Only my police officer friend has the right to take your weapon.

[ATM]

i look at a leo taking my gun in the same regards as me locking and tagging out a machine. i have nothing to hide so it wouldnt bother me at all.

How about searching your house?


Machines don't have rights.

 

[Hammerhead]

Que, I also hope you take a computer (or print it out) and show him Melvin v. Washington and State v. Richardson, highlighting the pertinent points. I also hope you show him Terry (he'll probably be familiar with this one) and highlight the point of a crime being committed or being dangerous. Also include the SCOTUS ruling on the carrying of a firearm to not fill the burden of PC of a crime.

Take him to the range. But also show him the law, in it's physical form, and prove to him that it favors those of us who've submitted to the state requirements and have been proven to be worthy.

My dad is a former officer. I've had this discussion with him. After all his years behind the badge, he still feels that licensed carriers are not the threat. He's always encouraged me to inform, but he also understands that the culture has changed away from trusting the public to suspicious of everyone.

I have a really close friend who's a detective on a college department. He used to be a patrol officer. Luckily, he grew up in a home that was happily pro 2A. I wouldn't want him to disarm licensed carriers. He's never asked to see my license nor put any thought into me carrying.

I have another longtime friend who's an IMPD officer. I don't know his position. I might have to discuss this with him.

I know I've personally spoken out against informing, cops who disarm citizens and keeping your mouth shut when interacting officially with LEOs. I've been an OC advocate, and I've argued my fair share against that rat bastard Officer Safety and his culture of ignorance and intolerance. However, I've also stated that I respect the police and what they do, and I believe that they should be safe. I also believe that there's common sense and training that should be used properly and if they're not, something needs to be adjusted.

Good luck to your friend. I hope he becomes a great cop.

 

[Rookie]

If you were to come to my house and I told you that I was going to hold on to your weapon for safety reasons, how would you react? Your answer should be the same as if it were a police officer. While I understand that you don't have the right to walk away during a traffic stop, as you would from my house, the fact that a person has a badge doesn't elevate him to super hero status. While I understand the need for officer safety, a lot of times it is used as a blanket because I can. Look at ATF consumer. Don't want to give me your gun? Officer safety, slap on the cuffs, disarm, and completely overlook the .380 in his back pocket.

Officer safety doesn't trump my safety. Officer safety doesn't trump my rights. My gun will always be safer in my holster than in anyone's hand.

One thing to remember. Any time you carry, you are assuming liability for that weapon as long as it is in your possession, all the way up to the moment that the officer takes possession. If that weapon were to discharge while you are cooperating for "officer safety", you don't get a pass because he asked for your gun.

I will not give my weapon (or any other property for that matter) to a police officer. If he believes he has the authority, then he can feel free to take my weapon.

 

[theweakerbrother]

It is late and I think I'm having a kidney stone so I am not able to think or convey my message with as much clarity as I would like, but I will try so please forgive me if I say something out of character or muddled.

In my previous post when I asked if the person who wishes to disarm another is still their friend was a rhetorical one. I answered the question, for me, by further explaining my stance. The allegorical friendship was not ended by my choosing... once a 'friend' elected either by asking me to disarm at the expression of an irrational fear of emotion or done by at the point of a gun from his government appointed authority (even if the gun is not drawn), he has willingly severed his relationship to me by asking me to forfeit a right endowed to me by my creator. The exception to this rule is if I am in his house and he asks me not to bring in my firearm. His house, his rules. Fortunately for us, the community is not an LEO's house. Fortunately for me, I can continue to carry whether he likes it or not outside of his house.

When one approaches another and makes a request that isn't theirs to request, etiquette has been breeched. When manifested authority is involved, this is exponentially insulting, especially in light of recent law-talk and case law presented by other INGO'ers.

In a sense, I have not ceased being friends with the individual but I am merely returning the favor to the one who demanded that I be disarmed at their officer safety nanny-ism.

