Can A LEO take my weapon for "officer safety"

[Citizen]

Really getting a lot out of this discussion! One question that I have about the above situation as it's been on my mind, especially with the still on the books stop & ID law here in VA BH -- so they stop you and demand ID. 1. That's a seizure, if I'm understanding this correct. So they take your ID, look at it (or whatever, meaning record info, etc.) and then hand it back to you and then say that you are free to go. 2. What would you do then? Meaning that they supposedly had to have had RAS, but now by suddenly identifying you they don't (not saying this is the actual motive for what/why they did it, of course).

1. We're back to the same point discussed above. A stop is a seizure. The word stop derives from Terry Stop aka stop aka detention aka seizure under the 4A. (See Terry v Ohio for the court's recognition that a stop-and-frisk short of formal arrest is still a seizure for the purposes of the 4A). Now, lets say they act all cheerful and friendly right up to the point they demand an identity document. At the point of the demand, it becomes a seizure. As US vs Mendenhall discusses, no reasonable person would conclude he is free to disregard the cop's demand and walk away, in this case the demand being for an identity document.

2. Get out of dodge. No point in hanging around. No advantage, with the liability that he might change his mind and want more encounter. Although, I would be mighty curious what they saw in the computer records that made them change their mind. Has the state police added some notation to the DMV records? Has the local PD added some notation to the several databases police consult? Is there something like: "Use Caution. Gun Rights Advocate. Known to Record Police Officers. Intends to formal complaint or lawsuit for rights violations."??

But, I kinda doubt it will go that easily if it is detention. Police just have a genetic disposition to disrespect rights if not actively violate them. I imagine there be attempts to badger me into answering questions even after I invoke 5A. Probably a gun seizure and serial number check--its too easily justified by cops. So, I think the scenario posed is a little unrealistic.

 

[Mayhem]

Counting from the Norman Conquest, it took 725 years--seven and a quarter centuries--to win the rights in our Bill of Rights. Along the way, countless people suffered for lack of rights. Beheading, torture, imprisonment, dispossession of property, impoverishing fines, exile. Seven centuries of blood and treasure wresting rights from government one piece at a time.

Since the 1791 adoption of the Bill of Rights, literally over one million Americans have died defending those rights.

The cost of wresting rights away from government was staggering. Based on that alone, their value is immeasurable. Include what it has cost to maintain them, and what one loses when they are gone again, and they become literally priceless.

Someone here a while back accused me that if something of mine was stolen, I'd quick change my tune. I thanked him not to insult me--I'm not so selfish that I would weaken or deny everyone else's rights just to obtain a little satisfaction for myself.

For all readers, please check my signature line. For years I had no signature. I added one a couple weeks ago.

Keeping in mind that I would never just turn over my ID or property to the cops unless it was required.

I can appreciate what we have gone thru all these years to get what freedoms we have today, we have way more power now than back in the day as a people. And I can understand your view that you do not care about recovering your stolen property to safeguard all your rights but I am not you. I want my stuff back and want that thief jailed!!

I asked what the harm would be if the cops did run my serial number and all I have been told so far is that the cop "might" keep a log of it and it can come back to me. Since my gun dealer knows I own it, I do not see it as being that great of a secret. Come knock on my door and confiscate it!! I have many more that were private purchases and they do not know about.

So my biggest fear is that the gun could come back as stolen but I have a receipt from the store along with a background check.

The second fear is that the cops will log it to my name in a secret database. While I do not like the idea, it does not cause me any immediate harm. I can also sell it after the cops have touched it making the list entry useless.

The third fear is that the cops can log when and where I was when I OC. They can run my tags and match me to my MVA photo and log that too. Nothing I can do about that either.

So if we want to prevent cops from running the serial number and they have our gun for whatever reason, how can we?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

So if we want to prevent cops from running the serial number and they have our gun for whatever reason, how can we?

Argue that it is an unreasonable search unlikely to accomplish anything absent a mandatory database of lost and stolen firearms. That mandatory database is a favorite straw for the gun controllers.

My gun that I am carrying is at my side. I haven't looked in my safe since I returned from my last trip, then to retrieve my wife's jewelery and not to inventory the guns.

 

[Glockster]

1. We're back to the same point discussed above. A stop is a seizure. The word stop derives from Terry Stop aka stop aka detention aka seizure under the 4A. (See Terry v Ohio for the court's recognition that a stop-and-frisk short of formal arrest is still a seizure for the purposes of the 4A). Now, lets say they act all cheerful and friendly right up to the point they demand an identity document. At the point of the demand, it becomes a seizure. As US vs Mendenhall discusses, no reasonable person would conclude he is free to disregard the cop's demand and walk away, in this case the demand being for an identity document.

2. Get out of dodge. No point in hanging around. No advantage, with the liability that he might change his mind and want more encounter. Although, I would be mighty curious what they saw in the computer records that made them change their mind. Has the state police added some notation to the DMV records? Has the local PD added some notation to the several databases police consult? Is there something like: "Use Caution. Gun Rights Advocate. Known to Record Police Officers. Intends to formal complaint or lawsuit for rights violations."??

