Guys you really need to ease off. While I understand most of the concerns raised here, I also understand officer's safety. They just want to go home at the end of the day like all of us. If I get stopped and carry, I will advise the officer. If he asks for it, he will get it. While I believe police should respect our rights I also respect their concern for their safety.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Good encounter with state LEO.
- Thread starter 22lr
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
So, then I assume you have read the rest of the thread, and disagree with the points made against confiscation equaling safety?
Why would someone with an intent to do a LEO harm volunteer such info?
How safe is it to make me hand an Officer a loaded gun?
An illusion of safety trumps my Rights?
Sorry, no, I will not back off when I think my rights are being trampled. Besides, I am as entitled to my opinion on this matter as you are. I wouldn't dream of telling you to back off on YOUR opinion, please give me the same courtesy. Thank you.
And what about their concern for OUR safety? OFFICER safety isn't paramount to mine, it's EQUAL to mine. Just because they've been given government-backed power over me doesn't change that fact.
What makes you think that someone who went through the trouble & expense to get a LTCH then volunteers the information that they have a gun in the vehicle is some kind of danger to the LEO? Criminals don't usually knowingly volunteer information that will thwart their plans for a crime ('scuse me officer. I just wanted to let you know I have a gun before I pull it out & shoot you with it
). As a matter of fact the officer may actually be safer if he DOESN'T know if you have a gun or not because he's not lulled into a false sense of security from confiscating the gun that a possible BG offered up then pulling the one that they didn't tell him about. I mean really, is the cop going to do anything differently by knowing that you have a gun than he would if you told him you didn't? I hope not.
The arguments for confiscation, or even advising, from an officer safety standpoint make no sense whatsoever.
The responses of some LEO's to someone volunteering that information is why many people DON'T volunteer the information & decide to be "sneaky" about carrying around LEO's in the first place.
BTW, Joe, excellent point.
ETA: Roadie beat me to some excellent thoughts.
kingnereli
Master
I would like to see some LEO response to this point. If it is true that bad guys won't tell and good guys don't need to then what really is the safety consideration in making the decision to confiscate a legally carried handgun?
I've read all of this thread from the beginning and the LEO's have responded.
MOST said that they would not take a gun from an LTCH holder.
One even said that he would give anyone carrying a 1911 preferential treatment
Some said the officer was probably new causing extra caution.
However I don't recall any of them saying the officer was just straight up wrong.
How is that for a summary?
Additions or corrections?
MOST said that they would not take a gun from an LTCH holder.
One even said that he would give anyone carrying a 1911 preferential treatment
Some said the officer was probably new causing extra caution.
However I don't recall any of them saying the officer was just straight up wrong.
How is that for a summary?
Additions or corrections?
IF I truly had ill will toward an Officer when he pulled me over. There are a lot better ways to handle the situation than waiting until he walks up to the door of your vehicle...
IF I was going to give out some hate towards a cop it would have probably happened when he whips his car in behind me as I come to a stop...
But then again I do not think like a criminal... Blame that on all the years in the Military.
IF I was going to give out some hate towards a cop it would have probably happened when he whips his car in behind me as I come to a stop...
But then again I do not think like a criminal... Blame that on all the years in the Military.
I think we can all agree that there are plenty of circumstances wherein a police officer should disarm someone.
Personally, I've had police respond in one of two ways to learning I was armed during a traffic stop. One way was "Leave yours where yours is and I'll leave mine where mine is." The other way was "PUT YOUR GUN ON THE FLOOR OF YOUR VEHICLE AND STEP OUT." Either way may be legally acceptable but I consider the former polite and reasonable and it encourages my cooperation, trust and respect. Assuming that there are no aggravating factors on my part which would provide the officer with valid reasons to suspect I shouldn't be trusted with my gun, I consider the latter to be rude and irrational.
A fellow INGO member and close friend is a LEO. I very much want him to go home at the end of his shift. Even so, I think futzing around with unfamiliar loaded weapons on the side of the road is an ineffective and frankly counterproductive safety precaution if there is not reasonable suspicion that the weapon will be used unlawfully. It is especially ludicrous when you consider that most officers who would disarm you are usually happy to leave you at the controls of a self-propelled, gasoline filled, multi-thousand pound steel battering ram.