I afford the opportunity for friends to be wrong, to completely disagree with me, to have differences in religion or no religion at all and even with different political spectrum opinions but I am not sure I could as easily share a close-knit brotherly friendship with someone who did not see eye to eye with me on the issue of the seriousness of gun-ownership. Is it too far of a jump to say that if this allegorical friend would not turn me in or arrest me if the times comes to turn in your arms and beat them into plowshares? After all, it is for officer safety.

It is reasonable to build a case that the friendship may eventually be salvaged under the attempt to convince or sway him to your opinion but is such a fickle friend possible to hold sway over? How long have you known this man? Compare it to the time he spent in the academy. I imagine that your relationship with this individual is years longer than the amount of time he spent in the academy, yet he has already abandoned your relationship for his "new" accumulation of 'knowledge' even after you've presented him knowledge that speaks otherwise.

I'm a pretty ecumenical person but I do draw the line somewhere. Maybe we just draw our lines at different points. If that is the case, that is fine. Continue to honor and treasure that friendship and use it to your advantage when attempting to proselytize this individual over to the fold of Pro 2-A rights but it sounds like you have a long way to go, if possible at all.

I have friends who are police officers in different states and for different departments. We've had several discussions about where rights begin, where they end and how their safety plays into the roles of Terry/traffic stops and what they should do versus what they can do. I've not had to re-evaluate my relationships with them (in most cases) because of our discussions. Ultimately, it is their call to work within the bounds of the law. It is unfortunate that so many are living in a realm where safety and not freedom are the ultimate motivators for doing one's job.

A friend is someone who I can disagree with. A friend is someone who can chose to not meat and I can roll my eyes and disagree with as I enjoy a BLT while he just eats the L and T. A friend is also someone who can rebuke me in my impurities, inconsistencies and iniquities; a friend is not someone who asks me to relinquish my rights and I would expect the same of them. Are they really inalienable rights if someone can take them away at a simple command if you've broken no laws?

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?

 

[rhino]

If someone is perceived to be so dangerous that they must be disarmed "for officer safety," why are they perceived to be incapable of doing harm without the specific firearm in question in their possession? If someone is a threat to officer safety, shouldn't they be handcuffed and proned as well?

Even if I agreed with routine disarming of law-abiding citizens (which I do not), it's just stupid with a capital STUPID for someone to assume that someone is no longer a viable threat to them because they have relieved them of a gun.

 

[E5RANGER375]

if I was a cop I wouldnt even arrest people who didnt have an LTCH but were carrying a gun as long as they werent committing a crime or using it unsafely or wanted. I put the constitution first before the wrong laws of man. one of the reasons I couldnt be a cop. they have to enforce the laws as written, even if they (certain laws) are WRONG. flame me if you want for being honest, but the constitution is clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! it doesnt say shall have an LTCH to be armed with a gun. I also wouldnt be arresting people for having weed either. now if they were driving impaired thats a different story.

cops, good on you for what you do. its not for me. have all of it you want.

 

[sepe]

I voted no and I do have friends that are cops. I know for a fact that 2 of them wouldn't disarm someone if they were able to present that pretty pink paper. Both of them have more than 8 years on the job and 1 spent some time in the Marines. They both have some intuition regarding people whether on a stop or rolling up on a scene. As far as "officer safety" and them having kids, both have kids and 1 is still married...neither of them came up with their kids or spouse or girlfriend when we had this conversation a couple years back....they both did say that if they stopped me for any reason they would taze me though, I can't wait.

 

[E5RANGER375]

they both did say that if they stopped me for any reason they would taze me though, I can't wait.

if any of the officers on INGO ever pull me over im probly ****ed. im just gonna curl up in the fetal position and take my beating

 

[roscott]

I feel like an important aspect is being ignored. If Officer Safety is really the important issue, (from the Department's point of view,) is disarming a citizen with an LTCH really safe, from an operational standpoint?

It seems to me, that from an officer's standpoint, disarming by requesting the gun is incredibly dangerous, even stupid.

Officer: "I'm going to have to ask you to hand over your firearm."
Citizen (Bad-Guy): "Okay." Casually draws pistol, points it at the officer, and shoots him. The officer doesn't draw because he thinks the guy is simply handing over the gun.

