Do you have to tell cop if you have a gun?

imported post

"Do I have to tell a cop if I have a gun?"
I just thought it was interesting that this was a legit question in Tenn. in 2010. Over 2,500 views with several comments.

Check it out---http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum50/31981.html


Thats Joe Cool

imported post

I don't see why this is "interesting"... some states do require such.

Even the ever-more-free state of Arizona will soon require you to declare the presence of a firearm if asked by a LEO. (It's part of their new "Constitutional Carry" law going into effect soon.)

imported post

Hey All,

I thinkit is common courtesy to alert a cop that you have a concealed handgun during a traffic stop.

Obviously, in the PRK, we can't LCC; therefore, there is no need to declare a weapon that is legally locked in a container--it should not create fear in a LEO--so don't worry about it.

If you UOC in your car, make sure the gun is in plain view with your hands away from it.

The AZ requirement is a good one. You are doing nothing illegal. Tell LEO you are LCC and then relax.

If I were a LEO, I would be very nervous during a stop while approaching vehicles from the rear. Give'em a break!

The cop that posted early on the thread was right. What's the big deal? It is common courtesy.

markm

imported post

I don't think telling a cop I have a gun on me if I have a ccw is the right move. If I was going to get a fix it ticket and be on my way I would not tell them anything. Get my ticket and be on my way. What good is the fact that the cop knows. He is not safer. Feeling safe is just that a feeling. I hate feelings. They can misguide the best of us. A criminal will not tell a cop they have a gun. I will not shoot a cop. At what point is a cop really safe? Action, facts, training, not feelings. The cop will be safer if I have a gun whether he FEELS it or not. Two guns are better then one. Fact.

imported post

What if you just don't answer any questions to police? Whats the big deal? Who cares- if your not doing anything wrong, the less people know about you the safer you are, as far as I can see. hehe...

imported post

MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:

Hey All,

I thinkit is common courtesy to alert a cop that you have a concealed handgun during a traffic stop.

Obviously, in the PRK, we can't LCC; therefore, there is no need to declare a weapon that is legally locked in a container--it should not create fear in a LEO--so don't worry about it.

Neither should a law-abiding citizen with a CC weapon create fear in a LEO. The simple fact is that anybody intent on doing harm to the cop is not going to care about a misdemeanor "failure to declare" when they're facing charges for AWD/murder of a cop.

If you UOC in your car, make sure the gun is in plain view with your hands away from it.

The AZ requirement is a good one. You are doing nothing illegal. Tell LEO you are LCC and then relax.

The AZ requirement is a terrible one. You are doing nothing illegal. Why should the state force you to waive your 5A right?

If I were a LEO, I would be very nervous during a stop while approaching vehicles from the rear. Give'em a break!

Sure, I'd be nervous too. However, if I were a cop I'd be smart enough to realize that this type of "requirement to declare" law does nothing for my safety. The good guys are the only ones who will comply with the law.

The cop that posted early on the thread was right. What's the big deal? It is common courtesy.

markm

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where anybody got the idea this is "common courtesy." Common where? Courteous how? It doesn't make the cop any safer (and even if it did that's not enough reason to ignore our Constitutionally protected rights).

In fact... It's common courtesy for cops to respect the rights of their fellow human beings. How about they stop abusing an ill-conceived law that obviously violates the 5th Amendment.

Mark, if you're really a BofR advocate, you should be able to see through this kind of bullshit. The BofR is our only protection against government abuse of power. Hasn't that been eroded enough without losing more to BS declarations of "officer safety" and "courteousness"?

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:

Hey All,

I thinkit is common courtesy to alert a cop that you have a concealed handgun during a traffic stop.

Obviously, in the PRK, we can't LCC; therefore, there is no need to declare a weapon that is legally locked in a container--it should not create fear in a LEO--so don't worry about it.

Neither should a law-abiding citizen with a CC weapon create fear in a LEO. The simple fact is that anybody intent on doing harm to the cop is not going to care about a misdemeanor "failure to declare" when they're facing charges for AWD/murder of a cop.

If you UOC in your car, make sure the gun is in plain view with your hands away from it.

The AZ requirement is a good one. You are doing nothing illegal. Tell LEO you are LCC and then relax.

The AZ requirement is a terrible one. You are doing nothing illegal. Why should the state force you to waive your 5A right?

If I were a LEO, I would be very nervous during a stop while approaching vehicles from the rear. Give'em a break!

Sure, I'd be nervous too. However, if I were a cop I'd be smart enough to realize that this type of "requirement to declare" law does nothing for my safety. The good guys are the only ones who will comply with the law.

