"Sir, do you have any weapons in the vehicle"?

[S4Lee]

So, I always wondered...Forget the car. If I lived close enough to the range to walk it, what would a LEO do if I was walking down the street w/ a rifle case? Actually, I could bike to the closest range (~5mi), so what if I was on my bike w/ a rifle case strapped to my back (I wouldn't actually carry my AR-15 w/o the case, that would just be asking for trouble...).

Edit - how would one keep ammo seperate?

 

[ArmedBear]

Now coloradokevin might get the impression that I'm anti-cop, but here is a place where I really flip over to the other side.

The best thing to do when pulled over, under whatever circumstances, is to remember that the cop who pulled you over is a human being, and treat him/her as you would wish to be treated. That old Golden Rule thing.

The cop doesn't know who or what you are. It's not personal, any more than an electrician double-checking a 480 breaker or a pilot running through a checklist is personal. Nobody wants to end his/her workday in the hospital or the morgue. And this is something that cops face, every day.

Ask, "How would I feel if I were this cop, and what could someone do to make it less stressful for me?" Then do that.

If you have tinted windows, roll them down. Put your hands on the steering wheel. Communicate, both verbally and non-verbally, that you are not a threat and that you're a generally decent person, even if you did go faster than the speed limit or something.

I've done this, and I could see the cop's demeanor change instantly. I still got a speeding ticket; it was legitimate, if barely (school zone but there were no "children present" that I could see -- in California, that's the criterion). I even questioned that, but I did it politely. He pointed to some kids playing in a playground nearby. I couldn't argue, so I didn't. But all told, it wasn't a horrible experience for either of us.

Now ask yourself, if you were a cop who didn't want to get shot while just doing your job, how you would like someone to answer a question like, "Do you have weapons in the car?" And do that.

Just like coloradokevin says, in a friendly manner, say, "I'm on the way to the range, so there are some unloaded guns in the trunk (or in these cases here or whatever)."

Now if you ARE breaking the law, I'm not sure what you should say. I try not to break the law in the first place; it's a lot easier that way. Therefore, I have no strategies for this situation.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

A cop has no right to know if you have firearms in the car. He should already be treating you as though you have a firearm on your person. If he perceives you as a threat, then he should have you come out of the car. Period.

Tribal called it perfectly. "Am I free to go, officer, or are you detaining me?" If you answer in this way, the cop will likely ask you to step out of the car. Upon doing so, as another person mentioned, lock your doors. Even now, a cop does not have probable cause to suspect any crime that merits searching your vehicle, so decline any requests he makes to search your car. As others have said, if a cop asks for permission to search your car, it indicates the he does not have probable cause.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Old Dog]

A cop has no right to know if you have firearms in the car.

Hmm, in a perfect world. Anyway, we could debate that statement all day long, but I'll let it pass for now, while noting that a cop does have every right to ask if you have firearms in the car.

So what your response to the question will be is up to you.

Thank you, ArmedBear, for injecting reason, courtesy and common sense into the thread, and thanks to all for keeping this thread so civil.

I do suggest to some of you who may promote asking questions such as

"Am I free to go, officer, or are you detaining me?"

that doing so may, depending on your tone and attitude, may actually turn a simple stop-and-warn into a needlessly adversarial confrontation, not to mention greatly lengthening the encounter.

 

[biggiesmalls]

dude you're fine, just say you've got something in the trunk and you're on the way to the range. or you could reply with exactly these words: "yes sir, i happen to be traveling with a firearm today." you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

I do suggest to some of you who may promote asking questions such as "Am I free to go, officer, or are you detaining me?"
that doing so may, depending on your tone and attitude, may actually turn a simple stop-and-warn into a needlessly adversarial confrontation, not to mention greatly lengthening the encounter.

Old Dog,

That depends on how big the cop's ego is. My asking the question in any manner whatsoever (while polite is preferable) should not result in my being treated any differently. Either I am free to go, or I am not. Either he has a cause to detain me, or he does not. Whether he gets huffy when I don't play along with his games is beyond my control, but it is not my duty to answer such questions.

