Pulled over tonight

[Hotdoger]

I guess this thread has helped me make up my mind about informing LEOS of my carry status.

 

[esrice]

Guys, I think you are reading fpdshooter's posts through a distorted internet lens. Having actually met the man, I don't read any "better than you" attitude or hostile tone. He's one of the good guys, and he's DEFINITELY on our (as gun-owners) side. However, if I try to read his posts anonymously I can understand how that conclusion may be reached.

To the "run the numbers" argument:

I see what fpdshooter is saying, in that they only run the numbers for possibly stolen firearms because that is the only "stolen item" database currently available. There is no database for stolen cell phones or IPods.

Really we need to shift our perspective a bit, from that of the bothered motorist, to the guy who's gun safe has just been smashed and grabbed. Let's say all of his Glocks were stolen (poor guy!). The thief sells one of the Glocks to a buddy of his, who possesses a LTCH (he's never been in trouble, but his choice of friends leaves something to be desired. . .) The officer, having a database of stolen serial numbers at his disposal, takes the firearm from the motorist to "check it through the system". Well guess what? The gun comes back STOLEN. Now Mr. Honest Gunowner is going to be getting his Glock back.

Yes, we, as the LTCH-toting motorist, can be delayed and get annoyed by the check, but wouldn't YOU want YOUR gun back if it was stolen? (same holds true for any item, be it a car, stereo, watch, etc)

 

[Bill of Rights]

...What you are forgetting is that during the time this was written, pistols were not common. The laws our forefathers set forth were dealing with military rifles at that time. Still to this day, other than filling out some ATF paperwork, there are no restrictions on rifles. You can carry it in your caor hell, you can carry it down the stret - there is no law against that.

Also... no restrictions on rifles? Really? So if I'm walking through downtown Indy with an AK-style rifle slung across my back, I won't be stopped ("detained"), questioned, ordered to return it to my vehicle, nothing? Heck, let's make it even less threatening.... Let's just say it's a simple 10/22 or even a pink Crickett single-shot... I can really, honestly expect that I'll have no LE interaction if I choose to walk down a public sidewalk with a rifle?

You and I both know better than that. Hell, one of our own posters here had an officer disarm him, point his own pistol at the poster's leg in the process of attempting to drop the mag, had the officer screaming in his face... for committing the unpardonable "crime" of going into a coffee shop in Broad Ripple while OCing, on his way to the range to shoot.... and that doesn't even touch the issue of some of the crazy "home rule" ordinances that might exist around the state, or in other states.

I'd still like to see some unbiased evidence that any of these thousands of laws has actually contributed in any way to any person's safety.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[esrice]

I will also point out that most of this can be avoided by holding your tongue, unless a circumstance presents itself when revealing your carry status would become necessary and prudent (such as being asked to step out of the car, or if asked the direction question of "do you have any weapons, sir?")

 

[Chefcook]

I do not inform anyone as to my carry status, it generally makes a traffic stop go much quicker, and I do not feel I am obligated in any way to inform an officer that I am carrying. I mean why open the can of worms in the first place. Just keep your hands on the wheel say yes sir and smile and say thank you after receiving your ticket or whatever then go on your merry way....No harm no foul....

 

[public servant]

Write the ticket, or issue the warning, and keep your opinions about the exercise of fundamental rights to yourself.

He has the fundamental right to voice that opinion...whether you agree with it or not. Same as you have the fundamental right to carry a gun and voice your opinion about him voicing his. If he crosses a line and becomes offensive call I.A. Just because he's a cop....doesn't restrict him/her from any of the same rights you have.

 

[MPD179]

Whooza.... Guys honestly... I was just trying to get my 10 posts in :o)

 

[fpdshooter]

Jeez - a man goes to work for a few hours and look what happens!

To those who read a holier than thou intent, you are wrong. If it came across that way, then please consider this my apology.

My panties were never in a bunch about anything...quite the contrary. What I posted earlier I did while enjoying my morning coffee with my pup resting her head against my leg. It doesn't get much more mellow than that.

 

[dross]

I will also point out that most of this can be avoided by holding your tongue, unless a circumstance presents itself when revealing your carry status would become necessary and prudent (such as being asked to step out of the car, or if asked the direction question of "do you have any weapons, sir?")

I agree. Don't reveal your carry status. I ask you to think about for a second - if I don't reveal my carry status, the officer is more vulnerable than if I do reveal my carry status. Yet, this particular officer has stated that if I reveal my status - which renders me slightly safer than the guy who doesn't - he will take my weapon and run it. By his own admission - nope, by his own ASSERTION - I should keep quiet.