As an LEO, wouldn't you WANT the individual to keep his gun holstered, so that if he draws for any reason, you can just shoot him? Isn't THAT officer safety?

 

[Benny]

This poll doesn't make sense and this thread is ridiculous.

To answer the question:

No, I don't care if it is my brother...I don't want him ****ting on my fellow law-abiding citizen's rights just because he may feel a bit uncomfortable. PICK A DIFFERENT JOB IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.



I'm pretty sure I've made it quite clear over the years here that I'm FAR from anti-LEO(I welcome any LEO in disagreement with this statement to speak up)...With that being said, why would an officer's rights/safety trump my rights/safety?

Just because he/she has a badge makes them safer and more law-abiding than I am?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Having close family that are LEOs, I still would not want them asking people for their firearms.

I do not ask to hold other people's guns for "my safety".

Police officers do an extremely dangerous job, but asking for a firearm does not increase officer safety. Someone who has intent to use a firearm is still likely to shoot instead of hand it over if asked. Someone who is not going to shoot will not be a problem.

I guess I do not understand how it makes the situation any safe for the officer... Is it the time between them being handed the firearm, and them handing it back? If someone is willing to surrender their firearm, they pose no danger in that time anyway. What criminal with intent to shoot a police officer, then decides "eh I will just give him my gun instead"... ?? What?

I actually perceive that as possibly escalating a situation if someone may cause harm...

 

[PatriotPride]

This poll doesn't make sense and this thread is ridiculous.

To answer the question:

No, I don't care if it is my brother...I don't want him ****ting on my fellow law-abiding citizen's rights just because he may feel a bit uncomfortable. PICK A DIFFERENT JOB IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.



I'm pretty sure I've made it quite clear over the years here that I'm FAR from anti-LEO(I welcome any LEO in disagreement with this statement to speak up)...With that being said, why would an officer's rights/safety trump my rights/safety?

Just because he/she has a badge makes them safer and more law-abiding than I am?

Agreed. I would rep you (not like you need it ) but I'm out. Excellent post.

 

[Indy317]

So you feel its OK for honest, law biding folks to be disarmed against their will????

What if the license holder gets "mouthy," but doesn't mutter a single threat? What if the license holder refuses a simple request by an officer, who doesn't want to disarm the person or take the gun, to at least keep their hands in view of the officer? On the flip side, if one is that worried about firearms in the hands of those with licenses to carry, maybe they should find another line of work.

When does it become OK to take the firearm? To separate the driver from the firearms in the vehicle? To cuff someone who is wearing a firearm? Does a person, even a license holder, have to draw down on the officer before they can secure a weapon? Is it OK to disarm the license holder if they are involved in an incident? Does it depend on the incident?

The simple fact is that new officers are going to be scared to death out of the academy. In most academies, you talk about safety non-stop, and videos of officer involved shootings are common. Not surprisingly, there is rarely any training incident or video that shows nothing happening. The FATS training machine does have some scenarios were nothing happens, but they are far and few between. I've never seen a training video of just a good police interaction where nothing happened. The videos that get e-mailed to LEOs all over the county are of cops getting shot, cops get ran over by a car, etc..

Eventually, someday, courts are going to answer all of the above. They have somewhat started to do that with the Heller ruling at the federal level, and the recent rulings in Indiana. If the courts rule that absent some sort of violent behavior on the part of the license holder, the gun can't be taken, I will only imagine some cops will just stop being as pro-active. I also see a lot more profiling for those who want to enforce traffic laws. Don't pull over folks who might be carrying, but pull those over who likely wouldn't be (soccer moms, grandmas, etc.). It will be interesting to see the fallout of a "can't disarm" ruling.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Someone being "mouthy" but not threatening, does not equate to them posing a threat.

Asking someone to surrender a weapon does not negate their option of brandishing it. An officer stating "hand me your firearm" does not disable the firing pin.

The people that will willingly surrender a weapon to police by request are not the same group that will use the weapon against the police.

