Question on being disarmed during an LEO encounter

[Sniper (+)]

how does the cop know you're not going to use it on him? He doesn't know you.

And you don't know the cop!

 

[CCW]

That's bullshit. The reason cops exist is to protect myself or my property when I am unable to do so. I don't carry a gun because cops exist but aren't everywhere. I have cops because despite carrying a gun, I sometimes might need help defending myself.




Exactly. The reasoning is the same on a two way street. The cops feeling of his level of "safeness" when interacting with the public does NOT outweigh how safe the public should feel. In fact it's clear the public should always feel safer than the cop, since it's the cops JOB to put himself in harms way. It is not my job as a citizen to increase the danger I am in simply so the person supposedly being paid to help me can feel better about himself.

Where have you been? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the public and held that stance for about 40 years now. The applicable case law is Warren V D.C. 1975. The more ya know....

 

[robjax]

My bil works as a truck driver. He told me he got pulled over in Mass and the cop asked him if he was carrying. He wasn't. He can't legally anyway as his LTC is restricted. But he insisted the cop knew he was licensed. As others have mentioned it must come up on their computer so at least they know if a driver has and LTC or something anyway.

Others have also mentioned that each state is different. I read somewhere they listed all or most of the states and if you need to tell the LEO if you are carrying or not when you get pulled over. Mass came up as a no. if I can find it again I'll link it but again....it was something I found on the internet and can't really recall what site.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the document I read was just something I found on the internet...so please...if you are pulled over don't say that robjax said you didn't have to say anything.

 

[xtry51]

Where have you been? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the public and held that stance for about 40 years now. The applicable case law is Warren V D.C. 1975. The more ya know....

Well aware of that, which is only one more reason he shouldn't be allowed to even ask you to disarm yourself.

 

[PaulR]

I was pulled over by a state trooper on Rte. 1 about 3 years ago. I was carrying and had an AR and several pistols in my truck on the way to the club for an afternoon of shooting. When he asked me if I knew why he pulled me over, I replied, not really. He told me that he clocked me at 58 mph in a 50 mph zone. I told him that was probably because I practice hyper-miling when going down a hill to increase my gas mileage. Then he asked if I had any driving infractions on my record, to which I replied no. After checking me in his laptop and returning to my vehicle, he said that he didn't initially believe me when I said that I had no infractions, but when nothing showed up in his computer, he said that he couldn't remember the last time he pulled someone over that didn't have at least one infraction on record, so he let me go with a warning.

If my LTC showed up on his laptop, he never asked me about it. About 3 weeks later, I got pulled over and ticketed for taking a "bogus" improper left-hand turn. Now I can't say that I have nothing on my record if I get pulled over again.

I remember having the whole "arsenal" in the back of the truck one time driving back from the range, realized only then I forgot my wallet at home, didn't get pulled over. That could have really sucked, glad I can "laugh" about it now.

 

[Mark L]

Let's stay on topic. I posted the question to identify the legality (not simply following department procedure) of an LEO temporarily disarming someone during an encounter, I haven't seen any direct responses. I know they're going to do what they want, and not having the many thousands of dollars to get in a pissing contest with the PD, I'd certainly not raise enough stink to get arrested in that scenario. I'm not really worried about it ever happening to me, i'm simply wondering if that action is backed by statute.

 

[allen-1]

I've been pulled over twice while carrying and the subject of me carrying a gun never came up. Do people actually volunteer this information when they get pulled over?

I do.
It's my choice to do so, just as it's your choice to not do so.

It's what works for me. Doesn't have to work for you, and I'm not insisting that you follow the same course of action.

 

[CCW]

I do.
It's my choice to do so, just as it's your choice to not do so.

It's what works for me. Doesn't have to work for you, and I'm not insisting that you follow the same course of action.

So then not telling them either doesn't or hasn't worked for you in the past?

 

[wahsben]

It is one of the few jobs where the employee gets to make the rules over the employer. Politicians are in this category too.

I don't disagree but it's pretty much like working with storm troopers. What's the sense of lawfully owning and carrying a firearm if a cop can relieve it from you for no actual reason, other than his comfort level?

 

[spcantwell]

Let's stay on topic. I posted the question to identify the legality (not simply following department procedure) of an LEO temporarily disarming someone during an encounter, I haven't seen any direct responses. I know they're going to do what they want, and not having the many thousands of dollars to get in a pissing contest with the PD, I'd certainly not raise enough stink to get arrested in that scenario. I'm not really worried about it ever happening to me, i'm simply wondering if that action is backed by statute.

