Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

MoutainBear, have you read the constitution lately? You see, the constitution doesn't guarantee our gun rights because the police can't always be around. It guarantees our gun rights to protect us against a government gone out of control. It protects our right to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from over bearing cops like the one that he dealth with.

Now, no, I don't think he should have shot the cop. That's ridiculous, however, the cop absolutely did violate his rights. If you were to occasionally browse through the constitution, you would find pesky little rights, like the right not to be searched without a warrant or proper cause.

Sure, if you think that officers should be able to do whatever they feel is prudent for their safety, with no regards for our rights, then I can see how you would have no problem with this. Perhaps you won't mind when they search your car, just to be on the safe side of things. Perhaps you won't mind when they search your home, just to make sure. Perhaps you won't mind when they shoot your dogs on their way in to talk to you to see if you heard anything suspicious happening last night. Where is it that you draw the line, because it sure isn't where the constitution draws the line.

i would have asked for his badge number and filled a report on him.

Perhaps when he realized you were armed, he had a heightened sense of awareness and chose to disarm you out of precaution. After running your DL and, presumably, your firearm, he found that you are a decent guy with no criminal record and calmed down. In return for his having taken your firearm with no real danger, after learning that you aren't dangerous, he chose to make it up by letting you go with a warning. It's hard to know what was going through the officer's mind. I'm sure that he's no where near perfect and, it seems so in this case, made a poor decision in how to conduct the traffic stop. Hopefully he is able to reflect on how it went and make changes to how he conducts them in the future. On another note, my brother is a federal agent and he commented to me how the mentality that was engrained into him while in the academy was that it is better to be judged by 12 that to be carried by 6. I can see arguments for both sides. Law enforcement is a tough field in the sense that it actively deprives people of their rights and freedoms in the course of their duty. I think that sometimes it's hard for them to distinguish at times between those who pose a threat and those that don't. I guess the question might be, while we have the right to bear arms, doesn't he have a right to live? Arguably his is a profession where the possibility of dying while confronting/speaking with someone is considerably higher than someone elses. I'm not really batting for one side or the other here as I mentioned above that I feel that both aspects have merits to their cause. I do agree that the method of rendering your firearm safe doesn't sound very safe to me. Personally, if I were a police officer and I had taken your firearm, upon finding that you're legit and not a threat, I'd hand the gun back to you, apologize for the confiscation and wish you a nice day.

Ben Franklin once said something to the effect of "Those who would trade their liberties for security deserve neither."

I would add that those who would trade the liberties of others for their own security is guilty of high crimes against humanity.


I hold no animosity against law enforcement in general. However, when it comes down to the issue of whether our liberties are more important than the life of a police officer, I would say damn straight. That's what they signed up for, and considering how many millions of people have died to defend our liberties, yes, they are much more important that the lives of a few.

Did the police officer do everything right? I'm not a lawyer. Can't say.

Did both parties leave intact? Absolutely.

Sounds like a win. And hey! Didn't even get the ticket.

Let's make an issue when there's an issue. Ever called the cops at midnight when you have a home invader? They don't stop and think, 'This might be dangerous. I could get shot.' Maybe they think it, but they don't stop. They come rolling code 3 (happened to me). So I cut them an awful lot of slack. When you start to get indignant about technicalities like this, think about how sweet the lights of first responders are when your house is on fire (also happened to me). When your next door neighbors decide to trade bullets over the local crack distribution rights (again, personal experience).

When your person or your property are injured, sure. We can cite case law and procedure and figure out what went wrong. But when things end up *right?* Making a sausage, baby. Concentrate on how delicious it is and not how it was made.

Once got pulled for a taillight. Officer asked for my License, Registration, and proof of insurance. I pulled my license and insurance card out of my wallet and handed it over. Officer raised his eyebrows and restated "Registration?"

I said, "It's in my glove box, but it's under my sidearm. It's not loaded, but I think we'd both rather I don't reach in there."

He responded, "Okay, well, is the car resgistered in your name?"

"Yes"

"Okay. Just stay put, I'll run these."

Let me go with a warning about the taillight. Was about as pucker-factor as any traffic stop i've been through. I was surprised that he didn't ask me to get out of the car.

The gun isn't pertinent to the traffic stop, and disarming an otherwise legal and cooperating motorist cannot possibly make the officer safer.

Click to expand...

Wrong...people make the argument "I carry my gun because I cant carry a cop", or talk about their response time...or whatever...You do have the right to keep and bear arms, but he also has the right to protect himself just as much as you do...difference is - he deals mostly with the scum of society and is just trying to go home at night. If someone were to walk up to your car and mug or rape you at a traffic stop, he would be looking down the barrel of a gun a lot quicker than you would imagine.

