"Show Me Your LTC", said the LEO....

When have you been told to produce your LTC?

  • Total voters
    356
  • Poll closed .
Len-2A Training said:
Don't know what state this happened in, but MA, NH, VT and ME (with their license) do NOT require notification on contact with LE!

Most cops are clueless about the gun laws and stops like this just continue to prove it.
Click to expand...

What's worse is that SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement doesn't need to know the law. But, in the same breath, ignorance is no excuse for a citizen, where the government itself not only doesn't have to know the law, has admitted that it can no longer count neither the number of laws nor the number of possible combinations of circumstances which may result in prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Tyke said:
What's worse is that SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement doesn't need to know the law. But, in the same breath, ignorance is no excuse for a citizen, where the government itself not only doesn't have to know the law, has admitted that it can no longer count neither the number of laws nor the number of possible combinations of circumstances which may result in prosecution.
Click to expand...

^ This
 
gamma19 said:
Can't tell if serious. Castile had a carry permit, informed the officer of such even though he had no legal duty to do so, and was shot by the trigger happy cop when he pulled his wallet from his pocket.

Or are you trying to say that having a verbal argument with a police officer is grounds for instant execution?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is - and let's be clear about this - cops may, or may not CARE about your 2A rights. They ONLY care about not taking a bullet for a traffic stop. A traffic stop is no place to wave your flag. He has a gun, you have a gun, and he might be nervous about YOU HAVING A GUN, regardless of what your permit is or says. You think your card makes you the "good guy" to Mr. Nervous Cop? That card doesn't stop bullets, sunshine. Your obligation is to let him do his job without you getting shot, and cops have proven that some of them "shoot first, ask questions later". Don't be an asshat and give him an excuse to draw on you - I wouldn't let my feelings or legal interpretations try and negotiate what Mr. Nervous Cop is supposed to be feeling about things. If he wants to 'borrow' your gun for his comfort level during the traffic stop, you should probably be fine with that. With him 'in the vicinity', it's not like you're going to need it anyway. If you need to 'wave your card', your best strategy is to do so in the safety of a courtroom.
 
I would not get into an argument on the spot with a cop. I'm just saying that they should not be able to disarm you over a traffic stop. Needing the gun is not the issue, that's moonbat speak for rationalizing disarmament.

If this happened to me though I would definitely be getting his name, badge number and going after him (or her) with their supervisor, my state rep (who is pro 2a), my state senator (also pro 2a), etc. I'm not saying start a confrontation with a cop during a traffic stop, especially if you don't have a camera to protect yourself from them claiming you did something you didn't.

I just mean that we should not accept unconstitutional behavior. If it is "the law" then the law needs to be challenged and changed. That isn't accomplished on the side of the road though.
 
MichaelJames1971 said:
What I'm saying is - and let's be clear about this - cops may, or may not CARE about your 2A rights. They ONLY care about not taking a bullet for a traffic stop. A traffic stop is no place to wave your flag. He has a gun, you have a gun, and he might be nervous about YOU HAVING A GUN, regardless of what your permit is or says. You think your card makes you the "good guy" to Mr. Nervous Cop? That card doesn't stop bullets, sunshine. Your obligation is to let him do his job without you getting shot, and cops have proven that some of them "shoot first, ask questions later". Don't be an asshat and give him an excuse to draw on you - I wouldn't let my feelings or legal interpretations try and negotiate what Mr. Nervous Cop is supposed to be feeling about things. If he wants to 'borrow' your gun for his comfort level during the traffic stop, you should probably be fine with that. With him 'in the vicinity', it's not like you're going to need it anyway. If you need to 'wave your card', your best strategy is to do so in the safety of a courtroom.
Click to expand...

The fact that Mr nervous cop doesn't like me having a gun means less than nothing to me. At the time there may well be nothing I can do to stop him simply due to him being an agent of the state with a monopoly on violence, but that does not make it right. As far as him feeling nervous about me, what about him? I don't know him any better than he does me and it's more likely that he will shoot me than it is that I (A LTC holder) will shoot him.

