I seem to be getting a reputation for my lawFUL behavior.

ScottyT wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

If like the OP, you have a permit, then they can't detain you for suspicion of carrying loaded without a permit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you still have to show it to them, which means them stopping you and you having to present your permit. I would prefer it if these situations could be handled in a matter of seconds.

I want to be polite and civil at all times, but they should know by know, especially in the case of the OP. I think we really need to convey that these stops constitute harassment and they must stop.

I just get the feeling that some LEOs are waiting to find someone OCing that can't recite the law as well as most of us can so they can intimidate him into stopping.

Click to expand...

IANAL but I think the rule says that if you are carrying concealed, you have to show the permit... Thoughts?

I know that one in the chamber is a benefit of the permit, but one in the chamber isn't concealed, and the rule only mentions notification requirements while carrying concealed... Correct me if I'm way off base, or if this has been covered before.

Click to expand...

Double tap...


I was just thinking about the little LEO "loophole" where they can detain (question and disarm) you for suspicion of carrying loaded without a permit...

What would you guys do if a cop used this approach?

It kind of makes me want to carry "UT unloaded" in places where I am more likely to encounter cops (like malls, but I never go to the mall...), so that I can refuse to provide anything but verbal identification.

Click to expand...

jaredbelch wrote:

ScottyT wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

If like the OP, you have a permit, then they can't detain you for suspicion of carrying loaded without a permit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you still have to show it to them, which means them stopping you and you having to present your permit. I would prefer it if these situations could be handled in a matter of seconds.

I want to be polite and civil at all times, but they should know by know, especially in the case of the OP. I think we really need to convey that these stops constitute harassment and they must stop.

I just get the feeling that some LEOs are waiting to find someone OCing that can't recite the law as well as most of us can so they can intimidate him into stopping.

Click to expand...

IANAL but I think the rule says that if you are carrying concealed, you have to show the permit... Thoughts?

I know that one in the chamber is a benefit of the permit, but one in the chamber isn't concealed, and the rule only mentions notification requirements while carrying concealed... Correct me if I'm way off base, or if this has been covered before.

Click to expand...

ScottyT wrote:

Double tap...


I was just thinking about the little LEO "loophole" where they can detain (question and disarm) you for suspicion of carrying loaded without a permit...

What would you guys do if a cop used this approach?

It kind of makes me want to carry "UT unloaded" in places where I am more likely to encounter cops (like malls, but I never go to the mall...), so that I can refuse to provide anything but verbal identification.

Click to expand...

Back to the original concern, the cop could momentarily detain you by asking "Do you have a CHP?" If you answer yes, and show him the CHP, then the legal detainment would be over quickly without disarming, as showing the CHP would eliminate the reasonable articulable suspicion that you were commiting the crime of carrying a fully loaded (one in the pipe) firearm without a CHP. If the same cop, on the next day stopped you for the same RAS, then I would consider it harrassment.

Click to expand...

Back to the original concern, the cop could momentarily detain you by asking "Do you have a CHP?" If you answer yes, and show him the CHP, then the legal detainment would be over quickly without disarming, as showing the CHP would eliminate the reasonable articulable suspicion that you were commiting the crime of carrying a fully loaded (one in the pipe) firearm without a CHP. If the same cop, on the next day stopped you for the same RAS, then I would consider it harrassment.

Click to expand...

IANAL but I think the rule says that if you are carrying concealed, you have to show the permit... Thoughts?

I know that one in the chamber is a benefit of the permit, but one in the chamber isn't concealed, and the rule only mentions notification requirements while carrying concealed... Correct me if I'm way off base, or if this has been covered before

Click to expand...

jaredbelch wrote:

IANAL but I think the rule says that if you are carrying concealed, you have to show the permit... Thoughts?

I know that one in the chamber is a benefit of the permit, but one in the chamber isn't concealed, and the rule only mentions notification requirements while carrying concealed... Correct me if I'm way off base, or if this has been covered before

Click to expand...

R722-300-12. Requirement to Notify Peace Officer When Stopped.

When a concealed firearm permit holder or certificate of qualification holder is stopped for questioning by a peace officer based on reasonable suspicion in accordance with Section 77-7-15 and the holder has a concealed firearm in his/her possession, the holder shall immediately advise the peace officer that he/she is a lawful holder and has a concealed firearm in his/her possession.

Click to expand...

Scotty,

I interpret the statute to mean that as soon as the interaction is custodial, disclosure is required. For a definition of custodial, Brendlin V California, decided a year or two ago by SCOTUS is helpful.

Click to expand...

Decoligny wrote:

Back to the original concern, the cop could momentarily detain you by asking "Do you have a CHP?" If you answer yes, and show him the CHP, then the legal detainment would be over quickly without disarming, as showing the CHP would eliminate the reasonable articulable suspicion that you were commiting the crime of carrying a fully loaded (one in the pipe) firearm without a CHP. If the same cop, on the next day stopped you for the same RAS, then I would consider it harrassment.

Click to expand...

I guess you could not answer that first question? We don't have to answer him. Maybe just assure him you know the law very well and are carrying in compliance with it? I really like the "pulling you over for suspicion of driving without a license" analogy, I think it fits really well.

Click to expand...

Strict Constructionist wrote:

Scotty,

I interpret the statute to mean that as soon as the interaction is custodial, disclosure is required. For a definition of custodial, Brendlin V California, decided a year or two ago by SCOTUS is helpful.

Click to expand...

Linky?

Click to expand...