Question regarding legality of traffic stop

[Luke]

Not sure if this belongs here.. I know most of you are well versed in laws pertaining to guns. I tried to find the info online but was unable.

My buddy was stopped today for "running a red light" which is BS but that's a different story all together..

He was pulled over while carrying, with his CCL which is all you need in Alabama. He was very polite to the officer. Even talked guns for a few minutes ( his EDC was the cops as we'll). The officer then asked him to hand over his pistol so the cop could "make sure it's not stolen". Now I know that no days they have the ability to ask you for your weapon if they feel threatened.. But can they legally demand it to specifically call in the serial numbers to make sure it's not stolen? His license came back fine, CCL up to date and presented with license and insurance and was up front with the cop about being armed. I told him I think it's illegal. Would this not fall under illegal search and seizure?

[gtmtnbiker98]

Not sure if this belongs here.. I know most of you are well versed in laws pertaining to guns. I tried to find the info online but was unable.

My buddy was stopped today for "running a red light" which is BS but that's a different story all together..

He was pulled over while carrying, with his CCL which is all you need in Alabama. He was very polite to the officer. Even talked guns for a few minutes ( his EDC was the cops as we'll). The officer then asked him to hand over his pistol so the cop could "make sure it's not stolen". Now I know that no days they have the ability to ask you for your weapon if they feel threatened.. But can they legally demand it to specifically call in the serial numbers to make sure it's not stolen? His license came back fine, CCL up to date and presented with license and insurance and was up front with the cop about being armed. I told him I think it's illegal. Would this not fall under illegal search and seizure?
In Ohio, we can do that - but I choose not to handle a firearm unless I have a reason to check NCIC.

[ST911]

Even talked guns for a few minutes

Did he learn something from that?

[Luke]

Which one?

[jmcrawf1]

In Louisiana, a person has to submit to being disarmed as a condition of their concealed handgun license. It's the officer's discretion whether or not to disarm.

Sounds like the officer was being a little lackadaisical with his "Hand it over so I can run it" technique. However, he was most likely within his right to do so, albeit he probably should've been a little more professional about it. A check of the NCIC database is not a search pursuant to the 4th amendment. It doesn't require reasonable suspicion to be able to access its info.

[Dagga Boy]

Two sides to every story. I was disarmed on a traffic stop in Texas. I really didn't care about that as much as I did the officer safety and tactics mistakes that nearly threw me into FTO mode, but that is a different story. The key is that if the officer is hinked up about the gun, then let them do what they need to do.

The first thing that struck me when reading the second hand one side of the story was the carry of the same type of gun as the officer's. I am thinking that may have pinged something in the officers mind that one of his co-workers may have been a victim of a burglary and lost a duty gun of that type (or left it on a toilet somewhere). May have been just going with the simple check to ensure it wasn't a co-workers gun. Hard to believe, but LEO's go above and beyond when their stuff gets stolen. So, it could be something fairly innocent with some probable cause. People regularly base and opinion of what is going on based on one side without full knowledge of what is in the officers mind. Would it have been best to play things casual and just use a legal means to run the gun to be sure, or tell your friend "one of our guys had one of those stolen in a burglary last week, I need to check to make sure you didn't steal it". If "the truth" was said, the complaint would be "the cop thought I was a crook".

I know first hand that LEO's can be jerks, stupid, insensitive, mean, ill-informed, crooked, etc. However; it isn't as rampant as most people think, because often the public that LEO's encounter exhibit the same traits. I have always found that remaining a little neutral and giving some benefit of the doubt in these cases results in better understanding.

[jlw]

Not sure if this belongs here.. I know most of you are well versed in laws pertaining to guns. I tried to find the info online but was unable.

My buddy was stopped today for "running a red light" which is BS but that's a different story all together..

He was pulled over while carrying, with his CCL which is all you need in Alabama. He was very polite to the officer. Even talked guns for a few minutes ( his EDC was the cops as we'll). The officer then asked him to hand over his pistol so the cop could "make sure it's not stolen". Now I know that no days they have the ability to ask you for your weapon if they feel threatened.. But can they legally demand it to specifically call in the serial numbers to make sure it's not stolen? His license came back fine, CCL up to date and presented with license and insurance and was up front with the cop about being armed. I told him I think it's illegal. Would this not fall under illegal search and seizure?

Consent searches are completely legal. If he asked your buddy, and your buddy consented, then in the eyes of the law it was good to go. If he ordered your buddy to turn over the firearm, it isn't cut and dry.

In GA, we have case law directly on point; State v. Jones, 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008); where the court ruled that there was no carte blanche authority to seize firearms on a traffic stop. The officer in the case testified that he took the firearm because he had a "standard practice" of taking all firearms on stops to run the numbers.

I have never researched AL case law on the matter.

---

With all of the above being said, and this isn't a slam on your buddy, but second hand accounts of a story often vary greatly from what actually happened. While not common but not uncommon either, I field complaints from parents who are complaining based upon their child's version of the traffic stop or other encounter. Usually, the video of the stop tells a vastly different story than the one that came from the parent's call.

[ST911]

This July, 2011 quip from John Farnam is particularly good, and on-point. I share it often with citizens and LE alike.


21 July 11
Advice to legal CCW license-holders:

Most states now issue CCW licenses to non-police citizens with no criminal record. In those states, CCW licenses cannot be arbitrarily denied. They’re not hard to get, for the most part. The CCW license itself does not require the holder to carry a concealed gun, nor, for that matter, to even own a gun! It simply gives him the option, at his discretion. Some states, such as FL, have had their CCW statute in place for several decades now. In other states, such as WI, its passage and implementation is very recent.

A few states legally require all CCW License holders to “promptly inform” police officers with whom they come in close contact (such as in a traffic-stop) of their legally-armed status. Most states have no such requirement. Even where there is such a requirement in law, the manner in which it is to be actually carried out by the CCW licensee is not specifically described.

Most individual police officers and police executives have no objection to these “shall-issue” CCW laws, and have in fact, secured CCW licenses for their own spouses and other eligible family members. However, some officers, even entire departments, still exhibit a depraved anti-gun agenda that has led to unnecessarily disagreeable, even menacing, confrontations with legitimate CCW licensees.

Here is my advice to CCW licensees:

1) Be in bed by ten o’clock! Police regard those who are up and about late at night as less respectable, and more dangerous, than “normal” people, who sleep during the night and are active during daylight hours. A “nocturnal” life-style is fraught with peril and unhappiness!

2) Have a “normal” appearance. Police officers automatically focus on “unusual” things and circumstances. That’s their job! Simply looking “normal” goes as long way toward putting police officers at ease. Who insist on covering themselves with tattoos, dyeing their hair purple, and having a “face-by-Ace-Hardware” will discover that they garner a great deal of attention, most of it unwanted.

3) Keep your pistol discreetly concealed, and don’t talk about it. The vast majority of people with whom you associate should never know it is there.

4) Stay away from places where people are in a highly-emotional state. Emotionally-charged sporting events, political rallies, picket-lines, et al are good places not to be. When confronted by highly-emotional people, politely disengage and withdraw.

5) Don’t hang-out with boisterous, slatternly, rowdy people, nor with people who have been drinking excessively. They will have an unhappy evening. Don’t join them!

6) Be a courteous, cautious, conservative driver. Don’t speed and don’t show-off. Who do, had better get used to talking with police!

7) When pulled over in traffic by police, don’t voluntarily bring up the subject of guns, unless required by law. In that case, put it something like this, “Officer, I have a permit. Would you like to see it?” Drive a “normal-looking” car. Keep you hands in plain view. Be polite, but boring. Don’t “interrogate” police. Answer questions truthfully, but don’t be chatty. Don’t volunteer information. Don’t answer questions that weren’t asked! When around police, don’t verbalize the term, “gun.”

8) When berated, even threatened, by police, do not answer in kind. Remain calm and polite. Indicate to them that you want to talk with their supervisor. When bombarded with accusations and threats, indicate to them that you want your lawyer personally present before answering any further questions. Repeat as necessary.

9) Don’t fail the “attitude test!” Displaying a belligerent, arrogant, combative attitude around police will almost certainly lead to caustic confrontations and a cheerless evening. Be always even-tempered, polite, reasonable, and in-control, never loud and defensive.

Here is my advice to my brother police officers:

1) Get over it! It’s the law now. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Besides, no class of citizens represents less of a threat to police officers than do legal CCW license-holders. They are the ones we should fear least!

2) Don’t ask legally-armed citizens why they own, and carry, guns. Frankly, it’s none of your business! They are merely exercising their rights as Americans and as citizens of your state. It is no different than attending the church of their choice or writing letters to their Congressman. None of those activities are immoral, nor illegal.

3) Don’t pointlessly humiliate and denigrate people legally carrying concealed guns. No legitimate purpose is served in stripping them of their dignity by disarming them in public and in front of their families and friends. Legally concealed guns need to stay in holsters, out of sight, and out of conversation. The last thing you want is a gun being waved around inside a car, because you indicated that you “wanted to see it!”

A little respect goes as long way, both ways!
/John

[BJJ]

Thanks, Skintop. Good advice from Farnam.

[Corvus]

I have read there is case law to the effect that there has to be a "reason to believe the weapon is stolen" before they have the cause to "run the numbers" but it has been years since I read it and do not remember the state or specific case.

[Trooper224]

Because the officer is a jack booted thug and your friend is a god loving, flag waving patriot who's only crime is exercising his God given right to self preservation. That really is what you wanted to hear. That's usually the answer that, "Hey, let me ask you a question about my friend...." is looking for.

In my state I have the authority to temporarily take custody of the weapon for my own safety. That's it in a black and white nutshell, period. Do I ever do this? Rarely. In fact, I can't remember the last time I did. If I'm taking a weapon off you we've typically gone to a whole new level. The only thing CCW holders ever make me do is scratch my head. When we have contact with each other don't act like a panicked deer in my headlights and scream, "I have a CCW!" You'd be surprised at how often that happens. In the same vein, just because we're both packing heat doesn't mean we're in the same club. I have no desire to have a bromance about your rod. If your state requires you to divulge that information than do so calmly in a matter of fact way. If not then just keep it to yourself. After all, I assume everyone has one anyway. :D

When I go to work I run into a lot of ass holes on both sides of the badge. Why? Because we're all imperfect human beings not automatons. As the saying goes: you can be part of the solution or part of the problem. When you have contact with law enforcement decide which one you want to be.