The point is it's a traffic stop, not an arrest. If I am being arrested I can understand 100% why he would disarm me, in a minor encounter he has no reason. The fact that he feels its his right to take my gun away, which of course he may not have any idea how to clear safely, or how to get it out of my holster (Since I won't be reaching for it) without accidentally shooting me or himself, leaves us both LESS safe. Perhaps he would prefer that upon seeing any cop, just to make sure he feels safe, I should have to throw my gun on the ground, prone out and put my face on the pavement with my hands behind my back. You know, just in case i'm a bad guy, who of course wouldn't have a LTC, or follow these dumbass laws.

But hey, gotta make sure that officer idiot gets home at night no matter how many rights you have to give up. I mean its not like you lost the right totally, just that you aren't allowed to use it while in his presence or when he feels like you shouldn't. You can totally have your rights back later, after they are done searching/seizing your belongings because they feel you weren't compliant enough with their demands.

Then you can just go to court to assert the right that you don't have since you can't use it during a traffic stop, which of course is fine because "Officer safety". Only you have to pay your own lawyer, while the state pays for his (That's you and me if you are having trouble following along) and of course he has immunity to most lawsuits as a member of the enforcer class. Then while that's going on you can expect that other cops (Like the chief in your town for instance) might be on his side, leading to you no longer having a LTC (Which state courts decided isn't a violation of that right that you still can't assert since its an administrative burden) and being potentially hassled and pulled over more often as punishment for speaking up against "The thin blue line".

So hey, things are great, lets just lick some boot since they are going to do what they want anyway might as well make it easy for them right?
 
Carl in Ct said:
I would not get into an argument on the spot with a cop. I'm just saying that they should not be able to disarm you over a traffic stop. Needing the gun is not the issue, that's moonbat speak for rationalizing disarmament.

If this happened to me though I would definitely be getting his name, badge number and going after him (or her) with their supervisor, my state rep (who is pro 2a), my state senator (also pro 2a), etc. I'm not saying start a confrontation with a cop during a traffic stop, especially if you don't have a camera to protect yourself from them claiming you did something you didn't.

I just mean that we should not accept unconstitutional behavior. If it is "the law" then the law needs to be challenged and changed. That isn't accomplished on the side of the road though.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating "rolling-over" either. People are free-n-clear to do as they wish after the encounter is OVER. However, in today's climate, people are being killed by cops under 'dubious' circumstances, and cops aren't exactly being aggressively prosecuted for it everywhere. There's prosecutorial leeway granted, and the AG folks might NOT be in your corner for having a gun and waving your flag in an officer's face, elevating the situation. So you need to be tactical about these situations.
 
MichaelJames1971 said:
What I'm saying is - and let's be clear about this - cops may, or may not CARE about your 2A rights. They ONLY care about not taking a bullet for a traffic stop. A traffic stop is no place to wave your flag. He has a gun, you have a gun, and he might be nervous about YOU HAVING A GUN, regardless of what your permit is or says. You think your card makes you the "good guy" to Mr. Nervous Cop? That card doesn't stop bullets, sunshine. Your obligation is to let him do his job without you getting shot, and cops have proven that some of them "shoot first, ask questions later". Don't be an asshat and give him an excuse to draw on you - I wouldn't let my feelings or legal interpretations try and negotiate what Mr. Nervous Cop is supposed to be feeling about things. If he wants to 'borrow' your gun for his comfort level during the traffic stop, you should probably be fine with that. With him 'in the vicinity', it's not like you're going to need it anyway. If you need to 'wave your card', your best strategy is to do so in the safety of a courtroom.
Click to expand...

You still haven't addressed the Philando Castile situation that you put forth as an example to not argue with law enforcement, even though that wasn't what happened at all. Castile's fatal mistake was trying to be a good citizen and informing the officer he had a firearm, even though he had NO LEGAL DUTY to do so.

Your obligation is to let him do his job without you getting shot, and cops have proven that some of them "shoot first, ask questions later".
Click to expand...