When officers decide to make disarmament their SOP instead of an exception applied when they have reasonable suspicion, they do the following:
Pro:
1. They marginally increase the potential they might find a stolen gun or evidence of other wrongdoing.
2. They insignificantly decrease the likelihood that they will be shot by someone they've pulled over.
Con:
1. They go out of their way to offend and alienate a group of people who otherwise tend to be very supportive of them.
2. They expose themselves and those around them to the dangers associated with unnecessary gun handling thereby increasing the chances a gun will be accidentally fired.
To me the cons outweigh the pros for making this your SOP, but I know plenty of people feel otherwise.
Personally, I've had police respond in one of two ways to learning I was armed during a traffic stop. One way was "Leave yours where yours is and I'll leave mine where mine is." The other way was "PUT YOUR GUN ON THE FLOOR OF YOUR VEHICLE AND STEP OUT." Either way may be legally acceptable but I consider the former polite and reasonable and it encourages my cooperation, trust and respect. Assuming that there are no aggravating factors on my part which would provide the officer with valid reasons to suspect I shouldn't be trusted with my gun, I consider the latter to be rude and irrational.
A fellow INGO member and close friend is a LEO. I very much want him to go home at the end of his shift. Even so, I think futzing around with unfamiliar loaded weapons on the side of the road is an ineffective and frankly counterproductive safety precaution if there is not reasonable suspicion that the weapon will be used unlawfully. It is especially ludicrous when you consider that most officers who would disarm you are usually happy to leave you at the controls of a self-propelled, gasoline filled, multi-thousand pound steel battering ram.
When officers decide to make disarmament their SOP instead of an exception applied when they have reasonable suspicion, they do the following:
Pro:
1. They marginally increase the potential they might find a stolen gun or evidence of other wrongdoing.
2. They insignificantly decrease the likelihood that they will be shot by someone they've pulled over.
Con:
1. They go out of their way to offend and alienate a group of people who otherwise tend to be very supportive of them.
2. They expose themselves and those around them to the dangers associated with unnecessary gun handling thereby increasing the chances a gun will be accidentally fired.
To me the cons outweigh the pros for making this your SOP, but I know plenty of people feel otherwise.
1. Don't engage in behaviors that attract unwanted attention from the police.
2. Don't offer information.
3. Answer questions truthfully, but also refer to #2.
4. Do not consent to a search ever. Don't resist if they do it anyway, but never ever consent to it. See #2.
I'd much rather get a ticket for something I did than have some chance (or even certainty) of getting a warning if it means compromising both my principles and violating my rights (and just because it's "legal" for the police to do some things, it doesn't mean that it does not violate your geniune rights. It just means that they can get away with it because the law says they can. That doesn't make it right).
And while "the other side" will typically refuse to acknowledge it, the real safety issue is about unnecessary handling of loaded guns. It may make someone feel better to seemingly disarm someone because they can get away with it, but guns do not discharge when they are holstered, just when they are handed. It's that simple.
If someone seems to be a such a threat that they need to be disarmed, they probably should be handcuffed or otherwise restrained as well. If there aren't suggestions that they are a threat, it seems to me that keeping their hands visible and guns where they are is the safest for everyone involved. "Office safety" is not more important than my safety or anyone else's safety, especially when it's just a feel-good illusion to take a gun away from someone.
2. Don't offer information.
3. Answer questions truthfully, but also refer to #2.
4. Do not consent to a search ever. Don't resist if they do it anyway, but never ever consent to it. See #2.
I'd much rather get a ticket for something I did than have some chance (or even certainty) of getting a warning if it means compromising both my principles and violating my rights (and just because it's "legal" for the police to do some things, it doesn't mean that it does not violate your geniune rights. It just means that they can get away with it because the law says they can. That doesn't make it right).
And while "the other side" will typically refuse to acknowledge it, the real safety issue is about unnecessary handling of loaded guns. It may make someone feel better to seemingly disarm someone because they can get away with it, but guns do not discharge when they are holstered, just when they are handed. It's that simple.