[jlw]

In my state I have the authority to temporarily take custody of the weapon for my own safety.


Statute? Court Case? Please provide a reference.

[Trooper224]

Statute? Court Case? Please provide a reference.

In order to do that I'd have to provide you the state in which I live and work. That's not information I'm not willing to provide on the internet. So you can take the information for what it's worth.

[jetfire]

In order to do that I'd have to provide you the state in which I live and work. That's not information I'm not willing to provide on the internet. So you can take the information for what it's worth.

Lol internets opsec.

[jlw]

In order to do that I'd have to provide you the state in which I live and work. That's not information I'm not willing to provide on the internet. So you can take the information for what it's worth.

Okay then. I was just curious as to how your state was allowing you to do something SCOTUS says you can't do. Since no reference has been cited, I'll definitely take it for what it is worth.

[41magfan]

Far too many of the COPS I worked with thought anything was lawful as long as it went unchallenged.

[BLR]

jlw - little off topic, but I have nothing but respect for the professionalism you constantly display regarding your profession. I may not agree with you on some stuff, but the level of proficiency and understanding you routinely show here is a damn high bar for the rest to hit.

Good show. Highest praise I can issue is: If I ever run in with the 5-0 down south, I hope it's with one of your guys. Your dept is lucky to have you.

[jmcrawf1]

Okay then. I was just curious as to how your state was allowing you to do something SCOTUS says you can't do. Since no reference has been cited, I'll definitely take it for what it is worth.

Which SCOTUS case would that be?

[Malamute]

In order to do that I'd have to provide you the state in which I live and work. That's not information I'm not willing to provide on the internet. So you can take the information for what it's worth.

You provided that in another thread already, along with your name. Not trying to be snarky, just sayin,...

[fixer]

I don't see what the big deal is.

Carrying concealed is a licensed activity. If a cop, under the right pretenses (traffic stop etc), wants to run the serial number on my gun, then they can knock themselves out.

[jlw]

Which SCOTUS case would that be?

In numerous cases going all the way back to Terry, SCOTUS draws a distinction between being armed from that of being armed and presently dangerous. SCOTUS has never adopted, and has in fact specifically rejected, a Fourth Amendment exception for firearms. Florida v. J.L., U.S. v. Ubilies, U.S. v. Black (circuit case), would all be good places to start reading. Follow the cite trail from there. The GA case I cited above would also be a good place to start as it cites SCOTUS rulings in other cases.

I presume that someone will bring up Pennsylvania v Mimms Pay very close attention to the language. The appellant didn't challenge the pat down. He challenged his being ordered out of the car. As a matter of law, the court addressed that and said from that point on Terry applied as the pat down was not brought before the court.

[RevolverRob]

JLW - I too would like to know the SCOTUS case if you happen to remember it. I'm always very interested in things like that.
__

Let me start by saying, I have nothing but the utmost respect for LEOs in all walks of life. Now the but part - But I never make it a point to carry on an extended conversation with a police officer, who is on duty. I think about interactions with people who have authority to remove your freedom as those times when you have a maximum number of words to use and that number is about 10-20 words. Not because I think that cops are jerks who will abuse their authority, but because...why run your mouth?

My point being? Just inform your officer and then keep your answers to, "Yes, No, I decline to answer that question, Please, Thank You."

-Rob

[jlw]

JLW - I too would like to know the SCOTUS case if you happen to remember it. I'm always very interested in things like that.
__


-Rob

There is a list in post #21 as a good place to start reading. Note the distinctions made between that of being armed and that of being armed and presently dangerous in each one. Also note the rejection of a firearms exception to the 4th Amendment. Follow the citation trail in the cases.

[RevolverRob]

Thank you sir! I hadn't seen your post before mine, I imagine it was posted while I was writing my earlier one!

-Rob

[John Hearne]

Statute? Court Case? Please provide a reference.

From Louisiana State Police Web Site: (http://www.lsp.org/handguns.html)

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:
Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;
Submit to a pat down;
Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

Texas as well: (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/4/B/411/H/411.207)

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/4/B/411/H/411.207#sthash.h1fCggqc.dpuf

[jlw]

From Louisiana State Police Web Site: (http://www.lsp.org/handguns.html)

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:
Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;
Submit to a pat down;
Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

Texas as well: (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/4/B/411/H/411.207)

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/4/B/411/H/411.207#sthash.h1fCggqc.dpuf


Wow. I wonder if either of these have been challenged in court as they fly in the face of what the federal courts have ruled.

[PPGMD]

Texas as well: (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/4/B/411/H/411.207)

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/4/B/411/H/411.207#sthash.h1fCggqc.dpuf

I don't see how it would be legal under Texas law. It specifically says for safety reasons. Once he said that he wanted to run it to see if it was stolen, I would think that having PC would be required since it is no longer about officer safety.

[jmcrawf1]

In numerous cases going all the way back to Terry, SCOTUS draws a distinction between being armed from that of being armed and presently dangerous. SCOTUS has never adopted, and has in fact specifically rejected, a Fourth Amendment exception for firearms. Florida v. J.L., U.S. v. Ubilies, U.S. v. Black (circuit case), would all be good places to start reading. Follow the cite trail from there. The GA case I cited above would also be a good place to start as it cites SCOTUS rulings in other cases.

I presume that someone will bring up Pennsylvania v Mimms Pay very close attention to the language. The appellant didn't challenge the pat down. He challenged his being ordered out of the car. As a matter of law, the court addressed that and said from that point on Terry applied as the pat down was not brought before the court.


Chief, When being legally detained is it not proper for an officer to disarm someone for officer safety? If the cause of the stop was for some other articulable, non-firearm related offense.

[jlw]

Chief, When being legally detained is it not proper for an officer to disarm someone for officer safety? If the cause of the stop was for some other articulable, non-firearm related offense.

No. The officer must articulate that the person is armed and presently dangerous not just merely armed.


Officer safety is a goal. It is not legal authority.

Should a deer hunter that has been stopped for running a red light be disarmed?

Should a legally armed citizen pulled over simply for speeding be disarmed?

What in either of the above scenarios indicates "and presently dangerous"?

[JAD]

I wonder if Riehl has cloning worked out yet.

[John Hearne]

Wow. I wonder if either of these have been challenged in court as they fly in the face of what the federal courts have ruled.

I suspect that it's a contractual issue. In exchange for having a valid state issued permit, you consent to be disarmed at the discretion of the officer. Kind of like implied consent laws for DUI, which are legal.

[41magfan]

I suspect that it's a contractual issue. In exchange for having a valid state issued permit, you consent to be disarmed at the discretion of the officer. Kind of like implied consent laws for DUI, which are legal.

That's pretty much on target. While the statue may not withstand judicial scrutiny, it's enforceable - by agreeing to possess a permit - until it's been formally challenged for precedence.

As an aside, many implied consent DWI statues are being found to be unconstitutional after all these years of being on the books. This SCOTUS case is the most recent;

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013)

I suspect more and more CCW laws will fall by the wayside in a similar fashion.

[jlw]

I suspect that it's a contractual issue. In exchange for having a valid state issued permit, you consent to be disarmed at the discretion of the officer. Kind of like implied consent laws for DUI, which are legal.

My state expressly ruled it unconstitutional. I suspect that said laws wouldn't survive judicial scrutiny if challenged in the proper way. The implied consent laws, at least here, also require that the officer have PC to believe that the driver is impaired. Furthermore, implied consent, here anyway, does not come into play until AFTER arrest for DUI. We can't simply stop drivers merely for driving and force them to submit to testing.

Also of note, my state legislature just passed a law making it illegal to detain an armed person solely to investigate whether or not they have a valid carry license (effective 7/1).

[KeeFus]

WOW! How did I not see this thread? I do not take guns from folks that OC or are CCW'ing properly. The US v Black is a NC case that has some pretty salient points in it about the 4A and its implications on the 2A.

It burns me up when guys take guns from folks that present no danger to officers. Haven't some of you seen how LEOs handle their firearms on the range in controlled conditions/environment with pistols that they carry EVERY DAY?! The pistol that a properly armed citizen carries needs to stay put...Seriously. And as jlw said, officer safety is a goal; not legal authority. Once I see the gun or have been notified I simply thank them and continue on with what ever I'm doing.

Thanks for the thread...I will use it and some of the cases/other state laws the next 2 weeks as reference material.

[41magfan]

The US v Black is a NC case that has some pretty salient points in it about the 4A and its implications on the 2A.



I think the language used in this decision sends a pretty clear message to LEO's that the mere possession of a gun - by Open Carry or by Permit - in and of itself is not RS or PC for any other enforcement action(s).

[KeeFus]

I think the language used in this decision sends a pretty clear message to LEO's that the mere possession of a gun - by Open Carry or by Permit - in and of itself is not RS or PC for any other enforcement action(s).

It does, and yet some of us still try to take legally possessed guns away from citizens who carry legally to 'run a serial number'. In that case the officers patched together their RS to conduct a pat down to find a weapon.


"At least four times in 2011, we admonished against the
Government’s misuse of innocent facts as indicia of suspicious
activity. See United States v. Powell, 666 F.3d 180 (4th
Cir. 2011); Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480; United States v.
Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011); and United States
v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2011). Although factors
"susceptible of innocent explanation," when taken together,
may "form a particularized and objective basis" for reasonable
suspicion for a Terry stop, United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S.
266, 277-78 (2002), this is not such a case. Instead, we
encounter yet another situation where the Government
attempts to meet its Terry burden by patching together a set
of innocent, suspicion-free facts, which cannot rationally be
relied on to establish reasonable suspicion."
{emphasis in bold added}

Its not hard to see nor follow how the courts would rule that the taking of a legally possessed firearm for the purposes of running it through NCIC or officer safety is wrong. Not to me anyway. Just because someone is stopped for a red light does not mean that we strip a citizen of their gun to run it to see if its stolen. That's a heck of a reach isn't it?

[jlw]

It does, and yet some of us still try to take legally possessed guns away from citizens who carry legally to 'run a serial number'. In that case the officers patched together their RS to conduct a pat down to find a weapon.


