-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Only my police officer friend has the right to take your weapon.
- Thread starter Que
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
stangman35
Plinker
Who here leaves there gun laying on the front seat.
If im carrying I leave it on my side in its holster,if not its in the center console.
I think id feel a little uneasy if your guns laying on the front seat,if you have a LTCH id lecture you to take better care of your gun.It could slide off the seat and discharge or even worse it could get scuffed up..lol
O im also not a cop,but i watch them on tv
If im carrying I leave it on my side in its holster,if not its in the center console.
I think id feel a little uneasy if your guns laying on the front seat,if you have a LTCH id lecture you to take better care of your gun.It could slide off the seat and discharge or even worse it could get scuffed up..lol
O im also not a cop,but i watch them on tv
If he was my FRIEND, I would only want him to take the weapon ONLY if he felt it was needed and necessary.
That little pink paper proves that person is not a criminal. A cop shouldn't even touch someone's gun unless he felt 100% that guy was capable of doing someone harm.
That little pink paper proves that person is not a criminal. A cop shouldn't even touch someone's gun unless he felt 100% that guy was capable of doing someone harm.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
I wanna be the first guest. I promise to make it interesting for at least three people.thats it!. ........ Im starting a talk show
If the officer truly feels threatened then yes he may hold on to the weapon as long as he gives it back. Now if it is just standard protocol no he should not disarm you unless he feels in danger. I believe most officers handle this situation properly. Just my opinion let the flaming begin.
Exactly, Josh! But, it was that .001% that made me come to the realization that, yeah, I want Officer Brown to back off when he's presented with a LTCH; however, I want my friend to do whatever he feels is necessary to ensure his safety. I know it's jacked up, because what I'm actually saying is, I am comfortable with my friend infringing upon the rights of 99.999% of the gun owners he pulls over. Ray Charles can see that's not right, but that's where I am.
Officer safety is a subjective standard and therefore unacceptable as a stand-alone criterion for determining LEO behavior in lawful stop interactions with the public. Shooting the guy still strapped in his seatbelt can be "justified" with "officer safety" excuses. (Granted, I know that's a stretch, but I took it to the ridiculous level to highlight how such an argument leaves open the opportunity to justify the worst behavior we can imagine.)
Que, I imagine I'd express my feelings to newbie LEO I knew with something like this: "Bud, your safety is really important to me, and I wouldn't want anything to happen to you on the job. If you feel your safety may be jeopardized while you've got someone pulled over because you see a handgun, or the driver tells you they have a license and a handgun with them in the car, then I'd guess you're probably going to ask them to hand you the gun for your safety, even after they show you that little pink piece of paper that says it's legal for them to have that weapon. I expect that's what they're teaching you at the Academy. If they are, they're wrong and it's going to catch up with them someday. Well, do what you need to do to be safe, but I'll tell you something. There are a lot of people that carry firearms legally that know the applicable laws in excruciating detail, almost certainly more than you do, and there are more than a few of them that will go out of their way to make a point that you are violating their rights by confiscating their weapon. I repeat, violating their rights. It's a big deal, and it's NOT ok. They won't necessarily make this point in front of you, where you have all the power and control, but they can make it through the legal process, and they can make it through vocal complaint to your superiors, and THEIR superiors. A little legal trouble means nothing against you going home safe to your family at the end of the day, but you need to be aware that you may be named in an official complaint, and that you may be liable for civil damages. So having said all that, if you feel you need to deprive someone of their legally possessed weapon for your safety, the advice I would offer you, as someone who is very conscience of their Constitutional rights, is to ASK them for their weapon rather than demand it, thank them for complying, return it to them in the same condition they gave it to you, and don't be tempted to further exacerbate the situation by "running the gun". Not a whole lot of things are going to **** off someone with an LTCH more than you confiscating their weapon, but checking the serial numbers of their weapon, especially after you took it from them under the guise of officer safety, will get you pretty close. So, bro, do what you need to do to come home safe every night, but do guys like me a favor and remember that your feeling of safety is coming at the cost of violating our rights, and the least you can do is be polite and respectful, and maybe, just maybe, you won't end up on the receiving end of an administrative or civil complaint."
I suspect a newbie LEO probably wouldn't much listen, but it might be worth a shot.
I suspect a newbie LEO probably wouldn't much listen, but it might be worth a shot.
I don't think that it's reasonable for a police officer to disarm someone simply based on a traffic violation, if he/she has a valid LTCH. However, if the officer can articulate reasonable and specific facts that point to suspicious behavior or a possible crime being committed, then obviously, that would override an LTCH, and the authority for the police to temporarily disarm someone would be reasonable.
I think that OP worded this thread wrong, as no one has the "right" to "take" a weapon. Citizens have rights, police have authority. (On duty, at least) Taking a weapon implies that the owner does not get it back, which in the vast majority of cases is not true. Police operate only on authority, not special rights.
