[Gunnut 45/454]

Disreguarding that the SCOTUS already said just because a person is carrying a firearm doesn't give them the right to stop/questioning by LEO's! I hope FL State has alot of money to give out in the pending lawsuits for wrongful arrest!

[BigBearCarolina]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

This. Word for word. I have never understood the people that antagonize an officer during a stop. Being cooperative beats being an argumentative ass every time, even if the officer is not showing you the same courtesy. If you get an officer that is being a jerk, take it up with his superiors at a later time. The side of the road is NEVER the place to argue or be a Constitution Commando.

I have been asked by an officer to search my vehicle on one occasion. I did not ask why as it really didn't matter to me. I had nothing to hide, so I said absolutely. He asked me to exit the vehicle and retreived the german shepherd from his car. He opened all the doors and the trunk and allowed the dog to sniff around the inside of the car. It literally took about 2 minutes and that was the end of that. The officer thanked me for my cooperation and didn't even write me the speeding ticket I deserved. Had I been a jerk about it and blabbered about my constitutional rights, I am sure things would have gone south in a hurry. I don't get why some people don't understand that.

Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

[SCmasterblaster]

Originally Posted by SFla27

^^ And this too. ^^

Yes sir, no sir.

Assuming you're not being asked to take part in the receiving end of an impromptu body cavity search to be performed by a rhinoceros, complying with the officers' requests without attitude will up your chances of a non-issue tremendously.

Heh heh heh - performed by a rhinoceros! heh heh heh!

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by MAC702

How much you wanna bet TM would be alive today if Z had been openly carrying?

Probably true.

[James Dean]

I get something different out of this. I think the AG is trying to protect the police by saying its okay to stop and ask questions if you see someone with a gun. Is it wrong? I don't know. Time will tell. Sometimes a little corporation goes along way, as well as a little *** kissing at a traffic stop.

[Chris Chris]

Originally Posted by James Dean

I get something different out of this. I think the AG is trying to protect the police by saying its okay to stop and ask questions if you see someone with a gun. Is it wrong? I don't know. Time will tell. Sometimes a little corporation goes along way, as well as a little *** kissing at a traffic stop.

Excellent point. In Florida (and elsewhere) the only difference between commiting the CRIME of illegally carry a concealed weapon, and being in complete accordance with the law and thus LEGALLY carrying a concealed weapon, is that little plastic card the State issues to the carrier.

The LEO doesn't know which case he is dealing with until they see the 'card'. A LEO should have the right to ask to see the card. And... a lawful CCW carrier should have no problem politely showing it to them.

I think anyone who has spent time in the LE profession can understand that. And, I would also think that any lawful carrier would prefer that those carrying concealed handguns be the same law-abiding and properly licensed citizen that they are.

The only way to find out is to see the 'card'.

[Bruce M]

This case had nothing to do with a lawful concealed carrier. It involved a convicted felon with a gun partially exposed loitering in a drug hole.

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by James Dean

I get something different out of this. I think the AG is trying to protect the police by saying its okay to stop and ask questions if you see someone with a gun. Is it wrong? I don't know. Time will tell. Sometimes a little corporation goes along way, as well as a little *** kissing at a traffic stop.

You re mostly right. the author of the article has blown the thing way out of proportion. Bondi's statements were part of a legal brief in a case before the Florida Supreme Court not directive for policy for LEO (Which the Florida AG has no authority to do anyway.)

[redbaron007]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

One thing to bear in mind about whatever the Florida AG has to say.

The FLorida AG has opinions and that is all. unlike many other states the Fl AG has no authority whatsoever over Fl LE agencies and cannot dictate policies for LE.

The Ag's role in Fl is strictly advisory with no legal weight behind the advisory.

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

You re mostly right. the author of the article has blown the thing way out of proportion. Bondi's statements were part of a legal brief in a case before the Florida Supreme Court not directive for policy for LEO (Which the Florida AG has no authority to do anyway.)

But even in an advisory capacity, could not those LEA choose to follow his advisory...especially if they are somewhat anti-gun? It may not provide 100% cover, but through litigation, they could say they were following the advice of the AG; thus potentially releasing them from violating ones right?

IMHO, problem is, if the case is upheld, it creates bad case law. Hence, why the Florida Open Carry filed their brief.

It reminds me of the cliche': Guilty till proven innocent.