As was said earlier, it likely falls under one of them umbrella laws about the cop be allowed to do anything in order to "make the situation safe" or Somme such wording. Probably not the intention of said law but no judge in ma will ever rule against the police in that situation (now if a cop handcuffed a Muslim while doing a warrant less search through the car be cause of some minor traffic stop, the cop would be crucified in under a day)

 

[MisterHappy]

Let's stay on topic. I posted the question to identify the legality (not simply following department procedure) of an LEO temporarily disarming someone during an encounter, I haven't seen any direct responses. I know they're going to do what they want, and not having the many thousands of dollars to get in a pissing contest with the PD, I'd certainly not raise enough stink to get arrested in that scenario. I'm not really worried about it ever happening to me, i'm simply wondering if that action is backed by statute.

Laws prohibit (generally); they don't permit. So, absent a law that says, "No taking people's guns when you stop them!" it's not unlawful.

 

[xero2099]

I am going to use the if you fit the stereo type card i.e camo cargo shorts, tactical beards , nra stickers/ gun stickers on car that may attract unwanted attention

 

[allen-1]

So then not telling them either doesn't or hasn't worked for you in the past?

Nope, I didn't say that, didn't mean for you to draw that inference.

I've had one cop draw a gun on me. I was much younger, and I used to carry my wallet in my boot when I was riding. I got pulled over for speeding, hopped off the bike, reached into my boot for my wallet and looked up to find the cop crouched behind his door pointing a gun at me, screaming "FREEZE". Oops... I froze. We sorted it out, and I realized just how it had appeared to him.

So, when I started carrying a gun regularly, I gave this some thought. I made my decision, which quite obviously differs from other people's choices. When I'm pulled over, I hand over my permit with my driver's license and we take it from there. It's a quiet way of informing the officer that I'm legally permitted in that state to carry a concealed firearm. In almost every case that I've done that, I've retained my firearm while my license/registration has been run.

The exception was when I was pulled over for driving like an a$$hole - way over the limit, passing on the right. I was fortunate to walk away from that one without a ticket, I fully deserved a very serious one.

 

[Sig Sauer Shooter]

In fact it's clear the public should always feel safer than the cop, since it's the cops JOB to put himself in harms way.

Didn't a State Supreme Court (don't remember which one) recently rule that it's not the police's job to "Protect & Serve" anymore?


Nevermind, post #32 answered my question....

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Where have you been? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the public and held that stance for about 40 years now. The applicable case law is Warren V D.C. 1975. The more ya know....

Not quite^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, here's the decision:

In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine. The Court explained that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." The Court adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.

Here's the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The police have a duty to the public at large, not an individual absent a special relationship.....meaning a paid security detail, employment as a bodyguard, select duty as a security detail for someone like the governor, etc.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Law enforcement officers are allowed to do most anything they need to do (or think they need to do) to ensure their safety during an encounter. As to what you are entitled to do, you are entitled to obey an officer's lawful command to hand over your gun, or you'll likely see his gun from the muzzle end.

^^^^QFT

Now the bolded part alludes to WHY this is allowed (the OP's original question).

For officer safety, the USSC has allowed them the Terry Frisk for weapons on any encounter. Therefore, (IANAL) my take on this is that if they are allowed to search you for weapons, the USSC didn't mean for them to leave you with a firearm if they discover (or you tell them) that you have one! It's a natural extension of that case. I don't have any cites for the OP however.

 

[mikelawtown]

Hank Strange on You tube Has a Vid from when he was pulled over and the officer removed his G19 from his Holster.all was good but he posted it and talked about it.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

[video=youtube_share;pC-bTdyHh44]http://youtu.be/pC-bTdyHh44[/video]

 

[M1911]

Fixed it for you. It's unrealistic to expect that police will be "at" any more than a minority of events the moment they happen. And this isn't cop bashing, either, it's just being realistic. The police's real role, IMO, is mostly to mop up the mess that criminals create, and try to limit their net effect on society going forward.... And to some degree, preventative measures like patrols etc. If a LEO manages to save someone's life in an exigent manner, that's great, and obviously I support that, but by the numbers it's not an incredibly realistic expectation.

As others have said, cops are mostly historians with guns. Quite often by the time the police arrive, the excitement is over, and it is time for 8x10 colored glossy photographs, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explainin' what each one was...

- - - Updated - - -

I've been pulled over twice while carrying and the subject of me carrying a gun never came up.

