LTCH is shown when a LEO runs your DL

[Titanium_Frost]

I think you hit on something right here. It's not that the officer has that information per se but it's how he would handle the situation after gaining the knowledge of an LTCH and how much of an issue he is looking to make of the firearm that you may be carrying.

That's part of the appeal of having the option to not inform so it doesn't become an issue and just get on with the business of dealing with the reason for the original stop.

This may just be the OCer talking inside me but IMO you don't have that option when you must ask the state for permission and pay a tax to exercise your right. They now have ALL of your information in their database to do with it whatever they want.

It does sidestep the whole "not inform" thing but in reality you do not have to admit to having a weapon even if asked and there are plenty of people who do not carry 24/7 and possess their permission slips.

 

[KG1]

This may just be the OCer talking inside me but IMO you don't have that option when you must ask the state for permission and pay a tax to exercise your right. They now have ALL of your information in their database to do with it whatever they want.

It does sidestep the whole "not inform" thing but in reality you do not have to admit to having a weapon even if asked and there are plenty of people who do not carry 24/7 and possess their permission slips.

Well I would agree that in a perfect world it might be a good thing that they have foreknowledge of an LTCH but again that only hinges on the fact of how the LEO chooses to use that information.

If they choose to not make an issue of it because they already know that there might be a firearm present and the person is legally licensed to carry then no big deal.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Well I would agree that in a perfect world it might be a good thing that they have foreknowledge of an LTCH but again that only hinges on the fact of how the LEO chooses to use that information.

If they choose to not make an issue of it because they already know that there might be a firearm present and the person is legally licensed to carry then no big deal.

They are still bound by law to make reasonable decisions and are unable to violate your rights. It is on them if they do but you are not helpless after the fact.

My perfect world would include NO permission slips and NO disarmament mainly because MWAG would be normal and acceptable if not expected.

I'm working on it though.

 

[357 Terms]

The whole time I was reading this thread I was thinking about how the cop in Canton Ohio reacted to a man legally carrying....scary!

 

[rgrimm01]

The whole time I was reading this thread I was thinking about how the cop in Canton Ohio reacted to a man legally carrying....scary!

Harless(?) was/is way out on the fringe and I truly believe he is not representative of LEOs on the whole...

 

[thompal]

Anyways....all that information is to keep officers out on the road safe. If you were an officer doing a traffic stop you would want to know if someone had a LTCH.

I was with you, up until that last sentence. If a cop is doing a traffic stop, why would he care if someone has an LTCH or not?? That has no bearing on traffic laws. Or, are you implying that legally armed citizens are somehow an inherent danger to police??

 

[357 Terms]

Harless(?) was/is way out on the fringe and I truly believe he is not representative of LEOs on the whole...

Unfortunatly they are out there. (remember Harless had a partner). This kind of attitude may be more common than we know.

Harless, while suspended, had other cops donate their sick days so his pay would not be lost, seems many shared his attitude.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What I think you guys aren't getting, Is that having a LTCH show up on a mobile computer does nothing, zero, zip, nada for officers other than being yet another distracting "pop up" on a computer. When we were first told that our MDCs were going to be given this additional information, I was "hey, not a bad idea".... but apparently, I didn't realize the scope of how many people have or had an LTCH. Conservatively, at least in Hamilton County, I get a "pop up" for ever 4th or 5th car I run. I has become so annoying, I wish I could simply turn it off.
"IF" there is an officer that is looking to go JBT on ppl simply because he gets a LTCH return, he'll be a busy lil gopher.

 

[CathyInBlue]

They are still bound by law to make reasonable decisions and are unable to violate your rights. It is on them if they do but you are not helpless after the fact.

My perfect world would include NO permission slips and NO disarmament mainly because MWAG would be normal and acceptable if not expected.

I'm working on it though.

You may not know it, but I'm trying to help you on that point.

