Can a LEO require you to show them your gun?

[88GT]

I don't ask everyone I stop, but if I see a handgun permit, I do. I don't know the driver; not everyone who has a permit is mentally or emotionally stable. I think you said it best in an earlier reply: So much depends on how the motorist acts, a 'totality of cirmcumstances', if you will.

That's stupid logic. Assume the guilt of a person whose possession of a firearm you have deduced through the observation of a pink piece of paper. And let the criminal who's packing the fo-tay in his crotch remain unmolested because he doesn't believe he needs a permission slip.

So let me ask you this. If you do lie, and by chance it's discovered you have a firearm, have you escalated the situation?

But you're right, "why would they ask?" I see no reason to ask, unless safety is a legit concern.

Nope.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nope.

Do you think, at that point there's justifcation to be disarmed?

 

[88GT]

Do you think, at that point there's justifcation to be disarmed?

Have you ascertained the existence of a LTCH in the name of the individual?

 

[MPH]

That's stupid logic. Assume the guilt of a person whose possession of a firearm you have deduced through the observation of a pink piece of paper. And let the criminal who's packing the fo-tay in his crotch remain unmolested because he doesn't believe he needs a permission slip.



Nope.

Who is assuming guilt? That is your word, not mine. Guilt? The thread is titled "Can a LEO require you to show them your gun?" The question is asked because normally a license is accompanied by a firearm. It's a reasonable question. All things are considered in an encounter, and if there is no reason to fear for my safety (unprovoked combative attitude, sudden gestures which could be construed as, or are actually threatening, absence of any illegality) then the weapon stays where it is. I don't need to see but but I do need to know where it is.
Your statement about the 'criminal with a weapon in his crotch' has nothing to do with a license,and his "criminality"?? Wow. I guess I missed the academy training where that status is label-taped to his/her forehead.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Have you ascertained the existence of a LTCH in the name of the individual?

Of course not, the person advised that they didn't have a gun. Why would I inquire about a LTCH when a person had advised that they don't have one one their person?

If a person has lied about having a handgun on their person, and then it's discovered, by accident, presenting a LTCH isn't going to remedy the issue.

Trust me, I'm not going to be happy. That person will certainly be cuffed and disarmed. But this is me, I don't go asking everyone about having a weapon, so if I do, it's something I think I should be concerned about.

 

[1911 mike]

I will always show prof of insurance ,license, and LTC permit. If he wants it "I WILL UNLOAD IT" And then let then officer have it, other wise I do not feel comfortable just handing it over. It has only happened once and all went well. I am retired government officer (32 years) but I show no badge or ask for no special favors. I watch to see how he preforms his job and how He treats me and like wise. I give respect, and expect the same in return!

 

[Kutnupe14]

I will always show prof of insurance ,license, and LTC permit. If he wants it "I WILL UNLOAD IT" And then let then officer have it, other wise I do not feel comfortable just handing it over. It has only happened once and all went well. I am retired government officer (32 years) but I show no badge or ask for no special favors. I watch to see how he preforms his job and how He treats me and like wise. I give respect, and expect the same in return!

I'm not trying to start anything, but I think that is pretty unwise. I doubt very many LEOs cotton to people handling their firearms, if it is to be taken off their person.

 

[jrmann_86]

Indiana Code 35-47-14

 

[Josh Ward]

The "correct" answer to the question of "do you have a gun" is "I have nothing illegal in my possession"

I was pulled over by ISP for going 61 in a 55 very near my house coming home from work last summer. Truck, topper, dog trailer, my whole rig. Had 14 dogs with me in there respective places on the topper and/or trailer. I honeslty had no clue why I was being pulled over (in hindsight it was obvisouly a fishing trip), I figured I had a tail light on the trailer out or something. Here I am on the side of a busy highway, I'm hot, wet, and muddy, its pretty damn obvious what I've been up to. Officer asks where I'm going, I say "home, just up the road a mile a so," he asks where I've been, I say "working." He asks what do have in your truck, this is where I say "there is nothing illegal in my truck nor in my possession." He says I need you to get out and open this trailer thing and show me whats in there.

