Your opinion on OC/police scenario

[OC for ME]

No disrespect but I'm not following what you're trying to say here...

Are you saying if the OC'er initiated the contact with me then what's the danger? If that's the case then I'll say none.

I guess I'll take this opportunity to say that while most posters here probably won't believe me, I'm an advocate of the second amendment. I love seeing responsible citizens carrying guns. My wife carries a gun. My kids (8 year old twin girls and 4 year old boy) have all already shot guns. I've been to the protests at the capital against new gun legislation. I believe more guns equals less crime. I believe the second amd was meant for people not a state militia. I'm a field training officer, and I train all my rookies that OC is not RAS, and I talk to as many veteran officers about it as I can. I spoke with our legal update instructor and convinced him to save time to address OC and RAS during our department wide annual training. I believe in pretty much all the principles that OCers do.

However, due to my job i'm placed in a different position than OCers where I face bad guys with a gun an a semi-regular basis. Where I work it's like a war zone. So when I come across a gun on a traffic stop, I'm not sure if this is joe citizen responsible OCer, or a convicted felon carrying a stolen gun with the serial number filed off. The problem is that ya'll don't wear signs on you saying either "Good guy" or "Bad guy."

Granted there are times when you can reasonable conclude that an armed person is not a threat, but it's situational. The SCOTUS has allowed officers the right to use their own discretion to make that call if they have any inclination that they could be in a dangerous situation. Some officers ere on the side of caution and remove the danger in every situation, which the SCOTUS has upheld. I've never said I would disarm every person in every circumstance. I've only argued that the court has allowed me to make that call.

Thing is, people have been attacking me (and cops in general) for being concerned with our safety. So I ask, why the hell do you (OCers) carry a gun in the first place? Isn't that for YOUR own safety? Why is your safety more sacred than mine? The chances of you facing a dangerous situation in your life time is much much lower than the chances for an officer, but yet you carry FOR YOUR SAFETY. So seeing as how officers face potentially dangerous situations more regularly than the common citizen, why shouldn't we be granted a little extra leeway in protecting ourselves? That's why the courts have given us that authority.

I have nothing against OCers. I fully support that right, and I'm actually happy to see people carrying. I know ya'll won't buy that, but it's true.

Simply put, when you approach a OCer there is a possible danger to your safety, because of the reasons you cite. If/when a OCer approaches you there is no danger.

In your other example of seeing a gun on a person at a grocery store, I'm not having a forced interaction with him where my safety would be at risk.

Where you work certainly impacts your decision making process regarding the seizure of a OCed firearm. I will not second guess your decision making process.

I am asking, although it seems poorly asked, why is there a distinction in your mind given the above statement.

Your safety is paramount in my view, as is every officers safety. But, if I were to see you OCing I have zero authority to do what a officer could do. I guess I could call in a MWAG and stand around and watch what happens. Besides, this is thread, your thread is not about me it is about you, you asked and we are responding. I would find it very troubling if officers were disarmed.

Lastly, the "he could be a thug with a stolen gun....." very well worn statement. Not every "good guy" looks like what you think a good guy looks like. Every officer expects us to consider them good cop. I will expect every officer to be a good cop, but I must guard against the possibility that I may not be forced to interact with a officer such as yourself. I certainly hope you will understand.

Please stay safe for your family and for yourself.

 

[CT Barfly]

Kenny has pointed out a law...of physics. It's immutable.

There is nothing "safer" about removing a gun from its holster, putting it in the hands of a person unfamiliar with it and "checking" it. The only thing that changes is that the officer gets to decide where it is pointed...and gets to find out if the person has violated a statute.

The general public and the disarmed OC/CC'er, are all less safe for it.

It is ONLY done for investigative purposes and the officer is ONLY doing it voluntarily...he's not compelled to do it for any reason, even safety.

I remember when I was a kid in elementary school. I asked a police officer (it was career day) if he would take his gun out and show us...he laughed and said "no, that's not safe."

Good advice.

Some of the more extreme thinkers in here might even say you don't mind making us all less safe so that you may feel safer...and that this sort of thinking turns "LEO sacrifice" on its head. I don't actually believe this, but that's one way to spin it.

