Did I Do Right?

If it's on your person, it's being "carried." If it's covered by clothing, it's being carried "concealed."

I have not read the laws of all those states that require notification, but those I have read did not differentiate between being in the carrier's home and being outside of ones own premises. The purpose of those laws is to protect (supposedly) the officers against a sneak attack by someone carrying a concealed weapon. The fact you are in your home doesn't invalidate the purpose and intent of the law.

If you ever have to try that argument in court, be sure to let us know how it turns out for you.
 
I don't agree with your logic - it implies that one needs a carry permit to possess a firearm in one's own home. That's absurd on its face.
 
Some thoughts on rights, law, and moral authority...

Given the situation described by the OP, did he do right? Sure. Everything was handled, with neither escalation of the situation, nor hostility.

Was he right to do as he did? That's a different question. Lets look at it this way, cop comes to the door, investigating a complaint. You answer the door armed (As is your right). And (unless the law requires), out of courtesy you inform the officer you are armed. That is just simple common sense.

The officer cannot be certain just what he is walking into. He probably expects something ranging from calm discussion to an angry parent. Surprising him with a gun is a rather poor idea.

But you are in your own home, doing nothing illegal, and you don't have to do xxxx! True, under the law, BUT somethings are just good ideas, even when not required by law.

By asking the officer how he wanted things to proceed, the OP implies he will do as the officer asks, without objection. THis places the officer in control of the situation. Its a good way to avoid misunderstandings, BUT the officer may want you to do something you object to, or that you feel violates your rights. If he does, what then? You have already indicated that you agree he is in control, and refusal to obey instructions can trigger an undesirable reponse on the part of the officer, as he takes what steps he feels needful to retain, or regain control of the interaction.

There's no reason not to discuss things like adults, you do have rights, after all. BUT, after you indicate you will comply, not doing so is a very poor choice.

One can be respectful of the officer, and still be firm in asserting your rights. But there are limits to everything. Behaving as a calm rational individual gets you a lot further than anything else. If you get confrontational, and push things to the point of action/reaction (and you can do that verbally with some people) then you will lose more than you could gain. Possibly everything.

Sure, you have the right to tell the jack-booted thug in uniform he can't come in without a warrant. You can even tell him you will disarm when he takes it from your cold dead fingers. But if you go that route (even mildly) you are going to regret the outcome, most likely.

I know, I'm using extremes to illustrate my point, but really, how does it damage our rights and liberties to be reasonable and courteous. even if (or perhaps especially if) they are not being as well mannered as you are?

The officer may not have a choice on his reaction, there may be a dept policy about what he is required to do, when you inform him you are armed. Ever think of that? He might not be out to humiliate you and deny your rights, he might be just doing his job the way he is trained and required to. And most assuredly, thats the way he's viewing it, just doing his job.

There are all kinds of shades of grey involved, just as there are all kinds of individuals involved.

If you think an officer has gone overboard in his handling of a situation, complain to his supervisor, and on up the bureaucratic chain, if you need to. But do it afterwards, when everyone is calm, and (hopefully) rational.
 
csmsss said:
I don't agree with your logic - it implies that one needs a carry permit to possess a firearm in one's own home. That's absurd on its face.
Click to expand...


Your over-thinking this a tad, says I.

If I said to you, "Are you carrying your wallet?" Would you say no? I wouldn't. You'd get a weird look and I'd say, "Yeah, why?"

Common usage of the word suggests that having your gun on your person is "carrying" your gun. I've never heard of any reason why it would be considered "carrying" in one place and not another.

Moreover, logic would seem to indicate the same.... If you're "carrying" while you walk up the sidewalk, and as you unlock your door and step inside, what sort of change has occurred that what WAS "carrying" is no longer "carrying"?

Whether or not you need a permit is irrelevant. I would suggest that you shouldn't need a permit at all, ever. That doesn't change the fact that "carrying" a gun is, literally, "carrying" a gun, permit or no, necessary or not.
 
