Traffic stops?

[Donnelly]

Officer Safety my ass, I still want to know what happened to OUR safety.

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS flushed our right to be safe during a traffic stop right down the toilet, in favor of "officer" safety, i.e. the safety of the State.

 

[sloaba01]

Exactly! That is what makes this whole "disarmed for officer safety" thing such a farce! I would like to see proof of just ONE incident in this country where a licensed gun owner informed the LEO he was carrying, showed his License to Carry, THEN shot the LEO. Just one... anyone?

so much for innocent until proven guilty? who is saying anyone is innocent or guilty? I'm just saying I don't trust strangers. And if they have a weapon with them I don't want to gamble with my life by letting them have it while I'm speaking with them. By letting someone hold on to their loaded gun, if they don't like what I say or even the way I look all they have to do is pull the gun out and shoot me dead. I'm sorry you don't like law enforcement, but like I said, I have a job to do, to enforce the law, protect people like you and other citizens and I'm not going to gamble my life that a stranger might not shoot me with the gun he has on him. I don't know why that bothers you so much, all I'm trying to do is go home at the end of the day.

 

[Roadie]

so much for innocent until proven guilty? who is saying anyone is innocent or guilty? I'm just saying I don't trust strangers. And if they have a weapon with them I don't want to gamble with my life by letting them have it while I'm speaking with them. By letting someone hold on to their loaded gun, if they don't like what I say or even the way I look all they have to do is pull the gun out and shoot me dead. I'm sorry you don't like law enforcement, but like I said, I have a job to do, to enforce the law, protect people like you and other citizens and I'm not going to gamble my life that a stranger might not shoot me with the gun he has on him. I don't know why that bothers you so much, all I'm trying to do is go home at the end of the day.

Dont turn this around on me to make me look like a LEO basher. I am basing the actions of a few, not all LEOs in general. I appreciate the job LEOs do, and I honestly thank you and all of the LEOs here for their service.

However, you ignored my main question. Show me ONE incident where a citizen has identified themselves as a gun owner, produced LTCH, THEN shot a LEO.

Statistically, licensed gun owners are overwhelmingly law abiding, yet some of you continue to profile us as a risk, where no risk exists.
(approx 0.26% of ALL criminals convicted in TX for 2007 were Licensed to carry, for example)

Yes, you have a job to do. One of them is to uphold the Constitution, and the laws of the Land. Disarming, and thereby confiscating the weapon of, a licensed gun owner, is on shaky 4th Amend ground. The Supreme Court of Indiana has already determined that once an LTCH is produced, without any further PC or RS, the gun discussion is over.

 

[Roadie]

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS flushed our right to be safe during a traffic stop right down the toilet, in favor of "officer" safety, i.e. the safety of the State.

Can you post example of this please?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I've recently discovered that everything the COTUS says is completely meaningless due to that stupid interstate commerce clause. It's like in school when the teacher hands out a test and says "read the whole test before you begin" and at the very end on the last page it says "turn in this blank page and you are free to wander the halls for the rest of the period".

 

[Bond 281]

so much for innocent until proven guilty? who is saying anyone is innocent or guilty? I'm just saying I don't trust strangers. And if they have a weapon with them I don't want to gamble with my life by letting them have it while I'm speaking with them. By letting someone hold on to their loaded gun, if they don't like what I say or even the way I look all they have to do is pull the gun out and shoot me dead. I'm sorry you don't like law enforcement, but like I said, I have a job to do, to enforce the law, protect people like you and other citizens and I'm not going to gamble my life that a stranger might not shoot me with the gun he has on him. I don't know why that bothers you so much, all I'm trying to do is go home at the end of the day.

The cop who pulls me over is a stranger with a lawfully owned gun. Your argument holds no weight.

 

[sloaba01]

Dont turn this around on me to make me look like a LEO basher. I am basing the actions of a few, not all LEOs in general. I appreciate the job LEOs do, and I honestly thank you and all of the LEOs here for their service.

However, you ignored my main question. Show me ONE incident where a citizen has identified themselves as a gun owner, produced LTCH, THEN shot a LEO.

Statistically, licensed gun owners are overwhelmingly law abiding, yet some of you continue to profile us as a risk, where no risk exists.
(approx 0.26% of ALL criminals convicted in TX for 2007 were Licensed to carry, for example)

Yes, you have a job to do. One of them is to uphold the Constitution, and the laws of the Land. Disarming, and thereby confiscating the weapon of, a licensed gun owner, is on shaky 4th Amend ground. The Supreme Court of Indiana has already determined that once an LTCH is produced, without any further PC or RS, the gun discussion is over.

Roadie, You're right, I'm sorry for not reading your previous post, I am still new to this website. I am aware that honest gun owners are some of the most law abiding people around and I fully support their right to carry arms. In our academy they show us countless video's of officers getting shot on traffic stops and they teach us how to lessen this threat. One of the things we learned is to hold onto firearms until the interaction is over, then to give the weapon back to its owner.

As I'm sure you're aware, we can never afford to be wrong, not once. That one time will be the time we get shot. Its a tough choice. I do see your point, but I ask you to see mine as well.

There are officers out there that take it too far, I've seen it and I don't agree with it. But it is just a very large gamble knowing that a person has a weapon and could kill you. Maybe things would be different if we all just carried in the open

 

[sloaba01]

I am wrestling with this issue of whether or not to hold on to a firearm during an interaction when a person has a permit. I do understand that you have a right to protect yourself. The people who I have delt with who have had permits, have been very courteous and respectful. I think I will try limiting when I take the firearm to what type of investigation it is.
I see your point on a traffic stop, it probably is not necessary. However, I will still hold onto the firearm in certain situations like domestic disputes or accusations where a person used the firearm in some way.

