LEO run in 2 times in 30 min.

[JetGirl]

Why exactly would you have the need to produce ID in the first place?

I'm under the impression that in indiana you have to produce it if they ask for it...

Wow...before I started carrying, if I wasn't the driver I RARELY carried ID.

On the whole, I'd prefer not to be passing a loaded weapon back and forth through my car window, though.

Totally that ^.

 

[IndyBeerman]

WTFD, I don't see his post as a bash on LEOs. Personally, if I'm asked to hand over my firearm, I'll be dropping the mag as it leaves the holster and probably racking the slide back to hand it over unloaded, action open.

I don't speak for Kirk and I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think he was probably referring to the passing of a loaded firearm as being by definition reckless, no matter who's doing it. Similarly, if one person is passing a firearm to another, esp. one without any external mechanical safety other than it taking a deliberate pull of the trigger to fire it, (Yes, I'm thinking of Glocks specifically but not exclusively), all it takes is a slipped grip and a slight fumble and a round is fired in a random direction (due to the lost grip)

Again, ANYONE can do have this happen. The only thing that makes this particular situation seem like a bash on LEOs is that no one else has the backing of the law to compel someone to hand over their firearm.

Well said Bill, it's not about bashing a LEO, it's about proper handling of a firearm, it you are not familiar with it, the chances of something happening greatly increase. Especially when you factor in having to hand the firearm across person to a LEO standing on the outside of a vehicle leaning in and starting to grasp just as perhaps a semi or another vehicle comes by and is close enough to create that vacum effect to throw them off balance. That's all that needs to happen for slight boble that can set off a drastic chain of events resulting in a AD.

Now that being said, I have only been asked once to give up my firearm and I asked the officer if he would like me to drop the mag and lock the slide back. The officer replied graciously with a "Yes, thank you I may not be familar with it"

 

[GetA2J]

Wow...before I started carrying, if I wasn't the driver I RARELY carried ID.

Yeah well you must have an "honest" look about you then.

 

[JetGirl]

Yeah well you must have an "honest" look about you then.

Given that *some* people here say I look like I'm always up to something or being ornery...I guess THAT'S debatable!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry Bill, but you don't think his statement of them "waving around guns in public" isn't a little inflammatory and then going on to speak about his negative experiences with the "GIMP" that he dealt with isn't a little bashing. I know when I'm not at a incident then I'm not going to judge what occurred or didn't occur as if I had been there. Since the OP seemed to feel that it was a positive experience then my assumption would have been, and is, that the officer handled the gun professionally and not recklessly, therefore didn't needlessly endanger the public. But what the heck do I know, I've only been doing this type of work for over 22 yrs now.

WTFD, we had the GIMP argument when Kirk first posted the story a long, long time back. (FYI, in case you don't know, it was an IPD(?) (maybe IMPD, I forget when it happened) that originally coined the term about his own department, then used it on GlockTalk, and it stuck)
As for inflammatory, in all honesty, I would think waving a firearm around and passing it from one person to another loaded would be inflammatory in and of itself. I know that if I'm covered by someone else's muzzle, especially when I know for a fact it's loaded, I tend to react quickly, vocally, and physically, which is to say I move me, I move the muzzle, and I ask/tell the person to please not point a gun at me. (sometimes I don't say it quite that politely... :wink

The point here is that I'd have the same reaction whether the person was a LEO or not, and while it might get me shot to try to move the muzzle off me, I have to ask you if you would not do the exact same thing?

The only difference here is that you have the law and a badge on your side, and while I respect both, neither the presence nor absence of them gives anyone a free pass to be unsafe.

As for your 22 years, I appreciate your service; you've been doing that almost as long as I've been in my profession. YOU are also a "gun guy", in that you know guns and are familiar with how to safely operate them (and if not, I have no doubt whatsoever that you simply keep it pointed in a safe direction and ask the owner (if possible) how to drop the mag, work the slide, etc.) The LEO that accosted Kirk in Broad Ripple did not do that and did cover him with his own muzzle, as he said, and from his report, that officer's behavior was very unprofessional. I was not there and did not see it, but I also have no reason to doubt Kirk's word, as incredulous as I was in response to the story. Not all LEOs have your level of familiarity, as many other LEOs here and elsewhere have noted. Not an insult; I'm sure there are many areas in which they are far more adept than someone who IS a "gun guy".

