A question about a traffic stop

I know it.

Shorts said:
mmm, use your reading comprehension skills mr luva. It fits the bill
Click to expand...

But I just had to....

Speaking of reading comprehension skills (or spelling or typing or ???).....


Mr. Luv(s)a
 
Well you guys have to understand, during the academy they get to have the pleasurable experience of watching countless videos where an officer walks up to a car and is shot, or is shot as he is walking back to his car. The older ones who have been on the streets for a while are going to be more relaxed, the younger ones are gonna drop a load in their pants. Thats just how it goes (most of the time anyway)
 
Well you guys have to understand, during the academy they get to have the pleasurable experience of watching countless videos where an officer walks up to a car and is shot, or is shot as he is walking back to his car. The older ones who have been on the streets for a while are going to be more relaxed, the younger ones are gonna drop a load in their pants. Thats just how it goes (most of the time anyway)
Click to expand...

Cops arent allowed to be in condition yellow, only armed citizens:p

Ya see, if an armed citizen sees a suspicious looking girl scout knocking on his door, he is entitled to and rightfully should draw the pistol he wears 24/7 as he opens the door. Thats because armed citizens have the judgement and training to know when and where to utilize deadly force with that shiny new gun they bought at the gunshow yesterday, plus everyone knows from reading message Boards that Illegal Mexican immigrant cartel Home Invaders frequently disguise themselves as girlscouts, meals on wheels reps and Mormon Missionaries so as to achieve armed entry into your home to kidnap you and bring you back to mexico where you will be sacrificed to Aztec gods.

On the other hand, cops should are not entitled that same lattitude. Thus, when they pull over the vehicle with the busted tailight at 3am that has been circling around the local Stop and Rob for the past 15 minutes, even thinking of asking whether there is a weapon in the car would violate the rights of American citizens...especially in light of the fact that they get no training on law and tactics and suchlike, they are merely given a badge and told to go out and violate the rights of as many persons as possible...

WildicouldgoonwithdialogueandsuchlikebutimtiredAlaska TM
 
JSHunter said:
Yesterday afternoon I was pulled over for not completely stopping at a stop sign. I have a concealment license and keep a pistol in my truck with me at all times. I have been told by other police officers that the appreciate it when a person tells them there is a gun in your vehicle, so I did so. My concern is what happened after this. I was asked to step out of the truck and where I kept it. I can understand why I needed to step out of the truck. I do not understand why I needed to tell her where it was. She then took my gun back to her car, unloaded it and wrote me a ticket. Is it her place to remove my property from my truck like she did? I don't believe she should have. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks guys.
Click to expand...


You told the officer you had a weapon, presumably she would not have even known one was present otherwise, so why does she feel the need to remove it from the vehicle? Safety? Come on, you volunteered the fact a weapon was present and your violation hardly warrants suspicion of any further problems.

Is the officer/the state taking responsibility for your weapon? If they drop it to the ground on the way to/from their patrol car, will you be reimbursed for the repair cost? After all, they are disarming you for "their safety", not because you committed a crime with the weapon.

Addressing officer safety, is it safe for a police officer to be unloading a firearm that may be unfamiliar? Many police officers know less about firearms than the general public would suspect. What if the officer has an accidental discharge while handling your firearm?

Why does the officer feel the need to remove the disarm someone for "the safety of the officer"? In that case, the officer should leave their service pistol in the patrol car when they come back from "disarming me". If I can't have a weapon, they don't need one either. I might have other concealed weapons, you say? Yes, but then why bother taking away the one I told you about?
 
In My Understanding..

Of my states law (Ohio), a CCW is tied to your vehicle registration as well, and I was told a CCW holder has the responsibility to inform a police officer of your CCW license, if armed, or not, and to ask what the officer wants you to do after you inform them of that information.

I ain't got a problem surrendering my firearm to a LEO if that is going to make them feel safer in the situation doing so. My holding a license to carry concealed doesn't automatically make me anything special, it simply means that I had been law abiding enough to qualify for a license at the time it was issued. And I fail to understand the attitude that a LEO asking that you hand over your weapon in a stop violates any civil right you have, or that it insults you in any way.

I had to laugh at the comment that if a cop sees you driving with a light out that they should simply note it, and have the department send you a letter in the mail informing you of a vehicle problem. Judging from the amount of vehicles I see every week on the road as a trucker, the sheer volume of mail that plan would generate would more than pay off the national debt in a short time.
 
I ain't got a problem surrendering my firearm to a LEO if that is going to make them feel safer in the situation doing so.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to surrender your firearm if that is going to make Mr. Obama feel safer too?
 
Ah, thank you for the update. Between Arizona v. Gant and Arizona v. Johnson, the times they are a changin'
Click to expand...

