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

[sepe]

The OP specifically says that the officer sees the gun on the seat next to the driver. That's why I was saying I'd ask for it and gave the specific examples that I did.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is there are definitely situations where the officer should NOT ask for the firearm because it could present more of a danger to them than having the operator leave it where it is, however, having experience "making it home" that's what I would do if I were in the officer's shoes.




Move to St. Joseph County outside of city lines and buy some acreage. They don't stop anybody from shooting out here!

Pretty free to shoot up whatever you want around Chapin and some parts of Indiana in S.B. If you hit your targets, some of the police would probably want to shake your hand. Possibly on the far west side as well. The River Park area seems to be cleaned up but it depends which streets you are on.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

cop looked like he handled himself well considering. the only thing I saw that could be done different is that he had the light in his weapon hand. nothing goes in gun hand.

I'm not saying he didn't handle himself well, but he standing at the door talking to that guy for how long before the weapon came out? And if the hammer didn't come down on an already fired round, the outcome probably would of been a bit different.

In that "lucky cop" video, did that guy crash due to gun shot wounds?

Yes. Guy was DOA if I remember right when the EMTs arrived.

 

[Roadie]

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?

That is an excellent point. Nothing like giving a bad guy PERMISSION to draw a gun.

..not to mention, as several members here have attested to, after relinquishing their weapon, the Officer never asked about OTHER weapons.

On case, as I recall, had a citizen cuffed, with his hands near the BUG in his pants pocket..

There is no logic in this "Officer Safety" thing, in my opinion, it is the Brady gang, and Paul Helmke's of the country's anti gun misinformation trickling down into Law Enforcement...

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

thats it!. ........ Im starting a talk show

You can take Oprahs place with she retires. Have Osama Obama as your first guest.

 

[Benny]

Yes. Guy was DOA if I remember right when the EMTs arrived.

Nice.

I'd say that was some great shooting considering the stress/pressure he was under at that given moment.

 

[finity]

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 .

Then it's a good thing that you chose something else other than being a cop as a profession.

IF there is probable cause, and I mean something that is real and not make believe, then yes, disarm. BUT I feel that if there is probable cause the officer should have already called for back up as somebody who needs to be disarmed probably wont hand it over peacefully.

Without probably cause, there is no excuse for disarming a law abiding citizen. Also, speeding or failing to signal is not probable cause, that's just an infraction unless I'm mistaken, but it isn't any reason alone to disarm somebody.

While I don't want anyone to get hurt doing thier job, it IS a known risk of the job. As such, officer safety in this case is akin to a miner demanding that gravity cease while underground. It's not a respectable request.

Also, I bet most officers who habitually violate rights like this lower thier guard after the violation (thier violation that is, not the poor sap they just temporarly robbed). Who's to say they didn't have another gun.Now the officer is worse off then before he disarmed the LTCH holder, assuming the LTCH holder wanted to shoot him. In which case the officer would have probably already been dead. Not pretty, but simple facts. If somebody wants to kill you it isn't that hard.

Ha! That's exactly right.

I related on here recently about my interaction last year with an Auburn cop. He came to my son's apartment because we called them to report a possible crime. I had a gun on his kitchen counter & the cop was between me & it. The cop asked whose gun it was. I told him it was mine & I had a LTCH. He asked for the LTCH & I showed him (he had never seen a lifetime LTCH i guess). He then walked to the gun, dropped the mag & ejected the round then proceeded to call it in for warrants WITH HIS BACK TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. He obviously thought I was a criminal to feel the need to call in my gun but didn't even care about the gun I had concealed in my waistband that, if I was so inclined, I could have easily shot him with.

Taking the known gun gives them a false sense of security. One of them will (if not already) end up dead because of that stupid practice & the complacency it breeds.

My only comment for this thread..

