Concealed carrier disarmed by Coral Gables police

[chipbennett]

This is one the reason why I'm not so anti-permits. If constitutional carry was adopted nationwide, I think one would have a very difficult time justifying why an officer shouldn't disarm them during contact.

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

The Governmentcontends that because other laws prevent convictedfelons from possessing guns, the officers could not knowwhether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. Additionally, the Governmentavers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "goabout their business while allowing a stranger in their midstto possess a firearm." We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.

 

[9mmfan]

That cop should be let in to the JBT hall of fame. What an asshat!

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

The Governmentcontends that because other laws prevent convictedfelons from possessing guns, the officers could not knowwhether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. Additionally, the Governmentavers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "goabout their business while allowing a stranger in their midstto possess a firearm." We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.

I'm not talking about stopping a person randomly. I'm talking about a legal contact in which an officer has a person stopped under color of authority.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not talking about stopping a person randomly. I'm talking about a legal contact in which an officer has a person stopped under color of authority.

Well, I'll say at the outset I think post #15 was trollbait, Kut, but what I'm seeing in your attempt at justification above is that because you've stopped someone for, say, speeding, busted taillight, or weaving within his lane, you somehow conflate that to mean that the person, if armed, is somehow a violent, dangerous criminal who is better disarmed for your safety and to hell with his rights to be peaceably armed.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a cop, and so I'm sure some will disregard my thoughts here as coming from a basis of ignorance, but it seems to me that the guy whose window you get all the way up to is not the one you need to worry about.

I'll agree that the LTCH and similar permission slips do make it easier to prove that those of us who carry lawfully are only a very miniscule percentage of a percentage point of the crime problem, as proven by the numbers of LTCHs revoked each year, but I can't call that justification for keeping them... unless of course, every other right has to be controlled and exercised only at the permission of our benevolent government.

I'll add, in addition (and admittedly, this may come across wrong, so if it does, I'm sorry in advance) that it surprises the hell out of me to find a Black person, ANY Black person, arguing in favor of gov't issued permits to carry, considering the very reason they were created was to keep "the wrong people" from being armed. I think we all know, in the Reconstruction Era, who were the "wrong people". To me, that's like an intended rape victim stripping, fastening her gag and blindfold, and tying herself up for her rapist.

To be 100% clear, I mean nothing racist by any part of this post. I'm speaking only of the historical facts, and yes, having been raised Jewish, it dumbfounds me to see Jewish people voting in favor of their own disarmament, for the same reasons.

I guess it's true: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Alamo]

I'm not talking about stopping a person randomly. I'm talking about a legal contact in which an officer has a person stopped under color of authority.

The disarming during a Traffic stop is one thing. Disassembling his gun and dumping all the bullets loose in the trunk is just being a jerk. When he's finished dealing with whatever the traffic violation is and he still thinks the guy is so dangerous that he has to take apart the gun so as to have enough time to get away, he should be dealing with whatever articulable threat is present, i.e. Arresting the guy.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The disarming during a Traffic stop is one thing. Disassembling his gun and dumping all the bullets loose in the trunk is just being a jerk. When he's finished dealing with whatever the traffic violation is and he still thinks the guy is so dangerous that he has to take apart the gun so as to have enough time to get away, he should be dealing with whatever articulable threat is present, i.e. Arresting the guy.

Especially considering how useless an act that is. If the guy is that much of a threat, he'll just pull his BUG and use that, but as you said, if the guy is that much of a threat, the cop should be busting him, and if he's not, obviously, there was no need to pull the d**k move of "disassemble and empty the mag."
You said it best upthread, Alamo... "Contempt of Citizen". That, and the reinforcing of the "samurai" mentality, wherein only the samurai were allowed to be armed. Guys like that are more like the ronin... renegade, former samurai, who no longer follow the bushido.