 

[rambone]

I am wrestling with this issue of whether or not to hold on to a firearm during an interaction when a person has a permit. I do understand that you have a right to protect yourself. The people who I have delt with who have had permits, have been very courteous and respectful. I think I will try limiting when I take the firearm to what type of investigation it is.
I see your point on a traffic stop, it probably is not necessary. However, I will still hold onto the firearm in certain situations like domestic disputes or accusations where a person used the firearm in some way.

I'm glad you signed up for INGO. I hope you choose to stop disarming people on traffic stops. Some reasons why you should discontinue this practice:

• If the driver freely tells you he is armed, he was not trying to ambush you.
• If the driver holds a LTCH, he is among one of the most law-abiding segments of society in all areas.
• The safest place a pistol can be kept is in its holster.
• Fiddling with an unfamiliar firearm in public is not a good idea.
• Every time the slide is racked, the gun holds a small possibility of firing w/o trigger action. Best to leave it where it is.
• Taking a gun is no guarantee that there is not a backup gun in the vehicle. It is false security.
• The driver deserves to have peace of mind at his side too.
• If you scratch/damage/drop the gun, the driver will take the issue to your boss.
• Some scenarios will result in lawsuits over civil rights violations.
• People are innocent until proven guilty.
• Disarming people will make you a lot less INGO friends, and makes a lot of law-abiding citizens very upset.
• Disarming people adds a lot of fuel to the fire over gun control and anti-gun LEOs.
• The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Please stop infringing it.

 

[jsharmon7]

I'm glad you signed up for INGO. I hope you choose to stop disarming people on traffic stops. Some reasons why you should discontinue this practice:

• If the driver freely tells you he is armed, he was not trying to ambush you.
• If the driver holds a LTCH, he is among one of the most law-abiding segments of society in all areas.
• The safest place a pistol can be kept is in its holster.
• Fiddling with an unfamiliar firearm in public is not a good idea.
• Every time the slide is racked, the gun holds a small possibility of firing w/o trigger action. Best to leave it where it is.
• Taking a gun is no guarantee that there is not a backup gun in the vehicle. It is false security.
• The driver deserves to have peace of mind at his side too.
• If you scratch/damage/drop the gun, the driver will take the issue to your boss.
• Some scenarios will result in lawsuits over civil rights violations.
• People are innocent until proven guilty.
• Disarming people will make you a lot less INGO friends, and makes a lot of law-abiding citizens very upset.
• Disarming people adds a lot of fuel to the fire over gun control and anti-gun LEOs.
• The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Please stop infringing it.

I agree with everything above, except the last point. I don't consider holding onto a handgun for a few minutes during a traffic stop to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment as the courts have allowed that an officer can make a scene safe. That said, I don't, because of the other excellent points you made.

 

[Donnelly]

I see your point on a traffic stop, it probably is not necessary. However, I will still hold onto the firearm in certain situations like domestic disputes or accusations where a person used the firearm in some way.

I think it would be only prudent to hold onto any firearm during the above two scenarios, and I don't think many would fault you in those situations. I think the indignation for the traffic stop scenario is that in most cases the traffic stop is for a minor citation (whereas the above situations could easily result in felony charges), and if the person is being cooperative and compliant and honestly doing everything in their power to try to put you at ease (hands at 10 and 12, interior lights on in the car at night, offering up the information that they are armed with a legally owned weapon), it seems highly illogical that that same person would try to kill you, especially in light of the fact that LTCH holders are statisically the most law-abiding of citizens.

 

[sloaba01]

Yea, I think from now on I'm not going to take the firearm on traffic stops. Although the part of town I normally work, usually people don't have permits haha. Thank you all for the insight. It helps to see the other side sometimes. I do appreciate it.

 

[Donnelly]

Glad to hit you with some positive rep, good sir!

 

[Roadie]

Yea, I think from now on I'm not going to take the firearm on traffic stops. Although the part of town I normally work, usually people don't have permits haha. Thank you all for the insight. It helps to see the other side sometimes. I do appreciate it.

Would Rep you if it would let me...

 

[.40caltrucker]

Would Rep you if it would let me...

I got him and turned him green.
It's nice to see some come with an open mind.

 

[Kick]

I got him and gave him 2 more green.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I got him and gave him 2 more green.

I got him also.

 

[INGunGuy]

I got him too.

INGunGuy

 

[sloaba01]

Hey thanks guys, it does actually make me feel a bit better knowing there are so many people carrying legally out there. You guys our on our side a lot more than the people carrying illegally. Thank you!

 

[Hawkeye]

As I'm sure you're aware, we can never afford to be wrong, not once.

I hope that you realize that actions that may be perceived as heavy-handed by some will only continue to isolate you from portions of the population. You think you are "taking control" of the situation and "making the scene safe" but what you may have just done is antagonized yet another law-abiding citizen who now has less respect for police and lessened your acceptance and support in the population.

To take your "safety" argument to its logical extreme, you'd be "safer", wouldn't you, if you took the motorist's car keys and 'cuffed the driver and occupants of the vehicle until you were done with them. Also, you'd be "safer", wouldn't you, if you approached every traffic stop as if it were a felony take-down and went after the motorist with drawn weapons and on-scene back-up. I mean you don't know who the motorist is, do you, until you've run their ID.