If an Officer asks for your gun...

[AbNo]

imported post

jaredbelch wrote:

I like the idea of asking them to take the responsibility to remove the gun, after voicing my objections.

I also like the idea of requesting they remove the entire holster from my belt... Much safer that way.

+1, on both counts.

If he REALLY wants it, I'm afraid he will have to peaceably take it, with holster. I will not willingly assist someone in violating the Bill of Rights.

Particularly my rights.

codename_47 wrote:

If an officer asked for my gun and he had no authority to demand it, I'd refocus the situation with something like 'Surely you didn't pull me over to fondle my gun...'

:shock: :lol:

tattedupboy wrote:

All this leads me to another question. What if the holster has multiple levels of retention and the officer is unable to remove it, even when you explain how to. Do you do it yourself at the risk of having him point his service weapon at you? How do you handle that?

THAT would be a lovely complaint to file later.

If you live through it.

BTW, kudos for keeping the LEO bashing down in this thread. I was a little worried going in...

 

[Dustin]

imported post

ScottyT wrote:

Traffic Stop (infraction, not sure about legalities of disarming):

"We would both be a lot safer with all weapons snugly in their holsters, but if you insist on disarming me, I will not resist. Could you please remove the holster and gun to avoid any possibility of injury to either one of us?"


Walking Down the street (no reasonable, articulatable suspicion):

"I do not consent to your request to illegally search me and seize my property, but I will not resist your efforts to remove my weapon. I appreciate your concern for safety, but everyone would be a lot safer with all weapons secured in their holsters. Please remove the weapon in its holster to prevent any possibility of a negligent discharge."




Be polite, comply with demands -- regardless of how stupid or illegal they may be -- get information (Officer names, badge #s, etc...), follow up with appropriate complaints/lawsuits/etc...

WOW

This should be pinned up somewhere.

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

I don't know about Oregon but Kentucky law seems pretty clear on the matter. In purple dinosaur terms it says no one, not even a person working for the government may take your firearm unless you stole it or you are committing or have committed a felony. This is from the Kentucky Revised Statutes subsection on firearms.

237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired
during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or
emergency prohibited -- Application of section.
(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity
of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a
firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument.
(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition
component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS
Chapter 150.

As for what I'd do, I'm not making any promises and I want my lawyer.

 

[johnnyb]

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

I don't know about Oregon but Kentucky law seems pretty clear on the matter. In purple dinosaur terms it says no one, not even a person working for the government may take your firearm unless you stole it or you are committing or have committed a felony. This is from the Kentucky Revised Statutes subsection on firearms.

237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired
during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or
emergency prohibited -- Application of section.
(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity
of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a
firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument.
(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition
component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS
Chapter 150.

As for what I'd do, I'm not making any promises and I want my lawyer.

thats a great law i wonder if it would stop bs like katrina or the floods in iowa

 

[asforme]

imported post

johnnyb wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

I don't know about Oregon but Kentucky law seems pretty clear on the matter. In purple dinosaur terms it says no one, not even a person working for the government may take your firearm unless you stole it or you are committing or have committed a felony. This is from the Kentucky Revised Statutes subsection on firearms.

237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired
during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or
emergency prohibited -- Application of section.
(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity
of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a
firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument.
(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition
component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS
Chapter 150.

As for what I'd do, I'm not making any promises and I want my lawyer.

thats a great law i wonder if it would stop bs like katrina or the floods in iowa

That law scares the crap out of me. We shouldn't be having to create laws to tell government what they CAN'T do, it should be understood and verified by case law and criminal prosecution of offending LEOs that anything they're not specifically authorized to do is illegal!
:cuss::cuss::cuss:

 

[David.Car]

imported post

asforme wrote:

That law scares the crap out of me. We shouldn't be having to create laws to tell government what they CAN'T do, it should be understood and verified by case law and criminal prosecution of offending LEOs that anything they're not specifically authorized to do is illegal!
:cuss::cuss::cuss:

That is actually how it usually goes... Things are legal until a law makes them illegal... That is basically how the OC law in WA works. It is assumed legal and than has a law that describes at what point it becomes illegal.

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

This law was written in response to what happened in New Orleans after the hurricane. Precedent has already been set but I think they wanted to get it in writing so it isn't open to a government official's interpretation. I don't see a problem with telling them that they can't do this. Isn't that the basic idea behind the bill of rights? That part of the constitution tells the government some of the rights the people have.

 

[asforme]

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

Isn't that the basic idea behind the bill of rights? That part of the constitution tells the government some of the rights the people have.