No, it doesn't. Sometimes, I think we forget that. That pink paper proves that the checks by ISP do not return anything that would disqualify the applicant. Guy with 87 speeding tix, might get a pink paper, but is probably still a criminal. Gal who consistently bounces checks, knowing there's no cash in the account...yep, another criminal. Old guy with the heads of a dozen 12yr old girls in his basement...criminal, even if he's never been suspected, caught, questioned, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

We, and I include myself in that 'We', sometimes see our LTCH as a magical good-guy card, we wave it in folks faces and they should immediately recognize us as non-threatening champions of the constitution and whatever else. "Hey, you've got a LTCH, so I trust you with my kid and this $20k in cash."

Instead, we need to remember that our pink paper is just that...a 2"x3" piece of 20lb pink paper infused with standard laser jet black ink. Sure, it's a good indicator of our behavior and propensities to (not) do wrong, but flashing it to the guy at the door of the white house won't get you into the oval office.

First, it is a "magical good guy card" just as far as the guys badge is who's standing at my window asking for my gun.

Next, we don't NEED a "magical good guy card" because we've got this thing called a Constitution & that document provides that we are "innocent until proven guilty" or at least "...until the police have probable cause to believe otherwise". We can't be treated as if we are guilty unless they have a good reason to think we are.

Last, as indicators of those "propensities" go, it's pretty damn good at that prediction. It's a proven fact that LTCH/CCW/Permit holders are one of the most (if not THE most) generally law-abiding groups around. It makes no sense to assume that just because a person informs you they have a LTCH & are carrying it makes them a threat & that they should be treated like a common criminal.

If the cops want to further widen the "us vs. them" divide then consistently disarming law-abiding citizens & treating them like criminals is the right way to go about it.

Excellent post putting the risk in perspective. I'll expand on it a bit by asking this question: How many examples of LTCH holders shooting police at traffic stops have actually occured since the 1980s? Anyone?

You won't see any because the incidents of it happening are so small that if they did show you the actual numbers then the guys who tout "officer safety" would just make themselves look even more foolish than they typically do.

At the end of the day, I'm coming home to my wife and boy. Period.

Just to clarify-

Are you saying that you will do whatever it takes so that you come home even if it is at the expense of the innocent?

If so, YOU NEED TO FIND ANOTHER JOB!

A peice of paper means nothing to a persons mental stablity. They can be the citizen of the year and decide this is it and take a life it happens all the time look at the news. If I have to make somebody mad because they feel I violated their Rights then so be it. I WILL go HOME at the end of the night. If you dont like it move. I love my wife dog beer and bacon. All of us on here may have a LTCH and be stable but not everybody is. Feel free to PM complaints to me they will be answered.

This post pisses me off so much I barely know what to say.

I can't believe (& am somewhat disappointed) that other members of INGO have let this post skate by without a comment.

I won't PM you any complaints. I'll post them in the open forum. That's where agents of the state need to do their work & state their opinions. I will however give you a very rare negative rep for your obviously post.

Who the hell do you think you are telling us that WE are the ones who should move if we don't like the way YOU or your kind of LEO treats us? Maybe YOU should move to some other country where the people have less rights & the police can do whatever they want to them...so they can come home at the end of their shift, of course. I hear they have a few openings in Libya right now.

It's not that we feel that you've violated our rights when you disarm a motorist with a gun & a LTCH for a burned out tail light. You have, in fact, violated our rights. We gave you no probable cause to confiscate our property. We gave you no reason to believe we were a threat to you.

YOU are the problem, not US. YOU are the dangerous one who is a threat to our rights. We aren't a threat to you IN ANY WAY.

We have a document that you swore to uphold. It's called the Constitution. If you don't like the limitations that the document puts on you then YOU need to find another line of work. The last thing we need is another cop that feels they can do whatever they want to us in the name of "fighting crime" or "officer safety".

You knew the risks when you volunteered. If you've found that you can't stomach the risks without violating the oath you took then you, also, NEED TO FIND ANOTHER JOB! If you took that oath knowing full well you never intended to follow it then you need to be thrown in jail.

Still haven't heard of any examples. Can someone come up with at least ONE?

I have no problem with officer safety measures that are based in REALITY and observations of tells indicating an unstable/violent subject (a firearm by itself is not such an indicator, btw). However, history seems to demonstrate that LTCH holders represent essentially ZERO risk to police officers. They're more likely to get struck by lightning.

