NM - Supreme Court allows police to take firearms from law-abiding motorists.

[Shellback]

I think this (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3494.asp) is very interesting. The actual court decision in PDF format can be read here. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf)

[JDM]

I really see no issue with this. Seems like an officer safety thing, not an encroachment on my rights thing.

[WDW]

I don't agree with this at all. If he has a right to take my legally posessed weapon for his safety, where is my right to take his for mine? Police officers murder, rape, assault, and rob people too. If I have a legal right to posess a weapon, he should not be allowed to disarm me without cause. But, to each his own. That is why I have 50 choices as to where I can live in this country. TN has no such law or legal precedence and I don't suspect it ever will. When I do get pulled over though, I keep my hands on the wheel, inform the officer I have a HCP, and tell him where my weapon is so if it's in my glovebox, he doesn't flip out when I grab my registration.

[TCinVA]

I really see no issue with this. Seems like an officer safety thing, not an encroachment on my rights thing.

Precisely. If an officer is interacting with you in an official capacity (like a traffic stop) then it's highly unlikely that the courts anywhere are going to hold that he/she cannot at least temporarily secure a firearm for their own personal safety. If the officer has a right to detain you in the first place then odds are the courts will allow him/her to take reasonable precautions for his/her safety. Securing the firearm if one is in play is going to be left up to the officer's judgment by most jurists.

I don't see anything to get too worked up about in that decision.


I don't agree with this at all. If he has a right to take my legally posessed weapon for his safety, where is my right to take his for mine?

That's an absurd statement. Since you have no legal authority to detain/arrest a uniformed police officer, and no duty to enforce codes/statutes, and cannot demonstrate that police officers routinely shoot people unjustly during traffic stops, it's impossible to argue a compelling need for you to disarm an agent of the state who is carrying out his/her duty.

Since police officers interact with legally armed individuals daily without anyone being killed over it, leaving it up to the officer's discretion (which is essentially the policy of most departments) is probably a good idea.

[John Ralston]

If the police can take away your constitutional rights every time they feel like it for "safety", we might as well get rid of the constitution all together. Officer Safety isn't protected by the constitution, and should not trump something that is. If the guy is being pulled over for a traffic stop, should we check his trunk too, to make sure we're all safe? After all, it's only a slight inconvenience. It was a traffic stop, once they determined he was a felon, then there is reason to arrest the individual, but not before, and certainly not reasonable to assume that everyone pulled over should be detained and stripped of their firearms.

The constitution was created to keep things like this from happening. Can you imagine the shit storm that would take place if the 1st amendment was suspended during an incident (say something like the LA Shootout) and the papers, blogs, etc. were prohibited from reporting on what was going on in order to protect the officers involved?

I don't think "Infringed" has a time limit.

[jslaker]

I think TC is probably right in that it's unlikely a court would rule against an officer securing weapons during an official stop.

That said, it'd be nice if cops realized that a gun staying secured in a holster is safer than one being handled.

[TCinVA]

If the police can take away your constitutional rights every time they feel like it for "safety", we might as well get rid of the constitution all together. Officer Safety isn't protected by the constitution, and should not trump something that is.


The courts have in the past, and will in the future, recognize that there are practical considerations that go into the actions of law enforcement. A police officer interacting with an armed person during an official LE function like a traffic stop (meaning there has been some sort of offense that gives the officer legal right to detain you) will always have a legitimate concern about his/her personal safety. The courts will always give deference to legitimate personal safety concerns on the part of police officers.



If the guy is being pulled over for a traffic stop, should we check his trunk too, to make sure we're all safe?


That's not what happened. In this case the officer conducting the stop saw the weapon in plain sight, and then secured the people in the car and the weapon for his personal safety. This isn't the same thing as the officer ransacking the vehicle and the occupants in the hopes of finding a weapon.

When the officer saw the weapon, he took reasonable measures to ensure his safety...and good thing, too, as the person with the handgun was a convicted felon.


I think TC is probably right in that it's unlikely a court would rule against an officer securing weapons during an official stop.

That said, it'd be nice if cops realized that a gun staying secured in a holster is safer than one being handled.

Most officers, at least in my experience, don't want to fool with the gun.

[JDM]

@John-suggesting that a police officer securing a firearm that is in plain view (as it was in the above case) AFTER he has already had legal cause to detain you is in the same ballpark as a warrentless search of a locked trunk is a little absurd.

[JDM]

That said, it'd be nice if cops realized that a gun staying secured in a holster is safer than one being handled.