And before anyone calls me on any factoids in that last... it's based on a long-ago reading of James Clavell's Shogun and I freely admit that. If the factoids are in error, I welcome correction. Thanks.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[AngryRooster]

So officer sees license, thinks for his safety I'm going to take his gun away and disassemble it. Which is the next step?

Officer sees keys in car, thinks this guy may run me down, takes keys and has individual get out of car.
Officer sees individual is younger, maybe stronger, maybe has an MMA or gym logo shirt on, thinks this guy may attack me and could beat me pretty bad, puts him in handcufs.
Officer sees a couple people in the car, oh man I'm outnumbered, better call for assistance.

What needs to happen is:
Officer sees himself in the mirror and realizes he's in the wrong line of work, finds a new career.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The disarming during a Traffic stop is one thing. Disassembling his gun and dumping all the bullets loose in the trunk is just being a jerk. When he's finished dealing with whatever the traffic violation is and he still thinks the guy is so dangerous that he has to take apart the gun so as to have enough time to get away, he should be dealing with whatever articulable threat is present, i.e. Arresting the guy.

I agree

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, I'll say at the outset I think post #15 was trollbait, Kut, but what I'm seeing in your attempt at justification above is that because you've stopped someone for, say, speeding, busted taillight, or weaving within his lane, you somehow conflate that to mean that the person, if armed, is somehow a violent, dangerous criminal who is better disarmed for your safety and to hell with his rights to be peaceably armed.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a cop, and so I'm sure some will disregard my thoughts here as coming from a basis of ignorance, but it seems to me that the guy whose window you get all the way up to is not the one you need to worry about.

I'll agree that the LTCH and similar permission slips do make it easier to prove that those of us who carry lawfully are only a very miniscule percentage of a percentage point of the crime problem, as proven by the numbers of LTCHs revoked each year, but I can't call that justification for keeping them... unless of course, every other right has to be controlled and exercised only at the permission of our benevolent government.

I'll add, in addition (and admittedly, this may come across wrong, so if it does, I'm sorry in advance) that it surprises the hell out of me to find a Black person, ANY Black person, arguing in favor of gov't issued permits to carry, considering the very reason they were created was to keep "the wrong people" from being armed. I think we all know, in the Reconstruction Era, who were the "wrong people". To me, that's like an intended rape victim stripping, fastening her gag and blindfold, and tying herself up for her rapist.

To be 100% clear, I mean nothing racist by any part of this post. I'm speaking only of the historical facts, and yes, having been raised Jewish, it dumbfounds me to see Jewish people voting in favor of their own disarmament, for the same reasons.

I guess it's true: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Blessings,
Bill

Lol, thank you for the disclaimer, but you didn't need it. I think you're a stand-up guy.

But anyways, look at it this way. Constitutional Carry if adopted coast to coast, abolishes the need for any type of permit. And while the permit system isn't perfect, in most cases a permit holder is law abiding. Now, with the abolition of permits, you have essentially thrown in the law abiding with the criminals. So criminals can carry firearms just as freely and openly as anyone else, and as long as they aren't doing anything criminal at the time, how are officers to know? With Constitutional Carry, I can no longer play the odds and assume "well he's probably a good guy."

It has nothing to do with current practice, as currently I do not disarm people simply because they have a firearm. But I can say unapologetically, that if Constitutional Carry became the norm coast to coast, and knowing how many "bad" people are out there, I'd disarm most everybody if I came into contact with them for a legal reason.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not talking about stopping a person randomly. I'm talking about a legal contact in which an officer has a person stopped under color of authority.

The detention has nothing to do with being armed or dangerous. Speeding does not constitute reasonable suspicion of being either armed or dangerous. The default status of a person carrying a gun is not a felon. The default status of a person carrying a gun is not dangerous. The default status is law-abiding.

Therefore, if there were no grounds for a seizure (of person) in US v. Black, then by the same logic there would be no grounds for a seizure (of property) in this instance.

Heck, the fact that he had his gun properly holstered (belly band, in this case), and not Mexican carry or stuffed in a pocket is reason enough not to suspect that he's a criminal. The permission slip is just icing on the cake.

