Gun in your car?

E

Ernest T. Bass

New member
I know many people who, when traveling on the road and crossing many state lines, have a rev/pistol in the car with them for protection. I'm sure you have all heard stories about assualts in road side rests etc, etc,. My question is has anyone ever been stopped by a LEO and had to explain why they were traveling with a gun in their car? I have not been pulled over in a long time, but the last time I was, I was asked if I had any weapons in the car. How would you answer?
 
Mr. Bass, This is a very tough question to answer. I am replying to keep your post here until one of the experts jump up. Personally I would say "Why would you ask a question like that officer?"
Be Safe,
Hank
 
Greetings Sir; Several years ago the magazine
"The American Rifleman" ran a story of an
up-state LEO being pulled over in the state
of North Carolina. Needless to say, the officer had his duty weapon tucked away
unloaded in his suit case; located in the
trunk of his POV. When the NC state trooper
ask if it would be OK to search his vechile
for drugs/weapons; the LEO identified himself
and stated that he had his duty weapon in the
trunk. The rookie NC trooper searched the
car (as permission was granted) and immediately confiscated the LEO's handgun.
Also, the NC trooper detained the LEO until
the matter could be cleared up. After all
the frustration and embrassment tghe LEO
was released on his own reconizance; but
his weapon remained in the custody and
control of the NC State Patrol. After going
to court, the LEO's case was nol prossed; but
the weapon was condemed by the local judge.
At last account, the LEO was seeking assistance from the NRA to retrieve his
duty weapon? However, I do not know the
outcome of this event. Bottom line here is,
Don't get caught in North Carolina with
a handgun; even though you may have a CCW
from another state/ or be a LEO in said
state.

------------------
Ala Dan
 
I have recently read an article regarding car searches. It stated that the Supreme Court has recently upheld a persons right not to have his vehicle searched without probable cause. A traffic violation is not probable cause. It states that if asked by LEO for a search then refuse. Ask him if he has a probable cause affidavit. If he persists in a search ask him to call a supervisor and have him present during the search. Also ask him to video tape the search. U.S. LEOs reputations for honesty is at an all time low after recent incidents like the latest LA police scandal. Now when on a jury I will not take one LEOs word for what happened on the scene unless there are other credible witnesse. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
The best way to answer this question is to avoid the entire situation. When traveling outside your home state with firearms, be discrete in your driving style so you don't get stopped. If stopped, politely, but firmly, refuse to answer all non-pertinent questions and of course don't consent to a search of your vehicle. Federal law allows for the transportation of firearms across state lines if the firearms are legal at your "final" destination, unloaded and stored in a locked compartment that is separate from the passenger compartment. In vehicles such as vans or pickup trucks, the firearms must be in a locked case. I have used locking briefcase with an unloaded semi-auto pistol and a couple of magazines. The pistol is unloaded, but can be loaded in a couple of seconds.
 
Ernest T., you did not say, but, I would think the officer also asked if there were any drugs in the car. This is routine during traffic stops. The drug curriers are changing the way they look so we can no longer look at a person and decide if they might be a good prospect to check for drugs. Other questions must be asked.The answers and the way they are ansewred tell us what we need to know. The bottom line on this is DRUGS = GUNS. Our primary job is to be safe.

Tom B. your lack of trust for LEOs because of a few bad apples is not fair. Unfortunately, it is the atitude of a lot of people. If we as LEOs looked on civilians as you do us, we would consider you a criminal simply because you are not police. That's not fair you will say loudly, and you are correct. So if you are chosen to be a juror, why not do as you will swear to do, base your decisions solely on the evidence placed before you. If you cannot, say so when questioned by the lawyers so they can find someone who can be fair to both sides.

I don't know about other agencies, however, if we find a weapon on an out-of-state driver we know why it is there. As long as it is carried legally no problem. Even if it is not, a little instrucion on what makes it legal solves the problem. How will I know what the laws are in that state you ask? Call the LE agencies in the area you intend to travel through. They will be glad to answer any questions you have.

------------------
You are... What you do... When it counts.
The Masao
 
Now THAT is a Peace Officer!

What a shame the "law enforcers" tarnish the service and character of such officers as "Shades".

Thank goodness the Peace Officers (at least in MY area) outnumber the "law enforcers".
:) I'm PROUD of nearly all our Sheriff's Deputies.
 
