I think this belongs here

[zukiphile]

It depends on state law. In Georgia, it used to be a crime to carry a concealed weapon. Being in possession of a license to carry was an affirmative defense to prosecution.

In that case, someone was assumed to be breaking the law until they could provide proof they were licensed.

I don't doubt that this could be the state of law in Georgia. In Ohio, a person is free to refuse a breathalyzer at the side of the road, because the 4th Am. applies even to drivers, but if driver asserts that right, he loses his license administratively for one year. I believe the penalty for a DWI conviction is a 6 month suspension. The punishments mock a person's rights.

In the Georgia example above, the state shouldn't logically be permitted to prosecute an act it has licensed. That's implicit in the existence of a state license. The idea that all the "license" gives its holder is the right to assert a defense at trial is awful.

You know you're a good guy....I may know you're a good guy, all the cop knows is you're a guy with a gun where its not usual to see a guy with a gun...

And I really can't blame them a whole lot for being a bit ...concerned about that

Which does not mean I approve of them being aggressive or worse without demonstrable cause.

I've little doubt that being a PO is very stressful, and that the possibility that they can be shot doing something that seems mundane would produce a lot of anxiety.

That shouldn't be the basis of state action.

In CO I just had to show proof of military pistol training, nothing about the laws involved. In NC I had to sit through an all day class that was supposed to cover the laws but as far as I could tell the only thing that was taught was to say "I was in fear for my life" and "Do not instigate or you will go to jail if you shoot".

I don't like the idea of the state issuing a permit, but I do think that keeping the engagement rules simple is wise. It's more legal advice than it is knowledge of the law. A knowledge of the law isn't all that useful if you think someone is about to kill or injure you and your body is swimming in adrenaline, but conservative advice that is easily understood, you don't want to use your weapon unless the impending consequence is dire, is something a normal person can internalize.

 

[44 AMP]

Peter Police can still ask if Frankie has a permit, but he can't [legally] detain Frankie if Frankie declines to play.

While you are probably correct in the legal sense, that's not going to matter much until the case is in court. While the law may not require Felony Frankie to answer, there are a number of legal "hooks" the officer can use to question even detain him and possibly arrest him, dependent on his response.
Failing to comply/respond (despite legally being in the right) can be enough.

The court may throw out his arrest, due to legal grounds, but Felony Frankie is going to be off the street for at least a few hours, possibly a few days minimum, and his gun is going to be off the street a LOT longer...because even if the court lets him go free, he's NOT getting that gun back.

While there are similarities, I don't think your driver's license/carry permit comparison is completely appropriate. Cops aren't going to stop every driver on the road to just check their license status, but when the do stop someone (for whatever reason) they ALWAYS ask for your license and registration (and usually proof of insurance papers).

 

[5whiskey]

A quote from the article regarding LEO support of a constitutional carry law...

Brewer, the Nebraska senator, said law enforcement is by no means universally opposed to his bill.

“I’ve got 13 counties in my district and every sheriff there supports it,” he said in an interview.

I am a cop, and this statement here mirrors both my attitude and opinion, and also the general LEO consensus amongst all the cops I know. I do work with cops from a number of agencies across my region in the state I live. Cops are people, just like everyone else. They have different opinions. You can find cops out there somewhere that believes the 2nd amendment needs repealing. All you have to do is ask around long enough, and you've got your story.

It is not surprising, though, that some higher ranking brass would go on record against this. The Alabama sheriffs association is almost surprising, but it is comprised of sheriffs and not deputies. Notice the one LEO interviewed for the article is a sheriff in a very populous county. I suspect others were sought for interview, but there was a difficult time finding articulate responses that fit the narrative.

 

[44 AMP]

I have been following this in general since the Gun Control Act of 1968 "woke" me to what was going on.

What I have observed is that, generally speaking, the rank and file law enforcement officers don't mind and many actively support law abding citizen's gun rights. There are, of course, individual exceptions, but the number supporting gun rights is the majority, and an overwhelming majority in more rural areas.

It isn't until you reach the political level of law enforcement that you find many speaking in favor of gun control laws. Police chiefs, and commissioners, politically appointed people, and this includes elected sheriffs in gun restrictive areas (mostly urban) play that game.

