• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

If an Officer asks for your gun...

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I don't get stopped by LEO's for genuine traffic violations.. at least not since April, 1971. I have been stopped a few times in error, and then there is the occasional "inspection" checks that the state police put up from time to time.

I have yet to be asked to surrender my weapon or even to put it somewhere where it will be semi-reachable. However, it has been my experience so far that officers are very appreciative of citizens telling them up front that they are carrying a firearm. And this seems to be for several reasons. First is the obvious.. they don't like surprises any more than anyone else of the dangerous variety. But there is also the positive and genuine report that will exist when we tell them we are armed.

I respect the opinions of those who chose not to divulge their armed state, I tend to weigh each individual encounter and proceed accordingly. I like to put myself in their shoes and imagine how I might feel and respond.

Still there are those officers who, for whatever reason, just seem to defy the supreme law of the land and question a citizens rights to the point of outright defiance. Those people do not gain my respect but do gain my legal retribution.
 

iheartglock

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
26
Location
flat Rock, Michigan, USA
imported post

ScottyT wrote:
Traffic Stop (infraction, not sure about legalities of disarming):

"We would both be a lot safer with all weapons snugly in their holsters, but if you insist on disarming me, I will not resist. Could you please remove the holster and gun to avoid any possibility of injury to either one of us?"


Walking Down the street (no reasonable, articulatable suspicion):

"I do not consent to your request to illegally search me and seize my property, but I will not resist your efforts to remove my weapon. I appreciate your concern for safety, but everyone would be a lot safer with all weapons secured in their holsters. Please remove the weapon in its holster to prevent any possibility of a negligent discharge."




Be polite,comply with demands-- regardless of how stupid or illegal they may be -- get information (Officer names, badge #s, etc...), follow up with appropriate complaints/lawsuits/etc...
dont comply with DEMANDS only requests
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
Tucker6900 wrote:
Always Always Always insist that they are the ones who remove the weapon. Most officers are already on edge as it is, and the last thing you want to see is the barrel of a gun between your eyes because he thought you were drawing down on him.
If they asked you to hand the gun to them, why in heck would they think you were drawing down on them because you were complying with the request?
The proper way to do this is NOT to do it. Do NOT surrender your firearm. However, if an LEO requests/commands that you give him your gun, this is what you should do;

o Protest his actions in a polite and clear voice.

o Inform him that the gun is loaded and you really prefer he not remove it (this is part of your protest.

o Do not resist his actions, but continue to protest.

o Let him be the one to remove it... under protest.


I have had an attorney tell me this and have read in a number of places where this is your best response. My only fear with this is that there is the distinct possibility that he may not be familiar with my particular gun or that he could drop it of mishandle it.

If you do not protest, from what I understand, you are inviting further intrusion by the officer.

INAL and I welcome any comments or clarification about this issue as it has never happened to me.
 

ME1

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
1
Location
, ,
imported post

Folks, please understand something. It IS common practice for most agencies to secure weapons upon discovery and returning them at the end of the stop. My agency does thesame thing. I WILL secure the known weapon and I can assure you that we will not have an accidental discharge. Remember one thing, we dont know you. You might be the nicest person in america and have NO intention of harming me, but I dont know that. So as an LEO i urge you all to respect the officer's request, let him disarm you and you WILL get your firearm back at the end of the stop. It's not a power trip or an inferior attitude, just an officer safety precaution. and if you are wondering, yes I even disarm other officers when they are not in uniform. I hope this helps and does not send anyone into a tailspin. Im just trying to help.
 

Diesel-n-Lead

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
82
Location
, California, USA
imported post

ME1 wrote:
Folks, please understand something. It IS common practice for most agencies to secure weapons upon discovery and returning them at the end of the stop. My agency does thesame thing. I WILL secure the known weapon and I can assure you that we will not have an accidental discharge. Remember one thing, we dont know you. You might be the nicest person in america and have NO intention of harming me, but I dont know that. So as an LEO i urge you all to respect the officer's request, let him disarm you and you WILL get your firearm back at the end of the stop. It's not a power trip or an inferior attitude, just an officer safety precaution. and if you are wondering, yes I even disarm other officers when they are not in uniform. I hope this helps and does not send anyone into a tailspin. Im just trying to help.
Top three priorities for LEOs:
1. Officer Safety
2. Officer Safety
3. Officer Safety

Don't take it personally. Disarming you is the quickest way to ensure officer safety. Besides, if a situation arises such that you need your weapon to protect yourself while you have 1 or more officers on scene then the "fit has hit the shan" and you're probably screwed anyway.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

I still do not like the idea of surrendering my firearm to an officer. I understand their concern for their own safety, but my safety is more important than theirs is to me. And the argument that they don't know me from Adam works both ways.

