back to the "why would an LEO disarm a CCWer when doing a rountine traffic stop?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Still (& still) mulling over why any LEO would think that it's "necessary" to disarm a citizen that has a CCW - say, during the citizens' changing of a flat tire or some other innocuous event in which the LEO made contact.

Whether or not said citizen didn't take offence - still doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

And, it's a telling statement (to me) regarding LEOs who would "feel the need."

I'd like to see some stats (by LEOs preferably - but whomever) to support the "need" to disarm law-abiding folk soley because you made contact with same.

Please do cite stats re how many LEOs' lives were placed in jeopardy by legal CCW-folk during routine traffic stops, et al to support your stance.

So nobody has any doubt whatsoever where I'm coming from, I most emphatically state that I think, believe, feel that if I am disarmed (for whatever reason - other than actually in commision [or past commision] of a crime) my rights have been violated.

& just to throw another bit of a twist into the fray - how is it that we should all feel safer when (if) said LEO disarms me is, per
capita, less experienced with safety issues re firearms than is the CCW holder? So, we're to turn over an already safe firearm in the hands of an already safe holder to a likely unsafe (& now "nervous") person?

Huh?

& the usual disclaimer = this ain't a cop-bashin' post ... it's a legitimate question & would really hate to see this go to a cop-basher thread - isn't needed.

I'm for cops/law & order. I'm for what they (should) stand for.

I eat apple pie, really do have a Mom & fly the flag.
 
Hi, Labgrade.

I'm going to be surprised if the leo community will give you any answer except they don't really trust folks period, and with society on the skids the way it is who's to blame them for their paranoria. But the civilian populist are at those cretins (BG) mercy too, that's why they are packing pure and simple. Leos should accept that and not go bonkers at the mention of a CCW. Like labgrade said...how many cases of CCW have ever been any kind of threat to a leo? What right do the CCWs have to carry a permit, they've got a piece of paper that says they can...isn't that part of the great system that ok's such things. That should be all that is required to make an Leo satisfied. But I know that it won't on this thread.
Yawn!

Jim
 
Another thing that makes me glad I live in the great state of New Mexico. Although we have no CCW provisions, we can carry open. Every time I have been stopped by State or Federal officers (US Border Patrol), and I have disclosed my loaded pistol just to keep them from getting nervous, I have never been asked to let them "hold" it or even to run the numbers. Even had a Dona Ana county Sheriff watch me fill a tire last weekend with my 45 on my hip. He didn't say a word but waved and drove off.
 
Even though we have the Second Amendment, most Licenses to carry are issued by the state.
Seems to me you could tell a local LEO that your right to carry is granted by the state and he is not authorized to enforce state laws.
AND you could tell the broad brimmed stater that you are authorized to carry by the same two guys that authorized him.



------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
Ed Brunner:
Don't know exactly where you are coming from..local and county LEO's are enforcing state laws all the time..what do you call that traffic ticket they hand you?
All Others:
As for disarming a citizen...if I were on a domestic or other similar call, I'd make sure the firearms were secured while I was there and not in the possession of one of the parties...too much liklihood of something going wrong there.
Out on the street, I run into people all the time I know to be carrying. We talk about one thing or another about guns and leave it at that.
Although the incidence of crime is especially low by holders of CCW's, it is LOW, not NON-EXISTANT. If I felt the situation required the individual be temporarily deprived of the means to harm myself or others, better believe I will do so. For many states, especially in the shall-issue states,a CCW is an indication that the person has a clean record allowing them to be issued the permit..it is not an indication of that persons current mental stability or demeanor.
As for the "routine traffic stop"..there is no such thing. There is no ominous background music, no camera angles showing the subtle action telling us that the person we're dealing with has criminal intent.
I intend to go home every night.

