Getting Pulled over w/ Gun in car

[Michiana]

thanks for your input

Exactly, and that's what I said IN MY EARLIER POSTs...do you not READ? It DOES NOT MATTER how fast, or slow, a vehicle is going...that vehicle can STILL cause an accident. Speed CAN be a contributing factor, but is not always the reason, as you are trying to imply.
Still need further proof?? Go stand out on the roadway of your choice this next winter and see how many vehicles end up in LOW SPEED accidents.

Please start paying attention...welcome to the conversation, we started without you.

Quit putting words in my mouth; I am not implying anything about speed being the only issue, just the opposite. Lets get back to the subject of the thread again.

 

[Roadie]

Why can't we all get along?

 

[pig957]

I always liked knowing who and what I was dealing with, so I wanted to know if someone was armed. I understand not wanting to be disarmed and delayed that much longer, but the LEO doesn't know who he/she is dealing with. It always made me more at ease to know if a gun (other than mine) was near by.

 

[Roadie]

I always liked knowing who and what I was dealing with, so I wanted to know if someone was armed. I understand not wanting to be disarmed and delayed that much longer, but the LEO doesn't know who he/she is dealing with. It always made me more at ease to know if a gun (other than mine) was near by.

I assume then that you are a LEO? When someone volunteers their LTCH, do you ask them to hand over the gun, or do you just ask them to leave their hands on the wheel?

I have only had my LTCH a couple weeks, and have not been pulled over yet. The thing that worries me about handing over my gun to an Officer is that it seems very unsafe to do so. I have taken the NRA Basic Pistol course, and the entire time I was waiting for my LTCH I frequently practiced dropping the magazine, and racking the slide. I wanted to form good gun safety habits, so the thought of handing a loaded gun to a LEO seems unsafe, even to a n00b like me.

Thoughts?

 

[Michiana]

I understand but..

I always liked knowing who and what I was dealing with, so I wanted to know if someone was armed. I understand not wanting to be disarmed and delayed that much longer, but the LEO doesn't know who he/she is dealing with. It always made me more at ease to know if a gun (other than mine) was near by.

I understand your concerns but I believe sometimes ignorance is bliss. You have to assume that any car you walk up to can contain a firearm with the very lenient gun rules we have in Indiana. My telling the trooper I had a gun in my pocket would not make him any more at ease then him not knowing and go about his business and me mine as quickly as possible. Again, had I been asked I would have said I had a permit and a gun on me. I asked the question what the computer license check shows; if you have a LTCH does it show on your information. What about being a FFL?

As for you feeling more at ease knowing if guns are nearby so would many people in government love to know where all the guns are in the US and get them all registered.

 

[Michiana]

Gee

Exactly, and that's what I said IN MY EARLIER POSTs...do you not READ? It DOES NOT MATTER how fast, or slow, a vehicle is going...that vehicle can STILL cause an accident. Speed CAN be a contributing factor, but is not always the reason, as you are trying to imply.
Still need further proof?? Go stand out on the roadway of your choice this next winter and see how many vehicles end up in LOW SPEED accidents.

Please start paying attention...welcome to the conversation, we started without you.

To think I just added you to my friends list.

 

[Biggdogg]

To think I just added you to my friends list.

And I accepted it...I'm just chalking this one up as a "Mulligan"

 

[norsk]

I was hauling a load of mulch to a friend the other day and traveling on 65N. Under a mile from my exit a trooper cuts in behind me and pulls me over. As I am trying to pull over on the side of the freeway (with 4 yards of mulch on my truck mind you) I tuck my gun under my center console so that it is not hidden but is also not completely obvious. After getting my LTCH I decided that I would inform LEOs if I was carrying, so my plan was to do so. However, as the trooper walked up I could tell he was very young, and he was looking my load over pretty curiously. The first thing he asked me was "is that some sort of fertilizer?" I replied "no sir, it is mulch I am taking to my friend's house." He had no idea what mulch was. He told me he pulled me over because my plate was covered up with the fertilizer. I again told him it was mulch, and that perhaps somewhere along the way some fell off the load and landed on my bumper, covering the plate. He asked to see me registration, and said yes, that probably is what happened. He seemed so clueless and confused that I decided not to mention the whole permit/gun thing. After looking back at the load again he said have a nice day and walked back to his car. In retrospect I am glad I didn't mention about my gun; I think that only would have confused him more and led to more hassle for me.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

