If an Officer asks for your gun...

[SouthernBoy]

eye95 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

SmithD 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.

I am having trouble with this "dangerous situation". If after having dialog with the LEO, how is removing and emptying my weapon, at his/her request dangerous. I'm sure all here are very well versed in our weapons function. I belive it would be much safer to handle my gun myself....LOE know glocks, what if you have a 1911...just a thought.

They don't know you from Adam and may not want to see you handling a loaded and ready firearm. Your concern about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of specific handguns is real and one I share with you. LEO's have been known to drop citizens' guns, have negligent discharges, and in general handle them in less than a less safe manner. They're human and just because they are LEO's doesn't mean they are gun enthusiats. While I have never been in this situation, my take would be as follows if an LEO wanted to have me disarmed.

I would voice my opposition to this move repeatedly along with a statement that I would not resist. Something like this.

"I do not consent to being disarmed, but I will not resist you doing this."

I would not remove and unload my handgun myself, preferring they do this with my comments that it is loaded and chambered, and to please handle it accordingly

Like I said, this has never happened to me, but I have to imagine it will at some time. I don't like the idea of being disarmed by anyone for any reason.

Well, it happened to me just a few days ago. I handled the situation almost exactly as you described.

The officer seemed not to be familiar with a 1911 as he was shocked to see it cocked. (I carry it in condition 1.) Apart from losing two hours of my life that I will never get back, the situation had a positive outcome.

That... has to be a disconcerting situation. I would really be watching every single move he made with my gun, trying to let him know the "what and how" of it.

When Virginia went "shall issue" in '95, I pulled up to a parked Fairfax County officer and asked him how he thought the police would handle someone during a traffic stop who was carrying a concealed firearm. He told me several of his fellow officers had said they would remove the gun and put it (unloaded) in the driver's trunk, handcuff the carrier, then after sorting everything out, would uncuff him and tell him not to retrieve his gun until they were gone.

That was in '95. I have never had even so much as a negative look, let alone a comment or such from an LEO when armed. I have encountered police from three local counties, several local city and town police, FBI, a customs agent, and I think state police. Perhaps it's the way I look that helps.

[ixtow]

I'd like to return to the officer safety excuse.

Is not their job to risk their lives for OUR safety? Isn't that the job of Public Servant?

Since when did putting the public in danger of their own incompetence, or any other SHTF events that may occur, in line with that?

It seems to be the complete opposite of what they are supposed to do. If they want to strut around acting like superman, being in danger while doing nothing more dangerous than the common citizen does every day, etc... If their job is to be in harm's way so that we don't have to be, this whole 'officer safety' concept makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is their job, which we pay them for, to be in dangerous situations. Exactly as, and no more, dangerous than the everyday life that every single one of us lives. Since when did the Public Servant's safety become paramount to those s/he is meant to be 'protecting?' Since when is that job of protecting us served by making us helpless? Or worse, subjecting us the the deadly sporadic competence of supposedly 'well-trained professionals?'

[AbNo]

ixtow wrote:

Since when did the Public Servant's safety become paramount to those s/he is meant to be 'protecting?'

I'm guessing around 1855?

[ixtow]

AbNo wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Since when did the Public Servant's safety become paramount to those s/he is meant to be 'protecting?'

I'm guessing around 1855?

So, freedom didn't last even 100 years...

[eye95]

If the officer has reason to stop a citizen, I have no problem with him disarming that citizen. In my case, the LEO had no RAS. Therefore, he should not have even stopped me. Consequently, he should not have disarmed me, he should not have detained me, he should not have investigated my gun, and he should not have investigated me.

Check out St. John v. Alamogordo DPS. The law is crystal clear.

[ixtow]

eye95 wrote:

If the officer has reason to stop a citizen, I have no problem with him disarming that citizen.

I agree. But they rarely have any. They just go fishing and bully/intimidate people into surrendering their rights.

In the Car situation, pulling someone over for speeding doesn't justify the presumption that they are violent murderers. I don't know that Cop from Adam, either; and they are, statistically, far more dangerous and unstable than the average citizen. S/He, being the Public Servant, is supposed to put my safety first, not completely deprive me of it for his/her own jollies/ego trip.

[eye95]

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

If the officer has reason to stop a citizen, I have no problem with him disarming that citizen.

I agree. But they rarely have any. They just go fishing and bully/intimidate people into surrendering their rights.

In the Car situation, pulling someone over for speeding doesn't justify the presumption that they are violent murderers. I don't know that Cop from Adam, either; and they are, statistically, far more dangerous and unstable than the average citizen. S/He, being the Public Servant, is supposed to put my safety first, not completely deprive me of it for his/her own jollies/ego trip.