Same for me. They didn't ask. I didn't volunteer.

Do people actually volunteer this information when they get pulled over?

I don't if I'm in a jurisdiction where it is not required.

 

[In God We Trust]

While it would be bullshit for a cop to disarm you during a bullshit traffic stop, I would just STFU and comply.

It's not worth getting shot/locked up over, but I would note his name and have a chat with the chief about it after the fact


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonesinium]

The duty to inform thread, along with memories of LEO encounter videos, got me thinking about what might happen once an LEO knows a citizen is carrying a firearm during an otherwise innocuous encounter. I've seen and heard of the LEO disarming the citizen, at least temporarily, in the guise of officer safety. First question is under what statute are they allowed to do this? Secondly, and I know resistance on the scene, not withstanding the obligatory "I don't consent to any searches or seizures", would be a futile and terrible idea, what are we as citizens of the Commonwealth entitled to do in that situation? Personally, I'd feel better about my own personal safety if I could similarly disarm the LEO, though I imagine pointing that out wouldn't be well received.

You've pretty much nailed it. It's just the guise of their safety which unquestionably does not trump the Constitution, but the Constitution is also unquestionably ignored. Cops will do it. Courts will allow it. You can't do anything about it without life alter consequences. It is also a perfect example of how cops care nothing about YOUR safety.

 

[Martlet]

how does the cop know you're not going to use it on him? He doesn't know you.

If he's scared, he should leave.

 

[drgrant]

[video=youtube_share;pC-bTdyHh44]http://youtu.be/pC-bTdyHh44[/video]

I love how basically this guy is subjected to three times the level of bullshit and somehow as a society we think this is OK. "Cuz officer safety" . Worse yet, on a guy who has an "I'm not a violent felon, and the state has certified me as such" card in his wallet.

-Mike

 

[Greschner 4]

[video=youtube_share;pC-bTdyHh44]http://youtu.be/pC-bTdyHh44[/video]

I don't know shit and I'm through the first 6 minutes of this video and this guy is playing it right, but getting raped in the process. Too much tint gets you a full cavity search?

Cool cat, he is. Well-spoken and on the money.

 

[boscru]

i got stopped in my driveway by msp. he said i rolled a stop sign near my house. long story short, we talked about the sign and it's location. (wierd spot for a stop sign). ran my license, gave me a written warning. didn't even bother checking my registration. shook my hand when i offered it at the end.. i was so surprised at the situation i forgot to tell him about the 938 in my pocket and he didn't say anything. i talked to a msp aquaintance (i wouldn't use the term friend) about a week later and he said they would have to scroll to the second page to see i had an ltc, and given the scenario was probably not done

 

[warwickben]

First off though, I probably won't ever put myself in a situation that requires any of this to play out.

I never thought I'd be a 3rd party to a domestic abuse .
Till a Friends baby daddy grabbed a knife and started screaming at her while she was holding the 1 year old, backing her into the corner of the room .
Got him out of the house . Cops found him and he told them we went to a gun show earlier And I threaten him with a gun (I wasn't carrying and we went to dicks to buy him a gift and me a safe).
Long story short my butt got real tight when the police showed up lol .

Gist is shit happens. You can live you life in a bubble trying to avoid every what if . Or you can live your life to the fullest and just keep a cool head when shit turns upside down.

 

[pastera]

Laws prohibit (generally); they don't permit. So, absent a law that says, "No taking people's guns when you stop them!" it's not unlawful.

But there is a law against a state agent taking your stuff...

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk

 

[Bonesinium]

Laws prohibit (generally); they don't permit. So, absent a law that says, "No taking people's guns when you stop them!" it's not unlawful.

If only there were some law like this. Maybe it would be something like...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[MachineHead]

[video=youtube_share;pC-bTdyHh44]http://youtu.be/pC-bTdyHh44[/video]

Him being disarmed was rather pointless after seeing his blatant honesty from the start. Reaching into his pocket to get his wallet without telling the cops understandably makes them nervous. What I don't get why they would put the gun in the driver's seat instead of the trunk where it can be closed.

The reason I'd suggest the trunk is so that he can request to show the officers where his insurance card is without having his car torn apart. It would also be good to see that nothing is planted to make themselves look like superheroes. Just a thought because it's a possibility.

 

[mac1911]

how does the cop know you're not going to use it on him? He doesn't know you.

We don't know the cop either....I guess we are to assume they are of all 100% mental health and can do no wrong.
If LEO is scared of a lawful citizen who is armed we need to be very afraid of armed LEO.