I asked the question what the computer license check shows; if you have a LTCH does it show on your information

when I recieved my permit I asked that question and was told that no, whether or not you have an LTCH is not connected with your license. now, whether or not it gets added after your first time being pulled over and you tell the officer, I do not know. I don't know if there is a way to tag certain licenses or not. Interesting...

 

[SgtChromeDome]

Depending on the agency and their records management system, officers may know whether you're a permit holder already. Our system shows whether or not local drivers have a LTCH, since they probably applied for it with one of the local departments using the same database. It's really not a big deal for us if you're legally armed, and we don't make it a practice to bother people unnecessarily. We just feel safer knowing who's packin' and who's not.

 

[Michiana]

my understanding

Depending on the agency and their records management system, officers may know whether you're a permit holder already. Our system shows whether or not local drivers have a LTCH, since they probably applied for it with one of the local departments using the same database. It's really not a big deal for us if you're legally armed, and we don't make it a practice to bother people unnecessarily. We just feel safer knowing who's packin' and who's not.

I understood that when the officer plugs your license number into the computer it accesses your complete file, arrest records, traffic violations and I assumed if you have a license to carry that too. My LTCH was through Fishers Police Dept, my Indiana license to sell handguns was through the Hamilton County Sheriffs Dept but says the Indiana State Police and the FFL was obviously through the BATF. Don't those agencies network information? If not they should,

 

[pftraining_in]

Conversely, I have no way of knowing that the officer (or "officer") is not going to, as I've heard some joke, "violate my civil rights" just because s/he has a power s/he is allowed to use or abuse without penalty. if in fact no one's safety is more important than anyone else's, why can I not demand that the officer hand me his/her gun "for his/her and my safety"?

All officers are not out to violate anyone's rights. There are bad apples in every bunch, no matter the profession or lifestyle.

One reason an officer may request a firearm is for wanted check. In my area we had a group of guns purchases by a gun store and sold to customers. Lines were crossed when the original sale occurred to the gun store and the group of guns were stolen. I am not clear on details, but a friend in high school lost a .357 he had just purchases. He had his bill of sale and was not in any trouble. Stolen guns have been recovered even in the hands of law abiding citizens. The post about the stolen G23, I would think he would appreciate officers checking guns on traffic stops just in case they located his.

The officer on the traffic stop is covered by state and federal law to be in possession of his sidearm. Joe Citizen driving down the road may not be. Even criminal have handgun permits. Some commit crimes before they are caught. A handgun permit is no more an automatic good guy sign than having a driver's license means it is valid and you are a good driver.

I am not alone in the opinion that LEOs should have no power whatsoever over anyone who has committed no crime. If I am being "detained" solely on the basis of a cell phone and charger in my pocket, I'm not going to be happy about it, any more than anyone else would.

If you have not committed a crime or an infraction (speeding) why are you talking to the officer in the first place? What you are tring to say that the officer has commited an outright violations of your rights by randomly picking you out of a group of people to pick on. You are stopped or being confronted due to a violation of some type.

Certainly. But not to the exclusion of mine. The problem is the assumption of truthfulness on the part of the officer in a courtroom. If s/he claims, with no evidence other than his/her word that I did something, it's presumed truthful unless I have incontrovertible evidence that it is not. I'm sure you know just how tempting it can be to use a power like that and likewise, I'm sure you know of officers who have abused that power.

I have had video and audio tape of a suspect in court, and the suspect still denies that he said or did anything. Officers take an oath and are to stand by it. Again, there are bad officers, but there are far more good officers. Officer are held to a higher standard, so they are presumed to be truthful. There are far worse countries to live in that would not even give you a day in court.

