"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"


PDA






Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 11:34 AM
Say I get pulled over and the LEO asks, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"

Can I legally ignore this question?

If I have firearms in the car, do I have a legal obligation to answer this question in the affirmative? Or can I simply not answer it?

If you enjoyed reading about ""Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WT
June 12, 2006, 11:42 AM
Do NOT lie.

One can ignore the question at one's peril but do not lie to a LEO. They can hit you up with all sorts of charges.

ball3006
June 12, 2006, 11:48 AM
you stomp on the gas and try to outrun the helicopter and be on TV. Better not lie, in Texas, your CHL comes up when they run your plates when you are stopped, and if you don't present your license, you most likely will lose it......chris3

atlctyslkr
June 12, 2006, 11:49 AM
If they are illegal you can refuse to answer on the premise of the 5th ammendment.

Check the laws of your state and the laws of the state you drive in.

I'm not required to inform here but I always get asked.

You're not going to get a whole lot of sympathy if you get haulded into court, even if you live in a gun friendly state.

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 11:51 AM
So lets say I have a firearm in the trunk, and I am transporting it legally (in Ohio this means it must be unloaded, open action, etc.). An LEO asks, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" If I say, "No," and he somehow determines I am lying, then I have committed a crime? And if I do not answer the question, and he somehow determines I have a firearm in the trunk, I have not committed a crime?

Art Eatman
June 12, 2006, 11:54 AM
From many long years of practice, when the bubble-gum machines light up behind me, I'm stopped, out of my vehicle and have my driver's license in hand well before the LEO has exited his cop car. :) (Some don't like that.)

I've not had the question asked of me in the old daze, about guns, even during deer season and Bambi was accompanying me home.

Now, with a CHL That Texas law sez to display along with the DL, it's, "Do you have it on you?" My answer is commonly, "No, it's in the console." That brings about a look of boredom, or a fair amount of BS session about guns.

Since the Martha Stewart case, I'd have to say that lying to the law is unwise. Apparently it's a "perjurious" offense even if you're not under oath--should the officer discover you're lying.

If you're legally totin', what difference does it make? Tell the cop about this website; make a convert.

Art

22-rimfire
June 12, 2006, 11:57 AM
If you lie, you will be making a trip to the police station even if no charges are filed. Nobody wants that. If you are carrying firearms illegally, then it's your call.

neoncowboy
June 12, 2006, 12:23 PM
I thought you could just refuse to answer questions.

Respond with a question: 'am I free to go?' or 'am I being charged with a crime?' or 'am I being detained?'

Whether I have guns (or anything else) in the car is, in my opinion, nobody's business but mine. Even coffee cans. :neener:

Polite, courteous, professional and unyieldingly committed to the preservation of your rights.

proud2deviate
June 12, 2006, 12:24 PM
So, umm, what happens if you say "You'll forgive me if I decline to answer." or something similar?

taliv
June 12, 2006, 12:27 PM
art, did you mean to say you get out of the vehicle before the fuzz approaches?

isn't that normally not recommended?

Shield529
June 12, 2006, 12:30 PM
In this state you can always refuse to speak even a single word outside of name, addess, phone number. As long as you pass me valid ID and car paperwork. It does raise some alarms and is odd behavior.

Art, please do not get out of vehicle before an officer does. You seem like a nice guy.

Erebus
June 12, 2006, 12:37 PM
If a LEO asks if you have firearms in the car, you say no, and he finds out you lied he is going to assume that there is something fishy about it/them.

Wouldn't you in his place?

Down at the station with you in a holding cell is alot safer for him to investigate the firearms then on the side of the road while he doesn't know what else you are hiding.

I can't think of any good reason to lie.

If you don't think he has the right to ask you if you have guns in the car tell him you don't think he has the right to ask. I'll bet he disagrees, and the experience goes south from there. But don't lie!!

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 12:47 PM
I would not lie about it. But it would appear that I would not be breaking any law if I simply refused to answer the question.

Art Eatman
June 12, 2006, 12:50 PM
taliv: Yup, I get out. It may not be recommended, but until the law says I'm to remain seated, I'm out.

I'm only gonna be stopped for speeding or for a burned-out light bulb. That's a minor offense. All I'm required to do is show my DL & CHL. And smile while the nice man writes the ticket, and then sign it.

If I'm standing to the shoulder side of the vehicles while he writes, we're safer than if he's standing next to the driver's door. Aren't I nice? Thinking of his safety?

And if I'm away from the vehicle and my hands are in view, I'm no threat. And there is less justification for him to want to search.

What I won't do is stand between his cop car and my vehicle. There are known events of somebody rear-ending the cop car, killing both the cop and the ticketee.

I've been driving a car since the late 1940s. I don't get stopped regularly, but a lot of years equals a lot of stops, cumulatively. I've never been hassled.

:), Art

leadcounsel
June 12, 2006, 01:10 PM
A police officer must have a reason to search you or your vehicle.

One reason is consent, another reason is "reasonable articuable suspicion" and yet another is "probable cause."

I never advocate lying to police. However, depending on your state law, you may not need to answer the question.

Answering their question provides them with reasonable articuable suspicion that you are armed and, maybe illegally, and they may want to look into it further.

Never offer consent. That makes LEOs job easier and you lose defenses in court if it ever goes to court. Always make them justify their stop, their search, and their seizures.

Trebor
June 12, 2006, 01:11 PM
Ask an attorney familiar with the laws in Ohio. That's the only way your gonna know for sure.

taliv
June 12, 2006, 01:23 PM
interesting Art. i agree and even though i've only been pulled over once in about 15 yrs, I've prefered to get out too, for similar reasons.

i thought the conventional wisdom was to stay in the car though because police didn't like for you to get out for some unknown reason.

thanks for explaining.

the only other thing i wonder about though, is in states where your car is an extension of your home, do you give up any rights by exiting your vehicle?

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 01:27 PM
Thanks.

I also want to reiterate I would not lie about it. I just want to know if I can simply refuse to answer the question, and if I would be breaking a law doing so (assuming I did have a firearm in the trunk). I searched the Ohio Revised Code, and it would appear that I would not be breaking any law if I simply refused to answer the question.

cuchulainn
June 12, 2006, 01:28 PM
I understand why the question is irksome, but you've got to choose your battles. We've got bigger concerns than a cop's question that barely registers 0.001 on the oppression scale.

Zundfolge
June 12, 2006, 01:38 PM
Its pretty much a non issue in Colorado (outside of Denver) as unlicensed CCW in your vehicle is legal here.


However unless you live someplace that requires a FOID or has other draconian restrictions on guns/gun owners, I don't believe that answering "Yes" to the question; "Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?" would be enough probably cause to allow the officer to do a search.

Over the years I've been told by many officers that if they have probable cause they will not ask to search your car so if an officer asks, say no and they really can't do anything (although I'm sure many officers will ask first).

AJAX22
June 12, 2006, 01:38 PM
Here in california, the correct response is always No. If you say you do have a weapon in the vehicle, you will be sitting for about 1/2 of an hour minimum, while they run every single serial number, you may be handcuffed and sat at the side of the road. and from my experiance, the police typically do not treat your firearms with any respect whatsoever. I've had to lay them in the dirt, and I've been prevented from wiping them down with oil or cleaning them before putting them away in their cases etc.

If they are legally stored in the trunk and for whatever reason the police officer decides to search the vehicle and finds them then oh well, guess I forgot to take them out of the car last time I went hunting officer.

Its a bit different for a CCP, you actually have a legal obligation to reveal the fact that you are carying.

Just don't come off as an a-hole, don't plead the fifth, don't refuse to answer questions, you're just giving them probible cause to trash your car and ruin your night.

IANAL so take this with a grain of salt. It probably also depends on where you are. here behind the wire, the word gun translates into the officer trying to stick you with anything they can while you are now late and miserable with your car torn up.

Zundfolge
June 12, 2006, 01:42 PM
Just don't come off as an a-hole, don't plead the fifth, don't refuse to answer questions, you're just giving them probible cause to trash your car and ruin your night.

Refusal to consent to a search does NOT give an officer probable cause. This is settled law thats been in front of the SCOTUS several times.

Being an a-hole might depending on exactly what being an a-hole consists of.

cropcirclewalker
June 12, 2006, 01:44 PM
I won't get out of the car unless asked to exit. I keep my hands on the wheel, don't look them in the eye, with DL, Proof of insurance and registration between the fingers of the left hand. Do not speak unless spoken to and

Like Art said

Remember Martha Stewart.

Even if you are telling the truth in any statement you make, it may be construed as a lie and if they get the jury to believe it, you get the train ride.

Thus, If asked, and not driving I will state my name. Otherwise make no utterance that can be construed as a statement of fact. Two exceptions I would consider is, "I do not consent to having my vehicle searched." and "I want a jury trial and it want it quick."

Questions are fine.

They say, "Where are you going tonight?" You say, "Why do you ask?"
Am I free to go? Am I suspected of committing a crime? That kinda stuff.

They brought it on themselves.

Martha Stewart, Martha Stewart. Just keep remembering Martha Stewart.

Speaking to an agent of .gov is more dangerous than not.

Hawkmoon
June 12, 2006, 01:45 PM
I disagree with AJAX22, regardless of where you are. Saying "No" when the truth is "Yes" is called lying, and when you lie to a police officer who is asking in an official capacity, you are breaking the law.

Some time ago I recall a recommendation on here that an appropriate answer might be "I have no illegal firearms in the vehicle." Would anyone care to comment on the wisdom of such a response?