I think we may have been a lot better off without the bill of rights. Consider the words of Alexander Hamilton:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Laws like this set a precedent that the powers that be can do anything that isn't restricted. That presumption of a right belongs to the people, not to the government. By legislating both sides of the issue we end up with the amazingly complicated legal system we have now where only the best lawyers understand their specific field of law and no one understands it entirely.

Edit: Spelling

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

I agree that the law should codify what you can't do, not what you can. That's the idea behind open carry in Kentucky. The law does not say you can do it, but there is no law against it so it is legal. I was just giving the Kentucky code to show someone else that there is a law that makes it illegal for a police officer to seize your firearm if it is not related to an offense.

I also agree that the government should only do what it is specifically authorized to do. However, at times the government oversteps its bounds. If I go to court I want as good a case as I can get. A case of me arguing that the government isn't authorized to take my firearm is harder to win than a case of me showing law passed by the state making it illegal to seize my firearm.

The constitution set the precedent, not me.

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

I think I agree with that statement, that (if I may paraphrase) says: Why have a bill of rights? It will only give the government an excuse to try and butt its nose into anything you DON'T tell it not to do?

However that idea may make sense among those that truly know the role of government (instituted with the CONSENT of the people to protect their inalienable rights), this would make no sense to those that think government is here to solve problems, coddle and take care of us.

I fear way too many people think this, and until we can somehow get the public educated about what our governments are SUPPOSED to be, and how screwed upthey have really become, they will never understand.

I fear it will take a revolution of some sort, but maybe we'll get lucky and reverse the trend.

...Orygunner...

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

I don't know about Oregon but Kentucky law seems pretty clear on the matter. In purple dinosaur terms it says no one, not even a person working for the government may take your firearm unless you stole it or you are committing or have committed a felony. This is from the Kentucky Revised Statutes subsection on firearms.

237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired
during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or
emergency prohibited -- Application of section.
(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity
of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a
firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument.
(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition
component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS
Chapter 150.

As for what I'd do, I'm not making any promises and I want my lawyer.

That is rather similar to the revised MO emergency powers act. One thing about the KY and MO acts that are similar and very important is that they include the right to keep, have, purchase, trade ammunition. Other statutes in other states passed in response to Katrina left out protection of ammunition which to me is extremely problematic.

As to this thread however, these statutes only apply to times of disaster or emergency so apparently at other times LE can feel free to draw down on citizens and steal their guns and ammunition. (Ok that was snarky and not fair to all LEO but apparently is a still too widely held opinion of certain LEOs).

 

[Citizen]

imported post

If an officer asks for your gun...

"I'm sorry Officer, I only transfer firearms throughan FFL."

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

I don't know about Oregon but Kentucky law seems pretty clear on the matter. In purple dinosaur terms it says no one, not even a person working for the government may take your firearm unless you stole it or you are committing or have committed a felony. This is from the Kentucky Revised Statutes subsection on firearms.

237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired
during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or
emergency prohibited -- Application of section.
(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity
of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a
firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument.
(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition
component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS
Chapter 150.

As for what I'd do, I'm not making any promises and I want my lawyer.

That is rather similar to the revised MO emergency powers act. One thing about the KY and MO acts that are similar and very important is that they include the right to keep, have, purchase, trade ammunition. Other statutes in other states passed in response to Katrina left out protection of ammunition which to me is extremely problematic.

As to this thread however, these statutes only apply to times of disaster or emergency so apparently at other times LE can feel free to draw down on citizens and steal their guns and ammunition. (Ok that was snarky and not fair to all LEO but apparently is a still too widely held opinion of certain LEOs).

I don't know, reading it in plain English makes me think that it applies all the time.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

I don't know about Oregon but Kentucky law seems pretty clear on the matter. In purple dinosaur terms it says no one, not even a person working for the government may take your firearm unless you stole it or you are committing or have committed a felony. This is from the Kentucky Revised Statutes subsection on firearms.

237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired
during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or
emergency prohibited -- Application of section.
(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity
of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a
firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon
or dangerous instrument.
(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period
of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time,
take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition
component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS
Chapter 150.

As for what I'd do, I'm not making any promises and I want my lawyer.

That is rather similar to the revised MO emergency powers act. One thing about the KY and MO acts that are similar and very important is that they include the right to keep, have, purchase, trade ammunition. Other statutes in other states passed in response to Katrina left out protection of ammunition which to me is extremely problematic.