I'm a safety first kind of guy, I'll whip out my wallet/ID if you'll leave the loudy/bangy/dangerous thing alone.

I think in this particular circumstance, OP did the right thing.

 

[carolina guy]

Yeah except when case law benefits YOUR position. Then it's concrete law....

No...it is still just case law, always subject to change.

 

[carolina guy]

Never said I was seizing the gun as RAS of a crime. Seriously do you even read these things? The visible weapon on a m/v stop is NOT RAS of a crime, only a specific articulable fact justifying a legitimate concern for my safety. (Thus, her concern for her safety was based on specific articulable facts, making the justification for ordering King out of the car even more critical....King)

Almost always, although I usually do not bother too heavily with a poorly presented "wall of text" that was obviously cut and pasted from numerous sources, but to take a couple of the cases you presented:

Keep in mind, Mimms was a 1977 SCOTUS case, and much more recently decided that the 2A is an individual RIGHT of self defense, and does NOT itself present a danger to anyone with the simple presence of a legal firearm. Has this been retested recently? not on the SCOTUS level...yet. It seems we have a conflict between a created "right" and a stated right.

You also present King as a more recent justification, but you don't mention that it was just a 10th Circuit Court ruling, and actually not controlling in CT if I am not mistaken -- certainly not in NC. Don't forget US v Black (2013) reminds the police that Terry (and other more recent cases) have NOT set aside the 4th Amendment or the 2nd.

Let me ask again, how does the mere presence of a firearm that is not being brandished, and the OCer (remember, you could clearly see the pistol) is NOT hostile towards you constitute a "legitimate concern for your safety" in YOUR mind?

There are literally thousands of police encounters on a DAILY basis that involve firearms that do NOT involve the citizen being disarmed, or worse. Just because you have court cases that say you can, does not mean you SHOULD. How is taking an unfamiliar firearm from a person and unloading any safer than just requesting that they keep their hands in plain sight? Do you know if he had another pistol? If you don't know that he didn't, you accomplished nothing had he had nefarious designs against you, and you likely let your guard down, if even ever so slightly because "you had his weapon."

 

[carolina guy]

However, due to my job i'm placed in a different position than OCers where I face bad guys with a gun an a semi-regular basis. Where I work it's like a war zone. So when I come across a gun on a traffic stop, I'm not sure if this is joe citizen responsible OCer, or a convicted felon carrying a stolen gun with the serial number filed off. The problem is that ya'll don't wear signs on you saying either "Good guy" or "Bad guy."

I think this has been dispelled numerous times by numerous authoritative sources, bad guys do not OC.

Thing is, people have been attacking me (and cops in general) for being concerned with our safety. So I ask, why the hell do you (OCers) carry a gun in the first place? Isn't that for YOUR own safety? Why is your safety more sacred than mine? The chances of you facing a dangerous situation in your life time is much much lower than the chances for an officer, but yet you carry FOR YOUR SAFETY. So seeing as how officers face potentially dangerous situations more regularly than the common citizen, why shouldn't we be granted a little extra leeway in protecting ourselves? That's why the courts have given us that authority.

I have nothing against OCers. I fully support that right, and I'm actually happy to see people carrying. I know ya'll won't buy that, but it's true.

My safety is more sacred to me...certainly. Also, I no longer deliberately put myself in a position of higher risk for a paycheck. You do, but that does not mean (morally) that you have a better expectation of being safe than I do. So, if you take my firearm when I have not committed a crime that is subjecting me to arrest, you place yourself above me. That is not right, and you know it.

 

[carolina guy]

Brother I hear what you're saying, but that's a separate issue from what this post is about. I've been through the "OCer's school for LEOs" on this site, and I get it. I totally understand your plight as a legal OCer getting hassled by the police who don't actually know the law. I get it, and I don't blame you for your hesitation or aggravation with LEOs. I'll admit that OCers have been abused and illegal detained by LEOs. But this post is about guns on m/v stops, where it's not an mere OC situation. Where the officer has a legal, legitimate reason to stop someone, and they're armed, where the officer didn't know the subject was armed until the stop was made.