"At least four times in 2011, we admonished against the
Government’s misuse of innocent facts as indicia of suspicious
activity. See United States v. Powell, 666 F.3d 180 (4th
Cir. 2011); Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480; United States v.
Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011); and United States
v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2011). Although factors
"susceptible of innocent explanation," when taken together,
may "form a particularized and objective basis" for reasonable
suspicion for a Terry stop, United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S.
266, 277-78 (2002), this is not such a case. Instead, we
encounter yet another situation where the Government
attempts to meet its Terry burden by patching together a set
of innocent, suspicion-free facts, which cannot rationally be
relied on to establish reasonable suspicion."
{emphasis in bold added}

Its not hard to see nor follow how the courts would rule that the taking of a legally possessed firearm for the purposes of running it through NCIC or officer safety is wrong. Not to me anyway. Just because someone is stopped for a red light does not mean that we strip a citizen of their gun to run it to see if its stolen. That's a heck of a reach isn't it?

Arvizu is a very good read.


I publicly thank KeeFus for bringing the Black case to my attention. I have a teaching engagement this coming week, and it will be included in my materials.

[41magfan]

I totally agree KeeFus, but I'm convinced that's not quite mainstream thinking in much of the LE community.

I sleep well knowing I never arrested an innocent person, but I've lost a little sleep worrying about the guilty ones I let go to make certain of the former.

[gtmtnbiker98]

Hey JLW, you didn't ask me but here's Ohio law pertaining:http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.163

[KeeFus]

I totally agree KeeFus, but I'm convinced that's not quite mainstream thinking in much of the LE community.

It's not. I got quite the education a few months ago on a thread I started here on the Neenah, Wisconsin OC stop. So then I started paying attention to the guys at work, especially when I heard serial numbers being read over the radio on traffic stops. Most of them got the guns through consent. A few didn't. At that point I saw a weak spot in my agencies training. Now I'm in instructor class...my topic is hopefully going to be Encountering the Armed Citizen.

I reached out to jlw through FB and he has sent me a host of information complete with video on the topic. When it comes to this topic, I cant think of any other instructor I have had over the last 20 years that knows it any better.

[SamuelBLong]

Statute? Court Case? Please provide a reference.


Here in NM, law enforcement are able to temporarily seize firearms for the purposes of "officer safety" concerns. This case refers to visible firearms, but it's now applied to all situations involving firearms.

See New Mexico v Ketelson, 2011: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf

[jlw]

Here in NM, law enforcement are able to temporarily seize firearms for the purposes of "officer safety" concerns. This case refers to visible firearms, but it's now applied to all situations involving firearms.

See New Mexico v Ketelson, 2011: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf


Any distinction between armed and that or armed and presently dangerous?

[Luke]

Just thought I would follow up with a little more info on the stop. When pulled over he handed license insurance and CCL and the cop asked if he had a gun. He said yes it is in the back seat in a back pack with clothes ( going to stay at girl friends) the cop told him to get out of the vehicle and told my buddy he was getting the gun. Never asked. Told him to get out and the cop opened the back pack and took the pistol out. Thought that was a little weird..

[SamuelBLong]

No, it is a "reasonable and minimal intrusion" that doesn't deprive the individual of lawfully using the firearm. No real distinction or need to articulate any perceived danger in order to justify it.

Every department in my area has their own opinions on how to handle the situation. Some will absolutely seize the firearm for the duration of the encounter, some are of the view that the less hands on & movement of guns the better.

[Palmguy]

I don't see what the big deal is.

Carrying concealed is a licensed activity. If a cop, under the right pretenses (traffic stop etc), wants to run the serial number on my gun, then they can knock themselves out.

Not everywhere, nor is having a gun relatively accessible in a vehicle necessarily "carrying concealed".

Sent from my HTC One M8 using Tapatalk

[41magfan]

It's not. I got quite the education a few months ago on a thread I started here on the Neenah, Wisconsin OC stop. So then I started paying attention to the guys at work, especially when I heard serial numbers being read over the radio on traffic stops. Most of them got the guns through consent. A few didn't. At that point I saw a weak spot in my agencies training. Now I'm in instructor class...my topic is hopefully going to be Encountering the Armed Citizen.


Well, good on you for trying to effect the culture of your agency. Perhaps it will spread.

I conducted the annual In-Service on UOF and we covered the potential interactions with the new Concealed Carry provisions in great detail beginning in 1995. It must have taken root as no issues came to my attention as the I.A. Captain.

You may find this helpful:

I went the extra mile to reinforce to the troops the unchanged provisions of law that allow for every officer safety concern they could possibly encounter, SO LONG AS THEY COULD ARTICULATE A REASONABLE BELIEF that they needed to infringe on an individual's protections.

In other words, they didn't have to give anything up to protect themselves and still honor a citizen's rights. Those two interest don't have to compete with each other if you've got your head screwed on straight.

[KeeFus]

Here in NM, law enforcement are able to temporarily seize firearms for the purposes of "officer safety" concerns. This case refers to visible firearms, but it's now applied to all situations involving firearms.

See New Mexico v Ketelson, 2011: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf


I wonder if this case would stand when reviewed by SCOTUS? Read this opinion from the US District Court of New Mexico:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/St.John%20v%20Alamogordo%20Police%20Order.pdf

Alamogordo ended up paying/settling this case for $21,000.00.

http://www.examiner.com/article/alamogordo-police-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit

[Odin Bravo One]

Probably settled because at $21k, they got off cheap and know it.

If I can settle a lawsuit for $21,000, why would I pay more to fight an issue that is going to be determined by someone else's (not yet known) interpretation of the law?

[BLR]

I wonder if Riehl has cloning worked out yet.

If I did, the world would be literally, not figuratively over run by Bar Refaelis.

Alas, it is not. :(

[ffhounddog]

The only agency I give grieve to is the Secret Service but that is because of the agents I have had to deal with are literally young and never had a person ask for his access authorization. I use to work in a SCIF And I took access and need to know into account if you had access to my program area.

Let me tell you the one thing I do not so anymore is talk about guns outside of friends. Work, commute, or people I do not know. I had a SWAT magazine in my laptop bag that magically found its way into the security manager's hands then asking me if they need to reinvestigate me. He is also a Reserve DC police office. His line of questioning was why do I need to know SWAT tactics. Just because a person owns guns, talks to you about them, does not mean they are on your "side" or a friend. I know plenty of gun guys both LE and non LE that I would be afraid to be on "their" side or associated with. Just like always remember OPSEC and need to know.

[KevinB]

I wonder if this case would stand when reviewed by SCOTUS? Read this opinion from the US District Court of New Mexico:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/St.John%20v%20Alamogordo%20Police%20Order.pdf

Alamogordo ended up paying/settling this case for $21,000.00.

http://www.examiner.com/article/alamogordo-police-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit

**
The NM case is interesting...

I would have asked the Theater Owner if he had asked if Mr. St. John had been asked to leave the weapon outside of the theater...


You may NOT carry a handgun, openly or concealed, in:


Schools…except in vehicle if older than 19 (30-7-2.1 NMSA 1978, fourth degree felony)
University Premises…except in vehicle if older than 19 (30-7-2.4 NMSA 1978 petty misdemeanor)
Preschools (29-19-8 NMSA 1978)
Courts (29-19-11 NMSA 1978, without the consent of the presiding judge) Court means: any Federal, State, County, Municipal, or Tribal Court;
Tribal Land (29-19-10, NMSA, unless authorized by the governing body of the tribe or pueblo)
Public buses (30-7-13 NMSA 1978, misdemeanor)
Airport security zones
Federal Properties…Military Bases, Courthouse, etc.
National Parks and National Wildlife Management Areas are OK if you have a NM Permit/License to Carry or a Permit/License valid in New Mexico.
On private property where the owner has posted signs indicating that you may not carry or if the owner tells you that you cannot

Pursuant to Subsection C of NMSA 1978 Section 29-19-12, any person lawfully in possession of private property may prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns on such private property by posting notice in accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 30-14-6 or by verbally notifying persons entering upon the property.
KB Note - this also applies to open carry.

[KevinB]

To the OP.

Many states have requirements with the license that you need to surrender the weapon for officer safety if asked upon a stop.

I'm not familiar with Alabama law - so I won't comment.

In VA, FL any most states with a CHP system when you run the DL it will let you know if the owner has a CCW permit.

[SamuelBLong]

NM v Ketelson in 2011 overturned / revised the NM supreme courts previous decision (NM v Garcia 2005... I think it is...I'd have to verify that.... ) regarding the seizure of firearms during encounters with law enforcement, which previously found that the mere presence of a firearm was not justification for temporary seizure.

That incident in Alamogordo was in 2009, so the settlement was previous to the most recent decisions.

My understanding is that the gentleman bought the movie ticket, sat down, and began watching the movie. There were no proper no gun signs posted at the entrances as required by law, no warnings by employees asserting their policies, and did not know that there was anything wrong until the local police showed up and pulled him out.

Still, it would be interesting to see what SCOTUS would say regarding the NM Justices decision.

If y'all haven't figured it out yet, It's an interesting bunch out here...

[Drang]

Just thought I would follow up with a little more info on the stop. When pulled over he handed license insurance and CCL and the cop asked if he had a gun. He said yes it is in the back seat in a back pack with clothes ( going to stay at girl friends) the cop told him to get out of the vehicle and told my buddy he was getting the gun. Never asked. Told him to get out and the cop opened the back pack and took the pistol out. Thought that was a little weird..
That does change things. To know how much, we'd need to know what, if any, requirements are in Alabama's law for transport of a firearm. In some states a permit holder must have the firearm physically on his or her person; if not, firearm must be unloaded, sometimes disabled (disassembled, bolt removed, etc) and/or in a locked container, just like a non-permit holder.

[KevinB]

From the internet...

Alabama law prohibits any person from carrying a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on or about
their person without a pistol permit license. Code of Alabama, 1975, section 13A- 11-73. Under
Alabama law, a "pistol" is defined as "any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length."

So your AOW/SBS/SBR may also be a pistol in Alabama :rolleyes:

[Dagga Boy]

From the internet...

Alabama law prohibits any person from carrying a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on or about
their person without a pistol permit license. Code of Alabama, 1975, section 13A- 11-73. Under
Alabama law, a "pistol" is defined as "any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length."