Don't know what state you are in and that probably gets into the legalsleeze of this all... so, I'll step around it.

No, I don't think you should have informed him you were carrying and I would not have complied with his request to unload the firearm... You were in your home.... you can actually legally (I think) ask him to disarm much more than he you... in your own home. If he shows up with paper work from a court, that's different.

Now, the thing to do in this kind of case is to be polite and cooperative... and assure the officer your daughter has no access to a gun. I'm sure he/she was doing their job and following up on a complaint.
 
It was proper, out of courtesy and for your own safety, to inform the officer that you were armed.

It is unclear if you allowed the officer to enter your home.

Personnally, I would have ascertained that he was an officer. Uniform and marked patrol car.

Removed my weapon, answered the door, stepped outside and closed the door to my home therebye barring entrance to my home.

Police have the right to search for weapons in order to protect their safety. This right has been expanded to include rooms adjecant to the immediate area were the interview is taking place. Since these safety searchs are legal anything found may be used against you as the discovery is incident to a lawful search.

Many things, especially with the child safety laws, are innocent but may be construed to be illegal.

No matter how innocent the interview appears, it is a formal legal matter and any statements made can be/will be held against you.

I think you were extremely lucky.
 
Regardless of the law I think you did the right thing, if the officer shot you for whatever reason he wanted and you were armed odds are he would get off, regardless of the circumstances. IMO informing an officer you are armed especially in a close contact situation like yours is simple self preservation. You don't know if the cop is a good cop, or if he is one of those rogue roid rage guys like in that Ohio CCW encounter video. To be fair, the cop doesn't know the same about you either; so it is probably best the officer knows you are armed and can have you do what HE feels comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
I'm with 44 AMP. You run across situations every single day in which you choose to exercise or not exercise your rights. You've got the right to speak your mind and say darned near anything you want, without fear of reprisal from the government. But we don't say everything that we're thinking because we are, generally speaking, pragmatic people.

Same with the situation here. A little pragmatism goes a long way. Or, as my grandmother used to say (ad nauseum), "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
 
Just seems like a good way to avoid misunderstandings to me. I'm sure the officer appreciated the way you handled it. It showed a degree of respect, and showed it wasn't going to be "one of those" discussions.

I know some on here would argue and fight with the officer, not disclose that they are carrying etc, but most of my interactions have been pretty good with law enforcement. I've only had one or two try and treat me like crap, and I disabused them of that notion in short order.
 
Being in Illinois, and having to practice the much envied "Illinois carry" (as in, in your house) If a cop ever knocked on my door, I would behave exactly like you did.

Officer, im legally carrying a legal pistol, how would you like me to proceed? I can go put it away, unload it in front of you, or we could just ignore it.

Point is, were on the right side of the law. Nothing wrong with not scaring the crap out of a police officer. In a perfect world they'd be able to assume you're not gonna do anything, but this isnt a perfect world for gun owners or police.
 
WHAT ABOUT YOUR SAFETY.... what if you don't feel safe with the cop being armed....

the logic of 'for the officer's safety doesn't work for me'... if he or she needs protection then they better call for backup and get those papers from a judge I mentioned. THIS was a person's HOME! I guess the poster should have let the cop search their house and check on all the weapons as well as all the prescriptions in the medicine cabinet as well as anything that might be stored in their computer... that's where some of this thinking leads to.
 
Your job isn't dealing with criminals.

Let's put it another way. It really hard to take the bullets out of the body and put them back in the gun AFTER the misunderstanding. It isn't a perfect world, but in a perfect world we wouldn't have criminals or need police.
 
I have not read the laws of all those states that require notification, but those I have read did not differentiate between being in the carrier's home and being outside of ones own premises. The purpose of those laws is to protect (supposedly) the officers against a sneak attack by someone carrying a concealed weapon. The fact you are in your home doesn't invalidate the purpose and intent of the law.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this assessment.

