Hypothetical: Husband and wife have CPLs and this happens?

[rvd4now]

Wearing a holster isnt proof that he was wearing a gun, only a holster. It can provide with enough RAS to conduct a search for a firearm.

And no, having a gun on the dashboard, or otherwise visible in a car isnt brandishing. There isnt yet a clear definition of brandishing in the courts, so you fall back on the dictionary. You're not displaying it trying to make a threat, so you're good. If someone is afraid of it, then thats thier problem, if you intentionally make someone afraid of it, then its your problem.

1. to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish: Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.

noun 2. a flourish or waving, as of a weapon.

Now, you dont have to even touch a gun to make it brandishing.

You could say to someone, "Hey, you're in my seat, move". And its not brandishing, but if you say the same words while asserting your strong site towards them, or as you sweep your covering garment aside to show your weapon, then you are brandishing.

but even if one lifts up there shirt to reveal there weapon, i think the ag stated that it would not be brandishing if the weapon is in the holstor



sry i was not clear... he has the gun in a holster on him.. can she say she is in possession. because no matter were the gun is in the car its considerd concealed..

 

[stainless1911]

If he is wearing the gun, he is in possession.

 

[rvd4now]

If he is wearing the gun, he is in possession.

so she cant clam it,.. humm..

 

[stainless1911]

No, it would never fly.

I know where you were coming from because of the inside of the car means concealed thing, but theres no way.

 

[rvd4now]

No, it would never fly.

I know where you were coming from because of the inside of the car means concealed thing, but theres no way.

yes, understandable...

 

[alphamale]

Not necessarily true. First rule is officer safety and someone exiting the vehicle is a potential danger therefore I would order them back in the car. Now saying all this if I was that officer his/her attempting to leave the vehicle places suspicion in my mind they have a reason to "flee" or exit said vehicle. Therefore I will now investigate that person as well.

If a vehicle is pulled over and an occupant is sleeping and the officer has no interest in talking to them and allows them to continue to sleep then said sleeping party is not technically being detained. Again it is more often an officer safety issue because someone walking around free of said vehicle is a potential threat while I am sitting in my coffin (patrol unit) running a 28 & 29 on the driver, and I have not secured that passenger to make sure they are not in fact armed.

Make sense?

yes you do.. because when a cop pull's a car over any and everyone in that car is being detained.

if you dont believe me, next time ur in the car with your wife and she gets pulled over try to get out and walk around.

they cop will tell you to stay in your car meaning your being detained.

 

[alphamale]

To avoid any misunderstanding I would suggest the wife take control of said console weapons as suggested in her purse. This would negate any over zealous actions on the part of the officer and prosecutor. It would give a far better argument in court to who had control of the firearms in question.

Hypothetical (Michigan law applies)

Parameters: Husband and wife BOTH have CPLs.
All handguns are registered to Husband.
Two handguns are loaded and are in the center consol of car.
Assume husband has a BAL of over 0.02

Scene: Husband and wife go out to dinner. Husband has 3 alcoholic drinks (Within an hours time) with dinner. Wife does not drink alcohol. After dinner they enter the car and drive home. The wife is driving. Both guns are still loaded and in the console.

The couple gets pulled over and the LEO approaches driver side and the wife states she has a CPL and has guns in the console.

The husband does not say a word throughout the stop.

Question: Is the husband lawful in his silence?

Discuss.

You can also add that the handguns were run (For whatever reason) and the owner was the husband.

 

[Venator]

Not necessarily true. First rule is officer safety and someone exiting the vehicle is a potential danger therefore I would order them back in the car. Now saying all this if I was that officer his/her attempting to leave the vehicle places suspicion in my mind they have a reason to "flee" or exit said vehicle. Therefore I will now investigate that person as well.

If a vehicle is pulled over and an occupant is sleeping and the officer has no interest in talking to them and allows them to continue to sleep then said sleeping party is not technically being detained. Again it is more often an officer safety issue because someone walking around free of said vehicle is a potential threat while I am sitting in my coffin (patrol unit) running a 28 & 29 on the driver, and I have not secured that passenger to make sure they are not in fact armed.

Make sense?

Well according to SCOTUS they are TECHNICALLY being detained. They have ruled that all passengers are detained in regard to a traffic stop.

 

[stainless1911]

Not necessarily true. First rule is officer safety and someone exiting the vehicle is a potential danger therefore I would order them back in the car. Now saying all this if I was that officer his/her attempting to leave the vehicle places suspicion in my mind they have a reason to "flee" or exit said vehicle. Therefore I will now investigate that person as well.

If a vehicle is pulled over and an occupant is sleeping and the officer has no interest in talking to them and allows them to continue to sleep then said sleeping party is not technically being detained. Again it is more often an officer safety issue because someone walking around free of said vehicle is a potential threat while I am sitting in my coffin (patrol unit) running a 28 & 29 on the driver, and I have not secured that passenger to make sure they are not in fact armed.

Make sense?

Not really. I would think that the first order of business for the police on a stop, would be to ave everyone immediately exit the vehicle. This could happen before the officer exited his. If someone ran, it would be on foot, lessening the frequency of high speed chases, (which I am profoundly against). It would allow the officer to remain on the offensive, in the security of the vehicle, especially if someone refused to leave the vehicle and took off, or started shooting. It would give the officer a faster head count, and a more clear view of not only hands, but the content of the vehicle.