 

[chipbennett]

Lol, thank you for the disclaimer, but you didn't need it. I think you're a stand-up guy.

But anyways, look at it this way. Constitutional Carry if adopted coast to coast, abolishes the need for any type of permit. And while the permit system isn't perfect, in most cases a permit holder is law abiding. Now, with the abolition of permits, you have essentially thrown in the law abiding with the criminals. So criminals can carry firearms just as freely and openly as anyone else, and as long as they aren't doing anything criminal at the time, how are officers to know? With Constitutional Carry, I can no longer play the odds and assume "well he's probably a good guy."

This is a puzzling logic problem.

If someone is carrying a firearm concealed, whether criminal or law-abiding, how would a police officer know that he is armed?

If a criminal is openly carrying a firearm, but doing nothing unlawful, how is that person a criminal? If that person is a criminal because of prior acts, then those prior acts constitute grounds for arrest. If not, then the person isn't really a criminal.

On the other hand, if the person IS a criminal, and is in the process of committing an unlawful act, he's not going to be carrying openly. So, again, how would a police officer know that he's armed?

The carrying of a firearm is in no way indicative of being dangerous, or of an intent to commit an unlawful act.

It has nothing to do with current practice, as currently I do not disarm people simply because they have a firearm. But I can say unapologetically, that if Constitutional Carry became the norm coast to coast, and knowing how many "bad" people are out there, I'd disarm most everybody if I came into contact with them for a legal reason.

And in so doing, you would be violating the civil rights of every law-abiding person you disarm. Specious claims of fear for your safety do not trump the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the law-abiding. If you have specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that a particular person is armed and dangerous, or otherwise a threat to your safety, then you are within your authority to disarm that person. But not otherwise.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is a puzzling logic problem.

If someone is carrying a firearm concealed, whether criminal or law-abiding, how would a police officer know that he is armed?

If a criminal is openly carrying a firearm, but doing nothing unlawful, how is that person a criminal? If that person is a criminal because of prior acts, then those prior acts constitute grounds for arrest. If not, then the person isn't really a criminal.

On the other hand, if the person IS a criminal, and is in the process of committing an unlawful act, he's not going to be carrying openly. So, again, how would a police officer know that he's armed?

The carrying of a firearm is in no way indicative of being dangerous, or of an intent to commit an unlawful act.



And in so doing, you would be violating the civil rights of every law-abiding person you disarm. Specious claims of fear for your safety do not trump the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of the law-abiding. If you have specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that a particular person is armed and dangerous, or otherwise a threat to your safety, then you are within your authority to disarm that person. But not otherwise.

What civil right? Of which would I be running afoul of?

And you say a criminal wouldn't open carry? Why would they not? Plenty of DWS-Priors drive around with the full knowledge that they shouldn't be driving.

 

[chipbennett]

What civil right? Of which would I be running afoul of?

The right to keep and bear arms. The right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The presumption of innocence.

And you say a criminal wouldn't open carry? Why would they not? Plenty of DWS-Priors drive around with the full knowledge that they shouldn't be driving.

Ample studies and surveys have demonstrated that criminals, at around 90%, prefer to carry concealed handguns if they carry a firearm at all. The reason that they give for opting carry concealed is pretty obvious: they don't want to draw attention to themselves, or to their criminal acts.

 

[Light]

I fail to see how disarming was even "understandable". What reasonable suspicion did the officer have that the driver was dangerous?

I mean that there is at least a train of thought behind it, and the officer should be better educated afterwards.
After the officer had disarmed him, the firearm shouldn't of needed anything farther done to it.
It was unnecessary to even disarm him, but the officer could argue that he was concerned with his safety, but that doesn't justify disassembling the gun and unloading all the magazines.

 

[chipbennett]

I mean that there is at least a train of thought behind it, and the officer should be better educated afterwards.
After the officer had disarmed him, the firearm shouldn't of needed anything farther done to it.
It was unnecessary to even disarm him, but the officer could argue that he was concerned with his safety, but that doesn't justify disassembling the gun and unloading all the magazines.