But, I kinda doubt it will go that easily if it is detention. Police just have a genetic disposition to disrespect rights if not actively violate them. I imagine there be attempts to badger me into answering questions even after I invoke 5A. Probably a gun seizure and serial number check--its too easily justified by cops. So, I think the scenario posed is a little unrealistic.

And that's exactly why the stop/ID law in VA BH bothers me as we have had people posting here in previous threads that they don't just ask for the name/address, but they have asked to have a driver's license produced. I myself went through that exact situation, not involving a weapon but still. So that to me then means that they have put it into a seizure status.

 

[peter nap]

And that's exactly why the stop/ID law in VA BH bothers me as we have had people posting here in previous threads that they don't just ask for the name/address, but they have asked to have a driver's license produced. I myself went through that exact situation, not involving a weapon but still. So that to me then means that they have put it into a seizure status.

The key word there is "ask". The proper response is "NO".

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I can appreciate what we have gone thru all these years to get what freedoms we have today, we have way more power now than back in the day as a people. And I can understand your view that you do not care about recovering your stolen property to safeguard all your rights but I am not you. I want my stuff back and want that thief jailed!!

Then you don't really appreciate what we have gone through. Plainly, you're willing to subject the rest of us to suspicionless searches on the off-chance that your own gun might be found.

Earlier, you thanked me for the court cases. I didn't say anything because I wasn't certain, but I'll remark now. Why thank me? Plainly, you're not going to use what little protection is left by those court cases. You want the police to intrude on all of us so your own property can be returned.

Basically what you have been doing is adhering to the premise, already invalidated, that its up to us to explain why rights already obtained shouldn't be surrendered again. Even though I wrote that a while back, you're still playing that game. Your questions about "what's the harm" are not really to find out; they're really intended to deflect and push rights-supporters into the defensive.

Rather than waste everybody's time, why don't you just tell us the real reason? Do you just believe cops are good and we should all play along? Do you just believe that anything that seems beneficial is within government's legitimate sphere?

So, what's your reason? No, not the pablum and fluff you've been feeding us. The real reason?

 

[Citizen]

And that's exactly why the stop/ID law in VA BH bothers me as we have had people posting here in previous threads that they don't just ask for the name/address, but they have asked to have a driver's license produced. I myself went through that exact situation, not involving a weapon but still. So that to me then means that they have put it into a seizure status.

Wait a minute. What are you talking about?

The cop demand for identity, for anything!--gun, shoes, sit down, whatever--puts it into the realm of a seizure of the person if that demand meets up with the criteria in, for example, US v Mendenhall. It doesn't matter whether the demand was for verbal identity or an identity document.

I have read excerpts where some courts have ruled that ID in cops possession can equate with a seizure, but that is based on the idea the person ain't gonna leave until he gets his ID back. That is a different angle. Maybe the cop requested the ID, and the citizen gave it over voluntarily, but then the cop converted the consensual encounter into a detention by holding the ID an unreasonable length of time. But, that is all different from what we've been talking about.

Just so I know I'm not confusing you or giving you bad info, tell me more about your concern in these last couple posts.

 

[Citizen]

Misread something. Deleted the post.

 

[Glockster]

The key word there is "ask". The proper response is "NO".

Let me rephrase that....in my case they asked the first two times, and then when I challenged that they said that it was legally required. Again, just not wanting to go into details as it has nothing to do with this discussion or OC, but in the end the officers were told by their captain that what they did was wrong. That however doesn't (or hasn't) stopped that from happening since in VA BH.

 

[peter nap]

Rather than waste everybody's time, why don't you just tell us the real reason? Do you just believe cops are good and we should all play along? Do you just believe that anything that seems beneficial is within government's legitimate sphere?

So, what's your reason? No, not the pablum and fluff you've been feeding us. The real reason?

+ 3 F***ING CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!:exclaim:

 

[Citizen]

Deleted some more to get back in step with DrDan01's line of discussion.

 

[peter nap]

Let me rephrase that....in my case they asked the first two times, and then when I challenged that they said that it was legally required. Again, just not wanting to go into details as it has nothing to do with this discussion or OC, but in the end the officers were told by their captain that what they did was wrong. That however doesn't (or hasn't) stopped that from happening since in VA BH.

And it will continue to happen until everyone stands up to them. All we can do is conduct ourselves the way we feel best. There is no magic phrase that will make bullies run or LEO's become professional.

 

[Glockster]

And it will continue to happen until everyone stands up to them. All we can do is conduct ourselves the way we feel best. There is no magic phrase that will make bullies run or LEO's become professional.

I agree with you completely Peter. Completely. My specific situation is not specifically relevant to this discussion, and there are some other things mixed in about fighting this ordinance that have already happened and that I have discussed with User and that's why I'm not planning on posting any additional details here -- but it is this exact issue and these exact concerns that brought me to this forum when I joined.