The OP in this thread reported that one officer politely had him remove his own firearm and pass it (presumably safely) across another person.
Based on the post, the risk here is minimal but present.
The other officer in the OP had him leave the pistol where it was, safely holstered, which is far safer. (no hands on guns > hands on guns)

I do see what you're saying here. I just don't agree with you, and I think that IMHO, you're seeing attacks where none exist.

Stay safe out there.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[alfahornet]

Reading through this threadthe discussion has somewhat shifted topics from one stop to another. I have never been stopped when carrying. But if I do I would not have a problem if the cop ran my license, I just expect it to be part of the stop.

Also, if you're a Tippecanoe resident and you have an LTCH a Tippecanor county (all PD and sheriff) cop will know that once he runs your DL that you have an LTCH. They enter it into their system which is fine with me.

 

[stiffy]

To the OP: Did the officer ask if you'd been drinking or did you volunteer the info? I agree with telling the truth if asked, but I see no need to volunteer that you've engaged in completely lawful behavior.

i did not say a word until he asked me a question. he asked if i had been drinking.

 

[RA8]

Reading through this threadthe discussion has somewhat shifted topics from one stop to another. I have never been stopped when carrying. But if I do I would not have a problem if the cop ran my license, I just expect it to be part of the stop.

Also, if you're a Tippecanoe resident and you have an LTCH a Tippecanor county (all PD and sheriff) cop will know that once he runs your DL that you have an LTCH. They enter it into their system which is fine with me.

How do you know this? Ive never been asked to produce one after giving my license.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In Indiana, carrying is illegal in any manner, unless you have a permit and/or are a member of an exempted group. However, even if you have a permit, it still doesn't mean you are legal. People can get convicted of crimes which would negate their right to own/possess a handgun, yet due to paperwork issues, whatever, they still have that permit. Then the question becomes: If an officer stops someone with a gun, they display a permit, can the officer still investigate to make sure that:
#1: The permit is valid (dispatchers can do this via a computer)?
#2: Even if the computer system shows the permit is valid, can the officer then run a criminal history check to make sure this person wasn't one who has slipped through the cracks and some how got and/or still has a permit they shouldn't?

INDY317 you could also make the argument in states that allow OC without a permit that it is illegal to do so in any manner unless the person not a convicted felon, domestic abuser or any other prohibited person and unless they stop and run a check on them they can't tell. What is the difference in stopping someone who is OC to see if they are a prohibited person in states that do not require a permit, and IN where not having a LTCH makes you a prohibited person? You can't tell from looking at them in either case.


If passengers want to leave, they can. However, if an severely intoxicated person tries to leave, an officer might have to detain them and have them taken to the hospital/or arrest them for public intoxication since they might be a danger to themselves (walking/falling into the street, passing out when it is zero degrees outside, etc.).

I've had the exact opposite experience, about 2 years ago my wife and I were heading to the Redbox to get a movie after dinner for our anniversary. I was pulled over for having a headlight out as I was turnning in to McDs where it was. The officer asked where we were going and I told him right there and pointed at the machine(it was about 10 ft away from the car) to get a movie. While the officer was in his cruiser checking my ID and writting the warning my wife got out to get the movie to save some time. The officer yelled at her and asked her what she was doing, she told him and he replied that she was not allowed to leave the vehicle because it was the scene of an active investigation. And no he never asked for her ID or even name so he wasn't investigating her.

Except for that it was a very polite and professional stop.

[inject humor]
I thought all guns weren't any kind of people. That's why they can't shoot themselves.
[/inject humor]

And to the OP: thanks for sharing this relatively positive encounter!

Not totally true, there are some guns that can my son and I were watching some military show the other day and they were talking about the metalstorm and how it can be set up to track and fire indpendently without human interaction.

