• 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.

Is it legal for a law enforcement officer to disarm a person in an open-carry state?

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,896
Location
White Oak Plantation
Ridiculous! I live outside a small town. I've lived here most of my life. I know several of the cops. I stop and converse with them often. We address one another by our first names/nicknames. They see me and start conversations all the time. It is just friendly chit chat. They ask about my wife and/or daughter. It is 100% "consensual/voluntary". It is no different that if you and I were talking together.
Quite right you are if you know them...now, about those cops you do not know, not in your small town, that do not know you, nor you knowing them. Ridiculous? Only in your limited field of view.

I too know several cops in my small town. I too have similar chit chat, those I do not know...I stand by my comment. You, of course, may take a differing approach to encounters with cops you do not know...chit chat away.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
572
Location
Central Ky.
Quite right you are if you know them...now, about those cops you do not know, not in your small town, that do not know you, nor you knowing them. Ridiculous? Only in your limited field of view.

I too know several cops in my small town. I too have similar chit chat, those I do not know...I stand by my comment. You, of course, may take a differing approach to encounters with cops you do not know...chit chat away.
Let me remind you sir, that you picked how broad or narrow a field we were considering when you made the original broad statement. If you had meant it to only include strangers, you should have limited your words to that. You didn't. Overly broad statements like your's seldom turn out to be true. Let me remind you of a long standing rule of OCDO. Once, you say something here, you own it. Have a nice day.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,896
Location
White Oak Plantation
Let me remind you sir, that you picked how broad or narrow a field we were considering when you made the original broad statement. If you had meant it to only include strangers, you should have limited your words to that. You didn't. Overly broad statements like your's[sic] seldom turn out to be true. Let me remind you of a long standing rule of OCDO. Once, you say something here, you own it. Have a nice day.
Well stated. I stand reminded.
 

Pikachu712

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
14
Location
Tucson, AZ
Allow me to give to give you a few scenarios of LEO encounters where in one case I was disarmed for "officer safety" and three or four cases of being pulled over by LEO's and was permitted to keep my firearm on my person.

I used to live in Las Vegas, NV for 29 years. I now live in Tucson, AZ. One day as I was riding my mountain bike around dusk and the light of day was diminishing I suddenly heard the unmistakable sound of a police siren behind me. At the time I was open-carrying my Glock-26. I came to a quick and sudden stop near the curb. Two police officers approached me and I requested to know why I was being pulled over. The younger officer, who I suspect was a rookie, was being closely observed by the older offer who was a Field Training Offer (FTO) based upon that FTO pin on his uniform.

The younger officer advised me that I was pulled over for not having a bicycle headlight since it was close to dusk. He advised me that he was going to disarm me for "officer safety." I was then placed in handcuffs. After disarming me he requested to know all the information on my G26. Was the gun mine, was I a felon, was the gun registered, etc. At the time all handguns were required to be registered with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). At the time I had a valid CCW permit as well. The younger officer removed my wallet from my back pocket and took the necessary documents to verify my legal status from my wallet. The older officer allowed the younger officer to return to the police car to run me and my firearms information into the car computer. I was placed in handcuffs for almost 25 minutes. When I was being detained by the older LEO he advised me that he felt he was strongly against civilians being issued CCW permits and that if it were up to him he would make it illegal for this practice. The entire time I was in handcuffs I remained as calm as possible under the circumstances. Long story short, I was released with a verbal warning to get a headlight for my bicycle. The older officer than placed my G26 on a location near a small wall around 12 feet away with the warning, "Don't load the gun until we drive away." This was an area where my G26 was out of my immediate control. At the time there were people in the immediate area who could have retrieved my G26. I could not allow my firearm to fall into the possession of someone who was closer than I was to my G26. I proceeded quickly to my firearm and inserted the magazine in and did not chamber a round until the officers departed.

I've been pulled over three or four times while CC'ing. Under Nevada law you are not required to tell the officer you are carrying a firearm. I air on the side of caution and handed the officer my driver's license, registration, insurance card and my CCW permit. The officers asked if I was carrying now. I advised them that I was and where I carried it. The comment each of the officer was, "Thank you for telling me you are carrying a gun. As long as you don't reach for it we won't have a problem. Please stay inside your car" Each time the officer returned to my car and let me off with a verbal warning. These were best scenario traffic stops. The statement each officer made were all similar to the example I mention in this post.