And, after the Democratic party added gun control as one of their party planks, anyone wishing political advancement in D controlled areas must toe the party line or face very limited options in their political career.

THis is, of course, subject to change over time, as the newer generations have had a lifetime's indoctrination from the media about how guns, in and of themselves are bad things, and with time, these people will become the majority.

 

[5whiskey]

What I have observed is that, generally speaking, the rank and file law enforcement officers don't mind and many actively support law abding citizen's gun rights. There are, of course, individual exceptions, but the number supporting gun rights is the majority, and an overwhelming majority in more rural areas.

This is largely my observation and experience, and I have been a cop for more than just a few years now (I'm at 15 years in). Most cops will favor felon firearm prohibitions, and some other laws that many here question, but generally speaking most line cops are very pro-2A. ESPECIALLY in your more rural jurisdictions. I personally do question the prohibition on all felons possessing firearms. Certainly, robbers, burglars, murderers, rapists, etc. have earned that restriction of a constitutional right. Almost all of us can agree on that. But for me, BEING a cop has opened my eyes to some of the silly technicalities that constitute felony offenses. Surely someone convicted of larceny of pine straw in North Carolina (which is a felony) isn't such a violent offender that they rate having their 2A rights permanently revoked. Or some dumb 21 year old kid who digs in the trash at Walmart, finds a receipt that was thrown away, goes and selects the item from the shelf, and tries to return it for $50 in gas money (which would also be a felony).

It isn't until you reach the political level of law enforcement that you find many speaking in favor of gun control laws. Police chiefs, and commissioners, politically appointed people, and this includes elected sheriffs in gun restrictive areas (mostly urban) play that game.

This is also my experience, though I am fortunate that my county is still fighting to maintain it's kind of rural/conservative nature. We are adjacent to the Capital county of my state, and 30 years ago my county was mostly agricultural based. Things have changed drastically, but the overall rural character still lives on so far. It's being challenged more and more. I digress, all this to say that my police chief and captains are pro-2A. So is the Sheriff in my county. Thank goodness... at least so far.

 

[Bob Willman]

Ohio's governor just approved constitutional carry in Ohio which goes into effect in June. Open carry has been legal for some time. The anti-gunners cry that it will make life more dangerous for the police. I find this logic confusing. I will concede that in a traffic stop the officer likely knew if he was pulling over a person with a concealed carry permit when he/she ran the plate. If the driver was a permit holder the officer had assurance that the driver was a law abiding citizen and not likely to cause trouble. Now on a traffic stop the officer has no idea if the driver is in possession of a firearm or not no matter what information came back when the plate was run which is no change from before constitutional carry. Even if the vehicle is registered to a felon there is no guarantee whether a firearm might be present or not. Bad guys do not follow rules.
As has been said before in this thread, there has been no increase in bad behavior where constitutional carry is in place. I will continue to renew my permit since there is no reciprocity between states for constitutional carry.

NRA Benefactor - Golden Eagle

 

[DaleA]

Now on a traffic stop the officer has no idea if the driver is in possession of a firearm or not

I'm not in law enforcement and certainly will bow to those that are but it seems to me police could never assume a person is or is not armed. The vehicle might not be driven by the owner.

 

[Spats McGee]

Ohio's governor just approved constitutional carry in Ohio which goes into effect in June..... I will concede that in a traffic stop the officer likely knew if he was pulling over a person with a concealed carry permit when he/she ran the plate. If the driver was a permit holder the officer had assurance that the driver was a law abiding citizen and not likely to cause trouble. Now on a traffic stop the officer has no idea if the driver is in possession of a firearm or not no matter what information came back when the plate was run which is no change from before constitutional carry.....

No officer has ever known, at the moment the blue lights go on, whether a car is driven by its owner or not. Even if the CC permit is linked to the car's plates (and I'll assume you're correct that it is), there's always some possibility that the car has been stolen (but not yet reported), or borrowed. FWIW, in Arkansas, the CHCL is tied to the driver's license, but not the plates.

 

[Bob Willman]

I agree with all posts since mine and they verify my point that the officer's mindset while approaching a traffic stop does not change with constitutional carry in effect. The anti-gun folks will never be satisfied.

Bob