• 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...

diesel556

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

mlacey56 wrote:
I see your point.....I should have specified. I wasn't referring to the officer needing to search your vehicle or you. There is absolutely (relative term) no need for that. I was referring towards letting the officer know you got a firearm on you, etc etc etc... they have no right to know that.....not disarmament :X , just friendly information. :D ,,,,,,,,I've been on many stops now,and when was the last time I saw a criminal incriminate himself? Well honestly, I've seen twice with handguns. But those were odd circumstances....I no way does any officer I know search a vehicle without a really good reason. People tend to get pissed off with that sort of thing.... I should mention I live in Oregon, guns are fairly commonplace. :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
I see. I've announced that I am carrying openly in the past only if the officer approaches on the right side of the vehicle (it would be impossible for them to not see the firearm through the window).

I intentionally keep my wallet on the opposite side of my body, so there is no need for me to reach towards the firearm.

I've never announced the presence of a concealed firearm to the officer, and they have never asked.
 

EdwardNorton

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
24
Location
Terre Haute, Indiana, USA
imported post

ScottyT wrote:
For any reason once pulled over...

"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...
Personally I think this is a fantastic answer! You are politely objecting to the officers request but at the same time respectably submitting to his authority (whether he legally has it or not) and it keeps the weapon secure in the holster.

Why bring on more trouble to a situation like this just because you think your in the right? Be polite and co-operative and it will be over in short order. You and your weapon will be back in your vehicle going along your merry way in short order and because you showed respect to the officer he will tend to be more objective and lenient in his decision concerning the reason he pulled you over to begin with.
 

EdwardNorton

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
24
Location
Terre Haute, Indiana, 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...

Personally I think this is a fantastic answer! You are politely objecting to the officers request but at the same time respectably submitting to his authority (whether he legally has it or not) and it keeps the weapon secure in the holster.

Why bring on more trouble to a situation like this just because you think your in the right? Be polite and co-operative and it will be over in short order. You and your weapon will be back in your vehicle going along your merry way in short order and because you showed respect to the officer he will tend to be more objective and lenient in his decision concerning the reason he pulled you over to begin with.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
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.


That's what the police here are told to do... in a memo from the Chief & state AG. Of
course, they're also told they have to have reasonable suspicion "that the person is
committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime", and "if the person refuses
to identify him/herself or answer questions, and there is no further information or
facts which could lead the officer to "probable cause," the officer must allow the
person to go on his/her way. Refusal to answer an officer's questions in itself is not
"obstructing an officer."

They're also reminded that they have to give it back if the person is doing nothingwrong.



The bolding is from the memo...:
"An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if he has
‘reasonable suspicion’ based on articulable facts of criminal activity.”


"absent any other facts or circumstances, a person may legally carry an unconcealed
firearm in the state of Wisconsin without being in violation of the Disorderly Conduct
S
tatute (§§ 947.01). This does not mean that officers are restricted from their
responsibility to stop, investigate, and determine whether a person carrying an
open firearm is doing so legally."

"If the person stopped is in possession of an openly carried firearm, the firearm
shall be taken from the person and secured until the field interview has
concluded
. It must be emphasized that the purpose of doing so is for officer
safety and not
based upon a presumption that the possession was unlawful. Upon
completion of the questioning, the firearm must be returned if its possession is legal
unless, upon probable cause, you decide to arrest."



I think I've attached a PDF of the memo, which includes Milwaukee's 'gun free school zones'.
(HA! I'm working on marking all the shootings for the last year on the maps,
to show that GFSZ really aren't, and citizens are in danger there, and should be allowed
to defend themselves there.)

-
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
imported post

SavageOne wrote:
If the officer is asking to searcha vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS
have already been met to his belief.
NO!
If he has to ask permission, he has no reasonable suspicion.
If he has reasonable suspicion, he doesn't need to ask to do a search.
 

EdwardNorton

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
24
Location
Terre Haute, Indiana, USA
imported post

MKEgal wrote:
SavageOne wrote:
If the officer is asking to searcha vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS
have already been met to his belief.
NO!
If he has to ask permission, he has no reasonable suspicion.
If he has reasonable suspicion, he doesn't need to ask to do a search.
Point is why bring on trouble when you don't need to? If your not guilty of anything then just do as your asked, you'll get by a lot easier than if you raise a fuss.
 

diesel556

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

EdwardNorton wrote:
MKEgal wrote:
SavageOne wrote:
If the officer is asking to search a vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS
have already been met to his belief.
 NO!
If he has to ask permission, he has no reasonable suspicion.
If he has reasonable suspicion, he doesn't need to ask to do a search.
Point is why bring on trouble when you don't need to? If your not guilty of anything then just do as your asked, you'll get by a lot easier than if you raise a fuss.