If someone seems to be a such a threat that they need to be disarmed, they probably should be handcuffed or otherwise restrained as well. If there aren't suggestions that they are a threat, it seems to me that keeping their hands visible and guns where they are is the safest for everyone involved. "Office safety" is not more important than my safety or anyone else's safety, especially when it's just a feel-good illusion to take a gun away from someone.
The two most cooperative types of people that LEO's deal with are the good guys and the really really bad guys. A good guy is going to go with the program because he has nothing to hide. The average bad guy is going to fight it tooth and nail. The really really bad guys know the program and are going to try to go with the program. They have come to realize bucking the system gets them jammed up right off the bat. They try and lull LE into a sense of routine and often get away. When they realize they are caught, you are in for the fight of your life.
I think the safety consideration is making sure that the person the LEO has stopped is an actual good guy and not just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Well I didn't want anyone to think I was running from the fight, but I don't check in that often on here and even less frequently do I have the time to fully respond.
In response to some of the comments, it has definitely opened my eye to several issues that have never really crossed my mind. The average criminal is A) probably not going to have a CC permit and B) and if they do isn't going to admit carrying if they have intentions of using it against me. Also, the average person who has a CC permit A) isn't going to lie about carrying and B) with near certainty has no intentions of using their gun against me. So the end result is that nearly everyone that gives up their gun during a traffic stop, has no intention of harming me (I think I just used the transitive property there).
If I still worked the road, I would probably adopt this methodology into my approach to traffic stops. But alas, in the end, it would probably just make me more cautious about EVERY person, not just those with or without an obvious permit. Those who say they do have a gun are little threat, those that say no very well may be the most dangerous. An unfortunate catch 22 that some would say borders on constitutional infringment when a citizen is disarmed during a stop.
There is no right answer to this but unless you've worked the road in Gary on midnights, you don't know how much it seems/feels to be a safety advantage when you take a gun out of someone else's control and have it in yours. It's one of those cheesy "judged by 12 than carried by 6" moments. Whether it's a constitutional infringment or if it actually provides any actual safety advantage to the officer, at the time, in the dark, all by yourself, it SEEMS right. I dunno, maybe that's just me.
I have never meant to offend anyone's right to carry a weapon and I fully recognize I have come into the lion's den even mentioning abridging that right for a few moments. My only intention is to hopefully explain the officer's position if one ever asks for your gun. Whether it's statistically effective (or perhaps even statistically more dangerous) may never be known, but I would assert that the officer is not going out of his way to demean your rights, he/she is just doing what he/she feels gives them the best chance of going home that night.
In response to some of the comments, it has definitely opened my eye to several issues that have never really crossed my mind. The average criminal is A) probably not going to have a CC permit and B) and if they do isn't going to admit carrying if they have intentions of using it against me. Also, the average person who has a CC permit A) isn't going to lie about carrying and B) with near certainty has no intentions of using their gun against me. So the end result is that nearly everyone that gives up their gun during a traffic stop, has no intention of harming me (I think I just used the transitive property there).
If I still worked the road, I would probably adopt this methodology into my approach to traffic stops. But alas, in the end, it would probably just make me more cautious about EVERY person, not just those with or without an obvious permit. Those who say they do have a gun are little threat, those that say no very well may be the most dangerous. An unfortunate catch 22 that some would say borders on constitutional infringment when a citizen is disarmed during a stop.
There is no right answer to this but unless you've worked the road in Gary on midnights, you don't know how much it seems/feels to be a safety advantage when you take a gun out of someone else's control and have it in yours. It's one of those cheesy "judged by 12 than carried by 6" moments. Whether it's a constitutional infringment or if it actually provides any actual safety advantage to the officer, at the time, in the dark, all by yourself, it SEEMS right. I dunno, maybe that's just me.
I have never meant to offend anyone's right to carry a weapon and I fully recognize I have come into the lion's den even mentioning abridging that right for a few moments. My only intention is to hopefully explain the officer's position if one ever asks for your gun. Whether it's statistically effective (or perhaps even statistically more dangerous) may never be known, but I would assert that the officer is not going out of his way to demean your rights, he/she is just doing what he/she feels gives them the best chance of going home that night.
Gary?! No wonder you confiscated weapons
Seriously, thanks for coming back and clarifying your position. It is much appreciated.
