Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Holy Crap!!!

I am not in one of Finity's Mega Quotes for once!!!!!!

Congrats!

 

[jeremy]

Hey, I had a lot of catching up to do in that one!

The thread had over 600 posts before I even started reading it so it was rife with points that needed to be made.

I actually agree with you most of the time, though. Mostly...

(I know "awww, isn't that sweet...". Whatever... )

If I ever get to meet you I'll give you a hug you big softy you....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Are you really going to try to revive the old worn out meme that “all liberal arguments are based on feelings & only conservatives arguments are based on nothing but reason & good judgment”?

As I’ve said before I’m sure that you will find many liberal issues that are based on the feelings of liberals but I’m also absolutely sure (& I’ve given examples in the past) that you will find as many conservative issues that are based solely on the emotions of conservatives, as well, & have no other basis in fact. They only differ as to the issue not the level of emotion involved.

I sense you feel strongly about this

 

[dansgotguns]

Just a thought here for consideration. What would you do?

You stop a person. You know the person is unhappy being stopped. You see an assault weapon in plain view. The person also says he has a hand gun.

I'm sorry I could not read past this point.
ASSAULT WEAPON?? FYI assault is an action not a device. His ar-15 is no different than a .223 bolt action rifle. It just has bells and whistles on it. I know my AR hasn't assaulted anyone. When the time comes that I need to defend with it then I will do the ACTION of assaulting an enemy with my AR. Sorry but that ignorance pissed me off. Now I'm going to finish reading the post.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Just a thought here for consideration. What would you do?

You stop a person. You know the person is unhappy being stopped. You see an assault weapon in plain view. The person also says he has a hand gun.

I'm sorry I could not read past this point.
ASSAULT WEAPON?? FYI assault is an action not a device. His ar-15 is no different than a .223 bolt action rifle. It just has bells and whistles on it. I know my AR hasn't assaulted anyone. When the time comes that I need to defend with it then I will do the ACTION of assaulting an enemy with my AR. Sorry but that ignorance pissed me off. Now I'm going to finish reading the post.

FYI. I was using the terminology that had been used in an earlier post. I am not the grammar police, nor am I the terminology police (I have learned the difference between a clip and a mag, though). My point was simply that a cop stopping an unhappy citizen who has two weapons close-to-hand is bound to be nervous. I wanted the reader to consider how the reader would react under those conditions. Would not anyone be a bit nervous, want to take serious precautions, heighten the situational awareness, under those conditions? I am simply asking that we recognize the cops do have a legitimate concern.

As I said earlier, if the cop is professional, courteous and efficient, I can accept being "disarmed" temporarily. An apology when he determines I am not a threat would be appreciated. If he gets up in my face, though, plays the super-hero tough guy, etc., another matter. Time to get name and number, file a complaint, etc.

Please remember, I am not a fan of LEO, but I do understand the guy has a hazardous job that I need him to do with integrity, skill, professionalism and courtesy. Most of them do, to the best of their ability.

 

[CathyInBlue]

As I said earlier, if the cop is professional, courteous and efficient, I can accept being "disarmed" temporarily.

I can't, anymore than I can accept being randomly pulled over for a documents check to confirm that I'm not driving on a suspended license or without insurance. Delaware v Prouse affirmed that such spot "document checks" are unreasonable and violative of my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In exactly the same way, US v DeBerry (7th circuit, which includes Indiana) said that in a jurisdiction where the carrying of a firearm is not de facto a crime, where people can legally carry a firearm in public, the presence of such of firearm, in and of itself, cannot constitute RAS either.

If a LEO wants to disarm me, He will need one of four things, in order of increasing authority:

1) My consent, which will never be forthcoming.

2) Reasonable, articulable concern for officer safety, which under IC 35-47-14-3 mandates they go before a judge to defend, and which I will never give him enough material to take before said judge.

3) Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit a crime, in order to detain me in a Terry stop.

4) Probable Cause to arrest me for a crime.

3 and 4 are largely cumulative and are a relatively high burden to meet in the field, especially against a non-criminal, which is not to say that dirty cops do not bootstrap and manufacture RAS or PC all the time.

Please remember, I am not a fan of LEO, but I do understand the guy has a hazardous job that I need him to do with integrity, skill, professionalism and courtesy. Most of them do, to the best of their ability.