Still, I don't buy the "officer safety" argument for disarming someone with an LTCH, absent facts that point to a more serious violation than running a red light. The presence of a firearm is not in itself dangerous, as they are inanimate objects. The danger lies in the actions of the armed person, not the weapon. If the actions of the person indicate a threat, then of course, the police need the authority to disarm. People with a valid LTCH sometimes commit crimes too, unfortunately. But the vast majority of the time, the disarming is unnecessary.
Just like anything else in life, I don't believe that there are many absolutes. The totality of the circumstances always will dictate what is reasonable and what is not.
I think that OP worded this thread wrong, as no one has the "right" to "take" a weapon. Citizens have rights, police have authority. (On duty, at least) Taking a weapon implies that the owner does not get it back, which in the vast majority of cases is not true. Police operate only on authority, not special rights.
Still, I don't buy the "officer safety" argument for disarming someone with an LTCH, absent facts that point to a more serious violation than running a red light. The presence of a firearm is not in itself dangerous, as they are inanimate objects. The danger lies in the actions of the armed person, not the weapon. If the actions of the person indicate a threat, then of course, the police need the authority to disarm. People with a valid LTCH sometimes commit crimes too, unfortunately. But the vast majority of the time, the disarming is unnecessary.
Just like anything else in life, I don't believe that there are many absolutes. The totality of the circumstances always will dictate what is reasonable and what is not.
I've got a couple of lifelong friends who are cops. Each are ex-military.
Intuition is a wonderful thing that most of us train ourselves to ignore. We ignore it because we are "just being silly." We ignore it because there is "no factual information for me to be concerned." I suggest that intuition - and not fear - is your picking up lots of little details that can be an excellent predictor of behavior. Intuition isn't a sixth sense but a harmonious combination of all five other senses telling you something in a synergistic way.
A LTCH should be an indicator that, if legit, the bearer is not a past convict. (Not like my 10 yr old couldn't forge one on the computer.) If over the age of, say 40 or 50, then odds are if they've made it thru life this long with no felony, they aren't likely to start. At 25 years of age, then maybe just haven't been caught yet.
My opinion is that if an officer detains someone with a LTCH, then they should go with their gut: odds are the guy is fine but if things don't feel right then by all means separate them from the firearm during questioning while determining if a crime truly exists that places the person under arrest. If conditions warrant arrest, then obviously the firearm is not returned (then.) If conditions warrant no arrest, then return the firearm.
That's if a good officer is using their intuition. Sure part of it is profiling... profiling is the act of using past statistical behavior as an indicator, right? Intuition = officer discretion.
With a good officer, I believe the presence of a gun with LTCH is no cause for alarm. I believe other indicators for concern, if picked up by the officer, are valid reasons for separating the detainee from their firearm - ltch or not.
If, however, the officer separates EVERY person from their legally carried firearm without cause or concern, then it has nothing to do with intuition and good judgment but they likely should rethink their career choice.
I don't want to stop good officers - using their experience as a guide - from being able to separate a detained suspect from their firearm when prudent. I also don't want overzealous, anti-2A officers treating citizens like paranoid terrorists when unwarranted.
Bottom line for me: as a LEO, if the vast majority of the folks you separate from their firearm are arrested during the interview, then you're doing it right. If the vast majority of the folks you separate from their firearm are NOT arresting during the interview, then you're doing it wrong.
Intuition is a wonderful thing that most of us train ourselves to ignore. We ignore it because we are "just being silly." We ignore it because there is "no factual information for me to be concerned." I suggest that intuition - and not fear - is your picking up lots of little details that can be an excellent predictor of behavior. Intuition isn't a sixth sense but a harmonious combination of all five other senses telling you something in a synergistic way.
A LTCH should be an indicator that, if legit, the bearer is not a past convict. (Not like my 10 yr old couldn't forge one on the computer.) If over the age of, say 40 or 50, then odds are if they've made it thru life this long with no felony, they aren't likely to start. At 25 years of age, then maybe just haven't been caught yet.
My opinion is that if an officer detains someone with a LTCH, then they should go with their gut: odds are the guy is fine but if things don't feel right then by all means separate them from the firearm during questioning while determining if a crime truly exists that places the person under arrest. If conditions warrant arrest, then obviously the firearm is not returned (then.) If conditions warrant no arrest, then return the firearm.
That's if a good officer is using their intuition. Sure part of it is profiling... profiling is the act of using past statistical behavior as an indicator, right? Intuition = officer discretion.
With a good officer, I believe the presence of a gun with LTCH is no cause for alarm. I believe other indicators for concern, if picked up by the officer, are valid reasons for separating the detainee from their firearm - ltch or not.
If, however, the officer separates EVERY person from their legally carried firearm without cause or concern, then it has nothing to do with intuition and good judgment but they likely should rethink their career choice.
I don't want to stop good officers - using their experience as a guide - from being able to separate a detained suspect from their firearm when prudent. I also don't want overzealous, anti-2A officers treating citizens like paranoid terrorists when unwarranted.