The cop that posted early on the thread was right. What's the big deal? It is common courtesy.

markm

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where anybody got the idea this is "common courtesy." Common where? Courteous how? It doesn't make the cop any safer (and even if it did that's not enough reason to ignore our Constitutionally protected rights).

In fact... It's common courtesy for cops to respect the rights of their fellow human beings. How about they stop abusing an ill-conceived law that obviously violates the 5th Amendment.

Mark, if you're really a BofR advocate, you should be able to see through this kind of bull@#$%. The BofR is our only protection against government abuse of power. Hasn't that been eroded enough without losing more to BS declarations of "officer safety" and "courteousness"?

Click to expand...

+1 CA_Lib. The ills of political correctness has deluded the People into believing they should surrender their 5A right to remain silent to the State simply for exercising their natural right of self defense. That's how insidious and dangerouspolitical correctness is.

Q: "If you have nothing to hide then why not tell us?"

A: Because I have rights to protect for myself and for posterity you tyrant!

imported post

Well since Arizona was mentioned and I live in Arizona I have no issue with the new requirement, CCW holders were already required to notify during a LE encounter.

During one of my few LE encounters I notified the officer that I was carrying and he asked where it was, I told him and he said "well don't reach for it" told him that I had no plans too. He got my DL and registration proof of insurance, did not ask to see my CCW. Went back to his car came back a few minutes later handed back my documents, asked what I was carrying (A Sig 220), what kind of holster I normally used, he said that he he had been thinking about getting a Sig but they were expensive and just generally talked about guns for like 15 minutes.

Never got a ticket and told him if he ever wanted to shoot Sig's let me know and about 2 weeks later went with him to a local range and let him shoot my Sig's and then told him about the matches at the local range, IDPA, Steel, 3 Gun. Shot a few matches with him after that. And he did end up with 3 Sig's at last count

The impression I get is that Arizona police are generally not as uptight as other areas when they encounter people that are armed. Not to say they are lazy or are unsafe but running into a citizen carrying is not unusual here.

imported post

Phoenix David wrote:

Well since Arizona was mentioned and I live in Arizona I have no issue with the new requirement, CCW holders were already required to notify during a LE encounter.

During one of my few LE encounters I notified the officer that I was carrying and he asked where it was, I told him and he said "well don't reach for it"  told him that I had no plans too.  He got my DL and registration proof of insurance, did not ask to see my CCW.  Went back to his car came back a few minutes later handed back my documents, asked what I was carrying (A Sig 220), what kind of holster I normally used, he said that he he had been thinking about getting a Sig but they were expensive and just generally talked about guns for like  15 minutes.

Never got a ticket and told him if he ever wanted to shoot Sig's let me know and about 2 weeks later went with him to a local range and let him shoot my Sig's and then told him about the matches at the local range, IDPA, Steel, 3 Gun.  Shot a few matches with him after that. And he did end up with 3 Sig's at last count

The impression I get is that Arizona police are generally not as uptight as other areas when they encounter people that are armed.  Not to say they are lazy or are unsafe but running into a citizen carrying is not unusual here.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good encounter. sounds like a good cop. My point is only that a law saying I must tell a cop is crap. the cop is not safer because only the law abiding will comply and only the criminals who would not obey the law are a threat. Yes positive encounters are possible but it also opens me up to a bunch of crap that I should not have to deal with.

Why don't we look at laws and determine if they actually work? if they don't get rid of them.

imported post

I think you trying to interject reason and common sense into the law which I am all for but politicians have a difficult time grasping them. :banghead:

If they would just keep the damn criminals locked up we wouldn't need so many laws.

imported post

Here's a novel idea...stop punishing the law abiding for the crimes committed by the criminals.

If a criminal violates a law, why do we need more laws to protect against the already existing law that was broken to begin with? Like 2 laws are going to make a difference when the one law did not. Talk about the definition of idiocy!

imported post

Phoenix David wrote:

Well since Arizona was mentioned and I live in Arizona I have no issue with the new requirement, CCW holders were already required to notify during a LE encounter.

During one of my few LE encounters I notified the officer that I was carrying and he asked where it was, I told him and he said "well don't reach for it" told him that I had no plans too. He got my DL and registration proof of insurance, did not ask to see my CCW. Went back to his car came back a few minutes later handed back my documents, asked what I was carrying (A Sig 220), what kind of holster I normally used, he said that he he had been thinking about getting a Sig but they were expensive and just generally talked about guns for like 15 minutes.

Never got a ticket and told him if he ever wanted to shoot Sig's let me know and about 2 weeks later went with him to a local range and let him shoot my Sig's and then told him about the matches at the local range, IDPA, Steel, 3 Gun. Shot a few matches with him after that. And he did end up with 3 Sig's at last count

The impression I get is that Arizona police are generally not as uptight as other areas when they encounter people that are armed. Not to say they are lazy or are unsafe but running into a citizen carrying is not unusual here.