North Carolina does require notification under the concealed carry statute (§14‑415.11(a)).

NC law generally prohibits carrying a concealed handgun (§14‑269(a1)), except: (1) on a person's own premises OR; (2) if the person has a concealed handgun permit issued under §14‑415. So a person with a concealed handgun permit has two legal paths for concealed carry on their own premises - either by using the premises provision of §14‑269 or the permit provision of §14‑415.

The permit statute (§14‑415) contains no specific language to invalidate the premises statute (§14‑269) for permit holders. And the legislature knows how to be precise in scope, because §14‑415(c) does prohibit carrying a concealed handgun, with or without a permit, while consuming alcohol. Therefore, a person on their own premises can carry under the premises statute and there is no obligation to inform.
 
First, we don't know what state the original poster was in....

and in reference to a comment above that about how I don't have to deal with criminals, which the police do. yes, they do but does that mean that a law abiding citizen has to give up their constitutional rights because a police officer has to deal with criminals... I stand by my point that submitting to stuff like this in your home leads to really really bad things...

"for the officers safety" is one of those bogus catch phrases that 'they' like to use these days... just like "it's for the children". sounds real good until it's you who has lost his rights and is taking the free ride to camp.
 
I think if I were OP I would answer the door, cop asks to speak to me, I tell him to hang on one moment, close the door, go secure my firearm, come back to the door, open it and walk outside to speak to the cop on the porch.

Ryan
 
If you must notify to comply with the law then do so. In PA I don't have to and in a couple of instances I said nothing. Brief how are you doing, have you seen anything type contacts.

If I have to declare it, just say that you have a weapon, where it's at, you're not going to touch it and be done.
 
If you're "carrying" while you walk up the sidewalk, and as you unlock your door and step inside, what sort of change has occurred that what WAS "carrying" is no longer "carrying"?
Click to expand...

(Good question!). The significant change that has occurred is that you went from public property into private property. At home, you are king and there is 100% expectation of privacy and freedom. Only on the public street will the so called laws take effect on you. On the street, there is a duty to inform.

You have no duty to inform from within your private dwelling. You can easily show yourself to be cooperative without disarming yourself! If the police or whomever purport that you must disarm (in your home) because they do not or can not trust you armed at that point...then red flag you can not trust them either.

Disarming yourself at home for police conveinance sets a bad precedent and should be avoided. If the police wish contact and are distrustful of the armed citizen...let them make an appointment with me where I can come to their office (unarmed) where they have lots of backup so can feel fuzzy, and we can discuss whatever they wish. In this way they respect the citizens home and relations are improved.
 
If the police or whomever purport that you must disarm (in your home) because they do not or can not trust you armed at that point...then red flag you can not trust them either.
Click to expand...

Precisely ! My home, My rules. If you don't like he fact that I am armed, you are welcome to leave. Thankfully the LE here don't have a problem with this, sometimes it starts a conversation about good places to hunt, etc.
 
Edward429451, that may be true but it's the "next step" in the logic chain.

You can make the argument that the requirement to inform disappears when you enter your home but it's not because you're "not carrying" anymore.

In other words, if you make the decision that you are not required to inform, it implies that you ARE carrying, else there would be nothing to inform.

That's my point. There might be privacy or private property arguments but you aren't magically "not carrying" the gun that's still strapped to your hip just because you cross your threshold.
 
peetzakilla said:
There might be privacy or private property arguments but you aren't magically "not carrying" the gun that's still strapped to your hip just because you cross your threshold.
Click to expand...

Carrying does not change, but the legal authority to carry can certainly change. Nearly every state allows unlicensed carry either in a person's residence or on their own property. If a person can carry in those locations without a license, it would be very difficult to argue that the possession of a license imposes additional obligations on that legal authority (unlicensed carry). Step outside the locations where unlicensed carry is permitted, and the authority to carry comes from a different legal source, possibly involving an obligation to inform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top