Thank you. That was not something of which I was aware. Question: If I do remove that consent, is that taken as PC for a warrant, or is it merely the lawful exercise of a right, not subject to override? (that is, if I choose for ten years to never deliver a speech in public and all of a sudden, one day, I decide I'm going to become very politically active, should my freedom of speech, previously unused, be questioned?)

It is seen that you are exercising you rights. Once removed it would require a judges order to override.

How hard is it to find PC or RS after you know what is found? (or, "Hmm. I know he had a gun on him... <shrug> I'll just say I saw him fiddling with his pants on that side, as if hitching up a beltline to keep a pistol from sagging down.")

If I am looking, I have RS or PC to be looking. RS and PC are not found after the fact. That would be reaping fruit from the poisionous tree.

I don't think you missed anything, but I think that you might understate the infringements, possibly because they do not affect you (presumably as an officer.

They do effect me. I have the same rights as everyone else and they can be violated the same as anyone else. If I commit a crime I will have the same charges, if not additional charges because of my position, filed against me. That is what keeps me in line with the law and my abilities. Again, like beating a dead horse, the actions of some do not convey the thoughts of everyone.

Thanks for the reply!

Blessings,
Bill

Hope is helps.

 

[pftraining_in]

I understood that when the officer plugs your license number into the computer it accesses your complete file, arrest records, traffic violations and I assumed if you have a license to carry that too. My LTCH was through Fishers Police Dept, my Indiana license to sell handguns was through the Hamilton County Sheriffs Dept but says the Indiana State Police and the FFL was obviously through the BATF. Don't those agencies network information? If not they should,

LE has no reason to care that you have an FFL. BATF is the only agency that would be concerned. FFL and NFA stamps are tax documents and not available. Having an FFL, NFA stamp or handgun permit does not guarantee you have a firearm on you or in your vehicle. IN does not require a permit for long guns, so they could be in the vehicle also with out warning.

TN shows on their driver license returns along with a few other states, IN does not. Essentially it is a paperwork nightmare that they have not come up with a solution, some agencies keep paper files other keep computer records of LTCH

Indiana does not have an interface to check every local agency for handgun permits. You can check in County permits in some counties, other than that it would either be a physical search or business hours only search.

If I may ask, why are you concerned?

 

[gunrunner0320]

last year i got stoped doing 47 in a 30 zone i had a gun in the truck console and my reg to the truck and incerince card was with it i told him were it was and told him about the gun to keept one hand on the dash and showed him were it all was he watched me open it and he seen the gun i handed him all my info and when he came back he thanked me for telling him about the gun and gave me a worning he was nice about it hell if he would have seen me sooner id been doing 50 so im not mad at all maid his job safe,r at lest that day.

 

[Bill of Rights]

All officers are not out to violate anyone's rights. There are bad apples in every bunch, no matter the profession or lifestyle.

No question on that, and not what I was saying. My point was that I've heard that "joke" made by LEOs, not that all LEOs do so. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

One reason an officer may request a firearm is for wanted check. In my area we had a group of guns purchases by a gun store and sold to customers. Lines were crossed when the original sale occurred to the gun store and the group of guns were stolen. I am not clear on details, but a friend in high school lost a .357 he had just purchases. He had his bill of sale and was not in any trouble. Stolen guns have been recovered even in the hands of law abiding citizens. The post about the stolen G23, I would think he would appreciate officers checking guns on traffic stops just in case they located his.

I know where I purchased all of my firearms. In re: my handguns, all came from a FFL dealer. None of them require a wanted check, and I don't need my pistol field-stripped and the ammo emptied from the mag just to make a LEO "feel safe". There are many times working EMS that I'd have loved to BE safe, but I don't have that luxury or that power. I can't force someone to stop spitting at me, stop swinging at me, stop biting at me, etc. The fact is that it's a dangerous job, and I knew that going in. There are risks. You manage them. I've had people kick me-I don't bind everyone's feet to a backboard because they might decide to do the same thing and they are "armed" (or would it be legged? )

The officer on the traffic stop is covered by state and federal law to be in possession of his sidearm. Joe Citizen driving down the road may not be. Even criminal have handgun permits. Some commit crimes before they are caught. A handgun permit is no more an automatic good guy sign than having a driver's license means it is valid and you are a good driver.

