Cops Taking Your Gun.

[IndyDave1776]

I really do not like the idea of people dicking around with loaded guns, taking them out of holsters, putting them into holsters, unchambering rounds, rechambering rounds, handing them back and forth on the side of the highway. If the officer insists, I will not resist him, but I really do not think it is a good idea.

It gets worse than that. Once upon a time, back in the Dark Ages, I had a traffic stop in which a clueless city cop (after I told the moron I was carrying) asked if I had any weapons. I emphasized that I had just told him I did. Then he wanted it, and received it just as it was--cocked and locked. He had no idea how to clear it, so he handed it back to me for the purpose (and in retrospect, I suppose officer safety was the justification?) and then started lecturing me that he didn't think that was safe and didn't like it. In preference to telling him that he doesn't have the sense God gave a brick and I don't give a f**k what he thinks or likes, I settled for telling him that John Browning was one of the most brilliant firearms designers in history and that's how he designed it to be carried (with the implied facepalm and declaration that the cop is a moron). As you could imagine, my reaction these days would likely be a bit different, but it still amuses me when I think about it that someone that pathetically stupid could get a job in law enforcement.

 

[Irishcs05]

Would you also agree that without specific wording such as "anyone caught doing 85 mph in a motor vehicle in a 35 mph speed zone is subject to license verification." iit s not really valid for a cop to pull you over unless the courts specifically rule so?

I think that's quite different. An office seeing someone going 85 in a 35 knows without a stop that a law has been broken. Seeing someone carrying alone still does not indicate that.

 

[cobber]

Given that there are 3 ways to interpret a law (intent, letter, spirit) I would hold that in all 3 cases the intent of the law, the spirit of the law, and obviously the letter of the law do not go that far. Without specific wording (like, "anyone open carrying is subject to license verification.") I'm afraid that it's up to the courts to set a precedent. I do not believe this has happened in IN yet.

Only the courts get to interpret the law, and always in favor of the defendant and against the State.

Where citizens are concerned, if it's not forbidden, it's allowed.

Where the State is concerned, if it's not allowed, it's forbidden.

 

[Rookie]

Cliffs notes.

Don't you dare let me think you're guilty of contempt of cop. I am the law, and I will make your life suck.

To the other officers on this board. Right here is a classic example of why cop bashing gets out of hand. You have one person (claiming to be a cop), stating he would make life living hell if he doesn't like your attitude. Who is going to stand up to him?

Nothing but crickets.

 

[Hammerhead]

 

[littletommy]

Nothing but crickets.

Curious, isn't it?

 

[kludge]

I choose to assume that you are presenting this as a statement of fact and not an endorsement of the practice. It is a truly frightening thought that the guiding principle behind the decisions made by police revolves around what they can get away with.

Yes, just a statement of fact, not endorsing the practice.

 

[mtgasten]

put yourself in the officers shoes. end of story i'd take it from you and then let you load it when i leave. don't get mad if i empty your clip. and also with the number of stolen guns they may have just been running it to make sure it's clean.. and you can complain all you want.. just hope you don't live in that county. you might find yourself getting pulled over often. and if you have nothing "wrong" then why not let the officer check it out....

Do LEO's initiate traffic stops just to run the VINs and see if the cars are stolen?

When does the mentality of "if you've done nothing wrong" end though? Where do you draw the line? Should we permit the government to just enter our homes whenever they want? After all, if you have done nothing wrong, what's to hide?

The LEO's that I know are MUCH too busy to worry about confronting someone who is OC'ing a firearm and not doing anything else wrong.

you guys are missing the point he used CLIP instead of MAGAZINE thats the real problem here

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yes. There is an epidemic of poor word usage in the media.

 

[Lex Concord]

Do LEO's initiate traffic stops just to run the VINs and see if the cars are stolen?

for some reason i think vehicles and firearms are much different..

You're right...nowhere in the Bill of Rights are automobiles (or even buggies or wagons) mentioned as something whose possession shall not be infringed.

 

[ryknoll3]

Thard hasn't posted in here for a while now. I used to hate it when I was in the middle of something and my mom would call me in for lunch.

Maybe he's boning up on Hooked on Phonics, so his posts can bear some semblance to the English language.

 

[james.bryant88]

Sometimes it is better to just do as an officer asks and take it up after the contact has occured with the LEO's Supiriors. However, if look at it from their point of view they are just trying to protect themselves.

 

[Apistoman]

Yea i get what your saying. I start police academy in January so I'm kinda asking for both sides.

So I'll say the same thing to you that I do all our military vets "Thank You Sir for serving."

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sometimes it is better to just do as an officer asks and take it up after the contact has occured with the LEO's Supiriors. However, if look at it from their point of view they are just trying to protect themselves.

I would say that this depends entirely on how much of a deviation is being asked and again, the attitude thing. They hired on to enforce the law, not be be petty dictators. I understand no one is perfect, but running roughshod over our rights is absolutely unacceptable, and the problem is that many of them belive that it is right and proper to get away with anything they can get away with. This is also a good reason to stick to your position (with the best being the right to remain silent) if questioned. The courts have rules that it is perfectly legal for them to lie to you to bluff you into divulging incriminating information.

 

[james.bryant88]

I would say that this depends entirely on how much of a deviation is being asked and again, the attitude thing. They hired on to enforce the law, not be be petty dictators. I understand no one is perfect, but running roughshod over our rights is absolutely unacceptable, and the problem is that many of them belive that it is right and proper to get away with anything they can get away with. This is also a good reason to stick to your position (with the best being the right to remain silent) if questioned. The courts have rules that it is perfectly legal for them to lie to you to bluff you into divulging incriminating information.

I completely agree with you on our rights being infringed on is unacceptable.

 

[IndyGunner]

put yourself in the officers shoes. end of story i'd take it from you and then let you load it when i leave. don't get mad if i empty your clip. and also with the number of stolen guns they may have just been running it to make sure it's clean.. and you can complain all you want.. just hope you don't live in that county. you might find yourself getting pulled over often. and if you have nothing "wrong" then why not let the officer check it out....

fail

 

[DC47374]

put yourself in the officers shoes. end of story i'd take it from you and then let you load it when i leave. don't get mad if i empty your clip. and also with the number of stolen guns they may have just been running it to make sure it's clean.. and you can complain all you want.. just hope you don't live in that county. you might find yourself getting pulled over often. and if you have nothing "wrong" then why not let the officer check it out....

There's a certain quote from a founding father that comes to mind when I read this statement. It goes something like this:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is there any case law concerning not requiring to show ID, after a LTCH has been presented (absent rs for anything else?)
I'm putting together a lil presentation for the guys on my shift (asked by my sups to do so), about what we "can and can't" do.

I may start another thread asking for topics to address.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Simple, the only statute on IDing is IC 34-28-5-3 and -3.5. That's it. That's the only reference in the code to a requirement to ID, and it doesn't say that photo ID is mandatory. It says that photo ID is optional, along with the option to instead give name, addr, and DoB, all three of which are present on the LTCH anyway. And either are only required if suspected of an infraction (traffic) or (city) ordnance violation. No such requirement to ID is valid for suspicion of a misdemeanor, felony, or consensual interactions.

If anyone has any case law on the matter, let Kut know.

 

[IndyGunner]

^Thanks for that info!