Surrendering your weapon

[T-Mann]

.....so just having a gun in NC didn't necessarily mean you had gone through a course, were a responsible citizen, etc......

Same thing in the State of Indiana, just because one has a LTCH doesn't necessarily mean that one has gone through a course, knows anything about firearms safety, or is a responsible citizen. I suppose that is why there are states that do not honor the IN license, lack of training required to obtain.

 

[grimor]

Someone needs to make a little business card that outlines the legal requirements (if any) for being asked to surrender your weapon.

1) reasonably believes that I have committed, am committing, or am about to commit a crime, or 2) reasonably believes that I am a danger to myself or someone else

and site IC or case law. Of course if there is no rulings on this, we'll just need a good guinea pig.....

 

[kludge]

Not sure about the legality of it HERE, but in MN it is against the law for them to disarm you.

If Terry applies, then they can disarm you.

If they have a reasonable belief that you are dangerous, then they can seize your firearm.

If neither apply, then like I said before, I don't believe they have legal authority.

"Officer Safety" applies to Terry. If Terry doesn't apply then they are overstepping the bounds of authority, IMO, IANAL, etc.

The excuse that they don't know me or my intentions goes both ways. Just last week someone else was arrested here for impersonating an officer and pulling people over.

How do I know you're not that guy? And now you have my gun.

"I don't know if your dangerous or not, I'm just taking precautions" doesn't fly with me. If you don't know, then the following doesn't apply:

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
​

 

[Pocketman]

It is best practice, and safest for everyone, to keep weapons holstered. Accidents occur when handling weapons, especially someone else's. Few people get shot by holstered firearms. An educated guess tells me most experienced LEOs would agree with this.

 

[Hemingway]

1. There isn't a law here in IN that says if a cop stops you for whatever (speeding, let's say) that during the transaction, if you are carrying a concealed weapon, you don't have to notify him of that fact? In NC is was mandatory--you could lose your CC permit if he later found you to have a gun on and you didn't notify him, even if you are legally permitted to be carrying a concealed weapon. I honestly don't know, I'm just asking-I don't even have an IN cc permit.

2. If one of you was a cop and you're working the west side of Indy and you pull over a car for, say a headlight out (even something very minor) with 4 thugs in it and there's a Glock/AR/whatever sitting on the dash, you'd ask for his license and registration and then go back to your car and sit and do your paperwork with those guys having access to AT LEAST that weapon?

I'm not a cop but that sounds like about the least safest thing I've ever heard.

 

[dmdracer]

Well folks, I'm still looking for an answer to the OP's original question.

There seems to be alot of opinion... but no real answer.

Where can I find the correct answer?

Kirk, being your an Atty. do you have any comment ?

Thanks all... I'm just trying to learn.

Dave

 

[ryknoll3]

1. There isn't a law here in IN that says if a cop stops you for whatever (speeding, let's say) that during the transaction, if you are carrying a concealed weapon, you don't have to notify him of that fact? In NC is was mandatory--you could lose your CC permit if he later found you to have a gun on and you didn't notify him, even if you are legally permitted to be carrying a concealed weapon. I honestly don't know, I'm just asking-I don't even have an IN cc permit.

2. If one of you was a cop and you're working the west side of Indy and you pull over a car for, say a headlight out (even something very minor) with 4 thugs in it and there's a Glock/AR/whatever sitting on the dash, you'd ask for his license and registration and then go back to your car and sit and do your paperwork with those guys having access to AT LEAST that weapon?

I'm not a cop but that sounds like about the least safest thing I've ever heard.

No, there is nothing in the IC that requires notification to LEO that you are carrying.

Here's the question that I've never heard anyone answer. You mention someone having a gun up on the dash... is anyone who is going to shoot the cop going to admit it when he asks if you have a weapon? The people the cops need to worry about aren't going to tell them that they are carrying a firearm anyway.

 

[Sticky]

Just a quick question.
Suppose you are pulled over for a supposed traffic violation and you have on your person a concealed weapon and you are properly licensed to do so.
The officer asks you if you have any weapons and you answer truthfully to the affirmative. The officer then asks for you weapon and permit. Does the officer have the legal right to take your weapon? I know that the officer does have the right to inspect my permit, but I have never been keen on the idea of handing my weapon over to anyone unless absolutely necessary.
I would appreciate any comments especially if you can reference Indiana Code to this type of situation.

