Alaska State Troopers fail

[A 7.62 Exodus]

So, im watching Alaska State Troopers last night on TV. The episode was following officers at the "arctic man" spring break event. Long story short, 20 minutes into the episode the officers arrest a drunk man, give an interview, and the "announcer" of the show says, "But its not just up here where trouble finds its way to an officer of the "blankity blank" police force" The show jumps to an officer pulling over a truck. The cop is met at the truck with, "Hello officer, just letting you know i have a gun in the car with me." QUE THE DRAMATIC MUSIC! The music plays and the officer steps back, slowly placing his hand on his gun and says, "Ok, slowly grab it and give it to me"


I couldnt fast enough. The show calls a gun owner "trouble" AND adds dramatic music once the officer is informed of a legal weapon......

Btw, gun came back clean, the man in the truck went on his way

I couldn't stop laughing after that scene was over

Ill see if i can find the video online and post it here.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, at least we now have video demonstrating why you should not tell the police you have a gun.

Nothing like the police creating criminally reckless scenarios for ratings.

 

[Denny347]

I stopped watching the dumb show. Reality TV turns something respectable into crap.

 

[Compatriot G]

If I'm not mistaken, Alaska is a must inform state.

 

[ryknoll3]

If I'm not mistaken, Alaska is a must inform state.

Yes, unfortunately you're right. They also can charge you if you don't "allow the officer to secure the weapon or don't secure the weapon at the officer's direction." So, they have the reckless irresponsible behavior enshrined in statute.

 

[Gabriel]

Nothing like the police creating criminally reckless scenarios for ratings.

So, that show is recorded, edited, and broadcast by the police department?

 

[modelflyer2003]

That is really strange! When I would pull people over, the second I found out that they had a weapon in the vehicle some strange dramatic music would play. I never really found out where it came from. Boggles my mind.

 

[hoosierdoc]

QUE THE DRAMATIC MUSIC!

Is that his nickname? I figured something more "manly"

 

[modelflyer2003]

I stopped watching the dumb show. Reality TV turns something respectable into crap.

When I worked in surgery, I used to watch shows that featured surgeries, but then I would just spend the time pointing out what was incongruent with the real surgical environment. Also I felt like I was at work. I still love my cop shows though. It brings back fond memories. I stopped being LEO 18 years ago and still dream I am on patrol on a frequent basis. It's a great job.

 

[jamesg]

Yes, unfortunately you're right. They also can charge you if you don't "allow the officer to secure the weapon or don't secure the weapon at the officer's direction." So, they have the reckless irresponsible behavior enshrined in statute.

not trying to start an argument here. I truthfully want to know. Where do people get the idea that it is unreasonable to announce to the officer that you are carrying a weapon? I understand the right to bear arms. I don't understand the "right to conceal with intent to camouflage that fact".

I also understand we shouldn't allow LE to disarm us if we are obeying the laws and acting in a lawful manner. But if everything is on the up and up, don't you think it is as much in the officers interest as the gun owners interest to have the weapon in a temporary secure place? By in the officers best interest, I am not saying to appease the law.....I am saying as a show of mutual respect and to ease any tensions....because he is a person after all.

Sometimes I get the feeling people who are staunch gun advocates forget that the LEO is a person just like you who is simply performing a job. They are entitled to the same rights as you and I. That would include the ability to protect themselves.

Again, not an argument, but I am trying to understand this unwavering desire to refuse to do anything at all to make situations a little more easy going. I mean, would it actually kill people to make life a little bit less stressful? Does every confrontation with a LEO have to start with an enormous chip on the shoulder and a desire to hide a lawfully carried firearm?

I honestly believe there is such a thing as maintaining your right to bear arms and not succumb to unreasonable search and seizure without making it difficult. Announcing you are carrying is not a violation of either of those rights. It's a mutual respect. You already know he is carrying. By announcing you are you simply level the field no?