But my concern is that at least in VB, it is absolutely clear that many LEO believe that they have a legal right under that VB ordinance to require you to produce ID, and I have a reasonable belief that failure to produce it will result in an arrest. And VB absolutely believes their ordinance to be valid. So standing up means having to make a decision about going to jail -- and you will go if you are told you must produce the ID and you do not (and that's for any ole time they decide that they want to see it). So citizen's posts have been extremely interesting to read.

 

[peter nap]

I agree with you completely Peter. Completely. My specific situation is not specifically relevant to this discussion, and there are some other things mixed in about fighting this ordinance that have already happened and that I have discussed with User and that's why I'm not planning on posting any additional details here -- but it is this exact issue and these exact concerns that brought me to this forum when I joined.

But my concern is that at least in VB, it is absolutely clear that many LEO believe that they have a legal right under that VB ordinance to require you to produce ID, and I have a reasonable belief that failure to produce it will result in an arrest. And VB absolutely believes their ordinance to be valid. So standing up means having to make a decision about going to jail -- and you will go if you are told you must produce the ID and you do not (and that's for any ole time they decide that they want to see it). So citizen's posts have been extremely interesting to read.

That's something I can't really comment about. Everyone has their own threshold and because of various stages in life, they change. For instance, a father with a family to support isn't going or at least shouldn't risk losing his job over an arrest. Old Goats like myself and Skidmark can dig our heels in.

You're in the best hands available with Dan and the best advice I could give, is listen to him!
Dan is a lot like the Arc-Angle Michael. People that don't listen to his advice....usually regret it!

 

[Mayhem]

Then you don't really appreciate what we have gone through. Plainly, you're willing to subject the rest of us to suspicionless searches on the off-chance that your own gun might be found.

Earlier, you thanked me for the court cases. I didn't say anything because I wasn't certain, but I'll remark now. Why thank me? Plainly, you're not going to use what little protection is left by those court cases. You want the police to intrude on all of us so your own property can be returned.

Basically what you have been doing is adhering to the premise, already invalidated, that its up to us to explain why rights already obtained shouldn't be surrendered again. Even though I wrote that a while back, you're still playing that game. Your questions about "what's the harm" are not really to find out; they're really intended to deflect and push rights-supporters into the defensive.

Rather than waste everybody's time, why don't you just tell us the real reason? Do you just believe cops are good and we should all play along? Do you just believe that anything that seems beneficial is within government's legitimate sphere?

So, what's your reason? No, not the pablum and fluff you've been feeding us. The real reason?

It must be late in the evening for you since you sound so cranky.
You need to sleep on it and rethink your post with maybe a little less attitude.
I am asking for reasons against SN checks and you have gone off the deep end putting words in my mouth. That is just wrong.

 

[Citizen]

It must be late in the evening for you since you sound so cranky.
You need to sleep on it and rethink your post with maybe a little less attitude.
I am asking for reasons against SN checks and you have gone off the deep end putting words in my mouth. That is just wrong.

Ad hominem arguments against me don't answer the question you were asked.

Your reply doesn't hold water.

We've given you tons of explanations for our position, all of which you either ignored or sidestepped. We're done explaining ourselves. Now its your turn.

What is the real reason you support serial number checks?

 

[ncwabbit]

mayham, do you truly think you can go back to the ffl when the police discover a problem w/your firearm, e.g., stolen, used in a violent crime ? REALLY? FFL's have no express warranty to you if you purchase a used or new firearm from them that might have been taken under consignment nor do FFL's have an AFT requirement to check S/Ns.

Additionally, do you really believe the police are going to search you out to return your firearm if they happen to do a S/N check on a bad guy or the firearm is found and picked up at the scene of a violent crime...hold that dream!!

therefore, the rationale you are espousing here for allowing the police to take your firearm away to 'check it' has absolutely no benefit to you!!

wabbit

PS: now as asked, not being tired nor cranky but obviously extremely curious, care to share what is the real purpose of your question(s)?

pps: 'C' excellent sharing of knowledge...appreciate...

 

[Citizen]

Here's One Of Those Loopholes I Was Talking About

Courts have ruled that a dog sniff is not a search. There's your loophole. But what about when this so called non-search is coerced after you are supposedly free to go? And, the cop fakes the dog alert so he can do what he wanted to all along--search the car?

Check out the video. Filmmaker Terrence Huff is traffic stopped, dog-sniffed, and illegally searched. Oops. The cop picked on a media saavy guy. Basically, the cop used the dog-sniff loophole in order get around the Fourth Amendment and perform a search for which he had no probable cause. He didn't even have reasonable suspicion.

Then see the analysis at the next link by Radley Balko who follows systemic police abuse.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqq6KCOkdM

Analysis: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...kies-stopped-searched-illinois_n_1364087.html


I found out about it at one of my favorite blogs: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

I watched the video early this morning and am a bit disappointed by the lack of response here by the usual suspects. What a disturbing situation to imagine oneself enduring. Thanks. Radley Balko is some kind of a hero.

 

[peter nap]

I watched the video early this morning and am a bit disappointed by the lack of response here by the usual suspects. What a disturbing situation to imagine oneself enduring. Thanks. Radley Balko is some kind of a hero.

What's to comment on. Cops being Cops.