So it's my "obligation" as a citizen to do what I can to prevent being shot by a supposedly well trained law enforcement professional? That some cops have proven that they "shoot first/ask questions later", and the solution to that is not better candidate selection and better training in tactics/judgement skills, but rather to put the burden on the citizen being pulled over to assuage the fears of the officer?
 
Last edited:
and cops aren't exactly being aggressively prosecuted for it everywhere.
Click to expand...
And if you are not a member of a minority with a vocal advocacy group ready to threaten violence, the chances of a cop being prosecuted for shooting you go way way down.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
And if you are not a member of a minority with a vocal advocacy group ready to threaten violence, the chances of a cop being prosecuted for shooting you go way way down.
Click to expand...

Plus even in that case they seem to double down and either play victim "Those horrible people want to kill us just for doing our jobs, woe is me" or attack the real victim saying if he just didn't "Escalate" the situation, or if he was just more compliant with the cop's obviously over the top demands then it would never have happened.
 
You still haven't addressed the Philando Castile situation that you put forth as an example to not argue with law enforcement, even though that wasn't what happened at all. Castile's fatal mistake was trying to be a good citizen and informing the officer he had a firearm, even though he had NO LEGAL DUTY to do so.
Click to expand...
Castile's strategic mistake was not realizing that what gets a white person "I'll need to see your permit sir" gets a black "onthe ground mofo" or worse.
 
gamma19 said:
You still haven't addressed the Philando Castile situation that you put forth as an example to not argue with law enforcement, even though that wasn't what happened at all. Castile's fatal mistake was trying to be a good citizen and informing the officer he had a firearm, even though he had NO LEGAL DUTY to do so.



So it's my "obligation" as a citizen to do what I can to prevent being shot by a supposedly well trained law enforcement professional? That some cops have proven that they "shoot first/ask questions later", and the solution to that is not better candidate selection and better training in tactics/judgement skills, but rather to put the burden on the citizen being pulled over to assuage the fears of the officer?
Click to expand...

What is there to address? HE"S DEAD. It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong - he's DEAD. The NRA hasn't used him as a martyr for 'the cause' (wrong color of victim, I guess...), and I don't see Congressional Rs making waves, or new laws, to protect CCP holders or define National Standards or provide funding for LEO training. So, guess what - you're on your own. Nothing changed at all. Still want to act-up and beat your chest? By all means, let us know what flowers you want at your memorial. Plenty of "Blue Lives Matter" types will make sure the details of your demise are 'cloudy' so there's reasonable-doubt to justify ventilating you. Hear any good follow-up stories about Castile on Fox News? He's been buried already, nobody cares.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Castile's strategic mistake was not realizing that what gets a white person "I'll need to see your permit sir" gets a black "onthe ground mofo" or worse.
Click to expand...

C'mon Rob, really?

Officer asked for ID. Castile reached for his wallet and in doing so displayed his firearm, carried in the same pocket as his wallet, WHILE SAYING "I have a gun" - his girlfriend screamed "he has a license" as the shitstorm ensued. That's backed up by both parties; the officer and the girlfriend. The owner of the company which taught Castile's class less than a year earlier shared their advice on traffic stops; don't do any of the shit Castile did or you're asking for trouble, and here are some of the right ways to do it.

You're a passenger, officer asks for an ID and you're carrying at 4 o'clock with your wallet in your back pocket. What do you do? What do you tell your students to do? Not ****ing anything like what happened with Castile. An easy answer is to keep your hands still and visible, and say "Officer my ID is in my wallet, in my right back pocket, along with my license to carry - how would you like to proceed?" Don't say gun. MAYBE say firearm, but only after you mention your license! This is pretty basic shit.

Go ahead and make this into a race thing "He had 82 infractions but almost half were thrown out" well that doesn't speak highly of him, given the other 42 - sounds like he made some dumb choices leading up to the final one. The driver and passenger did all the wrong things throughout the stop - the cop, who had two people matching the personal (watch the surveillance tape, dude looks just like him) and vehicle descriptions of armed robbery suspects, pulled over for a legitimate reason, and kept his cool until the guy reveals his firearm which he's reaching towards and says "I've got a gun!" - by the way Castile was carrying while intoxicated.