As I said, if he perceives me as a threat, he should ask me to step out of the car. Asking someone if they have weapons in the car is nonsense. If someone is a criminal, he would lie to him. If a good guy told the truth, he may very easily and unwittingly get himself skewered on the end of some fetid malum prohibitum stick. For example, say you tell the officer where they are. Did you clean up some recyclable beer cans from the slobs at the range or dump, and put them in your range bag? Congratulations: in some states, even if you haven't had a drop, you've just lost your license.

My right is to proceed with my life and my business, unimpeded by anyone detaining me for anything besides a violation of someone else's life, liberty or property. If a cop doesn't recognize and respect that, he has ceased to become a peace officer. He has instantly become an armed thug with an ego problem.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Zoogster]

OK let me say up front I hate the ACLU and what they stand for since they refuse to honor ALL of the Bill of Rights.

That said, I recommend watching this video they produced.

The difference from reality is that the officer would have seperated the individuals, not kept them together and allowed one who obviously knew his rights to speak, and attempted to find a weak link. The other guy or girl would have been a weak link in that video, and probably consented or given information that gave probable cause.

That is the normal tactic. They especialy like to seperate nervous or unconfident individuals from the group and get them to give information that allows them to proceed. Often females will be targeted, and if they have children threatening to take them away is a common tactic to get them defensive and cooperative. The irony is if they did do something illegal, by cooperating and incriminating themself or others they are making a case for taking thier children when none could have otherwise been made.

They try to get emotions high in any vulnerable individual, and fear high to cloud judgement and get someone to say something to gain probable cause through self incrimination or a waiving of rights.
Another tactic is for an officer to assume some logical information and say it came from another member of the party, or make something up and make it appear the other guy/girl is putting the blame on the guy being talked to. If they can get him defensive he might incriminate himself or the other person believing others of his group are turning on him, giving probable cause or a confession by actualy saying something about the others or himself. Once they have even a minor confession they gain probable cause.
Once anyone gives any incriminating information on either themselves or another person, probable cause has been met.


Further even though that video uses people who are actualy breaking the law, there is many situations where even when the law is not being broken not giving the police extra options is smart.
For example in CA there is assault weapon laws. If you have a CA legal AR for example, and the officer determines it is an assault weapon incorrectly, even if it is not, it could still result in charges requiring a lot of expense and time to eventualy prevail. At the minimum that could result in arrest, before sorted out by a supervisor, charges dropped by the prosecutor, or you prevail in court. It could cost you money to post bail, time missing work, impound costs for the car which would likely be towed, and having to explain to work or family what happened and why you didn't show up.

Many normal items could be considered something they are not. Have some reloading equipment? Perhaps the officer considers it bomb making material, or the powder measure/scale drug paraphernalia for weighing and selling drugs. Perhaps one of the magazines can have a single extra round smashed into it exceeding legal laws, or perhaps they say your legal high capacity magazines are illegal. They could say the barrel is too short on a firearm with a permanent flash hider etc installed that makes it legal.
There is many non firearm related items that can have the same result in the officer assuming they are something they are not, though since this is a firearm board I will limit it to firearms.
So just because you are not breaking the law does not mean you have nothing to hide. You may in fact have things to hide you do not even realize, even legal things that could cause you a lot of trouble, legal costs, and time.

 

[ArmedBear]

The thing is, if you treat the cop as kindly as possible, and signal that you're not a threat, you won't HAVE to go to any extremes.

Sure, stand up for your rights if you have to, but truthfully, it need not come to that, most of the time.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

It doesn't matter if I "have to" stand up for my rights or not. The simple fact that I choose to should be more than enough of a reason for anyone, even if a reason were needed.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Tribal]

"Am I free to go, officer, or are you detaining me?"

When I suggested this, my understanding in this hypothetical situation is that the cop had already asked a question he didn't have a right to expect an answer to (in his role as a police officer). Obviously, if you've just gotten pulled over then just be a decent human being unless there's some reason not to be. Play these things by ear. Maybe he has good reason to believe you do and is just personally curious. You have every right to say "None of your business," but simply saying "I've got an M1 Garand and a Marlin .22 in the trunk" isn't the end of Western Civilization, either. If he asks to see them, and you don't feel like making a scene, you can just tell him that they're packed away and it'd be a hassle to dig them out. Or, you could say "Officer, I thought I was pulled over for speeding."

