Testified in an Ohio House Committee hearing yesterday about our CCW law

[TheNewbie]

I agree in principle but the effect in reality is people who are too lazy to get an LTC or have an LTC but are too lazy to carry the gun leave them in the car full time, unsecured, and sooner or later they get stolen. About 1/2 or more of the guns we recover are stolen.?

A year or two back we had a local who left their unlocked car running while they ran into the convenience store. Of course it got stolen and there was an unsecured handgun in the center console. The thief used the “car gun” to kill the Good Samaritan that followed them from the scene of the theft while in the phone with 911. We had contacted the suspect a couple days prior as a suspicious person But he had no wants or contraband.

As for the notification thing, LTC Information comes up on the state level checks and in Texas I just assume everyone is armed or has access to a gun so it’s not a big deal.

We do teach our officers to notify when stopped or contacted by other LE in plainclothes or off duty for DeConfliction purposes.

I agree that it's not wise or smart to leave guns in your car if you can at all help it. My only point is that it shouldn't be illegal to travel with a gun regardless of licensing. Especially not a felony.

However your point is well taken and important.

[HCM]

I've been told by acquaintances from northeastern states that notification there would most likely amp up the tension during the encounter, rather than reduce it.

As a Northeasterner, yeah.

Agreed. If nothing else all policing is regional.

Many years ago a buddy in LI NY who worked as an armored truck guard got stopped for speeding by the county PD on his way to work. He was in uniform wearing a duty belt so notification was redundant. He was properly licensed which allowed carrying loaded firearms while working and to and from work so should not be an issue. Officer asks him to hand over the gun, goes to clear it and after finding the gun fully loaded including a round in the chamber, the officer proceeds to lecture my buddy telling him that only the PD is allowed to carry pistols with a round in the chamber and that doing so is a violation of the terms of his carry license. All of which was complete Horse shit.

[HCM]

I agree that it's not wise or smart to leave guns in your car if you can at all help it. My only point is that it shouldn't be illegal to travel with a gun regardless of licensing. Especially not a felony.

However your point is well taken and important.

I would rather make it easier to get an LTC or have constitutional carry. then they would not have the excuse of “I don’t have an LTC” to leave it in the car.

I would also favor a no alcohol /impairment rule for carry instead of the current 51% set up where people can’t carry in may restraints etc even if they aren’t drinking.

[Le Français]

As a Northeasterner, yeah.

It depends on which part of the northeast we’re talking about. NYC or NJ are not the same as rural ME, NH, or VT. As for LE attitudes, those vary too. More rural areas (even upstate NY) have more cops who are more familiar with firearms and less likely to react like the British.

There’s a perception that the northeast is very anti-gun, but several northeast states have better (so, fewer) gun laws than Texas (for example).

[swampyank33]

It depends on which part of the northeast we’re talking about. NYC or NJ are not the same as rural ME, NH, or VT. As for LE attitudes, those vary too. More rural areas (even upstate NY) have more cops who are more familiar with firearms and less likely to react like the British.

There’s a perception that the northeast is very anti-gun, but several northeast states have better (so, fewer) gun laws than Texas (for example).

Yep, three of New England's states have constitutional carry. It's not all bad here in the Northeast. But here in CT it's pretty horrendous...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Yep, three of New England's states have constitutional carry. It's not all bad here in the Northeast. But here in CT it's pretty horrendous...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Most of the regions population isn’t in those states. It’s in NY, NJ, MA and CT aka the “ Hopolophobe” zone and you can’t get to the New England “free zone” without passing through the “Hopolophobe” zone.

An VT now has a mag ban and other assorted trash laws.

[olstyn]

Not required here in NH.

My personal philosophy is that I will fully inform that I'm licensed to carry, that pistol is behind my right hip and then ask the officer how he/she wants to proceed if I'm asked to exit the vehicle. Until then I keep my hands where they can be seen and will respond accordingly if I am asked if I am armed.

Civilian chiming in. There is no requirement to notify here in MN. There's also no reliable way for me to predict any given officer's reaction to finding out that I'm armed, so I'd rather the subject never come up. I imagine most would be fine, but with my luck, I'd get the one officer in the area who is unjustifiably fearful of armed civilians or on a mission or something. If I receive instructions to do something that might cause the fact that I'm armed to be revealed, then I would inform the officer so as not to create a surprise, and of course if directly asked, I would not lie about it, but I'm not interested in volunteering the information either.

In my opinion, it's both safer for me and less hassle if the subject never comes up, and as such, I hope that aspect of the law in MN doesn't change. Others' opinions may vary from mine, and that's fine.

[willie]

We must notify in Texas. I have had 4 interactions with leo's on stops. None had comments other than thank you. When our drivers license number is run, the concealed carry ID info is presented to the officer. It matters not to me. Around here a defective tail light will result in a traffic stop at night.

[mmc45414]

This has caused me to go review, and it seems like it is all related to traffic stops now, but when I got the CHL (early on, 2004 or 2005) IIRC there was even a requirement that you would notify when "interacting officially", and that seemed nebulous. Like if you are chatting in the mini mart while you are both pouring coffee, if you are chatting about the Bengals no need to notify, but if you mention some suspicious activity you may be aware of, then you would be officially interacting? But now it all sounds to be related to the traffic stop?

ETA:
Just finished listening to the testimony.

I was nervous when I started by fell back into teaching mode once I got started.

As far as public speaking and testimony and such, you were very credible.

[Lon]

This has caused me to go review, and it seems like it is all related to traffic stops now, but when I got the CHL (early on, 2004 or 2005) IIRC there was even a requirement that you would notify when "interacting officially", and that seemed nebulous. Like if you are chatting in the mini mart while you are both pouring coffee, if you are chatting about the Bengals no need to notify, but if you mention some suspicious activity you may be aware of, then you would be officially interacting? But now it all sounds to be related to the traffic stop?

ETA:
Just finished listening to the testimony.

As far as public speaking and testimony and such, you were very credible.

And here is the problem. I do not believe there has ever been an “interacting officially” wording. I think the wording in the law has always been the same. It’s the INTERPRETATION that means different things to different people. And the requirement is not just for traffic stops. There are 2 different sections of the law. One for traffic stops and one for other stops of a “law enforcement purpose”.