So your AOW/SBS/SBR may also be a pistol in Alabama :rolleyes:

Please stop with any kind of facts. The officer was obviously a jack booted thug who made up the red light thing to harass and illegally search a guy because cops hate the second amendment and puppies. This is a second hand story......which is almost like video and I am sure there is zero chance.......or as the Commander in Chief says, "Not even a smidgen" of a shot that maybe there is more to the story, or EVEN worse......the officer may have been trying to do some of the police work stuff like they do on TV detective shows.

So, here begineth the rant. Until I see a full set of facts, why the hell are we speculating on b.s. without both sides? Why are we applying one set of State laws across the board to states that have laws in place and those haven't been fully SCOTUS tested?......and may never be. If there was reasonable suspicion would this have been okay? Would a good cop use the laws at their actual disposal in place in their state to look for criminals or recover stolen property? Essentially, if officer jack booted thug in our story had taken a burglary report of a stolen Glock 17 two weeks prior and a neighbor had seen a suspicious "red import" car near the victims home during
the hours the crime was committed, and officer jack booted thug was now talking to a guy in a red import car who has a CHL, yet the gun is in a back pack in the back seat and then mentions it is a Glock 17 just like the officer is carrying, and tends to be chatty with the officer about it, two things may be going through Officer Thugs mind:

Scenario One.....this guy is John Q Citizen, he doesn't want a ticket and wants to show what a stellar pro police citizen he is, so he wants to talk me about about guns, how he has a license, and how he is so pro police he carries the same gun as me so I won't scratch him a ticket (or I guess they "print them out now from a "technology thing").

Scenario Two....this is my crook from a couple weeks ago and has a stolen Glock in his back pack. He is nervously chatty because he knows that the gun is stolen, or he got it on a shady "too good" to be true deal from some derelict in the last week.

Either way it is a little wrong or I have a bad feeling.....I have two options.

Option one, be nice to the guy based on scenario one and not accuse him of being a scum bag burglar or thief and go ahead and cut him a break if the gun at least checks out as clean so I don't look like a dumb ass later if it is the burglar, sort of trust but verify.

Option two, go hard on the dude and tell him that I had a vehicle with a similar description to his car used in a burglary and the stolen property is the same gun as he claims to have. Essentially, tell him the probable cause and start full bore assuming he is a bad guy and play this from guilty until proven otherwise.

In this case, from the second hand, one-sided story, option one happened. Which if you were the driver of the car was better than the officer laying out all the P.C. for you indicating he thinks you're a crook. Now the important part is that if you were the person that had your pistol stolen, either option is good in that somebody is actually trying to get your gun back. I don't know about everyone here, but I would feel terrible if one of my guns was floating around out there. I flat out loved to recover stolen guns, especially when I could track the owner down with the good news. Those were some of the "good things" about the job I enjoyed....putting armed scumbags in prison, and getting victims stolen stuff returned. I figure maybe one or two other cops may have the same idea of what doing good work is. Now the other option is for an officer to not give a crap about doing a little police work, pull the car, scratch a ticket with zero thought or emotion. Keep the boss happy with ticket numbers (yes, there are quotas.....I mean "standards"), never get much flack for anything as writing tickets to nice people is an easy day in cop world. Not care about recovering stolen guns, as that would mean looking for them......which makes you a jack booted thug on the internet.

The reality is that policing is regional. In jlw's area, every dude with a gun may be just another bubba and an easy day. Where I worked, folks with guns fell into two categories-scumbag crook (with most of their guns being stolen) or another cop. I think if I had ever seen a real CCW I would have kicked the person loose on the spot, but they were so rare, I just never ran into legal armed people hanging around in the places I liked to work or driving in any manner to attract my attention during the hours I worked and the places I was patrolling. Different states, different regions of states, different laws, attitudes, trends, legalities, etc....all come into play.

Then there is the individual cop things. Some are nice, some are hard, some are professional, some are rude, some are laid back, some are scared, some are aggressive, some are well educated on aspects of the law, some are not well educated on aspects of the law, some are prejudiced towards certain things, some have pet peeves, and the list goes on. A single cop could actually be all of the above in a single shift in some places. Of course some can be a**holes and stupid. Welcome to the human race. As I have said elsewhere, the trend towards thinking that every single LEO out there is full of malice, bad intent, and a Jack booted thug is no different than LEO's who think every single person other than them is a scumbag a**hole. The internet is allowing both to become true.

I'm done. Have a good night.

[Palmguy]

Another aspect of Alabama law: No duty to inform.

If he'd have only handed over his DL, good chance the "incident" (inasmuch as it was) doesn't happen at all.

[Dagga Boy]

Another aspect of Alabama law: No duty to inform.

If he'd have only handed over his DL, good chance the "incident" (inasmuch as it was) doesn't happen at all.

But if you don't talk about how "I have a gun just like you", and a CHL because I am a good guy, how the heck are you going to get out of the ticket with a warning instead of just taking the ticket and shutting up?

[Erik]

But if you don't talk about how "I have a gun just like you", and a CHL because I am a good guy, how the heck are you going to get out of the ticket with a warning instead of just taking the ticket and shutting up?

I thought you were done...Just kidding. You should take your longer post just above, and save it for repeated use, or turn it into a blog post or magazine article or something. "Cops are people too," "cops have a job to do and here are some aspects of it" and and "let's not jump to conclusions based on a one-sided account" are themes you (and others in similar positions) have hit repeatedly and for good reason. That post was a very eloquent expression of them. Thank you.

[PPGMD]

But if you don't talk about how "I have a gun just like you", and a CHL because I am a good guy, how the heck are you going to get out of the ticket with a warning instead of just taking the ticket and shutting up?

+ 1, the same people that are concerned about getting disarmed are often the same ones using their CHL to get out of a ticket.

I just shut up and take my ticket, unless I am in a state that requires me to inform the officer. Now Texas is tricky, under the law I am required to inform the officer, but there is no punishment. And since my plate, and license are from Florida there is no way for him to know unless it becomes uncovered, or I mention it.

Personally I've only once informed a police officer of my CHL, but that was the time that the airport security guard called them since I was trying to return my rental car with a gun in my bag.

[Chuck Haggard]

Some LEOs get all cranked up when they are dealing with a person known to be armed, regardless of circumstances involved. CCW person? Maybe I disarm them, maybe not. Being DUI would be a case where dude gets disarmed.

Perhaps I'm off base, but my mindset has always been that my plan is to be able to shoot the person if they try to pull a weapon and attack me, pretty much the same as when I stop an unknown person for PC or a Terry stop and they may be armed and try to attack me. Tactics, ya know?


At face value, around here, demanding the gun wouldn't be legal, but then we have to take the story at face value.

[Dagga Boy]

I tell every single LEO that has ever stopped me that I am either off-duty/retired, carrying a pistol and have my creds available......because I hate getting tickets just like everybody else does:(. And it works most of the time, just like it probably works a lot that having a CHL will get you out of a ticket:). Every cop out there has heard or seen some kind of attempt to get out of a ticket from a majority of people they stop.

I simply grow tired of the jack booted thug is always wrong in every case whenever it is brought up on the internet. I figure I'll be the guy to be the advocate that maybe in some freakish case the LEO was doing a good job....especially when these stories tend to be either one sides version or from the media or from a third party who was not involved at all. I have had a ton of LEO contacts over the years in a very wide and diverse set of circumstances. Were some of the LEO's ignorant a**holes....absolutely. Were some decent guys doing what they were told to by ignorant a**holes, yep. Were the majority decent folks trying to do their job to the best of their abilities, yep........with most of those actually doing a great job.......which seems to never get discussed on the internet.

[LSP972]

Its the same old tired BS- JBT this, JBT that. Which is why I rarely even bother opening threads of this nature. However, when I saw that DB had posted in this one, I figured it was something pretty good that got his back up and bristly... :D

Whenever the title is something along the lines of "Can they do this?", odds are heavy that the "victim" did something retarded to get the cop's attention in the first place. The average citizen simply does not realize that most cops are too busy to lurk around looking for some innocent person to harass. I've lost count of how many times I've been told by a violator "If you were out catching burglars or something, instead of harassing honest folk, this would be a safer place." Right.

However, I was HIGHLY amused one afternoon when I helped a sheriff's deputy put the habeus grabbus on a burglar. After we got him cuffed, upright, and dusted off, he looked at me, resplendent in my now-dirty State Police uniform, did a double take, and said "How come you aren't out writing speeding tickets???" The deputy and I both got a good laugh out of that one.

Moral of the story: you cannot please ANYONE. So I stopped trying, long ago. That goes triple for these "I was abused by the cops" themed rants. While some are true, most have pertinent details conveniently left out.

.

[KevinB]

Whenever I get pulled over by Troopers I am pretty sure I'm getting a ticket regardless...
;)

However I will say whenever I have an interaction with State Troopers/Police I find they are the most polite LE entities across the country (Yes I have been pulled over a lot...)

[Joe in PNG]

My one, and so far only time I've been pulled over while armed, I let the fact that I done kittened up stay in the forefront of my thoughts. I did something that resulted in a fine, and a lot of paperwork for the officer.

I'm thinking he's not viewing me as a standing expert in constitutional law at this point in time. Thus, the situation is best handled with politeness on my part.

[Wheeler]

This is an interesting thread. In to follow.

[Coyotesfan97]

Standing and applauding! Bravo Nyeti!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PPGMD]

Whenever I get pulled over by Troopers I am pretty sure I'm getting a ticket regardless...
;)

However I will say whenever I have an interaction with State Troopers/Police I find they are the most polite LE entities across the country (Yes I have been pulled over a lot...)

They have lots of practice giving out Go Fast Taxes.

Anyways that is my attitude as well, chances are I deserved the ticket because I have a lead foot (though technically it is made out of carbon fiber). And even if I didn't deserve it the side of the road isn't the place to contest it, the court of law with a lawyer is.

[Tamara]

I simply grow tired of the jack booted thug is always wrong in every case whenever it is brought up on the internet.