[This message has been edited by tcsd1236 (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
While I understand completely why LEOs so desperately want to protect themselves, I think a lot of them forget a few important things. First of all, most of them, if not all, take the oath to serve and protect. This role, to me, and indeed to some LEOs, means that their lives are worth less than the people they are there to protect. I know many LEOs that would take a bullet for a stranger if it came down to that, but I know more of them that would not. The idea of serving and protecting to me conjures the image of a samurai(that word means "servant"), only instead of absolute loyalty to their lord, these samurai are supposed to be absolutely loyal to the people who own this country. Because of this they deserve the utmost respect and they deserve good pay and benefits, but those that abuse that position deserve the utmost criticism and bitterness. It is a job, that when followed towards the goal of truly protecting and serving, offers the community something they couldn't offer themselves, a full time role model for protectors everywhere, and a person who helps empower the people. Too many LEOs these days have become the "gentlemen" of the 18th Century, viewing the people as an unruly and stupid mob whom they must herd and redirect. This attitude often drives people to become what the LEOs consider them, and often backfires. Our neighboring town, Waterloo, has had a good chief for a long time and I've always had good experiences with his department, as I think they understand a bit more that they are not somehow above the populace, that they are not indeed gentlemen to herd the people, but servants to help empower the people.

Samurai, just as the military men and women of this country today, were often well disciplined and extremely loyal to their masters, and for this they were usually regarded with esteem and respect from those respective masters, which is how it should be.

I hope it is young age that makes most of the newer LEOs of this area unable to comprehend the idea of serving their community, and I hope time will change it, but I'm not so sure it will do anything other than make them less and less understanding.

Part of empowering those people they meet on the street is treating them with respect, treating them as though they are indeed innocent until proven guilty(most traffic laws are the other way around and this only helps make LEOs think wrongly in my opinion). When a person has a firearm, and has a permit that enables them to carry it on public property in a concealed manner, then they deserve that respect. LEOs that want to go over that "what if" crap over and over again need to remember who they are supposed to be working for.

We as a country of course bear some responsibility, we don't pay our departments well enough in many cases, and we don't take an active enough role in interacting with them, just as much as they do not take such a role with us. If we were able to get just enough cops for them to work in pairs most of the time that would help a lot. One officer makes the interaction while the other stands back and watches for trouble. If someone with a concealed weapon, legal or not, were to draw on the officer closest to them, they would face fire from two angles, which would greatly deter their desire to do so. I suppose the only drawback to this would be the fact that many LEOs get increasingly abusive(at least around here) when they have a buddy with them, but this is part of that whole attitude thing which I mentioned above. Killing the attitude problem would be killing other problems as well.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Dangus,
LEO's life is worth less than those they are sworn to protect? That is absolute BS. I do not know how you could get any LEO (or hopefully any other law abiding citizens) to agree with that ridiculous statement. I always thought all human life was equal.

"LEOs that want to go over what if crap over and over again need to remember who they are working for."

You seem to be a little to intoxicated with this "servant" crap. By taking an oath to serve and protect that does not mean I am donating my life to society. I will do my best to protect the members of our society but I am not going to be stupid about it. We train and prepare for the worse by going over the "what if crap".

Ed,
Local LEOs do enforce state law.
 
tcsd: Please clarify some things.

1st: To you a gun, legally in the hands of a citizen is "the means to harm myself or others" !? Send that quote in to Sarah Brady.. she'll make you famous.

2nd: Take this quote:
".. a CCW is an indication that a person has a clean record allowing them to be issued the permit.. it is not an indication of that persons current mental stability or demeanor."

--change a few words--

".. a uniform and badge is an indication that a person has a clean record allowing them to be Law Enforcement Officers.. it is not and indication of that persons current mental stability or demeanor.

So clarify please. Only common civilians are afflicted with "bad days"? Or should I go Condition Orange in the presence of a policeman since I can't be sure of his "current mental stability or demeanor"?

You must go ape**** in a room full of cops. Every one of them possesing the means to harm you and having no idea of their demeanor that day. That could drive one to mental instability just thinking about it!

[This message has been edited by Jordan (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
I usually avoid these discussions but there is one point I would like to address.

".. a uniform and badge is an indication that a person has a clean record allowing them to be Law Enforcement Officers.. it is not and indication of that persons current mental stability or demeanor.

