Surrendering your weapon

[Spike_351]

Doesn't matter to me, if it makes them feel better and gets me on my way quicker, then thats fine by me.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I have been pulled over many times for small stuff like tail lights and such, and i have let them retrieve the gun themselves every time, i remember once the officer told me that the only reason he wanted to see it was because of the high number of firearms thefts in the area and wanted to be sure it wasn't stolen, they were all very nice about it as well so it didn't bother me any. i think the only time i wasn't asked about about my firearm was when i had two handguns in the vehicle and one on my side ( .40 S&W, 9mm, 44 Spl. )

 

[Spike_351]

I guess i should explain my main reasoning behind this, the reason i dont mind it is because the last thing i need is some nervous rookie officer panicking and shooting me because he thought i was reaching for my gun, so if makes them feel better and gets me on my way quicker, then by all means check the d*mn gun.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I guess i should explain my main reasoning behind this, the reason i dont mind it is because the last thing i need is some nervous rookie officer panicking and shooting me because he thought i was reaching for my gun, so if makes them feel better and gets me on my way quicker, then by all means check the d*mn gun.

I'm not here to judge so I won't. If you are willing to give up your rights and endanger yourself by letting someone else handle your loaded firearm by all means but it is 100x safer remaining in your holster than getting coonfingered on the side of the road.

BTW just for curiosities sake do you conceal carry?

 

[Bunnykid68]

How about they quit pulling people over for tail lights and such crap.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

How about they quit pulling people over for tail lights and such crap.

They say they catch serial killers and drug dealers that way. Not happening unfortunately.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not here to judge so I won't. If you are willing to give up your rights and endanger yourself by letting someone else handle your loaded firearm by all means but it is 100x safer remaining in your holster than getting coonfingered on the side of the road.

BTW just for curiosities sake do you conceal carry?

Though I will not disarm a person unless I have a good reason for doing so, I find your reasoning interesting TF (and I'm going to give you a lil grief over it).

You stated that it's a "100X safer" to allow a person to keep their firearm on them. That begs the question, "for who?". I am unaware of any instance where an officer has removed a firearm from a complete stranger, and in the course of doing so, injures the person they are disarming. However, there are a number of instances where people have injured with their personal firearms.

If one follows the "safer" premise, then I think one would believe that "perceived" safety for the officer would trump the civilian if the contact made was based on a legitimate LE contact (ie, someone does something wrong, and police respond).

 

[Hayseed_40]

They say they catch serial killers and drug dealers that way. Not happening unfortunately.

They do catch them that way.

 

[Bunnykid68]

They do catch them that way.

Oh yeah, tons of them, but they do write out numerous revenue generating tickets.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Though I will not disarm a person unless I have a good reason for doing so, I find your reasoning interesting TF (and I'm going to give you a lil grief over it).

You stated that it's a "100X safer" to allow a person to keep their firearm on them. That begs the question, "for who?". I am unaware of any instance where an officer has removed a firearm from a complete stranger, and in the course of doing so, injures the person they are disarming. However, there are a number of instances where people have injured with their personal firearms.

If one follows the "safer" premise, then I think one would believe that "perceived" safety for the officer would trump the civilian if the contact made was based on a legitimate LE contact (ie, someone does something wrong, and police respond).

Using my own experiences and the stories I have heard from police many officers do not know proper gun handling skills. The same way you don't know who is really in the car and if they want to hurt you we don't know if the cop knows how to handle a weapon. Even if he does the likelyhood of an accident goes up exponentially when handling them and unloading them compared to leaving it in the holster.

Like you I am envisioning the best case scenario of a licensed law abiding citizen who happens to be pulled over for a possible traffic infraction.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Oh yeah, tons of them, but they do write out numerous revenue generating tickets.

Yes, obviously you would be surprised how many...

Do you know where the ticket money goes? The issuing dept does not even get enough to pay for the time and gas.

Did you get a ticket lately??

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes, obviously you would be surprised how many...

Do you know where the ticket money goes? The issuing dept does not even get enough to pay for the time and gas.

Did you get a ticket lately??

Money goes to State treasury would be my guess and then divied out according to some lazy assbags sitting in the A/C.

If the issuing department does not even get enough for time and gas why do they continue to do it when they could be doing something more useful?

 

[Hayseed_40]

Money goes to State treasury would be my guess and then divied out according to some lazy assbags sitting in the A/C.

If the issuing department does not even get enough for time and gas why do they continue to do it when they could be doing something more useful?

I can't tell if you are seriously asking that question or is it a rhetorical question?

 

[griffin]

You stated that it's a "100X safer" to allow a person to keep their firearm on them. That begs the question, "for who?". I am unaware of any instance where an officer has removed a firearm from a complete stranger, and in the course of doing so, injures the person they are disarming.

A video was just posted today of a LEO removing a gun from a guy's holster and the LEO pointed the loaded gun at the guy before he racked it to remove the one in the chamber.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I can't tell if you are seriously asking that question or is it a rhetorical question?

I am dead serious. If I ran a department and it was a net loss for us to do something as a department I would not be doing it.

 

[Roadie]

Though I will not disarm a person unless I have a good reason for doing so, I find your reasoning interesting TF (and I'm going to give you a lil grief over it).

You stated that it's a "100X safer" to allow a person to keep their firearm on them. That begs the question, "for who?". I am unaware of any instance where an officer has removed a firearm from a complete stranger, and in the course of doing so, injures the person they are disarming. However, there are a number of instances where people have injured with their personal firearms.

If one follows the "safer" premise, then I think one would believe that "perceived" safety for the officer would trump the civilian if the contact made was based on a legitimate LE contact (ie, someone does something wrong, and police respond).

How can a gun that is in the holster NOT be "100x safer" than a gun that's being handled?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Repost

 

[Kutnupe14]

How can a gun that is in the holster NOT be "100x safer" than a gun that's being handled?

When it's in possession of a stranger during an adversarial encounter.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why would officer safety be any more important than the citizens safety

 

[Titanium_Frost]

When it's in possession of a stranger during an adversarial encounter.

I have no problem with police taking someone's weapon IF they meet the legal definition of 'dangerous' or you have a warrant or PC for arrest.

My bet is on this guy CCing and during a routine traffic stop he has been indoctrinated to "inform" of his carry status and his local police take advantage of the situation because he let's them.