Really? I personally know that they stop LACs that they have no business stopping, myself for one, but I am absolutely convinced that the overwhelming, vast, huge majority of stops are completely justified. I have been stopped dozens of times in my life. Only ONCE was it not justified. Until a few days ago, none of my stops were unjustified.

Folks keep throwing around these generalized charges against LEOs, trying to denigrate them--without providing any support for these spurious claims. I am disappointed in the extent to which such posts are just allowed to pass.

When charges like the above are made, they are not just opinions. They purport to be facts. I believe that they are factually inaccurate and should not be allowed to pass without challenge.

[ixtow]

eye95 wrote:

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

If the officer has reason to stop a citizen, I have no problem with him disarming that citizen.

I agree. But they rarely have any. They just go fishing and bully/intimidate people into surrendering their rights.

In the Car situation, pulling someone over for speeding doesn't justify the presumption that they are violent murderers. I don't know that Cop from Adam, either; and they are, statistically, far more dangerous and unstable than the average citizen. S/He, being the Public Servant, is supposed to put my safety first, not completely deprive me of it for his/her own jollies/ego trip.

Really? I personally know that they stop LACs that they have no business stopping, myself for one, but I am absolutely convinced that the overwhelming, vast, huge majority of stops are completely justified. I have been stopped dozens of times in my life. Only ONCE was it not justified. Until a few days ago, none of my stops were unjustified.

Folks keep throwing around these generalized charges against LEOs, trying to denigrate them--without providing any support for these spurious claims. I am disappointed in the extent to which such posts are just allowed to pass.

When charges like the above are made, they are not just opinions. They purport to be facts. I believe that they are factually inaccurate and should not be allowed to pass without challenge.

Every has different personal experiences. If you choose to dismiss mine, based on yours... The whole point is failed.

Just because it didn't happen to you, doesn't make it spurious or unfounded. I've been shot at, had my house broken into, nearly run down on my motorcycle on multiple occasions. By Cops trying to protect their methamphetamine business from what they perceive to be a 'loose end.'

[eye95]

No, I choose to dismiss yours as you have made a positive assertion about LEOs in general usually not having a valid reason for stopping a LAC.

Again, do you have any stats anything else, (other than personal experience, which may vary, but I doubt it) to back this up.

I didn't think so.

Moving on, until such time as the outlandish (and insulting to all LEOs) claim is backed up.

[ixtow]

eye95 wrote:

No, I choose to dismiss yours as you have made a positive assertion about LEOs in general usually not having a valid reason for stopping a LAC.

Again, do you have any stats anything else, (other than personal experience, which may vary, but I doubt it) to back this up.

I didn't think so.

Moving on, until such time as the outlandish (and insulting to all LEOs) claim is backed up.

No sense in arguing with someone who thinks his personal experience stands as absolute until a mountain falls on him.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say something like "gosh, maybe meth dealing cops are different from the ones who don't deal meth?"

But this is about verbal combat, not making heads or tails of reality as you define it.... Right?

:quirky

[Brimstone Baritone]

ixtow wrote:

No sense in arguing with someone who thinks his personal experience stands as absolute until a mountain falls on him.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say something like "gosh, maybe meth dealing cops are different from the ones who don't deal meth?"

But this is about verbal combat, not making heads or tails of reality as you define it.... Right?

:quirky

You never said "Meth dealing cops" detain people whithout RAS, did you? Your personal experiences with your bad cops are just as relevant as his personal experiences with good cops. However, neither one of those positions justifies a generalized statement such as "All cops" do one thing or another, or "All cops" are one way or another.

You made a generalization against all cops, and are backing that up with examples that only apply to individuals or distinct groups. It would be like you saying "All Americans speak English" and me providing examples of Americans who speak no language (babies, for one), are bilingual, are deaf (ASL isn't 'English'), or someone who isn't an American, but speaks English. If you held that despite my examples your argument was still true, you would be doing the same thing you are with eye95.

ETA: The moral of the story is "Don't make sweeping generalizations. It is Impossible to back them up."

[ixtow]

mcdonalk wrote:

ixtow wrote:

No sense in arguing with someone who thinks his personal experience stands as absolute until a mountain falls on him.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say something like "gosh, maybe meth dealing cops are different from the ones who don't deal meth?"

But this is about verbal combat, not making heads or tails of reality as you define it.... Right?

:quirky

You never said "Meth dealing cops" detain people whithout RAS, did you? Your personal experiences with your bad cops are just as relevant as his personal experiences with good cops. However, neither one of those positions justifies a generalized statement such as "All cops" do one thing or another, or "All cops" are one way or another.