Because that was totally what was going on here, what with the po-po outnumbering the non-po-po in the thread. ;) :p

[TSH]

I simply grow tired of the jack booted thug is always wrong in every case whenever it is brought up on the internet. I figure I'll be the guy to be the advocate that maybe in some freakish case the LEO was doing a good job....especially when these stories tend to be either one sides version or from the media or from a third party who was not involved at all. I have had a ton of LEO contacts over the years in a very wide and diverse set of circumstances. Were some of the LEO's ignorant a**holes....absolutely. Were some decent guys doing what they were told to by ignorant a**holes, yep. Were the majority decent folks trying to do their job to the best of their abilities, yep........with most of those actually doing a great job.......which seems to never get discussed on the internet.

+1

I am certain of two things regarding the OP: He was the one pulled over, not his "friend"; and he is lying about the circumstances of the stop.

[Dagga Boy]

Because that was totally what was going on here, what with the po-po outnumbering the non-po-po in the thread. ;) :p

It's a net first....I guess we just did our normal JBT thing like always.

Now the serious part.

I see a very serious blowback for the gun community coming. It is the L/E commentary on the net and various social media that is driving it. I (like several others) initially ignored this thread. Why, because the L/E guys are no longer giving a flying crap what anyone thinks. People love accusing cops as being racists as a whole. They are actually the least racist group out there......but they are prejudiced. They generally hate everybody. The issue I am seeing is that one group that street cops "used" to like was the firearms community. That is waning heavily. It has been pretty common knowledge that LEO's will often time cut CCW holders a lot of slack on traffic violations (which is really the only place "normal people" interact with LE). With the advent of a lot more licensed concealed carry folks out there will inevitably make for more encounters. This is "new" to both sides. The perfect storm of more contacts, with the ability of everyone to recount that "my cousin was stopped by a JBT" on their cousin's (neighbor, friend, person on My Face, etc...) version of events has led to a situation where the LEO's are basically looking at the CHL holders as the enemy. They expect certain segments of society to despise them......the gun community WAS not one of them. That is changing rapidly.

Add in some fuel like the OC people egging patrol officers into planned stupid encounters that will always go wrong by somebody's account on the net is really not helping. The net critique of officer involved shootings based on "media" reports that are well known for their lack of accuracy. When that net critique is coming from those who should know better, it is again devisive, and very little positives emerge. Essentially, LEO's are shrugging. I never thought I would see the day that solid street cops are thinking that solid gun owners are in the same class of "everyone" else they hate. Once that happens is when the REALLY bad encounters start to occur.

I have seen this first hand. The day I started on the job our Chief of Police who was a real life John Wayne and as stellar a person to walk this planet gave us rookies a simple lecture about expectations at our department. "You treat the crooks like crooks, and the good citizens like good citizens". It was SO simple. You were hard on the bad guys, and nice to the good guys. A perfect example was tickets. Most of our swing and grave officers simply didn't write tickets to nice people....you know, license, registration , insurance, courteous and respectful, hard working residents. We wrote tickets to people picking up hookers, in areas they didn't belong in buying dope, driving with no/suspended/revoked licenses, and general mopery. Well give it enough time and the whole "you only pick on minorities" garbage (kind of hard to not "pick" on them when that is all that is in your area, and then the same "cops are racists" from those same segments of society that were the "nice" people who are now "activists" and guess what, a lot of guys simply became robots and stopped cutting breaks. It made them look better "on paper" because they were citing a lot more "non special class" folks. "Non-discretion" is far easier to work with than using discretion. That can swing pretty hard the more the community wants to label. At some point it gets to the point of the LEO's simply not giving a crap at all. They don't do any enforcement, and especially to those members of protected classes and simply write some tickets to "white people" as their only level of productivity. They get fatigued with "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and no allies. Most don't live where they work, so who cares.........think I am wrong...... google up Oakland. Another example was the open carry stuff in California. It used to be legal.....and then "OC educators" wanted to educate everyone on their rights and often film the encounters. The "victims" were the unfortunate street cop getting sent to "Man with a gun" calls (I think the OC folks have a cute acronym that is some sort if neat status when some soccer mom gets freaked out and calls 9-11). In the past, the "Soccer Moms against guns and for Whales and puppies" were usually in league with politically motivated LE "executives" and politicians. The problem was the street guys were usually pro-gun. I can only remember a few line cops who were "anti-gun" in my career. See line LEO's like the idea of citizens actually taking a stake in their own protection and willing to help save themselves instead of wholly depending on some poor street cop to be the only one willing to save them (pet rant...."I'll just call the police" people......well gee thanks, because that cop with his own family should risk everything all by themselves because you are too elite to take any interest in a least helping to save your self and family.....let the cop do it). Line cops like the idea that if they are "behind the curve" in a crisis that maybe some CHL holder might be there to help. That is why in the past, they were often cut a ton of slack on little stuff like tickets. Well, when the line cops began to be the ones at the brunt of the OC movement, they happily joined the brass, and mom's against everything in rapidly making OC illegal in California with no resistance at all in the legislature. Its called Blowback.

The CHL folks and gun community in general are headed down the same road. When it becomes common place that contacts with CHL holders end up being Tweets, Facebook posts, and forum rants, does anyone want to venture a guess at the result? It is going to be that contacts with CHL holders will be very cold, very unemotional, and a simple "wait here while I print your citation" (used to be "press hard, there are four copies" in my days). No breaks, no cares, no thoughts to the holder being a "good citizen".....nope, write a ticket for the boss to stay off your back, and simply look at CHL's as a reason to not engage in any conversation.....just write and roll. Is that good? Is that what is needed? Is that going to solve the problems that lack of training and training budgets and priorities are causing with bad, questionable, or misunderstood uses of force by L/E. Is the gun community being looked at like "just another group that hates cop" what the gun community wants........cause that is where we are headed.

[Malamute]

... Every cop out there has heard or seen some kind of attempt to get out of a ticket from a majority of people they stop.

I simply grow tired of the jack booted thug is always wrong in every case whenever it is brought up on the internet. I figure I'll be the guy to be the advocate that maybe in some freakish case the LEO was doing a good job.........with most of those actually doing a great job.......which seems to never get discussed on the internet.


I got a ticket a few years ago,...I don't get many. The state guy said something to the effect of "...sorry but I have to give you a ticket..." I sort of interrupted him, I said "No, you caught me fair and square, I wasn't paying attention, I didn't even realize this truck would go that fast" (75 in a 65). He laughed, it seemed to surprise him that I said he caught me fair and square. We ended up BS'ing on the roadside for a few minutes. Really nice guy.

I seriously dislike giving money away paying go fast taxes, so I find it easier not to go fast. Last time I recall speeding intentionally was when my dog was rattlesnake bit and was heading to the vet.

[DocGKR]

Nyeti--well said. I hope honest citizens wake up and pay attention to what you are describing or our Nation will slide even deeper towards the abyss...

[fixer]

The perfect storm of more contacts, with the ability of everyone to recount that "my cousin was stopped by a JBT" on their cousin's (neighbor, friend, person on My Face, etc...) version of events has led to a situation where the LEO's are basically looking at the CHL holders as the enemy. They expect certain segments of society to despise them......the gun community WAS not one of them. That is changing rapidly.


The CHL folks and gun community in general are headed down the same road. When it becomes common place that contacts with CHL holders end up being Tweets, Facebook posts, and forum rants, does anyone want to venture a guess at the result? It is going to be that contacts with CHL holders will be very cold, very unemotional, and a simple "wait here while I print your citation" (used to be "press hard, there are four copies" in my days).

Compelling perspective.

So how do we reverse this trend?

[Tamara]

Wouldn't know. Never tried to "talk my way out of a ticket"; always just took my medicine like a grownup. I got an LTCH so I can carry a pistol, not so I can talk guns on the roadside or squeak out of tickets.

I thought the thread had, the way threads on the internet do, turned to an interesting conversation on the broader topic of how Johnny Law does and/or should deal with the weapons of permit holders during non consensual roadside encounters, rather than the specifics of the OP's cousin's friend's nephew's uncle's brother's buddy's alleged incident.

[TCinVA]

Whenever I get pulled over by Troopers I am pretty sure I'm getting a ticket regardless...


VASP has no sense of humor.

[Dagga Boy]

Compelling perspective.

So how do we reverse this trend?

BOTH sides need to try to see things through the other sides eyes rather than it being all about "ME".

One of the best attributes I had as a cop was the ability to always try to see from the other side. It was good for dealing with people, and great for catching crooks. Essentially, trying to climb in the other sides head to get to the why's. It is why I am so abrassive on the net, I want to get to the "why" do they have that opinion. "WHY" is where answers come from.

[Tamara]

It's a net first....I guess we just did our normal JBT thing like always.

Dang, you're touchy about this. Nobody said that here. Not in this thread. You've brought this from other threads and, heck, probably other forums.

FWIW, I wasn't going to look in on this subforum of p-f.com, but this thread got moved here from Romper Room and so I followed it.

Do you know why I wasn't going to look in here?

Because in fifteen years of internet gun fora participation, I have discovered that, as an absolutely ironclad rule, any dedicated LE subforum is populated with two types of people: Whiny Libertarian weirdos who are there to pick fights because they see every cop as an oathbreaking JBT fascist tool, and burnt-out cops who interpret any question about police procedure as being a "cop hater".

If all you want to hear from is the former, keep running people like me off by lumping us in with them.

[KevinB]

and this is why we can't have nice things....

[Dagga Boy]

Dang, you're touchy about this. Nobody said that here. Not in this thread. You've brought this from other threads and, heck, probably other forums.

FWIW, I wasn't going to look in on this subforum of p-f.com, but this thread got moved here from Romper Room and so I followed it.

Do you know why I wasn't going to look in here?

Because in fifteen years of internet gun fora participation, I have discovered that, as an absolutely ironclad rule, any dedicated LE subforum is populated with two types of people: Whiny Libertarian weirdos who are there to pick fights because they see every cop as an oathbreaking JBT fascist tool, and burnt-out cops who interpret any question about police procedure as being a "cop hater".

If all you want to hear from is the former, keep running people like me off by lumping us in with them.

Sorry, I forgot the winky thing.

I'll try again.....

"It's a net first........I guess we just did our normal JBT thing like always.;):p:o."

Read it like that.....it was intended as a joke. Wow, I thought you guys could figure out my typing intent by now without gimmicks....;):rolleyes::o

[Erik]

Hey man, you're the one who said he was a mind reader...

[LSP972]

Compelling perspective.

So how do we reverse this trend?

You (we) cannot. Might as well try to promulgate peace in the Middle East.