(Yeah flippin' right dude, I have near to $100,000 worth of my clients dogs on board and I'm gonna go start opening kennel doors on the side of the highway, no thanks)

I say, "sir, I have nothing illegal, I do not consent to any search nor detainment. If you wish to write me a speeding ticket please do so and let me be on my way"

He asked me to show him what was in the trailer again, I pretty much repeated myself and told him he had no reason to suspect me of doing anything other than driving a whopping 6mph over the speed limit. He went back to his car and took his sweet time writing me the lamest speeding ticket in history

 

[Bert]

I had a officer ask if I had a gun in my car once . I wasn't in a good mood so I replied " hell I don't know , probably , do you want me to check ?" He said no thats alright and proceeded to give me a warning ticket and sent me on my way . This was at 330 am . 70 in a 55

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Indiana Code 35-47-14

Comes up frequently in these discussions, and is not relevant to traffic stops and temporary seizures of weapons by an officer. This IC code is dealing with seizing weapons from the mentally ill/dangerous absent a crime taking place. Is not, and has never been, applied by the courts to mean an officer can't temporarily seize a known weapon from someone detained for a known crime.

Essentially, Billy Bob is a nut case and is wandering around his living room naked with his SKS saying he's Jesus and needs to kill Elvis this Saturday or the world will drown in tartar sauce. No crime has been committed. This IC code is the justification for taking and holding weapons until he's adjudicated to be in a mental state that he can have his guns back. Absent such a code you could not do such, as he's not a felon, hasn't committed a crime, has attempted a crime, etc.

 

[iChokePeople]

The case *I* want to see brought is about running the numbers on a firearm that was taken "for officer safety". I totally agree that the courts have held that officer safety is paramount and have allowed latitude in letting them temporarily secure a weapon during a routine stop. (ETA: I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it's a good idea, just acknowledging that it's the way it is.)

Using similar logic to the strict lines around what you can and can't do on a seat belt stop, though, I would tend to think the courts would frown upon using that latitude to conduct what is essentially an illegal search. If you have no reason to think the gun is stolen, the owner is legal, no other issues, there is, IMHO, no justification to run the serial (and, by the way, extend the duration of the "detention".)

Just my opinion, and we won't know until someone decides to be the test case, I guess.

 

[88GT]

Who is assuming guilt? That is your word, not mine. Guilt? The thread is titled "Can a LEO require you to show them your gun?" The question is asked because normally a license is accompanied by a firearm. It's a reasonable question. All things are considered in an encounter, and if there is no reason to fear for my safety (unprovoked combative attitude, sudden gestures which could be construed as, or are actually threatening, absence of any illegality) then the weapon stays where it is. I don't need to see but but I do need to know where it is.
Your statement about the 'criminal with a weapon in his crotch' has nothing to do with a license,and his "criminality"?? Wow. I guess I missed the academy training where that status is label-taped to his/her forehead.

Yes, it was my word. You won't succeed in a semantics game here. The point of your original post is that you assume the LTCH holder is something he's not for no other reason than that he has an LTCH. Meanwhile, the criminal who IS something dangerous to you is going to get a free pass because your standard only pays attention to the LTCH. Stupid logic.

You may not have missed academy training, but you did miss a logic lesson. Consider the this scenario. You pull someone over and in the process of handing you his DL you notice his LTCh in his wallet. You immediately assume he's a higher risk and ask about his firearm. Why? Now consider this. You pull someone over and in the process of handing you his DL, you notice nothing because he doesn't have an LTCH and you have no other reason to assume he's in possession of a firearm. Yet unbeknownst to you he is a criminal and has a warrant out for his arrest. Who is a greater risk for causing your grief when you return to the vehicle after running the information?

Your standard leaves criminals in possession of their firearms and makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens. You don't need to know where it is. You just think you do. It's a farce to make you feel better. Go ahead and take the firearm on my hip. Do you routinely ask if people have a second firearm in their possession? Why not? If they have one, why not two? I carry two. Do you really think you're safer because you seized the firearm on my hip but left me in possession of my BUG.