You made a generalization against all cops, and are backing that up with examples that only apply to individuals or distinct groups. It would be like you saying "All Americans speak English" and me providing examples of Americans who speak no language (babies, for one), are bilingual, are deaf (ASL isn't 'English'), or someone who isn't an American, but speaks English. If you held that despite my examples your argument was still true, you would be doing the same thing you are with eye95.

ETA: The moral of the story is "Don't make sweeping generalizations. It is Impossible to back them up."

Which generalization would you like me to prove? The half-dozen that you assumed, or the one I actually made? Or, actually, didn't....

Do I care anymore?

No, no I don't.

[Brimstone Baritone]

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

If the officer has reason to stop a citizen, I have no problem with him disarming that citizen.

I agree. But they rarely have any. They just go fishing and bully/intimidate people into surrendering their rights.

That is a generalization. Don't get me wrong, I agree with everything you said regarding officer safety, and them being public servants, but the above is out of line. I see that it has happened to you in the past, and you have my condolences, but it doesn't mean that every cop will take any opportunity to step on our rights.

From another thread:
ixtow wrote:

Toad wrote:

Just another example of the harsh truths of the blue line of defiance.
And people still wonder why cops are viewed with an us vs. them mentality.

I think the us vs them attitude has more to do with the fact that they are taught that every day in their little academies. Oh, and that people with a freedom hating attitude are specifically sought out and encouraged in the recruiting process...

This is another generalization. Just because you were in training to become a cop (does that mean they thought you had a freedom hating attitude?) doesn't mean every academy does things like yours.

And in that thread I agree with you that being fired is the least they should have done to those officers. If any one of us did that and said "I thought it was my tazer" we would be in jail for manslaughter at best. I just don't want you to think I oppose everything you are saying, just that you should avoid making sweeping generalizations based on your personal experiences.

Edited to add: You know what? On second reading of your reply, I am convinced that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my post above. In that case, I ask you to point out to me what claims I made against you that were false or misinformed. Thank you.

[ixtow]

There may very well be a needle in the haystack. I don't deny that. But a generalization such as "there is nothing but hay in that pile," when, yes, it's possible there may be a little straw, or even one whole needle........ It's not crazy. Virtually undetectable anomalies don't qualify as a dis-qualifier.

I suppose there might be a diamond ring lost in 20 tons of compost, too.... It' conceivable that someone might lose jewelry when gardening, no? But I'm not calling it "mostly compost" based on a very small fraction of a percent POSSIBILITY of a very MINOR anomaly. It's a big pile of crap, and that's what I'm calling it!

If you don't like it, that's up to you I guess! You can calculate the exact tiny percentage of Poo to Diamond Ring if you like. And this still presumes that there is one... So you can make theoretical fractional percentages based on the avera size and weight of diamnods sold in the years the pile has existed. Which also presumes that the ring isn't 50 years old.... After so many layers of presumption in an attempt to show how a qualifier is needed, it becomes clear that the matter is not even worth exploring: which is why the generalization is acceptable, and a qualifier not needed.

Sure, I bet there is a decent cop somewhere in this country. but considering the risks involved in merely saying "hi" to one of them, it's not a compost pile I'm willing to sort through to find some rare, possible, maybe.

[Neeslycrunch]

I spent several months in OK last year and made it a point to become familiar with OK state gun laws. http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA...k_NOV_2009.pdf

It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop. No person shall be required to identify himself or herself as a concealed handgun licensee when no handgun is in the person’s possession or in any vehicle in which the person is driving or is a passenger.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

However, GA is my permanent residence so I have a GFL. As far as I know, there is no law in GA requiring a gun carrier to notify the LEO of a firearm. Here is some relevant gun laws in GA.

16-11-126

(c)This Code section shall not permit, outside of his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business, the concealed carrying of a pistol, revolver, or concealable firearm by any person unless that person has on his or her person a valid license issued under Code Section 16-11-129 and the pistol, revolver, or firearm may only be carried in a shoulder holster, waist belt holster, any other holster, hipgrip, or any other similar device, in which event the weapon may be concealed by the person's clothing, or a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, or other closed container. Any person having been issued a license to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Code Section 16-11-129 shall be permitted to carry such weapon, subject to the limitations of this part, in all parks, historic sites, or recreational areas as defined by Code Section 12-3-10 and in all wildlife management areas.(d)This Code section shall not forbid the transportation of any firearm by a person who is not among those enumerated as ineligible for a license under Code Section 16-11-129, provided the firearm is enclosed in a case, unloaded, and separated from its ammunition.(e)This Code section shall not forbid any person who is not among those enumerated as ineligible for a license under Code Section 16-11-129 from transporting a loaded firearm in any private passenger motor vehicle.(f)On and after October 1, 1996, a person licensed to carry a handgun in any state whose laws recognize and give effect within such state to a license issued pursuant to this part shall be authorized to carry a handgun in this state, but only while the licensee is not a resident of this state; provided, however, that such license holder shall carry the handgun in compliance with the laws of this state.