I won't even respond in this thread, I just want to understand the reason people are this way.

 

[thompal]

Is that his nickname? I figured something more "manly"

That's why he goes by just "Que." It leaves that sense of mystery.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Dialog in Indiana:

LEO: "O.K., it's good to know that you are a licensed gun carrier. I'd like to take your weapon and secure it in the cruiser's trunk, just for my safety."
INGUNNER: "Yes sir, I understand your sense of caution; but I will keep MY weapon under MY expert control, just for MY safety."
(Post next utterance here EBG

 

[ryknoll3]

not trying to start an argument here. I truthfully want to know. Where do people get the idea that it is unreasonable to announce to the officer that you are carrying a weapon? I understand the right to bear arms. I don't understand the "right to conceal with intent to camouflage that fact".

I also understand we shouldn't allow LE to disarm us if we are obeying the laws and acting in a lawful manner. But if everything is on the up and up, don't you think it is as much in the officers interest as the gun owners interest to have the weapon in a temporary secure place? By in the officers best interest, I am not saying to appease the law.....I am saying as a show of mutual respect and to ease any tensions....because he is a person after all.

Sometimes I get the feeling people who are staunch gun advocates forget that the LEO is a person just like you who is simply performing a job. They are entitled to the same rights as you and I. That would include the ability to protect themselves.

Again, not an argument, but I am trying to understand this unwavering desire to refuse to do anything at all to make situations a little more easy going. I mean, would it actually kill people to make life a little bit less stressful? Does every confrontation with a LEO have to start with an enormous chip on the shoulder and a desire to hide a lawfully carried firearm?

I honestly believe there is such a thing as maintaining your right to bear arms and not succumb to unreasonable search and seizure without making it difficult. Announcing you are carrying is not a violation of either of those rights. It's a mutual respect. You already know he is carrying. By announcing you are you simply level the field no?

I won't even respond in this thread, I just want to understand the reason people are this way.

Here's my take on the issue:

1. No criminal, with any ill-intent toward the police officer is going to announce that he is carrying a firearm. (I have yet to see ANYONE refute the logic of this point. It's basically the same argument we make against gun-control people. It's not the gun that's the problem, it's the criminal, and you aren't going to stop him by requiring that he tell you if he has a gun on him.

2. Firearms are much safer when left in their holsters as opposed to being handled and unloaded on the side of the road (especially by a police officer who may not be familiar with that type of weapon).

3. Someone carrying a firearm (especially those with a permit/license) should not automatically be treated like a criminal by having their legally owned possessions taken from them, serial #'s run (the cop has no PC to conduct such a search), not to mention the stories we hear of guns being returned disassembled, bullets in a baggie or thrown in the backseat, etc... If you are in lawful possession of that firearm, it should be left in your lawful possession. If the officer has reason to believe that you are a danger, then you should be handcuffed.

4. He DOES have the right to protect himself, but so do I. Why should HIS right supersede mine, merely for his comfort.

5. If an officer DOES confiscate a weapon for the duration of the traffic stop, how does he know that's all that's there. I tell him, "Yes, I have a handgun." He "secures" it, and now thinks he's in control of the situation. How does he know I don't have another gun somewhere in the vehicle. Again this points back to # 1. If I had ill-intent toward the officer, I wouldn't announce or hand over my weapon, or all of them, if I had a backup.

I take offense to people who say that choosing to remain silent or not being forced to answer questions have a "chip on their shoulder." Since when does wanting to exercise your God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights constitute hard-headedness?

ETA: If it was simply a matter of informing the police officer (shouldn't be a LAW) and him being content with just being aware, I feel that MANY of us on this forum would be happy to oblige. However, when that leads to unsafe handling of the firearm and confiscation, that's where a lot of people draw the line.