I'm covered by state law and the US Constitution to be in possession of my sidearm, too. Some criminals have badges, too. There are plenty in Chicago, and that's just the ones we hear about on the news. I have no reason to believe that the guy standing next to my car is not one of that breed. Playing the odds that that one isn't a criminal is, percentage-wise, far more risky to me than a LEO playing the odds that a LTCH holder is a peaceable citizen who obeys laws (outside of traffic infractions, perhaps)
To that last point, Dick (Edit: this is addressed to Michiana. It's his first name.), I recall at least one LEO on here saying he drives over the speed limit not because he just likes doing so but because if he doesn't, he backs up traffic for miles because no one will pass him. I can see that, but I agree, the law does not make an exception for LEOs for that or any other "good reason". The other officers simply do not do anything about it when it happens. Kinda reminds me of jury nullification, except it usually seems to apply to other LEOs, almost exclusively so.

If you have not committed a crime or an infraction (speeding) why are you talking to the officer in the first place? What you are tring to say that the officer has commited an outright violations of your rights by randomly picking you out of a group of people to pick on. You are stopped or being confronted due to a violation of some type.

A speeding infraction is technically a violation of law, yes. We both know that that's not the kind of crime to which I referred, so please, let's not split hairs. On the other point, no, I'm not saying that I'm picked on or singled out. I'm saying that if I was accused of speeding, cite me for speeding. The whole dog and pony show about a "suspicious bulge" in a pocket that turned out to be a handgun... My example was that that bulge was instead a cell phone and charger; given that, would it be reasonable to presume that if I was stopped and the bulge found and investigated, that bulge would give way to a search for more "suspicious" things?
(Aside: a few years ago, I heard an officer call in that he was out of his vehicle "investigating some suspicious paint". )

I have had video and audio tape of a suspect in court, and the suspect still denies that he said or did anything. Officers take an oath and are to stand by it. Again, there are bad officers, but there are far more good officers. Officer are held to a higher standard, so they are presumed to be truthful. There are far worse countries to live in that would not even give you a day in court.

No question. There isn't always a record of what the officer did and said, though, to back me up. I don't know many people who keep a video or audio recorder in their POV, do you?

It is seen that you are exercising you rights. Once removed it would require a judges order to override.

Understood. The question is whether or not 1) the officer would seek that judge's order and 2) whether it is likely he would get it solely on the basis that I removed consent.

If I am looking, I have RS or PC to be looking. RS and PC are not found after the fact. That would be reaping fruit from the poisionous tree.

We also both know about that sixth sense... the one where you know something is wrong with what you're seeing, hearing, whatever... but you can't quite put your finger on what's wrong. The point of my question here was that it is not difficult to say that a behavior was displayed (off-camera, natch) which gave you RS to investigate further... when the real reason was just an inarticulable and equally indefensible feeling.

They do effect me. I have the same rights as everyone else and they can be violated the same as anyone else. If I commit a crime I will have the same charges, if not additional charges because of my position, filed against me. That is what keeps me in line with the law and my abilities. Again, like beating a dead horse, the actions of some do not convey the thoughts of everyone.




Hope is helps.

Some, yes. The infringements I referred to as not affecting you would be, for example, the ability to be completely within the law while carrying a loaded handgun, concealed or openly, anywhere in the 50 states, the ability to go to your kids' school and not have to worry about parking off campus or leaving your gun in your car. The only difference I see between a hypothetical LEO and a hypothetical LTCH holder is that the former has that little piece of metal in his wallet. I don't mean that as an insult in either direction, but rather am simply pointing out that the one's rights are infringed in many places. It seems that it's OK to have a gun wherever you want to, so long as that gun was given to you by some agency of government, but it's not OK to have one in many places because of a right pre-dating the Constitution of the US. This, to me, makes no sense at all.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

what does it hurt to inform the officer that you're carrying? The very fact that you have a CCH or LTCH is often proof enough that you are not a threat to the officer's safety, so why all the paranoia? As a rule (of course there are exceptions), we're all gun enthusiasts too, conservative politically, and have a deep respect for the Second Amendment. We will almost always ask where the weapon is, and will probably want to take possession of the weapon during the course of the traffic stop

Just my opinion but you answered your question yourself "and will probably want to take possession of the weapon during the course of the traffic stop"

You also state that a LTCH is often proof enough that your not a threat, so why would you probably take possession of the firearm if its not a threat?

