Pulled Over

[Rookie]

Try Melvin Washington v. State of Indiana.

Very clearly discusses officer safety.

 

[ilitical]

Try Melvin Washington v. State of Indiana.

Very clearly discusses officer safety.

I will read that next. Truly appreciate the suggestions. Keepem coming!

 

[ilitical]

I refuse to be a part of his run to 50, I am out for the evening.

EPD sucks, they flashbang grandmothers and granddaughters and throw whole families out of the city zoo and go nuts over a guy riding a bicycle with a rifle on his back

This isn't about making a run to 50. I'm participating in a public forum. How boring would it be if we all viewed the world the exact same way. You are questioning authority and so am I. It's a discussion. That's the entire point.

You said you will trust the courts. What if those same courts take away your 2A rights? Still going to trust them? No, you are going to question them. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[VUPDblue]

As Roadie pointed out, "Richardson" is one case that says "officer safety" at face value is not a valid reason to search/sieze. Arizona v. Johnson, Michigan v. Long, Terry v. Ohio, (among others) quantify the armed AND DANGEROUS requirement for a seizure for "officer safety". The mere presence of a weapon is not a valid reason without the "dangerous" component as it relates to the person being stopped.

All armed persons are not "dangerous". If there can be no reasonable and articulable facts that support the "dangerous" portion of the Armed and Dangerous definition, then any seizure of weapons is not legal. If you want to confiscate every single weapon present during an Officer/Citizen encounter based solely upon the fact that there IS a weapon, then Game Wardens wouldn't ever, EVER, get anything done because they'd be confiscating a bajillion hunting rifles/shotguns.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This isn't about making a run to 50. I'm participating in a public forum. How boring would it be if we all viewed the world the exact same way. You are questioning authority and so am I. It's a discussion. That's the entire point.

You said you will trust the courts. What if those same courts take away your 2A rights? Still going to trust them? No, you are going to question them. It's the nature of the beast.

Be a pretty damned good world if everyone viewed it the way I do, kickass in fact,

We would have more cops like VUPD, Denny, and Phylodog that is for sure.

 

[ilitical]

As Roadie pointed out, "Richardson" is one case that says "officer safety" at face value is not a valid reason to search/sieze. Arizona v. Johnson, Michigan v. Long, Terry v. Ohio, (among others) quantify the armed AND DANGEROUS requirement for a seizure for "officer safety". The mere presence of a weapon is not a valid reason without the "dangerous" component as it relates to the person being stopped.

All armed persons are not "dangerous". If there can be no reasonable and articulable facts that support the "dangerous" portion of the Armed and Dangerous definition, then any seizure of weapons is not legal. If you want to confiscate every single weapon present during an Officer/Citizen encounter based solely upon the fact that there IS a weapon, then Game Wardens wouldn't ever, EVER, get anything done because they'd be confiscating a bajillion hunting rifles/shotguns.

Where do the courts come in that a traffic stop is inherently dangerous? (serious question)

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Be a pretty damned good world if everyone viewed it the way I do, kickass in fact,

We would have more cops like VUPD, Denny, and Phylodog that is for sure.

Well **** you too!

 

[Nmathew24]

Well **** you too!

I'm pulling for ya Frank.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well **** you too!

Frank, even though I know what you did to my cousin, I would still trust you too.
Mainly because you were upfront about that pair of bunny slippers

 

[KG1]

As Roadie pointed out, "Richardson" is one case that says "officer safety" at face value is not a valid reason to search/sieze. Arizona v. Johnson, Michigan v. Long, Terry v. Ohio, (among others) quantify the armed AND DANGEROUS requirement for a seizure for "officer safety". The mere presence of a weapon is not a valid reason without the "dangerous" component as it relates to the person being stopped.

All armed persons are not "dangerous". If there can be no reasonable and articulable facts that support the "dangerous" portion of the Armed and Dangerous definition, then any seizure of weapons is not legal. If you want to confiscate every single weapon present during an Officer/Citizen encounter based solely upon the fact that there IS a weapon, then Game Wardens wouldn't ever, EVER, get anything done because they'd be confiscating a bajillion hunting rifles/shotguns.

You mean to tell me that just because an officer "doesn't know you" is not enough RAS to take possession of your firearm?

 

[actaeon277]

Well **** you too!

That there's just funny.

 

[VUPDblue]

Arizona v. Johnson answers that question and upholds that there must exist the Armed AND DANGEROUS articulation for a seizure to occur

 

[KG1]

All this "officer safety" confiscation doesn't matter. He can still take possession of your firearm to check and see if it is "legally possessed."

Says so right on the LTCH you signed.

 

[ilitical]

All this "officer safety" confiscation doesn't matter. He can still take possession of your firearm to check and see if it is "legally possessed."

Says so right on the LTCH you signed.

So glad you finally came around!

 

[Roadie]

All this "officer safety" confiscation doesn't matter. He can still take possession of your firearm to check and see if it is "legally possessed."

Says so right on the LTCH you signed.

Was that sarcasm, sorry, sometimes I need purple to interpret it

 

[91FXRS]

All this "officer safety" confiscation doesn't matter. He can still take possession of your firearm to check and see if it is "legally possessed."

Says so right on the LTCH you signed.

Cant seem to find that on mine. Maybe I got a special one.

 

[KG1]

It's my opinion that the LEO who pulled over OP was acting within his means. He can very easily site "officer safety" and run the S/N for "lost/stolen" He CAN do that. If you tell a LEO, "No, you can not run my gun for lost/stolen" you are violating your LTCH. We all signed the same paper.

If you think the LEO was outside his rights, then fine. But make sure you have his side and how he recalls it before you try and pass judgement on him. All we have is OP's recollection. That's it, and by the way the OP is worded, the LEO WAS within his rights.

As I said, If you disagree, great! If you agree, GREAT! But none of us have all the facts. This is all keyboard wrestling. I'm not trying to defend anyone.

Are you suggesting that because you have signed an LTCH and it states that "This licensee is hereby licensed by The Indiana State Police to carry on their person or in a vehicle, any handgun lawfully possessed by Licensee" that "lawfully possessed" is the phrase that mandates an officer can take possession of your firearm and run the numbers to see if it is indeed "lawfully possessed"?

If so, that is a new twist that i've never heard brought up before.

Indiana is full of grey area. and Yes that is exactly what I'm suggesting. The officer could also recommend that you are not a "proper person" and you can lose your license. Altho, that could be a whole nother thread.

Was that sarcasm, sorry, sometimes I need purple to interpret it

Follow the discussion from upthread. It's not my idea. Ask the other guy pushing this "grey area"

 

[Roadie]

Gotcha, I'm caught up now

 

[Bunnykid68]

Mods are slow, cut em some slack

 

[2A_Tom]

You mean to tell me that just because an officer "doesn't know you" is not enough RAS to take possession of your firearm?

All this "officer safety" confiscation doesn't matter. He can still take possession of your firearm to check and see if it is "legally possessed."

Says so right on the LTCH you signed.

Follow the discussion from upthread. It's not my idea. Ask the other guy pushing this "grey area"

You are so bad. You should know that iliterical doesn't know what invisible graple means, so unread doesn't even know what visible graple means.