Why? Because the social media thing allows any room-temperature-IQ moron with a cell phone to broadcast his idiocy. And the number of room-temperature-IQ morons is increasing at a geometric rate, it would seem.

I recently completely divested myself from what was once a thriving local gun board. It was a fun place, and its even more fun when you actually know many of the people you're exchanging posts with. I was a moderator there. Then, slowly but surely, the derpes infected the place, and got so bad I had enough and bailed. I do a drive-by every now and then. Between the OC idiots and the "They can't do that!" crybabies who almost ALWAYS bring it upon themselves because… well… they're basically stupid; if anything, its gotten worse. And I know of other LEOs, one a member both here and there, who feel exactly the same way.

Its just like DB said; the "us against them" mentality of cops toward gun owners is happening; its real, and it is ENTIRELY the fault of the vocal few who try to demonize LE for whatever purpose.

Keep in mind that I'm retired; but I still have close contacts in the profession. Another factor is that a lot of the new young coppers DO NOT think like "us". They were brought up thinking guns are indeed bad and have a social stigma. Let one of them see some hydrocephalic idiot ranting about JBTs on a gun forum… what opinion do you think he is going to form???

And then there is the cop who IS 'one of us'… and he gets burned by a combination of spineless admins and a frothing-at-the-mouth "gun activist". What do you think he is going to feel? I can tell you… "To hell with those people. From now on, its by the book for everybody." Just like DB said… they are becoming robots whose prime directive is self-presevation. And those who consider themselves "gun people" have had a large part in that transformation.

Okay, I'm done. Many may not believe or agree with the above. No skin off my nose… you see, I went into "Look out for me and mine; everybody else is on their own!" mode a long time ago… I too got spanked, different from DB's situation but with a similar outcome. It only takes one career-threatening deal like that to get your attention. I survived, hung on long enough for a good pension, and now simply don't give a kitten. Nothing I can do or say will affect the big picture anyway.

But read again what DB wrote. He is spot-on. This is happening… today… around the country.

.

[DocGKR]

Bravo!

[Dave J]

DB and LSP, thanks for the insight, even though it's more than a little disconcerting.

[LSP972]

DB and LSP, thanks for the insight, even though it's more than a little disconcerting.

Only the tip of the ice berg, friend… only the tip.

See the Dallas PD thread for another piece of the puzzle.

.

[jlw]

I just got home from teach two sessions of my Interacting with Armed Citizens class to a metro Atlanta police department.

Georgia is home to a state level carry rights political group that has had a remarkable level of success in getting good (by good I mean pro carry) legislation passed in this state. Some of their legislation has actually made life much, much easier on the badge toting crowd as it removed some very ambiguous language.

There is a fringe of this group that likes to go on "Liberty Walks" with video cameras and recording their interactions with the cops. Sadly, my fellow cops have taken the bait more than once.

They have also learned the open records request process, and they are getting the dash cam footage of some very, very ugly interactions. I'm talking stuff that would make Daniel Harless proud footage. Harless, by the way, came to light via open records requests of his own recordings.

I say all of that to say this: the reason people are so ready to believe such things is that we have given them plenty of prima facia evidence.

I've got a copy of an incident report from one county here that arrested a guy for obstruction after, having been stopped for no reason, refused to show his ID and GWCL, and one of the officers even wrote in the report that he knew the guy had a valid GWCL. Nothing in our state law requires a person to produce ID on demand.

Our legislature created a new code section that goes into effect on July 1:

It makes it illegal to detain a person solely to investigate whether or not they have a valid GWCL.

[Wheeler]

A lot of these folks that are merely looking for attention and engage in a form of ego masturbation with other like minded individuals. I posted a thread a while back on the forum of the group jlw mentioned above entitled My Concealed Carry Encounters or something similar. Suffice it to say that it received a lot of negative attention. Yes I was trolling and ridiculing those that bragged about pushing people's buttons to get a response. My purpose was only to educate and inform, not to threaten. :-)

I've spent quite a bit of time working with boys and young men in the Boy Scouts. I see quite a bit of them pushing boundaries to extreme limits to see what sort of reaction they get and just how far they can go, much like the individuals that OC. When I watch these 'interactions' between a these OC advocates and cops I see a lot of the button pushing on one side and just about as much Respect Mah Authoriti!' on the other. Those are the ones these guys are looking for, something to garner YouTube views and adulation from their buddies.

[41magfan]

I just got home from teach two sessions of my Interacting with Armed Citizens class to a metro Atlanta police department.

Georgia is home to a state level carry rights political group that has had a remarkable level of success in getting good (by good I mean pro carry) legislation passed in this state. Some of their legislation has actually made life much, much easier on the badge toting crowd as it removed some very ambiguous language.

There is a fringe of this group that likes to go on "Liberty Walks" with video cameras and recording their interactions with the cops. Sadly, my fellow cops have taken the bait more than once.

They have also learned the open records request process, and they are getting the dash cam footage of some very, very ugly interactions. I'm talking stuff that would make Daniel Harless proud footage. Harless, by the way, came to light via open records requests of his own recordings.

I say all of that to say this: the reason people are so ready to believe such things is that we have given them plenty of prima facia evidence.

I've got a copy of an incident report from one county here that arrested a guy for obstruction after, having been stopped for no reason, refused to show his ID and GWCL, and one of the officers even wrote in the report that he knew the guy had a valid GWCL. Nothing in our state law requires a person to produce ID on demand.

Our legislature created a new code section that goes into effect on July 1:

It makes it illegal to detain a person solely to investigate whether or not they have a valid GWCL.

Give that man a cigar!

The divide that naturally occurs between those in authority and those that are tasked with being subordinate has been around since the beginning of time and will remain till the end. But that's not really the problem. The problem is the perception (justified or not, it really doesn't matter) that COPS don't respect the right of a citizen to carry a gun - concealed or otherwise - in a public setting. Even the passive ones, if they're honest enough to tell you, think they're the only one's competent enough to carry a gun out in public.

Folks operating around the fringes will always do the majority an injustice; on both sides. But, if the average COP would simply embrace the idea that law abiding gun-toters are NOT the problem - and they acted and reacted accordingly - the average taxpayer would come to view these high profile interactions as an anomaly. But as its been already stated, there has already been too much fodder offered up by the heavy-handed for it to be totally ignored. In other words, there are too many people out there with a story of their own.

We can argue the chicken or the egg thing till hell freezes over I guess, but I think the LE culture needs to do the heavy lifting in this real or imagined conflict. It all really boils down to this one word; FEAR. You cannot and will not have respect for something or someone that makes you fearful.

[Dagga Boy]

jlw, glad to see you are doing the training side of this, as it is a piece of the puzzle.

Many of our Gen "Why" cops are not gun people at all. They have grown up in a guns are bad, everyone gets a trophy, only criminals have guns, don't fight or defend yourself in any way, call the authorities (teacher, police, anyone other than the individual to protect them), and they are special (extra special when you get a badge). They have not been exposed to any kind of firearms safety programs in school, and even the ones from the military are often not really "gun people" based on how personal (and even issued) firearms are treated like plutonium (and putting a magazine in the weapon requires two keys and a secret code). They are WAY behind the curve dealing with "not police" people with guns. They are like alien encounters as they have mostly been brought up that "only criminals and police" carry guns. This is ESPECIALLY true in places like California, NY, Chicago, and other "safe" places where that is actually true. Throw some open carry in the mix that are often trying to have a negative encounter and it is a perfect storm. Add to this that very little attention is generally paid to these subjects in the Academy and training programs, because "Cultural sensitivity" and "proper use of flares" are FAR more important than dealing with armed people.....both good and bad. Additionally, this is the same tweety, Facebooky, social media generation that is on the net participating in the same mess.

Then you have your older curmudgeons like several of us here. Usually pretty good with CHL holders and those most likely to not write tickets to CHL holders and tend to be fine with "most" CHL holders. They are terrible with those who are "activist" CHL holders and the open carry folks as they are very much on the "walk like a duck, talk like a duck, act like a duck.....you're a duck" program. Many of the activists out there are acting like ducks on purpose to create and encounter.

Hopefully, classes like what it seems like jlw are doing will help on the cop side of the coin. With time, maybe, poor contacts will decrease and LEO's will simply scratch tickets to CHL holders and treat them like everyone else. It will actually benefit the LEO's to go on full drone verbal judo mode with the CHL holders and just treat them like a special class minority and not give them one iota of a reason to complain and basically play to the video camera.

On the other side.....well, that is going to be up to the firearms community on how they respond.

In the end, hopefully tensions will soften, or both will consider the other group as the enemy. Time will tell.

[jlw]

Give that man a cigar!

The divide that naturally occurs between those in authority and those that are tasked with being subordinate has been around since the beginning of time and will remain till the end. But that's not really the problem. The problem is the perception (justified or not, it really doesn't matter) that COPS don't respect the right of a citizen to carry a gun - concealed or otherwise - in a public setting. Even the passive ones, if they're honest enough to tell you, think they're the only one's competent enough to carry a gun out in public.

Folks operating around the fringes will always do the majority an injustice; on both sides. But, if the average COP would simply embrace the idea that law abiding gun-toters are NOT the problem - and they acted and reacted accordingly - the average taxpayer would come to view these high profile interactions as an anomaly. But as its been already stated, there has already been too much fodder offered up by the heavy-handed for it to be totally ignored. In other words, there are too many people out there with a story of their own.

We can argue the chicken or the egg thing till hell freezes over I guess, but I think the LE culture needs to do the heavy lifting in this real or imagined conflict. It all really boils down to this one word; FEAR. You cannot and will not have respect for something or someone that makes you fearful.


In my travels around the state teaching my class, I get some mixed response as sometimes the agency brings me in after one of its people has fumbled one big time, and there is a certain defensiveness that comes from an outsider coming in under such circumstances. Other times it was like today where it was a voluntary class, and the folks who were there really wanted to be there.

I have yet to see the attitude of cops thinking citizens are too incompetent to carry firearms; not a single time. The problems arise in the mistaken belief that a person carrying a firearm should result in a LE response. The other issues are that "officer safety" has become a mantra that justifies anything the cop does rather than it being a goal achieved via sound tactics.

Finally, there is the belief that a 911 call is a mandate from God and there is a pressure to "do something". We respond to all 911 calls, but our response for a man with a gun call is to meet with the complainant and not to go shanghai the guy buying bread whilst carrying a pistol.

