• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Pulled over while carrying......interesting experience

Status
Not open for further replies.
Takis48 said:
I was pulled over a few years ago on my way back from a hunting trip. Trooper asked for my license & registration, and I handed him my DL & LTC. He simply asked me where the firearm was and I told him in the back seat. He responded with "don't reach for yours, I won't reach for mine". Came back with a warning and told me to have a good day. That's how it should be, nice and easy.
Click to expand...
I had the same thing happen in Methuen yrs ago.
 
mattyw said:
the OP respectfully disagreed with the wishes of the officer and everyone was safer because of it.
arguing with officers can have a happy ending if you are correct and are avoiding subjecting yourself to having your rights trampled or safety threatened.

it's all relative
Click to expand...

I'd also add, its not always what you say, its how you say it

If you start off with "why you pulling me over pig"

Or "its my gun ******* and its staying with me"
Me thinks this would have gone differently
 
gearjunky13 said:
I'd also add, its not always what you say, its how you say it

If you start off with "why you pulling me over pig"

Or "its my gun ******* and its staying with me"
Me thinks this would have gone differently
Click to expand...
probably but you still would be in the right while you sit in handcuffs and they try and find something to charge you with [laugh]
 
mibro said:
And it seems so obvious to me. When carrying and pulled over by a LEO, you may state an opinion, express a preference even, but you are not making the decisions.

So stating something factually correct but that violates the NES code is trolling. That's my takeaway.
Click to expand...

Definitely not buying that as factually correct. You are making your own decisions - and the officer standing next to the car knows it, even if it pains them to admit it. (If they don't understand that, they really need to be doing something else.) When the cop walks up to a car, the reaction from inside can range from 'curl up in a ball crying on the floor' to 'set off the IED in the trunk' and anywhere in between. The cop will, if they're any good at their job, be making their own decisions to influence the situation to where they get to walk back to the cruiser with a license and reg, or walk you back in cuffs, or whatever they saw the end game as. Almost all the time, this works.

But not always.

Those 'not always' incidents end up on youtube and the nightly news.

Under your theory that you, the operator are not making the decisions, the cop is; every time a traffic stop went to shit it should be blamed on the cop. After all, they're the only one making decisions, right? They decided to have the motorist they pulled over hit them with their car, or drive off down the road, maybe leave their vehicle and run out into traffic, vomit most of a 30-pack out the drivers window onto the officer, or open fire.

So, in short, one of my least favorite troll attributes is stating personal opinions as fact.

Don't sweat it, though. That attitude doesn't make me a lot of friends off the internet, either.
 
StevieP said:
Can you show me the (any) law which says that police can disarm a law-abiding licensed gun owner, and the licensed owner must comply?

Not being a dick. I really want to know what the deal is...
Click to expand...

cops do pretty much whatever they want and get away with it unless it's on video, there are reputable (lawyers, doctors, wealthy people with influence(over everybody but the cops, apparently)) witnesses, or Jesus.

people on this thread are either using experience and logic, or theory. theory works great in a classroom or fodder for a conversation among stoners and those with cerebral chromosomal disorders.
 
StevieP said:
Gah! Stop it!

"The LEO will then decide what he is going to do. He may do something reasonable. He may do something unreasonable. He may even do something illegal. But you are not in control, he is."

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether it IS or IS NOT illegal. I want to know ahead of time (now) WHAT would be "decided later, if necessary, in a courtroom."

All you're saying may indeed be true, and the best approach to take. I'm just trying to determine what the reality of the situation is wrt disarming an otherwise law-abiding licensed gun owner.

Does anyone (Obie?) know? Is it legitimately within the police's lawful ability to demand I disarm, and must I comply? (again - for a simple traffic stop with no other exigent circumstances.)
Click to expand...
No other exigent circumstances, plain old traffic stop. Once the officer has established there is a valid LTC, thats it, end of story. If he/ she continues to push the disarm you for their safety, you run the risk of some other bullshit charge headed your way if you dont comply, which officer friendly will have to articulate in court. The OP called the Natick cips bluff, and he backed off. Its a crap shoot unfortunately. It shouldnt be that way, but it is. I cant demand you to disarm once youve shown your valid LTC. But, this again is in a perfect world. Every situation is going to be different, right?
 
