If a cop wants to disarm you...

I havn't had a LEO encounter yet, but I'm assuming it's not if but when. So, if they ask to disarm me, (or any OC'r) you know, for "officer safety", what do you do? All I've ever heard or seen is people letting LEO take the guns of the holster, inspect, run the permit yada yada yada, then put the gun back in. What if I don't want the LEO disarming me? Can I say "No sir, I would rather you not take my gun". Anyone have any thoughts on this? I always think of saying you can take my gun if I can take yours. But again, don't really know.

btw been CC'ing for 4 years, started open carrying about a year ago, in ND and MN.

In california cops have the legal right to check and make sure the gun is unloaded(since we can only open carry unloaded firearms). So you will need to make sure you are not breaking the law by denying the officer something he is legally able to do.

absoultely. I merely gave an example of a legal precedence in which an officer can disarm you. Not familiar with ND firearm laws, he may have to present a permit or license or gun. just trying to iterate one needs to be certain of what is/isn't required when out and about with a firearm.

NavyLT said:

Pretty bad when we have to strategize encounters with police officers in America.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. Police are pretty darned good at determining body language and profiling good guys from bad guys (regardless of what some people think about profiling, it is a fact of life and we all do it). It is amazing to me that we have some parts of the country where if officers saw an armed person out in public, their approach is very aggressive, up to and including physical force when the armed individual is doing nothing to warrant such behavior.

Hey, they strategize encounters too.

Coded-Dude said:

In california cops have the legal right to check and make sure the gun is unloaded(since we can only open carry unloaded firearms). So you will need to make sure you are not breaking the law by denying the officer something he is legally able to do.

Click to expand...

It is important for everyone in all parts of the country to understand that California's laws are unconstitutional, and by federal color of law statutes, arguably a felony to enforce. The tyrants who voted for these laws, and the tyrants who enforce them are whores of oppression. Considering that no law which defies the consitution is even technically a law, it is quite important for the overall intelligence of everyone to clarify that the police get away with illegally and abusively violating people's rights, and will continue to do so until properly taken to task in court. Police have NO legal right to do a damn thing without RAS as described in Terry v Ohio, unless that have probable cause or a warrant. Nor do they have a right to defy the Bill Of Rights. Don't sell yourself short and fall into the trap of thinking you're a servant to the state. The Government is YOUR servant, and you as their boss badly need to discipline them.

One other comment in regards to what NavyLT said, it is in some circumstances lawful to resist unlawful police actions. For the sake of a publicity nightmare and the great risk of death, it should never be done except when lives are desperately at stake. I would also add that if the cop is acting in good faith of a bad warrant, or can later articulate a believeable yet incorrect understanding of the law, it is legal for them to stop you, and illegal for you to resist. Although the best bet is never to attempt this, those who are interested should research it further, and for the sake of not causing controversy and locked threads should avoid discussing it here.

Bowers said:

I havn't had a LEO encounter yet, but I'm assuming it's not if but when. So, if they ask to disarm me, (or any OC'r) you know, for "officer safety", what do you do? All I've ever heard or seen is people letting LEO take the guns of the holster, inspect, run the permit yada yada yada, then put the gun back in. What if I don't want the LEO disarming me? Can I say "No sir, I would rather you not take my gun". Anyone have any thoughts on this? I always think of saying you can take my gun if I can take yours. But again, don't really know.

btw been CC'ing for 4 years, started open carrying about a year ago, in ND and MN.

Click to expand...

I've heard two different responses that I rather like....

First, upon REQUEST of the potential OPINION ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (OEO), "No thanks, My holstered firearm is just fine where it is without UNNEEDED manipulation and potential for a negligent discharge."

Second, same parameters at the first, "Officer, may I disarm you FOR MY SAFETY?"

If the stop is lawful, the officer may disarm you for his safety. You may not disarm him. I don't recommend snarky responses when he seeks to disarm you. I do recommend not consenting, but not resisting, with those motivations made crystal clear.

But, then, I try to stay out of spitting contests with other, potentially hostile, armed folks. You can fix anything but dead.

eye95 said:

If the stop is lawful, the officer may disarm you for his safety. You may not disarm him. I don't recommend snarky responses when he seeks to disarm you. I do recommend not consenting, but not resisting, with those motivations made crystal clear.

But, then, I try to stay out of spitting contests with other, potentially hostile, armed folks. You can fix anything but dead.

Click to expand...

With regard to your first sentence.... that MAY vary upon jurisdiction. Even TERRY I believe specifies "ARMED AND DANGEROUS" not "armed OR dangerous".

So, if I verbally resisted, could he slap me with some kind of obstruction charge?

Bowers said:

So, if I verbally resisted, could he slap me with some kind of obstruction charge?

Click to expand...