If Castile wasn't a ****ing moron he'd be alive today. Don't carry under the influence, pay attention to the RIGHT and WRONG way to disclose to LEOs.

'Nuff said.
 
MichaelJames1971 said:
The NRA hasn't used him as a martyr for 'the cause' (wrong color of victim, I guess...)
Click to expand...

Wrong color of victim? GTFO he was a prohibited person who lied on the NICS when he purchased the firearm, and flashed it at a cop while carrying intoxicated. This guy wasn't a martyr for the cause, he was fuel for the antis. If the NRA said jack shit about it, all of that would be brought up - "See! The gun lobby wants drug users to be able to buy guns, and carry them intoxicated!". Instead it becomes about race, but what doesn't these days..?
 
firestorm said:
Plus even in that case they seem to double down and either play victim "Those horrible people want to kill us just for doing our jobs, woe is me" or attack the real victim saying if he just didn't "Escalate" the situation, or if he was just more compliant with the cop's obviously over the top demands then it would never have happened.
Click to expand...

Stop resisting! You aren't being still enough while laying on the ground with my boot on your neck. You blinked, blam, blam, blam! I told you to stop resisting!
 
Frizzle Fry said:
Wrong color of victim? GTFO he was a prohibited person who lied on the NICS when he purchased the firearm, and flashed it at a cop while carrying intoxicated. This guy wasn't a martyr for the cause, he was fuel for the antis. If the NRA said jack shit about it, all of that would be brought up - "See! The gun lobby wants drug users to be able to buy guns, and carry them intoxicated!". Instead it becomes about race, but what doesn't these days..?
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the same case here? From all the articles I've read he was not a PP, and that he held a valid MN concealed carry permit issued out of Hennepin County. He didn't "flash" his pistol at the officer, it was exposed when he reached into his pocket to grab his wallet. The county attorney seems to think the officer acted inappropriately, since he was indicted for second degree manslaughter after the investigation concluded.
 
gamma19 said:
Are we talking about the same case here? From all the articles I've read he was not a PP, and that he held a valid MN concealed carry permit issued out of Hennepin County. He didn't "flash" his pistol at the officer, it was exposed when he reached into his pocket to grab his wallet. The county attorney seems to think the officer acted inappropriately, since he was indicted for second degree manslaughter after the investigation concluded.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's what I thought, too....
 
gamma19 said:
Are we talking about the same case here? From all the articles I've read he was not a PP, and that he held a valid MN concealed carry permit issued out of Hennepin County. He didn't "flash" his pistol at the officer, it was exposed when he reached into his pocket to grab his wallet. The county attorney seems to think the officer acted inappropriately, since he was indicted for second degree manslaughter after the investigation concluded.
Click to expand...

He was a user of illegal drugs..? At the time of the incident he was intoxicated. He lied on his NICS and his application. He was carrying under the influence.
 
Frizzle Fry said:
He was a user of illegal drugs..? At the time of the incident he was intoxicated. He lied on his NICS and his application. He was carrying under the influence.
Click to expand...

Relevance? The threshold that must be reached is "would his actions have put a reasonable person have been in fear for their life or grievous bodily injury" or whatever language Minnesota has within its statutes. The county attorney came out, after a due investigation, and stated that no reasonable officer (not even person, but officer, since they are typically given much larger leeway with regard to use of force) would have used deadly force in that situation.

- - - Updated - - -

amm5061 said:
Google says you are correct here. Strange that narrative wasn't widely circulated.

http://www.startribune.com/castile-...ew-of-st-anthony-police-department/406585886/
Click to expand...

Because it's not relevant as to whether or not the officer acted appropriately or inappropriately.
 
Tyke said:
Relevance? The threshold that must be reached is "would his actions have put a reasonable person have been in fear for their life or grievous bodily injury" or whatever language Minnesota has within its statutes. The county attorney came out, after a due investigation, and stated that no reasonable officer (not even person, but officer, since they are typically given much larger leeway with regard to use of force) would have used deadly force in that situation.