Does he want to be safer, or to FEEL safer?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Guys, I think you are reading fpdshooter's posts through a distorted internet lens. Having actually met the man, I don't read any "better than you" attitude or hostile tone. He's one of the good guys, and he's DEFINITELY on our (as gun-owners) side. However, if I try to read his posts anonymously I can understand how that conclusion may be reached.

To the "run the numbers" argument:

I see what fpdshooter is saying, in that they only run the numbers for possibly stolen firearms because that is the only "stolen item" database currently available. There is no database for stolen cell phones or IPods.

Really we need to shift our perspective a bit, from that of the bothered motorist, to the guy who's gun safe has just been smashed and grabbed. Let's say all of his Glocks were stolen (poor guy!). The thief sells one of the Glocks to a buddy of his, who possesses a LTCH (he's never been in trouble, but his choice of friends leaves something to be desired. . .) The officer, having a database of stolen serial numbers at his disposal, takes the firearm from the motorist to "check it through the system". Well guess what? The gun comes back STOLEN. Now Mr. Honest Gunowner is going to be getting his Glock back.

Yes, we, as the LTCH-toting motorist, can be delayed and get annoyed by the check, but wouldn't YOU want YOUR gun back if it was stolen? (same holds true for any item, be it a car, stereo, watch, etc)

Evan,

I can appreciate your points. I've had a few conversations with fpdshooter as well on here, and I'd be more than happy to meet him, shake his hand, break bread with him, etc.

I do not, however, agree with the points he's made, and fpd, I should add that I don't hold those points against you. It's very easy to support laws that make your job easier, or that support things you hold dear, much as many gun owners are all for the idea of the Fed stepping in and ordering all states to recognize the LTCH/CCW/CFP/whatever of all the others.... right up until they are reminded that it's just that overstepping of the states' authority that the Constitution we all respect was supposed to prevent.

That the C/court's rulings have in many ways made your job easier does not in any way make up for the times that those same rulings have shat on the individual rights of the public you are sworn to protect and serve. As has been said, I respect the job you're trying to do, and no, I will not throw in the old saw about paying your salary... While a small portion of my taxes may do that, Castle Rock v. Gonzales has made it clear that that fact is immaterial, not to mention that it ignores the fact that others' taxes do likewise.

It comes down to the fact that by and large, the criminal is not going to divulge that he's carrying until he shoots at you, and by and large, the person who is carrying legally is not going to tell you, let you run his gun, and then shoot you if you hand it back, so the "officer safety" is a red herring.

That there is only the db for firearms is no excuse, either, not that such a db should exist any more than one should for ipods and digital cameras. If the owners don't care about their property enough to write down the serial numbers, they have only themselves to blame when the items cannot be recovered.
If you're going to run the gun, why, then, keep it, once it's confirmed lawfully owned? Is the guy who volunteered that he was armed, showed his LTCH, handed you his gun to run, etc. still not trustworthy to not shoot you because he was going 10 miles over the legal limit? He's allowed (most of the time) to stay in his car, and that could do far worse damage to your car or you, should you erroneously step between his back and your front bumper, yet he is not denied his car except to get him away from the "heathens" who may be in it with him.

</>

OK.. The main point of this note was to address Evan's comment. I've said before that I'm not a LEO... I find it difficult to embrace the mindset that everyone, especially the ones who voluntarily disclose that they are lawfully armed, is to be suspected of being a criminal until an absence of evidence to the contrary convinces you otherwise. I know from prior conversations that the presumption of innocence supposedly does not exist prior to the courtroom... I don't agree with that, but I understand that that's the point that you (I think) told me once before.

Be that as it may, I do want to state clearly and for the record that my argument with fpdshooter is solely regarding the points he's made in this thread, and not with him personally. I have NO doubt that this man is doing his damndest to do the best job he can do and to serve and protect to the best of his ability, including with his life, if, God forbid, that need was to arise.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[esrice]

Oh no, the "safe" vs. "feel safe" vs. "officer safety" question again. . . . . where's Rhino??

 

[Bill of Rights]

He has the fundamental right to voice that opinion...whether you agree with it or not. Same as you have the fundamental right to carry a gun and voice your opinion about him voicing his. If he crosses a line and becomes offensive call I.A. Just because he's a cop....doesn't restrict him/her from any of the same rights you have.

Absolutely correct. Conversely, just because he (or you, or anyone) is a cop does not allow him/her any more rights than I/we have either.