TallPine
June 12, 2006, 01:47 PM
"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"
Well, I guess if you only have one then you could honestly answer the question "No" ;)

Or you could just say: "I'm sorry sir, but I don't loan them out." :p

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 01:51 PM
I understand why the question is irksome, but you've got to choose your battles. We've got bigger concerns than a cop's question that barely registers 0.001 on the oppression scale.But that's assuming the LEO is not a rogue cop. I never assume this... I always assume the cop is a JBT unless proven otherwise.

If a rogue cop asks if I have any firearms in the vehicle, and I say "yes," he will use this information to his advantage. He might use it to establish probable cause to search my vehicle, and/or he might steal my firearm.

So from what I can gather based on the responses in this thread, if a cop asks me, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"...

- I should not answer "yes," as this would put me in a bad position if the cop is a JBT.

- I should not answer "no," since it would be a lie to do so.

- I should not answer the question at all.

Sawdust
June 12, 2006, 02:02 PM
Ajax22 sez:

Its a bit different for a CCP, you actually have a legal obligation to reveal the fact that you are carying.


I don't believe that this is a true statement for the state of California.

Please provide a link to the applicable statute.

Thanks,

Sawdust

rbernie
June 12, 2006, 02:04 PM
Say I get pulled over and the LEO asks, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?""Is there a problem, officer?"

Cosmoline
June 12, 2006, 02:05 PM
Remember you can refuse to answer but you can't lie to them.

bruss01
June 12, 2006, 02:07 PM
Ajax -

I agree with you 100% regarding firearms in the car in CA. Avoiding the question would be seen as "suspicious behavior" or "acting nervous" and that becomes probable cause as in, you wouldn't be nervous or acting suspicious if you didn't have something to hide.

Saying "Yes, I have a gun in the car" means they will call in reinforcements regardless of how polite and law-abiding you may seem. Be prepared to be handcuffed and face down in the dirt "for officer safety" while they tear your car apart looking for the gun and any contraband you might have stashed that would warrant you needing a gun. Once they have wallowed your guns in the gravel, humiliated you for a couple of hours on the side of the road, and shredded your upholstery, you'll be free to go. No, not every officer is like this, but in urban areas in CA this will be your "luck of the draw" about half the time. In some areas it is not the LAW but it is POLICY that they will not return your firearm on the spot, you will have to go thru a process of forms and fees to "reclaim" it. Unless it was an expensive firearm, these fees often exceed the value of the firearm.

This, of course, is assuming that you were 100% legally posessing, storing and transporting the firearm at the time you were pulled over. If you were guilty of any infraction, however minor, you will not be getting your firearm back (it's now "evidence") and likely spending the night at the Graybar Hotel.

If you think this is an exageration, think again. My instructor for hunter's education is an attorney. He drives a Lexus, wears a business suit and is a 50 year old white guy with a jovial demeanor. He has a carry permit. Keeps his gun in a locked container in the rear of the vehicle. One day he was pulled over for a seat belt violation (he unfastened it while driving for 30 seconds so he could reach something, then refastened it, then saw the red & blue lights). When the officer came to his window he displayed both his driver's license and his carry permit and advised the officer he had a gun in the car. He ended up spending several VERY TENSE MINUTES looking down the barrel of the officers duty weapon, while reinforcements were called in. If it were not for the fact that he is a respected local attorney, he would have gotten the full treatment. As it was, he had to go and file the forms and reclaim his gun through proper "channels" despite the fact he did nothing wrong except the seat belt violation. Considering the risk of having an officer with a nervous trigger finger make an "oops", I will lie up front and apologize and claim forgetfulness afterwards if necessary. There's no sense in ASKING for trouble.

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 02:15 PM
I will lie up frontWell, based on the responses in this thread, it would not be in your favor to lie.

As best as I can tell, if an LEO asks, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" you should not respond with a "yes" or "no" - you should simply not answer the question. I could be wrong, but I don't think the refusal to answer this question can be used as probable cause to search your vehicle.

Cosmoline
June 12, 2006, 02:24 PM
Polite refusal to answer is not probable cause. Remember to have all the required insurance and registration papers and give those to the police. Don't lock those in your car. And obviously, if you have a firearm on you they will find it in the pat-down which they are allowed to do for their own safety (according to the SCT). Keep calm, never run away and always be polite even if they freak out and act like animals. Remember, they NEED YOU TO TALK unless there's something illegal they can see or find without breaking into the car. They will try all kinds of tricks to get you to talk. Threats, lies, browbeating, etc. But if they arrest you for refusing to talk, it's their jobs that will be history not your liberty. 90% of the time suspects hang themselves by talking a little bit or trying to lie their way out of a problem. For example, dont' take them up on their offer to call a tow company for you ;-)

usmcski
June 12, 2006, 02:28 PM
In NC (If you have a CCW permit) it is required that you provide it along with your OL when stopped....before the Officer/Trooper/Deputy even asks.
If you do not have a CCW permit and the weapon is not in plain view you are in the wrong...carrying a concealed weapon...and can be locked up for it.

a couple things to remember...

1. If you got out of your vehicle when I stop you you will be instructed to get back in your vehicle....if you fail to immediately get back in you will most likely be looking at the businees end of my .45.

2. Dont show an attitude!!! Law enforcement officers are testing you from the minute they pull behind your vehicle.....99.9% of people I arrest or issue citations to do not pass what is commonly refered to as the "attitude test"

bruss01
June 12, 2006, 02:33 PM
As best as I can tell, if an LEO asks, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" you should not respond with a "yes" or "no" - you should simply not answer the question. I could be wrong, but I don't think the refusal to answer this question can be used as probable cause to search your vehicle.

Wasn't there a thread a few weeks ago where Jeff White revealed that you can't refuse to speak to an officer? That it's considered "obstruction of justice"? And that the first thing an officer is going to wonder is "what does this guy have to hide? Hmmm, maybe I need to ask more questions, squint a little harder... see what I can do to "crack" this nut... " And you sure as HELL better hope you're more than 999 feet from a school, even the one's you didn't know were there. Otherwise you just committed a federal "gun crime".

Catch 22 - reveal the gun and put yourself thru hell for the sake of "officer safety", lie about the gun and risk a charge for "lying to the authorities" if the gun is discovered, or refuse to answer and risk either "obstruction" charges or an involuntary search. You can't win any of these ways, so the path of least resistance and maximum safety is to simply lie and say NO. It's the least risk and most beneficial to both yourself and the officer. At least in CA, it seems to me. If the gun is discovered after I've said "no" to his question, I can always say "well, yes, we had it in here the last time we went to the range, officer, but my wife said she unloaded the car when we got home... I guess she forgot this one, and I didn't know it was here until just now." (assuming, of course, plausible deniability - i.e. the gun is in a locked container in the trunk, unloaded, and not hanging on your belt).

Other than going directly to the range and directly home from the range, I have been too afraid of the consequences of just such an encounter to carry a gun, fully 100% legally in compliance with all federal, state and local laws in the car. If I get a ccw I may be emboldened enough to keep one in a locked box, unloaded and separate from the ammo. I would still tell my "white lie" if pulled over and asked if I have a gun in the car. I hope that Jeff White and others will keep this fact in mind, that the insistence on "officer safety" to ridiculous lengths and leaving citizens no way to gracefully "not cooperate", instead of encouraging honesty, actually accomplishes the reverse, dishonesty and non-cooperation.

Cosmoline
June 12, 2006, 02:34 PM
Wasn't there a thread a few weeks ago where Jeff White revealed that you can't refuse to speak to an officer? That it's considered "obstruction of justice"?

Refusal to incriminate yourself is not obstruction of justice. I read about that in this thing called the Bill of Rights. But mind, LYING can be so don't try it.

If you do not have a CCW permit and the weapon is not in plain view you are in the wrong...carrying a concealed weapon...and can be locked up for it.

Yes, that's the law in many states. All the more reason to shut your pie hole if you're on the line or over it by having a firearm secured somewhere in your car out of sight. There's no heroism in going to prison over some stupid anti-gun law.

Of course, none of this applies when you are actually packing. Then you MUST tell the officer and if you don't the weapon will be found in a routine pat-down. There's typically no need for prob. cause to pat you down. Also keep in mind in many states and cities they can and will impound your car for paperwork issues (proof of insurance, lapsed registration, license issues), at which point they can usually search it to some extent to "ensure safety."

If you keep your trap shut and they cuff you and haul you off, you should call your lawyer before you do anything else. The first thing he'll tell you is to say nothing. When he finds out you didn't tell them bo diddly he'll give you a special smiley face sticker for being his very best boy.

Coronach
June 12, 2006, 02:40 PM
1. Are you a CCW permit holder, and are you carrying the gun?

If the answer is yes, failure to inform (note: 'inform', not 'wait until they ask me') is a crime. You will lose your CCW permit. Assuming you are driving your own vehicle, they will have your status as a CCW permit holder before they approach your vehicle. If not, they'll have it once the run your DL.

2. Assuming you're not a CCW permit holder, and are legally carrying a trunk gun, a gun home from the range, etc:

I would answer any questions honestly. "Do I have a gun? Yes, it is unloaded in the trunk." If he asks to see it, I, personally, would say "I do not give you consent to search my vehicle." This forces his hand. If he searches the vehicle without your consent, go along with the program. We're a nation of laws, not men; fighting The Law at the roadside gets you arrested and possibly hurt, fighting The Law in court gets you money, and goes a heck of a lot further towards curbing the State's excesses. Make note of what jurisdiction pulled you over, what officer pulled you over, the location and the time.

Depending on what lead up to you being pulled over, he very well might have probable cause to search your vehicle sans consent. If you drive a red 1995 Chevy Lumina and one was just involved in an armed robbery down the road, he has reasonable suspicion to pull you over, and if you fit the description of the robber, he has PC to search the car. I, personally, have pulled over literally dozens of vehicles over the years that looked like the right car but weren't. Sometimes you realize this upon approach, sometimes it takes a little longer to determine that you have an innocent 3rd party. Regrdless, resisting the detainment sure does not help you, and it also doesn't help the poh-leece catch the bad guy.

