Refusing the "are you armed?".... legal hypothetical

TFred said:

The simple answer to your question is that when they don't know about the firearm, they can't abuse your rights regarding it.

Click to expand...

Or endanger you and yours with your own firearm:

Giving up your right/s to be free from unnecessary seizure doesn't speed up your event, or keep you safe in any way.

I think "repugnant" is the correct word as CHILINVLN has been here long enough and always seems to take a similar stance.

Marco said:

Or endanger you and yours with your own firearm:

Giving up your right/s to be free from unnecessary seizure doesn't speed up your event, or keep you safe in any way.

I think "repugnant" is the correct word as CHILINVLN has been here long enough and always seems to take a similar stance.

Click to expand...

Yep!
Not worth the effort to reply though.

just don't say anything at all .... if he asks again, just say you are not playing 20 questions ... you'll answer any question in court.

CHILINVLN said:

It's thread like this that serious make me wonder WTF. I have no idea why some of you go through so much hassle to AVOID things that are completely harmless.

If they ask the question, just answer the question - and everyone is happy, they're happy, and you're less likely to deal with the drama of getting a lawyer and going through months off ******** for no reason at all. There is absolutely no reason why you should no disclose that you're carrying to a LEO if/when asked.

Click to expand...

Oh! That's right! I forgot. I like being disarmed, my serial number run into a government computer, my gun handed back to me empty, and a stern command not to reload until I'm down the road where I have to pull off again to do it, or even more insulting, wait until the cop leaves to reload.* I forgot. I like having that happen. Thank you ever so much for reminding me of the simpler pleasures of life.

What an insult to Marines some of that fellas ideas are. How many Marines have died defending these rights? And, his idea is to spit on their graves by waiving some of those rights.


*Gawd, but I'd be tempted to ask the cop if the stop is over, and when he says yes, tell him, "Good, then if you're all that afraid of lawfully armed citizens, you hide behind your patrol car until I reload and leave. You have no authority over me once the stop is over."


Full disclosure: Actually, I have answered affirmative both times they have asked after finding my CHP. Meaning, they walked to their car with my drivers license, ran it, discovered the CHP, and then exposed themselves to additional risk to make an unnecessary trip back to my car just to ask if I was armed. In both instances, I told them yes. I do this because cops are known to make really stupid comments, and of course, I have my voice recorder running. Mrs. ChinChin was threatened for not disclosing, as was I in one stop. So, by disclosing, I'm intentionally giving them rope for a formal written complaint. And, before anybody whines against it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with citizens checking up on government.

Citizen said:

What an insult to Marines some of that fellas ideas are. How many Marines have died defending these rights? And, his idea is to spit on their graves by waiving some of those rights.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing Citizen, but I've been in an "Ignore the flies" mood lately.

KYGlockster said:

Keep in mind some states have laws that specifically authorize an officers ability to temporarily seize firearms at traffic stops, and I don't know if Virginia is one of these states or not. I know here in KY we have a statute that prohibits officers from disarming at ANY time unless very specific circumstances are met. We do not have to inform an officer if we are armed, nor do we have to show our CDWL at a stop. The only way we have to show our CDWL is if an officer asks for it, and we are carrying a CONCEALED weapon at that time. Even if he asks, it is not a criminal violation to refuse to show it, however we can be fined $25 for failing to do so. If we are carrying openly, or in any factory installed storage compartment in our vehicle, we do NOT have to show our CDWL if asked.

Click to expand...

In the case of NM the NM Supreme Court reversed it's decision to allow LEOs to temporarily seize a firearm for officer safety during a traffic stop, prior to this decision an earlier NM Supreme Court decision specifically disallowed it. The link to the decision is on the NM page of handgunlaw.us . I think we will see more decisions like this until the people of this country reaffirm their rights.

Lots of good information and case analysis above (I'm impressed!); my advice when asked whether one is carrying a firearm is this: "Thank you, but I prefer not to discuss such things." Lying to the cop is a criminal offense, and stony silence is offensive and will probably result in unnecessary delays. Be polite and civil, but simply say, like Bartleby the Scrivener, "I prefer not to."