You have rights, but there are times when you might choose to voluntarily give them up (at least for the moment). I mean, the "nuclear option" of essentially telling him to [buzz] off is always there, but depending on the circumstances you might want to play things differently.

 

[ArmedBear]

It doesn't matter if I "have to" stand up for my rights or not. The simple fact that I choose to should be more than enough of a reason for anyone, even if a reason were needed.

It is a good enough reason. But what are you trying to prove? Why not make it easy on yourself, given that the cop's question is probably nothing personal, per my post above?

Goal #1 for me is to move on and not waste any more time.

 

[Old Dog]

Sans Authoritas, I'm not sure how long you've been around, or what your life experience is, but your posts seem to indicate a general presumption that every cop performing traffic stops is (1) interested in dragging out the encounter until he/she finds something of substance to charge you with and (2) in your words, is playing "games."

First, understand that most cops share your desire to end the interaction as quickly as possible (while still doing the job by the book, using their best judgement) and second, do not consider the verbal intercourse as a game. It is a job, which most officers take at least as seriously as, presumably, you take your job. But it's also a job that you can't do unless you believe you're promoting public safety, which is still the goal of traffic enforcement (recognizing that many of you believe it's simply about enriching the government coffers with the fines paid by all the bad drivers).

All cops out there doing traffic stops are not looking to break the next French Connection case, find the OKC bomber or willfully violate your civil rights nor make you late for your book club meeting ...

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Old Dog wrote:

Sans Authoritas, I'm not sure how long you've been around, or what your life experience is, but your posts seem to indicate a general presumption that every cop performing traffic stops is (1) interested in dragging out the encounter until he/she finds something of substance to charge you with and (2) in your words, is playing "games."

Old Dog,

I don't think a policeman is always, or even often, interested in dragging out the encounter, etc. But I don't think many are only interested in enforcing only the laws that protect individuals from having their life, liberty and property violated. And that means that there are very few laws that they should be enforcing.

People in power, whether they be judges, lawyers, teachers, hall monitors, or cops, almost all share a love of enforcing the rules for rules' sake. Because they are paid to do this, they frequently lose track of doing the right thing, for all they can think about is doing the thing right. Cops love enforcing the rules, period. Whether or not they are rules that actually protect individual rights. I've had lots of friends and aquaintances join police forces. They all have one thing in common: they did not have malicious intent, but they likewise had a love of imposing artificial, man-made "order" in the form of malum prohibitum (an act considered "bad" because it is prohibited, not bad because it actually bad in itself) laws on an already peaceful environment. Add human nature to this recipe, and the fact that they have very little, if any, economic incentive to do a job courteously and professionally because their paychecks come by threat of force through taxation, and you've got a great big uglycake baking in the oven.

Second, I consider anything that does not pertain to an actual crime (my having violated someone's life, liberty or property), to be a game. A high stakes game of the kind bullies play, granted, but a game nonetheless. I have no interest in playing along in those games. God did not legislate any rules to such a game. Foolish legislators who stride marble halls legislated those rules.

Hence, any questions that do not pertain to a real crime are entirely out of place. I will not answer them, even if it saves me trouble and time. It's a matter of principle, not practicality.

I'm an honest person, and I tell the truth. I've seen how people in power warp and distort truth wherever they find it. Are all cops deliberately evil? Absolutely not. Do they routinely and unwittingly serve evil ends? Oh, yes. Yes, they do.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Richard.Howe]

IIRC, in 2006 Rick Perry approved amendment of the definition of "travel" to include any time one is in his or her vehicle. So, anyone may carry a loaded weapon in their car, CCL or no, as long as it's legal for them to own it in the first place.

 

[nalioth]

IIRC, in 2006 Rick Perry approved amendment of the definition of "travel" to include any time one is in his or her vehicle. So, anyone may carry a loaded weapon in their car, CCL or no, as long as it's legal for them to own it in the first place. Can someone confirm?

This has been confirmed in this thread and many others here on THR.

 

[csmkersh]

• 
  

  If you have a CHL and are carrying concealed, you are REQUIRED to inform LEO that you are carrying.

