to a peace officer upon demand?

cloudbuster
02-06-2012, 17:16
No, but as a lunatic police officer I have actually threatened numerous people with execution. Usually using more descriptive terms. :rofl:

You people sure scare easy.:rofl:

On the other hand, I like people who scare easy - saves me a lot of work.

I'm in Kentucky occasionally. It's a nice state. Where do you work? I want to make a point of avoiding you.

Dragoon44
02-06-2012, 18:24
If so, why, given that we have a vast body of evidence in states without notification requirements that indicate that notification requirements are not necessary for safe, effective interactions between police and citizens who carry concealed?



Interesting point of view, in essence your argument appears to be that the vast majority of CCW holders are not in fact law abiding citizens but instead scoff laws that cannot or will not obey traffic laws routinely being pulled over for violations, thus creating this claimed "vast body of evidence".

Whether you are simply assuming that others are like you or taking the posts of CCW holders in GNG who apparently are routinely pulled over for traffic violations as being the "norm" I personally do not think that is the case.

I personally do not care whether or not someone must notify or not but I do recognize the fact that when someone is pulled over for a violation they are in fact "seized" or detained. That being the case I really don't have a problem if the Legislature decides that the individual if they are a CCW holder and armed inform the officer that has detained them that they are armed.

RussP
02-06-2012, 18:27
Really funny one right there. Have you ever been threatened with execution from a lunatic police officer? What a ******.You're new. Stick around... If that bothered you...:animlol:...can't wait to get your reaction to some other GTers...:rofl:

SCSU74
02-06-2012, 19:05
Aren't there separate statutes in TX that cover these events? Are you not committing a crime in TX if you don't present your DL to a peace officer upon demand?

There are, I was just listing some examples. The not providing dl would be failure to id.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Misty02
02-07-2012, 05:51
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

So this is the one where he said he should "execute him for being stupid" and all the little old ladies decided to pretend they believed that was meant literally, so they'd have something to whine about?:rofl:

With all due respect Bren, there are certain things that should never be said by a person that is armed; that includes an officer.

People, without actually meaning it, say ďIím going to kill you!Ē Often, it just an expression. At times it is said laughing as a joke, others out of frustration. Once I started carrying I realized it was an expression I could/should no longer use. I realized that carrying a tool that could do just that took away my ability to joke in that fashion, let alone when I was upset.

I would carefully proceed with an armed person, unknown to me, that told me they were going to kill me or execute me. I must remain aware that they might just mean it. Not something to take lightly, in my opinion.

Then again, Iím an old lady so your comment may just fit! :)

.

Bren
02-07-2012, 06:04
I'm in Kentucky occasionally. It's a nice state. Where do you work? I want to make a point of avoiding you.

I'm no longer a police officer and have since moved up to a higher level in government. Don't avoid me, I love meeting you people in real life.:rofl:

RussP
02-07-2012, 08:03
With all due respect Bren, there are certain things that should never be said by a person that is armed; that includes an officer.

People, without actually meaning it, say ďIím going to kill you!Ē Often, it just an expression. At times it is said laughing as a joke, others out of frustration. Once I started carrying I realized it was an expression I could/should no longer use. I realized that carrying a tool that could do just that took away my ability to joke in that fashion, let alone when I was upset.

I would carefully proceed with an armed person, unknown to me, that told me they were going to kill me or execute me. I must remain aware that they might just mean it. Not something to take lightly, in my opinion.

Then again, Iím an old lady so your comment may just fit! :)

.Well said, as usual...

cloudbuster
02-07-2012, 08:31
Interesting point of view, in essence your argument appears to be that the vast majority of CCW holders are not in fact law abiding citizens but instead scoff laws that cannot or will not obey traffic laws routinely being pulled over for violations, thus creating this claimed "vast body of evidence".

Whether you are simply assuming that others are like you or taking the posts of CCW holders in GNG who apparently are routinely pulled over for traffic violations as being the "norm" I personally do not think that is the case.

I personally do not care whether or not someone must notify or not but I do recognize the fact that when someone is pulled over for a violation they are in fact "seized" or detained. That being the case I really don't have a problem if the Legislature decides that the individual if they are a CCW holder and armed inform the officer that has detained them that they are armed.

Don't be obtuse. I expect that CCW holders are fairly normal people, who, like other normal people, sometimes get pulled over for speeding, or having a taillight out or whatever, at similar rates to the rest of the population.

Over multiple states for time periods of up to several decades, even for a very law-abiding segment of the population, this does, indeed, constitute a vast body of evidence.

Here in Ohio, our designated anti-gun attack dog is a lady named Toby Hoover. I expect every state has one or more. If states without notifications were having particular problems at traffic stops, you can bet their Toby Hoovers would be all over the issue like flies on manure.

I gather from other posts that you're a long-serving police officer. Regarding Ohio's notification requirements, can you think of any other circumstances where someone who is detained is considered guilty of a crime for simply sitting silently (assuming the person isn't sitting silently on someone else's private property or somewhere else they're not allowed to sit)?

Other than identifying themselves, people who are detained don't typically have positive duties to the state (things they are required by law to actively do), they merely have negative duties (to not resist or obstruct an officer in legitimate execution of his duties). People generally have the right to shut up and lawyer up if detained. It may not be the wise thing to do -- may end up causing the person more grief than if they'd actively cooperated and answered questions -- but it's perfectly legal to do. I'm not sure if even failing to identify yourself qualifies as a "crime" exactly, though we've seen cases were people have been indefinitely detained until they could be identified.

cloudbuster
02-07-2012, 08:35
I'm no longer a police officer and have since moved up to a higher level in government. Don't avoid me, I love meeting you people in real life.:rofl:

"You people?" That's racist! :tongueout:

pirateguy191
02-08-2012, 16:12
I'm no longer a police officer and have since moved up to a higher level in government. Don't avoid me, I love meeting you people in real life.:rofl:

I still think you're a ****** bag. Oh, I forgot:rofl:

MinnesnowtaWild
02-08-2012, 23:28
I don't think it should be required, but I think people should do it anyways out of respect for officer safety.

Bren
02-09-2012, 04:23
"You people?" That's racist! :tongueout:


Hardly racist. I'm not allowed to describe what I meant by "you people" (GT rules) but it's closer to sexist than to racist.