As to this thread however, these statutes only apply to times of disaster or emergency so apparently at other times LE can feel free to draw down on citizens and steal their guns and ammunition. (Ok that was snarky and not fair to all LEO but apparently is a still too widely held opinion of certain LEOs).

I don't know, reading it in plain English makes me think that it applies all the time.

I read through it without enough focus and missed the clear language you so correctly point out. :banghead: I don't do that often and hate myself when I do. I stand corrected on my earlier comment. Thank you for pointing out the obvious I read right over without it clicking.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

If an officer asks for your gun...

"I'm sorry Officer, I only transfer firearms throughan FFL."

Smart-ass.

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

It is quite clear in 'Terry' that the officer must have reason to believe that you are a danger to him in order to be within his lawful authority to disarm you. If that were the case then he'd be better off to just do a felony takedown rather than politely asking.

If he tries the old 'officer safety' line you can reply with something to the extent of:

"Well...since you are so intent on safety I must decline your request. I abide by a strict set of personal safety rules at all times with regard to my firearms; one of which is that I do not allow another party to handle them unless and untill I personally clear, inspect and HAND it to them directly. Another rule is that I do not handle my sidearm in public untill and unless it needs to be deployed. Obviously you do not think me to be a current threat to your safety or you would not have 'asked' me to disarm. Absent that fear, you lack, under Terry v. Ohio, any lawful authority to compell that action."

It all depends on how deep you want to dig in your heels to stand your ground.


On another note:

166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.
(2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310. [1969 c.705 §3]

I see nothing here that requires you to 'surrender' the firearm for inspection...merely that they have the authority to 'examine..to determine..' loaded state.

A simple swing out of the cyinder (revolver) or a cycling of the slide in their presence should suffice to comply with this Statute. In either instance the offier would be able to verify visually (without ever having to even touch the firearm) it's current stated of load.

 

[LongRider]

imported post

I don't know for sure but I suspect it is legal. IMO it is reasonable. LEO get shot during traffic stops more than anywhere else unless it is during domestic calls. For them it is the deadliest part of their day, so unless I find out without a doubt it is illegal for them to secure my gun I am complying because I know that any time I think my life is in danger is NOT the time to argue with me. I suspect that is true for most humans

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

My boss told me about his encounter during a traffic stop in Fl.

LEO pulls him over with lights.

Boss has CWP and pulls it out of his wallet with his DL and has those and his proof of insurance ready when teh officer walks up to the door.

The officer sees the CWP and asks, "Are you carrying a loaded weapon at this time, sir?"

Boss, "Yes officer, it's right here (pointed to it's location). Would you like to hold it while we do this?"

Officer, "Well, it would probably make us both feel a bit more confortable."

Boss, "How do you want me to hand it to you?"

Officer, "Just unload it, sir, then it won't make any difference"

Boss pulls the semi-auto out of it's holster and drops the mag out, then pulls the slide back to show the officer the weapon is clear, then handed it to the officer by the barrel.

While he's doing that, the officer said, "I appreciate you telling me up front that you were armed."

Boss, "Didn't figure you wanted a surprise."

Officer, "No, they can be a bit unsettling. What I pulled you over for was you have a tailight out." Then he walked back to his cruiser and did his checks. After a minute or so he came back with his ticket book.

The officer says, "I'm going to give you a warning ticket for the tail light, it's the right rear, BTW. Here's your DL, CWP, registration and your firearm," (Boss said he made a complimentary comment about his Glock) "You can go ahead and reload it and reholster it. Once again, I thank you for the heads up at the start of our engagment, and you have a good evening, sir."

Officer walked back to his cruiser and that was that. My boss said the officer was very polite during the whole thing.

Now everyone can handle such a situation however way you want, But I think I'm gonna do what my boss did. I'm not going to argue with a LEO. If one does something wrong, I'll take it up with him in a court room.

Here's something else we all need to remember about LEO's. There's no way any of them are going to be able to keep tract of all the statutes that they have to enforce. Some times they are going to make an error.

And as has been stated before, Think about how many LEO's have had reutine traffic stops turn in to an unexpectedfirefight.

 

[asforme]

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Boss, "How do you want me to hand it to you?"

Why offer to needlessly create a dangerous situation by handling a loaded firearm? It's one thing to politely comply with an officer's request, but don't offer.

 

[Tucker6900]

imported post

Always Always Always insist that they are the ones who remove the weapon. Most officers are already on edge as it is, and the last thing you want to see is the barrel of a gun between your eyes because he thought you were drawing down on him.