The "train of thought" behind it is unconstitutional, and has not held up to scrutiny in the courts. The officer should be better trained, before interacting with law-abiding citizens, and violating their rights. Some police departments are providing such training, and kudos to them for doing so. More need to follow suit.

The officer cannot argue that he was concerned for his safety, because he had no specific, reasonable suspicion that he could articulate regarding such concern.

The gun was completely innocuous and not-dangerous where it was originally: safely holstered. It became inherently dangerous by being forcibly unholstered - often being used to muzzle-sweep the law-abiding person carrying it lawfully.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The right to keep and bear arms. The right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The presumption of innocence.

There is nothing about temporarily taking a firearm that runs afoul of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights... certainly not insofar as running afoul of the founder's intent. You've say it's unreasonable, I say it's not. You have not proven otherwise. The presumption of innocence has no relevance concerning police unless an arrest is enacted (at least according to cash law).

Ample studies and surveys have demonstrated that criminals, at around 90%, prefer to carry concealed handguns if they carry a firearm at all. The reason that they give for opting carry concealed is pretty obvious: they don't want to draw attention to themselves, or to their criminal acts.

Your study isnt relevant because it's based on current law. I think it's obvious, under current law, why criminals would be apprehensive about carrying a firearm; concealed or openly.

 

[Birds Away]

There is nothing about temporarily taking a firearm that runs afoul of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights... certainly not insofar as running afoul of the founder's intent. You've say it's unreasonable, I say it's not. You have not proven otherwise. The presumption of innocence has no relevance concerning police unless an arrest is enacted (at least according to cash law).

Ah yes, the rights of a citizen can in no way supersede the authority of a police officer to do whatever the hell he feels like doing whenever he feels like doing it (so long as no one is around to take a video.).
Talking about your rights just makes you a "troublemaker".

 

[Dirtebiker]

From the article:
“The way you have described it to me is that the officer by seeing the card, he would have the right to ask if there’s a weapon in the car,” Hudak said. “The other side of the coin is, if he leaves him in the car with a gun, is that ultimately optimum safety for the police officer? I believe the officer-survival skill is that he asks for the gun. The card is reasonable suspicion that a person inside the car may be armed, at which point the officer stays alive by the way he handled it. Based on the way you presented it to me, based on the officer seeing it in the wallet. It’s not a bad search.”

Now I have to ask in just how many instances has a licensed person drawn a weapon on a LEO? Seems to me the people who go to the trouble to get a Larry in the first place are some of the most peaceable, law abiding folks you are ever likely to meet.

I have no idea how many, but it has happened.

 

[chipbennett]

There is nothing about temporarily taking a firearm that runs afoul of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights... certainly not insofar as running afoul of the founder's intent. You've say it's unreasonable, I say it's not. You have not proven otherwise. The presumption of innocence has no relevance concerning police unless an arrest is enacted (at least according to cash law).

Actually, case law says that an officer must have specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is both armed AND dangerous, in order to conduct a search of the person, or to seize a person's property.

If I am acting lawfully, and am detained for citation of a civil infraction (such as speeding), and I feel unsafe around a police officer who would disarm me against my will, do I have similar authority to disarm him? Why or why not?

As for being unreasonable: ANY person disarming me against my will, when I am conducting myself lawfully, is a threat to my person. If someone not wearing a badge does so, it is reasonably construed as attempted murder. Why does wearing a badge change the calculus? Why does wearing a badge allow you to act upon unfounded and unreasonable fears, in a manner that violates the civil rights of the law-abiding?

Step across the state line into Ohio, where unlicensed open carry is lawful. The law-abiding open carriers there have been dealing with officers who share your attitude, for years. The courts side with them, not with the officers who share your attitude.

 

[rhino]

Oy! The quoting! The quoting!