There is no comparison to that statement and the one made concerning a persons qualifications to obtain a CCW.
I don't think it necessary to elaborate.



------------------
Gunslinger
 
jordan:
I don't think it needs any clarification at all. A CCW is required in my state to be carrying the weapon. Fine. So the person is not illegally carrying a weapon. That CCW, sometimes issued as long ago as 25 years ago, isn't a guarantee that in whatever current situation I'm dealing with them in, they might need to be temporarily disarmed for my safety, the safety of other officers, another party at the scene..you name it. I'm not talking about walking up to someone randomly on the street, questioning them to see if they're armed, and demanding their weapon.As I mentioned already, I interact daily with citizens I know to be armed and it's no big deal to me. If I had to go to their house for a knock down drag out...thats another matter.
As for the swapping of words, that is a cheap shot. Sure, there are some cops who snap and misuse weapons. Overall, it is a fairly low level, just as with CCW's. But to suggest that at a training event I'm gonna snap over other armed cops, thats just a diversionary tactic on your part. As a side note to that, how many of you when applying for a CCW go through the polygraphs, interview boards, psych tests, and written tests most officers do when getting hired?
Dangus,
All I can say is....my job might require me to die in the line of duty...but my life IS NOT worth less than yours. If you think so, then you have some serious psych issues and I suggest you seek some mental help soon.
 
My two cents. Everyone might want to check this issue of Combat Handguns' Street Smarts column which outlines yet once again another interesting view on what to do if pulled over by the police.

I also wanted to add that I just heard a news story on a liberally-inclinded radio station here. Concerning the murder of an individual, all I heard was "with a hunting rifle." Where is the SEMI-AUTOMATIC part hmmm??

[darn typos]
------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!

[This message has been edited by KaMaKaZe (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>LEO's life is worth less than those they are sworn to protect? That is absolute BS.[/quote]

Well maybe you find it really hard to understnad but I don't. I should at least clarify that I mean only when on duty. When on duty, a police officer is granted powers in the community. These powers enable him or her to do a great deal of things legally, that are normally illegal to the general public. In exchange for these powers they must come to accept a certain amount of things. They are there to serve and protect, not to enforce and kill, though those may become necessary in the course of service and protection. I am hardly eager to see officers killed, but the simple fact is, if a school, like the one in Littleton is occupied by killers, the police should be willing to throw themselves at the enemy by the dozen if it means saving lives in that school. I know police are human, I will not even begrudge them that, but I should expect that they should come to think along those lines. In return though, society should give them absolutely nothing but the utmost respect when they follow this path, and should seek to help and empower them so long as that LEO helps and empowers them in return.

Would you expect soldiers to hide behind US civilians to save their own lives? No, because they are in a profession which involves putting themselves in harms way to protect the people of America from having their friends and families all put in harms way. Anyone that chooses to fill a position of this power and esteem should be willing to accept these facts of life.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>By taking an oath to serve and protect that does not mean I am donating my life to society.[/quote]

While you are on duty it sure as hell does. If you don't like that fact why don't you let the people police themselves, perform their own trials and their own punishments. We make certain sacrifices for the purpose of empowering society, and we only make what sacrifices are absolutely necessary to do so. When you are on duty as a police officer, you are functioning as a protector of the community, someone who is out there to keep crime from spreading as much as is feasable. I don't say that you should get stupid and throw your life away for nothing, but maintaining the respect between the police and the population is reason enough to sometimes take some risks. You of course would be much much safer as a LEO if you have noone in the general populace armed, and noone in the general populace which locks on their doors or windows, but society would suffer greatly if you took those things away, and so you deal with them, and take the added risks they bring. It is a duty for which you deserve nothing but respect, so long as you maintain the perspective of who you are working for. If you are just there for the money and the benefits, then you should not be a cop. If you are there for the power to be a bully without fear of detention, then you shouldn't be a cop. If you are there to better your community and to do something important that earns you respect in your community, you should be a cop. Didn't they used to teach that in Boy Scouts?

