Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO

Hi all. This is a somewhat blurry issue, as it involves my ccw license as well, but open carry in vehicle. I've not gotten a clear answer on it yet.

I was stopped tonight by an officer here in MO. We're not a must inform state, as you know, but I treat everywhere I go as a must inform just as a general principle. The officer approached the car and I handed him my license and ccw permit and told him I was a conceal carrier and had my weapon on me. It was even in a console that was visible to him and I pointed it out.

He then asked for the weapon to place on top of the vehicle, to which I told him I'd rather not due to 1) not wanting to be disarmed, 2) not wanting to grab the gun and move it around while it's loaded, and 3) not wanting to go for a gun with a cop standing right next to me.

He took my licenses and came back and issued me a warning (phweh) but then told me the next time an officer asks for the gun, to give it or they'll call me in and revoke my ccw.

I'm almost sure that's not the case, given that Missouri is a shall issue state with no duty to inform. Add to that the 4th amendment AND the 2nd amendment, and I don't see how he could do that.

Does anyone here know?

Does anyone here know what?

Wowwie! and Well,,,

If you ever want to be dissarmed,,, make the cop do it,,, slowly...

Never!!! touch your gun!!! while a cop watches...

I think you did really good, and really right!!!

Stand up for the right.

1245A Defender said:

If you ever want to be dissarmed,,, make the cop do it,,, slowly...

Never!!! touch your gun!!! while a cop watches...

I think you did really good, and really right!!!

Stand up for the right.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

On some other forums I'm mostly getting read the riot act and told that the officer does have the right to secure the weapon for the stop. They want to cite case law and stuff (which hasn't been entirely convincing yet). But I really am just wondering if officers can have your ccw revoked that easily.

Citizen said:

Does anyone here know what?

Click to expand...

Whether the officer can have the ccw revoked that simply?

Citizen said:

Does anyone here know what?

Click to expand...

He asked a question, if you can help please do so.

bigb360 said:

He took my licenses and came back and issued me a warning (phweh) but then told me the next time an officer asks for the gun, to give it or they'll call me in and revoke my ccw.

I'm almost sure that's not the case, given that Missouri is a shall issue state with no duty to inform. Add to that the 4th amendment AND the 2nd amendment, and I don't see how he could do that.

Does anyone here know?

Click to expand...

It's quite easy, the officer just takes in a breath and then releases it while maneuvering his tongue and vocal cords to produce intelligible sounds.

The real answer...
Any time you "commit a crime" such as the "not giving up your gun when requested" or the even more felonious "not informing the officer of whatever you're not legally required to inform him of" and the officer doesn't make an arrest or says the next guy 'might not be as nice as I am' he's probably blowing smoke up your butt. Officers get paid to make arrests, man-hunting for criminals is what they do just as a bass fisherman goes after a largemouth.
What is he going to have your permit revoked for anyway? Not following what isn't the law?

The officer cannot revoke your CCW, see the Missouri statutes.
An officer may not take control of your firearm without R.A.S. - It is your constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. (YES THEY DO IT ALOT)
If they ask "The answer is NO." If they "demand" comply and file a complaint and/or seek a legal judgement. (Remember though, you have have future encounters especially if it is local. Something to consider)

bigb360 said:

Hi all. This is a somewhat blurry issue, as it involves my ccw license as well, but open carry in vehicle. I've not gotten a clear answer on it yet.

I was stopped tonight by an officer here in MO. We're not a must inform state, as you know, but I treat everywhere I go as a must inform just as a general principle. The officer approached the car and I handed him my license and ccw permit and told him I was a conceal carrier and had my weapon on me. It was even in a console that was visible to him and I pointed it out.

He then asked for the weapon to place on top of the vehicle, to which I told him I'd rather not due to 1) not wanting to be disarmed, 2) not wanting to grab the gun and move it around while it's loaded, and 3) not wanting to go for a gun with a cop standing right next to me.

He took my licenses and came back and issued me a warning (phweh) but then told me the next time an officer asks for the gun, to give it or they'll call me in and revoke my ccw.

