• 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.

Relinquishing Control of a personal weapon

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
imported post

I don't understand the whole question of an officer "running the numbers" on your handgun. Are you carrying an illegal firearm? Questions like that make it this forum seen so anti LEO and very confrontational. Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse.

;
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
imported post

scot623 wrote:
I don't understand the whole question of an officer "running the numbers" on your handgun. Are you carrying an illegal firearm? Questions like that make it this forum seen so anti LEO and very confrontational. Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse.

;

Does he need to check every firearm? What if he just pulls random people over to make sure their driver's license is valid? Does that seem reasonable to you?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

scot623 wrote:
I don't understand the whole question of an officer "running the numbers" on your handgun. Are you carrying an illegal firearm? Questions like that make it this forum seen so anti LEO and very confrontational. Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse.

;
I agree that "Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse". However, there are enough LEO interactions listed on OCDO to demonstrate that LEO's don't always act within the bounds of the law or common sense. See TheSzerdi's latest encounter at the Fairlane Mall thread to see what I mean.

If I am stopped for a traffic violation, I can see an officer request or demand that I relinquish my firearm to him while the stop is ongoing as this is supported by law/legal interpretations. I do believe that this leads to an unsafe situation in which the officer may not be trained in handling my exact model and carry condition. What I cannot see is a check on the serial numbers of my firearm, unless that exact model has been reported stolen or been reported as used in a crime. To me, that is an Illegal Search.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
imported post

Now I understand some LEO's are dicks and make unreasonble requests...this is not the LEO encounter we are talking about in this thread. This discussion is about an officer requestiing you to relinquish your sidearm to insure yours and his saftey(essentialy make him feel safer) while during a legal stop. If it is not an unreasonable request, why not just do it. And as far as him then wanting to be sure you are carrying a legally registered weapon, again, why not just let him do it. If every request by a LEO is met with a "@#$% you, I don't haveto" type of response, all it does is foster their negative attitudes towards all CPL/OC'ers.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

scot623 wrote:
Now I understand some LEO's are dicks and make unreasonble requests...this is not the LEO encounter we are talking about in this thread. This discussion is about an officer requestiing you to relinquish your sidearm to insure yours and his saftey(essentialy make him feel safer) while during a legal stop. If it is not an unreasonable request, why not just do it. And as far as him then wanting to be sure you are carrying a legally registered weapon, again, why not just let him do it. If every request by a LEO is met with a "@#$% you, I don't haveto" type of response, all it does is foster their negative attitudes towards all CPL/OC'ers.
There are many reasons why it's a good idea to assert ones rights.

A great one is that it's a matter of social engineering. The police have been doing it for years with things like, "If you have nothing to hide, ...?", or, "If they give me an attitude (euphemism for "If they stand up for their rights.), then they are escalating things. (never mind that it's the officer stepping on the citizens rights)"

To surrender the sidearm is nothing more than bowing down, because the officer does not need any permission to take it. The only thing it accomplishes is a waive of ones rights. True, there are many officers who will go easier on a person if that person is submissive (and it IS submissive, not "polite", or "respectful") however, the sad part about that is that it indicates that officers will treat people with less regard if that person is not only aware of their rights (you would think and officer would appreciate a person knowing more about the law than most) but also takes measures to keep them intact. . Just because you think you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean a search won't turn up something that can cause you trouble. Just because you strive to be a law-abiding citizen, doesn't mean, "you'll be fine if you let the street cop come in and search your home for illegal drugs. ".


You come on here and talk like this, yet there is a recent thread where a person was recording a LEO encounter, and the officers not only warned each other about the potential for the suspect recording the encounter, but actually taking ILLEGAL steps to stop that from happening, even to the extent of ILLEGALLY seizing the recorder, and turning it off. This is not the only time something like this has happened, and not only is it illegal, but it indicates attempts to cover up illegal behavior by the officers involved. This in turn creates an very dangerous environment where people are even more distrusting of LEO's and therefore more resistant.