Billsail said:
Is lying about possession, if indeed you are possessing, in and of itself, a crime?
Click to expand...
Yes.

It is a crime for a subject to attempt to mislead a police officer.

It is often considered good police work for a police officer to lie to a subject.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Yes.

It is a crime for a subject to attempt to mislead a police officer.

It is often considered good police work for a police officer to lie to a subject.
Click to expand...
What is the crime of lying to a police officer if you arent breaking the law to start with? Is there a chapter and section for it?
 
Coyote33 said:
So is the first a law? Also, is the second exempted from that law? Got a cite?
Click to expand...
1. MGL Chapter 268 Section 13B

2. It is not possible to cite something that is not prohibited as laws only specify what one cannot, or what one must, do.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
MGL Chapter 268 Section 13B

2. It is not possible to cite something that is not prohibited as laws only specify what one cannot, or what one must, do.
Click to expand...
268/13B comes in to play after a crime has been committed. If youve been stopped for speeding, and somehow it gets to the point of you getting caught lying to the LEO about carrying, this law is not applicable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg said:
Before or after the Miranda rights are read ?
Click to expand...
If youre being read Miranda rights, my guess is that you arent just stopped for a civil motor vehicle violation. If youre Mirandized, and being investigated for a crime, and you lie, totally different animal. 268/13B is then a possibility, but just outright lying isnt enough for a conviction. Enough to be charged? Possibly.
 
Cap said:
They can ask, but you don't have to answer. But don't lie.

Officer: Any weapons in the vehicle?
You:
A) Yes
B) Am I being detained or am I free to go?
C) Say nothing

Those are your options.
Click to expand...


While I cannot say for certain what I would or wouldn't do or say, if asked about firearms at a basic traffic stop, I'm not sure I'd use any of those three. Maybe the first. Maybe.

But asking "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" seems pretty stupid. If he is holding my license and registration, clearly I know the answer to this. And it is redundant. Ask either "Am I being detained?" or "Am I free to go?" You only need to know the answer to one to figure out the other. I prefer "Am I free to go", that way there isn't any confusion about what the officer thinks being 'detained' means.

Saying nothing makes sense, but seems rude. Instead of saying nothing, I think saying something like "Is there anything else you need sir?" It is a good feeler question that also gets back on the subject of the stop. He has your license, and your registration, and you are reminding him of it. If he doesn't take the hint and go and write of the ticket/warning, now you know better the type of person you are dealing with.




6Gears1Speed said:
Isn't "Obstruction of Justice" the catch all for things that don't fall into any other more specific category?
Click to expand...

Along with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, yes. Those three are generally if not always a 'catch all', so to speak, when no actual law has been broken. I mean used as a means to arrest, formal charges and a conviction are another thing entirely.
 
I was pulled over in Hooksett this Saturday and had the exact same conversation. I was guessing it was the NRA/GOA stickers in my back window but maybe this is just the new SOP.

Not to deny the inherent risk there is being a police officer...but treating us all as if we are blood thirsty cop killers is in no way supported by the statistics. Midway through 2013(the most recent stats I could find) there were 3 officers nationwide who were killed by firearms during a traffic stop. Three times as many cops died from on the job heart attacks as were killed during a traffic stop. in fact 2003 saw the lowest number of police shootings in 57 years...despite the huge increase in gun ownership and LTC.

In all a cop should be far more worried about being hit by lightning or bitten by a shark than being shot during a routine traffic stop.

http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/reports/2013-Mid-Year-Fatalities-Report.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Interesting shooting video
Replies
2
Views
158
peterk123
P
Going back to carrying p320x
Replies
8
Views
263
IPSC_DRL
IPSC_DRL
Interesting zeroing experience today
Replies
19
Views
865
mac1911
M
MA Law: carrying a gun where animals may be present
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
356
clampett
clampett
Back
Top Bottom