 

[jamesg]

Here's my take on the issue:

1. No criminal, with any ill-intent toward the police officer is going to announce that he is carrying a firearm. (I have yet to see ANYONE refute the logic of this point. It's basically the same argument we make against gun-control people. It's not the gun that's the problem, it's the criminal, and you aren't going to stop him by requiring that he tell you if he has a gun on him.

2. Firearms are much safer when left in their holsters as opposed to being handled and unloaded on the side of the road (especially by a police officer who may not be familiar with that type of weapon).

3. Someone carrying a firearm (especially those with a permit/license) should not automatically be treated like a criminal by having their legally owned possessions taken from them, serial #'s run (the cop has no PC to conduct such a search), not to mention the stories we hear of guns being returned disassembled, bullets in a baggie or thrown in the backseat, etc... If you are in lawful possession of that firearm, it should be left in your lawful possession. If the officer has reason to believe that you are a danger, then you should be handcuffed.

4. He DOES have the right to protect himself, but so do I. Why should HIS right supersede mine, merely for his comfort.

5. If an officer DOES confiscate a weapon for the duration of the traffic stop, how does he know that's all that's there. I tell him, "Yes, I have a handgun." He "secures" it, and now thinks he's in control of the situation. How does he know I don't have another gun somewhere in the vehicle. Again this points back to # 1. If I had ill-intent toward the officer, I wouldn't announce or hand over my weapon, or all of them, if I had a backup.

I take offense to people who say that choosing to remain silent or not being forced to answer questions have a "chip on their shoulder." Since when does wanting to exercise your God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights constitute hard-headedness?

ETA: If it was simply a matter of informing the police officer (shouldn't be a LAW) and him being content with just being aware, I feel that MANY of us on this forum would be happy to oblige. However, when that leads to unsafe handling of the firearm and confiscation, that's where a lot of people draw the line.

thank you for that well thought out response, i agree with most of the reasoning you give

trying to figure out all the hot topics and the different approaches and figure out how to prepare if the need arises

 

[TomN]

However, when that leads to unsafe handling of the firearm and confiscation, that's where a lot of people draw the line.

This right here. I don't want some nervous cop coonfingering my gun on the side of the road. Just leave it where it's safe!

 

[bigg cheese]

That is really strange! When I would pull people over, the second I found out that they had a weapon in the vehicle some strange dramatic music would play. I never really found out where it came from. Boggles my mind.

You must have never seen The Beverly Hillbillies. "I bet someone's at the door, Uncle Jed. I heard that music again."

 

[Hammerhead]

not trying to start an argument here. I truthfully want to know. Where do people get the idea that it is unreasonable to announce to the officer that you are carrying a weapon? I understand the right to bear arms. I don't understand the "right to conceal with intent to camouflage that fact".

It may not be unreasonable to inform. However, with the repeated instances of LEOs disarming law abiding citizens and taking their property without PC or RAS that conforms to the law, I'm going to keep my carry status to myself unless I absolutely have to. What you call "the right to conceal with intent to camouflage that fact" is actually keeping our 4A right to be secure from unreasonable search an seizure intact. This is aside from the fact that IN law requires a warrant or a statement given to a judge that the "suspect" was a danger to himself or others for a LEO to legally be able to seize a firearm. Without either of these, the LEO is violating your rights. Sure, you can give up your rights freely. But you might as well say "Baaaa" while you do so.

I also understand we shouldn't allow LE to disarm us if we are obeying the laws and acting in a lawful manner. But if everything is on the up and up, don't you think it is as much in the officers interest as the gun owners interest to have the weapon in a temporary secure place? By in the officers best interest, I am not saying to appease the law.....I am saying as a show of mutual respect and to ease any tensions....because he is a person after all.

A temporary secure place? What, my holster isn't secure? I'd better get a different holster then. Oh, you probably mean secure for the officer's safety? That's a giant load of all over a law abiding citizen. My firearm is safest when it's not touched. It's not a toy, it doesn't need to be coonfingered. If we're mutually respecting and easing tensions, then I should get to hold his firearm for my safety too.