True?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

He has the fundamental right to voice that opinion...whether you agree with it or not. Same as you have the fundamental right to carry a gun and voice your opinion about him voicing his. If he crosses a line and becomes offensive call I.A. Just because he's a cop....doesn't restrict him/her from any of the same rights you have.

If a private citizen asks me a condescending question like "why is your carry gun loaded?" I might respond, "What, are you stupid? F*** you, and mind your own business." Not polite, but my right. Tell me true, Mr. Lawman, if I said that to you, would you let me go on my way, or would you pull me out of my car and humiliate me a little before you let me go?

The private citizen can't make me do that. That's why an officer shouldn't voice his opinion, because he has so much power granted to him. You really don't get that? Or are you just frontin' for your set?

 

[fpdshooter]

Hey guys I'm at work so I'm trying to reply as I can. I'm not ignoring anyone...I just have the time for long winded responses.

 

[esrice]

Bill,

My comments about fpdshooter were not due to any of your postings. As with 99% of the stuff you post here, I totally agree with your thoughts.

I'm looking at the issue from more of a procedural prospective, while you love to dig deep and look at the bigger picture; which is why we keep you around.

 

[esrice]

If a private citizen asks me a condescending question like "why is your carry gun loaded?" I might respond, "What, are you stupid? F*** you, and mind your own business." Not polite, but my right. Tell me true, Mr. Lawman, if I said that to you, would you let me go on my way, or would you pull me out of my car and humiliate me a little before you let me go?

The private citizen can't make me do that. That's why an officer shouldn't voice his opinion, because he has so much power granted to him. You really don't get that? Or are you just frontin' for your set?

Let's remember that we're talking about Police Officers, not Police Robots.

They are people too. And as such, they will never be perfect.

I would also submit that without some provision for "officer discretion", their job would be impossible.

 

[public servant]

Absolutely correct. Conversely, just because he (or you, or anyone) is a cop does not allow him/her any more rights than I/we have either.

True?

Blessings,
Bill

Absolutley you are correct, Bill. But no less rights either. As long as he/she doesn't become abusive or violate department policy...he/she has every right to express their opinion.

 

[haldir]

Let's remember that we're talking about Police Officers, not Police Robots.

They are people too. And as such, they will never be perfect.

I would also submit that without some provision for "officer discretion", their job would be impossible.

Do LEOs on occasion say something stupid or ask a stupid question. Of course. I say stupid things on a fairly regular basis according to my wife of 26 years. Sometimes there is just a different generational thing that goes on or different background. I know gun owners (hunters mostly) that can not understand at all why a private citizen would ever carry a gun with them. i know one relative that was commenting about someone else they knew that carried and they were wondering what in the world the person was so afraid of that they needed to carry a gun. Wondered if maybe they were in the drug business.

 

[public servant]

If a private citizen asks me a condescending question like "why is your carry gun loaded?" I might respond, "What, are you stupid? F*** you, and mind your own business." Not polite, but my right. Tell me true, Mr. Lawman, if I said that to you, would you let me go on my way, or would you pull me out of my car and humiliate me a little before you let me go?

The private citizen can't make me do that. That's why an officer shouldn't voice his opinion, because he has so much power granted to him. You really don't get that? Or are you just frontin' for your set?

I wouldn't have to pull you out of your car and humiliate you...you succeeded in doing that all by yourself by showing your immature mindset. Why on earth would you talk to anyone like that? Were you not taught mutual respect as a child. And I'm not talking respect for LEO's....mutual respect in general. But to be completely honest with you....I heard better than that before you had breakfast this morning.

I added "mutual" to "respect" because it is a two-way street.

 

[dross]

I wouldn't have to pull you out of your car and humiliate you...you succeeded in doing that all by yourself by showing your immature mindset. Why on earth would you talk to anyone like that? Were you not taught mutual respect as a child. And I'm not talking respect for LEO's....mutual respect in general. But to be completely honest with you....I heard better than that before you had breakfast this morning.

I added "mutual" to "respect" because it is a two-way street.

Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread.

Why would an LEO ask, "Why?" a carry pistol was loaded? He's either stupid - which I don't believe, or he's using a situation in which he has the power advantage to voice his opinion. I say in that situation he should keep it to himself.

The point isn't that I would talk to someone like that, the point is if someone asks me a condescending question, they deserve a less than pleasant answer - unless of course I have to balance the fact that they have enormous situational power over me at the moment.

The point is that the cop can talk to me how he wants, but because of the power differential, I must choose my words carefully when I talk to him.

You disparaged my maturity and my upbringing. Do you stand by that?