If the cop demands to see your CHP, and you are carrying concealed, then you must display the CHP certificate and a government-issued ID (passport, military ID, picture ID from a state school, etc.); If you're not carrying, then you can just tell him you're not carrying; if you're carrying openly, you can say that (it's not like it's a secret, right?).

One thing you should never, ever, do, is to touch or make reference to a firearm in the presence of a cop, even if he tells you to do remove it yourself. If he insists on disarming you, make it available and tell him he can do it himself, though you do not give your consent, but you are not going to touch the gun in his presence.

user said:

Lots of good information and case analysis above (I'm impressed!); my advice when asked whether one is carrying a firearm is this: "Thank you, but I prefer not to discuss such things." Lying to the cop is a criminal offense, and stony silence is offensive and will probably result in unnecessary delays. Be polite and civil, but simply say, like Bartleby the Scrivener, "I prefer not to."

If the cop demands to see your CHP, and you are carrying concealed, then you must display the CHP certificate and a government-issued ID (passport, military ID, picture ID from a state school, etc.); If you're not carrying, then you can just tell him you're not carrying; if you're carrying openly, you can say that (it's not like it's a secret, right?).

One thing you should never, ever, do, is to touch or make reference to a firearm in the presence of a cop, even if he tells you to do remove it yourself. If he insists on disarming you, make it available and tell him he can do it himself, though you do not give your consent, but you are not going to touch the gun in his presence.

Click to expand...

Awright. Who has the courage to request a cite for the middle paragraph in User's post. Not me! Especially, when he's handing out compliments.

I vote we temporarily suspend Rule #5! (Cite to authority.)


:idea: Oh, wait! I have a better idea. I will provide the cite as a favor. Ha! The rest of you were too selfish and lazy. Yes, you were.




VA Code 18.2-308H

...The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the United States Department of Defense or United States State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer. Failure to display the permit and a photo identification upon demand by a law-enforcement officer shall be punishable by a $25 civil penalty, which shall be paid into the state treasury. Any attorney for the Commonwealth of the county or city in which the alleged violation occurred may bring an action to recover the civil penalty. A court may waive such penalty upon presentation to the court of a valid permit and a government-issued photo identification. Any law-enforcement officer may issue a summons for the civil violation of failure to display the concealed handgun permit and photo identification upon demand.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

Citizen said:

What an insult to Marines some of that fellas ideas are. How many Marines have died defending these rights? And, his idea is to spit on their graves by waiving some of those rights.

Click to expand...

If that's how you interpret my stance, so be it. However, I served this country honorably a decade ago and I have unfortunately lost plenty of close friends. I love my 2A rights, but there is a point where I draw the line and feel its necessary to cooperate and actually answer questions if and when asked.

CHILINVLN said:

If that's how you interpret my stance, so be it. However, I served this country honorably a decade ago and I have unfortunately lost plenty of close friends. I love my 2A rights, but there is a point where I draw the line and feel its necessary to cooperate and actually answer questions if and when asked.

Click to expand...

Translation: I will waive some of the rights my comrades died defending.

Necessary? Huh!?!! What necessitates it? What exactly necessitates waiving rights that took over 700 years of blood and treasure to obtain? Rights are rights are rights are rights. There is a reason they are not called debating points, or negotiable positions. There is a reason they are in a whole different category. It was found by hard experience that rights were necessary to prevent harm by government, to protect people from government. So, what exactly necessitates waiving them?

Cooperate? What a disgusting view. Here is a better one: "Oh, officer. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws." (followed by silence) Waiving rights is not cooperation. It is waiving rights. It is the police who very carefully use the term cooperate rather than the complete descriptor waive. We even see this in the press sometimes. Occassionally, some police spokesman will relate that such-and-such suspect is in custody and is not cooperating with the investigation, carefully designed to make that suspect look bad. One never ever hears such a police report to the press say, "The suspect is exercising his rights." I wonder why?

