The right to disarm you !
- Thread starter Greguw
- Start date
rp-houston
Inactive
As a new recipient of a CCW license and a person that has a concealed gun i the car far more often than I do on my person, I see no problem with a LEO asking me to disarm while being questioned. I want that LEO to feel as secure as possible while conducting whatever line of questioning he is doing. The more comfortable he/she is, IMO the better I will be treated. I think that LEO's get more aggressive and argumentative when someone is questioning them or being a smartass.
The exception to this is if everything is deemed to be alright and I am not under arrest for something, that the LEO does NOT want to give the weapon back or to make it difficult for me to get it back (ie pick up at the police station) At that point I would be pretty irritated and crying " FOUL".
The exception to this is if everything is deemed to be alright and I am not under arrest for something, that the LEO does NOT want to give the weapon back or to make it difficult for me to get it back (ie pick up at the police station) At that point I would be pretty irritated and crying " FOUL".
So, if the police officer is looking out for his or her own safety,
does that mean I have the right to ask them to disarm?
I'm serious here, the logic doesn't hold water. the only way the officer knows you are armed is because you informed them... how much danger are they in? If you or me ment them harm, they would be laying in the road in a pool of blood way before they ever get the chance to ask for your gun.
It's just crap... sorry... it may be law and they may even have the right in some states...but that doesn't mean it is 'right'.
does that mean I have the right to ask them to disarm?
I'm serious here, the logic doesn't hold water. the only way the officer knows you are armed is because you informed them... how much danger are they in? If you or me ment them harm, they would be laying in the road in a pool of blood way before they ever get the chance to ask for your gun.
It's just crap... sorry... it may be law and they may even have the right in some states...but that doesn't mean it is 'right'.
Blume357,
That's an awsome point. If you TELL them you're armed, how much of a threat are you? Let's both put our guns on the roof! You're the one with the 5 lb. flashlight, taser, sidearm(with less practice than me), and armed reenforcement just a radio toggle away! I appreciate the officer needing to feel secure, but the guy who anounces himself as an armed citizen is the least of his/her worries.
That's an awsome point. If you TELL them you're armed, how much of a threat are you? Let's both put our guns on the roof! You're the one with the 5 lb. flashlight, taser, sidearm(with less practice than me), and armed reenforcement just a radio toggle away! I appreciate the officer needing to feel secure, but the guy who anounces himself as an armed citizen is the least of his/her worries.
Samurai...I never griped about my rights
I simply think it is assinine to encourage a bunch of gunhandling at routine traffic stops..it is a recipe for disaster
As far as I am concerned, I feel safer if everyone keeps their weapons holstered...which goes for the COP too
Now...if you act up or otherwise give him reason to fear you ...then fine he should feel free to disarm you.
But if you sit there with your license/registration and CC permit while keeping both hands on the wheel....what the heck is so scary
Police of all people should not have an irrational fear of firearms
I would not have a huge problem with being asked to unload my own weapon...I trust me to not shoot me (or the police officer)
But I cannot imagine a "nervous cop" allowing me to do so
" Go ahead and draw your handgun there mister...you don't mind if I stick my pistol in your ear while you do it do ya?"
I do have a problem with the presumption of guilt that goes into being patted down on the side of the road simply because you happen to have a license that shows you to be a "good guy"
If I could not handle the thought (or knowledge) that some people were armed I would pick another profession
I guess it goes back to my belief that it is always the good people that get the shaft...the ones that actually obey the laws get inconvenienced while the bad guys...nope...they have no obligation to inform the officer that they are armed
I simply think it is assinine to encourage a bunch of gunhandling at routine traffic stops..it is a recipe for disaster
As far as I am concerned, I feel safer if everyone keeps their weapons holstered...which goes for the COP too
Now...if you act up or otherwise give him reason to fear you ...then fine he should feel free to disarm you.
But if you sit there with your license/registration and CC permit while keeping both hands on the wheel....what the heck is so scary
Police of all people should not have an irrational fear of firearms
I would not have a huge problem with being asked to unload my own weapon...I trust me to not shoot me (or the police officer)
But I cannot imagine a "nervous cop" allowing me to do so
" Go ahead and draw your handgun there mister...you don't mind if I stick my pistol in your ear while you do it do ya?"
I do have a problem with the presumption of guilt that goes into being patted down on the side of the road simply because you happen to have a license that shows you to be a "good guy"
If I could not handle the thought (or knowledge) that some people were armed I would pick another profession
I guess it goes back to my belief that it is always the good people that get the shaft...the ones that actually obey the laws get inconvenienced while the bad guys...nope...they have no obligation to inform the officer that they are armed
When the person who is being disarmed, is the person who told the policeman that he had a permit and was armed, to then disarm this law abiding person is in fact intimidation. It point blank says that the policeman doesn't care that the citizen has been thoroughly checked out and has passed all the tests. It further says that the officer still considers the citizen to be a danger to the officer, even though the entire weight of the state says otherwise.Samurai said:
It goes to an older saying: "No one is innocent, they just haven't been caught yet."