In the days of old, the general citizenry got along fine with LEO's and were on friendly terms. It's unfortunate that more and more (even people who used to be of the mindset of, "Cooperate with the officer because he's working for our benefit.") are starting to realize that doinig that in today's world is not such a good idea. People are starting to develop the mindset (through experience of their own and others) that, "Even though I've got nothing to hide, it's better to take a speeding ticket, than to let the officer search my car."

Officers need to understand that people generally want to trust them. Unfortunately, when given that trust, many officers use that trust to trick people into waiving their rights or, the officers just outright violate the people's rights while breaking the law in the process. What they should also understand is that, "While people are going to go along for a period, those people will eventually figure out that the officer is not "working for their benefit." but instead working to see if there is anything to arrest them for." When the officers outright violate peoples rights, and break the law, it erodes trust in LE in general (It may not be fair, but due to the position of authority and privilege that LEO entertain, it is unavoidable). It also breeds a lack of respect for the law itself since even those tasked with upholding it instead violate it, and it then becomes arbitrary.

It used to be that the general belief was that the only people who wouldn't consent to an unwarranted search were those that had something to hide. Now, even those people who don't have something to hide are reluctant to do so, because they have too much access to information.

There is a member on this board whose family members were brought up on trumped up charges, just because the local prosecutor realized that he had a clear case for a civil rights lawsuit. The prosecutor couldn't go after him, so he tried to go after his family. This same department admitted to erasing the on board video of the incident (thereby destroying evidence). This is corruption, and it happens enough that ordinary people who aren't of the type to be considered "rabble rouses", are starting to stand up for their rights.
 

emptypockets

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
44
Location
Midland, Michigan, USA
imported post

The fear that surrounds the Terry stop was and still is that LEO's are given too much power to determine the situation based on their perception of the situation (Justice Douglas expressed this thought in his dissent on Terry vs. Ohio). It is too easy for a LEO who has a bias against civilian gun toters to claim "safety concerns" in most situations and unnecessarily and unsafely take control of private weapons. I have nothing against officers. They are doing their job when they initiate an encounter and they, like many of us, just want to go home to their families at the end of the day. But they are still people who can and sometimes do take the Ego Train and think they're better than the common citizenry.

The most important thing is what many in this forum already know and encourage - know and understand your rights before the encounter.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

scot623 wrote:
Now I understand some LEO's are dicks and make unreasonble requests...this is not the LEO encounter we are talking about in this thread. This discussion is about an officer requestiing you to relinquish your sidearm to insure yours and his saftey(essentialy make him feel safer) while during a legal stop. If it is not an unreasonable request, why not just do it. And as far as him then wanting to be sure you are carrying a legally registered weapon, again, why not just let him do it. If every request by a LEO is met with a "@#$% you, I don't haveto" type of response, all it does is foster their negative attitudes towards all CPL/OC'ers.
I believe you are inferring things that have not been said, along with attitudes ("@#$% you, I don't haveto"), at least by myself. I agree that Terry vs Ohio has established that a LEO can request my firearm be surrendered during a STOP (not that I like it). What I object to is Illegal Search and/or Seizure, which IS running the serial numbers on my gun to see if it legal.

Would you object to contributing to a Police Officer Association Fundraiser during a stop? It is not unreasonable, but is it RIGHT to contribute when you are being stopped? Will you get a bigger ticket if you don't?

The objections/responses I have practiced for LEOS are:

1. Silence!

2. With all due respect, I do not consent to any searches.
 

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
imported post

I also keep my insurance and registration in a area of my vehicle that does not require my to reach anywhere near my weapon. But my wallet is usually in my pants pocket and will more than likely require me to reach near my sidearm.

If a officer insisted on taking my SA during a legal traffic stop, I would NOT hand it to him. I would inform him that the gun IS loaded with one in the chamber, and say "I do not consent to any illegal searches and seizures, nor do I resist". From there if he wanted to remove the SA from my holster that would be his/her call.
 
Top