And you further state that you have a deep respect for the 2nd, but willfully deny people the right to exercise it, at least temporarily. Yes I understand the importance of LEO safety, but you stated yourself that a permit is often proof that a person is not a threat, add to that a "mainly" law abiding citizen is willfully informing you of the fact that he/she is armed for your piece of mind if you happen to see it. Why would you confiscate his/her weapon?

 

[rhino]

I don't think it's any secret (except maybe to people in denial) that some police officers are just programmed by their training/peers/department that 1) their safety is more important than yours, and 2) they're somehow "safe" if they take a gun away from you, and 3) it's somehow safer to handle a loaded gun for no good reason than it is to leave in securely in a holster. No amount of logic, reasoning, truth, or discussion is going to change that in those who simply can't see that their safety really isn't any more important than any other person's, they aren't really safe because they've taken a gun away from someone, and handling loaded guns is when negligent discharges happen.

One problem is that our society has devolved to where special classes of people have gained increasingly more special privileges and higher status. In the social mind, police officers somehow have more "right" to be armed than you do, and doing whatever they need (or think they need to do) to make them feel safe is a-okay.

I disagree, of course.

If someone wants to play the ridiculous "it's for your safety" game, then if the police officer is safer because he takes my gun, then I should feel safer if I get to take his. We should just trade. Yeah, the police officer doesn't know what my "state of mind" is or what I'm going to do, but I have no idea what his state of mind is or what he's going to do either. This isn't going to be a popular statement, but a badge doesn't automatically mean the person wearing it is a good guy, or even really a police officer. This crap about disarming people in the absence of any reasonable belief they are a threat is just that: crap. If someone is that much of a threat that they need to be disarmed, then they need to be handcuffed and searched as well.

One fact is irrefutable: a handgun that is in a holster and not handled will not discharge. The safest place for that gun to be is in the holster.

 

[Sailor]

Chrome,

What is your procedure, for securing the weapon during a traffic stop? Does the driver hand it to you or do you remove once the driver is out? I can certainly appreciate the need for officer safety but keeping the weapon holstered seems safest (for the law abiding citizen)

I would hate to get a ticket in front of my kids school on the way to pick them up, and have every soccer mom see me with my hands on the hood, and an officer removing a weapon from me.

 

[Michiana]

Why complicate the situation?

Ignorance is bliss; out of sight out of mind; don’t complicate things; let it be; the less said the better; these in my opinion all tell me to not volunteer that I am carrying unless asked. It is called concealed carry for a reason. If there is no reason for the officer to believe you have a weapon on you in my opinion it is a moot issue. If you are legal to carry you are not a threat to him or anyone else so why make your gun an issue. If a particular LEO is that concerned about weapons on civilians he should ask everyone he approaches if they have a firearm.

Why make what should be a simple procedure into a potential embarrassing situation for yourself having to exit your vehicle on a highway and hand over your weapon while the police officer is probably on the nervous side himself. Is this any different then you having a neighbor who is a cop and you are in his yard or house and have a concealed weapon on you? Should you tell him you are carrying? He will probably come to your house and not ask you if it is OK for him to be armed on your property.

I do transfers for a lot of LEO’s and I assume that most are armed when they come to my house for the transfer. I don’t ask and they don’t volunteer the information to me. Same with any customer of mine, I have no idea if they are carrying or not. Sorry but I am not that concerned if a LEO stopping me will feel safer knowing I have a legally licensed firearm on me so he can disarm me and violate my rights in the process. Traffic violations are not cause to treat a citizen like they are a common criminal. If a store was just robbed and the description of the suspect’s car fits my car I would expect to be questioned and I would immediately volunteer the fact that I am armed; not for going 64 in a 60 mile zone.