It just gives us another form to fill out. If I want to search a offenders car I have to tow it now. Just more nonsense
 
Quote:
I ain't got a problem surrendering my firearm to a LEO if that is going to make them feel safer in the situation doing so.
Are you willing to surrender your firearm if that is going to make Mr. Obama feel safer too?
Click to expand...

I believe you present a much different scenario in that case don't you? I guess simply making a statement about allowing a police officer a level of comfort in a traffic stop situation with a CCW holder is lost on you. Of course, take things to a indictment that anyone who would do so is somehow less of a civil rights advocate than you are, and of course, do it in the most insulting manner you can muster.

I have a lot of friends who are cops, I also know of situations where armed people who had never been a danger to anyone suddenly decide to do something totally out of character. Of course, in a perfect world, everyone who ever obtained the right to carry concealed always remain a perfect citizen, who never makes an irrational act. We don't live in that damned world, do we?

My state requires a CCW holder to inform the officer of your status in a traffic stop, and it's suggested that you do so and also include whether you are at the present time or not, and then ask the officer what they'd like you to do. If a simple act like that can make a LEO feel more at ease in the encounter, I fail to see what the problem is.

In the case of Mr. Obama, I doubt seriously he will request that I turn over my firearm to him, he'll send his minions to do the dirty work instead. That will only occur IF every gun owner in this country suddenly buries their head in the sand and refuses to fight for our 2nd amendment rights.

But thanks for taking a discussion that simply reflected the appropriate actions to take in a traffic stop while armed and try to turn it into some claim that people who don't answer the way you wanted are somehow less of a advocate of gun rights than you are. FOCUS!
 
So here's where we're at, vehicle search option wise:

1. Consent Search -
There are two requirements for a consent search to be valid. (1) The consent must be voluntarily given. (2) The consent must be given by someone with either actual or apparent authority over the place or thing to be searched. For example, the owner of a vehicle would have actual authority to consent to the search.

An individual may limit the scope of the search.

2. Inventory Search -
There are three requirements: (1) the vehicle must have been lawfully impounded. (2) A standardized inventory policy must exist. (3) The inventory must be conducted in accordance with the standardized inventory policy.

As a general rule, inventory searches may not extend further than necessary to discover valuables or other items for safekeeping. Treading near the policy line? Why not get a warrant?

3. Search Incident to Arrest -
See new guidelines set forth in Arizona v. Gant. What changed with Gant: Officers cannot search a vehicle as a matter of routine following the arrest of the driver. Departments and their personnel will adapt. More detail to come as the time to dig into Gant arises.

4. Vehicle Exception -
There are two requirements: (1) There must be probable cause to belive that evidence of a crime or contraband is located in the vehicle; and (2) the vehicle is readily mobile.

A search conducted pursuant to the vehicle exception may be conducted at the scene or after the vehicle has been impounded. However, in instances where the vehicle is already impounded, why not pursue a warrant?

5. Terry Frisk (of a vehicle or occupant) -
There are two requirements: (1) A LEO must have lawfully stopped a vehicle. (2) The officer must have a reasonable belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.
 
Last edited:
Yapping irrelevancies about Obama will make this thread cease. Please say on the real world topic (despite how one might want to go to political flights of slippery slopes).

Given what I know about how surprises can cause bad things to happen, I am happy not to surprise an armed officer with my instrument of lethal force. Very pragmatic but not preachy.
 
Still have a lot of reading to get this whole thread but wanted to type a response and it wouldn't be changed by anything I read, so figured I would jump the gun. No cute pun intended.

So, I absolutely plan on handing over my permit if I ever get pulled over. It's been half a decade since I have, but even though I have experienced police doing things that I would have wished they wouldn't, including a cop who ran my plates when I asked for directions running me down instead of letting me know that the two bucks late fee on a speeding ticket had resulted in my license being revoked arresting me after leading me to the road I was looking for, I have the complete and upmost respect for all LEO, and as long as they don't shoot me or hurt me, I give them full authority during a traffic stop to protect themselves, since it's the most dangerous thing they do.
 
Okay...lets get to the relevant matter then. Encountering an otherwise non-threatening citizen who legally has a firearm holstered on his or her person should NOT be "surprising" to a LEO. That is merely a citizen exercising his or her right to carry. What would be "surprising" would be the LEO encountering a citizen who POINTS a gun at him. Now that's pragmatic.
 
+100, Erik and Antipitas. This area of the law is complicated and sticky at best...and apparently ever-changing. Kudos for staying on top of it.

If I were a lawyer (not yet) and were giving legal advice (absolutely not), I'd say to keep your brake lights working and your speed under the limit if you want to keep the cops' noses out of your vehicle (and/or keep anything they find in your car out of court). :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top