If the cop searches your vehicle, ask him to explain why, afterwards. You declined consent, so asking for his rationale is a perfectly reasonable question. If he's a good cop and he had a good reason for searching, he should be able to explain what was going on, hopefully to your satisfaction. Do with this information what you wish; accept it and move on, call his supervisor, call Internal Affairs, call a lawyer. All of those are legal options available to you, and each of them is a better option than either lying or resisting.

3. Assuming you're carrying a weapon illegally:

You're on your own, bud. Sorry.

Mike

Coronach
June 12, 2006, 02:53 PM
Yes, that's the law in many states. All the more reason to shut your pie hole if you're on the line or over it by having a firearm secured somewhere in your car out of sight.When the question "Is there a weapon in the car" is met with stony silence, that doesn't raise suspicions at all. :scrutiny: Dude, just tell the truth. You're not doing anything illegal (the caveat to this is to know the local law and know you're not doing anything illegal).There's no heroism in going to prison over some stupid anti-gun law.Agreed.None of this applies when you are actually packing. Then you MUST tell the officer and if you don't the weapon will be found in a routine pat-down.Especially in Ohio. We're still working through th test cases on the CCW law, too, so this is unfun for all involved. If you're packing in a car, have it holstered, on your person, in plain sight, and the first words out of your mouth should be, "Officer/Trooper, I am a CCW permit holder and I am carrying my weapon. How do you wish to proceed?"There's typically no need for prob. cause to pat you down.Reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed and that a weapon was involved.Also keep in mind in many states and cities they can and will impound your car for paperwork issues (proof of insurance, lapsed registration, license issues), at which point they can usually search it to some extent to "ensure safety."It's called an inventory, and it is actually done to make sure, once you get your vehicle back, that the $15,000 car stereo and $10,000 Rolex watch that you left in the vehicle were not "stolen". :rolleyes: Cops should note all valuables present in the vehicle (really valuable things might be placed in the property room for safekeeping, as this is safer than the impound lot), any damage to the vehicle, and anything obviously missing (stereo, etc) at time of impounding.

Mike

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 02:55 PM
Coronach:

So lets say I get pulled over for speeding. And other than that, I'm not breaking any laws whatsoever. Lets also assume I have a rifle in the trunk, and I am transporting it in a legal fashion.

Assume I respond as follows:

"Yes, I have a rifle in the trunk, and I am transporting it in a legal fashion. You do not have permission to search my vehicle."

Does this response give PC for the cop to search my vehicle?

Sawdust
June 12, 2006, 02:55 PM
1. Are you a CCW permit holder, and are you carrying the gun?

If the answer is yes, failure to inform (note: 'inform', not 'wait until they ask me') is a crime.

Again, this may be true in *your* state; however, this is not the case in California.

At least no one has ever been able to show me the section of the CA penal code where it is written that a CCW holder must inform.

Is it a good practice to inform? Yes, I would agree that it is good practice to inform...but not a legal obligation in California.

Sawdust

bruss01
June 12, 2006, 03:07 PM
If you get pulled over in CA, the officer already knows what handguns you own (registered ones, anyway) and if you have a CCW it's reasonable to believe he will know that before ever approaching your car. He's likely to assume that you have a gun, being that you own one or more, and especially likely if you have a CCW permit. Aren't computers wonderful?

Coronach
June 12, 2006, 03:09 PM
1. Are you a CCW permit holder, and are you carrying the gun?

If the answer is yes, failure to inform (note: 'inform', not 'wait until they ask me') is a crime.Again, this may be true in *your* state; however, this is not the case in California.

At least no one has ever been able to show me the section of the CA penal code where it is written that a CCW holder must inform.

Is it a good practice to inform? Yes, I would agree that it is good practice to inform...but not a legal obligation in California.The poster is in Ohio. I was answering the poster's question. ;)

Mike

Coronach
June 12, 2006, 03:23 PM
So lets say I get pulled over for speeding. And other than that, I'm not breaking any laws whatsoever. Lets also assume I have a rifle in the trunk, and I am transporting it in a legal fashion.

Assume I respond as follows:

"Yes, I have a rifle in the trunk, and I am transporting it in a legal fashion. You do not have permission to search my vehicle."

Does this response give PC for the cop to search my vehicle?No, with one word of caution; you don't know why you were pulled over. You assume it was for speeding. That's probably a safe assumption, but it is not always correct. Every innocent person I have pulled over in an investigatory stop (read: those in my example above) either assumed they had committed a traffic violation or had no idea why they were pulled over.

A refusal to consent to a search is never a reason to search a vehicle. Any cop that sends that up to a judge will lose that case, no questions asked. Now, can the admitted presence of a weapon in the vehicle, in conjunction with other facts (not necessarily known to you), add up to PC? Yes, it can. However, after the search the cop should be able to explain what those other facts were, when you asked him why he searched despite your decline of consent. If he refuses to explain or the explanaition does not meet with your satisfaction, ask to speak to his supervisor. If that doesn't work, try IA, or your lawyer.

As a street cop, I would prefer that you try a supervisor first. Some cops do the right thing but cannot explain coherently why they did what they did to laymen (ask any DA about that, they're fun on the stand- not). Supervisors can often translate from cop-speak to everyday english. Street cops are also often so lawsuit-wary that they think giving up as little info as possible is the way to avoid trouble, and supervisors usually have better sense about such things.

If that does not work, then by all means call IA or a lawyer.

Mike

cropcirclewalker
June 12, 2006, 03:36 PM
When the question "Is there a weapon in the car" is met with stony silence, that doesn't raise suspicions at all. Dude, just tell the truth. You're not doing anything illegal (the caveat to this is to know the local law and know you're not doing anything illegal). This is so way cool.

I gotta hand it to the guys that sheparded the return of some of our rights in MO.

In Missouri if you have a MO permit it is in their computer. But MO also accepts any license from any other state and and there is no duty to provide the license unless specifically asked for it. I have an out of state permit. Stony Silence. Yes.

Further, they legalized concealed carry in an auto without permission slip if you were old enough and were otherwise not prohibited from possession. Stony silence, yes.

I guess here in MO, we still have the right to remain silent.

edited for speeling.

wingnutx
June 12, 2006, 03:48 PM
In AZ I am obligated to tell the cop that I am licensed and packing.

Of course, some cities here already have that info in the computer that they run my plates on. Pretty soon they all will.

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 03:49 PM
Thanks for the advice, Coronach.

After reading all the posts, I have come to the conclusion that I should simply not answer the question. If the LEO finds this suspicious, so be it.

Mannlicher
June 12, 2006, 03:53 PM
In Florida, you are legally required to answer. You are also required to answer if the cop asks about your haveing a CCW license.
Even if it were not required, what benefit acrues to you if you lie to a cop during the time when he 'ownes' you? During a stop, the cops are VERY concerned with their own safety. They will always ere on the side that protects them. This is not a bad thing, and you just have to expect it. In your AO, it may be ok to keep silent, but it will NOT benefit you.

AirForceShooter
June 12, 2006, 03:58 PM
God Bless Florida.

AFS

EddieCoyle
June 12, 2006, 04:01 PM
If you're packing in a car, have it holstered, on your person, in plain sight, and the first words out of your mouth should be, "Officer/Trooper, I am a CCW permit holder and I am carrying my weapon. How do you wish to proceed?"

This is exactly what I did both times that I was pulled over while carrying.

We are not obligated to inform here in Mass. In fact, so few people have concealed carry permits that it probably does not occur to most police officers to even ask the question. I've been pulled over dozens of times through the years and was never asked whether or not there were guns in the car.

I let them know when I'm packing because the last thing I want to do is to surprise a guy with a gun.

Dolomite
June 12, 2006, 04:03 PM
"There is nothing illegal in the car, sir/ma'am"

(?)

Camp David
June 12, 2006, 04:13 PM
There has been consensus in this thread about not lying to officer if asked:"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"

Okay... what to say?

In my opinion: hand Driver's License to Officer, along with registration, when asked the question: "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" DO not specifically answer question. Ask him/her instead: "What was I pulled over for?"

If asked again, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" repeat your question in reponse..."What was I pulled over for?"

In my opinion, I see this as a lose/lose situation whatever you answer, so this is case where answering a question with a question is called for...

Interesting thread nonetheless

Mannlicher
June 12, 2006, 04:28 PM
Camp David
There has been consensus in this thread about not lying to officer if asked:"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"

Okay... what to say?

In my opinion: hand Driver's License to Officer, along with registration, when asked the question: "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" DO not specifically answer question. Ask him/her instead: "What was I pulled over for?"

If asked again, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" repeat your question in reponse..."What was I pulled over for?"

In my opinion, I see this as a lose/lose situation whatever you answer, so this is case where answering a question with a question is called for...

Interesting thread nonetheless

After the second time you refuse to answer, you will probably be on the ground, with your nose in the dirt, a knee in your back, and your wrists in cuff. THAT is a lose/lose situation my friend.

cropcirclewalker
June 12, 2006, 05:03 PM
Leo; "Do you have any "weapons" in the car?"

Me, "Officer, do I still have the right to remain silent?"

Decision tree. If not yes, go to no below.

YES
Officer, "Yes."
Me, "I assert my right to remain silent."
him, "alright, you may go." :eek:

NO
him, "No."
me, "Is it true that a leo may lie to a suspect to gain compliance or other results?"

Decision tree. If not yes, go to no below.