And to not be entirely off topic.........
Thanks to the OP for sharing.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Damn Kirk, I didn't realize from the OP that you were there and witnessed that, holy cow that puts the whole incident into a new light

Yes, I was there. I got to look down the barrel of one of my own pistols as he attempted to learn on the job how a 1911 functioned as he lasered passing traffic and my leg.

Anytime you handle firearms there is a risk of serious bodily injury or death. The less you handle firearms the smaller your chance of injuring yourself or others.



Passing a firearm while seated in a vehicle along a public highway necessitates the pistol being pointed at something, too many passing cars, people, kids, motorcycles, seated drivers, inter alia for me. This is per se reckless.

If I'm in trouble for being too safe, then I'm in big trouble.

I do not know on under what statutory basis on this coonfingering of the gun is being done, but I object. It's one thing to run numbers if pursuant to a caretaking function (recovered property, mva) or an arrest, but just to run numbers on traffic stops is a dangerous outrage (and as the state police can tell you, very expensive after their Don's Guns stop *snicker*).

 

[Bill of Rights]

Reading through this threadthe discussion has somewhat shifted topics from one stop to another. I have never been stopped when carrying. But if I do I would not have a problem if the cop ran my license, I just expect it to be part of the stop.

Also, if you're a Tippecanoe resident and you have an LTCH a Tippecanor county (all PD and sheriff) cop will know that once he runs your DL that you have an LTCH. They enter it into their system which is fine with me.

Close but not quite. They don't know it from your DL, they know it from something called RMS (Records Management System). It's not connected to the ISP license database, it's their own info software, and useful if, for example, a person is known for keeping a shotty or a large knife behind the front door. One of the local deputies told me this, and it's been posted by other officers from elsewhere, here on INGO.

They DO have that info available, however, and what they choose to do with it is their choice.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

i did not say a word until he asked me a question. he asked if i had been drinking.

Fair enough. Carry on, and well done.

 

[Indy317]

INDY317 you could also make the argument in states that allow OC without a permit that it is illegal to do so in any manner unless the person not a convicted felon, domestic abuser or any other prohibited person and unless they stop and run a check on them they can't tell. What is the difference in stopping someone who is OC to see if they are a prohibited person in states that do not require a permit, and IN where not having a LTCH makes you a prohibited person? You can't tell from looking at them in either case.

You make a good point, but my underlying point was never raised, given what I read in the court filing. However, I don't believe my issues would stand up, they were just things that likely could be raised in similar court cases in the future. It all goes back to the driver's license case: The court found that too many people would just lose too much if officers were just allowed to randomly stop people to see if they were complying with the law requiring a license. As such, cops now have to see the driver do something else that gives them a legal right to stop them.

...my wife got out to get the movie to save some time. The officer yelled at her and asked her what she was doing, she told him and he replied that she was not allowed to leave the vehicle because it was the scene of an active investigation.

I might have got that wrong. I will need to read up on the law:

http://www.in.gov/ipac/lawenforce/ppu/feb09.pdf

Using this as a guide, sounds like cops can control the passengers. I likely recalled the prior appeals court ruling, which likely said they could leave. This stuff seems to change from year to year, so who knows. I decided to dig a little deeper and found that the case might be Brendlin v. Calif. I was likely thinking of a prior ruling which said passengers are free to leave, but it sounds like the court sided with officers, mostly officer safety, in saying passengers are not free to just mill around, etc.. This was a 2007 case. I learned something today thanks to you!!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf

 

[nahfuten]

the first cop brought it back unloaded as in 'magazine out' or as in 'stole your ammo' ????

 

[RA8]

the first cop brought it back unloaded as in 'magazine out' or as in 'stole your ammo' ????

No, as in secured your weapon, and returned it to you as guns should be handed off from person to person. Unloaded. Lets not over do the victim stance. If you have an issue, it should be with them taking your gun. but that's also to be debated. over. and over. and over.
Every time I've had my weapon returned to me, the ammunition was separate from the weapon. No guessing weather or not he left it as you would normally carry.