Wow. :banghead:
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:
MKEgal wrote:
SavageOne wrote:
If the officer is asking to searcha vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS
have already been met to his belief.
NO!
If he has to ask permission, he has no reasonable suspicion.
If he has reasonable suspicion, he doesn't need to ask to do a search.
Point is why bring on trouble when you don't need to? If your not guilty of anything then just do as your asked, you'll get by a lot easier than if you raise a fuss.
See, this is where some of us have a problem ... if I am not doing anything that is against the law, why should I have to submit to government infringement of my 1A, 2A, 4A rights just to satisfy some LEO's curiosity? As long as I am committing no crime, it is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS what I am doing, where I am going/coming from, or what I have on my person.

MKEgal is right, if he has to ask permission, then he has no reasonable suspicion, and it then becomes my choice whether to submit to this infringement or not. It is also a good situation in which to have at least a digital voice recorder.

If he has reasonable, articulable suspicion, then he doesn't need to ask. You do have the right to ask what his RAS is. Another good situation in which to have a digital voice recorder.
 

frenchdl

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
32
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:
MKEgal wrote:
SavageOne wrote:
If the officer is asking to search a vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS
have already been met to his belief.
 NO!
If he has to ask permission, he has no reasonable suspicion.
If he has reasonable suspicion, he doesn't need to ask to do a search.
Point is why bring on trouble when you don't need to? If your not guilty of anything then just do as your asked, you'll get by a lot easier than if you raise a fuss.

This post is full of fail. I suppose the simplest way to answer would just be to say it is because, to the best of my knowledge, the USA is NOT a police state! You have rights man, exercise them!
 

Orygunner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
737
Location
Springfield, Oregon, USA
imported post

EdwardNorton wrote:
Point is why bring on trouble when you don't need to? If your not guilty of anything then just do as your asked, you'll get by a lot easier than if you raise a fuss.

If you don't see what's wrong with that, then I'm really not sure how to explain it to you. But I'll try.

While it may be "easier" to just give in and submit to authority when it's being improperly wielded, keep in mind this simple phrase:

Most often the right choice is the harder one.

If everyone just rolls over and obeys unlawful requests and orders, that just emboldens those corrupt with power to continue their abuse. That's why the federal government has become as out-of-control as it is. Everyone has just grumbled and mostly obeyed each new restriction of our liberties. That's why the ATF got away scott-free with murdering almost 80 people in Waco, TX. They stood up to the government but it wasn't enough, they needed help.

On the small scale, standing up to corrupt tyrants starts with every one of us. When you roll over and lick the hand of your master, you make it harder for the rest of us to assert that WE are the masters, and THEY (the police) are the public servants.

...Orygunner...
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

Anyway, back on topic....

If I'm asked to hand over a piece of metal and/or polymer?

"What is that you're carrying, a Glock? No thank you, I don't want to trade."

"Ok, but I get to hold yours. ;)"

"You want to hold my WHAT!? *covers nether-regions*:what:"

For a less amusing return: "You look with your eyes, not with your hands."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

After having completely read the thread and weighed all the arguments, I have concluded that, should an officer ask for my gun, I will:

1. Be polite.

2. Specifically decline to consent.

3. Inform the officer that I won't resist.

4. Inform the officer that won't hand him the gun.

5. Request that, if he chooses to take my gun, he does so with the gun in its holster.

5. Record the encounter.

6. Deal with any misstep by the officer after the stop and with his superiors.

I handled a BS traffic stop similarly earlier this month. Folks at the sheriff's office were surprised to find out that I had a GPS record of my travel and could absolutely refute the officer's contention in front of a judge should it have come to that. (The deputy likely knew it was a bum stop at the time and, to save face, only gave me a written warning.)

While a lot of the comebacks are clever and funny, they won't help the situation. They'll just make the smart-aleck feel good about himself at the risk of escalating the situation in a way that does no one any good.
 

skiesyourlimit

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

It sounds like Oregon state law has been able to supercede the Constitution 'Right to bear arms'. If one is on the record per se as a Secured Party Creditor would the state/police have any authority whatsoever? And in this case would the SPC have the ability to place a negative averment on theofficer attaching liens on all public and personal property he has? :shock:
 

TheHossUSMC

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
130
Location
Eugene, Oregon, USA
imported post

If an officer asks for your gun you better give it up. Retarded as it may seem, considering if you are carrying with a CHL it doesn't matter, an officer has the law on his side.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.380?highlight=officer+firearm

If you are in a public space they can inspect to see if it's loaded, which isn't against the law if you have a CHL, and if you don't then they can assume you have commited a crime and arrest you.
 

skiesyourlimit

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

Sounds like in that case the officer would be looking forward to receiving a negative avernment, liening up everything he owns or dreams of owning in the future.
 

SmithD

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Portland ,ME, ,
imported post

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.
 
Top