Told I had to inform.

[Hammerhead]

I was going to caveat my statement with "in certain circumstances" but I figured it was a given.

 

[indysims]

I don't do much traffic. I've never made it part of my stop to ask about weapons. I assume everyone has a weapon, from a gun to a knife. There really isn't much an officer can do to 100% keep a driver from taking a shot at them. There are really too many blind spots when walking up to the vehicle. Obviously there are clues that may lead an officer to suspect something. I guess those are a usually unusual actions that some people might do while being stopped (ie: Immediately lean over as if grabbing something/trying to hide something maybe). Outside of getting on the PA and making every driver put their hands out the window, or hold them up in the air, it is just a risk officers take. I figure if it happens, it happens. Hopefully training will kick in and logic functions will work that will minimize harm to an LEO coming under fire.

There are millions upon millions of handguns out there. There are many, many people carrying them at any given time: People with licenses/permits, off-duty cops, others who are in one of the exempted groups. With the new state law, an officer may as well assume every vehicle has a handgun in it. Might not be on the driver, but officers should assume that every single vehicle they see has a handgun somewhere in vehicle. Some officers like to get illegal guns off the street. That isn't a focus I have, so I guess that is likely why I don't care to ask on a "routine" traffic stop.

I appreciate your answer. I've not been stopped since I've received my LTCH but when it happens I don't plan to inform because the officer isn't in any danger and I'm not doing anything wrong in regards of carrying a weapon. If he asks for my weapon I will tell him I prefer to leave it where it is. If I'm told he needs to run the serial numbers to see if it's stolen. I will ask if he has reason to believe it's stolen and that I wish to exercise my right against illegal search & seizure. I would be willing to place the firearm in the glove box (if I haven't already put it there) and step out of my truck if that makes him more comfortable. I respect an officers right to safety and that he cannot assume everyone is a good guy.

 

[2A_Tom]

Licenses aren't stapled on people's head. There is no way to know if a person is complaint with the law until they can get into their wallet, briefcase, book bag, etc.. I tend to think in such an instance, courts would side with LEOs that they can secure the handgun until such time the license is produced.



Why can't it be:
Step 1: Cop sees guy OCing walking down the street.
Step 2: Cop asks to see LTCH.
Step 3: Guy pulls gun and shoots cop dead

Since it can be the above, I don't mind if LEOs are allowed to secure the weapon. If it comes to a point where courts rule LEOs aren't allow to secure such an item that can cause almost instant death or serious bodily injury, then should LEOs/departments/municipalities should be given full immunity for not investigating any calls where the only information is "person with a gun?" What is the amount of danger LEOs should have to face vs. reasonable under the circumstances. I guess we could always have LEOs watch the person for a bit, but there might not be an LEO available, or they may have more important things to do.



As it should be.



Why would the charges be dropped in this situation? What does running a stop light have to do with an officer removing the person, frisking the person, taking the gun, and/or running the numbers?



Are all LEOs clairvoyant or something? How does one tell if a a person OCing with a gun stuck in their waistband has a LTCH? There is no forehead tattoo requirement that I know of.





Then what are you warning me of?

The problem is that it is against the law for LE take your gun while he checks.

No one cares if you think it is OK. IT IS NOT.

 

[Indy317]

The problem is that it is against the law for LE take your gun while he checks.

No one cares if you think it is OK. IT IS NOT.

From the examples I've read here, it sounds like people willingly gave up the handgun. For those who don't, if it isn't OK, sounds like a slam dunk civil rights lawsuit, surely all those folks will file one forthwith? Some may think such actions amount to criminal conversion, but I'm going to wait for a clear cut court ruling before I support either side one way or another.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You know. That cops are "protected" while in the course of their duties. I seriously doubt a cop will be charged with a crime if he takes your gun without reason.

That said I have the example you want. I certainly did not give up my pistol but I also did not refuse. I also got out of three tickets as well.

Besides that one time I have never been disarmed. Even when four cops threw me out of a zoo for OCing.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Licenses aren't stapled on people's head. There is no way to know if a person is complaint with the law until they can get into their wallet, briefcase, book bag, etc.. I tend to think in such an instance, courts would side with LEOs that they can secure the handgun until such time the license is produced.

The (lower) courts might do so, but I can see that going so quickly that the only way you'd "secure the handgun" would be to take the guy down prior to the first word. Otherwise:
LEO:"Good afternoon, sir. I noticed your pistol there. May I see your license to carry, please?"
Citizen: "Of course. It's in my back pocket. I'll remove the wallet slowly and hand it to you."
He does so, you call, it's valid. The license was produced in mere seconds. Granted, it doesn't take even that long to draw, but if you're worried, wouldn't you call backup before you approached him?

Why can't it be:
Step 1: Cop sees guy OCing walking down the street.
Step 2: Cop asks to see LTCH.
Step 3: Guy pulls gun and shoots cop dead

It certainly could be. Are you aware of LTCH holders doing so? I'm not, but of course it's remotely possible (however unlikely) that some may do so.

The question is that if it is as many as two in 1000 LTCHs, is it justified to default to the infringement of rights because of the tiny minority in question? If so, is it justified to default to a failure to trust LEOs on the basis that some do not honor their oaths?

Since it can be the above, I don't mind if LEOs are allowed to secure the weapon. If it comes to a point where courts rule LEOs aren't allow to secure such an item that can cause almost instant death or serious bodily injury, then should LEOs/departments/municipalities should be given full immunity for not investigating any calls where the only information is "person with a gun?" What is the amount of danger LEOs should have to face vs. reasonable under the circumstances. I guess we could always have LEOs watch the person for a bit, but there might not be an LEO available, or they may have more important things to do.

My car can cause almost instant death or serious bodily injury. So can the knife in my pocket. So can the gun that no one tells you about until it's pointed at you and going bang. As above, I'm not aware of LTCH holders doing that, but I am aware that prior to the default being to take the firearm, field strip it, empty the mag and return all or part of it in a baggie with orders not to reassemble it until the officer is gone (leaving the citizen defenseless against any threat in the meantime), people who were carrying legally DID inform. When the result of doing so is a negative reinforcement, basic psychology tells us that the behavior will change. I am of the opinion that LEOs have no one to blame but other LEOs who do that for them not being told now.

Finally, you already have that full immunity. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, in which the children (and wife, IIRC) of a man subject to a restraining order were killed by that man, and police were not expected to intervene to prevent that from happening.

As it should be.

God willing. What would be even better is if there were fewer laws for you guys to have to waste time enforcing.

Why would the charges be dropped in this situation? What does running a stop light have to do with an officer removing the person, frisking the person, taking the gun, and/or running the numbers?

The running of the stop light would not necessarily be a dropped charge. Anything regarding the firearm could be reasonably expected to be dropped.

Are all LEOs clairvoyant or something? How does one tell if a a person OCing with a gun stuck in their waistband has a LTCH? There is no forehead tattoo requirement that I know of.

So your default position is to assume the person to be guilty of CWOL and treat them like a criminal who has to prove his innocence?

Then what are you warning me of?

Perhaps that the IN Supreme Court has ruled on this, and continuing to enforce in the manner you seem to advocate might well lead to a lawsuit against both the city and you personally. See IC 35-47-11.1-3 and 35-47-35-5 thru 7.



Blessings,
Bill