YES
him, "Yes."
Me, "are you lying now?"
him, "yes." or "no." (don't matter flow is the same)
me, "I assert my right to remain silent."
him, "alright, you may go." :eek:


NO
him, "No."
me, "Please call your superviser and I assert my right to remain silent."

Now, somebody log on to tell me that I might beat the rap, but I won't beat the ride.

Ha, I have already had the ride and I let them get away with it. THAT won't happen again. :p Cha Ching.

Camp David
June 12, 2006, 05:30 PM
After the second time you refuse to answer, you will probably be on the ground, with your nose in the dirt, a knee in your back, and your wrists in cuff. THAT is a lose/lose situation my friend.

Mannlicher=>

Perhaps! More than likely that would be probable result! But... I did not lie. More to the point, I asked a legitimate question in reponse to his and complied legally, handing officer my driver's license and registration. HE WOULD HAVE A TOUGH TIME making a case for a seach based solely on what I said (I asked a normal question).

You see, question posed, "Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" has severe consequences for any answer and I would refuse to play this game... If the officer decided to yank me out of car (which I suppose he could) he would be liable for quite a bit of responsibility on his part...

Again. I would not lie. Nor would I play the game of unanticipated consequences by attempting to answer question which, in my opinion, officer HAS NO RIGHT TO ASK. What if he asked, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PORNOGRAPHY IN VEHICLE?"...unanticipated consequences...

My only option is ask him a question. If that gets me "on the ground" well so be it... Hope this officer has a good lawyer....

Molon Labe
June 12, 2006, 05:58 PM
"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?" has severe consequences for any answer and I would refuse to play this game... Agree. In my opinion, the safest solution is to simply not answer the question.

in my opinion, officer HAS NO RIGHT TO ASKWell, to be fair, a cop is allowed to ask you anything. At the same time (and regardless of what Jeff White says) you have no legal obligation to answer any question.

Sinsaba
June 12, 2006, 06:19 PM
I obviously don't get it.

Police officers have one of the most dangerous jobs you could get. They are spat on, called names, looked down on, and for what? A pittance.

This individual, has for some reason found it desirable to stop you (odds are good it is your own fault). And all you all can think about is how to make his life more difficult?

I've heard here words to the effect "well he might be a JBT and I have to protect my rights". Isn't that the same kind of reasoning some use about gun control? "He might go nuts and start shooting people". *MIGHT* doesn't cut it does it?

Yes I know my rights. Yes there isn't a lot I have to tell him. How about cutting a person with a tough job a bit of slack.

If a police officer stops me (hasn't happened since I got my permit) he sees my hands on the steering wheel, gets my license and permit handed to him (he already knows I have a permit). If he asks me if I'm carrying I will tell him yes, tell him where, and ask him how he wants to proceed.

If he wants to search the car I *MIGHT* tell him that he does not have my permission and ask him why he wants to. If he satisfies me I'll let him.

Yes I don't have to. But if I'm not doing anything wrong why shouldn't I?

I can hear it now, what if he's bad, what if he plants something, .... Yes it is possible, but please, someone, give me hard facts. In this country, how many times do people get stopped during the course of a year? How many of those stops involve your ROGUE COP?

I do believe that I have a better chance of winning the lottery. Even then, I would say I had a chance for redress even if it did turn bad.

I'm done... as I said, I obviously don't get it.

Mannlicher
June 12, 2006, 06:26 PM
Camp David
My only option is ask him a question. If that gets me "on the ground" well so be it... Hope this officer has a good lawyer....

well, its your butt, thats for sure, and you seem intent on showing it. A cop has every right in the world to ask you anything he wants. Your response will go a long way towards determining how things go from there. He might indeed need a good lawyer, you might indeed, need a doctor. Right or wrong, folks can get killed messing around like that. You could well wind up 'dead right'. High price to pay for a misguided bit of bravado on your part.
I wish you well, and for my part, this bit of discourse is at an end.

Thefabulousfink
June 12, 2006, 06:37 PM
I live in a state where I am only required to inform the officer of my CHL if asked. My plates do not turn up that I am a CHL holder. Therefore, my general rule of thumb is that if I am not required to leave the car there is no need to bring firearms into the equation (if they are not visible). If the LEO asks me to step out of the car, I will first inform him of my CHL, then tell him where the gun(s) are.

If I am asked "do you have any firearms in the vehicle?" I think I will take Camp David's approach. I the LEO then asks me to step out of the vehicle, my rule goes into effect and I tell them about the guns.

While I know that most LEOs would like to know if there are guns in the car, why give them one more thing to worry about if there is no need? If I happen to have the misfortune to run into a nervous rookie or JBT, I would feel much better just having them write the ticket and leave than try and stumble through an "Armed Citzen" encounter.

Just my $.02

Koobuh
June 12, 2006, 07:40 PM
"Police officers have one of the most dangerous jobs you could get. They are spat on, called names, looked down on, and for what? A pittance."

Some do it out of a sense of duty, some out of a need for power. Which, is hard to tell on first glance.
I would as soon that police be willing to lay down their lives for the citizens subject to their power, rather than protect their own safety at the expense of our liberty.
I honestly don't CARE how tough a cop's job is. Their personal problems end at my rights and liberty.

That's idealism, of course.

Around here (rural WA), if a shurf deputy wants to know if I have guns in my car, I'll be honest. Fortunately I drive safely and keep my vehicle in working order, so I haven't had the opportunity to find out how it would go, yet. :o

Cosmoline
June 12, 2006, 07:54 PM
you have no legal obligation to answer any question.

Well be careful here. If you have a CCW part of your agreement with the state in most cases includes a positive legal obligation on your part to disclose your firearm to authorities. Failure to do so can be a crime and at least get you off the CCW list. Things get interesting when you consider whether or not a person who just murdered someone with his piece has a positive obligation to disclose the firearm's existence even though that's self incrimination. But that's one for the law reviews. If you're packing--TELL THE COP! Of course, a firearm stowed in the vehicle is another matter entirely.

Fire1
June 12, 2006, 08:29 PM
You guys need to think more like politicians. Don't "lie", but you don't really have to answer his question exactly. Somthing like:

Cop: "Do you have any guns in the car?"

Me: "I have nothing illegal in the car, sir."

By talking around the question, you have stuck to your "platform" (that you are doing nothing wrong, except for maybe the minor infraction that lead to the contact in the first place), not lied, and not given the cop anything to work with. How well do you think that would go?

v8fbird
June 12, 2006, 08:49 PM
Quote:
_________________________________________________________________
When the question "Is there a weapon in the car" is met with stony silence, that doesn't raise suspicions at all. Dude, just tell the truth. You're not doing anything illegal (the caveat to this is to know the local law and know you're not doing anything illegal).
_________________________________________________________________



It's probably pointless to argue with a cop, but my law firm does some work for a fairly well known second amendment group (providing legal advice and assistance). And I can tell you that whether or not you are obeying the law makes not one iota of difference.

I have seen quite a few examples of times where people have KNOWN the law, OBEYED the law (bad law though it is), and been arrested by LEO's who KNEW the person was obeying the law. And then these people have been charged by prosecutors who KNOW that no crime or "crime" was committed. It doesn't come down to what is legal and what is illegal. It comes down to what our rulers (and you, their jackbooted thugs) want the law to be. And the point is not to convict; the point is to harrass and to intimidate.

In most of these sorts of cases, innocent people are tied up in court for months facing vague charges like "misuse of a firearm," and end up spending tens of thousands of dollars they don't have defending themselves and clearing their name.

At that point, there isn't a whole lot of money left over to go after the cops and the state, chasing the relatively small odds that anything will come of a civil suit. So another peaceful person is out $50,000, and is thinking twice before again exercising his most innate, God given rights, scared that he will be persecuted by the "law."





If asked if there is a weapon in the car, the response should either involve telling the officer where to go and what to do to himself when he gets there (protected speech says the SC, but which probably just invites further violation of rights)...or it preferably should involve silence and the handing of a lawyer's card to the officer. There is absolutely NO justification for such a question unless the person is under arrest and, if that is the case, he shouldn't be answering ANY questions to begin with.

But I do think it is perfectly legal to lie to a state or local LEO, so long as not under oath or being questioned for a crime (and maybe even then). Lying to a federal official or officer, though, is a felony "crime" in these United States. (This is not legal advice, though.:) )

mp510
June 12, 2006, 09:56 PM
I once had an LEO friend tell me that when he is pulled over, and has a weapon with him, he tells the officer immediately (along with his LEO status), before being asked, to avoid any sort of confusion. If you are legal, you don't have anything to hide. Avoiding the question and/ or lying, are bound to be your downfalls, criminally or physically.

NukemJim
June 12, 2006, 10:02 PM
what if he's bad, what if he plants something, .... Yes it is possible, but please, someone, give me hard facts. In this country, how many times do people get stopped during the course of a year? How many of those stops involve your ROGUE COP?

I'm afraid that you have misstated the question. The question is not how many of these stops involve a "rouge cop". The question is how many "rouge cops" does it take to ruin your life.

Why don't we ask Dennis Fritz, Marion Coakley, WalterTyrone Snyder, Robert Miller, Glen Dale Woodall, Ron Williamson, Gary Dotson , Dennis Fritz, Tim Durham, Donald Reynolds, Marvin Mitchell, Dennis Williams etc......

Oh you do not recognize those names? All of the above were arrested, tried, convicted and then all were found to be INNOCENT . Not "Not Guilty" but rather innocent, as in proven not to have anything to do with the crime.

Oh and by the way just because the LEO is honest (as I believe the vast majority are) does NOT mean you are safe. Just better hope that the police do not employee people such as Pamela Fish, Michael West, Fred Salem Zain etc...

All of these Crime Lab people were proven to have lied and falsified evidence to convict innocent people.

Again I believe that the vast majority of cops and lab techs are honest.

