Traffic stop - trooper asked about guns

[dross]

This is why I will NEVER voluntarily inform.

As someone posted once, I think it was Rhino, the best answer to the firearm question is, "I have nothing illegal in the vehicle. May I leave?" If the officer insists, clarify that it's an order, not a request.

Disarming people who voluntarily inform is silly and self-defeating. Until I read about these types of incidents, I was in the "always inform as a measure of politeness and respect" camp. Now, I'm firmly in the "only do what the law requires" camp. How did disarming law-abiding folks with proof of a background check make anyone any safer?

 

[rmcrob]

We had just seen an episode of American Justice a day or two before, about the case of Aaron Campbell, a sheriff's dept major from Dade County Florida, who was stopped in Orange County Florida by a "traffic" cop, who was really a narcotics officer.

Articles about Aaron Campbell - Orlando Sentinel

I'm sure my wife would have been totally compliant unless the request was absolutely out of line. She's not a troublemaker. She said the officer was kind of gruff, but otherwise treated her just fine.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Was her response, "what do you need, trooper?"

How did disarming law-abiding folks with proof of a background check make anyone any safer?

Well, I did get my own pistol pointed at me by a gun-ignorant cop, so I got that going for me.

 

[jeremy]

So...
What would happen if you told the officer no you may not have my weapon.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Maybe get arrested for Resisting, but would not last long.

Given the problems of officers handling firearms, especially unfamiliar firearms as in my case (I don't believe he had ever handled a 1911 before and that's why he was pointing all over Creation), I think everyone (including passing motorists) would be safer if everyone left their guns alone.

I don't know a solution other mass awakening among the police that when they do this they endanger many lives. Perhaps a statute forbidding police from doing this, but I don't think the criminal code needs yet another page as it is.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

RMCROB, as a retired lawman myself I would encourage you to have your wife file an official complaint regarding the trooper's actions. He had no right whatsoever to take custody of her gun and was in fact violating her civil rights under color of law.

This crap will never stop as long as people remain complacent about it.

 

[alwalker84]

RMCROB, as a retired lawman myself I would encourage you to have your wife file an official complaint regarding the trooper's actions. He had no right whatsoever to take custody of her gun and was in fact violating her civil rights under color of law.

This crap will never stop as long as people remain complacent about it.

Really?

I've even had my gun confiscated during a traffic accident while the officer wrote the report. Then he gave it back after he was done and went about his marry way.

 

[R3ydium]

Maybe get arrested for Resisting, but would not last long.

Given the problems of officers handling firearms, especially unfamiliar firearms as in my case (I don't believe he had ever handled a 1911 before and that's why he was pointing all over Creation), I think everyone (including passing motorists) would be safer if everyone left their guns alone.

I don't know a solution other mass awakening among the police that when they do this they endanger many lives. Perhaps a statute forbidding police from doing this, but I don't think the criminal code needs yet another page as it is.

Wow, that seems really safe!

That really happened? sheesh

 

[R3ydium]

RMCROB, as a retired lawman myself I would encourage you to have your wife file an official complaint regarding the trooper's actions. He had no right whatsoever to take custody of her gun and was in fact violating her civil rights under color of law.

This crap will never stop as long as people remain complacent about it.

Good words!

I have a few law enforcement friends, and I get such a mixed story. Some of them almost despise other officers, and tell me all the time about how many rights they violate.

Then others just pass it off as "doing a job"

 

[Indy317]

Maybe get arrested for Resisting, but would not last long.

Perhaps a statute forbidding police from doing this, but I don't think the criminal code needs yet another page as it is.

I am not so sure resisting wouldn't fly. I think the courts would side with officer safety on the issue. I also don't think the state would ever forbid officers from disarming folks. It isn't like we don't have criminals with permits. Any "routine" traffic stop could turn into a shootout, you just don't know. You stop a guy who just beat the crap out of his wife, recently lost his job, is loosing his home...sometimes people just snap. Yea, everyone might be safer from negligent discharges, but if an officer can't disarm a person who they stopped, then the officer could end up in danger if there is more to the story than just the guy driving fast late to work.

Really?

I've even had my gun confiscated during a traffic accident while the officer wrote the report. Then he gave it back after he was done and went about his marry way.