Know your legalities and store and answer properly. If asked (never had a cop do that, I guess that I'm lucky on the *sshole ratio there), lie if you have a piece illegally (such as CA). Don't store the piece w/ your insurance and registration. There are risks to carrying and not carrying. One has to judge them for their own selves. Some cops are cool with freedom (especially RKBA), some are not and will rack you up big time.
 
shades6848-"the drug curriers are changing the way they look so we can no longer look at a person and Decide if they might be a good prospect to check for drugs." ! That is called profiling. I thought in this country one had to do something potentionly illegal to be stopped and questioned/searched. I think your statement says alot in itself! If DRUGS=GUNS then I quess GUNS=DRUGS. Also when on a jury I will do as sworn not just take a LEOs word for something but look at the evidence.
 
shades6848 -- Perhaps I'm getting cranky in my old age, but there are two (among many)
words/phrases that get my dander up. One is "Law Enforcement Officer" instead of "Peace Officer".

The other, more troubling one is referring to us as "civilians". I've written to LEAA about that as they use also use that term. Sorry, we are citizens just like you. The "civilian" bit implies a "them/us" mentality which will not work out to either of our advantage.

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
I suppose I did not make myself clear on the "profiling" issue. First of all Tom B., you are absolutely correct, a LEO has to believe that a crime has been or will be commited in his presence to make a traffic stop. Secondly, we do use "profiling" in a way. The questions asked and the answers to them tell us a lot about who we are dealing with. If I stopped you, I would not know if you were a hoodlem or not until I had talked with you. The Supreme Court has held that as long as an officer has a legal reason for a stop, no matter how trivial, then it does not matter what the officer thoughts were at the time of the stop. Example... A LEO sees a car, he believes the driver "looks" like he might use/sell drugs. The LEO cannot stop it based soley on that belief, however, our car has a tag light out ( TRIVIAL at best ). The officer makes the stop. The SC has held this a valid stop. The driver can still refuse a search request and that ends it, unless the officer has PC ( probable cause ) to search.

What was ment by DRUGS = GUNS? The SC has also held that people who carry drugs generally cary weapons. NOT the other way around. On the contrary most people who carry guns are the furthest thing from the hoodlems we are trying to catch. As a matter of fact, an armed population makes my job so much easier. Who wants to rob an armed person.

I am sorry if I ofended you Tom, that was not my intent. It is people like you who ask questions and are willing to speak your mind that help us keep the coruption that is in LE from spreading.

Otaka, my use of civilians was used as an example, not to imply superiority. Unfortunately a lot of LEOs think like that. They have an " Us VS Them " attitude that does makes it hard for everyone else.

The origional question of how would I answer, as honestly as possible. There are some overly aggressive officers out there to whom it won't matter to, but, honesty carries a lot of weight with most of us.

------------------
You are... What you do... When it counts.
The Masao
 
i was talking to my neighbor this afternoon.
She said she was driving north up 270 towards Frederick MD this AM. She saw several marked & un marked police cars setting up on the median.
On her return trip there was a text display sign running

PREPARE TO STOP
RANDOM DRUG CHECK POINT

:o

dZ

------------------
will you stand with me in DC on 10-2-99?
http://www.myplanet.net/jeffhead/LibMarch
 
"Our primary job is to be safe."

I disagree. Your primary job is to investigate crimes, and secondary to that, your primary job is to protect/not-violate people's rights.

------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
 
I have been a Deputy Sheriff, but it seems to me that today's officers are far nastier and full of hate than they used to be. The tendency seems to be that a LEO should always assume everyone has a gun and shoot first. This should surprise no one. After all, the new breed of cop was raised on the same "kill everybody" movies and videos that have trained the young crooks.

Odd that someone should mention Frederick County. We have had two cases of brutal arrests, one of a somewhat confused elderly woman who was going too slow and didn't realize the police wanted her to pull over. Dragged from the car, beaten, handcuffed, etc.

Another was a case of a man who was driving dangerously because he hadn't taken his medicine. Sure, he had to be stopped, but when he was, the deputies and police turned loose a dog on him and beat him until some cop with sense noted the medical alert sign in his car.

The FBI (the heroes of Waco) investigated both cases and guess what? Yup, the cops acted "properly". Big law suits coming up.
Betcha the cops lose. But the payoff is with my tax money.

How long should we stand having our money paid out in settlements because of incompetent, stupid, and brutal police? Fortunatley, sheriff in this county is an elected office. I hope our current sheriff has opposition next time; I know who I am going to vote against.

Jim
 
deanf, How do we do those things if we are not first and foremost safety concious. We cannot investigate crimes for you if we do not get there. We cannot assist you when you are in trouble if we get hurt on the way. We cannot do our jobs if we let some hoodlem hurt or kill us. Therefore, being safe is our primary job.