[Neeslycrunch]

GA SB 291 passed the Senate and House and goes to Gov.

SECTION 1.
Part 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to carrying and possession of firearms, is amended by revising subsection (e) of Code Section 16-11-127, relating to carrying deadly weapons to or at public gatherings, as follows (e) A person licensed or permitted to carry a firearm by this part shall be permitted to carry such firearm, subject to the limitations of this part, in all parks, historic sites, and recreational areas, including all publicly owned buildings located in such parks, historic sites, and recreational areas and in wildlife management areas, notwithstanding Code Section 12-3-10, in wildlife management areas notwithstanding Code Section 27-3-1.1 and 27-3-6, and in public transportation notwithstanding Code Sections 16-12-122 through 16-12-127; provided, however, that a person shall not carry a firearm into a place prohibited by federal law. A person licensed or permitted to carry a firearm by this part shall also be permitted to carry such firearm, subject to the limitations of this part, in an airport in any area in which the possession of firearms is not regulated by the federal government.

[younggun20]

I was recently passing through Oregon and was stopped on the freeway for not using my turn signal. Anyway when Pulled over I had my Glock on the dash and hands on the steering wheel. after handing my ID over I did notify the officer my sidearm was on the dash. after he put the flash light on it and took a step back he asked me to hand it to him (which in my mind could have ended badly if I was a BG) I grabbed the barrel and handed it over He came over a minute later gave me the gun back and told me to have a good night. No questions or problems. I feel it went well

[bnhcomputing]

If an officer asks for my gun in WI, he/she will most likely be facing a civil suit. I will deny their request and not consent to any search or seizure of my property.

The ONLY way LEO gets the firearm is if I am arrested, and then given I haven't broken any laws, they will be sued.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. ( http://www.wisconsincarry.org ) already got a judgment against the City of Racine for this type of thing. $10K won't be enough IF there is a next time!

[eye95]

bnhcomputing wrote:

If an officer asks for my gun in WI, he/she will most likely be facing a civil suit. I will deny their request and not consent to any search or seizure of my property.

The ONLY way LEO gets the firearm is if I am arrested, and then given I haven't broken any laws, they will be sued.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. ( http://www.wisconsincarry.org ) already got a judgment against the City of Racine for this type of thing. $10K won't be enough IF there is a next time!

Does Wisconsin law prohibit/allow/neither prohibit nor allow the taking of your firearm for officer safety during an otherwise lawful stop?

[teddyearp]

Hmmm, very instructive thread. Hi, first post here and after reading this whole thread, I think I like the second reply the best.

I didn't notice any posters from AZ in this thread so I just had to post this tidbit from my experience with AZ LEO's.

1995 Tombstone, AZ. Tucked a loaded pistol into my waistband with only the grip showing. Walking on the street, crossed paths with the marshal. He looked at my pistol, then at me, we nodded and on we both went.

1996 Pinetop-Lakeside, AZ. During a 'low' point in my life, having a camp/cook fire in a vacant lot 150 yds off the main highway (SR 260) between a Safeway and a church, while in a $200 car (you get the picture). LEO's come to my 'camp' looking for someone who just robbed someone at the ATM at the Safeway. "Do you have any weapons?" "Yes, there's a pistol in the glove box, it's loaded." LEO's see it, say, well, it's in a holster, you're OK. NEVER EVEN touch it.

2001 On a main hwy (US 89 or 89a) outside of Prescott, AZ. (Yeah, I have been a f-up) Stopped in a pull-out to sleep off my day full of wandering on the deep forest roads south of Prescott. Got woke up by two AZ DPS officers around 2AM. "I have a pistol on the seat here next to me and it's loaded" "Well, it's in a holster, you're OK." "You smell like you've been drinking, you better not drive" "Don't worry, that's why I'm here sleeping" Again, they NEVER laid a hand on it.

I know this post probably went quite a ways off the topic, but I just thought I'd point out the way that the LEO's in AZ handle an open carry firearm.

[Campeck1911]

Carolina40 wrote:

"uhh, I have a Serpa - this may take a while..."

Exactly my thought! I have it on right now cause I don't want to even mess with taking it off! what a pain!