I understand the reasoning behind your desire to disarm people. It's a scary world and anybody could do anything. But the standard you employ doesn't make you any safer because you would have to remove everybody from his vehicle and perform a pat-down in order to eliminate the risks. Seizing a firearm doesn't do anything for your safety if you can't get them all.

Of course not, the person advised that they didn't have a gun. Why would I inquire about a LTCH when a person had advised that they don't have one one their person?

Then why would you need to ask them to disarm? They don't have a gun, remember? Your question assumed you found out otherwise, which means you now know they have a firearm. So have you asked for their LTCH?

If a person has lied about having a handgun on their person, and then it's discovered, by accident, presenting a LTCH isn't going to remedy the issue.

What is there to remedy? It's none of your business if they have a firearm and they aren't required to answer truthfully. If you find out differently and discover they are LTCH holders, what's the big deal? All I can see it butthurt because someone dared lie to you.

Trust me, I'm not going to be happy.

Boo hoo.

That person will certainly be cuffed and disarmed. But this is me, I don't go asking everyone about having a weapon, so if I do, it's something I think I should be concerned about.

Based on what? This is where I have a problem with the attitude of LE. You have no reason to suspect that the individual is a problem except for the fact that he didn't want you to know he LEGALLY carried a LEGAL firearm. The whole presumption of guilt--and, yes, I mean guilt--that LE takes to every interaction with the citizenry is one of the reasons I personally find a bad taste in my mouth in these discussions. We're not supposed to assume that a cop fishing and trying to find a reason to arrest us is a bad cop, but it's perfectly okay for LE to assume that every individual he stops is an equal risk to his life in spite of information to the contrary.

Why does LE take lying so personally? If LE can lie to me, why can't I lie to them?

 

[MPH]

Yes, it was my word. You won't succeed in a semantics game here. The point of your original post is that you assume the LTCH holder is something he's not for no other reason than that he has an LTCH. Meanwhile, the criminal who IS something dangerous to you is going to get a free pass because your standard only pays attention to the LTCH. Stupid logic.

You may not have missed academy training, but you did miss a logic lesson. Consider the this scenario. You pull someone over and in the process of handing you his DL you notice his LTCh in his wallet. You immediately assume he's a higher risk and ask about his firearm. Why? Now consider this. You pull someone over and in the process of handing you his DL, you notice nothing because he doesn't have an LTCH and you have no other reason to assume he's in possession of a firearm. Yet unbeknownst to you he is a criminal and has a warrant out for his arrest. Who is a greater risk for causing your grief when you return to the vehicle after running the information?

Your standard leaves criminals in possession of their firearms and makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens. You don't need to know where it is. You just think you do. It's a farce to make you feel better. Go ahead and take the firearm on my hip. Do you routinely ask if people have a second firearm in their possession? Why not? If they have one, why not two? I carry two. Do you really think you're safer because you seized the firearm on my hip but left me in possession of my BUG.

I understand the reasoning behind your desire to disarm people. It's a scary world and anybody could do anything. But the standard you employ doesn't make you any safer because you would have to remove everybody from his vehicle and perform a pat-down in order to eliminate the risks. Seizing a firearm doesn't do anything for your safety if you can't get them all.


Then why would you need to ask them to disarm? They don't have a gun, remember? Your question assumed you found out otherwise, which means you now know they have a firearm. So have you asked for their LTCH?


What is there to remedy? It's none of your business if they have a firearm and they aren't required to answer truthfully. If you find out differently and discover they are LTCH holders, what's the big deal? All I can see it butthurt because someone dared lie to you.


Boo hoo.


Based on what? This is where I have a problem with the attitude of LE. You have no reason to suspect that the individual is a problem except for the fact that he didn't want you to know he LEGALLY carried a LEGAL firearm. The whole presumption of guilt--and, yes, I mean guilt--that LE takes to every interaction with the citizenry is one of the reasons I personally find a bad taste in my mouth in these discussions. We're not supposed to assume that a cop fishing and trying to find a reason to arrest us is a bad cop, but it's perfectly okay for LE to assume that every individual he stops is an equal risk to his life in spite of information to the contrary.

Why does LE take lying so personally? If LE can lie to me, why can't I lie to them?