Also, lets put Chilinvln's "cooperation" in perspective. Exercising rights paid for in blood is non-cooperation. Wrong. Lets look at some real non-cooperation against police: shooting cops, stabbing cops, running over cops, punching, clubbing, kicking, spitting, puking on cops. Those are the real non-cooperations. Merely exercising one's rights is not, and cannot possibly be non-cooperation in the sense projected by those who carefully avoid the words waive your rights.

CHILINVLN said:

It's thread like this that serious make me wonder WTF. I have no idea why some of you go through so much hassle to AVOID things that are completely harmless.

If they ask the question, just answer the question - and everyone is happy, they're happy, and you're less likely to deal with the drama of getting a lawyer and going through months off ******** for no reason at all. There is absolutely no reason why you should no disclose that you're carrying to a LEO if/when asked.

Let's remember that if they initiated a traffic stop with to begin with, you either performed something illegal or were perceived to have done so already.

Click to expand...

Ya vol mein kommandant ! Seriously... if a cop has NO authority (evidently in some jurisdictions he does and in others he does not) to require one (regardless if he "asks" the question), to do or submit to something, why should a law abiding citizen feel any obligation at all to do or submit to the something? This "business" about making "everyone happy" is a crock. I wonder how many "happy" Jews, gypsies, and other minorities loaded up their $hit into the boxcars bound for the camps and were all "happy" to be getting the free ride to a hot meal and shower? I'm tellin' ya, this "just answer the question - and everyone is happy" BS will get us all a "free ride" to who friggin knows where.

CHILINVLN said:

It's thread like this that serious make me wonder WTF. I have no idea why some of you go through so much hassle to AVOID things that are completely harmless.

If they ask the question, just answer the question - and everyone is happy, they're happy, and you're less likely to deal with the drama of getting a lawyer and going through months off ******** for no reason at all. There is absolutely no reason why you should no disclose that you're carrying to a LEO if/when asked.

Let's remember that if they initiated a traffic stop with to begin with, you either performed something illegal or were perceived to have done so already.

Click to expand...

(I don't know how I missed this the first time.)

Wait a minute.

What's their (the cops) happiness got to do with it? And, why is there any drama connected to exercising rights obtained by blood?

If there is any drama, then it means the copthugs already don't respect the relevant right(s).

And, do you really mean to imply that whether we exercise a right should depend on whether it makes a government agent happy? Bearing in mind that rights are expressly intended to restrain government agents? Really?

Making rights depend on the happiness of government agents is folly. You might as well hand them all over now.

+1 to Citizen.

Good to see your posts. Seemed to me you have been a little under the radar lately.

If the stupid noob can offer a different perspective I would like to say something simple in reguards to the comments between riverrat and CHILINVLN. When your talking about those who died to defend our constitution and the idea of freedom it represents consider that they and their families would probably rather have them alive. Also I would argue that they really even cared about weather or not you can carry a gun, camera, ect. Its my opinion that the sacrifice was made so that you may simply choose. Carry dont carry, talk to cops dont talk to cops. I fully understand both sides of the arguement though. It is wrong that the police have manufactured this idea that we must do anything and everything that they say or els. At the same time I dont really understand what you have to loose by disclosing that you are carrying. I believe that if the cop really wants to know if you have a gun he will find out despite your attempts to deflect and he will most likely gwt away with it. Personally my choice would be to say as little as possible. Politely decline to answer questions and "no officer I do not consent to any search of any kind including running my SN. However I will not resist any unlawfull seizure of my person or property....am I free to go"

From there it is either a yes or no question. Lawfully they either have a reason to arrest you or not. I realize the added issue of being a traffic stop but really should be as simple. Say as little as possible dont admit to anyhting and go to court. If you were pulled over and got a ticket your probably going to have to go anyways right?

Tanner said:

... At the same time I dont really understand what you have to loose by disclosing that you are carrying...

Click to expand...

What happens, Tanner, (and this is put simply) is that if you 'give-in' then the thought gets reinforced in the cop's mind that it's an ok thing for him to do. The next person comes along and is expected to comply with the cop's demand, but this next person refuses because he knows he doesn't have to. Cop insists and next person continues to say 'no', and is labeled 'uncooperative' instead of being applauded for standing up for his rights. The 'if you have nothing to hide why resist being searched?' statement is step 1 on the slope to turning Virginia into the UK, or (worse still) NYC or Chicago

Sure it an individual's choice whether or not the respond as the officer wishes BUT...........