This brings back another conversation recently discussed. I know a LEO in my area who makes it a point to tell people 'if you don't tell my you have a firearm concealed; you will spend time in cuffs and the back seat/station until "I" figure it out. It could take hours.' Our state is not required disclosure state.



red

[Chris Chris]

Originally Posted by redbaron007

But even in an advisory capacity, could not those LEA choose to follow his advisory...especially if they are somewhat anti-gun? It may not provide 100% cover, but through litigation, they could say they were following the advice of the AG; thus potentially releasing them from violating ones right?

IMHO, problem is, if the case is upheld, it creates bad case law. Hence, why the Florida Open Carry filed their brief.

It reminds me of the cliche': Guilty till proven innocent.

This brings back another conversation recently discussed. I know a LEO in my area who makes it a point to tell people 'if you don't tell my you have a firearm concealed; you will spend time in cuffs and the back seat/station until "I" figure it out. It could take hours.' Our state is not required disclosure state.



red

And... JMHO... what is wrong with simply telling the officer " I have a concealed handgun and a permit, and how do you wish me to procede?"... whether your state law requires it or not? It does prevent a sudden surprise to the LEO (when I was in that line of work we figured "The best surprise was no surprise.") and seems like a reasonable thing to do if you are facing a LEO.

Do that, and the incident RE: concealed handgun is over.

Why not simply do that? It certainly is a lot easier than being a totally assertive jerk & and a rampaging fool who wishes to argue for the sake of making a point on YouTube (which, a careful observer might rename the Stupid/Tube). Arguing about a concealed gun with a LEO in a street interview is about as STUPID as you can get! Just tell them up front, and the problem is solved.

[redbaron007]

Originally Posted by Chris Chris

And... JMHO... what is wrong with simply telling the officer " I have a concealed handgun and a permit, and how do you wish me to procede?"... whether your state law requires it or not? It does prevent a sudden surprise to the LEO (when I was in that line of work we figured "The best surprise was no surprise.") and seems like a reasonable thing to do if you are facing a LEO.

Do that, and the incident RE: concealed handgun is over.

Why not simply do that? It certainly is a lot easier than being a totally assertive jerk & and a rampaging fool who wishes to argue for the sake of making a point on YouTube (which, a careful observer might rename the Stupid/Tube). Arguing about a concealed gun with a LEO in a street interview is about as STUPID as you can get! Just tell them up front, and the problem is solved.

Haven't read or been informed......you don't talk to the po-po!

Please, you tell the po-po everything you know.



red

[Gunnut 45/454]

Chris Chris
So where in the 2nd Admendment does it say you have to have that card to carry? Where in the 4th does it say you have to give anything to the police -just because they ask? Does the 4th say they have a right to ask? I'm of the mind that if you haven't broken a law the police should leave you alone- period! Now understanding that if you accidentally expose your CCW in FL -you have broken the law! Stupid as that is! Unlike Idaho where I can expose /OC my carry weapon anyway I wish!

[RenegadeGlocker]

Given the small percentage of the population that is licensed to carry a concealed firearm, the overwhelming majority of firearms, or 95%, are not licensed to be concealed. Thus, an officer’s suspicion that a firearm is not licensed would be reasonable because, in any given case, there would be, statistically speaking, a 95% likelihood of illegality

Holy math/statistical fail.

[RenegadeGlocker]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

Disreguarding that the SCOTUS already said just because a person is carrying a firearm doesn't give them the right to stop/questioning by LEO's!

What case was that?

[F350]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

This. Word for word. I have never understood the people that antagonize an officer during a stop. Being cooperative beats being an argumentative ass every time, even if the officer is not showing you the same courtesy. If you get an officer that is being a jerk, take it up with his superiors at a later time. The side of the road is NEVER the place to argue or be a Constitution Commando.

I have been asked by an officer to search my vehicle on one occasion. I did not ask why as it really didn't matter to me. I had nothing to hide, so I said absolutely. He asked me to exit the vehicle and retreived the german shepherd from his car. He opened all the doors and the trunk and allowed the dog to sniff around the inside of the car. It literally took about 2 minutes and that was the end of that. The officer thanked me for my cooperation and didn't even write me the speeding ticket I deserved. Had I been a jerk about it and blabbered about my constitutional rights, I am sure things would have gone south in a hurry. I don't get why some people don't understand that.

And what would have done if dogie "found" a little baggy of meth??? You consented; you are ****ed! You think all LEO are Andy of Mayberry??