Roadie stated that, "However, case law has also determined once the LTCH is produced, in the absence of any other PC or RS, any inquiry regarding the weapon must end.".

I don't personally know the referenced case.

I would think that once the LEO knows a LTCH exists, the weapon itself is not enough reason to believe you are "armed and dangerous". Not enough reason to take your safety and/or emergency rescue equipment (weapon ) unless other cause or suspicion is also present. At that point in time, the LEO has no reasonable cause to believe that a gun violation exists. Now the only issue should be the reason for the traffic stop.

 

[in625shooter]

Let me add something here. Some folks get worked up on this but let me talk from a former municipal LEO standpoint. Someone gets stopped for a traffic infraction (speeding) there is no law saying you have to claim to the officer you are CCW. They may never know however if you are stepping back to their car for the ticket (like several agencies do) it's their (officers perception if they see it etc) Yes, you know you are legal, not a threat etc but, look at it from his/her point of view.

Say you "claim" a firearm. The officer then has "reasonable suspision" to check your permit and remove firearm for officer safety (my department also ran the serial # to make sure ity wasn't stolen). No different than getting your plate ran.

It was not being "seized" because if legit you got it returned in a minimum amount of time after the ticket was issued etc. If something happend (driver lost it, became disorderly etc) then it could go from an infraction to a misdemeaner. If thats the case then the officer could send the report to the state police and said person could get their permit suspended.

Now before some of you cuss me I am just stating a couple reasons why it is not out of the ordinary for an LEO to "check out" your firearm. It usually boils down to how both the LEO and the driver etc talk to each other. If you have a chip on your shoulder the LEO is probably going to start writing and not stop. If the LEO has a chip than I would suggest fighting it through his/her supervisor. There are people with common sense and people without common sense it's just some without are police officers.

No one likes anyone LEO or other on a power trip. we have all seen those officers that love pushing buttons on people. It doesn't matter what the officer's personal views are if it checks out than or isn't agianst the law then move on some just can't figure that out.

Overzealous LEO's are everywhere.
And if anyone thinks it just happens to civilians there are even some agencies employees getting grief that CCW in other jurisdictions (ie Chicago) under the HR 218. Some have been hooked up til they get to the station only for the officer/department to figure out that they couldn't be arrested for that. No different than a civilian unless you up it to a disorderly etc charge.

 

[INGunGuy]

Let me add something here. .... ALL TEXT REMOVED

in625shooter,

I think that most of us on the forum are NOT anti-LEO only anti JBT-LEO. Ok, with that out of the way. How about when government agents start coming into your home and asking to check your firearms "to make sure they arent stolen". How about when government agents stop you on the street to just make sure you arent an illegal person. I, and most others on here, dont go for the old "Ausweiss Bitte?" routine, and dont find that giving up our civil liberties is the right thing to do.

Let me ask you this, if you or any other LEO were to stop me for speeding, now as I have said NUMEROUS times thruout this forum, I dont do drugs, I dont drive drunk, hell I barely even speed, but lets just say on the off shoot possibility that I am speeding and I get caught, and I am asked if there is a weapon in the car, and my response is "there is nothing illegal in this car". How would you react to an answer like that? Now a buddy of mine was pulled out of his car at gunpoint handcuffed and made to wait for the better part of an HOUR while numerous units responded because the LEO that pulled him over just SAW his KY CCW license when he went to get his drivers license, hell he didnt even have a weapon on him at that particular time. What about that? Should my friend have been detained for that? The mere fact of having his CCW license. That is more than overzealous, that is criminal, and a waste of taxpayer dollars for calling out the cavalry because of seeing a CCW license. IMHO that officer needs one thing, THE BOOT, he has no need in being a LEO if a CCW license scares him.

Now lets say that for some crazy reason I have answered that there isnt anything illegal in the car, and I am asked to step back to the LEO's vehicle and then it is noticed that I have a weapon on me. What next? I still have NOT committed a crime of any sort, should I be proned out and have a gin pointed at me?