The first traffic stop was the one that had me concerned me the most. The fact that officer placed my G26 such a distance away from me and out of my immediate control I felt was inappropriate from a firearms safety perspective. I know I should have filed a complaint on this one aspect of the traffic stop but I opted not to file a complaint against either officer.

I felt that it was very irresponsible for the older police officer to place my firearm so far from me and out of my immediate control. It still bothers me that he did this to me almost 8 years later.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
In KY, open carry is not a reason to stop a person.

And cops here seldom do even in the Derby . No point too since all the officer can accomplish is get himself in hot water.
 

Pikachu712

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
14
Location
Tucson, AZ
In KY, open carry is not a reason to stop a person.

And cops here seldom do even in the Derby . No point too since all the officer can accomplish is get himself in hot water.
According to the younger officer the primary reason I was initially pulled over was for not having a headlight on my bicycle. That was the chargeable offense which gave the officers probable cause to detain me. The firearm wasn't the primary issue itself.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,731
Location
here nc
Pikach712, while this is monday quarterbackin mentality
1. May i help you officer? Am i being detained? May i help you officer?
2. Keep your mouth shut [fixed a opps typo] and do not volunteer information.
3. Am I free to go? Yes, then leave!

Citizens are not the play things of rookie imbeciles.

Citizens, any citizen, should not accept the scenarios regaled about are acceptable behaviour and the actors should have been reported to IA of the departments otherwise the egregious behavior(s) becomes pervasive and other citizens will the have to endure it.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,896
Location
White Oak Plantation
Pikach712, while this is monday quarterbackin mentality
1. May i help you officer? Am i being detained? May i help you officer?
2. Keep your mouth shut [fixed a opps typo] and do not volunteer information.
3. Am I free to go? Yes, then leave!

Citizens are not the play things of rookie imbeciles.

Citizens, any citizen, should not accept the scenarios regaled about are acceptable behaviour and the actors should have been reported to IA of the departments otherwise the egregious behavior(s) becomes pervasive and other citizens will the have to endure it.
Do not leave...tell the cop he is free to go.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
195
Ten-ish years ago I was threatened with arrest for Failure to Obey a Lawful Order. What is a Lawful Order from a cop, I wondered? All orders from a cop are lawful unless there is law to the contrary. This is the essence of Qualified Immunity. Qualified Immunity must be removed.

The instant case was a hypothetical traffic stop and preventing an extra-legal peek and sniff, in which I would exit my immaculate vehicle, secure it windows and doors, and pocket the electronic key.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,731
Location
here nc
Ten-ish years ago I was threatened with arrest for Failure to Obey a Lawful Order. What is a Lawful Order from a cop, I wondered? All orders from a cop are lawful unless there is law to the contrary. This is the essence of Qualified Immunity. Qualified Immunity must be removed.

The instant case was a hypothetical traffic stop and preventing an extra-legal peek and sniff, in which I would exit my immaculate vehicle, secure it windows and doors, and pocket the electronic key.
query...doug your post does brings up a viable consideration which nobody has been able to provide me ~

WHAT IS A LAWFUL ORDER GIVEN BY A LE & WHEN MUST IT BE IMMEDIATELY OBEYED?

does barking such an order have to be given and immediately obeyed during an interaction only where RAS has been established, e.g., 'put down the gun' or 'get out of the car' or without state of emergency having been declared...

1. 'stay inside!'
2. 'leave the area' [fire etc.?]
3. '?'

PS: when asked to vacate the vehicle, leaving window down just a smidgen, lock doors and then slide key in the vehicle through smidgen open window so they can not 'pat' me down and then testify i gave them the key voluntarily.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,603
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
........
WHAT IS A LAWFUL ORDER GIVEN BY A LE & WHEN MUST IT BE IMMEDIATELY OBEYED?

does barking such an order have to be given and immediately obeyed during an interaction only where RAS has been established, e.g., 'put down the gun' or 'get out of the car' or without state of emergency having been declared...

