Oh, I'm going there!
How in the hell was this a good experience? Is it okay for him to rape your rights as long as he smiles while he does it? Have you heard of the 2nd and 4th amendments to to Constitution? Guess what, they apply to you!
Also, have you considered the fact that your gun, left alone in your holster, has a very, very, very little chance of firing? When you get it out and hand it to the officer, not only is it most likely going to point at one of you, but the chance of the firearm going off is also now in play. Add the fact that cops aren't gun smiths, so they possibly don't know exactly how to operate your gun while they are "making it safe" and you could be explaining why your gun was responsible for shooting a cop.
So all in all, it looks like your rights were violated and a dangerous situation was created when not necessary. Not exactly sure why this is considered a good encounter?
Could anyone enlighten my as to why what happened was good, because if it was, I would like to know how I am looking at this wrong...
I can say from my own experience that any time someone volunteered the fact that they were carrying, it almost always got them a warning. As another poster said, I appreciated them being open and upfront with me, and it usually got them a pass. I just love it when law officials use prejudice in their job.
However, I did usually take their gun with me back to my car. 1) To run it to make sure it wasn't stolen and 2) to take it out of their hands. I normally would have them remove it from their holster/under their seat/wherever it was using just their pinky and thumb. I know it sounds dumb but it was a trick I was taught early on that makes it very difficult for someone to use their gun aggressively. Or at least not before I could use mine. That way, their gun was in my control. I often returned it to them with the magazine out and if there was a round in the chamber it would be back in the mag. That way they can't just immediately turn around and shoot me in the back as I walk back to my car.
I can't find a single thing in the above paragraph that has to do with protect and serve. All I see is "I'm a cop. You aren't. Do what I say. You have no rights right now. I should not only have the upper hand to kill you, but will take away your defenses. I'm a cop. I will mess with your **** and you can't do anything about it."
But in direct reply to your constitutional questions, those are laughable. I find people that find the Constitution laughable, laughable. I don't think the framers of the constitution would consider being without your gun for the four minutes necessary to issue a ticket a real infringement of your right to belong to a regulated militia. 2nd applies to private citizens, it does not say you have the right to belong to a regulated militia. Have you ever read the 2nd amendment? Look it up real quick then let us know what the last 4 words are. Especially during what we are to assume was a legal traffic stop.
As for your odd gun contention (that the police are not gunsmiths), that is true, we are not. But I would say 95% of handguns fall into two broad categories that definitely don't cross into rocket science. This stuff isn't fiction, there are members of this board that have have been put in danger by officers not knowing how to handle their firearm. Taking the bullets/mag out is not akin to breaking it down to all its components. Again, a rather laughable contention. So its safer to fiddle f*** with putting rounds back in my magazine than not unloading it in the first place?
All in all, I'm glad the OP's interaction was positive. I suppose the only way it could have been better is if it were a warning he issued instead of a ticket
Oh, I'm going there!
How in the hell was this a good experience? Is it okay for him to rape your rights as long as he smiles while he does it? Have you heard of the 2nd and 4th amendments to to Constitution? Guess what, they apply to you!
Also, have you considered the fact that your gun, left alone in your holster, has a very, very, very little chance of firing? When you get it out and hand it to the officer, not only is it most likely going to point at one of you, but the chance of the firearm going off is also now in play. Add the fact that cops aren't gun smiths, so they possibly don't know exactly how to operate your gun while they are "making it safe" and you could be explaining why your gun was responsible for shooting a cop.
So all in all, it looks like your rights were violated and a dangerous situation was created when not necessary. Not exactly sure why this is considered a good encounter?
Could anyone enlighten my as to why what happened was good, because if it was, I would like to know how I am looking at this wrong...
I can say from my own experience that any time someone volunteered the fact that they were carrying, it almost always got them a warning. As another poster said, I appreciated them being open and upfront with me, and it usually got them a pass.
However, I did usually take their gun with me back to my car. 1) To run it to make sure it wasn't stolen and 2) to take it out of their hands. I normally would have them remove it from their holster/under their seat/wherever it was using just their pinky and thumb. I know it sounds dumb but it was a trick I was taught early on that makes it very difficult for someone to use their gun aggressively. Or at least not before I could use mine. That way, their gun was in my control. I often returned it to them with the magazine out and if there was a round in the chamber it would be back in the mag. That way they can't just immediately turn around and shoot me in the back as I walk back to my car.
But in direct reply to your constitutional questions, those are laughable. I don't think the framers of the constitution would consider being without your gun for the four minutes necessary to issue a ticket a real infringement of your right to belong to a regulated militia. Especially during what we are to assume was a legal traffic stop.
As for your odd gun contention (that the police are not gunsmiths), that is true, we are not. But I would say 95% of handguns fall into two broad categories that definitely don't cross into rocket science. Taking the bullets/mag out is not akin to breaking it down to all its components. Again, a rather laughable contention.
All in all, I'm glad the OP's interaction was positive. I suppose the only way it could have been better is if it were a warning he issued instead of a ticket
on what he thought was a good encounter.
I'm going to stay out of this one, but I will make but ONE request.
If you guys want to b***h at each other about who is right and who's ba**s are bigger..........either take it to another thread or by PM. The OP thought his encounter was a positive one so in light of that it matters not what anyone else thinks, those that agree with him or those that don't.
I honestly don't mind the debating or the disagreeing, what I do mind is when the OP posts a thread about how HE thought it was a good encounter and others come in and
Grow up and be happy for the OP that he had what he thought was a good encounter even if you think it was an abonmination.
It's rapidly becoming the way here.
That's just crazy. You're not allowed those here.
That's just crazy. You're not allowed those here.
That's just crazy. You're not allowed those here.
Just not in this thread apparently.
I guess OP's should put a disclaimer at the bottom of their thread that says its ok to post in the thread? edit: or not.
IBTL