IMHO a good example is the Police Officer training to treat every body as if they want to kill the officer. Only a very small percentage of people want to attack an officer, but the police still treat everyone that way. "Officer Safety" is the phrase I believe. So the police treat everyone as if they want to kill an officer for their own protection even though the vast majority of times it is a waste of time.

Guess what it is the same way for the honest citizen. Most cops are honest but it only take one to ruin your life even though the vast majority of LEOs are honest.

NukemJim

NukemJim
June 12, 2006, 10:08 PM
If you are legal, you don't have anything to hide.

Does that include the LEO who told me (and about 5 other people in the gunstore at the same time) that he did not care what the state law was ( Illinois) that if he found anyone with a gun in the passenger compartment of the vehicle loaded or unloaded that he would arrest them and "let the judge sort it out".

This was afterhe was done reading a brochure from the Ill State Police outlining the new law about transporting firearms and specificly stating that carrying the gun in the passenger compartment was legal as long as it was unloaded and properly cased. :confused:

NukemJim

mindwip
June 12, 2006, 10:14 PM
IF a cop ask are there weapons in the car. Just ask why he is pulling you over. or dont answer the question at all. If its after you got your ticket then ask if you can leave, cops can not hold you if there is no cause. Yes i know they can find reasons, but it still needs to hold up in court.


Trust me this works, but it will piss off the cop that you said no you cant search my car, or ignored all of his questions. ITs worked for me, cops around here dont like people saying no to them, put its none of there business what i am doing-as long as it legal.




2. Dont show an attitude!!! Law enforcement officers are testing you from the minute they pull behind your vehicle.....99.9% of people I arrest or issue citations to do not pass what is commonly refered to as the "attitude test"

jezz if that many poeple fail how do you pass

Hawkmoon
June 12, 2006, 10:14 PM
1. Are you a CCW permit holder, and are you carrying the gun?

If the answer is yes, failure to inform (note: 'inform', not 'wait until they ask me') is a crime. You will lose your CCW permit. Assuming you are driving your own vehicle, they will have your status as a CCW permit holder before they approach your vehicle. If not, they'll have it once the run your DL.
Not universally true. This is true only for states that have a duty to inform in statute. NOT all states make this a requirement.

Once again, as for so many of this type of question ... there is NO SUBSTITUTE for reading and understanding YOUR state's laws (and the laws of any states through which you may be traveling). If you don't understand what the law says -- ask an attorney who practices in that state, don't expect to get competent legal advice from the Internet.

Don Gwinn
June 12, 2006, 10:41 PM
When he says 99.9% of those he cites failed the attitude test, that means that percentage of the people who got tickets, not that percentage of the people he pulls over. The people who passed the test are by and large not included in that number because they mostly didn't get cited--they were allowed to go on their way.

The statement implies that only .1% of those who got citations were people with good attitudes.

mindwip
June 12, 2006, 10:46 PM
OOOOOO I get it:o

I am always nice to a cop up to the point were they lie to me, if they do, after that i dont care if i am spending the night in jail- or get a ticket. Maybe thats why i did not get that "speeding ticket" when i had a good reason for it and was nice.

JTMcC
June 12, 2006, 11:01 PM
usmcski,

You are the law abiding, gun owning, American citizens worse nightmare.
I get out of my vehicle and I'll be looking down the "business end" of your .45?????
My "attitude" gets me a ticket?????
I thought that voilation of the law got me a ticket. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
You my man would have thrived, and prospered in 1930's thru mid 1940's Germany.
Post's like yours are a great educational service to Americans who have yet to encounter your kind.

JTMcC.

'Card
June 12, 2006, 11:39 PM
"Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?
"Sure, officer. What do you need?" :cool:

In all seriousness, though - do you guys come up with these kinds of hypothetical situations just so you'll be able to exert your abundant righteous indignation and come to a conclusion that will reinforce your preconcieved notions?

Due to a lead foot, a nice stereo system, and a job that requires a lot of driving, I've earned myself a depressingly large collection of what I lovingly refer to as High Speed Driving Awards, and I've only been ticketed about half of the times when I've been stopped. The point being that I've been stopped a lot. I even got stopped once because my vehicle was the same make, model and color as one that had been reported as running a load of drugs up I-95 to New York.

Not once - not one single solitary time, have I ever been asked if I had firearms in the vehicle. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying that coming on here and getting yourself worked into a lather about something so painfully uncommon borders on the ridiculous. There's an ample amount of real, genuine, legitimate things in the world for you to get pissed off about. You don't need to make up imaginary situations and then use them as evidence to bolster your beliefs.

gezzer
June 13, 2006, 12:34 AM
After the second time you refuse to answer, you will probably be on the ground, with your nose in the dirt, a knee in your back, and your wrists in cuff. THAT is a lose/lose situation my friend.


And then you will hit the lottery!! Frigging JBT

slzy
June 13, 2006, 12:46 AM
by no means am i saying don't prepare for such a situation. but i have been stopped at least 5 times [only 1 resulting in a ticket],and the officer never asked me if i had a weapon in the vehicle.

heypete
June 13, 2006, 01:09 AM
Here in california, the correct response is always No. If you say you do have a weapon in the vehicle, you will be sitting for about 1/2 of an hour minimum, while they run every single serial number, you may be handcuffed and sat at the side of the road. and from my experiance, the police typically do not treat your firearms with any respect whatsoever. I've had to lay them in the dirt, and I've been prevented from wiping them down with oil or cleaning them before putting them away in their cases etc.

My experience differs significantly from your own.

When I was driving a hatchback car and had a soft-cased Kel-Tec SU-16B in the back, I was stopped at a DUI checkpoint one evening with one of my friends. We had gone shooting earlier in the day, put the rifle in the back of the car, drove to his house, cleaned it, and were going out to get food prior to me going back to my house and putting the gun in the safe.

Evidently the police officer recognized that I was not intoxicated (it was about 2am, I was polite, 23 years of age, wearing a t-shirt and jeans, and had not had anything to drink for several weeks), but was curious what was in the case in the back. I pleasantly remarked that it was a Kel-Tec SU-16B. We talked guns for a moment, he asked how I liked it, I inquired about his duty weapon (Sig .40 of some type, I don't recall the exact model...P229 perhaps?), and I was bid good night.

This was in the bar/club area (about a three-block stretch near the train tracks) of a relatively middle-upper-class San Francisco suburb. CCWs are essentially unheard of, and there's a small but not-very-vocal-or-obvious gun owning population (very much below the national average, I believe). A twentysomething with an EBR would likely raise some eyebrows, yet I was not asked to leave the vehicle, and was stopped only as long as necessary for the car ahead of me to be allowed to pass.

While I may disagree with the concept of a DUI checkpoint, I do not feel that my rights (Second Amendment or otherwise) were infringed at all. I was mildly inconvienienced by the delay, but I would hardly consider it a violation of my rights.

Soybomb
June 13, 2006, 01:32 AM
So assuming we're not talking about concealed carry, whats the problem with lying and saying no? If they have pc to search your car for some other reason I could see it being a pain for you. Short of that though you say no and they either go about their business or decide to search your car, find nothing but legal guns, and you have them on a questionable search.

I have no idea what I'd do because I've never been asked such a question. "I'm sorry I don't think thats relevant" would help speed things along much either...

sumpnz
June 13, 2006, 01:45 AM
In AZ I am obligated to tell the cop that I am licensed and packing.
Not correct.

Must inform Law Enforcement when Carrying
Date updated: Sep 26, 2005 @ 4:02 pm

Arizona has no statutory requirement to inform a law enforcement officer that you are carrying; common sense may dictate otherwise. However, you must present your permit on request (ARS 13-3112.D). A person who fails to present a permit for inspection on the request of a law enforcement officer is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

evan price
June 13, 2006, 01:48 AM
In the many years and many miles I spent behind the wheel so far I havfe collected and paid my share of excessive speed permit fees...and been introduced to the nicest men by the side of the road!
To date, never been asked about guns in car. Even when I had one. That was before my state's (OHIO) CCW law which repealed the affirmative defense.
Since I got my legal in state CFL I have yet to be pulled over and tested attitudes.
However, if I was legal (And I don't mess with drugs or that silliness) and had a cased rifle or something in the back.. I Would say, "There is an unloaded rifle cased in the trunk."
Why prolong the agony beside the road? I have been able to get out of citations in municipalities that are legendary for writing citations, simply by being friendly, polite, and honest to the LEO beside the road. Every ticket I have gotten I have deserved. Much as I b*tch about them they were my fault.

If you remember ONE thing from this thread, let it be this:
Nearly every jurisdiction uses live video and audio recording equipment to detail the events at your stop. What would that tape of your interaction with that LEO look like played back to a jury, no matter how "right" you were, no matter how "wrong" you were? Come across like an @sshat and you will be treated like an @sshat.. no matter right or wrong.

Remember the Florida case, the Miami-Dade police Major Aaron Cambell that got pulled over by the Orange County deputies and wound up in a major fight by the side of the road? Turns out the deputies were not only wrong in asserting his license plate was blocked by the trailer hitch on his bumper, they had already been warned by a judge several times that this excuse was unacceptable.

roo_ster
June 13, 2006, 02:21 AM
Nearly every jurisdiction uses live video and audio recording equipment to detail the events at your stop. What would that tape of your interaction with that LEO look like played back to a jury, no matter how "right" you were, no matter how "wrong" you were?
I had a buddy cited for speeding a while back who fought the ticket, jury trial & everything.

The prosecution produced video & audio. The audio was odd in that it only caught my buddy getting steamed and not one word of Officer Friendly's nasty replies. Seems OF was fiddling with the mike when it was convenient.