[Dragoon44]

But even in an advisory capacity, could not those LEA choose to follow his advisory...especially if they are somewhat anti-gun? It may not provide 100% cover, but through litigation, they could say they were following the advice of the AG; thus potentially releasing them from violating ones right?

Again the Fl AG's opinion carries NO legal weight. Every LE agency in Fl is aware of this. The only opinions they MIGHT listen to is those where the Ag has been asked for his legal opinion on some aspect of Fl law. That is not the case in this situation. This is not an opinion issued by the AG it is part of the Ag's argument in the brief filed with the court.

IMHO, problem is, if the case is upheld, it creates bad case law. Hence, why the Florida Open Carry filed their brief.

The case has noting to do with open carry. the individual was not arrested for open carry. the defense is trying to claim that part of the handle of the firearm being visible equals open carry but it does not.

It reminds me of the cliche': Guilty till proven innocent.

This mantra of the gun rights folks always amuses me. obviously if the police in their work operate don innocent until proven guilty they would never arrest anyone or charge them with anything.

"innocent until proven guilty" has it's place, but that place is the courtroom not the street.

[rvrctyrngr]

Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker

What case was that?

Florida v. J.L., 2000

There is currently a split between Florida's DCAs about whether the presence of a firearm, absent RAS of criminal activity (excepting the carrying of a firearm) is grounds for a Terry stop.

The split is the reason this case is now before the Florida Supreme Court.

[RenegadeGlocker]

Originally Posted by rvrctyrngr

Florida v. J.L., 2000

There is currently a split between Florida's DCAs about whether the presence of a firearm, absent RAS of criminal activity (excepting the carrying of a firearm) is grounds for a Terry stop.

The split is the reason this case is now before the Florida Supreme Court.

Thanks, but I was asking for the the SCOTUS case:

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

Disreguarding that the SCOTUS already said just because a person is carrying a firearm doesn't give them the right to stop/questioning by LEO's!

[eracer]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

Out of curiosity was there an investigation? An inquest?

I can't vouch for the validity of the reported 'facts' as presented in the article.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=616:hoplophobia-kills&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

[eracer]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

This mantra of the gun rights folks always amuses me. obviously if the police in their work operate don innocent until proven guilty they would never arrest anyone or charge them with anything.

"innocent until proven guilty" has it's place, but that place is the courtroom not the street.

Which is why we have constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. And why we must protect that right against those who would trash it in name of some manufactured notion of 'Greater Good.'

[rvrctyrngr]

Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker

Thanks, but I was asking for the the SCOTUS case:

Florida v. J.L. IS the SCOTUS case (529 U.S. 266).

[RenegadeGlocker]

Originally Posted by rvrctyrngr

Florida v. J.L. IS the SCOTUS case (529 U.S. 266).

Ok thanks.

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

This. Word for word. I have never understood the people that antagonize an officer during a stop. Being cooperative beats being an argumentative ass every time, even if the officer is not showing you the same courtesy. If you get an officer that is being a jerk, take it up with his superiors at a later time. The side of the road is NEVER the place to argue or be a Constitution Commando.

I have been asked by an officer to search my vehicle on one occasion. I did not ask why as it really didn't matter to me. I had nothing to hide, so I said absolutely. He asked me to exit the vehicle and retreived the german shepherd from his car. He opened all the doors and the trunk and allowed the dog to sniff around the inside of the car. It literally took about 2 minutes and that was the end of that. The officer thanked me for my cooperation and didn't even write me the speeding ticket I deserved. Had I been a jerk about it and blabbered about my constitutional rights, I am sure things would have gone south in a hurry. I don't get why some people don't understand that.

Yeah, if you just let them do whatever they want, your rights be damned, it'll all be over quick, right?!

[Dragoon44]

Originally Posted by eracer

Which is why we have constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. And why we must protect that right against those who would trash it in name of some manufactured notion of 'Greater Good.'

No argument there other than with the folks that want to either ignore the "unreasonable" part. Or claim that ANY search without a warrant is unreasonable.

[fuzzy03cls]

And... JMHO... what is wrong with simply telling the officer " I have a concealed handgun and a permit, and how do you wish me to procede?"... whether your state law requires it or not?

Because some Leo's OVERACT. IE FHP. You turn a 10 minute simple traffic stop into a 30 min ordeal, having your gun taking from you, finger F'ed, unloaded, given back to you in pieces, & then lectured on why you shouldn't have a gun.
Maybe you get a few nice ones, And then maybe not.