  
  If you’re stopped for any reason, you’re required to show him/her your chl. You are not required to inform him/her you’re carrying unless asked.

  That is not correct. When Texas' CCW law was first became law back in 1996, you were required to show your CHL regardless if you were carrying or not. That was been changed in either 1997 or 1999. Now you are only required to present your license IF you are carrying concealed.

 

[Shadow1198]

IIRC, in 2006 Rick Perry approved amendment of the definition of "travel" to include any time one is in his or her vehicle. So, anyone may carry a loaded weapon in their car, CCL or no, as long as it's legal for them to own it in the first place. Can someone confirm?

Yep, here it is:

HB 1815

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

1) Be legal.

2) Be nice.

3) If you're legal and nice, you will not need to practice amateur constitutional law on the side of the road. (Plus, the pay stinks.)

4) Never lie. In most states, you can lie your way right into some kind of "obstruction" beef when all you were going to get for telling the truth was a defective equipment tag for a license plate light being out.

Cops on stops ask questions for a lot of reasons. Sometimes they just want to see what the person looks like or sounds like when they answer them. Trust me, they are not stupid enough to believe that Charles Manson is going to tell them the truth and say something like, "You bet there's weapons in this car officer. And the first chance we get, we're gonna use them to blow you away!"

What cops do tend to be good at, because they see so much of it, is recognizing when people are lying through their teeth and, frequently, making a good guess at why they might be doing that.

So if someone answers the "weapons question" by saying something like, "I have nothing illegal in the car, officer.", the cop immediately knows that at a minimum he has a wannabe lawyer on his hands. But maybe a lot worse. And since he wants to go home safe and sound at the end of his shift, he is probably going to ask more questions until he feels comfortable with what he is hearing.

If someone answers, "No.", and is obviously (to the LEO) lying, what was going to be a simple traffic stop has just escalated to who knows where. (Out of the car, dogs, digging and digging for probable cause, towing the car, getting a warrant, etc., etc.)

If you're legal, what do you care if he asks you if you have any weapons with you? Just tell the truth with a smile and you're done.

In TX, it's easy to be legal. If you're 18, any long gun is legal, loaded or not. And since last September, it is fully legal (not merely a "defense to prosecution" like it used to be) to have a loaded handguin in a vehicle. Just make sure it's concealed, and that you are not breaking any other laws (except traffic laws of course). That means no booze, dope, or other contraband, and that you're not a member of a street gang among other things.

And I have no doubt that the LEO's in Harris County have "gotten the memo."

If you have a TX CHL and are carrying, you are obligated to declare it and show your CHL to the LEO making the stop. He will probably ask you where the gun is and you should tell him.

If you have a TX CHL and are not carrying, you do not have to declare or show the CHL, but be aware that your CHL status will come up on his screen when he "runs" you and if you haven't declared he may loudly ask you if you are carrying a concealed firearm.

So, hands on the wheel, interior light on, and,

1) Be legal.

2) Be nice.

And never lie.

You won't have any problems in TX.

 

[Old Dog]

Well, Sans Authoritas, it seems you've answered my questions without really addressing the substance of my position.

People in power, whether they be judges, lawyers, teachers, hall monitors, or cops, almost all share a love of enforcing the rules for rules' sake.

I marvel at that statement, but not because I agree ...

Second, I consider anything that does not pertain to an actual crime (my having violated someone's life, liberty or property), to be a game. A high stakes game of the kind bullies play, granted, but a game nonetheless. I have no interest in playing along in those games. God did not legislate any rules to such a game. Foolish legislators who stride marble halls legislated those rules.

Shall we then infer that you consider traffic enforcement a game, regardess of whether it's proven to save lives? Frankly, if you speed dangerously or drive while intoxicated on the same highways that my children drive on, you are in fact committing a crime with the very real consequence of violating another's life or liberty, and I most certainly am not playing a game when I pull you over and cite you. If I dare ask you whether you've got weapons in your vehicle on a dark night on the same roadside one of my sisters was shot during a "routine" traffic stop, you can choose to be insulted and whine all you want that I am violating your rights, but I will still ask the question. You can prolong our encounter as long as you desire, but to no good end. Your fellow citizens will not be cheering you for defending their civil rights on the roadside by being obstinate.