I personally could care less about the excuse of "officer safety" and why? Because it is total and complete BS. There are plenty of jobs out there that are a helluva lot more dangerous than being a LEO. If someone cant hack it being a LEO and NOT trampling on peoples civil liberties then it is time for that person to find another job where they wont be so scared.

So lets say that a LEO asks me for my weapon, I request that they remove it from leather, which is the stupidest thing they can do, because we all know a gun in leather, and plastic, is safer than a weapon being handled. So the LEO pulls out my weapon and summarily shoots himself in the let, thigh, etc... What then? Am I an trouble? Will I be arrested? Will I be the one having to deal with those repercussions?

These are some of the reasons that it is a BAD and I mean a really bad idea to fumble around with firearms on the side of the road because of nothing more than a ticket.

INGunGuy

 

[gunman41mag]

The POLICE have taken my gun, to call in the serial numbers, but they always give it back to me. But once the officer took the mag out of my gun, & scratched my gun with the mag, also the police have had problems, cause they don't know the name brand of my gun{CZ} & they always return my gun back to me without a round in the chamber & the gun isn't cock-n-lock anymore

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm a little late but if you want a non-fact sensitive answer it would be . . . it depends.

First, let's clear up some issues:

I suppose that is why there are states that do not honor the IN license, lack of training required to obtain.

No, it is money. When I went through the Texas-Indiana reciprocity agreement in 2001, Texas never, ever mentioned Indiana's lack of training for the LTCH. What the Texas AG was upset about was Indiana's universal reciprocity, arguing that it would "flood Texas with people carrying guns." (It was an excuse not to act).

In NC is was mandatory--you could lose your CC permit if he later found you to have a gun on and you didn't notify him,

Indiana has no such notification statute.

North Carolina is not Texas but because another state was referenced rhino owes only a box of .45acp and not an entire case.

An educated guess tells me most experienced LEOs would agree with this.

If only more cops were as wise as pocketman. I don't tell the police (well, I haven't been pulled over in a while) because I do not need any more holes in my body and the last time a cop fingered one of my guns he pointed it right back at me.

As to the original question,

Does the officer have the legal right to take your weapon [on a routine traffic stop for speeding or not using a turn signal]?

Now, as to what the police can do on say a traffic stop (not a stop for a robbery or burglary, something stupid like shooting up a stop sign, etc.). I do believe once the officer knows the motorist has a LTCH that he cannot finger the weapon(s).

I believe the Washington case from last year controls in these situation. It is availabe here and I urge INGO to read it: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

Now, that's all well and good, but 99.9% if not more of INGO is not driving around with illegal drugs and is only concerned about the officer endangering themselves, fellow motorists, or even the office himself (as my friend who had a P99 taken and the trooper pointed it at himself in attempting to release the magazine). What should I do if the officer wants to "check the gun."

1. Tell him you do so under protest.

2. Ask that you step from the vehicle so the officer can take it from the holster, please don't point it at me.

3. If you have it in the glove box or the like, again ask if you can exit and have the officer take it.

4. I'd get his name to report that behavior.

5. Don't grab it and draw it, he may jump back from the car right back into traffic or draw his pistol. Above all relax, you're not doing anything wrong, he is.

Arguably it could be Criminal Conversion but you are going to have a hard time finding a Prosecuting Attorney to take it, regardless of the case law.

The only way we are going to change this police behavior (it's not all cops, as many here on INGO have stated that fingering the guns is foolish and the only cop that wanted one of my guns was a foot stop of me coming out of a coffee house) is via public outcry. I don't mean marching in the streets, but bring it to the attention of chiefs of police, Sheriffs, state cops and the like. We call and write the General Assembly and make our concerns known.

Heck, some of the cops, even older ones, may not know how dangerous this roadside fingering is. Change the culture, change the world.

I have long argued that Indiana needs a statute (one way or the other) on this. I would could down on the con side. I believe waving guns around in public does not help public safety, especially after I saw it (both my own muzzle and the muzzle sweeping joggers, bicyclists and moms with strollers) in person.

Hope that helps.

 

[squirrelhntr]

i hate even the sound of surrendering your weapon. WTF 4

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The cover story is to "run the serial number" to see if your pistol is stolen.

However, running the serial number is a search without warrant or even probable cause.

The real reason to take your weapon is to place the gun owner in fear so that he will not exercise their rights, a form of a heckler's veto.

