• 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.

OC in my car...

MPlannette

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
75
Location
, ,
Believe it or not, Matt Supnick, the CCW instructor fron New Frontier Armory, and the CCW instructor I took my class with, teaches his classes that OCing in a vehicle constitutes concealed carry. This is, in his words, because the door obscures you firearm from a potential officer.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Believe it or not, Matt Supnick, the CCW instructor fron New Frontier Armory, and the CCW instructor I took my class with, teaches his classes that OCing in a vehicle constitutes concealed carry. This is, in his words, because the door obscures you firearm from a potential officer.

Sounds like Matt needs some remedial training himself.

TBG
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
So does my body if my strong side is away from you.

Sounds like some of the other mis-information that CCW instructors put out like:

1."If you get a CCW, you can no longer Open Carry." (Apparently I lose my basic right when I get a permit)
2. "Pulling your firearm out of the holster is considered brandishing." (I guess showing my weapon to a friend, or putting it in my safe is out of the question)
3. "If you open carry and a bad guy sees you, you become the main/first target." (what happens if everybody in the place is OCing?)
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Believe it or not, Matt Supnick, the CCW instructor fron New Frontier Armory, and the CCW instructor I took my class with, teaches his classes that OCing in a vehicle constitutes concealed carry. This is, in his words, because the door obscures you firearm from a potential officer.

I don't know Matt, nor what you were told. But in his defense, MAYBE this is what he MEANT to say:

Firearms may be concealed in a vehicle or openly visible in a vehicle. No permit is required for either. Permits are only required if concealed on your person [by articles worn by the person.]

Good cops know that a firearm concealed in the vehicle is potentially more dangerous than one concealed on a person. I had a rookie Trooper make me get out so he could disarm me. After his repeated attempts, and fearing he was going to accidentally shoot me with my own cocked-and-locked .45, I asked him to just remove the entire holster. But the point is that if I was a bad guy, I'd have left the gun on my hip and used the one in the console.
 

yotetrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
74
Location
Northern Nevada
I had a rookie Trooper make me get out so he could disarm me.

That brings me to another question.
If I'm not being searched or do not consent to being searched can an officer legal remove or take my firearm?
I always thought the answer to this was, no.
 
Last edited:

renoglock22

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
168
Location
Greensboro, NC
I had this encounter the other day as I posted in the Where did you carry today thread. The officer talking to me was asking me questions as his partner went around and shined his light in the passenger side and informed the other officer that I was armed. He then backed away and pulled his gun and asked his partner if it was concealed. What a dumb question I think. Anyway, I do know that in my vehicle the seatbelt covers a good majority of my gun but it is still visible and discernible as a firearm. As much of a douche as this officer was I am surprised I didn't get pulled out of the car and cuffed. That is my experience with the whole seatbelt covering my gun thing.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Google Terry vs. Ohio.

During an investigatory stop, the officer may temporarily disarm you for the aforementioned "officer safety"

But, not just because there is a firearm. Terry v Ohio outlines it clearly, and the bare fact of 'I see a firearm' does not meet the metric of Terry.


As an example, some mom driving herself and her kids to Safeway to buy groceries gets stopped pulling into the parking lot for some minor traffic infraction. There is no element of "RAS" or "armed AND dangerous" available.

Or, two men are observed sitting in a car in a parking lot of a closed business, and are seen to watch the owner close and lock the door. Subsequently, they get out and approach a side window of the business. If the observing LE sees a holstered firearm, the elements of "RAS" and "armed AND dangerous" are reasonably met.
 
Last edited:

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
But, not just because there is a firearm. Terry v Ohio outlines it clearly, and the bare fact of 'I see a firearm' does not meet the metric of Terry.

But a stop for other reasons does. ie, traffic or PC or RAS for another crime.

However you don't need to speak or even consent to a search other than that allowed by Terry. (pat down for weapons)
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
But a stop for other reasons does. ie, traffic or PC or RAS for another crime.

However you don't need to speak or even consent to a search other than that allowed by Terry. (pat down for weapons)

No. It doesn't. While the elements required do increase with the severity of infraction in the mind of LE, they are not automatic. And, in the case of a bare traffic stop, they aren't there.

It doesn't take one element, it takes ALL elements mentioned.

Here is directly from the "Held" of the case:
Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html

Terry v Ohio began with an investigatory stop, leading the observing LEO to believe a burglary was imminent. He believed that the men were likely about to commit a crime, meeting the "RAS" portion. Also, given the nature of the likely crime, the "armed and dangerous" was falrly met, though arguable.
 
Last edited:

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
No. It doesn't. While the elements required do increase with the severity of infraction in the mind of LE, they are not automatic. And, in the case of a bare traffic stop, they aren't there.

It doesn't take one element, it takes ALL elements mentioned.
A traffic stop is an investigatory stop so if PC or RAS of another violation is present, the officer may disarm you, yes?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
A traffic stop is an investigatory stop so if PC or RAS of another violation is present, the officer may disarm you, yes?

That is quite an 'open' statement. Can you clarify as to what you feel would indicate such during a traffic stop?


To flesh out the example, LE pulls over a citizen for a 'rolling stop' in a city in Nevada, other than NLV. Lets stipulate it is in Reno, where there is no regulation regarding the open carry of firearms at all. What "PC or RAS" are you expecting would be present to trigger the 'RAS' and 'armed and dangerous' metrics of Terry v Ohio?


In other words, we can 'what if' it to death, but an LE does not have RAS, or 'armed and dangerous' from simply observing a sidearm upon the waist of a person during a stop for a traffic violation.
 
Last edited:

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
How about "subject was acting in a strange fashion" or "I smelled marijuana"

Not hard to imagine as LE does it all the time. The officer doesn't need to see the weapon, just RAS of a potential crime about to be committed or in progress. The point of the Terry stop is to search for weapons during the investigatory stop yes?
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
How about "subject was acting in a strange fashion" or "I smelled marijuana"

Not hard to imagine as LE does it all the time. The officer doesn't need to see the weapon, just RAS of a potential crime about to be committed or in progress. The point of the Terry stop is to search for weapons during the investigatory stop yes?

NO. The point of a Terry stop is that it IS an investigatory stop. The subsequent ruling was as to when a search for weapons was reasonable by LE.

The bare fact that an investigatory stop is in progress does not fulfill the elements of Terry.
 
Top