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
LEOs lives aren't less important than those of the people they are to protect. On occasion, they choose to place themselves in a position of danger to protect someone else, but they are trained for that. On occasion, of course, they choose not to help someone out because it would endanger them. There are several cases where people have been murdered/raped/assaulted and the police have been right outside "waiting for back up." In my area, a cop saw a man breaking into a home and kept on driving. It was near his shift end and he didn't want to deal with it. Nice guy.

LEOs take charge of weapons for two reasons: 1) out of legitimate fear for their safety and a desire to control the situation by every means possible and 2) because they can do it and will exercise the power that state law, their badge, and their weapon provide them whenever they get the least opportunity.

If I seem a bit cynical, please understand that I come from an area where LEOs have murdered innocent individuals with impunity, have covered up other murders by local politicians, have raped women with impunity, and have run protection rackets for drug dealers. Also, having worked with the DA, I'm familiar with the attitude "if you're not a cop, you're sh**!" And, as an attorney who's dealt with many lawsuits resulting from auto accidents, I find that all too many cops are patently incompetent when it comes to doing investigations.

This isn't an indictment of all LEOs, or even all LEOs in my area. I just personally don't go in for elevating cops to some privileged status. LEOs are civilians endowed with arrest and investigative powers by the state. Beyond that, they're still human, with all the problems that go along with it.
 
Dangus
I still think you are nuts.
As a matter of fact, i think you're one of those people that someday will be shooting officers because "their life is worth les than mine".
 
Bottom line: If an LEO wants my handgun in his possession while he is dealing with me, then so be it. I always cooperate fully with LEO's. I have no idea what might have happened five minutes before he stopped me. Someone driving a car like mine may have committed a crime. Who knows? So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Besides, it's stupid to go toe-to-toe with a police officer. I've seen the Philly video, and I don't want to become a soccerball because I was stupid enough to piss off the wrong guy.

But...

If he still keeps it when I'm "free to go", I'll get a receipt, drive directly to his police station, lay my CHL on the counter, and demand an explanation and the return of my firearm. I won't tolerate harrassment from a public servant.

My Father said I should always ask myself one question prior to going ballistic on someone. "Is this the battlefield I want to die on?".

My .02, FWIW.

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
Here's something to really set Dangus off. I never took an oath to "Protect and Serve" I don't know any officer that has. My commissioning oath also says nothing about the Constitution . As far as carry permits, do you know you can buy fake ones in flea markets around here for 25$? Along with drivers licenses, Social Security cards, birth certificates, military ID cards, and police ID's? (250$) If I get a queasy feeling about a contact, you're surrendering that weapon. I don't care if you think I should suck it up and risk a bullet for your "rights". Until I'm 100% sure of your bonifides, you'll stand there unarmed. Normal people with a brain accept this, and will comply. I don't care if the idiots are offended. If you did not intend to abide by the agreement you signed when you got the permit in the first place, why even get the darn thing?
 
Being a retired LEO I'm obviously biased on the issue. Any points that I may have have already been made above.
There are a few post above, however, that are understandably going to create some "friction". If Buzz_Knox is telling the truth about the LEO's in his area (something that I do not doubt for a moment) he, of all people involved in the conversation, has reason to use less than civil arguments. In spite of that he has remained civil and very much the gentleman.
Remember the TFL moto: Take the high road. ;)

------------------
Gunslinger
 
Handing over your weapon to a Police officer during a traffic stop etc is not too much to ask. If your not doing anything wrong you will get it back and be on your way. The officer is only trying to keep things on the safe side.

------------------
"Some people spend an entire liftime wondering if they made a difference. Marines don't have that problem."
Semper Fi
 
Can I drop a practical question in here for the LEO's? Is the decision to secure a firearm from a CCW license holder during a traffic stop a departmental rule, or at the officer's discretion? If it's departmental, there's no sense getting on the average LEO about it, your beef is with his administration.

If it's discretionary, how does an LEO decide when it's necessary or prudent to disarm the CCW license holder? (Aside from the obvious stuff like a "Death To All Cops" bumper sticker on the subject's car).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top