 

[Prometheus]

I actually LIKE when they check my gun. They only run it to see if its stolen. If they did this more often, stolen guns will be returned more often, and the people who stole them will be arrested.
Ive never stolen a gun, and they arent keeping it. we should encourage this. Pretend its your car, and they are running your plates. how else would they return stolen cars without them or the VIN?

What the @#$%?!?!?!?

Maybe they should check to see if your IPOD is stolen? What about your shoes? Crap let's have them inventory and call in everything on you and in your car! Wheeee!

When was the last time someone with a LTCH was carrying a stolen gun? Let alone volunteer it?

It's a complete violation of privacy and a HASSLE. It's harassment. They have no right to do so unless they have a REASON to believe it's stolen.

4th amendment. Try reading it.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm under the impression that in indiana you have to produce it if they ask for it... but really there was no reason. i look young maybe he thought i wasnt 21 and could hit me for minor consumption? Although i only had a couple and was capable of driving... taking a ride from someone that has had nothing is always a better option.

It's a catch 22 on the ID in Indiana if you have a handgun.

You do NOT have to produce ID unless you are doing something that requires is. Being unarmed in a car, the cop can go pound sand. He can ask you name, residence and DOB. Thats all you have to answer. Verbally. You cannot be compelled to produce ID for that.

Driving a car? Yes you must produce your DL.

Carrying a gun? Yes, you must produce your LTCH and a photo ID (which is normally a DL for most ppl).

Unarmed? Not required.

This isn't Nazi Germany.... yet.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You make a good point, but my underlying point was never raised, given what I read in the court filing. However, I don't believe my issues would stand up, they were just things that likely could be raised in similar court cases in the future. It all goes back to the driver's license case: The court found that too many people would just lose too much if officers were just allowed to randomly stop people to see if they were complying with the law requiring a license. As such, cops now have to see the driver do something else that gives them a legal right to stop them.

I might have got that wrong. I will need to read up on the law:

http://www.in.gov/ipac/lawenforce/ppu/feb09.pdf

Using this as a guide, sounds like cops can control the passengers. I likely recalled the prior appeals court ruling, which likely said they could leave. This stuff seems to change from year to year, so who knows. I decided to dig a little deeper and found that the case might be Brendlin v. Calif. I was likely thinking of a prior ruling which said passengers are free to leave, but it sounds like the court sided with officers, mostly officer safety, in saying passengers are not free to just mill around, etc.. This was a 2007 case. I learned something today thanks to you!!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf

First thank you for looking it up. And oh no thanks to me you know you have a legal justification to bring the Jack Boot down on poor innocent passengers(just joking). And I think the IN.Gov link refers to this case http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1122.pdf but I may be wrong. And from the quick reading I did, it seems that a passenger of the vehicle stopped is not seized if he jumps out before the car stops.
From the IN.Gov link

Third, a passenger is
seized, just as the driver is, “from the moment a car stopped by the police comes to a halt on the side of the road.”

And I apologize for not responding to the other parts of your posts earlier I had to think on them a bit.

And I like the drivers lic comparison, I've used it myself.

However, even if you have a permit, it still doesn't mean you are legal. People can get convicted of crimes which would negate their right to own/possess a handgun, yet due to paperwork issues, whatever, they still have that permit. Then the question becomes: If an officer stops someone with a gun, they display a permit, can the officer still investigate to make sure that:
#1: The permit is valid (dispatchers can do this via a computer)?
#2: Even if the computer system shows the permit is valid, can the officer then run a criminal history check to make sure this person wasn't one who has slipped through the cracks and some how got and/or still has a permit they shouldn't?

Those are some very good points and very tough questions. And when you say stops someone with a gun, do you mean a stop just because of the gun or a stop for another reason and the officer discovers the gun? Or for a legitimate terry stop because of the gun?

If just because of the gun (person just walking down the street oc), I don't believe they should have the power to detain the person to even check the permit let alone to verify it or run a criminal history check because the stop IMO shouldn't of happened.

