Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: surrendering your weapon when stopped by the coppers

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    from what i read in the 9A.41 section only a court can make you surrender your firearm.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    You need to thoroughly read up on the common law on this subject.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Stick with that interpretation and let me know how it works out for you...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Shreveport Citizens Disarmed By Police For 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers

    At what point does an officer have a 'right' to disarm you? I would say if he has a reasonable fear of his safety. If he pulls you over for failing to use a turn signal, he doesn't need to take your weapon. Like the case where one of our members was handcuffed and his weapon taken and emptied because he was legally OCing. His rights were violated by officers who broke the law. This should NEVER be acceptable.

    So long as people lay down like beaten dogs with their tails between their legs when any police officers decides to make up his own rules, these things will only get worse. They need to KNOW their limits and they need to hear it from the TOP down and from the BOTTOM up.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    ..."and they need to hear it from the TOP down and from the BOTTOM up."
    Bottom up theoretically should definatly send a stronger message, and be more painful... <jokes>

    Bat
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    sirpuma wrote:
    Shreveport Citizens Disarmed By Police For 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers

    At what point does an officer have a 'right' to disarm you? I would say if he has a reasonable fear of his safety. If he pulls you over for failing to use a turn signal, he doesn't need to take your weapon. Like the case where one of our members was handcuffed and his weapon taken and emptied because he was legally OCing. His rights were violated by officers who broke the law. This should NEVER be acceptable.

    So long as people lay down like beaten dogs with their tails between their legs when any police officers decides to make up his own rules, these things will only get worse. They need to KNOW their limits and they need to hear it from the TOP down and from the BOTTOM up.
    According to Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that during an official detainment, the officer has the right to frisk an individual for weapons once they have reasonable suspicion that person is armed. Upon discovery of the weapon, the officer may disarm and seize that weapon for the duration of the detainment in the interest of officer safety.

    Two things are required here - reasonable suspicion for the detainment itself, followed by reasonable suspicion of the presence of a weapon. SO:

    You are clocked at 15mph over the speed limit. You are detained based on reasonable suspicion (traffic stop). Officer asks if you have any weapons. You answer yes. Now he has reasonable suspicion of the presence of a weapon. He now can do two things if he wants to seize your weapon for the duration of the detainment. He can ask you to hand it over to him, or ask you where it is and if he may retrieve it. OR he can ask you to step out of the vehicle and frisk you. If the weapon is in your vehicle at this point, and you are not in your vehicle, he has no right to enter your vehicle without your permission. So - if the gun is on you, he can seize it from your person - or he can now take whatever means he feels necessary to keep you separated from the weapon in your car, which might be telling you to stay out of the vehicle, or might be asking you to come back to his car.

    Now, the case of a cop answering a MWAG 911 call is completely different. He sees you open carrying your weapon, in accordance with all applicable laws. Now he has NO reasonable suspicion for a detainment. At this point he also has no right to disarm you for officer safety, even if he wants to talk to you, because he has no reason for a "Terry Stop". All that was reported to 911 was there is a guy in Wal Mart with a gun, or eating dinner or whatever. No report of any crime has actually been made, there is no crime for him to "investigate".
    According to the Terry court the officer must reasonably believe the suspect to be armed and dangerous.

    Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    When discussing 4th Amendment court opinions it is very important to understand what you are going to do with the data, or perhaps more precisely what youcan do with the data.

    For example, during a foot encounter Terry and subsequent related court opinions lay outrequirements for legal justification for a detention. However, the detainee can never really know with full certainty whether the LEO has met all the requirements. Thus, there is very little the detainee can safely do to enforce his Fourth Amendment rights during the encounter itself. About all the detainee can really do safely is invoke his 4A rights by refusing consent to searches and seizures.

    The main point being, that most of the information found in these discussions cannot be used until after an illegal detention when a lawsuit or formal complaint is being developed. Or, to be able to know, to a limited degree, whether an LEO is violating your rights, say, for example, you want to call him on it verbally. "Officer, are you trying to intimidate me into waiving a right I just invoked?" (voluntariness of consent issue).

    Along the lines of knowing the legalities better I have been keeping links to 4A and 5A legal materials. For those interested, you can view them here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=65

    Separately, traffic stops may have different rules for weapon seizure in your jurisdiction. For example, in the US Court of Appeals that covers VA has ruled in effect that police can temporarily seize any weapon during a traffic stop, evenwithout reasonable suspicion of dangerousness. I can't recall the cite. It involved federal park police chasing multiple cars; the case arose from one that got caught. The upshot is that you may need to check your state court and federal court of appeals cases.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    However, the detainee can never really know with full certainty whether the LEO has met all the requirements. Thus, there is very little the detainee can safely do to enforce his Fourth Amendment rights during the encounter itself. About all the detainee can really do safely is invoke his 4A rights by refusing consent to searches and seizures.

    I respectfully disagree with that statement.

    "Am I being detained?"

    "No."
    Good day officer and walk away
    Now you have all of your 4th amendment rights immediately at your disposal, because the officer has admitted that you are not being detained.
    There I fixed it for you
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Orphan wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    However, the detainee can never really know with full certainty whether the LEO has met all the requirements. Thus, there is very little the detainee can safely do to enforce his Fourth Amendment rights during the encounter itself. About all the detainee can really do safely is invoke his 4A rights by refusing consent to searches and seizures.

    I respectfully disagree with that statement.

    "Am I being detained?"

    "No."
    Good day officer and walk away
    Now you have all of your 4th amendment rights immediately at your disposal, because the officer has admitted that you are not being detained.
    There I fixed it for you
    Very good clarification.

    Things like this and a few other exceptions that come to mind are why I wrote, "About all the detainee..."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    "I will not physically resist you, however, I explicitly do not consent to any questioning, searches, or seizures of my person or property. I do not wish to answer any further questions without consulting with my attorney."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •