Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

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

Click to expand...

How much money would it take for you to give up your ability to walk, see or reproduce?

How's a quadriplegic going to spend that money?

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.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Some people are just wired differently upstairs. I know a guy with an extensive gun collection...H&K's, AR's, Glocks, various 1911's, Berettas and so forth. Yet he can't look at a gun and know what it is right away. He can detail strip it all day, but the model info will escape him. He's also ex special forces and trained in all sorts of weapons, even attended several accredited courses through the military with nationally recognized trainers. I once watched finish reassmbling a Colt gold cup national match and he offered to let me take his new (to him) Springfield trophy match with me to try out if I wanted. I look perplexed (yet highly enthused) when he handed me the Colt.

Now I have far less technical knowledge and defensive training than this guy, yet I can spot models like it's going out of style. He just doesn't care or his noggin is wired differently because when it comes to manufacturers and models he doesn't know his head form a hole in the ground.

I'm just saying that incorrectly identifying a make/model may not be a sign of incompetence.

If I get pulled over for legitimate multiple traffic violations, and the cop doesn't give me a ticket, I won't bitch if he wants to take custody of my gun for the duration of the transaction. Chances are, I won't have to defend myself from a carjacker...

I don't think I've ever gotten off with a warning, despite being polite, sober, and not doing anything really crazy behind the wheel.

How's a quadriplegic going to spend that money?

Click to expand...

On one of these babies.

If I get pulled over for legitimate multiple traffic violations, and the cop doesn't give me a ticket, I won't bitch if he wants to take custody of my gun for the duration of the transaction. Chances are, I won't have to defend myself from a carjacker...

Click to expand...

+1. I thought I was a very insignificant minority on this one.

I respect others' views that the OP's rights were violated. They were. I thought to myself how I would react if he ran the serial number on my NIB tv, ATV, surround sound system, guitar or whatever I had sitting in the back of the truck "just because I had it on me" instead the serial on my firearm.

"Hey, you've got a shiny, nice new TV. Let's check and see if it's stolen for no other reason except you have it with you." sounds kind of insulting, doesn't it?

For me it boils down to the OP getting off with a warning instead of higher insurance rates and a fine, and the "detaining" and violation sounded to be polite and uneventful. I definitely wouldn't report the officer that let me off. Rights were undoubtedly violated, but not enough to make me terribly upset given the circumstances.

It's kind of like, if I'm in a nice restaurant and a guy calls me "****er" but buys me a glass of Bruichladdich 40 and a Kobe beef entree, I'm not going to complain about his initial lack of politeness.

Uneccessary handling of a loaded gun owned by a permit holder who:

-Needed a clean record to get the permit
-Verbally stated to cop that he has a gun (when applicable)

...is not making anyone safer. It is doing the opposite. He knows it, you know it; everyone knows it. What it IS, is justification for a fishing expedition like someone stated.

If anyone really believes this would be done for "officer safety", provide an example, anywhere, ever, when a legal permit holder verbally notified a cop he was carrying, and then shot him. What do you think is more likely; that scenario, or a cop AD'ing a gun he's not familiar with while handling it unneccessarily?

The cop might have been polite; the motorist might have been polite; that doesn't make it right or safe for this kind of thing to happen.

I think I mentioned this in another thread recently, but of the four times I've been pulled while carrying (must notify in SC), one time did the cop take the gun out of my holster and unload/call in the s/n, etc. For anyone that has never been in this position, I assure you that having a guy you don't know monkeying with a loaded gun behind your back is more unnerving in person than it is reading about it on the internet.

I'm going to quote myself from another thread because I don't feel like typing all this out again. But it certainly covers pertinent ground here...

Me said:

Someone Else said:

North Carolina requires it for OFFICER SAFETY, just out yourself in my or anyother police officers shoes, wouldnt you like to be informed if the person your approaching is a concelaed carry permit holder?

Click to expand...

Why, exactly? I mean, please explain EXACTLY why you want the person to tell you. (Not just, "well it's polite.")

Personally, I'd want to be informed that the person was an armed felon or that he was psychotic and delusional or any number of other things that the driver is NOT likely to tell you. Those are things that could save your life -- but it's information you're going to have to do without. You'll have to trust your training and senses to pick up the cues you need to make it through the stop alive.

But a driver telling you that he's a law-abiding citizen in full exercise of his rights doesn't give you information that really helps you out -- unless you're saying that you credit his statments and posession of a CCW license (once you verify that he's telling the truth, IF you verify...) as a kind of "good guy" card that puts you at ease and takes you off your awareness edge.

If the driver has a gun on his right hip but he stays in his seat, retreives his license and registration as requested, responds positively to your questions and statements, keeps his hands in sight and you never see that gun, what does his informing you add to the situation? Does it put you at ease? Does it put you on edge? Are you going to look favorably on him (maybe just give a warning)? Or are you going to give him the "thorough" treatment?