In a normal traffic stop, there will be the officer and there will be you. The court is not going to take your word over that of the officers. You know that and I know that, so what are these "remedies" that are available?
As far as the "holding the weapon" during the stop... I don't believe we are actually talking about this. Who in their right mind will be fondling their weapon during a stop? I won't be, and if the officer is... well, there's that intimidation factor again.
Or, when you say, "holding a weapon," do you mean having it holstered on my person? How is my holstered gun, you know, the one I just told I have and presented you with my permit, intimidating? Presumably, you have a holstered weapon, and it doesn't intimidate me... unless you are reaching for it! I'm certainly not gonna be reaching for mine!
Regardless, if the officer asks for my firearm, I will let him have it. I won't be making a big deal about it. But like OBIWAN, I don't see the point. More handling means more chances of an ND.
Thankfully, here in Idaho, all the police I've met are quite comfortable once they know you have a CWP and have told them where your firearm is. They simply ask for you not to touch it. Mutual respect goes a long way, don't you think?
Ahh. I see your point. However, I disagree with your statement that "the citizen has been thoroughly checked out and has passed all the tests" sufficient to warrant the officer to have absolutely no fear of assault once a person presents their CCW.
Now, I'll grant you, the background checks for obtaining a CCW are pretty severe. BUT, those checks were put into place with the understanding that, even AFTER those checks were run, an officer on the street would have the authority to disarm a citizen for their (the officer's) own safety. I would present to you the notion that, were officers to suddenly NOT have the right to disarm someone on the street, the standards for obtaining a CCW would most certainly go WAAAYYY up!
So, IMHO, the State has certainly NOT "checked out and passed" everyone with a CCW, such as to pacify an officer's need to exercise proper safety procedures among armed strangers, as you say. The State has merely stated that, as of the date of the background check and as far as they know, there is no indication that this person is a violent criminal. But, the cops know that there's always a first time for everything. A person who has had a CCW their whole life could, when faced with the prospect of a traffic ticket, suddenly snap and start shooting people up. The cops must act accordingly.
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Oh, and with regard to your statement about "holding vs. holstered," both you and I know that a weapon holstered is perfectly within reach for use. The cop is not worried about a person "brandishing" a weapon; he's worried about the person USING it. For a cop to be secure from attack with the weapon, the weapon must be taken away, and not within reach of the stranger.
Now, I'll grant you, the background checks for obtaining a CCW are pretty severe. BUT, those checks were put into place with the understanding that, even AFTER those checks were run, an officer on the street would have the authority to disarm a citizen for their (the officer's) own safety. I would present to you the notion that, were officers to suddenly NOT have the right to disarm someone on the street, the standards for obtaining a CCW would most certainly go WAAAYYY up!
So, IMHO, the State has certainly NOT "checked out and passed" everyone with a CCW, such as to pacify an officer's need to exercise proper safety procedures among armed strangers, as you say. The State has merely stated that, as of the date of the background check and as far as they know, there is no indication that this person is a violent criminal. But, the cops know that there's always a first time for everything. A person who has had a CCW their whole life could, when faced with the prospect of a traffic ticket, suddenly snap and start shooting people up. The cops must act accordingly.
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Oh, and with regard to your statement about "holding vs. holstered," both you and I know that a weapon holstered is perfectly within reach for use. The cop is not worried about a person "brandishing" a weapon; he's worried about the person USING it. For a cop to be secure from attack with the weapon, the weapon must be taken away, and not within reach of the stranger.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
1. Your goal in life is to be reasonably safe.
2. An officer with a gun, for some reason - that may offend the constitutionalists here - call the ACLU - oh, wait, they are commies - asks you to disarm.
3. The officer is now faced with an armed individual who is failing to comply with a legitimate request that the officer thinks will make him or her safer.
4. Thus officer now draws on you - a prudent thing to do. He or she calls for backup.
5. Thus, the Constitutional is defended. You may have been shot or put on the ground in the crud.
You may argue the law but being sensible is not a bad policy.
BTW, you can get stopped for a mistake. I was pulled over because the office misread my inspection sticker. He was polite and I said it was no problem as he was doing his job. The gun thing went fine.
2. An officer with a gun, for some reason - that may offend the constitutionalists here - call the ACLU - oh, wait, they are commies - asks you to disarm.
3. The officer is now faced with an armed individual who is failing to comply with a legitimate request that the officer thinks will make him or her safer.