Also consider that each person that complies with extra legal requests/demands made under color of law, makes it just that much harder on the rest of us. The reactions of one can effect the many.

That and if some of us are pushed too hard and too egregiously there are going to be potential negative effects on the officer that may impact his future promotions or financial stability. IMO it is better to educate the officer where possible, just as we do city council, clerks of court and every day citizens alike - leaving the world a better place - and it is much more pleasant for all involved to do so in a much less painful way.

That said - I do not show papers ever for OCing.

scouser said:

What happens, Tanner, (and this is put simply) is that if you 'give-in' then the thought gets reinforced in the cop's mind that it's an ok thing for him to do. The next person comes along and is expected to comply with the cop's demand, but this next person refuses because he knows he doesn't have to. Cop insists and next person continues to say 'no', and is labeled 'uncooperative' instead of being applauded for standing up for his rights. The 'if you have nothing to hide why resist being searched?' statement is step 1 on the slope to turning Virginia into the UK, or (worse still) NYC or Chicago

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Sure it an individual's choice whether or not the respond as the officer wishes BUT...........

Also consider that each person that complies with extra legal requests/demands made under color of law, makes it just that much harder on the rest of us. The reactions of one can effect the many.

That and if some of us are pushed too hard and too egregiously there are going to be potential negative effects on the officer that may impact his future promotions or financial stability. IMO it is better to educate the officer where possible, just as we do city council, clerks of court and every day citizens alike - leaving the world a better place - and it is much more pleasant for all involved to do so in a much less painful way.

That said - I do not show papers ever for OCing.

Click to expand...

And I agree 100% with everything both of you said. Which is why if confronted with the situation I would take users advice "KYBMS"
(keep your big mouth shut).

Tanner said:

If the stupid noob can offer a different perspective I would like to say something simple in reguards to the comments between riverrat and CHILINVLN. When your talking about those who died to defend our constitution and the idea of freedom it represents consider that they and their families would probably rather have them alive. Also I would argue that they really even cared about weather or not you can carry a gun, camera, ect. Its my opinion that the sacrifice was made so that you may simply choose. Carry dont carry, talk to cops dont talk to cops. I fully understand both sides of the arguement though. It is wrong that the police have manufactured this idea that we must do anything and everything that they say or els. At the same time I dont really understand what you have to loose by disclosing that you are carrying. I believe that if the cop really wants to know if you have a gun he will find out despite your attempts to deflect and he will most likely gwt away with it. Personally my choice would be to say as little as possible. Politely decline to answer questions and "no officer I do not consent to any search of any kind including running my SN. However I will not resist any unlawfull seizure of my person or property....am I free to go"

From there it is either a yes or no question. Lawfully they either have a reason to arrest you or not. I realize the added issue of being a traffic stop but really should be as simple. Say as little as possible dont admit to anyhting and go to court. If you were pulled over and got a ticket your probably going to have to go anyways right?

Click to expand...

Why not resist unlawful siezure? Why not demand a warrant?

nuc65 said:

Why not resist unlawful siezure? Why not demand a warrant?

Click to expand...

Ill steal grapeshots reply to that. Its better to fight it in court rather than in the street. By resist I mean physicaly. Keep the recorder rolling and make sure he pays for violating your rights.

Taser grips to the rescue!

This thread has encouraged me to again work on my "taser grips".

The grips are wooden and have a spring that drives electrode spikes into the hand of the person that tries to pull the firearm out of the holster without first disarming the "taser". (They do not go in far, just enough to let sparky work properly) 500,000 volts later, the firearm puller is writhering on the ground.

The battery and cable are in the holster. The on/ off switch is on the side of the holster. The hard part is making the probes work properly (work when not disabled, not work when disabled.)

I tried working with rfid to disable (RFID ring) but it was very expensive and did not appear reliable.