[Dagga Boy]

"I have yet to see the attitude of cops thinking citizens are too incompetent to carry firearms; not a single time. The problems arise in the mistaken belief that a person carrying a firearm should result in a LE response. The other issues are that "officer safety" has become a mantra that justifies anything the cop does rather than it being a goal achieved via sound tactics.

Finally, there is the belief that a 911 call is a mandate from God and there is a pressure to "do something". We respond to all 911 calls, but our response for a man with a gun call is to meet with the complainant and not to go shanghai the guy buying bread whilst carrying a pistol."

This mirrors my experience as well. The issue is not some belief that they are the only ones competent enough, it is a belief that every armed person around them is a possible threat. Keep in mind that this is "normally" true. The traffic stop is that terrible thing where decent people and cops interact. The decent people know they are decent...the cops don't. People need to keep that in mind. Traffic tickets are also the thing that most people rarely believe they deserve. Truthfully, its why I rarely wrote them to decent folks as it never seemed worth leaving a negative impression. I left meanie to the motors. The only exception was right after Rodney King when it appeared that the "public" didn't seem to like what happens with gigantic parolees on PCP post pursuit. Fine, don't want me out out hunting down parolees and felons, I'll sit at a corner and write "illegal turn" tickets all morning to nice people going to work. Other than that time, my rule was License, Registration, Proof of Insurance and sorry, and you got a warning-no matter what your color, creed, social class, or any other factor. I hate getting tickets...hated giving them.

At the tail end of my career that all changed due to all the racist criticism's and documentation of possible racial bias. In this case...it became important to do the verbal judo thing like a drone and write everyone. You had to do that to document your probable cause for the stop, otherwise you end up with the "just stopped me cause I'm _____________ (insert anything from a race to driving a red car). Just ended up being easier. Blowback. Giving breaks now bites LEO's. I notice now when I get stopped, even if let go with a warning I get a nice official printed out warning or a actual citation for some admin thing. Falls into the "this is why we can't have nice things" and it is a shame that cops put themselves in jeopardy by trying to be decent to decent people.

[Malamute]

Traffic tickets are also the thing that most people rarely believe they deserve...

Slightly off topic, but it reminded me of this,

NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_RvJ7CtOw

[LSP972]

Slightly off topic, but it reminded me of this,

NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_RvJ7CtOw

A classic; the screech when he learns how much it will cost is… priceless.

I made it a habit to feign ignorance when asked (and they always do) "how much", instead referring them to the number on the scrip for the DA's Office.

But an interesting aside; during the last few years that I worked the road, the fines became larcenous- actually the "court costs"- particularly in some rural parishes, who looked at troopers as a cash-generating cow. When I figured that out, I cut WAY back on the scrips I handed out to everyday folks; that definition being good people who simply weren't paying attention, etc.

We rotated days and nights once monthly, so it was easy to keep one's stats up on dog shift, when the cretins and scumbags came out to play.

.

[Malamute]

I neglected to give a NSFW/language warning on that post. Someone asked me to add it, but I missed my time window to edit. I asked in the help section to have a moderator add the warning, or however they saw fit to address it.

Other than the language, its hilarious.

[Dagga Boy]

Slightly off topic, but it reminded me of this,

NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_RvJ7CtOw

I took to heart the challenge from Verbal Judo that "nobody in America is good enough to get you angry". Worked most of the time, but I really adhered to it on traffic stops. I can still do the same stop spiel to this day like a tape recording.

[RevolverRob]

The decent people know they are decent...the cops don't. People need to keep that in mind.

Or...not.

We teach a concept in this country called defensive driving. See, it turns out, when you drive on the road it's filled with really dangerous lunatics who are oblivious morons, incapable of effectively piloting their vehicles of choice. We recognize that societally (at least to some degree) and teach a whole series of techniques were we teach drivers to be aware and defensive in their driving tactics, let things develop, take their foot off the gas, use the brake more. It works remarkable well, according to the statistics. Post-defensive driving, drivers typically reduce driving infractions, mistakes, and accidents, by nearly 100%. In defensive driving - It's not the other drivers on the road that need to know it is dangerous...it's the driver in your car that needs to remember everyone else is dangerous and act accordingly.

What's my point? Being a police officer requires inherent risks and balances that an individual officer must determine, in advance, that they are willing to accept. It is not the job of a person stopped for a traffic infraction to remember that police officers have a dangerous and difficult job, it's the officer's job to remember that. AND that officer must then balance their recognition of that danger with their legal authorities, while following the laws set forth in their jurisdiction locally, while upholding the constitutions of their state and federal union. Nobody said it was an easy job, but that is a police officer's job. Could the public make it easier by not being a bunch of kitten-holes? You bet, but unfortunately the other balancing act of an officer is to deal frequently with people who have the emotional maturity of hormonal teenagers. You either choose to do it or you don't, but you don't get to use, "Well I have a very hard job." As an excuse after the fact, to ask people to change. It's either accept that it's a hard and difficult job and do the best or don't. But you can't expect the MAJORITY to change so the MINORITY can have an easier time of it, that's counter to the whole premise of this country.

___

Okay - I am going to stop there, before I roll off the deep end. I want the record to continue to show that I have the utmost respect for police officers. I have personally largely dealt with very professional officers who do a very, very, hard job. I acknowledge that and want to thank all of you who do or have done the work professionally, for your efforts to make our world a better place. I mean that sincerely, thank you for your hard work and efforts. I also want the record to show that I take the safety of public safety professionals with the utmost seriousness. Please all of you on active duty out there, be cautious and come home as safe as can be.

-Rob

[fixer]

BOTH sides need to try to see things through the other sides eyes rather than it being all about "ME".

One of the best attributes I had as a cop was the ability to always try to see from the other side. It was good for dealing with people, and great for catching crooks. Essentially, trying to climb in the other sides head to get to the why's. It is why I am so abrassive on the net, I want to get to the "why" do they have that opinion. "WHY" is where answers come from.

Thanks.

I've been intuitively taking this approach for a while. I think it does help both sides tremendously if we allow it to.

In my profession, "Why" is where answers come from too.

[Robinson]

I just got home from teach two sessions of my Interacting with Armed Citizens class to a metro Atlanta police department.

Georgia is home to a state level carry rights political group that has had a remarkable level of success in getting good (by good I mean pro carry) legislation passed in this state. Some of their legislation has actually made life much, much easier on the badge toting crowd as it removed some very ambiguous language.

There is a fringe of this group that likes to go on "Liberty Walks" with video cameras and recording their interactions with the cops. Sadly, my fellow cops have taken the bait more than once.

They have also learned the open records request process, and they are getting the dash cam footage of some very, very ugly interactions. I'm talking stuff that would make Daniel Harless proud footage. Harless, by the way, came to light via open records requests of his own recordings.

I say all of that to say this: the reason people are so ready to believe such things is that we have given them plenty of prima facia evidence.

I've got a copy of an incident report from one county here that arrested a guy for obstruction after, having been stopped for no reason, refused to show his ID and GWCL, and one of the officers even wrote in the report that he knew the guy had a valid GWCL. Nothing in our state law requires a person to produce ID on demand.

Our legislature created a new code section that goes into effect on July 1:

It makes it illegal to detain a person solely to investigate whether or not they have a valid GWCL.

I live in Georgia and agree with JLW about how the gun laws have been changing for the better. It's good to see the education of officers being done as well. Too bad nobody is holding training for citizens on how not to be jerks when interacting with LEOs. I see how officers handling interactions improperly can make things worse especially when captured on video, but I still find the practice of trying to "bait" officers into doing something wrong annoying and counterproductive. Between these people and the over-zealous open carry activists I wonder whose side they are on -- I guess the answer is "theirs".

I carry a gun often in public, but when I'm out amongst people the gun isn't what I want everyone's focus to be on as we go about our activities. It's really nobody's business.

[jlw]

One other thing on videos and interweb postings:

Cops are the offensive linemen of the world. We only get a close up and a mention by the announcers when we forget the snap count or get caught holding.

[Dagga Boy]

Or...not.

We teach a concept in this country called defensive driving. See, it turns out, when you drive on the road it's filled with really dangerous lunatics who are oblivious morons, incapable of effectively piloting their vehicles of choice. We recognize that societally (at least to some degree) and teach a whole series of techniques were we teach drivers to be aware and defensive in their driving tactics, let things develop, take their foot off the gas, use the brake more. It works remarkable well, according to the statistics. Post-defensive driving, drivers typically reduce driving infractions, mistakes, and accidents, by nearly 100%. In defensive driving - It's not the other drivers on the road that need to know it is dangerous...it's the driver in your car that needs to remember everyone else is dangerous and act accordingly.

What's my point? Being a police officer requires inherent risks and balances that an individual officer must determine, in advance, that they are willing to accept. It is not the job of a person stopped for a traffic infraction to remember that police officers have a dangerous and difficult job, it's the officer's job to remember that. AND that officer must then balance their recognition of that danger with their legal authorities, while following the laws set forth in their jurisdiction locally, while upholding the constitutions of their state and federal union. Nobody said it was an easy job, but that is a police officer's job. Could the public make it easier by not being a bunch of kitten-holes? You bet, but unfortunately the other balancing act of an officer is to deal frequently with people who have the emotional maturity of hormonal teenagers. You either choose to do it or you don't, but you don't get to use, "Well I have a very hard job." As an excuse after the fact, to ask people to change. It's either accept that it's a hard and difficult job and do the best or don't. But you can't expect the MAJORITY to change so the MINORITY can have an easier time of it, that's counter to the whole premise of this country.

___

Okay - I am going to stop there, before I roll off the deep end. I want the record to continue to show that I have the utmost respect for police officers. I have personally largely dealt with very professional officers who do a very, very, hard job. I acknowledge that and want to thank all of you who do or have done the work professionally, for your efforts to make our world a better place. I mean that sincerely, thank you for your hard work and efforts. I also want the record to show that I take the safety of public safety professionals with the utmost seriousness. Please all of you on active duty out there, be cautious and come home as safe as can be.

-Rob


I have debated for hours about even bothering with a response to this.......as I don't know if it is going to be worth it. Essentially, I think you are so wrong it hurts. But, when I am done with my response you may be fine with the above, in which case you deserve the level of policing you get.