And what about MY safety? Do I not count for some reason? Unnecessarily handling/unloading/fiddling with firearms during traffic stops significantly ups the risk of an AD/ND (maybe by a factor of 10), and that affects the safety of everyone in the vicinity, the officer, myself, passers by, etc. What's going to happen when a LEO accidently shoots himself with a citizen's seized gun? If the practice discussed in this thread continues to be practiced routinely, I'd venture to guess it will happen eventually.

I keep my mouth shut and treat the fact of whether or not I have firearms in the vehicle as need-to-know information (it's moot since I'm not a threat), but it sounds as though the effectiveness of that practice is being dimished by some of the current officer training out there.

+1

Que,

To let you know my beliefs on the OP:

My son wanted to be a cop at one time. I told him basically the same thing - if you can't be a cop that treats every person you meet with respect & interact with them without violating their rights EVEN IF IT MEANS YOU MIGHT NOT COME HOME then YOU NEED TO LOOK AT FINDING A DIFFERENT JOB!

I would much rather have a cop dead than an innocent person. The cop volunteered - the innocent guy has been thrust there by circumstances beyond their control. Even at times those circumstances were set in place by the actions of said cop.

The cop is backed by the power of the state. The innocent guy is completely on his own unless he's lucky enough to be wealthy enough to hire a good lawyer. That's, again, if he even makes it to court & isn't taken away in a body bag.

So yeah, I know EXACTLY how you feel about your friend. I also know that you owe it to society to stick to your beliefs & tell him like it should be instead of how he was taught by the people who have a vested interest in propagating the "officer safety overrides everything" idea.

You can still be his friend (just like I would have still been my son's dad) but you don't have to like everything about them or everything that they do.

Hopefully he'll come around & learn before someone is seriously violated.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

Wow. A whole going on in this thread and I'm glad I stumbled through it. I have a few thoughts.

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

I completely disagree. I'm relatively new to gun ownership even though I'm 46 years old. I'm definitely new to thoughts about gun law. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I love surfing INGO and I'm sure that this has been discussed in the past many times. However, do you have any idea how many threads there are to someone new here? I do not have the time or inclination to read the entire forum. I search for topics I'm curious about, but when these repeat discussions come up, some of us enjoy them.

I also agree that the pink piece of paper doesn't prove a thing. I may prove that at one point in time you passed the checks and weren't a criminal, but it doesn't mean you aren't dangerous now.

As to LEOs, I think we forget something. For their job, a significant portion of the people they encounter as part of their jobs are not the upper crust, trustworthy, high-brow members of society. They are exactly the opposite. When you encounter dregs on a regular basis, I'm sure you start to get a bit jaded. Right or wrong, it's a side effect of the job and training. I'm more likely to allow them a pass if they err at times.

For Que - I really didn't like the way the original question was posed to your friend. You worded it that the gun was "laying on the passenger seat". I would really to know his thoughts on this:

Let's say he met me at your house while we were having a cookout (I'm up for this BTW. Maybe it could be .45 ACP advanced reloading class reunion). He knows from our encounter there that I CC regularly.

The next day, he pulls me over for speeding and recognizes me as someone he met at your house who likely has a gun cc in a holster on his hip. Knowing this, would he ask me to disarm even though the gun is safely in a holster and out of sight and I've given him no indication of being a threat?

If he still says yes to that, than I think he's wrong. The gun being out in the open on the seat, I kind of understand, or will at least abide.

 

[jsgolfman]

I'd rep you Finity but I'm all out for today.

 

[JoshuaW]

I have friends and family who are police officers (well, retired family) and I would rather they respect the LTCH, but I am on the fence enough to say that if they had a gut feeling about someone, I would rather they do what they need to in order to protect themselves, and let me give them flack for it later.

When it comes down to it, if you cant handle the stress of your job, go home. I have said it before, being an officer is a POTENTIALLY dangerous career, but there are far more dangerous career paths, and the majority of them dont demand a cookie for "making it through the day", and nearly all careers that have a higher mortality rate have much less control over the situation.

