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

[OfficerObie59]

I love it when you guys confuse ideology with reality.

It's a sign of a double-digit IQ.

 

[TBalls]

A bit off topic (and possibly worthy of a new thread all it's own) but this thread has seemed to spawn a new NES scale of carry "conditions", i.e.

Condition 0
.
.
.
.
.
Condition N: No LTC, but I have a subscription to "Recoil".

I think it should be a thing.

 

[Quiet]

Are you required by law to answer truthfully?

Yes. But as I've told my kids, "I will never lie to you but listen very carefully to what I say." Also, see the post about getting into a minor fender-bender on the pike. The guy was asked if the gun was in the car. He answered truthfully that the gun wasn't in the car.

My understanding has always been that unless you are officially under investigation or are suspected of committing some crime then it is not technically illegal to lie to the police. I'm not sure there's much to gain in a situation such as the one here by being dishonest. Obviously there's always the 5th, I suppose.

Someone please correct any errors I have made as IANAL.

Never EVER lie to the police unless your life depends on it, because your life as you like it will depend on you not getting caught lying to the police.

you aren't required to answer at all,

I feel like this may be a grey area when it comes to a question if you're carrying. I think technically you are required to produce your LTC on demand, I'd hate to be on the receiving end of an unhappy cop (then election brownie points seeking libtard prosecutor) if you refuse to answer and then they legally find a gun on you during a safety check pat down, oerhaps -- you have an unpaid parking ticket or two or whatever could cause them to pull you out of the car

Just thinking out loud (sorta)

I think they have to be investigating a crime, which a traffic stop on its own doesn't amount to, but it varies from state to state. Lying to fed cops is a whole other story (don't do it).

An investigation of a trumped up charge of Driving to Endanger (What's that nowadays, 15 mph over the limit for loss of CDL?) would be a crime

- - - Updated - - -

A bit off topic (and possibly worthy of a new thread all it's own) but this thread has seemed to spawn a new NES scale of carry "conditions", i.e.

Condition 0
.
.
.
.
.
Condition N: No LTC, but I have a subscription to "Recoil".

I think it should be a thing.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275748

 

[dessert1st]

I love it when you guys confuse ideology with reality. GPP is talking real world, not Gadsden Flag waving stuff. He's telling it like it is. If you want a traffic stop to be your line in the sand or if that's the beginning of "go-time" your call.

You stay classy.

I now see that my satirical approach translated differently through faceless text. After posting, I even + repped GPP letting him know it was all in good fun and was not serious whatsoever.

This is a great example of why I suck at sexting.

 

[Quiet]

Amazing this thread reached 180+ posts in less than a day. Good (interesting, at least) topic.

I know that when asked to produce your LTC, you must. But what of the officer's request to hand over the gun? Is that a legitimate request from the officer? Is an LTC holder legally required to hand over the gun? Based on the OP's experience, I imagine not.

What *is* the right/legal way to handle this situation?

I'd guess it is indeed a lawful order and you'd be required to follow it, then fight it in court if you want.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I think technically you are required to produce your LTC on demand, I'd hate to be on the receiving end of an unhappy cop (then election brownie points seeking libtard prosecutor) if you refuse to answer and then they legally find a gun on you during a safety check pat down, oerhaps -- you have an unpaid parking ticket or two or whatever could cause them to pull you out of the car

The response for failing to produce your LTC upon demand is seizure of your firearm for up to 30 days until you do choose to display it. MGL 140/129C.

Moreover, failing to display your LTC on demand simply to be obstructionist would be a suitability revocation green light.

 

[StevieP]

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.

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...

 

[exo]

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...

"Followed proper departmental procedures"

 

[StevieP]

The response for failing to produce your LTC upon demand is seizure of your firearm for up to 30 days until you do choose to display it. MGL 140/129C.

Moreover, failing to display your LTC on demand simply to be obstructionist would be a suitability revocation green light.

Same question: I understand the "produce your LTC" part, which we must comply with. If an officer pulls me over for a (e.g.) speeding ticket, and learns either on-line, or by asking, whether I have an LTC, can he then lawfully request to take (even temporarily) posession of my firearm, and if so, must I hand it over?

 

[TBalls]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275748

I'm familiar with the traditional carry conditions. My point was that we should go beyond the official ones and see how ridiculous it gets (hence my Condition "N"). I'm pretty sure this thread has already made its way to at least Condition 7 quite organically.

 

[dlarge]

This has turned into a very, very sad thread.

 

[Quiet]

I'm familiar with the traditional carry conditions. My point was that we should go beyond the official ones and see how ridiculous it gets (hence my Condition "N"). I'm pretty sure this thread has already made its way to at least Condition 7 quite organically.

Ahh, ok. Sorry. What about in the other direction less than zero? We can move into colors

Bullet is flying?

 

[Billsail]

The response for failing to produce your LTC upon demand is seizure of your firearm for up to 30 days until you do choose to display it. MGL 140/129C.