Defensive Driving-I don't. I drive offensively (which is far different than recklessly). Want to know where I learned that.......getting to the end of somebody's 911 call as fast as I could and actually make it. If your family is in need of L/E, do you want them coming in a very conservative manner, ensuring every level of safety and not violating any rules of the road at all? My sub two minute response time average to in-progress felony's in my beat was something I took pride in, and a number untouched by my co-workers. One of the things that disheartened me when I started working in a helicopter was orbiting on a very hot in progress dangerous call and seeing some officers going as slow as possible to get there. Worse, a couple of them circling the block so they wouldn't get there first. I called them cowards, by your standard, they were just like the majority and were doing a fine job of dealing with inherent danger. It is called risk aversion. It is the purest form of risk mitigation. The tactically correct thing to do when a couple of guys with masks, AK's and body armor walk in a bank.......is to drive the other way. If you want cops like that, there are plenty out there. I want the ones that are driving a 100 mph to get in that fight.....and usually with a pistol.

Yeah, cops do have to deal with the worst of society, or members of society in the worst circumstances of their lives. That is what 911 is......the bad thing number. A MAJORITY of what LEO's deal with is in fact bad things. Like your above example of defensive driving, there is defensive cop work. I can think of lots of places getting it (Detroit and Oakland come to mind). A bunch of uncaring folks on blue welfare who no longer will risk anything. Want to not even have a chance of being accused of violating some poor burglars rights.....just show up and take meaningless burglary reports and never look for burglars. Want to avoid any issues....motor cops. Drive around and write emotionless tickets to nice people....who are quite easy to spot. The violations are easy to find, get a license and some paperwork and "print out" a summons. Even easier sitting on a freeway with a ladar gun.

You also fail to understand that doing police work effectively requires initiative. YOU have zero idea why you are being stopped. Even if the officer gives you his "probable cause" for the stop, that may not be remotely why you are being stopped. A "GOOD" cop is looking for bad guys. They are looking for vehicles that match the description of those used in crimes......you know by a minority of people (meaning small number, not minority classification) victimizing the majority. You haven't a clue that the vehicle you are driving on a traffic stop is exactly the same as one used in a robbery, rape, child molestation, kidnapping or even a simple stolen car. Think of the effect on your life of your home being burglarized or your car being stolen. Now multiply the effect by a hundred for those other crimes. Good cops are looking for those things. Drones (or ball bearings with lips as I like to refer to them) are NOT looking for those. They are looking for easy tickets, play to the in-car video, and like their arrests to be for "fail to appear in court" which is essentially an arrest ordered by a judge and the easiest and most risk free. So, what do you want. Kind, courteous officers who do nothing to even come close to cause any uncomfortableness for anyone. There are plenty of those, and it is the quickest way to rise to the top in most organizations. Good cops can easily read things with some cooperation. If you are stopped as a solid good citizen, the simple turning on the interior lights rolling the windows down, have your hands in plain sight, and simply listen is a sure fire way to help. You don't have to. It may be an affront to you. That is fine, because by your standard, you are in the majority and shouldn't have to do one damn thing to make the minority guys job easier. I mean they signed up for it. If you want to get into a Constitutional debate about your rights, great. You have begun acting EXACTLY like all the folks that officer has caught dirty in a stolen car or full of dope, illegal guns, etc. Of course, the "Defensive Driving Cop" isn't going to be an issue, because he is stopping people based on a minor violation and does not want to find anything bad. They won't ask any inquiring questions, are stopping your car because it does not look remotely like any that are wanted in their area, and are doing a fine job of avoiding trouble.

I got the impression from your post that the citizenry does not need to try to look at things from the "Minority" LEO's side. That is fine. Because it is really easy for the minority LEO's side to not look at things through the majority's eyes, and just not care about the majority. That is one of the things about those in government service. You don't have to care. You know how when there is a massive line at the Post Office and three of the 5 people working get up to take "their break", because that is the career safe thing to do. You can have that police department.

[Dagga Boy]

One other thing on videos and interweb postings:

Cops are the offensive linemen of the world. We only get a close up and a mention by the announcers when we forget the snap count or get caught holding.

As a former lineman, that is a great analogy.

[RevolverRob]

I respect your experience and opinion, but we will have to agree to disagree.

I should have exercised my better judgement and stayed out of this thread once it was moved.

-Rob

[Dagga Boy]

I respect your experience and opinion, but we will have to agree to disagree.

I should have exercised my better judgement and stayed out of this thread once it was moved.

-Rob

Ditto.....including truly respecting your opinion even though I don't agree with it, and especially staying out of it.

[Joe in PNG]

I live in Georgia and agree with JLW about how the gun laws have been changing for the better. It's good to see the education of officers being done as well. Too bad nobody is holding training for citizens on how not to be jerks when interacting with LEOs. I see how officers handling interactions improperly can make things worse especially when captured on video, but I still find the practice of trying to "bait" officers into doing something wrong annoying and counterproductive. Between these people and the over-zealous open carry activists I wonder whose side they are on -- I guess the answer is "theirs".

I carry a gun often in public, but when I'm out amongst people the gun isn't what I want everyone's focus to be on as we go about our activities. It's really nobody's business.

There is a strange belief held by Threeper type Idiots that polite cooperation with Law Enforcement = opressed sheeple slave mentality. These tend to be the same Derpes infected kittens that have the strange belief that getting rid of Law Enforcement will make the world a better place... yet have no idea of what "rule of law" means, nor do they have any ideas of a workable replacement, other than a few vague sort of fuzzy libertarian things they read on the web somewhere.

[Bigguy]

There is a strange belief held by Threeper type Idiots that polite cooperation with Law Enforcement = opressed sheeple slave mentality.

Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Help! I'm being oppressed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

Just trying to lighten the mood a little.

[BK14]

Mr. Nyeti, jlw, et al.,
As a Gen Y'er (the kind that shoots and hates my generation) that will be applying to departments in a few months, I'm looking for advise. After reading this thread, and hearing about the problems that are going on, many of which I've seen, I'm still unsure on how I should act. Are you advocating for giving more leniency to the CWP crowd, treating them the same, or something else?

Basically, how do you think an officer should be acting to negate these issues, so I can attempt to follow that model if I get hired?

Thanks for any help.

[Shellback]

Pg. 1 - 6 was a great read on the general topic at hand. Special thanks to JLW for breaking things down and a great court case reference from Keefus as well.

[KevinB]

We where talking about this last week.

Firm, Fair, Friendly -- but be ready to act (potentially kill) at a moments notice if needed.

Coming from Canada, I am overly polite by nature, until its time not to be polite.

The unfortunate thing these days, is the number of absolute assclowns that are looking for their 15min of fame with a cellphone camera. Coupled into the issue of a number of folks that really would be better 6' under.

[Rich]

I don't see what the big deal is.

Carrying concealed is a licensed activity. If a cop, under the right pretenses (traffic stop etc), wants to run the serial number on my gun, then they can knock themselves out.

I don't mind being checked out by LE.

But I hate when they fully unload my magazine and dump the rds on the passengers seat !

[TNWNGR]

Don't know why I missed this thread, very entertaining. A houseguest was stopped by a county deputy while driving in to work from my place. Almost the identical thing happened with an unloaded revolver and handful of loose rounds being returned to the driver. Houseguest got pissed off and insisted the Deputy reload the gun and return it in the same condition he had received it. Deputy had the good sense not to make an issue of it and corrected his "error". I laughed at the story as I'm a retired municipal LEO and another deputy pulled almost the identical stunt with my wife. FWIW its a simple courtesy to return the firearm to the HCP holder you've detained for a traffic stop in the same condition in which you received it.

[KevinB]

Returning a loaded/readied gun defeats the argument that it was unloaded for officer safety ;)

[TNWNGR]

Returning a loaded/readied gun defeats the argument that it was unloaded for officer safety ;)

IDKM its your world , but I can see see your humor though;-)

[KevinB]

Frankly, I am of the mind that the less handling of firearms at a traffic stop the better (or generally any interactions with LE and the public).

I've never been asked to show or clear a gun out at a traffic stop -- the only time I was asked if I had a gun (my CWP pops up with my DL here in VA) I produced my cred's and that ended that line of questioning.

[FNFAN]

My fav was the purported officer on another forum who expressed his disdain for civilian carry by habitually handing back the citizen's shooter disassembled. Was an interesting thread when a guy who'd had his Wilson Supergrade dinged up by someone doing this expressed his thoughts.

[Totem Polar]

Frankly, I am of the mind that the less handling of firearms at a traffic stop the better (or generally any interactions with LE and the public).


This is only common sense: it's pretty hard to ND without some sort of administrative handling going on. Risk v Reward seems to lean pretty far towards two people not monkey kittening with firearms and holsters in public unless there are very compelling reasons.

[Corvus]

There are some le that try to disassemble firearms around Ky also.

[Chuck Haggard]

If I felt the need to disarm a person with a valid CCW permit it would be because something beyond them being armed is going on. In that case I would in fact unload the gun, and that's how they would get it back.

Who here would routinely hand another person a known loaded firearm? Who here has practiced doing so safely as a team effort (Claude, BTW, showed one of the very best TTPs for this in his couples class at the Tac Conference, but I digress...), and if they have, would the person on the traffic stop be a part of your training team?

My train of thought in our lawsuit happy country;
If I unload the gun I accept the liability for that, pretty sure I'm not going to ND it. If I hand the person back their unloaded gun and they later shoot themselves via ND while reloading than that's on them, not on me. However, comma, if they ND the gun by grabbing it stupid while I am handing it back to them loaded then I may be held liable for that happening. Not a risk I am willing to take.

Is there case law on this? Not to my knowledge, and I'm not trying to be a test case either.

[TNWNGR]

FWIW the only times I ever disarmed a HCP holder was if they'd done something really stupid. The only time I disarmed HCP holders who were in their vehicles was during the course of a criminal investigation or I'd arrested them. Those few instances were brought on by the offender. I have disarmed HCP holders out sulking about at night on foot though until I confirmed the who, what, when, why parameters. I've done the same to off duty and out of jurisdiction LEO's as well. In the end it is what it is and not likely to change. And yes its nice to be a retired LEO supervisor and not deal with this stuff all the time at work.