A cop who disarms a permit holder during a minor traffic stop is someone who believes you do not have a right to carry a weapon. They need to take a class on the constitution and if they have so much fear on their job they should maybe get a mill job or work in an office.

Click to expand...

You are soo beyond wrong. Most of the cops that I know are the most pro-gun people that you will ever meet. They are not portrayed that way because of instances like this. He was protecting himself, just like you try to. The cops run your tag and check your car to see if it is stolen, but most department policy only allows you to run a firearm if it is directly in relation to an event with a case number. The officer has to type up a short narrative to explain why he ran the firearm.

It comes down to this. The man was detained. If he had done nothing wrong, he wouldn't be getting pulled over. If he wanted to, he could have pulled you out of the car and placed you in handcuffs. You could have not told him, then he may have asked you to step out of your vehicle and walk back to his car and sign the ticket (which is common practice among many LEO's when issuing a ticket). What if that was the time that his shirt rode up a little and as he was getting out, the butt fell out and the officer noticed. You then go to cover it up, as any of us would do, and the officer remembers that you told him that you had no weapons. He slams you to the ground, unaware that you have the permit and are allowed to do so. Who is wrong? You are not...he is not either. Awful lot of heartache for no reason.

Of all the officers that I know, unless your driving history is truly bad, they will issue a warning to a permit holder that "informs" at the beginning of the traffic stop. Kinda makes the officer feel like you want to be safe, but recognize that the officer wants to stay safe as well.

If you file a complaint about this, there is not one sheriff, chief, or any other LEO supervisor that would punish an officer for doing this. They would apologize to you on the phone, and laugh about you when he hung up. Hire a lawyer if you want. Take it to court. Things won't change until someone does.

I believe in the RKBA as much as anyone else here, but focusing our efforts on something like stopping officers from staying safe by holding onto our weapons while being detained, only makes us come across as uneducated and impractical. You must understand that at that time, the officers only threat is you. Whether or not you are currently a law abiding citizen.

Personally, I can't believe how many people here have no problems with the officer's actions?

Click to expand...

The way I look at it is that LEO's put up with the worst elements in our society on a daily basis, and they do an excellent job for the most part. I will gladly cooperate with the legal demands of LEO's, and cut them some slack if they don't feel comfortable with me keeping my 1911 close at hand during a traffic stop, and I do so out of respect for the job they do for me on a daily basis.

I wouldn't last a week as an LEO without beating or shooting some dirtbag out of frustration and anger.

Informing voluntarily and lying when asked are two completely separate things.

I'm not sure why you would be upset by what happened unless the officer threw your gun down in the back of his trunk or scratched up the weapon or something.

He was just being safe and protecting both of you.

Around here we are not required to inform but if asked if you have a weapon you should tell the truth. May want to hide you carry license in a better spot in the wallet.

The statement that this is for officer safety is hogwash. Would you still think it were for officer safety if the officer handcuffed you along with everyone else in the car and placed all of you in the back seat of his car while he wrote you the ticket? After all, there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop...

TO even say that "there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop" undercuts one of the bedrock principles of our justice system: innocent until proven guilty. Instead of entering the traffic stop with a presumption of innocence, the police officer goes into such a situation assuming that you are guilty, without even having reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.

Then, having taken your gun, he runs the numbers. How does that provide for officer safety? He then opens your trunk, thus getting a free search of its contents, and places the gun in there. He just got to go on a fishing expedition, and you are OK with this violation of your fourth amendment rights because you didn't get a ticket?

That is like being happy that you were just raped, because after all, he didn't kill you.

Remember that EVERY encounter with a police officer on official business is, to the police officer, an investigation into what crimes he can prove that you have committed. The less that you tell him, the less likely it is that he will find something.

Those that think you should inform the police about weapons, do you also believe that you should confess to everything you have done in the past 30 minutes, like Jim Carrey in Liar, Liar:

Cop: You know why I pulled you over?
Carrey: Depends on how long you were following me!
Cop: Why don't we just take it from the top?
Carrey: Here goes: I sped. I followed too closely. I ran a stop sign. I almost hit a Chevy. I sped some more. I failed to yield at a crosswalk. I changed lanes at the intersection. I changed lanes without signaling while running a red light and *speeding*!
Cop: Is that all?
Carrey: No... I have unpaid parking tickets, and I am carrying a concealed weapon.

Yes, you were fortunate to get away with just a warning (You already know that) but I don't understand the LEO's actions in disarming you or placing your weapon in the trunk. If you have a license to carry in your state, you have already shown yourself to be one of the good guys and not a threat to the officer's safety. His actions seem reasonable but unnecessary to me. Seem like sort of grandstanding power play actions to me. :banghead: I'm greatly disturbed by how many here think that we should simply give up our constitutional rights for the sake of exercising the most basic of them. We've been brainwashed!!!