- - - Updated - - -



Because it's not relevant as to whether or not the officer acted appropriately or inappropriately.
Click to expand...


It's supremely relevant to the criminal case. I'm not debating that shooting the guy 7 times for reaching for his wallet was inappropriate (at best, an execution at worst), but the circumstances around the shooting are always relevant to the case.
 
amm5061 said:
It's supremely relevant to the criminal case. I'm not debating that shooting the guy 7 times for reaching for his wallet was inappropriate (at best, an execution at worst), but the circumstances around the shooting are always relevant to the case.
Click to expand...

Not relevant at all. The defense will attempt to bring it up, but the prosecution will object (and rightfully so) as all that crap has no bearing on whether or not the use of force was appropriate.

You'd have to show a violent history (which he didn't have) and that the officer knew said violent history for it to be even remotely relevant.
 
I didn't make it in time to hit the poll but I've been asked by LEO to see my LTC several times in the 16 years I've had it.

The last time was when I got pulled over for speeding by a MSP trooper on route 44 and he saw a box of clay pigeons on my floor, then asked if there were any guns in the car. I replied "Yes" and he asked to see my LTC. That was it. Never asked to see the guns, or how many there were or if any were loaded or on my person or anything like that. Gave me a verbal warning and sent me on my way.
 
MichaelJames1971 said:
Show me where "being intoxicated" = "legal justification for being shot to death".

I'll wait....
Click to expand...

Again, what's the bigger picture here?

He's a prohibited person under 18 u.s.c. § 922(g) who lied on his NICS check and his LTC/CCL application.

He's carrying under the influence which is against Minnesota state law and effects judgement, notably when...

The officer asks for ID, he puts his hand in the pocket which contains both his wallet and the pistol, which reveals the pistol, a blurts out "I'VE GOT A GUN" while his hand is ON THE GUN or at the very least in the same pocket. Officer yells for him to get his hand off/away from the gun and he does not - girlfriend starts screaming and yelling - officer opens fire because he fears for his life/grievous injury/whatever.

The officer pulled them over for a legitimate reason, and upon pulling them over found that they matched the physical appearance and vehicle of a couple who had committed an armed robbery with a handgun earlier. Now the officer is faced with a guy who has his hand on/near a firearm and refuses to get his hands clear of the firearm despite being ordered to do so - should he wait until he's been shot a few times..?

I'm not saying "being intoxicated" in and of itself is legal justification, just that the guy was a criminal who made a series of stupid ****ing choices leading up to his death. He lied on state and federal forms to get his license and his firearm in violation of a variety of laws, he was under the influence which is also illegal and is known to cause bad judgement, he ignored the simple standards for police stops which he'd been taught in class just a few months before, and refused to comply with the very simple police orders to put his hands on the dash and away from the firearm.

Theory that I've heard popped around by a few LEOs? The guy forgot he even HAD a pistol because he was too drunk/stoned - when he reached into his pocket he himself was surprised that he had the firearm, hence the blurting out "I have a gun". Every stupid action on his part, including not freeing up his hands, may have come from the confusion and stupidity that comes with intoxication. Need yet ANOTHER reason not to carry under the influence?

If this guy was a white dude from Plaistow, and did the same thing (lied on applications and NICS, massively ****ed up informing officers of his firearm, refused to get his hands on his dash or away from the gun, etc) we'd be having an entirely different conversation here. Most of NES seems to be onboard with the concept of playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes, this seems to be the exception.
 
Frizzle Fry said:
Again, what's the bigger picture here?

He's a prohibited person under 18 u.s.c. § 922(g) who lied on his NICS check and his LTC/CCL application.

He's carrying under the influence which is against Minnesota state law and effects judgement, notably when...

The officer asks for ID, he puts his hand in the pocket which contains both his wallet and the pistol, which reveals the pistol, a blurts out "I'VE GOT A GUN" while his hand is ON THE GUN or at the very least in the same pocket. Officer yells for him to get his hand off/away from the gun and he does not - girlfriend starts screaming and yelling - officer opens fire because he fears for his life/grievous injury/whatever.