------------------
You are... What you do... When it counts.
The Masao
 
I didn't say safety isn't part of your job. Be as safe as you think you have to be within the confines of the U.S. Constitution and your state constitution.

Do you know any officers who ever use the excuse that no charges will come out of a contact, so it's ok to violate rights, no matter how minor the violation, in the name of "officer safety", because they will never go before a judge? That kind of thing makes me sick.

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited September 26, 1999).]
 
All,

If it is so wrong for a cop to hassle a civilian for no reason, is it not
equally as wrong for a civilian to hassle a cop for no reason?

If it’s wrong for the cop to pick the civilian’s words apart trying to twist
something illegal out of it, is it not equally as wrong for us civilians to
twist the cop’s words?

Just as most gun owners do not want to be equated with the gun owners
who shoot up schools and churches, most police officers do not want to
be equated with those who abuse civilians.

Now, for the record, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines
civilian, in part as, “one not on active duty in the military, police, or
fire-fighting force”. Though this may be uncommon usage in your area,
it remains correct English. (Even though I don’t care for it either...)

The career field frequently is termed “law enforcement”. Therefore, the
term “law enforcement officer” is legit. Even though it may taste bad to
many of us who remember “policeman” as being an honorable term,
there are now many different law enforcement agencies. Apparently it is
inappropriate to call all commissioned peace officers “policemen”.
Perhaps “law enforcement officer” was coined to be more
all-encompassing. Frankly, I don’t know. But I know Shades didn’t
invent the term.

As for the police officer’s job, going home with the same number of holes
he reported to work with is “job one” - a job many officers have ignored
trying to “serve and protect” us and our families.

Personally, I think we’re hassling the wrong cop! Shades said, “... if we
find a weapon on an out-of-state driver we know why it is there. As long
as it is carried legally no problem. Even if it is not, a little instruction on
what makes it legal solves the problem....” Isn’t this what we’re looking
for - bit of judgement tempering the letter of the law?

He has neither said nor implied anything that would even hint at a
transgression of our Rights or a violation of the Constitution.

He has indicated by his words he is one of us, and we’ve bitched at him
solely because of his profession or because of what he himself terms, “a
few bad apples.”

Let’s reserve the accusations, innuendo, and insults for the cops who
deserve it.

Let’s be glad there are cops like Shades who temper justice with common
sense.

So lighten up. Now. Right now.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 26, 1999).]
 
Dennis - I am not "bitching" at anyone. I have "no axes to grind". I have never been arrested for a crime other than a traffic violation (last one was in 1976). In my post I stated about what I had read about traffic stops and my opinion about what I look for as far as evidence on a jury (happened recently by the way). I don't think my jury opinion violates anything I am sworn to do. A LEOs primary goal should be to stay safe.Mine is. I have been a LEO myself (U.S. Coast Guard) and made many stop/searches at sea (where back-up is unavailable) profiling is done and probable cause/search warrants are not needed. I usually try to avoid todays LEO because I don't like crowds and stay away from places where LEOs would tend to be working. The few times I have interacted with them many appeared rude,arrogant and with an overall superior attitude. I find it rather humorous when a LEO who wasn't even born when I was in the business gives me a lecture on my rights (as happened one time) but I quess that is arrogant on my part. Anyway I digress from the purpose of TFL to discuss firearms and I am sorry if I offended any LEOs out there.
 
Comments on bits and pieces culled from this thread.

"Civilian" is another interesting example of the dynamic nature of the American language
(or is it just creeping political correctness?) My 1962 11-pound, 6" thick Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines "civilian" as: 1. One who is skilled in Civil or Roman law; 2. any person not in military or naval service (I wonder why the naval distinction?); 3. relating to or characteristic of civilians, non-military.
(That's why the damn thing weighs 11 pounds).
I still like No. 2 and will keep using it.
(I still use "forsooth" too.[g]) BTW, I just found Time's 1972 pocket dictionary. "Civilian", one engaged in civil, not military pursuits.-adj. not military. Perhaps the lexiconigraphers(?)
changed their tune after seeing all the SWAT
teams come into being (I understand that even the Food and Drug Adm. has one now).

"The FBI (the heroes of Waco) investigated both cases and guess what? Yup, the cops acted "properly". Big law suits coming up.
Betcha the cops lose. But the payoff is with my tax money."
Maybe if they had those settlements deducted from their budget they might be more careful.

All that being said, I wouldn't want Shades6848's job, and DO appreciate and recognize what these guys go through. It's always that 10% that screws it up for everybody.

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top