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

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is this thread staying alive?

Well, anyway, I don't carry 'cause I live in Illinois. But I was disarmed by a Conservation Officer once during deer season while he asked me about a deer--I was a kid and he thought I was tagging a deer dad shot.

Looking back on it now, I can't see why anyone would think they have the right to remain armed even if a policeman in the course of his lawful duties asks to secure their weapons. That warden didn't know us from Adam, and he had no idea what we would do. People do shoot at game wardens on occasion, after all. The guy just wanted to have one less thing to worry about while he interviewed us and I don't blame him.

I carry a copy of Illinois law in my car so I can argue with cops who don't know the law. In fact, I also carry the guide to hunting and fishing regulations so I can have two reliable sources to back me up. BUT if an officer wanted to take the gun until he finished, I'd let him. As someone said, LEO's are not worth less than the rest of us.

Someone keeps saying that LEO's agree to throw their lives away when necessary. That's just not true. LEO's agree to RISK their lives when necessary, no more. They are not human bullet shields and they aren't required to let you stand there with a gun even when they don't completely trust you. The comparison to Samurai is way off the mark. Samurai were servants all right--their feudal lords owned them and their families. The smallest mistake was punishable by death, and I'm including mistakes like being defeated by superior forces in battle. Such things were also punishable by the obliteration of the entire family--women and children included. Besides, you forget that the Samurai were actually one of the worst examples of what you called the "gentleman" kind of protector/warrior. Samurai could and did kill "civilians" whenever they felt like it. They could beat a merchant to death for asking to be paid with no legal repercussions--unless their lords didn't want that particular merchant killed for some reason. When purchasing a new sword or having one sharpened, many would decapitate the next "civilian" they found handy just to test the blade!

You're at least right that a Samurai would never have disarmed a "civilian" or peasant just because he didn't trust him. The samurai would instantly kill any peasant found armed unless the former were part of the army in time of war, 'cause peasants were a lower class of people and not entitled to arms or any kind of self-defense.
 
(Singing)...you take the high road and I'll take the low road...and I'll be in jail before yee. (all scotts men join in) All this because I wouldn't surrender my weapon after showing my CCW.
 
JamesE
You sound like a bit of an instigator yourself..just trying to fuel the fire.
To answer the question, my department has no regulation covering this subject...it's left to the discretion of the officer at the scene.
 
When I post at TFL I sometimes put "LAW" in quotaions. Like when I'm talking about "laws" that I disregard because they are in obvious contradiction of the Supreme Law of this land. I use the quotes to show that, in my mind, they are invalid and are "law" in name only.

Interesting how frequently in these cop threads how you'll see one or more of them place your "RIGHTS" in quotes... you can almost hear them sneer right through the monitor.

My "RIGHTS" Vs. their "LAW". Goes to show the polarity, eh?
 
Jordan:
Polarity? Not at all! So many of our "laws" that you object to are there to protect your "rights". Some guy wants to beat you up? You have a right to be free from that(of course, if you're provoking or endangering HIM, thats a different matter!). So there's a law prohibiting that...same with laws you object to. In reference to your comment about laws contradicting the "supreme law", all I can say is that there is a process in place to argue such preceived violations...appeal it to a higher court, if you think you have a case. Last time I checked, the laws were by and large formulated by consensus....they are not always perfect, but they are what keeps us from sinking to the level of a Somolia or Russia.
 
This is one of those discussions where I think there COULD be some good points on both sides, but emotions run too high, and nobody seems to get any point across except "mine is bigger than yours". I posted before that I think an us against them mentality is the biggest problem faced by Peace Officers. This mentality is on both sides of this discusion. No wonder the socialists run over us, when we try to talk about an issue we break down into two groups arguing about whose life is worth more! Note that I say "us", we are all in the same boat, and taking on water fast.
 
First and foremost, the lives of Cops and military personell are NOT worth less than those of regular Joes. Foolhardy beliefs such as that lead to needless deaths; just go to DC and look at that black wall dead young men to see the outcome such immorality. Personally I feel that their lives are worth more than those who sit by and do nothing expecting the government to take care of them.

Second, when you take the oath of office, you DO pledge your life to society. You dont pledge to sacrafice yourself at the altar for fun, but you pledge to place your life at risk to help others, knowing full well that you can get killed in doing so.

Third, switching words can make sense in the comparisons re mental stability. I dont know of many departments that regularly schedule psych evaluations for their line officers. Most have to pass screening before entrance to academy, but that could have been 25 years ago... Cops are human just like the rest of us and as such are just as prone to bad days, mental break downs... as we are.