I'm almost sure that's not the case, given that Missouri is a shall issue state with no duty to inform. Add to that the 4th amendment AND the 2nd amendment, and I don't see how he could do that.

Does anyone here know?

Click to expand...

Good job on declining to touch your firearm. As others have said, NEVER touch your firearm or even reach for it. His partner, walking up your 9:00 sees you and shoots you.

Also, consider if you did what he asked:
1. A passerby walks by the back of your car or a kid on a bicycle, sees the firearm on your roof and grabs it;
2. A gawker look-looing hits the back of your car (or the cops) and the resultant collision sends the gun careening into who-knows-where.

A really STUPID idea on the part of the cop. Like a guy who has a permit and is vetted by agencies to have no felonies or DV arrests is gonna shoot him for giving him a warning / ticket. Jeeze.

I would phrase it a little differently. "I decline to reach for or give up my firearm, but if you insist please call a supervisor to the scene and we'll discuss it please".

I would file a complaint against this behavior due to the reckless disregard for the firearm should you touch it or he put it on the roof (!!??) and his threat to revoke.

FWIW

Bigb360,

I have seen your posts on another forum about this. I haven't seen anyone there actually cite any cases, jut generalizations about that officers "can". As Mspgunner pointed out they need R.A.S. to do so, but the side of the road may or may not be the place to push that issue. It's a personal choice. As far as offices being able to "call you in and revoke your ccw", B.S.

I think you did a great job standing up for your rights to keep control of your property. Though I wouldn't have informed the officer, that is your choice and you did a good job on how you went about it. The only thing I would change would be to inform him that you feel it would be safer to leave your gun it in its holster(or however it was secured) instead of telling him that you don't want to be disarmed. If he does press the issue do as Mspgunner and Defender suggests and comply, but have the officer be the only one that touches it. That would probably mean, in your case, having to get out of the car. Politely remind him that you do not consent and "for his safety" that he know that the gun is loaded. And keep an eye on how he treats your property. Of course this is all IMHO, take it or leave it. You did great though.

If you want legal advice I would suggest Kevin Jamison's office. He did a lot to get CCW here in MO. His office may be able to give a clear guidline of what to do. Of course any good lawyer in MO who does work in self-defense cases and firearms laws will be glad to talk with you and give you counsel.

1245A Defender said:

If you ever want to be dissarmed,,, make the cop do it,,, slowly...

Never!!! touch your gun!!! while a cop watches...

I think you did really good, and really right!!!

Stand up for the right.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, that cop was wrong, very, very wrong. Never touch your gun while carrying unless you are in a situation where you need it, as in self defense. I doubt you would have had your license revoked for using common sense that he lacked.

I would file a complaint about this with his department. As a law abiding citizen they should know that you never handle your weapon in public unless you are using it. If the officer wants it he will have to retrieve it him self...oh wait I don't give consent and there is no RAS. Law suit waiting to happen.

The traffic stop was RAS, the weapon was secondary. Under the guise of officer safety and the firearm being in plain sight as well as being informed of its presence the officer had the full authority of law under TERRY to have taken possession of the weapon for the duration of the stop. The OP has described it as in plain sight and within reach which are indeed areas the officer has the authority to take control of it.

As far as revoking your CCW, the officer is an idiot and he has no such authority what so ever, he can't even keep the card.

Folks can argue it all day long but it will not change. The sight of a firearm is not RAS of a crime but the sight of a firearm during a legal stop, officer safety is going to win every time if it is within reach of the detainee.

Well..... not so much in the 11th Circuit. State (GA) v. Jones.
"... Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous." Silva v. State, 278 Ga. 506, 508 (604 SE2d 171) (2004) (driver leaned under seat as if to conceal weapon and drove recklessly while in that position, then offered implausible explanation for his conduct.) Here, no evidence was presented of furtive movements or danger; in fact, the officer candidly acknowledged that the search was merely his standard procedure because any firearm might be stolen. On its face, as noted by Jones, this policy justifies the search of any vehicle occupied by hunters or sport shooters with their firearms, or any pickup truck with a rifle or shotgun on the rear window rack. This is precisely the danger of "carte blanche authority to `secure' all weapons during a routine traffic stop," noted by the special concurrence in Megesi, supra, 277 Ga. App. at 860.