Moreover, failing to display your LTC on demand simply to be obstructionist would be a suitability revocation green light.

Is lying about possession, if indeed you are possessing, in and of itself, a crime?

 

[6Gears1Speed]

Aside from safety issues, it's my belief that once you surrender your property to the government you are now burdened with explaining the situation in order to get said property back. Say the wrong thing (which is what they are hoping for) and the prospects of getting your property back decreases and the likelihood of charges being brought increases. Good for you for not surrendering your property.

 

[mibro]

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...

Implicit in my point is that arguing the law with a LEO at the side of the road has never been a recipe for a happy ending.

I'm starting to understand how some people manage to get their asses kicked by the po-lice.

 

[Dadstoys]

Seems to me like it all went pretty well.
OP didn't get a ticket.
The officer apparently took a second to rethink the wisdom of "policy." and will probably take that into his next encounter with an LTC.
No dogs got shot and everyone went home safe.
Did I miss anything?

 

[TBalls]

Ahh, ok. Sorry. What about in the other direction less than zero? We can move into colors
Bullet is flying?

Condition π: Somewhere between 3 & 4, completely irrational.
Condition √-1: I'm only pretending to carry.

 

[StevieP]

Implicit in my point is that arguing the law with a LEO at the side of the road has never been a recipe for a happy ending.

I'm starting to understand how some people manage to get their asses kicked by the po-lice.

And I'm starting to understand why people say there are a lot of 'sheeple' in the world, and in particular, in the Commonwealth. I get the "go along to get along" point you're trying to make. I'm trying to understand the legality of an officer's request (demand) to disarm an otherwise law-abiding citizen, and what RIGHTS we as licensed citizens have in this situation.

Not your conjecture. The facts.

 

[mibro]

And I'm starting to understand why people say there are a lot of 'sheeple' in the world, and in particular, in the Commonwealth. I get the "go along to get along" point you're trying to make. I'm trying to understand the legality of an officer's request (demand) to disarm an otherwise law-abiding citizen, and what RIGHTS we as licensed citizens have in this situation.

Not your conjecture. The facts.

I am not making any kind of conjecture. At the side of the road it doesn't matter what the law says. That will be decided later, if necessary, in a courtroom.

At the side of the road you can state your opinion, express a preference, assert your rights, whatever. 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.

I am not an apologist for cops. I am far from being a sheeple. But I am pragmatic and a traffic stop with a grumpy cop will not be the hill I choose to die on.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Is lying about possession, if indeed you are possessing, in and of itself, a crime?

Not unless it's related to a criminal investigation of some kind, and even then, the laws are murky.

 

[dessert1st]

Ahh, ok. Sorry. What about in the other direction less than zero? We can move into colors

Bullet is flying?

Condition Black is lead flying respectively.

Red is locked n loaded baby!

 

[StevieP]

I am not making any kind of conjecture. At the side of the road it doesn't matter what the law says. That will be decided later, if necessary, in a courtroom.

At the side of the road you can state your opinion, express a preference, assert your rights, whatever. 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.

I am not an apologist for cops. I am far from being a sheeple. But I am pragmatic and a traffic stop with a grumpy cop will not be the hill I choose to die on.

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.)

 

[Greschner 4]

This has turned into a very, very sad thread.

If big balls ntomsw had carpet bombed the cops car like he indicated we would, we could have saved ourselves 10 pages of pablum.

 

[dlarge]

Rgr that.

 

[Quiet]

Condition Black is lead flying respectively.

See, this is why I need NES, to explain things like this to me. I still do.

Red is locked n loaded baby!

Wait one second... Isn't "locked and loaded" really "Condition Otis"?

 

[dessert1st]

Wait one second... Isn't "locked and loaded" really "Condition Otis"?

Condition Otis has a better ring to it. Condition Red reminds me of post 9/11 Code Red being blasted by the news weekly.

Otis just reminds me of elevators which I enjoy and collect.

 

[Takis48]

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.

 

[mattyw]

Implicit in my point is that arguing the law with a LEO at the side of the road has never been a recipe for a happy ending.

I'm starting to understand how some people manage to get their asses kicked by the po-lice.

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

 

[Coyote33]

... Just thinking out loud (sorta)

An investigation of a trumped up charge of Driving to Endanger (What's that nowadays, 15 mph over the limit for loss of CDL?) would be a crime

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?...

Disorderly person.
Failure to obey.
etc.

I now see that my satirical approach translated differently through faceless text. After posting, I even + repped GPP letting him know it was all in good fun and was not serious whatsoever.

This is a great example of why I suck at sexting.

What exactly did you send this guy?

 

[mibro]

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

I totally agree. From my reading of the OP's original comment, the OP politely stated his opinion and the LEO then changed his mind. Win all around. But I wouldn't characterize the interaction as an argument.