Now to the question at hand. Someone has already answered this rather well. 1)Fear, lack of understanding and control or 2) Cause they can

Here in TX if an officer asks you for your gun, he/she is well within their legal rights to do so. If you refuse you are SOL and might loose your license. The thought to refuse never entered my mind. However, if faced with such a situation I would request that I be allowed to clear the weapon myself, rather than hand over a loaded gun. If asked why, I would tell the officer that since I dont know them I did not trust them to do it safely. It obviously has not bothered me enough to lobby to have the law changed, probably because there are not many times where this has been abused. What, however, pisses me off is the blatant lies that come along with the request. Most importantly "its for your safety, sir" That is a bunch of $hit. It is for the officer's safety and not the civilian's. I wish LEOs who disarm people would just be honest and say "I dont feel safe with you having a gun". But that would be rather un-PC.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
Sir, I most respectively rejoin that if you think I am fueling the fire...then you fellows have the matches. There wouldn't be such a problem if you gentlemen wouldn't make it one. As this is by your own admission an individual Leo's decision and not normal departmental regulations.

Jim
 
I think alot of good points are being made here, I normally don't post under this controversial a thread, I got in a little toruble over one not to far from this a while back. But what it boils down to here in TX is where you get stopped and by who.

My Springfield is my constant companion, it doesn't leave my side. I avoid business's that it is illegal to carry in. I don't stop kust cause the sign says, "NO GUNS". So in reality I stay out of bars and public buildings posted. I've taken it off one other time, when I went to a meeting.

I recently got a permit to carry, since age 16 I've carried everywhere I went outside of public highschool. I've been stopped numerous times over the years both before and after getting a permit. Not one time was I asked to hand over a gun. When stopped by the TX DPS at age 18 with a loaded .357 in the truck I told the officer I had it when he asked. We had a discussion about guns and rights, and carry, and who was supposed to be able to own one. Then he bid me farewell and I went about my business. Same story over the years, no permit, admit I had one when asked, carry on.

The only time I had an officer act even slightly vexed that I was armed was about 7 months ago in a little corrupt town. Drug dealers run rampent, the local Chief is a coke head and the town is in shambles. The whole department was disbanded 7yrs ago for beating an old man. When stopped I handed over my ccl, license, and insurance. When the officer looked at the ccl his hand dropped to his waist and he stepped back asking if I was armed. I said yes I am my firearm is under the armrest. He backed away to his car and called in my info. When he returned he handed me my licenses and ticket and told me to carry on. It was the only time i've ever felt like an officer felt threatened by my being armed.

I think as a state we are blessed with an organization like DPS, I think the fellas are a class act.

But where we run into a problem as a whole it seems is some think the LEO is supposed to throw his life in front of a bullet. In the State of Texas I am obligated as a CCL holder to stop a violent crime if I witness one being commited. It's along the same lines as a paramedic having to render aid at an accident. I police officer is supposed to do the same thing, he or she is supposed to stop a violent crime if he or she sees it being committed. So tell me those that say LEO's are supposed to take the bullet, it's their job, is it your job? Or like them is it our duty as good citizens to simply step-in and render aid in whatever form is needed?

Is rendering aid mean taking a bullet?

I always figured it meant ending the attack from the closest cover, not exposing myself to harm or jumping in front of a bullet.


Steve Moody
 
Gunslinger

Thank you for the compliment. As for my statements, yup, they're all true. A cop shot an unarmed disabled vet (okay, the guy had a walking stick) in the back from a few yards away. Result: after public outrage and protest was suppressed (literally), he got charged with failure to file a formal report. He eventually left the force voluntarily after macing fellow officers.

More than one local officer was arrested for pulling women over, taking them in the back of the car, and assaulting them. Result: after everyone testified what great guys they were and cops would never do that, they were acquitted.

A local politician was cleared in the shooting death of a rival on the grounds that the cops ruled it was self-defense. Of course, the politico shot the deceased through a screen door, while the deceased was standing in his own kitchen.

And, for the finale, our sheriff did time for running a protection racket for gamblers and drug-runners.

Oh, for years, in order to get the best moonshine in the area, you went to the sheriff's office in the neighboring county. What? You thought they destroyed those stills?!

I love East TN, but not some of the people in it.
 