Here's a salient question. If you're a doctor (but don't happen to have MD plates), does a license (plate or DL) query bring up that you're a licensed physician? If you're licensed to practice law, does THAT license come up on a car license look-up? If you're a licensed architect, does the LEO have the authority to know THAT bit of information from running your numbers? If the answer to any of those question is no, then what makes the LTCH so special that LEOs get the opportunity to jump to all the wrong assumptions about the driver upon running their IDs?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Harless(?) was/is way out on the fringe and I truly believe he is not representative of LEOs on the whole...

Exactly. Just like the Colorado theater shooter isn't a representative of gun owners on the whole.

Unfortunatly they are out there. (remember Harless had a partner). This kind of attitude may be more common than we know.

Harless, while suspended, had other cops donate their sick days so his pay would not be lost, seems many shared his attitude.

Just like there are a lot of cop haters on INGO, and more than make themselves publicly known. They may not say it out loud, but they share the attitude. And just because someone doesn't publicly state their opinion on a particular issue, it doesn't automatically mean that they agree or disagree with the issue.

then what makes the LTCH so special that LEOs get the opportunity to jump to all the wrong assumptions about the driver upon running their IDs?

Who says all of us jump to the wrong assumptions?

 

[cmstuard]

I have experienced that a EPD knew I had a LTCH by running my plate.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You may not know it, but I'm trying to help you on that point.

Here's a salient question. If you're a doctor (but don't happen to have MD plates), does a license (plate or DL) query bring up that you're a licensed physician? If you're licensed to practice law, does THAT license come up on a car license look-up? If you're a licensed architect, does the LEO have the authority to know THAT bit of information from running your numbers? If the answer to any of those question is no, then what makes the LTCH so special that LEOs get the opportunity to jump to all the wrong assumptions about the driver upon running their IDs?

Comparing apples to apples, everything you mentioned that requires a license from the state is known by whatever agency that regulates it.

I work in construction and our license number is attached to every permit we pull. Sometimes we don't NEED to pull a permit so it isn't there. Just like gun owners don't always have to have their LTCH (if they aren't carrying a handgun).

Similarly the only authority over your LTCH is the ISP but also other law enforcement agencies. They have the authority over the information, they may do with it whatever they want under the law. That is the price you pay for asking the state permission to exercise your right.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I have experienced that a EPD knew I had a LTCH by running my plate.

The EPD has known about LTCH they issue for years. At least 10 years before any other state agency because of the cost of the computer system and records upkeep.

Technically they knew about the registered owner's LTCH and that happened to be you.

 

[findingZzero]

They only get to see Glocks.
They want to see Sigs, Rugers, Keltecs, and the buzz about Cz'sis so hot they do a reverse search to find which LTCH's/ license plates are associated with Cz's.....

 

[Titanium_Frost]

They only get to see Glocks.
They want to see Sigs, Rugers, Keltecs, and the buzz about Cz'sis so hot they do a reverse search to find which LTCH's/ license plates are associated with Cz's.....

They like to coonfinger Kimbers the best but just can't seem to figure out how to unload the damn things...

 

[357 Terms]

Who says all of us jump to the wrong assumptions?

Who says none of you will?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Who says none of you will?

Bazinga! You got me on that one.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Who says none of you will?

Learn how to stand up for your rights and it won't matter.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Who says all of us jump to the wrong assumptions?

I didn't say that ALL LEOs jump to the wrong assumptions, but in my experience, enough of them do to question the utility of such extraneous information being tied to a driving record sufficiently to be proffered during a query pertaining to a vehicular infraction.

Bazinga! You got me on that one.

Big Bang Theory fan?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I didn't say that ALL LEOs jump to the wrong assumptions, but in my experience, enough of them do to question the utility of such extraneous information being tied to a driving record sufficiently to be proffered during a query pertaining to a vehicular infraction.

Big Bang Theory fan?

I would respond but I don't know what "proffered" means. And yes, I am a fan of BBT.