When the Cop Runs Your Serial Number

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

I see through your thinly-veiled attempts to curry favor with me!

You're just trying to get me to buy the scotch next time we get together.



PS: Its working.

Click to expand...

Ahem...:X

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm sure he means you, too. Besides, I'll supply the bourbon, and we can compare notes.

imported post

I guess I don't understand what statistic you are talking about. Like they run 10 numbers and 4 are stolen that means that 40% of the guns are stolen and makes the legal law abiding gun owners look bad?

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

I guess I don't understand what statistic you are talking about. Like they run 10 numbers and 4 are stolen that means that 40% of the guns are stolen and makes the legal law abiding gun owners look bad?

Click to expand...

I think what he means is they run 10 numbers and 4 of them are stolen, but all ten are counted as "crime guns" because the owners werestopped for traffic violationswhen they got searched.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

I see through your thinly-veiled attempts to curry favor with me!

You're just trying to get me to buy the scotch next time we get together.



PS: Its working.

Click to expand...

Ahem...:X

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm sure he means you, too. Besides, I'll supply the bourbon, and we can compare notes.

Click to expand...

Yes, I should include him. I understand scotch is a good remedy for "ahems." Eases the throat pain or something.

But, if I may make a mild protest,he hasn't been doing any favor-currying lately.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

bordsnbikes wrote:

I guess I don't understand what statistic you are talking about. Like they run 10 numbers and 4 are stolen that means that 40% of the guns are stolen and makes the legal law abiding gun owners look bad?

Click to expand...

I think what he means is they run 10 numbers and 4 of them are stolen, but all ten are counted as "crime guns" because the owners werestopped for traffic violationswhen they got searched.

Click to expand...

WhatI took away from it wasthat the anti-s weregiving the impressionif a trace was made, it was made because the police had seized a gun in relation to a crime.

My objection is that there are probably quite a number of traces that have nothing to do with a crime, just an LEO fishing trip during a traffic stop or what-have-you.

imported post

BTW, to put a period on the end of my point about police always wanting more power, read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101548_pf.html

I love how the telecoms do whatever they're told to do, while the makers of jamming gear can't wait to make lots of money disrupting your service. All to "give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to selectively jam communications".

Remember that guy a while back who was transmitting video to a secure server when that cop threatened to make up charges against him? How do you think he would've fared if that cop had been able to jam his wireless comm "for officer safety"?

How about those people in NY who took cell phone video of cops purposely knocking a man off his bike, and then trying to arrest those who videotaped it? Or those who took cellphone video of that guy getting shot in the back in the train station in California? Wouldn't it be nice for a cop to be able to shut down cellphones in the area? Is that a tool they need?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

I see through your thinly-veiled attempts to curry favor with me!

You're just trying to get me to buy the scotch next time we get together.



PS: Its working.

Click to expand...

Ahem...:X

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm sure he means you, too. Besides, I'll supply the bourbon, and we can compare notes.

Click to expand...

Yes, I should include him. I understand scotch is a good remedy for "ahems." Eases the throat pain or something.

But, if I may make a mild protest,he hasn't been doing any favor-currying lately.

Click to expand...

I stopped capitalizing cITIZEN :uhoh:

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

SNIP I stopped capitalizing cITIZEN :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Yes. Sorry. I omitted to acknowledge that.

imported post

Black tape over the serial num. The peeling back of the tape is a 'search' and not related to officer safety.

I'd check your state law before trying that. It's not illegal according to federal law, as long as the serial number isn't permanently defaced, but I'm sure that at least a few state legislatures have thought of this and banned it.

imported post

When wilfully surrendering a firearm to a LE, did you ask permission to unload it? I'd never hand over a loaded firearm to anyone legally authorized to request it.

Have been checked several times during hunting excursions, and I always unload before handing the firearm over.. If the cop refused to allow you to unload it, then I'd refuse to hand it over!

Sure would be a good opportunity for a BAD COP to witness a suicide if he/she wanted to pop you and take time to fabricate a lengthy story and scenario..

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

SNIP When wilfully surrendering a firearm to a LE, did you ask permission to unload it? I'd never hand over a loaded firearm to anyone legally authorized to request it.

Click to expand...

This has been discussed a good bit.

The consensus is to let the officer remove the gun from the holster himself.

Most reports we've gotten, the officer just declared that he was going to take the gun.

If an LEOasked for it, I'd politely invite him to take it himself. No mistakes about "going for a gun." Maybe explain how to release the retention mechanism if you've got a complicated one.

imported post

I reckon I'd just keep my firearm on my person then until the LE on site radioed a supervisor to the scene, ya never know, he may like my $200 boots next, and I ain't walking barefoot!

imported post

DreQo wrote:

The OP was in North Carolina. In this State, law abiding citizens that have a concealed handgun permit, and are carrying a concealed handgun at the time, must inform an officer of both upon first contact. Oddly enough, those that are illegally carrying a concealed handgun without a permit aren't required by law to inform the officer. So the law only very specifically applies to law abiding citizens, not criminals.

Click to expand...

Not only that, it would appear to me that the Fifth Amendment specifically grants them the right to not inform the officer! But IANAL.

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

DreQo wrote:

The OP was in North Carolina. In this State, law abiding citizens that have a concealed handgun permit, and are carrying a concealed handgun at the time, must inform an officer of both upon first contact. Oddly enough, those that are illegally carrying a concealed handgun without a permit aren't required by law to inform the officer. So the law only very specifically applies to law abiding citizens, not criminals.

Click to expand...

Not only that, it would appear to me that the Fifth Amendment specifically grants them the right to not inform the officer! But IANAL.

TFred

Click to expand...

lol "Do you have any dangerous weapons in your possession?" "Um, I plead the 5th ."

imported post

Why is that funny? I decline to answer if it's not required by statute (condition of carry permit). It's not an admission of anything, and it's not a lie. The cops may not like it, but too bad. I don't like having my privacy and my liberty presumed upon.

-ljp