I've been pulled over three times in the last 3 months. (out of state temp tag). In each of the three instances, I informed the officer that I had a concealed firearm, and he said something to the effect of "ok, leave it be."

Experienced street cops know people like us aren't the problem.

[jslaker]

Most officers, at least in my experience, don't want to fool with the gun.

Probably depends on the locale. I've just heard enough stories about cops snatching weapons and the like to make me leery. I seem to remember MARTA cops in ATL saying something to the effect that actively disarming anyone with a weapon was going to be SOP after the law here was changed to allow guns on MARTA. It's been a couple of years, but I seem to remember hearing they'd followed through on that in at least a couple of cases as well. Some of the other posters from GA like Volgrad may remember clearer than I do.

I guess I see it more as a pleasant surprise when you get a cop that's saavy than an expectation, unfortunately. Not because I have anything against cops, but because their training re: firearm laws tends to be a bit lacking in my experience.

[Shellback]

From the OP:

State prosecutors countered that anyone with a gun ought to be considered "armed and dangerous" and thus the gun could be seized at any time. The high court agreed with this line of reasoning.
This Justices should immediately be removed for not upholding the Constitution and not performing the oath of their office.

[Shellback]

That's not what happened. In this case the officer conducting the stop saw the weapon in plain sight, and then secured the people in the car and the weapon for his personal safety. This isn't the same thing as the officer ransacking the vehicle and the occupants in the hopes of finding a weapon.
The occupants were already out of the vehicle, polite and cooperative per the report. The pistol was still in the car, albeit visible to both officers, but this is not a crime in and of itself, in New Mexico, and was not accessible by the detained individuals at the time.


When the officer saw the weapon, he took reasonable measures to ensure his safety...and good thing, too, as the person with the handgun was a convicted felon.

Being a "convicted felon" is a joke these days and is a title that is easily earned by many in the commission of victimless crimes.

[JDM]

From the OP:

This Justices should immediately be removed for not upholding the Constitution and not performing the oath of their office.

Aren't police officers trained to prepare for a lethal confrontation at every traffic stop? Wouldn't the police officer carrying out the stop be operating under the presumption that an individual with a handgun is dangerous in addition to being armed until proven otherwise? it would seem to me that the state's attorney was arguing from the standpoint of the officer, and that he was spot on.

There is a marked difference between someone like me, who holds two valid concealed weapons permits, and promptly informs the officer about my pistol, and the average "customer" an officer deals with. I'm aware of this fact, and am prepared to be treated sternly until the cop figures out who's side I'm on. It's part of the game, and it will be part if the game until cops stop getting shot and killed when they pull people over.

Laws like this are directed at the "lowest commen denominator" if you will. Not being a member of that group means someday you may "suffer" through the great affront to your constitutional rights that the ruling in question facilitates in an effort to make a police officers job a little safer.

[John Ralston]

@John-suggesting that a police officer securing a firearm that is in plain view (as it was in the above case) AFTER he has already had legal cause to detain you is in the same ballpark as a warrentless search of a locked trunk is a little absurd.

If we can assume that ANYONE with a firearm is armed and dangerous, then we should assume that anyone with a shovel in the back of their truck just burried a body in the woods.

The reference to the trunk might be absurd, but it won't be long and someone will bring that line of reasoning to the court and eventually you will find a group of judges who agree. All you have to do is watch one episode of COPS to find an example of an officer who coerces someone to open the trunk for them to "take a look", where they then find something to arrest the individual.

You can't use an assumption as a basis for your actions - you need to have reasonable cause, and at the time, the officer had none. Generally, speeding isn't a crime, and you can't treat a speeder like you would a robbery suspect.

[JDM]

If we can assume that ANYONE with a firearm is armed and dangerous, then we should assume that anyone with a shovel in the back of their truck just burried a body in the woods.

The reference to the trunk might be absurd, but it won't be long and someone will bring that line of reasoning to the court and eventually you will find a group of judges who agree. All you have to do is watch one episode of COPS to find an example of an officer who coerces someone to open the trunk for them to "take a look", where they then find something to arrest the individual.

You can't use an assumption as a basis for your actions - you need to have reasonable cause, and at the time, the officer had none. Generally, speeding isn't a crime, and you can't treat a speeder like you would a robbery suspect.

It's our duty as the public to decide when enough is enough, and raise hell when we should. See: Indiana.

As far as the coercion thing-cops get to lie to do their jobs. If you aren't smart enough to figure out what the lie is, and you agree to a consent based search then tuff luck. You should be a little more well versed in the search and seizure laws for your state.