James E:
You are mistaking a decision made on the circumstances of the particular situation with some sort of rogue police action taken outside accepted Law Enforcement procedures.
There is no way that a departmental policy and procedure manual could possibly cover every specific case where this action would be allowed or not allowed. THAT is why I said it is not covered specifically in policy, but is left to the officers discretion.
 
First, I have known good cops and bad cops. I have heard many of their stories first hand, from them.

It seems that the LEO sentiment is that a CCW holder is automatically a danger to an officer. Unless the person makes a clear threat to the officer demanding he/she be disarmed looks to be a power trip. There have been quotes like "my (officer) safety", "you will comply", "you'll stand there disarmed", etc. Such sentiments go to the root of why ther is such animosity towards law enforcement today. Until abuse of power and authority ceases, there will be no respect for that power and authority.

An officers life is worth no less than a civilians, but it is worth no more either. Their safety is not worth more than mine. Should I be able to disarm anyone just because I feel "queasy"? Violating someones rights disguised as officer safety is unacceptable. If it is not too much to ask to give over a lawfully carried firearm, why not let law enforcement search your person, car, house if you have nothing to hide?

I have a question. If an officer pulls over an off-duty officer, would you disarm him while "checking out his credentials"? This assumes you don't just let him go just for flashing a badge.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tcsd1236:
James E:
You are mistaking a decision made on the circumstances of the particular situation with some sort of rogue police action taken outside accepted Law Enforcement procedures.
There is no way that a departmental policy and procedure manual could possibly cover every specific case where this action would be allowed or not allowed. THAT is why I said it is not covered specifically in policy, but is left to the officers discretion.[/quote]

Sir, if you go back and read every word I have said in this thread you should know that I have not refered to any rogue police officers...but merely what you and others had made statements to this being your right and your discretion...in other words you have lit the match and it now seems to be burning your fingers because you don't like us telling you how things really are.

Flame away I've got my fire suit on, but it's not nuke proof. ;)

Jim
 
Steve the gunner: I think you are seriously misinformed regarding being obligated to stop a crime as a CHL holder. Since you say in the state of Texas I assume you mean legally obligated. This statement goes against several things that I was taught in my Tx CHL class, and I was never informed of any such law. We were in fact taught it was generally a good idea (even legally advisable) to stay out of third party conflicts, since it is often impossible to know for sure what is going on. Your CHL does not give you any sort of authority to stop crimes, so I don't see how it could have any sort of obligation attached to it. Please let me know if I read the law incorrectly.
 
DannyO = "If your not doing anything wrong you will get it back and be on your way."

Same could be said for searching your vehicle (or house) without probable cause. If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with that either. Right? After your rights are violated, you'll get your stuff back & they'll be on their way.

As for any LEO telling me that I'll be disarmed for my own safety ... don't even bother with line of "reasoning." Doesn't fly.

And as to the LEO's safety - although not known to him/her, said LEO is as safe with me as i his Mother's arms.

Interesting query by ?/above ... when pulling over an off-duty LEO & he's carrying, do you disarm him as well?


The officer is only trying to keep things on the safe side
 
James E
It is you sir, who lit the match with your idiotic mocking singing routine.
And far from it being YOU telling US what the situation is, it is YOU who is misinformed. You seem to think that the CCW, which is nothing more or less than a document allowing you to carry concealed in public away from your home, somehow exempts you from a LEO securing said firearm until otherwise deemed necessary by that officer. It is you who is mistaken, it is you and people like you who will ruin the RKBA for everyone else by your insistence that the CCW makes you some sort of omnipotent jackass.
 
tcsd1236:

you have lost the battle of words on this issue. You have slam banged most everyone who opposes your constricted viewpoint. You even accused dangus of being capable of killing an officer because of your loss of cool. If I were your department head I would set down with you and determine if you are safe to be carrying a badge and a gun. You sound very heavy handed in your tact and not really on a stable level for one who works in your profession. I would give your barking a rest if I were you, you are only making your position look pretty feeble. And my singing bit was a small attempt of humor with me being the victim of my own actions. Lighten up and chill out. Don't want you taking this out on the next poor slob your authority supercedes his rights.

Jim
 
We obviously have a difference of opinion jamesE.
I suggest you do a few ride-alongs with your local LEO's to help you see where we're coming from.
And I'm quite stable thank you very much. I am simply irritated that people such as yourself seem to think that that piece of paper takes precedence when you have a field contact with the LEO. Make no mistakes about it, in any contact with the LEO, it is the officer who dictates how the contact will proceed, not YOU on the grounds that you possess some piece of paper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top