LEO Conversation

imported post

Had a great conversation with a group of local sheriff deputies this weekend. They informed me that anticipated stress is eliminated on a traffic stop when they check the tag/license and see the driver has a ccdw permit. Just liked to hear that and pass it on.

imported post

That's good to know. Two out of three LEO pullovers ended in a warning when I handed over my CC permit. Then again, they both told me "I don't need that".

imported post

What county? The last clueless assed deputy to pull me over in Boyd told me that my cdwl didn't come up on my record, that it was my fault i didn't have it attached, and that he could arrest/ticket me if he wanted.

imported post

Boyd County. I understand that when the auto registration is checked, automobiles that are registered to me show that I am the carrier of a ccdw permit. That's not to say that the driver would hold a permit. That info would obviously not appear until the LEO checked the operators license.

imported post

Actually, the way this works in KY as near as I can tell from the inside (I'm a Dispatcher) is:
We run the Veh Plate number, the system takes the ssn from the veh registration, and runs that number for a KY Op lic, and gives us back all of the above. Part of the transaction for an operator lic checks for ccdw, so that is shown also if it exists.

Now, the problems with this are:

a) fairly frequently, the owner of the vehicle is not the driver
b) more often than you'd like to think, the ssn on veh registrations is either incorrect or missing. This is generally the fault of the clerks office in my experience.

imported post

There should be no SSN anywhere in the process!

imported post

As may be, it's there, both on the Op Lic, and the Veh Reg. Trust me. I run my own OL by SSN to check that the system is running, because while I memorized my SSN in High School, I've never been able to remember my OL number heh.

imported post

Undertaker wrote:

Had a great conversation with a group of local sheriff deputies this weekend. They informed me that anticipated stress is eliminated on a traffic stop when they check the tag/license and see the driver has a ccdw permit. Just liked to hear that and pass it on.

Click to expand...

As a police officer for over ten years, I feel the same way. When the CCDW permit data comes back, it tells me two things...

1. The owner (not nec. the driver) is a law abiding citizen.

2. The vehicle is probably not stolen, since a person with a CCDW is probably not going to get carjacked.

Hearing "Registered owner is CCDW licensed" puts me at ease (as much as can be, anyway) on a traffic stop.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

There should be no SSN anywhere in the process!

Click to expand...

Relax! The government doesn't want to brand you with a number, like cattle, so they can track everything you do in life using a unique ID from birth till death. It's not like information can be used for both good and evil purposes, and that you can't give the power to do good without also giving the power to do evil. What are you paranoid or something!? :lol:

It's not like the courts have ruled in various cases that full names, addresses, and phone numbers are sufficient for identification purposes.

It's not like the 1978 Privacy Act forbids the denial of state local gov't benefits for anyone who refuses to supply their unique federal & state human tracking identifier (aka SSN).

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm#10

The Privacy Act states that you cannot be denied a government benefit or service if you refuse to disclose your SSN unless the disclosure is required by federal law, or the disclosure is to an agency that has been using SSNs before January 1975, when the Privacy Act went into effect. There are other exceptions as well. Read the Code of Federal Regulations section here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/julqtr/28cfr16.53.htm

Click to expand...

All kidding aside, everyone knows the original intent of the SS Act was to enable a system for tracking human beings, and transferring tax revenue into the general fund, not individual accounts, so Congress can spend the money for frivolous programs.