Hence, any questions that do not pertain to a real crime are entirely out of place. I will not answer them, even if it saves me trouble and time. It's a matter of principle, not practicality.

Pray get back to us a few years down the road after spending some time in the real world; some of us prefer to deal with routine matters such as traffic stops in a practical manner, even managing to do so -- amazingly -- without sacrificing our principles nor giving up our civil liberties.

 

[rrruuunnn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

leo do not have the right to search your vehicle without probable cause.

 

[BigBadJohn]

S4Lee,
Where are you able to shoot a AR in north NJ? Is it a private range?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

My right is to proceed with my life and my business, unimpeded by anyone detaining me for anything besides a violation of someone else's life, liberty or property. If a cop doesn't recognize and respect that, he has ceased to become a peace officer. He has instantly become an armed thug with an ego problem.

Just curious. By what criteria do you judge someone to possibly have an "ego problem?" And could you list some characteristics shared by people who have ego problems?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Old Dog wrote:

Shall we then infer that you consider traffic enforcement a game, regardess of whether it's proven to save lives? Frankly, if you speed dangerously or drive while intoxicated on the same highways that my children drive on, you are in fact committing a crime with the very real consequence of violating another's life or liberty, and I most certainly am not playing a game when I pull you over and cite you.

It would be very foolish to infer that I consider speeding (dangerously, as you say) or driving erratically (not having a BAC of a certain percentage), to be a "game." Such things are, as you say, crimes that impinge upon the lives of other people.

Old Dog wrote:

If I dare ask you whether you've got weapons in your vehicle on a dark night on the same roadside one of my sisters was shot during a "routine" traffic stop, you can choose to be insulted and whine all you want that I am violating your rights, but I will still ask the question.

You're more than welcome to ask me if I have firearms within your car. You have every right to ask. As I said, you simply have no right to know. Ask away. But please don't get huffy when I don't fall all over myself to satiate your curiosity.

Old Dog wrote:

You can prolong our encounter as long as you desire, but to no good end. Your fellow citizens will not be cheering you for defending their civil rights on the roadside by being obstinate.

No, they won't be cheering. You're right. It's hard to cheer and bleat at the same time. They're already too busy submitting to DUI checkpoints, FDA-unapproved drug checkpoints, and soon, illegal immigrant checkpoints, arbitrary gun law checkpoints, bloody-axe checkpoints, sex offender checkpoints, kiddie porn checkpoints, and ultimately, "Let's run everyone's papers: they might have a warrant out for their arrest for some "crime" that may or may not be an actual violation of another person's life, liberty or property: therefore, the end justifies the means."

Old Dog wrote:

Pray get back to us a few years down the road after spending some time in the real world; some of us prefer to deal with routine matters such as traffic stops in a practical manner, even managing to do so -- amazingly -- without sacrificing our principles nor giving up our civil liberties.

I see no reason for your condescension and rudeness, Old Dog.

I've been around a while. I'm familiar with human nature. I've seen raw, naked violence unleashed, and I've seen what circumstances precipitate its unleashing. Part of it is the gradual acceptance of "minor inconveniences." Until they stop being minor and gradual at all.

I see no benefit to offering more information than is necessary to anyone, be it a cop, or someone without a badge.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Fisherman_48768]

Officer, would you define what weapon/s your asking about, sure I have keys in the ignition, a pen/pencil in my pocket and in the glove box, there is a flashlight under the seat. Oh, yes a baseball bat, hammer and crow bar in the back seat. Paddle, two hatches in the trunk along with a fly swatter, any more idiotic questions?

 

[Zoogster]

flashlight under the seat. Oh, yes a baseball bat, hammer and crow bar in the back seat. Paddle, two hatches in the trunk along with a fly swatter, any more idiotic questions?

Actualy in CA you just admitted to felony possession of a Billy by admiting a use you keep those items for is as a weapon. A blunt object weapon, such as a baseball bat or crowbar is an illegal billy under CA law if intended for use as a weapon. Kept for other purposes they are legal, but you just showed you consider them weapons.
So by being smart you would have just admited to a felony and given not only probable cause, but reason for arrest by an irritated officer.