Iowa

Iowa is not a "must inform" state. So when I had a traffic stop, the LEO took my revolver while he ran the check out. Didn't ask, so I didn't tell him about the BUG. Would have been a really bad oversight for him if I had been a nasty guy.

Spent most of the time checking out my carry permit. Left me feeling what's the point of a carry permit if they're going to run a full background check at a stop? I thought the whole point of the permit was to show that you had already been checked out.

Other than a half hour wasted, no loss, no ticket. It was on a Sunday so the permit check out went slow.

You know, when I read "Got pulled over, officer took my sidearm" I expected something a little better than "Then he gave it back".

so....... what?

RevDerb, you are the brainwashed one if you think the government cares one thought out of a thousand about the Constitution.

We have no rights save the ones the men and women in charge deem conveinent to let us still think we possess.

The "Brainwashing" is thinking that the government of America is run by the Constitution, when daily it is completly disregarded without even a moments thought.

Live in the reality of where we are, not where we were a hundred years ago. We are not in Kansas anymore.

Talking about "God Bless the USA" and "The Supremacy of the Constitution" is nothing more than old men playing checkers talking about how "Things Used to Be."

The Bad Guys Won, a long time ago, and its time to face up to that fact.

The mere fact we need to apply for a PERMIT, a PERMIT to excersize our constitutional right to carry a weapon, or even a permit to operate a vehicle are rights we have given over a long, long time ago.

It bothers me when people spin around and say "BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS..." like anyone has cared, for a long, LONG time.

Rights and powers are two distinctly separate things. No government at any level has rights. It has powers. The cop did not have a right to disarm the OP; he had the power. Only citizens have rights.

A person with a concealed carry license has been signed off as being a certified Good Guy. In most licensing states that includes approval from the local law enforcement establishment as well as the FBI's NCIC. A CHL person is as "clean" as a cop.

The officer had the law on his side when he chose to sequester the handgun in lieu of ignoring it--and the law does not require him to take the handgun. He thus showed by his action that he was in fear of a certified Good Guy--certified by his own establishment, the government.

To me, this deal is not about rights and laws. It's about attitudes and knowledge on the part of some LEOs in some jurisdictions. From the standpoint of my own age and experiences, I see such behavior as immature and unthinking ignorance.

The idea of "enhanced officer safety" is childish--or irrational, actually. It takes little thought, really, to see that handling a firearm with which one is unfamiliar is not the safest procedure available.

(This all preumes a stop for a minor violation. Had the stop been for erratic driving and speeds well above the limit, stricter and sterner action is likely warranted. Wholly different psychology.)

Further, I and my guns are perfectly legal. I don't need to have their numbers run, thanks. I don't particularly CARE that the officer doesn't know me or my background. Unless he believes that a crime is in progress he has to give me 100% of the benefit of doubt.

Click to expand...

You know, I can respect that. I was thinking that it wouldn't bother me, as I have had similar incidents. In my incident I handed the officer my firearm after he made me empty it. That seemed unsafe to me. If you are slightly worried, asking me to put an admittedly loaded weapon into my hand doesn't make sense. Anyway, I'm sidetracked. My point is all my guns are legal so I've never worried or put much thought into someone running numbers on them. I guess you're right, simply possessing said firearm isn't a reasonable justification to run numbers on it. All the same, I doubt I'd ever argue over it. I pick my battles, and that one doesn't seem that big of a deal to me. I respect what you're saying, agree with you and I see your point though.

I can't say I'd call in a complaint on the officer unless he spoke to me disrespectfully. That officer is probably a regular on the OP's day to day travels and he'll likely see him again. There's the chance that the officer will remember him since it was late and there are fewer people travelling. The officer did let the OP go even though he admitted he deserved a speeding ticket. Sounds like a -1 and +1 so I'd call it a wash and let it go if it were me. Seems to me that if I was going to take a moral stand, it wouldn't be right unless I complained about the officer treating me unfairly and demanded that I be cited for speeding.

Ever called the cops at midnight when you have a home invader? They don't stop and think, 'This might be dangerous. I could get shot.' Maybe they think it, but they don't stop.

Click to expand...

If you have a home invader, you're probably not going to call the cops until after he's gone... or NEVER.

• Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
• Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
• Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

Protect yourself or don't get protected AT ALL.

Whether that cop "protects" you or even shows up is PURELY a function of his individual level of morality and commitment to the public trust. I've seen cops go way out of their way to do their jobs. I've seen cops deny police services on the basis of race. Which one you get is sheer luck of the draw.

Of course the above is almost entirely moot in any case, since you have to be ALLOWED to get to a phone and dial 911 before the process of getting "protected" even STARTS. That's a fairly long and complicated chain of events, in which a failure at any point could mean NOBODY showing up at your location, whether they were never dispatched, whether they were dispatched to the wrong location, whether there was nobody TO respond, or whether nobody FELT LIKE showing up.

