For LEO's

[Titanium_Frost]

Psst, kid! This sounds like a wonderful opportunity to plug the product. Something like "buy two or three when one wears out".

I'll have to remember that for next time!

 

[Spike_351]

If you are interested in standing up for your rights and not just accepting the status quo then you need to research a case called "Richardson v. State" and how it applies to traffic stops, SPECIFICALLY seatbelt stops. Once you show your LTCH all other inquiry into your firearm should have ceased. They do not have a need to "check" your legally possessed handgun.

You are more than free to give up any of your rights but I just wanted to show you the path to enlightenment

I completely understand what you are saying, thanks for the advice, but a certain scenaro keeps running through my mind, what if the person carrying the firearm unknowingly purchased a stolen firearm from an individual, wouldn't the only way of finding that firearm be through random chance such as a normal traffic stop? i know its a long shot and that individual should have checked before purchasing, but there are a lot of people out there who are probably in possession, if not going as far as uknowingly carry a stolen firearm. just a random thought since most people purchasing from a trusted individual may not realize it could be stolen and wouldn't think of checking first.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I completely understand what you are saying, thanks for the advice, but a certain scenaro keeps running through my mind, what if the person carrying the firearm unknowingly purchased a stolen firearm from an individual, wouldn't the only way of finding that firearm be through random chance such as a normal traffic stop? i know its a long shot and that individual should have checked before purchasing, but there are a lot of people out there who are probably in possession, if not going as far as uknowingly carry a stolen firearm. just a random thought since most people purchasing from a trusted individual may not realize it could be stolen and wouldn't think of checking first.

Think of it this way, is it worth the risk of severe injury or death to get property back? No? Then don't coonfinger guns on the side of the road. It isn't safe, they have no authority to 'check' my property without a warrant and I won't allow them to.

How about I come to your house and check all your stuff to see if its stolen? What about that stereo you bought slightly used from a friend?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

And no, you are free to call in your serial number to the authorities at any time to see if it is listed as stolen.

No need to check on the side of the road

 

[Glock19]

and by "securing it" you mean seizing his property, stuffing the constitution in his mouth, and "running the serial number" while holding your boot on his head?

REALLY? Pulling over a DRUNK DRIVER, your dang right his weapon needs to be secured. What else is he going to do with it? Let the Drunk take it to jail with him?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

REALLY? Pulling over a DRUNK DRIVER, your dang right his weapon needs to be secured. What else is he going to do with it? Let the Drunk take it to jail with him?

Now you are smarter than that. We are talking about a guy who hasn't committed any crimes except a ticketable traffic offense.

Actually we haven't been talking about this for quite some time now...

 

[Bruizer13]

Not a LEO, but would not have a problem showing my LTCH, nor to temporarily hold my firearm as long as the situation dictated. I think that my and the LEO's safety should be foremost. Therefore, it should be an on the fly call. If its the rare case of a gun-ho cop just shakin you down then, no I would not consent to a search. However, if its a pleasant discussion where the LEO expresses concern for safety (mine or his) in a case such as the robbers that match my description. Then by all means! Temporarily possesing until it has been investigated is alright with me.

As for the DUI stop! Definately, confiscate LEO's! There was a gentleman in my area recently chose death by cop in a drunkin rage (pulling a weapon). Family members of the man say that in a normal state the man would have never done something like this.

Point is... don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about. Be aware and prepared for wrong doing to you.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Not a LEO, but would not have a problem showing my LTCH, nor to temporarily hold my firearm as long as the situation dictated.

You are free to give up any and all rights you choose, frankly I could care less.

I think that my and the LEO's safety should be foremost.

Absolutely! So why on earth are you advocating handling loaded weapons in an unsafe zone? Escpecially when the officer in question might not be familiar with your particular weapon and not know the correct procedures for safely unloading it? Where is your backstop, the house across the street? Very few officers are as gun savy as many on INGO.

Therefore, it should be an on the fly call.

Negative. There are clear cut guidlines put forth by our Constitution (State and US) and especially by IC and case law that dictates when and why it is permissible to disarm a citizen. If the officer is unable to show RAS (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion) that a crime has been or will be commited then there is no lawful reason to "seize" a citizen's property.

If its the rare case of a gun-ho cop just shakin you down then, no I would not consent to a search.

It sounds to me like your decision would be a little late since he would already have your weapon

However, if its a pleasant discussion where the LEO expresses concern for safety (mine or his) in a case such as the robbers that match my description. Then by all means! Temporarily possesing until it has been investigated is alright with me.

See above. If they have a reasonable suspicion that you are a robber then they have all that is necessary to disarm you while you are detained, at this point it wouldn't matter if you WERE ok with it or not.

As for the DUI stop! Definately, confiscate LEO's! There was a gentleman in my area recently chose death by cop in a drunkin rage (pulling a weapon). Family members of the man say that in a normal state the man would have never done something like this.

As has been said before, they have every authority to disarm someone they are taking to jail but it doesn't sound like it would have helped this situation much since he wasn't allowing them to disarm him anyway...

Point is... don't do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about. Be aware and prepared for wrong doing to you.

However the bolded portion is the kind of ignorance that hurts our liberty. It simply isn't true. MANY innocent people have been taken to jail, tried and convicted only later to be exonerated when new evidence emerges of their innocence. Remember that little part about "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law?" That doesn't start when they arrest you. Many innocent people say stupid things that end up wasting a cops' time by focusing on the wrong suspect.

Lets say you get pulled over after dropping your friend off from a party. Cop says he saw you leave the party and want to know if there are any controlled substances in your vehicle so you say "well have a look, I have nothing to hide!" But little do you know your friend accidently 'dropped' something in your car on his way out and the cop finds it. Guess who is going to jail?

Keep your mouth shut and exercising your rights along with trying to not break the law is how you stay out of trouble.

 

[mtgasten]

You are free to give up any and all rights you choose, frankly I could care less.



Absolutely! So why on earth are you advocating handling loaded weapons in an unsafe zone? Escpecially when the officer in question might not be familiar with your particular weapon and not know the correct procedures for safely unloading it? Where is your backstop, the house across the street? Very few officers are as gun savy as many on INGO.



Negative. There are clear cut guidlines put forth by our Constitution (State and US) and especially by IC and case law that dictates when and why it is permissible to disarm a citizen. If the officer is unable to show RAS (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion) that a crime has been or will be commited then there is no lawful reason to "seize" a citizen's property.



It sounds to me like your decision would be a little late since he would already have your weapon



See above. If they have a reasonable suspicion that you are a robber then they have all that is necessary to disarm you while you are detained, at this point it wouldn't matter if you WERE ok with it or not.



As has been said before, they have every authority to disarm someone they are taking to jail but it doesn't sound like it would have helped this situation much since he wasn't allowing them to disarm him anyway...



However the bolded portion is the kind of ignorance that hurts our liberty. It simply isn't true. MANY innocent people have been taken to jail, tried and convicted only later to be exonerated when new evidence emerges of their innocence. Remember that little part about "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law?" That doesn't start when they arrest you. Many innocent people say stupid things that end up wasting a cops' time by focusing on the wrong suspect.

Lets say you get pulled over after dropping your friend off from a party. Cop says he saw you leave the party and want to know if there are any controlled substances in your vehicle so you say "well have a look, I have nothing to hide!" But little do you know your friend accidently 'dropped' something in your car on his way out and the cop finds it. Guess who is going to jail?

Keep your mouth shut and exercising your rights along with trying to not break the law is how you stay out of trouble.

i love ingo for posts like these...its like poetry lol keep at it TF more people need to be educated