Thank you so much for setting me straight.
My world is a much better place now that you are in it, educating me as to why I am wrong here and in other threads. I truly benefit from your vast life experiences. Thank you..Thank..You!

 

[nate1865]

Sometimes I feel like we most have no idea how our criminal justice system works.

It isn't about the truth, or the law - even though it should be.

It's about what somebody can convince somebody else happened.

The best way to avoid these type of situations is to never get in them.

In general, don't be a douche and invite more trouble. Be cool, and stand your ground without getting angry.

If you get angry, you are going to look guilty - and you are going to have a bad time.

 

[MagicKev]

Thank you so much for setting me straight.
My world is a much better place now that you are in it, educating me as to why I am wrong here and in other threads. I truly benefit from your vast life experiences. Thank you..Thank..You!

Thank you for being honest and not typing that in purple. It would appear you indeed have benefitted.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Thank you for being honest and not typing that in purple. It would appear you indeed have benefitted.

Yeah, was gonna say... that was an odd and snarky way of admitting they're wrong.

 

[KittySlayer]

Safety First

He asked for the weapon (in my center console). Remember he "asked" for it, he didn't demand it. I responded by saying I thought it best if neither of us touched it and just left it completely alone. He said, "ok, that's fine then" and that was that. I wasn't a jerk about it, he was being polite so I was being polite.

How do you safely hand your weapon to an officer without making him nervous? I was taught that if you were going to hand a weapon to someone you unloaded it first, checked to see it was clear and then handed it to them and they personally checked to see it was clear. So I unholster my weapon, drop the magazine and rack the slide to clear the chamber... seems like a lot of handling going on while the officer nervously watches through the window.

 

[MPH]

Oh you guys kill me. Some one poses a question, I give an answer, and it's "wrong", GPIA.
Never mind that I'm acting in accordance with established law, and in fact stated that *I* personally don't require everyone I come in contact with who is in fact armed to show me their gun, yet I'm still "wrong". Then some gal tries to over-think my answer with excess verbiage and straw-men situations in an attempt to 'win' their point or ideology on how things should be, as opposed to how I do business. Yeah MagicKev, I sure 'benefitted' from all of that.

GT, I hope you train with as much vigor as you attempt to argue, and if God forbid you ever get into a deadly-force encounter, I hope you react quicker than your thought processes displayed here with the over-analyzation; otherwise you'll be a UCR victim statistic.

The fact that some in here may not like the fact that a LEO can require you to show them your gun may **** you off but that's something you need to deal with and you do have a variety of ways to deal with them, as in contacting the officer's supervisors, filing a complaint, maybe even a lawsuit. Good luck in your efforts.

 

[TEK]

I really dont get the problem. I have had a ltch for years and pulled over plenty for speeding in that time. I never said anything about being armed nor was I ever asked it. I never show my license unless asked. I always thought they had a cross referenced database they could call up because I dont know if you guys realize this but the ltch is a public record. So they could easily make a db of it and cross reference that to plates and get a flag on the computer any time they detain a vehicle registered to a ltch licensee.

Any LEO want to confirm or deny that? Just curious.

As for cops, I am aware of what is on their minds when they make a stop, which is that most cop fatalities happen when making traffic stops. Dont know if thats still the case but it used to be a whiles back. Dont know if thats because of criminals or just because of getting crushed by oncoming vehicles. But I know that they know this is a risky proposition, and while I am always cognizant of my constitutional civil rights I try and make it easy on them. The main thing is I act calm and I keep my hands up on the wheel where they can see them from the second they're close enough to see until they are standing there eyeballing me. I say as little as possible and sometimes that means ignoring their stray comments or superfluous remarks that are inconsequential. This method has always worked well for me.

I am feeling a lot of oneriness and touchiness on this subject from people. I dont feel really touchy about this though. Touchy is a bad approach for dealing with people who are armed, whether they are authorities or not. Indiana has really professional cops in my experience, very competent and polite, state and county, even some cities I dont really like that much are decent too.

You know when one travels into some of these other states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, right off the bat you are seeing cops all over the place. The mere abundance of cruisers everywhere sets me off a bit compared to Indiana and I'm always glad to be passing back into our borders.