Click to expand...

It's great that you had such a positive experience.

However, it does nothing to diminish my concern that it will be abused by the bad apples among the cops.

The bottom line is that it violates our Constitution. As that is the first line of defense for our rights, I think we should all be concerned and work to fix it.

imported post

I asked the question, and knew the answer before I asked. The problem is in Tennessee cops do not know the law.

Here is a recording of my Sheriff 6-14-2010. He has worked for the TBI and was an ADA for years. He was the republican candidate for sheriff. He seems to think that notification is necesary.

audio 5:20-5:42

The sheriff is ignorant of the law.

imported post

Phoenix David wrote:

During one of my few LE encounters I notified the officer that I was carrying and he asked where it was,

Click to expand...

There is the problem. It isn't just notifying you have a gun, it is just the beginning
of more intrusive questions that will follow.

It is a back door way of starting a fishing expedition.
And that is not common courtesy.

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

Phoenix David wrote:

During one of my few LE encounters I notified the officer that I was carrying and he asked where it was,

Click to expand...

There is the problem. It isn't just notifying you have a gun, it is just the beginning
of more intrusive questions that will follow.

It is a back door way of starting a fishing expedition.
And that is not common courtesy.

Click to expand...

there is nothing in the notification law beyond the "notification"!
youre not required to tell them where it is, what kind it is, why you carry a gun, ETC....
cops can go on fishing trips anytime they want,
use your 4th A, and 5th A rights and concentrate on the business at hand!

imported post

And how do you object to 'officer safety' when he want it?
If you don't tell him , where what and how, and he says give it here.

So the notifying is just the start, that cannot end well.

If a Nevada driver license and CCW holder is pulled over and they run your driver’s license the officer will be advised you have a CCW. In Nevada, having a NV CCW is tied into the DMV data. In Utah you are require to inform the officer if carrying concealed. I have been told by a few who have been stopped by a California Highway Patrol that some CHPs, when stopping a Nevada vehicle who happens to have a NV CCW some will automatically assume you are carrying a gun somewhere. Pushing questions and looking for anything, which may allow a so-called probable cause to search.

28kfps said:

If a Nevada driver license and CCW holder is pulled over and they run your driver’s license the officer will be advised you have a CCW. In Nevada, having a NV CCW is tied into the DMV data. In Utah you are require to inform the officer if carrying concealed. I have been told by a few who have been stopped by a California Highway Patrol that some CHPs, when stopping a Nevada vehicle who happens to have a NV CCW some will automatically assume you are carrying a gun somewhere. Pushing questions and looking for anything, which may allow a so-called probable cause to search.

Click to expand...

This topic has been discussed on many sites, including this one. Here is another site where is has been beat to death.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=317912

Thanks for the link however many I have talked to never knew the NV CCW was linked to NV DMVs database. Therefore getting stopped and being a citizen of good standing the officers thought of the person having a gun may be low on his radar unless he sees a CCW when he runs the NV drivers licenses. Now high on the officer’s radar NV CCWs holders are going want to have their ducks in a row if they are stopped and have a gun with them. In addition knowing if they are required by law to inform the officer. May be better posted on the Nevada forum so you are not wasting your time reading what you believe is old news.

CA_Libertarian said:

...it does nothing to diminish my concern that it will be abused by the bad apples among the cops.

Click to expand...

We already have quite a few reports of cops seizing guns during traffic stops. Seems to be based mainly on a desired fishing expedition to run serial numbers, and complete lack of judgement (or refusal to use judgement), as aided and abetted by PA vs Mimms, a US Supreme Court decision that says in so many words that a gun is in and of itself indicative of dangerousness during a traffic stop.

Terry v Ohio said in its holding that a cop needed 1) reasonable suspicion the detainee was armed, 2) reasonable suspicion that the detainee was dangerous, and 3) nothing in the initial stages of the encounter served to dispel the cop's reasonable concern for his and other's safety (meaning the cop had to use some judgement about what was occurring in the opening moments of the encounter). PA vs Mimms later basically said that gun = danger = authorization for seizure for officer safety, justified (rationalized) because of a so-called "inordinate danger to police during traffic stops".

So, basically some cops seem to just automatically seize guns during traffic stops because they want to run the serial number, and they can get away with it because PA vs Mimms says they can do it. Nothing illustrates the ridiculousness of Mimms better than the simple fact that plenty of cops do not automatically seize guns during traffic stops. If armed motorists were so universally dangerous, many more cops would automatically seize guns.

Terry v Ohio: (see the last paragraph) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

PA vs Mimms: (scroll down to "Page 434 US 110)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html