The State also argues that Jones consented to the seizure of his rifle. But "t is well settled that acquiescence cannot substitute for free consent. [Cits.]" Corley v. State, 236 Ga. App. 302, 306-307 (1) (b) (512 SE2d 41) (1999). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly granted Jones's motion to suppress..."

I will note, with honesty, that in Jones the officers approached a stopped vehicle (first tier) and had not made a traffic stop.

LMTD said:

The traffic stop was RAS, the weapon was secondary. Under the guise of officer safety and the firearm being in plain sight as well as being informed of its presence the officer had the full authority of law under TERRY to have taken possession of the weapon for the duration of the stop. The OP has described it as in plain sight and within reach which are indeed areas the officer has the authority to take control of it.

As far as revoking your CCW, the officer is an idiot and he has no such authority what so ever, he can't even keep the card.

Folks can argue it all day long but it will not change. The sight of a firearm is not RAS of a crime but the sight of a firearm during a legal stop, officer safety is going to win every time if it is within reach of the detainee.

Click to expand...

I believe you completely missed that the officer ordered the OP to touch his gun. Which the moment he did he could very well have been shot. Terry means crapola with a hole in you. I suggest you rethink, maybe getting shot is OK for you, but not the rest of us.

WalkingWolf said:

I believe you completely missed that the officer ordered the OP to touch his gun. Which the moment he did he could very well have been shot. Terry means crapola with a hole in you. I suggest you rethink, maybe getting shot is OK for you, but not the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I didn't state that the officer used good judgement or anything of the sort. I stated the officer would not be in violation for taking control of an obvious weapon withing reach of the suspect that he had legally detained. Your debate as to the method the officer chose to use to take control is totally separate from the legality of it.

You may be not be capable of understanding the difference, but others can and trying to turn it into something it never was is weak.

LMTD said:

I didn't state that the officer used good judgement or anything of the sort. I stated the officer would not be in violation for taking control of an obvious weapon withing reach of the suspect that he had legally detained. Your debate as to the method the officer chose to use to take control is totally separate from the legality of it.

You may be not be capable of understanding the difference, but others can and trying to turn it into something it never was is weak.

Click to expand...

The primary purpose of carrying a weapon is to stay alive, I don't give two poops to the legality in this type of situation. And I doubt most here do, the officer had no authority to order the OP to commit suicide by cop. Last time I checked that it was illegal to order a unlawful act. Especially when it might get you killed. The proper procedure/common sense would have been to have OP step from vehicle, and then get the gun himself, if he wanted it. Not to mention that this train of thought is not the safest for the cop either.

Read number three on the opening post again.

bigb360 said:

Snip

The officer approached the car and I handed him my license and ccw permit and told him I was a conceal carrier and had my weapon on me. It was even in a console that was visible to him and I pointed it out.

He then asked for the weapon to place on top of the vehicle,

Snip

Click to expand...

Could the officer see the console or the gun in the console? If he could see the gun in the console, why was the console open? Or was the gun in a hole or compartment of the console without a lid?

WalkingWolf said:

The primary purpose of carrying a weapon is to stay alive, I don't give two poops to the legality in this type of situation. And I doubt most here do, the officer had no authority to order the OP to commit suicide by cop. Last time I checked that it was illegal to order a unlawful act. Especially when it might get you killed.

Click to expand...

Since when is it an "unlawful act" to merely touch or remove one's firearm in the presence of a cop?* Are you talking about Missouri law, North Carolina law, or neither?


* I'm not saying it's a smart thing to do, or that it won't result in new holes suddenly appearing in someone - I'd just like to know where that act is considered "unlawful". You know, so I don't do it by mistake in that jurisdiction...

In NC touching a firearm can be GATTOP, or in any state could be considered assault. I do believe suicide is illegal in most states. It was dumb for the officer to demand it, it was intelligent for the OP to refuse. If the officer wanted that firearm he could get it himself. Most OCers know that touching a firearm in the presence of a police officer is not to bright. And that IS the point.

But if you have doubts, touch your firearm in a traffic stop, get back to us if you can...