Long story short, my buddy triumphed due to OF's flat out lying that was contradicted by the dash mounted video. OF got a good chewing by the judge & the prosecutor took his toys & went home, since his case imploded.

thereisnospoon
June 13, 2006, 06:05 AM
I always answer the question with a question:

"Of course, what caliber you need?"

Erebus
June 13, 2006, 09:54 AM
I don't remember ever getting pulled over here in the people's republic of massachusetts and not being asked if I had any weapons in the car. I would not want to have to explain in court why I had one or more guns in the car after telling the LEO that I didn't. No matter what your reason it won't score points with a judge or jury. If your car happens to match the description of one they are looking for. I have heard on my scanner where they are stopping all "white cars" because that is the best description they could get from a witness.

If everything in your car is legal why risk creating a problem for yourself?

Oh and I don't know aboout the whole state. but if your gun/s are confiscated in the city I am in they have no room for gun storage. So after a day or two they are sent to a climate controlled storage facility in Norwood Ma. the bill for the storage is $25 per gun, per day. How long before it isn't worth getting them back?

dev_null
June 13, 2006, 11:21 AM
I think the funniest -- and IIRC I mentioned it here at the time -- was the time a Loudoun County VA deputy asked me if I had anything in the car that would hurt him. WTFO? I suppressed the wrong but immediate response of "Yeah, me" and just said in a bewildered voice, "Like what?"

I like when they ask if I have any weapons. Hell, this Bic pen is a weapon! OTOH, the laws aren't much better: the sign on the P.O. says "no firearms or dangerous weapons." Guess what, Binky! If it isn't dangerous, it's not much use as a weapon, is it! And is this Victorinox a dangerous or a non-dangerous weapon? Sheesh.

glummer
June 13, 2006, 03:23 PM
:confused: One thing I don't get about this (LEO's, help if you can) -

WHY would an officer ask this question, in the 1st place?

(other than to create a problem for the driver, as some CA posters have suggested.)

What use is it? :confused:

If the driver IS 'armed and dangerous', I don't see where asking him about it makes you any safer - it might just set him off, if he thinks you're onto him.

If he's NOT 'armed & dangerous', why bother? :confused:

sigman4rt
June 13, 2006, 04:18 PM
Very interesting thread. Makes me think back to when I got stopped for speeding a couple months ago. First thing I was asked was "Do you have any firearms in the vehicle." As I was handing the guy my DL, POI, and CCW. I kinda looked at him a little embarrased like and said "Well yeah, I got a coupla FAL's in the back, an AR-15 and a Mossberg 500 under the blanket on the back seat, a Glock in the glove box, a smith M-19 in the center console and I'm carrying a Sig on my person. I also have ammo for them in the back, as I'm going to the range to shoot. He looked a bit stunned as he went to radio in my info. About five minutes later he was back with my paperwork and was so impressed with me he wanted my autograph as a keepsake(the speeding ticket). I was brought of to tell the truth as best I knew it and it has served me well over the years. Treat others (including police) as you would be treated. Be nice, always be nice, until it's time to not be nice.

gopguy
June 13, 2006, 04:23 PM
You are under the law obligated to tell them the truth. However if they wish to search your vehicle's trunk you can require they get a warrant. We both live in Ohio and as one of the folks who helped get our CCW law done in 2204, I can tell if you if have your CCW license, if you get pulled over the first words out of your mouth need to be "Officer I am an Ohio CCW license holder" The second sentence is to tell him if you are carrying a weapon or not. Even if you are not carrying always tell them, otherwise with the leads check they will know if you have your license or not.

As far as keeping a gun in the car. As a CCW licensee I always travel with a pistol. Ohio law does not allow you to carry a rifle in your car,even in the trunk with loaded magazines. Even if they are not in the gun. However it is legal to have stripper clips. So my trunk gun is a Yugo SKS with about 250 rounds of 7.62X39mm ammo on stripper clips in there in an ammo can. Heaven forbid I ever need it but it is there if I need more than my pistol. Heaven forbid I need that either.....

Molon Labe
June 13, 2006, 06:39 PM
Ohio law does not allow you to carry a rifle in your car,even in the trunk with loaded magazines. Even if they are not in the gun.gopguy:

Are you saying I can't have an unloaded rifle and a loaded magazine in a vehicle?? :confused: I've never heard of this before. Cite?

I checked the ORC and couldn't find anything about it.

Who decided unloaded firearm + loaded magazines = loaded firearm??

MBane666
June 13, 2006, 06:45 PM
Got stopped in Boulder County (CO) on the way home one night late last year. Had been swimming at the gym, then gone for a run, then to a Tex-Mex restaurant to hang with friends, so for once I actually DIDN'T have a gun with me.

He said, "Gun?" I said, "No."

For the next two hours I put up with his shenanigans...I got hauled out of the car...did eight (count 'em!) roadside soriety tests...assumed the position while he waited for "back-up"...got threatend with arrest, a "long trip" to jail, etc...did more roadside sobriety tests for the back-ups (one of whom finally shouted at my sheriff's deputy, "Cut him loose, you a$%hole! He's not drunk!"

Mostly he demanded to know why I was lying to him about the gun. I said I had a permit and wasn't impaired in any way, so if I had a gun in the car — which in Colorado is legal with or without a permit — why would I lie?

Finally a boss showed up, so there were three police cars blocking the highway and yours truly, plus my Sweetie in the passenger seat who was "covered" by one of the back-up boys. My Vince Macky wannabe goes and talks to the boss, then comes back and asks me if I was willing to blow in the tube and then swear I didn't have a gun on me. Bring it, I said with a big happy smile.

So I blew in the tube, then got the whole package again..."I could arrest you right now"...blah blah. I just kept asking what I blew. He finally showed me...WAY below BOTH Colorado standards (felony intoxication and misdomenor impaired). "I could arrest you right now," he said. I urged him to do so, as it was getting late. The back-up guys started laughing again, and he got all red in the face like he was going to pop. I figured I was getting a ride downtown and a beating. "That you're wife in the car?" he asked, "She's going to be pretty damned embarrassed, isn't she."

My Sweetie is a lawyer, and I'd "retained" her when the bubblegums went off. I finally almost lost my temper..."That's my attorney," I snapped, "and the end of your career in law enforcement!"

"Get the f^&% out of here, you a%^hole!" And he turned around and walked back to his cruiser.

Your tax dollars at work! Had a smoother outcome when I got pegged for speeding in Ding-Dong Kansas last year on the way back to the airport — trooper came back, handed me my ticket and said, "Sorry we had to meet this way, Mr. Bane. I really like your show."

Michael B

AJAX22
June 14, 2006, 12:16 AM
The single most memorable encounter with law enforcement I've ever had was a few years back.

My friend and I were out shooting on private property up in the hills at a popular offroading spot. we each had a small pistol and a .22 bolt action rifle. his was a mkI ruger pistol and a remmington targetmaster rifle. Mine was a sears and roebuck cheapo and an astra .32 acp.

We had a fun full day of plinking, and towards the end we decided to do some rappid fire with the pistols.

Apparently some ignorant woman in an SUV was offroading down the mountain a ways from us (behind us, and well out of any concevible field of fire, we were very safe) and mistook our rapid fire of our small handguns as a machine gun burst.

As we sat around trying to hit the bottle we had placed 200 yards away on a fencepost we noticed first one, and then three highway patroll cars show up.

We could see the parking area several hundered yards down the mountain, but because we were sitting on a pile of rocks tucked into the side of a small portrusion on the hill we were invisible to the officers below.

Since we were the only ones at the site, we assumed they were paying us a visit. so we proceded to pull the bolts out of our rifles, unload our magazines, and pack up for a trip down the mountain.

We held our guns by the barrels, arms out to our sides on the way down making slow easy movements. and we were a third of the way back to them by the time the bullhorn sounded.

Three officers armed with ar15's were crouched behind their doors pointing their weapons center mass on the two of us.

they made us lay our weapons down in the dirt, then partially undress to illustrate that we had no more guns on us. first my friend, then myself had to do the little dance.

At which point the lead oficer asked me "Do you have any more weapons on you?"

Frantically trying to remember if I had a pocketknife, or screwdriver, or carabiner which could be used as brass knuckles in my pocket, I was forced to admit that I did not know exactly what the contents of my pockets were after a days shooting.

I shrugged my shoulders and straightfaced said "Mabye"

In hindsight it wasn't the best answer I could have given, but the look on the faces of the oficers was priceless.

I didn't see the humor in it at the time, My attention was held very firmly by the three floating black holes which were suddenly re-aligned with my forehead. But according to my buddy it was hillarious.

To bring this back to the thread at hand, based on my experiance vauge answers are really not in your best interest and don't inspire alot of comfort for the law enforcement personell. And in my opinion, you want to make the guy with the gun very comfortable.

KenW.
June 14, 2006, 12:36 AM
As an officer I'll ask as point of officer safety. If the person refuses to answer I get HYPER vigilant. Ask the driver to leave his hands on the top of the wheel, etc. If a check shows a CCW, I ask if he has the gun with him, and caution him to not make any move toward the gun, or any move that I may consider a threat. Then we can finish our business.

The permit holders aren't the ones that scare me.

gopguy
June 14, 2006, 09:21 AM
Ohio law
Quote:
Ohio law does not allow you to carry a rifle in your car,even in the trunk with loaded magazines. Even if they are not in the gun.
gopguy:

Are you saying I can't have an unloaded rifle and a loaded magazine in a vehicle?? I've never heard of this before. Cite?

I checked the ORC and couldn't find anything about it.

Who decided unloaded firearm + loaded magazines = loaded firearm??

It is not in the Ohio revised code. It is a policy of the Ohio Department Natural Resources. We had a guy cited by the game warden several years ago when he arrived at the rifle range and the game warden observed him pulling a loaded magazine from a range bag to load his rifle. The charge and fine stuck. That is how I learned of it.