If the gun was discovered after a stop for another reason lets say speeding. I could possibly see it as reasonable to check/verify a ltch. But for the background check I'm not sure. How long does one take? Would it unreasonably extend the time of the stop? And one last question, what all shows up on a background check done in a case like this? Would it show if a conviction for a felony was later downgraded to a misdemeanor? Or a pardon? Or if they had petitioned to have their rights reinstated and had it granted?

For a legitimate Terry stop involving the gun, I have no problem what so ever with checking/verifying the ltch, same as checking/verifying a DL for a traffic stop. For the background check pretty much the same as above except for perhaps extending the time of the stop because the gun is the issue in this case.

These are questions that will only be answered when judges rule on them. Until then, they are open to interpretation and are not set in stone as of yet.

Agreed 100%

That being said, I wouldn't care about the law so much. I would worry more about liability/trying to protect someone more than making an arrest. If an officer makes a legal stop, those people are under the officer's control and the officer is responsible for them in various manners. If passengers want to leave, they can. However, if an severely intoxicated person tries to leave, an officer might have to detain them and have them taken to the hospital/or arrest them for public intoxication since they might be a danger to themselves (walking/falling into the street, passing out when it is zero degrees outside, etc.). Even if the person doesn't try to leave the scene, if they appear to be so intoxicated, to the point they don't know what is going on around them...an officer has a decision to make. Does the officer let the totally passed out drunk female go, taking five guys word that they are her friends? What if it is just one guy? There are many reasons why officers may try to pry into things, even if they appear non-criminal. It isn't that the officer is just trying to find someone to arrest. If I had a daughter and she had been drugged and was in a car full of guys who were for the most part sober, I would rather her go to jail for PI and/or the hospital for evaluation rather than gang raped.

Just something to think about when viewing the job of an LEO.

I agree there is a very fine line a LEO has to walk, hopefully in their own eyes(as is usually the case), as well as the publics. For the public step off the line half an inch and you are either a jack booted thug/nazi/criminal with a badge etc. or they are an uncarring pos who only cares about himself and his paycheck depending on which way they step and in both cases they should be sued, fired, tared feathered and rode out of town on a rail at the least. And I realize I am guilty of it at times, although knowing that I try to watch out for it and not jump to conclusions.

And in the LEOs eyes its worse, they miss something small(or even if they don't miss anything because there was nothing to miss) and something happens like the rape, I'd say virtually all of them will be beating themselves up for it even more than the public does. They know this and I'd say the majority still try to not infringe on others rights for the most part.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I once had to show a police officer how to unload my H&K USP .45 when I was stopped and I told him I was armed.. I was amazed that he had no clue how to clear it.. still to this day that cracks me up. I just assumed most police officers know about firearms.. that day I found out differently.

I'm glad you had a positive experience.. mine was also positive.. he even thanked me for helping him after he let me go on my way.

 

[RA8]

What the @#$%?!?!?!?

Maybe they should check to see if your IPOD is stolen? What about your shoes? Crap let's have them inventory and call in everything on you and in your car! Wheeee!

When was the last time someone with a LTCH was carrying a stolen gun? Let alone volunteer it?

It's a complete violation of privacy and a HASSLE. It's harassment. They have no right to do so unless they have a REASON to believe it's stolen.

4th amendment. Try reading it.

Im not basing my OPINION off of the 4th amendment. As it stands now, I know quite a few friends who have had guns stolen out of their apartments/houses. do you think these guns will ever climb out of someones car, and sniff their own way home like a dog? I'm already pulled over. Its not like they're searching you, or invading your privacy. You should have thought about the 4th amendment when you did the background check, and asked your government permission to buy a gun. After all, its harassment, and a HASSLE. Id rather see a bunch of numbers ran, and some of these guns put back in their home safes. No need to @^#$%@ at me because I disagree with someone. And no need to assume that I'm ignorant to the 4th amendment. Why do people have to be so disrespectful over a discussion? If you were in a professional debate, would you yell what the @#$#% and tell your opponent that he was ignorant? One more thing, if you ever had all of your guns stolen, would you report it to the police in hopes of having them returned? You'd better just not tell them, because you don't want people to be bothered by a 15 second radio call. Let them keep your gun, and steal more with it.