I would say no, not really. Never believe anything you read unless the person backs it up with legal documents or something similar. Just because some judges rule on some state law out west doesn't mean the same ruling would apply here. Nothing is forever until the state and/or US supreme courts rule on the issue.

 

[jeremy]

So how about when he asks for mine, would it be all right if I asked if I could have his pistol?

 

[Denny347]

So how about when he asks for mine, would it be all right if I asked if I could have his pistol?

Yeah, you probably wouldn't like the outcome. Please feel free to do so if so inclined. Let us know how it turns out.

 

[Eddie]

????

So how about when he asks for mine, would it be all right if I asked if I could have his pistol?

You should be careful and check out what he is carrying first.

 

[jeremy]

Denny,
Maybe I will when I get back to the States... Won't be the first time ticking off an Officer of the Law. Probally won't be the last.

 

[4sarge]

Maybe the Trooper or ISP Bought the Database CD or just looked it up on line at the Herald Times Database

 

[dross]

...It isn't like we don't have criminals with permits. Any "routine" traffic stop could turn into a shootout, you just don't know. You stop a guy who just beat the crap out of his wife, recently lost his job, is loosing his home...sometimes people just snap. Yea, everyone might be safer from negligent discharges, but if an officer can't disarm a person who they stopped, then the officer could end up in danger if there is more to the story than just the guy driving fast late to work....

Respectfully, your logic doesn't add up.

Everything you're saying can also apply to a guy who doesn't inform, so why incovenience someone who not only has a permit, but took the extra and non-required step of politely informing you? It reminds me of the time in the Army when the commander took us on a longer and faster run than usual, and about half the unit fell out along the way. When we got back, he spent 10 minutes chewing us out for lack of guts, never stopping to think about the silliness of yelling at the people who DIDN'T fall out. It made him FEEL better, but it didn't accomplish what he claimed he was trying to do.

Think about this: The fact that officers do this and people report it is what made me change my mind about informing. I've heard other people say the same, and there are probably many, many more lurkers here who came up with the same conclusion. My point is that if the officer is truly safer by knowing who is armed, it makes no logical sense to create more people who won't inform.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Jeremy, just don't **** off any officers in Afghanistan.

Wow, that seems really safe!

That really happened? sheesh

Yes, outside a coffee shop in Broad Ripple. He painted me, passing cars, joggers, bicyclists, even a soccer mom pushing a stroller as he twisted my 1911 around like the ape from 2001 (wierd thing is he only took my 1911 and not the other two guns on me, very odd). Talk about "pucker factor".

I am not so sure resisting wouldn't fly. I think the courts would side with officer safety on the issue.

Given Indiana's "force" requirement, I don't think a mere "no" is RLE, but perhaps if you wrestled with the cop or something stupid like that, then yes.

 

[Dashman010]

Im going to say you would be eating pavement to say the least, once you are pulled over you ARE under arrest, you will do what the officer asks or you will find yourself in a WOS, resisting arrest is not takin very lightly, if an officer asks you to hand over your weapon & you refuse i can almost guarantee you will find yourself being forced to do so

Just note that you are not "under arrest" when you are pulled over. You are "seized" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, but not under arrest, as their requires a whole host of other things to be afforded to you, like your Miranda rights should the officer ask you any questions.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Not sure on local departments, but ISP has notice of all LTCH holders, and it's noted when they run your information.

I have been told - I believe by no less a person than Bigum - that when your data is ran through the database, the same alarm sounds for licenseholders as that used to notify ISP troopers of felons.

I know, I know: {{citation needed}}, but I am more than willing to believe it.

 

[Denny347]

For all those that scream "Violating my rights!!!" it is not so black and white. You will be hard pressed to find a court to side against the officers who have legally stopped the person and KNOWS that person to be armed and took control of that firearm during the duration of the stop. Be it a traffic stop, investigatory stop, fight, domestic...etc. How does the officer know that person is armed? It is either in plain view or the person volunteers the info. Courts allow it and that is why recruits are trained that way. Where problems can occur is stopping someone solely for the purpose of checking a LTCH. That is an untested area that could go either way. However, I'm getting off topic. This thread is not challenging the validity of the stops but the validity of taking custody of a known weapon. I do believe this has been contested before to no avail. The officer does take responsibility for it's safe return. With time, recruits will be able to make determinations about who is less than a threat than others and act accordingly. This cannot be learned in a classroom but on the streets with experience.