I'm asking OCers, from a cop who came to your world to understand you and your position, which I did, to come to my world and understand my position and where I'm coming from.

Ok. Then take this as a "what if"...

What if you didn't see the guy's pistol, and you proceeded through the traffic stop to the same conclusion that you did...but you never noticed and never took his pistol? How many violent felons have you encountered that were OCing and not engaged in a current violent crime? When you take someone's pistol, and you do it with your hands near your firearm, you are THREATENING to the average person, pure and simple. Further, it can be humiliating and angering to be treated like a criminal when you are NOT a criminal. Yet, when you say "it is for MY safety" that is supposed to make the other person feel all better?

 

[carolina guy]

Kenny has pointed out a law...of physics. It's immutable.

There is nothing "safer" about removing a gun from its holster, putting it in the hands of a person unfamiliar with it and "checking" it. The only thing that changes is that the officer gets to decide where it is pointed...and gets to find out if the person has violated a statute.

The general public and the disarmed OC/CC'er, are all less safe for it.

It is ONLY done for investigative purposes and the officer is ONLY doing it voluntarily...he's not compelled to do it for any reason, even safety.

I remember when I was a kid in elementary school. I asked a police officer (it was career day) if he would take his gun out and show us...he laughed and said "no, that's not safe."

Good advice.

Some of the more extreme thinkers in here might even say you don't mind making us all less safe so that you may feel safer...and that this sort of thinking turns "LEO sacrifice" on its head. I don't actually believe this, but that's one way to spin it.

I'm a safety first kind of guy, I'll whip out my wallet/ID if you'll leave the loudy/bangy/dangerous thing alone.

I think in this particular circumstance, OP did the right thing.

Further...there is NO requirement, per the SCOTUS, for a police officer to do ANYTHING. They are not COMPELLED to respond to a murder that happens in front of their face, per court rulings. This means that ALL LEO initiated interactions with the public are VOLUNTARY.

 

[KennyB]

Brother I hear what you're saying, but that's a separate issue from what this post is about. I've been through the "OCer's school for LEOs" on this site, and I get it. I totally understand your plight as a legal OCer getting hassled by the police who don't actually know the law. I get it, and I don't blame you for your hesitation or aggravation with LEOs. I'll admit that OCers have been abused and illegal detained by LEOs. But this post is about guns on m/v stops, where it's not an mere OC situation. Where the officer has a legal, legitimate reason to stop someone, and they're armed, where the officer didn't know the subject was armed until the stop was made.

I'm asking OCers, from a cop who came to your world to understand you and your position, which I did, to come to my world and understand my position and where I'm coming from.

I'm glad you understand, I really do. I also know this post is about your concerns during a traffic stop. So i'll just say this. I had an 'experience' with a local officer during a stop id like to share. I was stopped by a north central CT LE agency a couple years ago for a tail light being out. The officer asked for the usual license and registration and when I opened my wallet he saw my CT license to carry permit and asked if I was carrying or had a gun "within reach" and I replied that I did not. The officer responded with "ok, otherwise id have to hold onto it for my safety". I was a little put back by that statement as he plainly saw my permit and knew that I MUST be a law abiding Citizen otherwise I couldn't legally carry a firearm. I guess my point is like someone here already pointed out, many feel it is more dangerous to seize, handle, inspect whatever a loaded firearm by someone who may have absolutely no experience with your firearm when there is NO legal requirement to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't have a problem with LEO's in general so i'm not out to bash here. Only trying to understand the "everyone with a gun is a danger to you" mentality they seem to teach LEO's in the academy. Afterall, as you are already aware, they don't just hand out permits to every Citizen who wants one. We have to go through a NRA safety course, summit to a FBI background check and spend lot's of time and money for the "privilege" of carrying a firearm. I understand your point about "coming to your world" and dealing with some shady people during your typical workday but seriously, seizing a firearm from Joe public during a traffic stop with kids, the wife and dog driving down to DQ for ice cream seems a bit to much. Even in todays crazy world.

 

[carolina guy]

Sometimes the silence is deafening from the OPers, eh?