Not to ride the drama llama too hard, but cry me a f*&%in' river. Do we need a litany of professions that have a higher on the job fatality rate than beat cops? Garbage collectors. Utility line workers. Loggers. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. If the sight of a free citizen exercising their 2nd Amendment (Art. 1, Sect. 32) rights makes a LEO lose bladder control, then they don't NEED to be a police officer. Let them take a vocational ed class as the local comm. coll. and become a draftsman.

 

[88GT]

FYI. I was using the terminology that had been used in an earlier post. I am not the grammar police, nor am I the terminology police (I have learned the difference between a clip and a mag, though). My point was simply that a cop stopping an unhappy citizen who has two weapons close-to-hand is bound to be nervous. I wanted the reader to consider how the reader would react under those conditions. Would not anyone be a bit nervous, want to take serious precautions, heighten the situational awareness, under those conditions? I am simply asking that we recognize the cops do have a legitimate concern.

As I said earlier, if the cop is professional, courteous and efficient, I can accept being "disarmed" temporarily. An apology when he determines I am not a threat would be appreciated. If he gets up in my face, though, plays the super-hero tough guy, etc., another matter. Time to get name and number, file a complaint, etc.

Please remember, I am not a fan of LEO, but I do understand the guy has a hazardous job that I need him to do with integrity, skill, professionalism and courtesy. Most of them do, to the best of their ability.

If this is about perceived risk to officer safety, then the SOP for ALL traffic stops should be the same. For what of the firearms that aren't visible? I carry two on most occasions. What's the point of confiscating my Glock if the Taurus is left in the purse?

 

[KG1]

Well to me what it should all boil down to is that there must be RAS for the officer to believe that the person exhibits a threat to "officer safety" by some action or extenuating circumstances other than the fact that they are legally carrying a firearm.

 

[dansgotguns]

I believe the LTCH is all you need as proof that I'm a law abiding citizen. It should be left at that. If you can not handle that a law abiding citizen is carrying you should change your job.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Actually, all you need is your identity, since carrying a physical LTCH is no longer required. Giving your name/addr/dob is entirely sufficient for any competent LEO to radio in for a valid LTCH check. They can double check it with the weight/height/hair/eye feedback. And, of course, it goes without saying that any of this is only legally required for a custodial seizure. For generic trolling for 35-47-2 violations, the LEO can pound sand.

 

[DWS]

Actually, all you need is your identity, since carrying a physical LTCH is no longer required.

I'm "new" in town - school me on this please...

 

[CathyInBlue]

How about schooling by reference?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...21028-dennys_not_so_great-21.html#post3079353

 

[DWS]

How about schooling by reference?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...21028-dennys_not_so_great-21.html#post3079353

That works - thank you for information. Things are very much different here than my "home town"....

 

[CathyInBlue]

What's your home town?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I can't, anymore than I can accept being randomly pulled over for a documents check to confirm that I'm not driving on a suspended license or without insurance. Delaware v Prouse affirmed that such spot "document checks" are unreasonable and violative of my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In exactly the same way, US v DeBerry (7th circuit, which includes Indiana) said that in a jurisdiction where the carrying of a firearm is not de facto a crime, where people can legally carry a firearm in public, the presence of such of firearm, in and of itself, cannot constitute RAS either.

If a LEO wants to disarm me, He will need one of four things, in order of increasing authority:

1) My consent, which will never be forthcoming.

2) Reasonable, articulable concern for officer safety, which under IC 35-47-14-3 mandates they go before a judge to defend, and which I will never give him enough material to take before said judge.

3) Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit a crime, in order to detain me in a Terry stop.

4) Probable Cause to arrest me for a crime.

3 and 4 are largely cumulative and are a relatively high burden to meet in the field, especially against a non-criminal, which is not to say that dirty cops do not bootstrap and manufacture RAS or PC all the time.

Not to ride the drama llama too hard, but cry me a f*&%in' river. Do we need a litany of professions that have a higher on the job fatality rate than beat cops? Garbage collectors. Utility line workers. Loggers. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. If the sight of a free citizen exercising their 2nd Amendment (Art. 1, Sect. 32) rights makes a LEO lose bladder control, then they don't NEED to be a police officer. Let them take a vocational ed class as the local comm. coll. and become a draftsman.

That's a pretty good comprehensive explanation right there.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

That's a pretty good comprehensive explanation right there.

Agreed. I'm digging some CIB postages. An asset to INGO AFAIK.