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 01:10 PM
Quote from Leadcounsel:
"Never offer consent. That makes LEOs job easier and you lose defenses in court if it ever goes to court. Always make them justify their stop, their search, and their seizures."



As legal advice for winning in court (if you live long enough to make it to court) this statement makes sense.

However, if the goal is to avoid getting beaten severely or avoid being shot two or three times it is probably more prudent to simply plead for your life while curled up in a fetal position, immediately upon seeing the lights come into view in your mirror.

Nobody within our Judicial System or Law Enforcement community that I know of truly believes in the concept of Constitutional Rights. And the last person I am convinced, who cares a whit about the Constitional Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures would be law enforcement personnel.

There is a very valid reason I say this. I once had occasion to speak with an Assistant Police Chief of a major Texas city, during a discussion based soley on the role of Police Officers, in which he claimed not to be certain what the 2nd Amendment said. (Keep in mind, an Assitant Chief of Police)

He justified not knowing by stating verbatim "...I am not a Constitutional Scholar" and therefore he said he couldn't really offer an opinion on how the 2nd Amendment should affect an LEO in their daily approach to law enforcement." This discussion took place on the air, on a radio call in program dealing soley with police matters in that city.

So since that statement came from an officer fairly high up in the "LEO Community" it makes me think everyday LEO's probably don't spend a lot of time concerned with Constitutional details such as the Bill of Rights.

I saw where Art Eatman wrote in this thread that he gets out of the car on a traffic stop.

Then I saw a response from an LEO advising him "Please don't do that. You sound like a nice guy" which indicates to me that this officer felt Art may come to some type of harm for the simple act of getting out of his car during a traffic stop. That is Art's Constitutional Right also, but the LEO who wrote the response seems to feel not many LEO's think excercizing your rights are good for your health during traffic stops.

On "Cops" three nights ago, I saw a black guy try that same "trick" and the cop immediately hollored "Don't jump out on me like that!"

The guy did not "jump out", he slowly exited the car while clearly showing his hands were empty and did so in a clearly respectful manner. He was attempting to show this officer that he was being both attentive and cooperative with the him.

The guy had done nothing more than get out of the car and ask the cop what he wanted him to do next. Instead of proceeding to write a ticket, the cop kept up his rant about not liking it when people "jump out on him like you did" and proceeded to tell the "suspect" how much experience the cop had working the streets, keeping it free of drugs.

The guy was not in any way argumentative, and he was responding "Yes Sir" this, and "No Sir" that. But I could see no apparant reason Constitutinally for him to do anything other than write him a ticket.

In fact, since he never once bothered to answer the man why he had been pulled over I don't truly think anyone would reasonably say his traffic stop was Constitutional either, but the guy still winds up going to jail.

In the course of the "traffic stop" while the camera was not on the officer or on the "suspect" or the "suspected passanger" some drugs were supposedly found on the ground on the passanger side interestingly enough, AT THE EXACT MOMENT the cameraman pans the camera, and the cmaera lights away from where this officer was being filmed.

To me, it seems it would take a moment for a man's eyes to adjust from bright T.V. camera lights to total darkness, to be able to immediately locate a small bag of dope in (now pitch black) dark without the benefit of a flashlight.

But this officer's eyes apparantly adjusted immediately after the camera and lights moved away, and what do you know, VOILA! Ther is a bag of drugs right here on the ground!

So had this guy attempted to "make the officer justify his stop" I don't believe he would have had a very pleasant time after he attempted to tell this cop much of anyting. He asked why he was stopped, received no answer, but did instead received a lecture about how proficient the cop was at keeping drugs off the street.

And due to the fact we don't have a 5th Amendment right any longer (since refusing to answer any and all questions will get you arrested and charged with a number of things, and saying the wrong thing is met with charges of "resisting", the very last thing one needs to do (in my laymans opinion) is attempt to "make an LEO justify" anything.

Mark13
June 14, 2006, 02:06 PM
I've never been asked this question, but then I don't get pulled over much. If I was pulled over in Florida I wouldn't hesitate to answer truthfully. Florida encourages gun ownership, and having guns in your vehicle, through lenient firearms laws(compares to some of our peoples republics).

I think the answer comes down to the attitude of your states law enforcement officers. If I thought I was going to be hassled for having a firearm, I wouldn't hesitate to lie about it.

Q-Lock
June 14, 2006, 02:25 PM
Tim:

So are you saying that in order to be completely legal in Ohio while transporting firearms to/from the range, the firearm's magazines must be empty as well...even if it is in a separate case from the firearm?

Basically, one has the firearms and magazines separated (of course) in the trunk, but also the magazines and the ammunition must be separated as well?

Am I following you correctly on this? Does this only affect rifles?

Rifle in one case, magazines in another case, ammunition in another case...and then the Ohio Department Natural Resources and the Ohio Revised Code will have been properly obeyed.

Hopefully I've followed this correctly.

Good thread Michael, it answered some questions.

yorick
June 14, 2006, 03:13 PM
I've been asked about weapons when pulled over.

As far as I can recall it's always been worded to include the word "illegal" as in "Do you have any illegal weapons or drugs in your vehical?"

First time I got the question it was rental car and of course it had nothing at all in it...

I looked at him oddly, chuckled and just said nope!

Once time when I did 'dodge' the issue - it was worded "Is there anything I should know about in your vehical?"

I look at him like it was a silly question and asked,

"What do you mean?" (I did have a legally cased and transported FAL & ammo - but IMHO he doesn't have any reason to know about it)

He actually almost looked embarassed as he said,

"You know - illegal drugs or weapons...."

I casually chuckled and said,

"Nah - none of that" and he proceeded to the ticketing process....

Evasive answers can presented in a casual manner to put the occifer at ease and expidite me being on my way. No reason to get confrontational - nor is there any obligation to actually answer the question (CCW in some states may be different of course)


A lot can be accomplished by being casual and impersonating a confused-not-too-bright-sheeple while avoiding or not really answering the question....

Gordon Fink
June 14, 2006, 04:30 PM
As far as I can recall it’s always been worded to include the word “illegal” as in “Do you have any illegal weapons or drugs in your vehical?”

Yorick has hit upon the correct way to answer this question, I think.

Fishing Officer: Do you have firearms in the vehicle?

Law-Abiding Motorist: No. There are no illegal guns in my car.

Agree? Disagree?

~G. Fink

Nick1911
June 14, 2006, 05:00 PM
Law-Abiding Motorist: No. There are no illegal guns in my car.

I wouldn't say no, because you are saying that in anwser to his question. I would say:

Law-Abiding Motorist: There are no illegal guns in my car.

Gordon Fink
June 14, 2006, 05:11 PM
The no follows with the assumption of “illegal” guns. What possible reason could an officer have for asking about legal items?

~G. Fink

AJAX22
June 14, 2006, 05:12 PM
Here in the peoples republic of california a loaded magazine or speedloader for either a rifle or pistol constitutes a loaded firearm.

It doesn't matter how it is locked or stored, you aren't allowed to transport loaded magazines.

Thats what I know to be a fact,

I've heard speculation that a loaded magazine can be construed as a loaded firearm for legal purpouses here in california regardless of wether or not there is an actual firearm present. The loaded magazine shows intent to transport a loaded firearm and as such can be prosecuted.

they really don't like guns out here.

I knew a guy who was arrested for shoplifting with exactly one round of ammunition in his pocket. I know it was only one round because I gave it to him the day before, he had never seen a .38 super cartridge so I handed him one for his collection.

Of all the dumb stuff that guy pulled, he got the longest talking to by the judge trying to get him to justify and explain that single round of ammunition.

I no longer associate with that guy btw. He was nice enough, but his views on social responsibility and private property were subject to his convenience.

Gordon Fink
June 14, 2006, 05:15 PM
Not correct, but that doesn’t mean you won’t get arrested.

~G. Fink

gezzer
June 14, 2006, 06:59 PM
If a check shows a CCW, I ask if he has the gun with him, and caution him to not make any move toward the gun, or any move that I may consider a threat. Then we can finish our business.

The permit holders aren't the ones that scare me.


Then why bust his butt about it with the extra warning? The new breed of law enforcement must be a bunch of pansy’s when they treat a permit holder like a Felon.

The guy with a permit is not your enemey; in fact he is on your side most of the time until treated like a felon by seriously respect lacking officers who have to show their authority in the new to concealed carry state.

Am I glad I am retired out of Law enforcement now as these guys make the rest of us look bad

mindwip
June 14, 2006, 07:32 PM
, "Sorry we had to meet this way, Mr. Bane. I really like your show."

LOL

bowline
June 15, 2006, 11:51 AM
Chesapeake, Virginia.
Pulled for a bad tail light. Officer Friendly sees the USGI ammo can in the passenger side floorboard (my toolbox). Asks if I have any guns in the car - "No, officer."
Step out of the vehicle, do the sobriety tests, blow in the tube (all negative) and every three minutes I get asked if I have any firearms in the vehicle. After ten minutes of this, the backups arrive. I'm getting pretty P.O,'d myself, but manage to keep it polite. Officer requests to search the vehicle, I tell him no. I get to do some more sobriety tests. Officer Friendly then determines that, even though I pass the sobriety and breathalyzer tests, that I'm "too intoxicated to drive".
Wants to know if I'd like my vehicle towed, I decline. "I live a block away, I'll walk home". We're on a side street, several vehicles are parked along the street, but Officer Friendly states that I can't leave my vehicle there. He speaks to another officer, who drives my truck less than 100 feet and parks. I can SEE the officer searching the vehicle.
Officer comes back, hands me my keys. Officers leave, apparently unconcerned that I might get back in my vehicle.
Elapsed time about 40 minutes.
I've learned several things from this;
If I am pulled and can at all manage it, I'll park in a designated parking spot. If told to exit the vehicle, lock it and pocket the keys.
If the officer mentions anything other than a traffic citation, I will immediately ask that he contact a supervisor.
Police officers are not necessarily honest.

