The right to disarm you !

G

Greguw

New member
I had a buddy who was pulled over by the police for a tail light infraction ...He had a broken lens and was wait for the dealer to get it in .
He was pulled over ... On a saturday night ... not drinking just heading home from work .
He disclosed to the officer he had a CCP and was carring ...at that time the officer asked him to give him his gun for the officers protection .
At that time I would have asked for his supervisor to come out !
He did ...Unless he was under arrest he should not have done so ...I felt his rights were violated .
He shower no signs of having anything to drink ... but they still gave hime the sobriety test ...after an hour of holding him up they gave his gun back and sent him on his way .
I have been pulled over with a firearm ... but was never asked to give up my gun ...was his rights violated ?
I would say yes !
Greg
 
In Michigan, it says right in the law that a LEO can disarm you during other business so long as the gun is returned to you afterwards (assuming, of course, that you are not under arrest).

Were his rights violated? I'm not sure.
 
It's his personal property ...thats why I was asking .
Understand it's for the officers person safety ...I have alot of friends that are cops and I have never asked them the on the book proceedure to stoping a person who legal carrys a firearm .
In my state by running a plate they have all the info of you having a CCP ...They allready know that .
There just a person like me and you having different job ...I know there life can be on the line every day ... but I also know cops that should not be cops also .
Is it at every cops discression if he should take your gun at every stop ?

Greg
 
We just had a thread about this a few days ago, it should be a page or two back.

And I don't think his rights were violated. People aren't always what they seem. "He looked like an alright guy" is a poor reason to wind up shot on the side of the road. Don't want to hand your gun off to a cop for a few minutes? Don't break the law and get pulled over.
 
It is stupid (IMHO)...but not illegal

The last thing we need is a bunch of gunhandling at traffic stops

If the officer wants to be safe, then your firends gun should stay in the holster...but he should also be very careful what he does with his hands:D

Most "accidents" happen when handguns are "handled"

And there are a lot of LEO's that are not gun people....while they may be qualified to safely handle their sidearm they are not always going to be familiar with the weapon-du-jour

I saw a horro story of a guy pulled over somewhere int he south. The officer pointed his 1911 at him several times while trying to unload it:eek:
 
No offense intended, but have you actually taken a concealed-carry class??? Officers ALWAYS have the right to disarm civilians who are in possession of weapons during questioning. When the cop pulled your "buddy" over, he didn't know your buddy from Adam! The cop, just like every other American in this country, has the RIGHT to feel SECURE in his person, PARTICULARLY when he's out there putting his neck on the line, trying to keep the druggies/murderers/rapists out of your HOUSE, so that you can breathe the air and enjoy your "God-given Rahtz to keep an' baer ahrmz!"

I swear! People who eat and sleep under the comfort of the protection of this government, and then shout at the men who provide them that comfort, just irritate me!
 
I have heard of a US marshal being pulled over and a local cop wanting to give up his firearm ... And the marshal saying no ...Thats a Who has more power game !

Greg
 
I swear! People who eat and sleep under the comfort of the protection of this government, and then shout at the men who provide them that comfort, just irritate me!
Click to expand...

Sheesh did you pull this quote from "A few good men"?
 
Your buddy doesn't have any "rights" anymore, get real. He's under contract. He signed on the dotted line and jumped thru the hoops, right?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're either an American with God given rights, or are under contract with the .gov to have certatain (temp) privlidges. Read the fine print man!

Don't mean to sound harsh but this is the reality in America. Ask a lawyer about contracts, or read a bible. They both say the same thing...you sign...you're bound.

CCW "permits" are just that, permits. Your buddy aquiesed (sp?) his "rights" away when he signed. There's +'s and -'s to each approach in trying to do the right thing nowadays. In accepting the terms of the contract, they gave him a .gov "permit" to carry (subject to the terms & conditions of the contract). You can bet the farm that they will go all out in trying to find a technicality in which to revoke his priviledge on (as evidenced by his weapon confiscation and extended detainment). The flip side (not getting a permit) is that you've opened yourself up to even closer scrutiny if stopped while carrying, and harsher treatment because bearing in mind that the judicial system is De Facto and does not recognize God given rights at this time.

IANAL, but you Atty's on board feel free to correct me if/where I'm wrong. This is my understanding.
 
My state has an underlying law that it is legal to carrie an exposed firearm ...You would really get hasseled then !
It's who you know is where you go !
Right now I live in the burbs of Philadelphia and between them and NJ they have more bad things to say about guns than you could ever emagine ...they have been taking out radio ads ...and most people buy into that crap .
When people find out I carrie they give you a look and say I'm protecting your a** .
I feel I have the ability to be on some level playing field with then scum of the earth !
As a fine gentelman has said to me " I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 "
Greg
 
You guys are aware that the FBI apparently has the right to steal...er...seize your handgun and keep it until you file a (not free or even inexpensive) motion for its return "for their own safety", even if that handgun is not a particular item to be seized, and even if no arrest is made after their visit? Even if same handgun was sitting in plain view (black gun on a light brown table) and passed up by at least 6 agents before being noticed, even after its owner sat not two feet from it and never made a single hint of a move to reach for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're not then charged for storage.
 
Samurai

Just curious

Don't cops have to assume that everyone is armed???