I don't know what verbal resistance is. Generally, if a LEO (actually, when a LEO) tries to violate my rights, I inform him of my lack of consent, but I do not resist. That is not verbal resistance. In fact, some here have accused me of being too compliant.

If by "verbally resisting" you mean saying no, I suspect that the next step from the LEO will be more forceful and that the amount of force and the number of LEOs will increase until your saying no has no more impact on the situation. If you physically resist the lowest level of force being used by the officer to effect his orders, and if the stop and orders are lawful, then yes, you will face some charges.

Bottom line, clearly and verbally express your lack of consent, but do not physically resist.

Unloaded is disarmed!

Coded-Dude said:

absoultely. I merely gave an example of a legal precedence in which an officer can disarm you..

Click to expand...

Unloaded is disarmed.

Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits (lets Dude off the hook) and guns and the truth.

I guess I just meant what you already said, which is making it clear I don't want him to take my gun, but only verbally. Obviously I'm not going to try and physically stop a LEO from taking my gun, because I don't want to be tazed or shot anytime soon.

so the long and short of it is that all I can do is say "I don't consent to a search/having my gun taken" or some version of that, but if he still wants it, really nothing I can do.

Bowers said:

I guess I just meant what you already said, which is making it clear I don't want him to take my gun, but only verbally. Obviously I'm not going to try and physically stop a LEO from taking my gun, because I don't want to be tazed or shot anytime soon.

so the long and short of it is that all I can do is say "I don't consent to a search/having my gun taken" or some version of that, but if he still wants it, really nothing I can do.

Click to expand...

That's good to hear. I read some blustering here from time to time about how some will deal with a LEO, trying to "win" the encounter because the law is on their side. I worry that they will soon turn the situation into one in which the law is on the side of the LEO.

I refused to consent when I was stopped, but offered no resistance. The LEO (LEOs, actually, three of them, including a captain) probably walked away from the situation with their chests puffed out, thinking they had "won" the confrontation with an open carrier. However, the result of my encounter was my receiving two apologies and the policy of the city changing. I'd say that OC "won."

If I had tried to "win" the encounter, there would have been a lot of "losing" going on for all concerned.

eye95 said:

That's good to hear. I read some blustering here from time to time about how some will deal with a LEO, trying to "win" the encounter because the law is on their side. I worry that they will soon turn the situation into one in which the law is on the side of the LEO.

I refused to consent when I was stopped, but offered no resistance. The LEO (LEOs, actually, three of them, including a captain) probably walked away from the situation with their chests puffed out, thinking they had "won" the confrontation with an open carrier. However, the result of my encounter was my receiving two apologies and the policy of the city changing. I'd say that OC "won."

If I had tried to "win" the encounter, there would have been a lot of "losing" going on for all concerned.

Click to expand...

Its not about winning it's about being left alone and standing up for your rights.

I won't settle for an apology, do they settle for an apology when you get a ticket for speeding? I will only settle when they change their behavior.

sudden valley gunner said:

Its not about winning it's about being left alone and standing up for your rights.

I won't settle for an apology, do they settle for an apology when you get a ticket for speeding? I will only settle when they change their behavior.

Click to expand...

Guess what? They changed their behavior.

Um, that was my point.

eye95 said:

Guess what? They changed their behavior.

Um, that was my point.

Click to expand...

But why did they have to walk away with chests puffed out first? :roll eyes:

Me I'd rather not let them "win" as you say it when they are wrong.
LEO across this country need to be retrained to treat the public they serve with respect, to make damn sure someone is breaking a law before they harass them.
Why should we expect anything less?

sudden valley gunner said:

But why did they have to walk away with chests puffed out first? :roll eyes:

Me I'd rather not let them "win" as you say it when they are wrong.
LEO across this country need to be retrained to treat the public they serve with respect, to make damn sure someone is breaking a law before they harass them.
Why should we expect anything less?

Click to expand...

You can handle the situation however you wish. I would just strongly advise others against turning the situation into a spitting contest. Be polite, protect your rights, allow the situation to play out. You can fix things later, to the benefit of all OCers, if you don't make yourself and your actions the issue.

Moving on.

eye95 said:

You can handle the situation however you wish. I would just strongly advise others against turning the situation into a spitting contest. Be polite, protect your rights, allow the situation to play out. You can fix things later, to the benefit of all OCers, if you don't make yourself and your actions the issue.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

I am polite and I do not get angry. But I am firm against intrusions by our public servants. No matter how obnoxious and provocative they they are.

Let him. Cops can do whatever they want. Judges don't give a crap about about your rights and that is shown in lenient sentences given cops. If you want to refuse to be disarmed that is your choice, just understand that cops won't think twice about shooting you. Rod Tuason said he would prone someone out and shoot if they twitched. The poor man at Costco a few months ago. The guy in CA at the BART station. The guy in NY with the wallet. The rap guy who was shot after his wedding. I don't agree, but that is how cops and the system operates.