1. 'stay inside!'
2. 'leave the area' [fire etc.?]
3. '?'

PS: when asked to vacate the vehicle, leaving window down just a smidgen, lock doors and then slide key in the vehicle through smidgen open window so they can not 'pat' me down and then testify i gave them the key voluntarily.
A “lawful order” must serve a legitimate public purpose and thus the order was not “purely arbitrary.” There is no precise definition. The catchall phrase/law is “disorderly conduct” for not following an officers order.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
195
A lawful order must serve what the cop thinks is a “legitimate public purpose,” and, if not, he is covered by Qualified Immunity QI unless there is explicit law to the contrary. Eliminate Qualified Immunity.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,731
Location
here nc
A number of states, including Texas, Illinois, Louisiana, Rhode Island and New York, have lawful order statutes on the books. These statutes prohibit citizens from failing to comply with lawful orders given by police officers empowered to regulate or control traffic. Most courts, however, including those in Texas, are largely silent as to the definition of what constitutes a “lawful order” in the traffic stop context.

Indeed, one needs to go back to 1973 to find a court opining on the challenge of defining a “lawful order.” People v. Jennings, 347 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Just. Ct. 1973). In Jennings, the court flatly rejected the prosecution’s contention that “lawful” means any order “that does not require the operator to break the law.” The court noted that accepting such a definition would “subject the passing motorist to the slightest whim” of the officer empowered to direct traffic.

from a police blog: quote

Police aren't just folks in polyester blue suits, no more than doctors are just folks in scrubs. The uniform is a clear indicator to the position the person holds, what they are and what they can do is indicative of the Office they hold. If I give you an order, it's not for you to decide then and there that it be lawful or not and I don't care if you agree or not. What I say will be done when I'm in the perform [sic] of my duites. [sic]

Ask. Tell. Make. unquote


legal begle site: quote
Requests vs. Commands

An equally important and related distinction in dealing with the police is the difference between a request and an order. Oftentimes, police will sound as if they are issuing a command (due to the tone of their voice), but they will phrase it in terms of a question. They are trained to do this, because it often helps them get cooperation from people who are not legally required to cooperate. For instance, if an officer tells you to get off your bike or to take your helmet or sunglasses off, these could be requests, or they could be commands, depending on the situation and the reason for the stop. If you are unsure whether you are being commanded to do something or simply requested, it's OK to politely ask whether that is an order or a request. The officer will tell you.

In general, the request vs. command distinction has a lot of overlap with the detention vs. consensual encounter distinction. If you're being commanded to do something, you are not free to ignore it, and thus you are not free to leave. The key lesson here is to cooperate when you are actually ordered to do something, but not to waive your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by giving voluntary consent to an invasion of your privacy. Because it can sometimes be difficult to know the difference, pay attention to the specific language the officer is using and not just his tone of voice or demeanor. Also, remember, you're allowed to ask whether you're being detained or whether you're free to go. unquote https://www.911law.com/blog/2017/march/what-is-a-lawful-order-/

got it...play it by ear and contest in court...QI doesn't have a role in it...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,603
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Well, the police officer has a conundrum. You are supposed to follow a lawful order, and yet police believe any order is lawful. However, the Supreme Court has said that a police officer is not obligated to be truthful. In other words, the Court has declared that the default position is the police are permitted to lie. If they are legally allowed to lie than whatever order the police gives has to be understood to be an unlawful order, not lawful.

Most states define "Pedestrian" to mean any natural person afoot. "Traffic" means pedestrians while using for purposes of travel any highway or private road open to public travel. And, "Person" means every natural person. So, what states have done is convert an unenumerated right to travel into a regulated privilege.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of travel is most likely protected from state interference by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Kent v. Dulles (1958), 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204, 1210 (“The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment”); Williams v. Fears (1900), 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 129, 45 L.Ed. 186, 188 (“the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of * * * liberty * * * secured by the Fourteenth Amendment”).

As a fundamental right, the right to intrastate travel “is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law.” Kent v. Dulles (1958), 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204, 1210.

When gallivanting about and the nice police officer decides to interfere with your jaunt remember he should be presumed to be a bald faced liar.

JMHO
 
Top