I don't get stopped. At least I haven't been for a citation since April, 1971. I have for routine traffic checks. And twice, I have been stopped when carrying a gun for strange things (one was the officer's ignorance of my town's licensing). I have never had a situation where an officer asked or demanded I surrender my arm.

If we carried this a little further, we could get to the point where officers could stop someone they saw OC'ing, and before asking a few questions, remove their firearm for "safety" reasons.

The mere fact that I am carrying a firearm does not give an LEO reason to suspect I am a danger to the community or to him. Now with having said this, I do understand an LEO's reservation of approaching an armed citizen and his concern for his own safety. I'm afraid that until it becomes a perfectly normal thing to see a fair amount of people out and about with guns on their hips, we will continue to have this little disagreement between LEO's and citizens.
 

jayspapa

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
313
Location
South end of the state, Illinois, USA
imported post

Ok , two different setups. First we have joe citizen who has taken his state training class , has beenfinger printed, and background checked all so he can have permission to carry a gun ( openly or concealed ) on his person. He runs a stop sign he didn't see and gets pulled over . He trys to be nice and let the officer know he has a permit and is packing .

Second we have wannabe gang banger hoodlum that just sticks his gun in the waistband and goes his merry way. He runs this same stop sign just because he didn't want to stop and gets pulled over. He has no warrents and all paper work is in order and gives no reason for a removeal from thevehical. Of course he isn't going to say anything about his gun ( duh ) .

So the difference in the 2 stops is this. The legal gun owner gets disarmed , probably gets his guns serial number ran , and then is handed back an empty gun and told not toreload till away from the officer.

Seems to me like that " shall not be infringed " is getting stomped on pretty badly.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:
ME1 wrote:
Folks, please understand something. It IS common practice for most agencies to secure weapons upon discovery and returning them at the end of the stop. My agency does thesame thing. I WILL secure the known weapon and I can assure you that we will not have an accidental discharge. Remember one thing, we dont know you. You might be the nicest person in america and have NO intention of harming me, but I dont know that. So as an LEO i urge you all to respect the officer's request, let him disarm you and you WILL get your firearm back at the end of the stop. It's not a power trip or an inferior attitude, just an officer safety precaution. and if you are wondering, yes I even disarm other officers when they are not in uniform. I hope this helps and does not send anyone into a tailspin. Im just trying to help.
Top three priorities for LEOs:
1. Officer Safety
2. Officer Safety
3. Officer Safety

Don't take it personally. Disarming you is the quickest way to ensure officer safety. Besides, if a situation arises such that you need your weapon to protect yourself while you have 1 or more officers on scene then the "fit has hit the shan" and you're probably screwed anyway.
The safest place for a loaded pistol--for all parties involved--is inits holster.
 

diesel556

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
imported post

Officer Safety seems to be an excuse for the prior restraint of a constitutional right, with no RAS required for said restraint.

Perhaps it would be prudent to muzzle the LAC as well for fear of the possibility that they might verbally abuse or threaten you.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

diesel556 wrote:
Officer Safety seems to be an excuse for the prior restraint of a constitutional right, with no RAS required for said restraint.

Perhaps it would be prudent to muzzle the LAC as well for fear of the possibility that they might verbally abuse or threaten you.
lecter0103.jpg
For Officer Safety ya know...
 

old dog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
396
Location
, ,
imported post

Officer safety is neither my responsibility nor my primary concern. Courts have repeatedly held that police have no general duty to protect the individual citizen. Given that, I certainly feel no general obligation to surrender my rights and prerogatives to make the officer feel safe. Double-edge knives cut both ways.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Here's a little example of something that really pisses me off about some police. Mind you, I support them when they are on our side. But I am adamant about my rights.

LEO: (to an openly armed citizen) "What's that on your hip?"
CIT : "Ahh... the Second Amendment?"
LEO: "Don't get smart with me. Turn around and raise your arms."


Now let's change the climate to that of an office with a worker and his boss.

WRKR: (to his boss who has flowers for secretary day) "What's that you got there?"
BOSS : "Ahh... some new modems for the office?"
WRKR: "Don't get smart with me. Put those on the desk and leave."


How long do you think that worker would last talking to his boss like that? Then tell me, what's the difference between that example and the one with the LEO smart mouthing the citizen - for whom he works, no less? Am I missing something here?
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
If they asked you to hand the gun to them, why in heck would they think you were drawing down on them because you were complying with the request?

It's not the cop that asked for the gun that you have to worry about. It's the OTHER cops coming on scene that did NOT hear his/her request, but DID see you go for your gun.

THAT is why, if the LEO wants the weapon,you want the LEO to remove the weapon.
 

AIC869

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
Here's a little example of something that really pisses me off about some police. Mind you, I support them when they are on our side. But I am adamant about my rights.