Bottom line for me: as a LEO, if the vast majority of the folks you separate from their firearm are arrested during the interview, then you're doing it right. If the vast majority of the folks you separate from their firearm are NOT arresting during the interview, then you're doing it wrong.
He won't know that .001% has a weapon until he's at the business end of it. By that time he'll know the status of "officer safety"
If not obvious, I'm against an officer disarming a legal carrier as well as handling a weapon they may have no prior experience with. Neither seems smart to me.
If not obvious, I'm against an officer disarming a legal carrier as well as handling a weapon they may have no prior experience with. Neither seems smart to me.
PatriotPride
Shooter
License To Carry Handgun.
IndyGunSafety
Master
The words "OFFICER SAFETY" are coming under scrutiny in courts all over the land because in many cases there is an absence of any threat or threatening behavior. The courts have said again and again that the mere presence of a firearm does not in and of itself create an "officer safety" issue. The following was the reversal by the appellate court in Melvin Washington v State of Indiana:
"...whether the warrantless search of Washington’s vehicle to find a handgun that Washington admitted he had and for which he possessed a valid permit, violated the Fourth Amendment when the officer lacked an articulable basis of concern for officer safety. We reverse."
In my job as a commercial pilot I sometimes cite "safety" as a reason for my actions. It used to be a pilot could cry "safety" and that was the end of the matter. "OOooooohhhh he did it for safety!" Nothing more need be said. Some things (such as "officer safety") are sacred. But now the FAA and others are looking more closely at such claims. It's the same with officers: If you claim officer safety you had better be able to substantiate why and have a real and reasonable fear for your safety. The courts are looking at such claims more closely, and citizens who are more savvy about their rights than ever are not going to put up with it any more.
My feeling is officers need to be able to protect themselves and others without worrying about being sued. For the most part that has always been the case. But just taking private property from otherwise law abiding citizens as a matter of policy (be it personal or department) is what's going to tarnish future claims of officer safety, making them suspect. Such cases will only make it harder for officers to do their jobs safely and chip away at once-sacred "officer safety".
"...whether the warrantless search of Washington’s vehicle to find a handgun that Washington admitted he had and for which he possessed a valid permit, violated the Fourth Amendment when the officer lacked an articulable basis of concern for officer safety. We reverse."
In my job as a commercial pilot I sometimes cite "safety" as a reason for my actions. It used to be a pilot could cry "safety" and that was the end of the matter. "OOooooohhhh he did it for safety!" Nothing more need be said. Some things (such as "officer safety") are sacred. But now the FAA and others are looking more closely at such claims. It's the same with officers: If you claim officer safety you had better be able to substantiate why and have a real and reasonable fear for your safety. The courts are looking at such claims more closely, and citizens who are more savvy about their rights than ever are not going to put up with it any more.
My feeling is officers need to be able to protect themselves and others without worrying about being sued. For the most part that has always been the case. But just taking private property from otherwise law abiding citizens as a matter of policy (be it personal or department) is what's going to tarnish future claims of officer safety, making them suspect. Such cases will only make it harder for officers to do their jobs safely and chip away at once-sacred "officer safety".
Bring him to FNS. A bit of a workout with the contraption he carries every day could be a much better contribution to "officer safety."
Great idea. I will invite him out.
theweakerbrother
Grandmaster
Is he still your friend if he wants you to submit to authority that isn't there to legally take? If he treats your rights with that much contempt, imagine what he does with someone who makes him have a chip on his shoulder or someone he immediately dislikes.
Yeah, he's my friend! He is a friend that is essential to my soul. That is a word I don't use lightly and once someone is my friend, we get past differences. I will give him the same opportunity to learn his job correctly as I would hope someone gives me. Just like I learned that much of the crap I learned in basic training was wrong, maybe he will realize the same if he's given a training officer who can properly teach him. He's a reasonable person and just like Dross was able to get through to me, hopefully someone will do the same for him.
The question is, would he still be your friend? What does is take for you to cut your friends off? That was the purpose of the thread. I knew I was wrong, but I guess if you were in my shoes, he would be your former friend?
Site Supporter
Members online
- Thomas1969
- YankeeDollar
- FreeLand
- Jagermeister
- radar8756
- crookcountygo
- DoggyDaddy
- gdog243
- alc1985
- melensdad
- NoAdmiration
- mshogren
- BE Mike
- Rong
- EODFXSTI
- possum_128
- profjeremy
- IndyTom
- shotgun131313
- Steel and wood
- ditcherman
- Mikey1911
- Fallschirmjaeger
- WebSnyper
- LuckyOne
- JBLee
- gpasp101
- dwain
- snapping turtle
- Wfulton
- joslar15
- Leadeye
- ChrisK
- erasure
- STEEL CORE
- Chewie
- boblade
- Snapdragon
- Gunmetalgray
- Okimeister
- sp3worker
- Mauser Fanatic
- dieselrealtor
- bub74
- jamil
- blaster2
- tsm
- Indy574
- Revdev86
- clelaj