 

[serpicostraight]

officer safety=officer coward end of story.

 

[Hammerhead]

This post pisses me off so much I barely know what to say.

I can't believe (& am somewhat disappointed) that other members of INGO have let this post skate by without a comment.

Sometimes, we get tired of .

Sometimes, we're .

Sometimes, it's just like they're and everything we've said has been repeated ad nauseam .

We've proven it's illegal for cops to disarm licensed carriers. We've proven that this type of thinking increases the "us vs. them" mentality. We've asked for proof that law abiding citizens suddenly snap and become the threat. The best example of this being proven wrong is the fact that the Texas legislature actually took a look at the crime levels, saw that law abiding citizens who become legal carriers remain law abiding citizens, and put in an express lane into the Texas statehouse for CWP holders and their guns because they realized that CWP holders aren't the problem.

They just don't get it. They don't want to get it. They want to ignore the facts and the law, and make their own rules.

And no, the "they" I'm referring to isn't just LEOs or all LEOs, it's anyone who believes that disarming law abiding citizens is the answer.

 

[lovemachine]

SO. How 'bout them colts?

 

[Benny]

I completely disagree. I'm relatively new to gun ownership even though I'm 46 years old. I'm definitely new to thoughts about gun law. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I love surfing INGO and I'm sure that this has been discussed in the past many times. However, do you have any idea how many threads there are to someone new here? I do not have the time or inclination to read the entire forum. I search for topics I'm curious about, but when these repeat discussions come up, some of us enjoy them.

Great story, but what do you completely disagree with?

I don't recall mentioning that he was beating a dead horse by starting a thread that has been done before...I said this thread is ridiculous, because he's fine with his buddy ****ting all over our rights just so he feels better and the poll is weird because the only necessary options are 3, 4 and 5...Options 1 and 2 are irrelevant because we have no idea who voted for what(for example, if someone votes that they have a close friend who is LEO, we don't know if they voted for 3, 4 or 5 along with it).

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

I disagree with your statement "....and this thread is ridiculous".

I wasn't trying to tie the rest of my post to your quote, just that one single statement was all.

 

[Benny]

I disagree with your statement "....and this thread is ridiculous".

I wasn't trying to tie the rest of my post to your quote, just that one single statement was all.

That's why I only quoted the first paragraph...Did your response to what you quoted end after the first sentence? If so, that is fine, but it would be nice if you elaborated.

I explained why I think it is ridiculous, now it is your turn to say why you don't think it is.

 

[Que]

Great story, but what do you completely disagree with?

I don't recall mentioning that he was beating a dead horse by starting a thread that has been done before...I said this thread is ridiculous, because he's fine with his buddy ****ting all over our rights just so he feels better and the poll is weird because the only necessary options are 3, 4 and 5...Options 1 and 2 are irrelevant because we have no idea who voted for what(for example, if someone votes that they have a close friend who is LEO, we don't know if they voted for 3, 4 or 5 along with it).

Well, I clicked the box for the responses to be public, but it just didn't work. I'm glad that it didn't work, because some people on here are gods of gun ownership and the Constitution, and are totally incapable of providing correction or guidance in a civil manner, without placing themselves on a pedestal.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Well, I clicked the box for the responses to be public, but it just didn't work. I'm glad that it didn't work, because some people on here are gods of gun ownership and the Constitution, and are totally incapable of providing correction or guidance in a civil manner, without placing themselves on a pedestal.

obama is a member here?

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

That's why I only quoted the first paragraph...Did your response to what you quoted end after the first sentence? If so, that is fine, but it would be nice if you elaborated.

I explained why I think it is ridiculous, now it is your turn to say why you don't think it is.

Benny - I truly meant no offense. I was only responding to that one statement. I didn't think the thread was ridiculous. That's all.

The rest of my post were just my thoughts on the matter and some of the other comments in general that said it had been discussed before.

 

[Benny]

Benny - I truly meant no offense.

Absolutely none was taken.

I just wanted to know what part of my post you disagreed with and why.

 

[Que]

obama is a member here?

You would know better than me, Ranger. Right????