I've always operated under the premise that if a cop can do it without my permission, HE WILL. Otherwise, he is gonna ask, and I'm probably gonna say no.

And no, you can't treat a speeder like a robbery suspect, but when the traffic Stop starts the cop doesn't know which one you are, and until he does, you will be treated like the robber, and rightfully so I believe.

[Shellback]

Aren't police officers trained to prepare of a lethal confrontation at every traffic stop?
Yes and there would be a lot less of them if they weren't out attempting to collect revenue for the state through non-safety issue related stops.

Wouldn't the police officer carrying out te stop be operating under the presumption that an individual with a handgun is dangerous in addition to being armed until proven otherwise?
Sure, and the same thing applies to the officer. I'm in no way anti-cop but I also don't wear blinders to the fact that officers suffer the same amount of crimes percentage wise within their own PD's as regular Joe Civilians and that is a fact.

it would seem to me that the state's attorney was arguing from the standpoint of the officer, and that he was spot on.
Of course the state is going to protect itself. It's almost like PD's "investigating" themselves after their officers have committed a criminal act, typically it's a farce.


There is a marked difference between someone like me, who holds two valid concealed weapons permits, and promptly informs the officer about my pistol, and the average "customer" an officer deals with.

Laws like this are directed at the "lowest commen denominator" if you will. Not being a member of that group means someday you may "suffer" through the great affront to your constitutional rights that the ruling in question facilitates in an effort to make a police officers job a little safer.

I also hold 2 permits and have informed an officer that I was carrying on a traffic stop before, I needed to exceed the arbitrary number on a sign on the side of a road. Then why do we have a Constitution? It's not for the lowest denominator.

And while a police officer's job may be dangerous, and is typically a noble job, they don't even rank in the top 10 of most dangerous jobs in the country.

[Shellback]

As far as the coercion thing-cops get to lie to do their jobs. If you aren't smart enough to figure out what the lie is, and you agree to a consent based search then tuff luck.

Another great point. Why should I trust someone who constantly lies to gain information and to use it against me? I don't know the exact case law but it has been said that they can lie to you and it's not a crime and yet if you lie to them you go to jail. Well, fuck that.

I apologize for the thread drift and I'm not trying to come across as anti-LEO in any way but I find it preposterous that the people who are supposed to be upholding laws and setting a good example often don't through their own actions.

People will view this and probably come to their own conclusions regarding this case and most people probably won't change their minds. My mindset comes from the Constitution and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[TCinVA]

Probably depends on the locale. I've just heard enough stories about cops snatching weapons and the like to make me leery. I seem to remember MARTA cops in ATL saying something to the effect that actively disarming anyone with a weapon was going to be SOP after the law here was changed to allow guns on MARTA. It's been a couple of years, but I seem to remember hearing they'd followed through on that in at least a couple of cases as well. Some of the other posters from GA like Volgrad may remember clearer than I do.

I guess I see it more as a pleasant surprise when you get a cop that's saavy than an expectation, unfortunately. Not because I have anything against cops, but because their training re: firearm laws tends to be a bit lacking in my experience.

Announcing that they are going to make a policy of needlessly harassing people is usually going to land them in trouble.

[JDM]

Another great point. Why should I trust someone who constantly lies to gain information and to use it against me? I don't know the exact case law but it has been said that they can lie to you and it's not a crime and yet if you lie to them you go to jail. Well, fuck that.

I apologize for the thread drift and I'm not trying to come across as anti-LEO in any way but I find it preposterous that the people who are supposed to be upholding laws and setting a good example often don't through their own actions.

People will view this and probably come to their own conclusions regarding this case and most people probably won't change their minds. My mindset comes from the Constitution and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


The reason for the police force is simple-arrest criminals. This is not an easy task, and it should not be made any harder by requiring police officers to play by the same rules as those they encounter.

Me and you aren't criminals and cops aren't mind readers. They do not know we aren't criminals until they discover satisfactory proof thereof.

I would venture a guess that 70% of the people encountered by a police officer are arrestable, for one reason or another. It's a little unreasonable to expect a cop to give you treatment different than what the majority of his customers get just because you aren't in the majority- remember he doesn't know you personally.

If you are involved with the police, there is a reason. Probably a reason that the cop has seen many many times, and has lead to many many arrests. YOU may not be arrestable but until he figures that out, he's gonna treat you like you are.

Right or wrong that's the reality and it's not changing.

[TCinVA]

This is rapidly descending into an LE bash thread, which isn't what we want to see here. In the end we're all on the same side.