OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
It's a sign of a double-digit IQ.I love it when you guys confuse ideology with reality.
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
It's a sign of a double-digit IQ.I love it when you guys confuse ideology with reality.
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.
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.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.
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 caryou aren't required to answer at all,
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 crimeI 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).
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.
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'd guess it is indeed a lawful order and you'd be required to follow it, then fight it in court if you want.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?
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.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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
Ahh, ok. Sorry. What about in the other direction less than zero? We can move into colors
Bullet is flying?
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.
Is lying about possession, if indeed you are possessing, in and of itself, a crime?
Ahh, ok. Sorry. What about in the other direction less than zero? We can move into colors
Bullet is flying?
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.
This has turned into a very, very sad thread.
Condition Black is lead flying respectively.
Wait one second... Isn't "locked and loaded" really "Condition Otis"?Red is locked n loaded baby!
Wait one second... Isn't "locked and loaded" really "Condition Otis"?
the OP respectfully disagreed with the wishes of the officer and everyone was safer because of it.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.
... 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?...
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.
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