 

[in625shooter]

in625shooter,

I think that most of us on the forum are NOT anti-LEO only anti JBT-LEO. Ok, with that out of the way. How about when government agents start coming into your home and asking to check your firearms "to make sure they arent stolen". How about when government agents stop you on the street to just make sure you arent an illegal person. I, and most others on here, dont go for the old "Ausweiss Bitte?" routine, and dont find that giving up our civil liberties is the right thing to do.

Let me ask you this, if you or any other LEO were to stop me for speeding, now as I have said NUMEROUS times thruout this forum, I dont do drugs, I dont drive drunk, hell I barely even speed, but lets just say on the off shoot possibility that I am speeding and I get caught, and I am asked if there is a weapon in the car, and my response is "there is nothing illegal in this car". How would you react to an answer like that? Now a buddy of mine was pulled out of his car at gunpoint handcuffed and made to wait for the better part of an HOUR while numerous units responded because the LEO that pulled him over just SAW his KY CCW license when he went to get his drivers license, hell he didnt even have a weapon on him at that particular time. What about that? Should my friend have been detained for that? The mere fact of having his CCW license. That is more than overzealous, that is criminal, and a waste of taxpayer dollars for calling out the cavalry because of seeing a CCW license. IMHO that officer needs one thing, THE BOOT, he has no need in being a LEO if a CCW license scares him.

Now lets say that for some crazy reason I have answered that there isnt anything illegal in the car, and I am asked to step back to the LEO's vehicle and then it is noticed that I have a weapon on me. What next? I still have NOT committed a crime of any sort, should I be proned out and have a gin pointed at me?

I personally could care less about the excuse of "officer safety" and why? Because it is total and complete BS. There are plenty of jobs out there that are a helluva lot more dangerous than being a LEO. If someone cant hack it being a LEO and NOT trampling on peoples civil liberties then it is time for that person to find another job where they wont be so scared.

So lets say that a LEO asks me for my weapon, I request that they remove it from leather, which is the stupidest thing they can do, because we all know a gun in leather, and plastic, is safer than a weapon being handled. So the LEO pulls out my weapon and summarily shoots himself in the let, thigh, etc... What then? Am I an trouble? Will I be arrested? Will I be the one having to deal with those repercussions?

These are some of the reasons that it is a BAD and I mean a really bad idea to fumble around with firearms on the side of the road because of nothing more than a ticket.

INGunGuy

I didn't think anyone was really going to the anti LEO road here. A lot of people can think "officer safety" is BS but with the "officer safety" it doesn't matter what me,you or anyone think. It has been ruled that certain things under "officers safety" are "allowed" with that. Some just skirt the line of being an *&# hole and civil liberty. If anyone thinks the line was crossed they can always hire an attorney

I understand if you have an overzealous officer using it as an excuse. I've worked with them and I've reminded them they need to remember why they are here. Like I said there are common sense officers and some that are not so. Each officer will have a different style. I no longer work municipal LE. When I did there were only a only a couple times when I asked for the weapon and I removed it myself. That was usually because of other factors DUI etc.

I Normally asked for illegal items. As for your scenerio on if asked for a weapon and you respond "theres nothing illegal in the car". I addressed that. If you start being vague then that will normally be seen as trying to hide something. Honesty is the best policy as they say.

As for your friend I am sorry that happened to him. If that happened how he said then I would have hired an attorney.


The scenerio was the person was stopped for XYZ. We are not talking about anyone coming into your house to "check serial # etc. If you are stopped and directed to go to the LEO's car I said it's up to you if you claim your weapon or not. If the officer is surpprised by it (and they willo be sizing you up for weapons) don't be shocked by w negative reaction. If you claim it and are given a rash of %$#@ then I stated take it up with his/her sup town council etc.

We could what if all day. If the LEO is insistant on removing it themselves and it discharges then thats on them.

Bottom line is the actions of the driver caused the officer a "good faith believe" that they witnessed an infraction so driver is stopped. That stop gave the officer reasonable suspision. Wether it is a good idea or not to remove the firearms can be what if'd all day too.

Legally the officer is legal to do it.