If I have a home invader "at midnight" I'm going to call the police while I'm dealing with the problem myself or afterward, depending upon how things shake out. I'm not calling for "protection". I'm calling because the one who calls first gets to be the OFFICIAL victim. If they come to take a report, that's fine. If they NEVER come, that's fine too. If it's the latter, paramedics will eventually remove the byproducts of that encounter and my landlord will call Servpro.

Sounds like a fairly reasonable inconvenience.

If it was me, I would have reported him.

AWorthyOpponent said:

Wrong...people make the argument "I carry my gun because I cant carry a cop", or talk about their response time...or whatever...You do have the right to keep and bear arms, but he also has the right to protect himself just as much as you d

Click to expand...

Yes, he has a "right" to protect himself as long as that does not interfere with MY rights, or when it uses the power of his badge to get his way at the expense of others.

In this case, he violated the OP's rights in favor of his own by virtue of his authority. That is simply not OK, nor is it strictly legal or Constitutional.

It becomes defacto OK when people don't do anything about it, but it still wasn't right.

If this was purely about officer safety then why unload the gun? If the idea is that police are dealing with an unknown person and they disarm them, why unload the gun before returning it AFTER the radio check has shown they are dealing with a good citizen?

No, it was simply wrong behavior and there is no amount of spin that can make it right.

AWorthyOpponent said:

It comes down to this. The man was detained. If he had done nothing wrong, he wouldn't be getting pulled over.

Click to expand...

Really? Guess you are finished with that whole "Innocent until proven Guilty thing too"?


So according to you, cops can violate others rights freely if they do it in the name of "safety", and everyone who has contact with the Police must be guilty of something. Sad thing is that belief isn't really that uncommon.

Absent some evidence of other criminal behavior, it's a bad idea to disarm somebody during a minor traffic stop, whether it's permitted by law or not.

Cops accidentally shoot THEMSELVES with their OWN firearms often enough to make me not want them handling an unfamiliar firearm, possibly in the dark, in inclement weather.

And a CHL isn't a "get out of jail free card". I drove across all or part of three states yesterday. I managed to drive the speed limit the whole way. Just as a badge doesn't exempt a cop from the 4th and 5th amendments, a CHL doesn't exempt you from the traffic laws. I don't want any interactions with the police. That's why I don't invite them by my own actions.

Ok, I read all that crap above and not ONE person commented that the officer did not correctly identifiy the make of weapon, which leads me to believe that he wasn't qualified to even handle his (OP's) weapon. THIS is a recipe for disaster.

WHAT IF the gun discharged during unholstering? (from an awkward position, leaning inside and across a car seat, AND most likely sweeping the OP with the muzzle). What would the feeling have been on this subject had it been "Got pulled over; officer SHOT ME with my sidearm"?????

NO REASON for the officer to bring the holstered gun into play at all! He had no business unloading a gun he could not identify. Coulda shot himself, too. That would make a neat news story, too.
I have been treated fairly and with respect by officers that know I am armed BECAUSE I have a permit to carry issued by their sheriff, or another head LEO. I return the same.

35Rem, I dont think we can blame the officer for not identifying the gun from what was pokin out the holster, or any other situation.

I may not be able to identify a ... what have you but I sure as heck know that if I keep my finger off the trigger it wont go off.

I think thats being a little harsh on the officer.


As far as what we would think if the title was "Got pulled over, Officer shot me with my sidearm" I think the general consensus would be, that guy is now the proud owner of millions of dollars of taxpayer money

meh, what would you do as an officer in his shoes?

If I were in that situation, and had the same end, I would be just fine with it. He didnt confiscate it or write you a ticket.

Click to expand...

.yup.
And the thread title is kinda misleading.

You don’t have to inform, I just looked it up a few days ago, I like to check every couple of years to see if they changed anything ^.
I see both sides to the story, and you need to realize that the action, in of itself, was not a terrible thing. But having been in a situation many many years ago, where the officer just didn't like the fact that I had a pistol. It turned into a 2 year court case over his thinking, or being uneducated, that the ammo was illegal. Mainly because I used to "stack" different rounds in my ppk's. Hollow points and jacketed, in case the 380 didn't get enough penetration in NY with heavy coats and layered garments in the winter. Not to get into that in any depth, the simple action of the officer removing my gun, and dropping the clip, cost me time and money. It got thrown out almost 2 years later and a few thousand dollars lighter. So it's the idea that you open the door, once the officer removes your firearm,. Some like folks who carry, others don't, I don't know what you could do about something like this, as it'd not worth getting him in trouble over it, but the dept. should have clearer guidelines about when to remove a citizens weapon, as it's an accident waiting to happen with certain pistols.