I would think so...and most of the cops I see performing traffic stops act that way.

And yet they do not pull everyone out of the car and search/disarm them at every traffic stop (maybe in Georgia)

So why exactly do they feel less safe and like they need to disarm someone that has been identified as a licensed carrier of a concealed weapon:confused:

I am not busting your chops here I simply do not understand the thought process...I never have.
 
I know a guy who was a GA state trooper ...He shot a guy ...Oh I thought you were someone else ...LOL . So he shot the wrong guy ...GA fired him and is now a NJ state trooper ...He may have use a little too much force ...LOL
He is a nice guy ...LOL
:)

Greg
 
First, foob: Yeah, I guess it does kinda sound like "A Few Good Men," huh? Still, it's a valid point. (You can't handle the truth!!!)

Second, OBIWAN: Cops are to be extremely careful until they have identified whether or not a person is armed. Once they have already established that a person is armed, they are to take whatever steps necessary to ensure that they feel safe in doing the job they have to do. If that means disrupting someone's zen-balance, getting them out of the car, and getting their weapon away from them, then so be it!

The thought process is this: Cops DO NOT just have to sit there and let a legally armed civillian stay armed, thereby placing themselves in a position where they feel unsafe. If they feel unsafe because you have a weapon, then they can ask you to hand it over. Gripe about your "rights" all you want; your rights do not include the right to intimidate the cops (intentionally or otherwise).
 
I can handle an officer asking for a weapon while being pulled over. What I cannot handle is this, what happened to a friend of mine, let's call him Bob...

Bob-Evening officer, I want to let you know that I have a concealed weapons permit and a weapon in the vehicle.

LEO-Can you please hand me the weapon

Bob-Yes sir

LEO-*takes gun, extracts tha magazine and sets it on the roof of the vehicle. "Why are you carrying?"

Bob-Not sure what you mean. I have a permit.

LEO-Why do you feel you need to be carrying this?

Bob-For protection

LEO-Is someone after you?

Bob-I don't think so

The convo went on for just a bit longer after. Eventually the officer gave him his gun back and sent him on his way with a ticket. LEO was a complete arse and this was DEFINITELY uncalled for.
 
Lots of times, seemingly "pointless" or "irrelevant" conversations like that are actually just ploys to get the person talking about something. It's a make-shift DUI inquiry. Just get someone talking about some subject, and you can gauge speech impediment, focus, alertness, and coordination. It can serve as a basis for reasonable suspicion for further inquiry on DUI.

Thing to do is to just answer the questions as openly and honestly as possible. There is no wrong answer, since "Bob" was carrying legally. The officer just wants to hear him speak.
 
Samuri said:
Gripe about your "rights" all you want; your rights do not include the right to intimidate the cops (intentionally or otherwise).
Click to expand...
Nor do the police have the right to intimidate ordinary citizens (intentionally or otherwise). But some do anyway.

So tell me, why is one better than the other, all things being equal, of course?

That being asked, Greg, your friends rights were not violated. It's not a right when you must have a license or permit.
 
First, I disagree wholeheartedly that asking a person to disarm equates to "police intimidation." A police officer who disarms a civillian is not being intimidating, he's just looking out for his own safety.

On the other hand, police are out there where they stand the chance of running into life-threatening situations on a daily basis. Police have to behave as though anyone they meet could possibly be a murderer. For a legally armed civillian to insist upon holding a handgun, notwithstanding the fact that the cop is uncomfortable, IS DEFINITELY intimidating to the cop.

So, I think you're "comparing apples and oranges." If a police officer truly initiates "intimidating behavior," then there are remedies at law available. But, if we're talking about the right to hold a weapon through a police interview, the cops are certainly in the right to ask the civillian to disarm, and the civillian is NOT in the right to insist on remaining armed.

Concerning your "it's not a right" statement, ... ah, whatever! The courts COULD just outlaw guns altogether. Then, it REALLY wouldn't be a right. As it is, the courts and legislature are trying to enact safeguards to keep guns out of criminals' hands, and to punish criminals severely who repeat crimes. Permits are not a great solution, I'll grant you. But, it's better than doing nothing!
 
The police officer is doing so for his safety and yours. If the officer is in fear of losing his life or limb. He may just shoot you. Better to let him control the situation. Police are trained to control situations. If the officer feels that he has lost control, he will take measures to regain that control. A smart cop trusts no one but God. He knows that seemingly peaceful situations can turn real ugly quickly. Even if it is his best friend and his friends wife arguing.

Civilization is more about peoples interactions with one another in a civil manner, than about who has the gun and who doesn't. We know that no tyrant can take control unless we as a people allow it. Absolute freedom is Anarchy. We seek to be civil. Civility is a thin skin over the animalistic face of mankind. We all know, that in the end, it will be the laws of nature that rule the day. Natural rights of men come from nature. We all want to feel secure in ourselves. Be civil about it. Unless you like absolute freedom. It is a perilous venture to be sure. Definitely not for the weak.

Samurai, do you truly think that the government can outlaw firearms and be able to survive the backlash? I can see it done bit by bit, but not outright.
 
well...

A police officer who disarms a civillian is not being intimidating, he's just looking out for his own safety.
Click to expand...

...you are saying that p-o-l-i-c-e-m-e-n are NOT civilians?

...huh, imagine that...:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top