4. Thus officer now draws on you - a prudent thing to do. He or she calls for backup.
5. Thus, the Constitutional is defended. You may have been shot or put on the ground in the crud.
You may argue the law but being sensible is not a bad policy.
BTW, you can get stopped for a mistake. I was pulled over because the office misread my inspection sticker. He was polite and I said it was no problem as he was doing his job. The gun thing went fine.
Glenn
Nobody is saying you should not comply with the lawful orders of a law enforcement officer...unless I missed that
Acting like that could/should/probably would trigger a bad situation
Samurai...nobody questions their right to disarm you
What some, myself included, object to is a blanket practice of disarming CC permit holders out of fear that they will somehow "snap" and start shooting
If you are really intent on defending this then for the safety of the Police Officer I suggest we write it into law that at any simple traffic stop (for any reason) the permit holder is required to exit the vehicle keeping their back to the police car...they will then assume the position against said car (hands on hood...feet walked back from the vehicle)
Then the licensed permit holder can be frisked to remove the possibility that he will have an additional weapon that the officer does not know about...after all...what if I empty one weapon but I have a bug...or two..or three...or a grenade in my pocket
Or maybe SOP should be to taser permit holders from outside the vehicle ...remind me to carry spare ammo and spare underwear
And we should probably also require any permit holder not in a vehicle that sees a police officer to immediately assume the position against the nearest tree, building, etc while screaming "I've got a gun"
You guys are starting to make me appreciate photo radar
It seems to me that knowing the perit holder is armed (assuming he is) gives the cop an edge that he doesn't have with joe citizen
In most cases I would hope that would be enough
In those rare cases where Joe citizen "looks guilty" or something
Then go with the Taser
Nobody is saying you should not comply with the lawful orders of a law enforcement officer...unless I missed that
Acting like that could/should/probably would trigger a bad situation
Samurai...nobody questions their right to disarm you
What some, myself included, object to is a blanket practice of disarming CC permit holders out of fear that they will somehow "snap" and start shooting
If you are really intent on defending this then for the safety of the Police Officer I suggest we write it into law that at any simple traffic stop (for any reason) the permit holder is required to exit the vehicle keeping their back to the police car...they will then assume the position against said car (hands on hood...feet walked back from the vehicle)
Then the licensed permit holder can be frisked to remove the possibility that he will have an additional weapon that the officer does not know about...after all...what if I empty one weapon but I have a bug...or two..or three...or a grenade in my pocket
Or maybe SOP should be to taser permit holders from outside the vehicle ...remind me to carry spare ammo and spare underwear
And we should probably also require any permit holder not in a vehicle that sees a police officer to immediately assume the position against the nearest tree, building, etc while screaming "I've got a gun"
You guys are starting to make me appreciate photo radar
It seems to me that knowing the perit holder is armed (assuming he is) gives the cop an edge that he doesn't have with joe citizen
In most cases I would hope that would be enough
In those rare cases where Joe citizen "looks guilty" or something
Then go with the Taser
C'mon now, OBIWAN! You're trying to change the subject! The original post was:
Antipas and several others say that this guy's rights were violated. I say they weren't.
Nobody was talking about "mandatory" disarmament of civillian CCW holders. The point is, cops DO, in fact, have the right to disarm you, if they feel they should.
Antipas and several others say that this guy's rights were violated. I say they weren't.
Nobody was talking about "mandatory" disarmament of civillian CCW holders. The point is, cops DO, in fact, have the right to disarm you, if they feel they should.
ya-but
Given the frequency with which they disarm CCW holders, I think it's safe to assume that cops don't disarm them when they, "feel they should." They disarm them almost unilaterally because they can. There's a HUGE difference. At what point do we have the right to say, "Why?"
If they can take our arms from us during a stop for their own safety, then it's a small step on a slippery slope away from taking them from our homes "for their own safety." We need to be cognizant of this. Lets get input from citizens of other countries before we call me crazy.
Given the frequency with which they disarm CCW holders, I think it's safe to assume that cops don't disarm them when they, "feel they should." They disarm them almost unilaterally because they can. There's a HUGE difference. At what point do we have the right to say, "Why?"
If they can take our arms from us during a stop for their own safety, then it's a small step on a slippery slope away from taking them from our homes "for their own safety." We need to be cognizant of this. Lets get input from citizens of other countries before we call me crazy.
Last edited:
I would look at it from the policemans point of view. If I was a cop I would have done the same thing. The cop has no idea if you are a law obiding citizen or a crazy killed. Its not like it really matters if he took it or not. I mean y does it matter? If it makes the cop feel more comfortable, Im for it. If he is uncomfortable or mad that just ups my chances of getting a ticket.
Now wait just a doggone minute there...Samuri said:
Care to point to exactly when and where I said that?
In post #26, I said, "...if the officer asks for my firearm, I will let him have it. I won't be making a big deal about it."