Sometimes I get the feeling people who are staunch gun advocates forget that the LEO is a person just like you who is simply performing a job. They are entitled to the same rights as you and I. That would include the ability to protect themselves.

As our friend Mr. Freeman has stated regularly, LEOs don't have rights while they're working. They have powers that we the people give them. They don't have the "right" to protect themselves, they have the power to do so. They are also restricted just as much if not more on when they can exercise that power than a regular citizen.

Again, not an argument, but I am trying to understand this unwavering desire to refuse to do anything at all to make situations a little more easy going. I mean, would it actually kill people to make life a little bit less stressful? Does every confrontation with a LEO have to start with an enormous chip on the shoulder and a desire to hide a lawfully carried firearm?

Why must I make a LEO feel all warm and fuzzy? Yes, it could actually kill someone trying to make things less stressful. I don't know that the LEO that's pulled me over has any familiarity with my firearm, and his unnecessary (and illegal) need to coonfinger it on the side of the road could very well lead to him pointing my sidearm at me and shooting me with it. I want to go home without any more orifices than I had before I interacted with a LEO.

I honestly believe there is such a thing as maintaining your right to bear arms and not succumb to unreasonable search and seizure without making it difficult. Announcing you are carrying is not a violation of either of those rights. It's a mutual respect. You already know he is carrying. By announcing you are you simply level the field no?

No. You're not leveling the playing field. Depending on the LEO and the situation, it's entirely possible that you've given him a reason (legal or not) to remove you, disarm you, and cause you untold problems. Not every LEO will act like a jackass, but are you willing to take that chance? How about telling him that you're carrying a cell phone, a pack of cigarettes, or your laptop computer? I mean you can let him search those for contraband or illegal things if you're on the up and up, right? Nothing to worry about, just let them search you.

I won't even respond in this thread, I just want to understand the reason people are this way.

Now, I'm going to give some other reasons.

1) Once you provide your LTCH, all further inquiry into firearms must cease. This is the only way I might inform. I say might because now the LTCH info is tied to the DL info. They'll find that I'm a licensed citizen when they run my DL numbers. I might also inform if I'm required to step out of my vehicle. Otherwise, I'm keeping my right to remain silent intact. It's not trying to be difficult or hassle the officer. It's protecting me from any number of disasters.

2) I can be polite, respectful and cooperative without giving up my rights or my property.

3) I am not going to "just do what the officer asks" because that's a slippery slope and bad policing, and because I am not a sheep.

My retired LEO dad always told me to be polite, calm, prepared and succinct. He never once told me to give up my rights.

 

[jgreiner]

I stopped watching the dumb show. Reality TV turns something respectable into crap.

The only reality TV I enjoy is when Joe Biden speaks and makes a complete ass of himself.

 

[canav844]

It's not a failure of the Alaska Troopers, it's a failure of Nat Geo for the demonizing.

Alaska is must inform, and it seems to be SOP to remove, clear and run the gun serial number there, kinda like it's SOP for an Indiana LEO to verify an LTCH; different state different laws and practices and case law, if the people there want them changed that's up to the citizens of Alaska.

 

[XDs4me]

Alaska doesnt require a permit and the majority of people carry a hand gun. It is a give and take situation. They could change it to where you have to apply for a permit and make it difficult to obtain like some states or they leave it alone as a must inform. I myself am for the latter. Untill you have walked in a LEO shoes dont knock them for wanting to be safe and to be able to go home to there families at the end of their shift. It is a very dangerous and stressful job. I can see both sides of the coin but being from a LEO family with many members past and present on the job and losing one while on duty I side with LE on this one. My cousin was shot and killed while on a traffic stop where the driver informed him he was LTC. He validated his permit and ran him through the system. The driver came up clean. He was issued a ticket for speeding and became irate and shot my cousin. So even a law biding citizen can change at a moments notice.