 

[carolina guy]

luckyykid...was re-reading your last post, and a couple other things stood out to me:

No disrespect but I'm not following what you're trying to say here...

Are you saying if the OC'er initiated the contact with me then what's the danger? If that's the case then I'll say none.

I guess I'll take this opportunity to say that while most posters here probably won't believe me, I'm an advocate of the second amendment. I love seeing responsible citizens carrying guns. My wife carries a gun. My kids (8 year old twin girls and 4 year old boy) have all already shot guns. I've been to the protests at the capital against new gun legislation. I believe more guns equals less crime. I believe the second amd was meant for people not a state militia. I'm a field training officer, and I train all my rookies that OC is not RAS, and I talk to as many veteran officers about it as I can. I spoke with our legal update instructor and convinced him to save time to address OC and RAS during our department wide annual training. I believe in pretty much all the principles that OCers do.

However, due to my job i'm placed in a different position than OCers where I face bad guys with a gun an a semi-regular basis. Where I work it's like a war zone. So when I come across a gun on a traffic stop, I'm not sure if this is joe citizen responsible OCer, or a convicted felon carrying a stolen gun with the serial number filed off. The problem is that ya'll don't wear signs on you saying either "Good guy" or "Bad guy."

Have you heard that when you agree with someone's statement and then finish off with a "but"-word that you contradict everything said before?

Granted, there is an extremely good place for common sense, experience and paying attention when it comes to dealing with people that you have a good feeling are "up to no good"... you did take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, correct? Then please do not forget that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty, and don't expect the innocent to be happy with trampling their rights in an effort to "get home safe at night." The job has it's inherent dangers, and it is NOT the duty of the law abiding to make your chosen profession safer at their expense.

Granted there are times when you can reasonable conclude that an armed person is not a threat, but it's situational. The SCOTUS has allowed officers the right to use their own discretion to make that call if they have any inclination that they could be in a dangerous situation. Some officers ere on the side of caution and remove the danger in every situation, which the SCOTUS has upheld. I've never said I would disarm every person in every circumstance. I've only argued that the court has allowed me to make that call.

I think this shows the anti-Constitutional mindset that too many LEOs demonstrate. I do not believe that the SCOTUS has ever given a blanket decision that allows a LEO to disarm in EVERY situation just to "ere (sic) on the side of caution" ... please cite. The ones you gave give EXCEPTIONS to the rule...not a new rule.

Thing is, people have been attacking me (and cops in general) for being concerned with our safety. So I ask, why the hell do you (OCers) carry a gun in the first place? Isn't that for YOUR own safety? Why is your safety more sacred than mine? The chances of you facing a dangerous situation in your life time is much much lower than the chances for an officer, but yet you carry FOR YOUR SAFETY. So seeing as how officers face potentially dangerous situations more regularly than the common citizen, why shouldn't we be granted a little extra leeway in protecting ourselves? That's why the courts have given us that authority.

I have nothing against OCers. I fully support that right, and I'm actually happy to see people carrying. I know ya'll won't buy that, but it's true.

It sure sounds like you support people's rights, unless you are on duty, or you feel "nervous" for YOUR safety. It sure sounds like "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Just my $0.02...and it is really just that. You have a tough job, and one that I dropped quite a while back. Good luck, stay safe and remember your oath!

 

[marshaul]

Imo, this isn't really an OC scenario. It's neither OC nor concealed. It's half/half, which is a lame way to carry a gun imo. Granted, he's in a car, but you get my point.

 

[luckyykid]

Sometimes the silence is deafening from the OPers, eh?

Like I've said before, unfortunately I'm very limited on free time to respond to the posts here....believe me I love debating this stuff here, and if I could do it all day I would. Reality is I'm just short on time. I promise when I have the free time, I'll respond to every question that is posed to me. You're just going to have to be patient and check back later.

 

[carolina guy]

Like I've said before, unfortunately I'm very limited on free time to respond to the posts here....believe me I love debating this stuff here, and if I could do it all day I would. Reality is I'm just short on time. I promise when I have the free time, I'll respond to every question that is posed to me. You're just going to have to be patient and check back later.

NP...I understand...same with me. Stay safe!