The officer pulled them over for a legitimate reason, and upon pulling them over found that they matched the physical appearance and vehicle of a couple who had committed an armed robbery with a handgun earlier. Now the officer is faced with a guy who has his hand on/near a firearm and refuses to get his hands clear of the firearm despite being ordered to do so - should he wait until he's been shot a few times..?

I'm not saying "being intoxicated" in and of itself is legal justification, just that the guy was a criminal who made a series of stupid ****ing choices leading up to his death. He lied on state and federal forms to get his license and his firearm in violation of a variety of laws, he was under the influence which is also illegal and is known to cause bad judgement, he ignored the simple standards for police stops which he'd been taught in class just a few months before, and refused to comply with the very simple police orders to put his hands on the dash and away from the firearm.

Theory that I've heard popped around by a few LEOs? The guy forgot he even HAD a pistol because he was too drunk/stoned - when he reached into his pocket he himself was surprised that he had the firearm, hence the blurting out "I have a gun". Every stupid action on his part, including not freeing up his hands, may have come from the confusion and stupidity that comes with intoxication. Need yet ANOTHER reason not to carry under the influence?

If this guy was a white dude from Plaistow, and did the same thing (lied on applications and NICS, massively ****ed up informing officers of his firearm, refused to get his hands on his dash or away from the gun, etc) we'd be having an entirely different conversation here. Most of NES seems to be onboard with the concept of playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes, this seems to be the exception.
Click to expand...

Essentially "but he deseeerrvveeed it" combined with gross misrepresentations/assumptions of what actually happened to justify a pre-determined conclusion. Case in point: they were not "pulled over for a legitimate reason" and then and only then found to match the description. The decision, per the police's own records, to pull them over was made in advance based on the following physical description: that they "looked like they were coming from a robbery" and he had a "wide set nose".

The legitimate stop? Bunk. Minnesota law only requires 1 operational tail light (Chapter 169, Section 169.50). The "legitimate reason" argument falls apart as (1) the decision to stop them was not based on 1 tail light out, (2) per police audio it was because "they looked like they were coming from a robbery" and he "had a wide set nose" so that precludes entirely the "tail light out" argument.

Edit: Furthermore, the cop, despite him dealing with a supposed dangerous ARMED robbery suspect, did not perform a felony stop. So playing the "dumb decisions" game doesn't really get you very far.

2nd Edit: So what it really comes down to is the appearance of a nose, in a moving vehicle, at some distance, without any other factors, sufficient for reasonable suspicion to exist. If so, the officer made a poor decision in not making a felony stop (as he is stating he suspected it to be an armed robber). If not, that would explain them immediately trying to get the "tail light" narrative out as quickly as possible -- despite the recorded audio which disproves it.
 
Last edited:
OK Tyke, next time you're pulled over while carrying, put your hand on your pistol and say "I have a gun!" really loud and see what happens. Have a few drinks and burn a joint before you do it... If the officer tells you to put your hands up, don't do it, keep your hand on your weapon. Be my guest, see how well it ends FOR YOU. Hell, lie on your next NICS check too.

Both the officer and the girlfriend describe the events as such - from the stop, to the request for ID, to reaching into the pocket with the gun, to the request for him to put his hands forward and on the dash. Different wording, different spin, but the same events are described by both the officer and the witness.

"What it really comes down to" C'mon man. Grow up. If he'd followed the very reasonable standards for being pulled over he'd be alive today. If he had complied with the officers request to move his hand away from the firearm, he'd be alive today. That's what it really comes down to. You can get stopped for a whole variety of reasons, even a drunk driving checkpoint - when it comes to being responsible and reasonable with your firearm the ball is always in YOUR court.
 

Similar threads

Show me your latest purchase
Replies
11
Views
467
AmeriKHAN
A
File under: Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime…
Replies
2
Views
281
ridleyman
R
ltc in worcester
Replies
8
Views
222
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
LTC renewal question
Replies
4
Views
169
Sam P
S
Enough said. 🤪
2
Replies
35
Views
836
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Back
Top Bottom