I say follow whatever the law requires and if you have no evil intentions the officer has nothing to worry about.. I am not sure what volunteering the information that you are carrying accomplishes over not saying anything.

 

[pftraining_in]

I know where I purchased all of my firearms. In re: my handguns, all came from a FFL dealer. None of them require a wanted check, and I don't need my pistol field-stripped and the ammo emptied from the mag just to make a LEO "feel safe".

In the situation described, the handguns were bought from an FFL (Gun Store).

There are many times working EMS that I'd have loved to BE safe, but I don't have that luxury or that power. I can't force someone to stop spitting at me, stop swinging at me, stop biting at me, etc. The fact is that it's a dangerous job, and I knew that going in. There are risks. You manage them. I've had people kick me-I don't bind everyone's feet to a backboard because they might decide to do the same thing and they are "armed" (or would it be legged? )

EMS is covered by state statue against battery. EMTs are allowed to stop a person from causing bodily harm to them or themselves. I see it often. We are frequently sent on EMS runs to assist with combative patients. Ask if you need help.

To that last point, Dick, I recall at least one LEO on here saying he drives over the speed limit not because he just likes doing so but because if he doesn't, he backs up traffic for miles because no one will pass him. I can see that, but I agree, the law does not make an exception for LEOs for that or any other "good reason". The other officers simply do not do anything about it when it happens. Kinda reminds me of jury nullification, except it usually seems to apply to other LEOs, almost exclusively so.

I know officers who have received citations for speeding and other traffic violations. While I was a jailer I booked in officers, corrections officers, EMTs, attorneys, preachers, teachers and everyday Joes. So I would have a hard time saying anyone is exempt. The officer makes his own decision on who he writes tickets to. Their is no state law requiring who you write a citation to.

LE is not exempt from jury duty for the last three years. I have been called for jury duty myself.

(Aside: a few years ago, I heard an officer call in that he was out of his vehicle "investigating some suspicious paint". )

I was a dispatcher for 6 years, a lot thing sound different over the radio.

What was the situation for the call on the radio? A can of paint in an area where it did not belong, a can with irregular markings or contents, a horse where it did not belong?

No question. There isn't always a record of what the officer did and said, though, to back me up. I don't know many people who keep a video or audio recorder in their POV, do you?

Nothing is stopping you from having one. You are with in your rights to have one, and by the way, yes I do know people and have stopped people that have them.

Understood. The question is whether or not 1) the officer would seek that judge's order and 2) whether it is likely he would get it solely on the basis that I removed consent.

Case law is present stating that the refusal is not RS or PC by itself.

Some, yes. The infringements I referred to as not affecting you would be, for example, the ability to be completely within the law while carrying a loaded handgun, concealed or openly, anywhere in the 50 states, the ability to go to your kids' school and not have to worry about parking off campus or leaving your gun in your car. The only difference I see between a hypothetical LEO and a hypothetical LTCH holder is that the former has that little piece of metal in his wallet. I don't mean that as an insult in either direction, but rather am simply pointing out that the one's rights are infringed in many places. It seems that it's OK to have a gun wherever you want to, so long as that gun was given to you by some agency of government, but it's not OK to have one in many places because of a right pre-dating the Constitution of the US. This, to me, makes no sense at all.

LE can not carry in the White House and several locations in DC. Several states do not allow LE to carry in their court houses, bars, or churches. HR216 does not supersede state laws in regards to buildings in other states. HR216 has only been in effect for two to three years. Our right to carry was no different than yours until then. In IN I still have to pay the same amount for a LTCH as anyone else. And yes I have one, 4 year LTCH, matter of fact. IN is extremely easy on permit holders. Look into other states and see the restrictions, they have way more than IN. Is one more location in the state, schools, compared to a LTCH really a reason to be bent out of shape towards LE being able to carry a firearm while off duty?