PLease don't put words into my writing that weren't there to begin with. Deal?
invention_45
New member
FYI, we are already there. The slope has been slipped down.
In a situation I know about (a lot about) the FBI agent seized a handgun "for his own safety" during a home search for something completely not gun related.
Before I knew about this little event, I had the attitude that police disarming you "for their safety" was legitimate, especially if only during a short period like a traffic stop.
Now I think differently. The disarmed (long-term) happens to be being stalked, and that person's safety is every bit as important as any police officer or FBI agents's is.
However, it is still wise to do what a police officer tells you to do and slug it out in court later.
MMMMMMKAAAAYYYY!!!! Lots of new posts, here...
First, for robc:
It's our job as citizens to constantly say, "Why?". But, there's also a perfectly good reason why. The answer is, because cops shouldn't have to feel unsafe. (See further arguments above...)
For OBIWAN: It sure sounds "idiodic and unnecessary" to disarm people at traffic stops while you're sitting safe at home. But, try being a cop, whose job is to go out and pull random people over and give them tickets. After about 2 years of wondering every night whether you're going to make it home, I just bet you'd want the ability to ask people to hand over any weapons they may have...
For invention_45: I understand that there are a few (or perhaps more than a few) "bad apple" cops out there. But, please don't let that color your view of them. I had read about the FBI seizing of the lady's gun, and all the hoopla necessary to get it back. But, the fact remains, cops need to be able to stay safe. If one or two power-hungry LEO's out there are abusing the power, then blame them. But, don't condemn the whole LEO community, and don't condemn the practice of helping cops to stay safe, juse because a few people are being abusive of their power.
Finally, Antipas: Ok. Here's what you said:
In post #17:
Then, in post #26, you said:
Now, to your credit, in post #17, you said:
So, now I'm a little confused. What is it, exactly, that you're trying to say??? If cops don't have the right to disarm someone, because it's "intimidation," but this guy, who was disarmed, did not have his rights violated, then what happened???
Personally, I side on the "this guy did not have his rights violated" argument. Either you agree, or you don't.
???
First, for robc:
It's our job as citizens to constantly say, "Why?". But, there's also a perfectly good reason why. The answer is, because cops shouldn't have to feel unsafe. (See further arguments above...)
For OBIWAN: It sure sounds "idiodic and unnecessary" to disarm people at traffic stops while you're sitting safe at home. But, try being a cop, whose job is to go out and pull random people over and give them tickets. After about 2 years of wondering every night whether you're going to make it home, I just bet you'd want the ability to ask people to hand over any weapons they may have...
For invention_45: I understand that there are a few (or perhaps more than a few) "bad apple" cops out there. But, please don't let that color your view of them. I had read about the FBI seizing of the lady's gun, and all the hoopla necessary to get it back. But, the fact remains, cops need to be able to stay safe. If one or two power-hungry LEO's out there are abusing the power, then blame them. But, don't condemn the whole LEO community, and don't condemn the practice of helping cops to stay safe, juse because a few people are being abusive of their power.
Finally, Antipas: Ok. Here's what you said:
In post #17:
Then, in post #26, you said:
Now, to your credit, in post #17, you said:
So, now I'm a little confused. What is it, exactly, that you're trying to say??? If cops don't have the right to disarm someone, because it's "intimidation," but this guy, who was disarmed, did not have his rights violated, then what happened???
Personally, I side on the "this guy did not have his rights violated" argument. Either you agree, or you don't.
???
But OBIWAN, we're on topic. The topic is whether or not police have the right (or should have the right) to disarm a person during a traffic stop.
Also, you function just fine because you don't cause stress for people. But, being pulled over is a very stressful thing, and cops can't always count on the fact that they're not going to cause stress for the person they've pulled over.
Also, you function just fine because you don't cause stress for people. But, being pulled over is a very stressful thing, and cops can't always count on the fact that they're not going to cause stress for the person they've pulled over.
OBIWAN
If he had asked me for my gun...
I would have asked him if he wanted me to put my hand on it??
Really stupid... all the LEO had to do was to inform him of the broken lens and tell the guy to get the light fixed... and send him (and his gun) on his way!!! :barf:
Good service instead of pushing his weight around...
Giving the benefit of the doubt...to the Officer...
I'd say your "buddy" is feeding you a line...
OBIWAN has it right... and my opinion ain't humble.
If he had asked me for my gun...
I would have asked him if he wanted me to put my hand on it??
Really stupid... all the LEO had to do was to inform him of the broken lens and tell the guy to get the light fixed... and send him (and his gun) on his way!!! :barf:
Good service instead of pushing his weight around...
Giving the benefit of the doubt...to the Officer...
I'd say your "buddy" is feeding you a line...