...

If the BAD guys don't tell you about their guns (even though that would actually HELP you), how does having the GOOD guys tell you about theirs' make things better? As ForumSurfer says, "I'd dang sure appreciate the heads up." To which I say, "heads up" about what? That there is a gun present that WON'T be pointed at you? Can you trust that information? Does it put you at ease? Does it make this driver a "good guy?"

Click to expand...

And that applies ten times over if you insert "disarm" into that discussion instead of "inform."

Having said all that I'll add that, as much as I sympathize with the tough and dangerous job our law enforcement officers do -- and as deeply as I hope every one of them comes home safely every night -- I do not consent to one inch of abridgement of my rights to bear arms or my rights to be safe from unlawful search. No matter how safe it might make them THINK they are.

If the officer opens part of your car without your consent, that's unlawful search. If the officer runs the numbers on your gun without probable cause, that's the same thing.

And being disarmed pursuant to being issued a traffic citation? That's absurd, and -- if it is REALLY done for "officer safety" (as opposed to part of a routine fishing expedition) -- then it provides a dangerously FALSE sense of security, in fact opening the officer to numerous serious vulnerabilities, as has been conclusively pointed out in this very thread.

I know in Oklahoma it is law and you can lose your concealed weapons license if you do not. I believe most states require this as well.

Click to expand...

Most states do not, some do.

While officers or others may think it is a good idea it can often cause unnecessary tension on what would otherwise be a routine traffic stop. Criminals planning harm are not going to tell them anyways, so it would be rather silly to expect it to protect anyone. It is just a formality that places citizens at extra risk.

If you did not say anything they never know, and it is never an issue (where legal.) If they have you get out of the car then it may be a good idea to inform them before they stumble across it.
But most traffic stops would never result in the officer even noticing the firearm. You are less likely to get shot by someone nervous and aware that you have a gun as a result.
Having someone else handle your weapon, especially one up against your body with one in the chamber that will often be briefly swept across part of your torso while being disarmed is also dangerous.
You have someone unfamiliar with your weapon handling it, and guess who it is likely pointing at and is likely to get shot if a mistake is made? You.

That last thing a reasonable person that wishes to finish with the contact and go on their way without issue would do is declare there is a deadly weapon involved. That instantly takes them into condition red. Having people in condition red around you increases your risk and is not something you want to have very often.

That officer is probably a regular on the OP's day to day travels and he'll likely see him again.

Click to expand...

I'd hope so. I'd like to think that a citizens' appropriate, informed, and legally valid complaint would be passed on to the offending officer, and the rest of his department, through corrective training.

Then, when I see him again, two things: 1) I'll have learned to drive reasonably within the bounds of the motor vehicle code, and 2) he'll have learned the correct way to address and interact with an armed citizen.

I know in Oklahoma it is law and you can lose your concealed weapons license if you do not. I believe most states require this as well.

Click to expand...

Many states are turning away from it actually.

Texas changed our law last year to remove any punishment for not informing.

So, the law says you must inform but they can do nothing about it if you don't.

It will be gone completely during the next legislative cycle.

Sounds like a fairly reasonable inconvenience.

Click to expand...

Most infringements of rights are, in general. Aren't they? Why should you really complain? Obviously the government employee did something that violated your rights for a reason that seemed important to him at the time. Who are we to demand that they follow the letter of the law and respect what little soverignty a citizen still has?

Surely you don't want to be "That Guy!"

If I were in that situation, and had the same end, I would be just fine with it. He didn't confiscate it or write you a ticket.

Click to expand...

Yeah! I mean, he didn't throw me in jail for a week before charging me with a crime (or not). He didn't go search my house to see if I posses any contraband items or substances. He didn't require me to participate in a religious ceremony that ran counter to my beliefs. He didn't force me to make a statement incriminating myself of some crime.

I'm one LUCKY DOG!

Yes you feel like a criminal when this happens - you jump through all their hoops to get the "right" to carry and then you get no breaks when they stop you. But cops here run all guns they find so that's not going to change anytime soon. They can always use the excuse "well we don't know if his permit is still good" or "maybe he's commited a crime since the permit was issued".

Click to expand...

we only seem to get the "rights" they are willing to give us.

Its stories like this that make me feel this whole CCW thing is nothing but a big sham.

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. The bad guys won't tell you they are carrying.

Click to expand...

+100

Guys, don't twist my post. I didn't say I was mad. I 100% understand why he did what he did. However, my civil rights were violated.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your interesting OP. It has generated some good discussion. Your quote however, respectfully, seems to be a little bit of a contradiction.

A. You were not angry and understood why he did what he did and....

B. Your civil rights were violated....

For me and my house B would cause me to be peeved and not understand why he did what he did.

The fact is, no action was required by the LEO in this scenario unless there are extenuating circumstances not detailed in your synopsis.