If someone has reason to believe they will go to jail and is the type of person that will use the weapon, they will likely not surrender the weapon in the first place.

A criminal is someone who is willing to break the rules. If I see someone with a gun and believe they pose a threat to me, is it reasonable for me to ask them to hand me their firearm? Do you think they will comply? If they comply, are they the type of person that would have harmed me?

 

[Que]

Some people on here make it so easy to ask for help and seek direction. I stay away from silly polls and rediculous threads. Is easy to do. I see a silly post and I keep my hands off the keyboard and then direct my attention elsewhere. Try it it's easy.

 

[Wwwildthing]

Here's something for you guys to ponder...

Being retired, I frequent a dozen or so different gun forums daily... most of which usually have a "LEO Encounter" thread going (on some of these sites, it's a daily event).

The exception to this is the Arizona forum... where there has been only ONE encounter thread, since Constitutional Carry was passed.

 

[Pocketman]

Ask your friend to review his oath of office.

 

[4sarge]

I do not want to see any officer injured or killed and proper training is an essential element of officer safety, but someone at ISP has an agenda that is in direct conflict or at least spirit of the law as written. They (ISP) are using a written, unwritten or training directive to disarm all law abiding LTCH holders without probable cause under the guise of Officer Safety. I can see the occasional need for an officer to disarm a person until circumstances & facts are sorted out But Not a Blanket Disarming of everyone.

Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2009

2009 Statistics for Officers Killed in the United States of America

Accidents

• In 2009, 47 law enforcement officers died as the result of accidents that occurred in the line of duty.
• Law enforcement agencies in 29 states reported that officers from their jurisdictions died in the line of duty as a result of accidents in 2009.
• Of the 47 officers accidentally killed, 15 were employed by city police departments, 21 were employed by county agencies, 10 were employed by state agencies, and 1 was employed by a federal agency.

Thirty-four of the 47 officers who were accidentally killed in the line of duty in 2009 died as a result of automobile accidents. Six officers were struck by vehicles, 3 officers died in motorcycle accidents, and 4 officers died during other types of accidents.

• Of the 6 officers struck by vehicles, 3 were executing a traffic stop or roadblock, and 3 officers were directing traffic or assisting motorists.
• Two officers were accidentally shot as a result of crossfire or other firearm mishap.

Officers Feloniously Killed

• In 2009, 48 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty.
• Thirty-two of the slain officers were employed by city police departments. Of these, nearly half (15) were with law enforcement agencies in cities with 250,000 or more inhabitants.
• Line-of-duty deaths occurred in 18 states and Puerto Rico. Twenty-one officers lost their lives in the South. Thirteen of the officers died in the West, 7 died in the Northeast, and 5 officers who were feloniously slain were employed in the Midwest.

Circumstances

• 15 officers died in ambush situations.
• 8 officers died from felonious attacks during arrest situations.
• 8 officers died during traffic pursuits/stops.
• 6 officers died answering disturbance calls.
• 5 officers died during tactical situations (barricaded offender, hostage taking, etc.).
• 4 officers died while investigating suspicious persons/circumstances.
• 2 officers were killed while transporting or maintaining custody of prisoners.

Your Trooper Friend has just a great a chance of being struck by an auto or injured in a traffic accident than being shot while investigating a Routine Traffic Stop. Someone at ISP definitely has their training priorities out of line

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I don't have a problem turning over my gun for the length of the stop .

Trying to put myself in a LEO's shoes for a minute .

I'd like to think that my "gut" , training and experience would come into play during any stop but I don't think I'd trust ANYONE just because they have a piece of paper saying they weren't a criminal at the time it was issued .

 

[dross]

Here's something for you guys to ponder...

Being retired, I frequent a dozen or so different gun forums daily... most of which usually have a "LEO Encounter" thread going (on some of these sites, it's a daily event).

The exception to this is the Arizona forum... where there has been only ONE encounter thread, since Constitutional Carry was passed.

Arizona should have a much higher incidence of officer shootings on traffic stops if disarming citizens actually leads to officer safety.