 

[finity]

...I Normally asked for illegal items. As for your scenerio on if asked for a weapon and you respond "theres nothing illegal in the car". I addressed that. If you start being vague then that will normally be seen as trying to hide something. Honesty is the best policy as they say.

Why is it that so many, especially in law enforcement, use the old "if you've got nothing to hide" idea?

You don't have to tell the police the truth. About anything. You don't have to answer any questions. About anything.

That's why we have the 5A. If you don't like that then there are plenty of other countries that don't have that protection built into their laws. I figure you could always find a job as a LEO there.

(the "you" above was a generalized "you" not necessarily you, in625shooter, since you don't work as a cop anymore. However you are enabling illegal behavior by the cops so you are a part of the problem.)

...Bottom line is the actions of the driver caused the officer a "good faith believe" that they witnessed an infraction so driver is stopped. That stop gave the officer reasonable suspision.

That only gives the officer RS about that particular infraction, not RS for anything beyond that.

If that wasn't the case then EVERY stop could (would?) turn into a full blown search of the vehicle & the person. Obviously that is not allowed so what you just said is false on its face.

...It has been ruled that certain things under "officers safety" are "allowed" with that...

CERTAIN things, yes but I don't necessarily agree with those things either.

...Legally the officer is legal to do it.

No.

It has been shown by Kirk in the case he posted that it is NOT ALLOWED.

You say that taking someone's firearm from them is not a "seizure". Ok, what is defined as a siezure then? Can you take the persons wallet, phone, TV or any other thing from them for "officer safety"? I've never heard of any cop asking for the keys to a persons car on a simple traffic stop. Isn't that a very obvious & large "weapon" as well?

How long do you have to have it before it is "seized"? 5 minutes? An hour? A day?

As the case above shows the RS you say exists disappears the instant the LTCH is presented. Anything that is done with the gun after that is an illegal seizure. Get used to it. It's the law of the land now & is no longer open for debate.

If I have to follow the court's decisions on those things that have been ruled "OK" to be done for "officer safety" then cops have to follow the laws (ie. Constitution) & other court decisions that protect ME from illegal actions by them. You see, it DOES work both ways...whether the cops like it or not.

 

[joshuametivier]

Thank you INGunGuy for your reasonable response. It appears there will always be dissonance between law abidings and law enforcers.. I mean look at the words.. abide/enForce. even the two words insinuate an imbalance of power. No one likes to know they are on the underside of an imbalance. Prudence is a law abiding citizens only insurance in this matter.

 

[joshuametivier]

finity. arguing this case idealistically (or abstractly) is one thing. realistically (or practically) LEO's will have the immediate upper hand. The first word. If you want to have a say yourself it will be saved for another arena; the courtroom. With that said it would certainly be interesting to see a cost ratio to benefit. If you have the money and interest to really fight for what you believe (which I support any American who knows and values his rights) then how many of these cases are really being won by the law abiding citizen and how often does the ruling favor the LEO? More important, how much did it cost? We as "the people" are not represented by law enforcement. We are represented by who we elect into office, and frankly if you have a problem with this your local representative is the guy to take this up with. Thats how laws get enacted, repealed, and amended. Thats the real beauty of being an American. Joshua

 

[redpitbull44]

I began scrolling through and saw the "I've never had a cop as for my gun." responses.
I have been pulled over NUMEROUS times, by local, and state police, typically for speeding, and each one began the same way; me holding my bright pink LTCH out the window in my left hand, with my right hand hanging out the window. From there its "Wheres your gun?" "Is it loaded?" and "I'm gonna need to verify that it isn't stolen."

Now, previously I didn't have a problem with this AT ALL, even when one statie decided to disassemble my XD, put the slide in the front passenger floor board, the frame in the rear driver floor board, the ammo in the empty baby seat, and the magazine in the passenger rear floorboard! He said "Hey man, I don't know you well enough to trust you won't shoot me in the back."

Then I decided I wasn't going to tell unless asked. Well, before, when I would do the card showing first, I would get a warning. The last few times that I haven't said anything, I've gotten tickets. Maybe I should start showing my LTCH again?

 

[bassplayrguy]

There is no excuse for them to take your gun apart and risk losing pieces to it. That is just him being and *******. People like that have absolutely NO BUSINESS being cops. That would have earned a talk with his superiors in a not so nice manner.