Again, thanks for the post.

CRAZY.

wonder what the out come would have been if you asked him for his.


I THINK WE ALREADY KNOW


SEEMS you had a license to drive that car but he didn't make you get out and go stand out of range for his safety while he ran the car info

I'm torn on the whole let them disarm us during traffic stop. I understand the reasoning behind officer safety.

Problem is that I fail to see where my 2nd amendment rights can be violated in the name of officer safety. Especially with all the hoops we have to jump through to be legal to exercise our God given right in the first place. If we have a license haven't we proven that we're trustworthy enough to carry. How does being stopped for a minor traffic violation change that? Even if it does, how does the committing of a minor traffic violation cause us to lose all of our rights?

So, I get it, I've never been disarmed, but wouldn't fight it. But, I'm not sure I agree with it.

wonder what the out come would have been if you asked him for his.

Click to expand...

Asking to see if my gun is legal just because I have it could be similar to you asking if you could see his BLET certificate or equivalent just to prove his position is justified. I'm pretty sure that would have ended in a speeding ticket though.

I still stick by my guns, I feel he was violated...but I wouldn't sweat it personally.

Most infringements of rights are, in general. Aren't they? Why should you really complain?

Click to expand...

I spend enough time complaining to the local school board members and straightening out bs issues at my kid's school. This infringement I could have lived with.

I agree with what you're saying, though. My "letting it go" wouldn't only serve to further more infringements on my firearm related rights and make this violation the expected norm. Still, I'd let it go on this one. Call me selfish or hypocritical, but had I have actually gotten a ticket or he had been disrespectful...well, then I would have filed a complaint.

Art Eatman said:

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.)

Click to expand...

You mean there has never been a CCW holder that's been a bad guy..??

You mean there has never been a CCW holder that's been a bad guy..??

Click to expand...

Oh yes there have! I believe the last time I saw numbers on that something around 0.02% of CCW permit holders ended up convicted of a major crime. As did something like 0.05% of Law Enforcement Officers.

[EDIT to say, wow...much less than that. Here is info from TX: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6289112&postcount=27]

Remind me again, do LEOs disarm each other for "officer safety?"

Notwithstanding opinions to the contrary, there is no officer safety exception to the 4th Amendment unless, as indicated in Terry v Ohio:

1) The officer can articulate a specific reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed, is committing, or will immediately commit a crime. (In Florida there are only a handful of traffic offenses that are criminal in nature - so the huge, overwhelming majority of traffic stops do not, in and of themselves, warrant a pat down, nor temporary seizure of a lawfully carried firearm.)

2) The officer has probable cause to believe that an individual is armed and presently dangerous. (Most in authority gloss over the 'and' and assume/think/dictate that the mere possession of a lawfully possessed/carried firearm is sufficient to establish PC. They are wrong!)

3) Exigent circumstances.

I urge people to go read the entire Terry decision and then go look into your State's codification of it. Read the Law. Understand the law. Obey the Law - nothing more, nothing less!

In states that do not require notification to LEO, it's best to keep your mouth shut. Nothing good can come from notification. Those of you that do it an attempt to keep from getting a ticket are a bunch of ! uh, look at me I'm unique, I'm special, I have a piece of paper that the vast majority of adults in my state can get just by filling out some paperwork, maybe taking a class, and paying a fee to the state to allow me to exercise my constitutionally protected right.

If people would react properly to these unconstitutional actions by LEO each and every time it occurred it would stop. FOI requests first (if you wait to file after a complaint, you may not get what you want because of an ongoing investigation); Formal complaints; post all of this on the Internet so others can flood the department and government officials with complaints; get it on the local news; then, if appropriate, follow up with 1983 Civil Rights violation lawsuits.

Yes, cops have a difficult job, but we must insist that they do it lawfully.

For those of you spouting off about how dangerous traffic stops are, I suggest you go research the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and you will find that traffic crashes are far more deadly to LEO than traffic stops. Actually, traffic stops are near the bottom of the list.

Grow a pair, act like an adult and never allow anyone to violate your rights.

Nothing above should be construed to suggest this cannot be accomplished while being pleasant and courteous. Smile when you tell the LEO in no uncertain terms he may not disarm you nor search your vehicle.


RIF however, comprehension is critical.

In TX, the cops have explicit permission to disarm people.

In TX, the cops have explicit permission to disarm people.

Click to expand...

Can you provide the text of the law that says that? Could be informative.

Do they have legal authority to routinely run the serial number of any gun they see?

Do they have legal authority to enter your car and/or trunk, without your expressed permission?

In TX, we're required to inform.* (the law recently changed to say that we're still required to inform, but the law isn't enforcable.)

http://www.texaschl.us/faq.htm#disarm

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

Click to expand...

Now, it is a BS law, as it's based on the individual officer's feelings, but it exists.


Why the question about the trunk and serial number?