LEO: (to an openly armed citizen) "What's that on your hip?"
CIT : "Ahh... the Second Amendment?"
LEO: "Don't get smart with me. Turn around and raise your arms."


Now let's change the climate to that of an office with a worker and his boss.

WRKR: (to his boss who has flowers for secretary day) "What's that you got there?"
BOSS : "Ahh... some new modems for the office?"
WRKR: "Don't get smart with me. Put those on the desk and leave."


How long do you think that worker would last talking to his boss like that? Then tell me, what's the difference between that example and the one with the LEO smart mouthing the citizen - for whom he works, no less? Am I missing something here?
Outstanding post. I keep coming back to that foundation time and again - the government (in all its forms) works for us, not the other way around.
 

diesel556

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:
diesel556 wrote:
Officer Safety seems to be an excuse for the prior restraint of a constitutional right, with no RAS required for said restraint.

Perhaps it would be prudent to muzzle the LAC as well for fear of the possibility that they might verbally abuse or threaten you.
lecter0103.jpg
   For Officer Safety ya know...

The picture isn't showing up for me.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

AIC869 wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Here's a little example of something that really pisses me off about some police. Mind you, I support them when they are on our side. But I am adamant about my rights.

LEO: (to an openly armed citizen) "What's that on your hip?"
CIT : "Ahh... the Second Amendment?"
LEO: "Don't get smart with me. Turn around and raise your arms."


Now let's change the climate to that of an office with a worker and his boss.

WRKR: (to his boss who has flowers for secretary day) "What's that you got there?"
BOSS : "Ahh... some new modems for the office?"
WRKR: "Don't get smart with me. Put those on the desk and leave."


How long do you think that worker would last talking to his boss like that? Then tell me, what's the difference between that example and the one with the LEO smart mouthing the citizen - for whom he works, no less? Am I missing something here?
Outstanding post. I keep coming back to that foundation time and again - the government (in all its forms) works for us, not the other way around.
Thank you.

I do wish to reiterate that I fully support my local and state police and appreciate the job they do for all of us. And I mean that. The only ones with which I have a problem are the ones that adopt the "God syndrome". Many doctors and judges also seem to have a penchant for this strange elevation to God-like status - elevation within their own mind. They somehow forget the fact that they all work for us and are our servants. I know that LEOs hate to hear a citizen tell them that they work for us; they'll tell you they work for the county or something like that. Well who the hell owns the county government for which they work? We do. It's ours.

I have yet to have a negative encounter with an officer while carrying. All have been positive when interaction was made, or they just looked at me then went about their business. The absolute last thing we want is police who believe that citizens should not go armed. Those officers should not be hired in the first place and if found to hold those beliefs, should either quickly correct them or find employment in some other field.
 

dr4wd50

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
4
Location
, Utah, USA
imported post

Everyone is safer if you immediately identify youself as apermit holder (hands visible, always)and your weapon status (armed/unarmed) and location of the weapon. Then ask the LEO what she/she would like you tonext. Aways be polite and posivite and don't give the LEO cause for concern, then eveyone will have a good day. With the advent of dash cam's, poor behavior of the LOE will be available to supervisors if the LOE gives you a hard time and you want to file a complaint. You canalway request a supervisor to come if you feel you have been poorly treated. Safety for all is the most important thing. The LEO has the interact with enough idiots during their day, don't be another one.

:lol:
 

chevysoldier

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
8
Location
Pataskala, Ohio, USA
imported post

dr4wd50 wrote:
Everyone is safer if you immediately identify youself as a permit holder (hands visible, always) and your weapon status (armed/unarmed) and location of the weapon. Then ask the LEO what she/she would like you to next. Aways be polite and posivite and don't give the LEO cause for concern, then eveyone will have a good day. With the advent of dash cam's, poor behavior of the LOE will be available to supervisors if the LOE gives you a hard time and you want to file a complaint. You can alway request a supervisor to come if you feel you have been poorly treated. Safety for all is the most important thing. The LEO has the interact with enough idiots during their day, don't be another one.

:lol:


In Ohio if you are a CHL holder and you are NOT armed(the officer wouldn't be asking for your gun anyways), you do not need to notify that you have a CHL. If you are armed and you tell them you have a CHL and you are carrying, then proceed to ask "What do you want to do next?" you risk a UNINFORMED LEO thinking he has to do something now. You don't want to give him any ideas or offer anything you don't need to.

All I say is "Officer, I have a license to carry a concealed handgun and am currently armed." That's it. Simple, to the point and fullfills the (Ohio's) law.
 

dr4wd50

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
4
Location
, Utah, USA
imported post

Every state may be different. In Utah the LEO will run your plate initially, then CFP status will come back to the LEO with you other info.He/she already knows your status and generally assumes you are armed. I think it better to be clear andavoid confusion and un-necessary risk/stress to the LEO.

:D
 
Top