An officer who says that I musn't break the law even though I have a legitimate concern for my safety, and then claims he has a right to break the law because of a legitimate concern for his safety, seriously needs to examine his principles.
Having a badge will get my attention, but not my respect, and certainly not any trust.

Creeping Incrementalism
June 15, 2006, 02:53 PM
Got stopped in Boulder County (CO) on the way home one night late last year. Had been swimming at the gym, then gone for a run, then to a Tex-Mex restaurant to hang with friends, so for once I actually DIDN'T have a gun with me.

He said, "Gun?" I said, "No."

For the next two hours I put up with his shenanigans...I got hauled out of the car...did eight (count 'em!) roadside soriety tests...assumed the position while he waited for "back-up"...

Why would the cop give you such a hard time to begin with? Did you have any alocholic drinks at the Mexican restaurant?

Here in the peoples republic of california a loaded magazine or speedloader for either a rifle or pistol constitutes a loaded firearm.

It doesn't matter how it is locked or stored, you aren't allowed to transport loaded magazines.

Thats what I know to be a fact,

Technically incorrect, as the code says the definition of loaded is having the ammunition "attached" to the firearm. Though, I'm not even pretending to say the police and courts don't go beyond the law to deprive us of our rights in California.

Gordon Fink
As far as I can recall it’s always been worded to include the word “illegal” as in “Do you have any illegal weapons or drugs in your vehical?”


Yorick has hit upon the correct way to answer this question, I think.

Fishing Officer: Do you have firearms in the vehicle?

Law-Abiding Motorist: No. There are no illegal guns in my car.

Agree? Disagree?

~G. Fink

I think that's the best approach, because as long as there is nothing that shouts "gunowner" to the cop, the main thing he will probably have in mind is drugs/alcohol, so you will probably be fine saying "nothing illegal". Ben Cannon/artherd says he has used this successfully before.

AJAX22
June 15, 2006, 03:22 PM
For legal purpouses a magazine or speedloader is considered to be part of the firearm.

so a loaded magazine is ammunition attached to a firearm.

I can't point you to the exact court decision which put that interperatation into law. But Its come up a few times along the side of the road while the cops rummage through the car.

And this wasn't during transport, just during some plinking when the cops decided to run the numbers on the guns.

A gun is only unloaded if the magazines are compleatly empty, it has to do with the ease of enabaling the weapon to fire.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue technicalitys, just don't do it, you will get busted for it, the guns will get taken away, you'll have to fight in court to get them back, they won't properly maintain/lube/store the guns while they have them, and at times, if they don't like you, they will purpously damage them.

Police officers are not bad people, but there are some definite anti gun biased officers around here in california. Usually the highway patroll are more tollerant than the city cops, but even then there are occasions where the officers act in unreasonable manners in an attempt to criminalize the activities of people who have guns.

pdowg881
June 15, 2006, 05:34 PM
So if you respons that you have an unloaded rifle in the trunk(legally stored and owned etc.) does this give him cuase for a search? If he says may I see the rifle, do you have the right to refuse.

Sawdust
June 15, 2006, 06:34 PM
Ajax22, will you STOP posting erroneous information?:fire:

You don't have any idea of what you are talking about in this thread.

First, you try to tell us that, by law, a CCW holder in California must inform a law enforcement officer that he/she is licensed and carrying. This is false, and I challenged you on that post and you have failed to provide proof of your assertion. And you haven't deleted your post.

And proof means Section of Penal Code. Not what your cousin's boyfriend's uncle told you or some cop on the side of the road.

Now, you say: "Here in the peoples republic of california a loaded magazine or speedloader for either a rifle or pistol constitutes a loaded firearm.

It doesn't matter how it is locked or stored, you aren't allowed to transport loaded magazines.

Thats what I know to be a fact"

Uh-huh. Wrong again. But I'll give you one more chance. Please provide proof which supports your assertions.:scrutiny:

You need to spend some serious time studying the relevant firearm sections of the CA Penal Code before you post anything regarding CA firearm laws again.

Sawdust

Thefabulousfink
June 15, 2006, 06:50 PM
Here is what I found for CA on Packing.org (updated 7-29-05)
http://www.packing.org/state/california/#statecar_law
Penal Code 12001

(j) For purposes of Section 12023, a firearm shall be deemed to be "loaded" whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.
Penal Code 12023

(a)Every person who carries a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony is guilty of armed criminal action.
(b) Armed criminal action is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison.
Penal Code 12025.

(a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
Penal Code 12026.1.

(a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment. (2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.
Penal Code 12030

(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.
Penal Code 12031.

(a)(1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
Penal Code 12034.

(a) It is a misdemeanor for a driver of any motor vehicle or the owner of any motor vehicle, whether or not the owner of the vehicle is occupying the vehicle, knowingly to permit any other person to carry into or bring into the vehicle a firearm in violation of Section 12031 of this code or Section 2006 of the Fish and Game Code.


It doesn't mention anything about loaded mags or speedloaders, however, I would be concerned about what could be termed "immediate possession".

308win
June 15, 2006, 07:15 PM
I would not lie about it. But it would appear that I would not be breaking any law if I simply refused to answer the question.

From the Ohio Attorney General's web site re officer notification (http://www.ag.state.oh.us/faq.asp?cat=ccw)if you have a CCW and are carrying.

Text of above cite: Yes, if you are stopped by an officer and transporting a loaded weapon inside the vehicle, you must promptly announce that you have a license, and that a weapon is in the vehicle or on your person. Officials recommend that anyone, with a weapon or not, put their hands on the steering wheel of their vehicle. Do not reach for anything. Doing so may suggest to an officer that you are reaching for a gun. Do not get out of the vehicle and comply with all instructions.

Otherguy Overby
June 15, 2006, 08:10 PM
Thefabulousfink:
Here is what I found for CA on Packing.org (updated 7-29-05)
<snip>
It doesn't mention anything about loaded mags or speedloaders, however, I would be concerned about what could be termed "immediate possession".


Actually, the CA DOJ says the cop at the scene can determine whether or not the gun is loaded. IOW, as soon as he "determines" there are firearms in the vehicle he is empowered to search and then determine if they are loaded.

From: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/penalco/penco12031m.htm

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

Denial will get you a "go directly to jail card" so, don't even try to pass go.

cropcirclewalker
June 15, 2006, 08:12 PM
Back before we had concealed carry without permit in autos in MO........

To reiterate.....any person 21 or older and not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm may conceal it in the passenger compartment of their car, LOADED even in bad places like .gov parking lots and School parking lots without any permission slip. Further, there is no duty to inform leo that you are thusly armed. Only permission slip holders must provide said slip if it is asked for by leo.

I don't remember if you have to tell leo that you are armed if he asks for your permit. Maybe so, but it's moot.

Like I said, Before we had that concealed car carry provision, it was a felony to have a concealed firearm in your car. Open carry was lawful and still is.

During those dark years I had been stopped at least 6 times by state troopers. Missouri State Troopers. On those occasions I would always take my piece and lay it on the seat next to me in plain sight (sometimes on the dash if I had dogs or wives in my truck)

On only 1 occurance did the trooper even mention my firearm. That was to tell wifey that I was doing it exactly right.

I had a moonlighting state trooper work on my satellite dish back then (c band) and I asked him what the heck was going on.

He told me that when a trooper saw the piece on the seat, the trooper knew that the driver was informed about the law and there was no point in making a big deal about it. Thus no mention.

Also, since I always had a firearm visable, I never had a trooper ask me if I had any "weapons" in the auto.

Here's my question.......Mostly to Ohio State Troopers.......What the heck is the deal?

Missouri State Troopers......no big deal....half of us Ozarkers have guns in our vehicles at all times.

Ohio State Troopers........Hands on the wheel, shout out about the license, don't make sudden moves, don't exit the veekle or do other than instructed.

Please do not be offended but you're acting like those feline things that rub on the leg and purr.

Please, Ohio State Troopers? What is the big deal?

edited for commification.

Gordon Fink
June 15, 2006, 08:17 PM
So if you respons that you have an unloaded rifle in the trunk (legally stored and owned etc.) does this give him cuase for a search?

My assumption is that this would give the officer probable cause to search your vehicle for possible “weapons violations” and thus anything else he might thereupon find “in plain sight.”

~G. Fink

bruss01
June 15, 2006, 08:28 PM
Ah... I think I've found a more sophisticated version than what previously seemed best.

<begin>

Officer: Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?

Me: You're asking me do I have any illegal guns, concealed weapons, and like that? Nope, none of that.

<end>

( in California a handgun cannot be considered a concealed weapon if it is unloaded and placed in a locked container separate from the ammunition)

So in truth, even if I have a handgun locked in a container separate from the ammunition, it is not a "concealed weapon" according to CA law. And of course I would never own let alone transport any kind of illegal firearm. So is this answer likely to spare me some grief, and the officer any inconvenience? Would the officer be satisfied with that answer? Or would he press further? At that point I think I'll be clamming up.

<begin>

O: So you don't have ANY weapons?

M: Do you SEE ANY? I already told you, I don't have any concealed weapons!

<end>


Ajax, this was recently a subject for some study and research on my part. I was able to discover that while technically a strict and proper reading of the law (and a court decision which supports this interpretation) says that a magazine is not considered part of the gun when it is removed from the gun, that interpretation may not be understood by every LEO in CA. Not every LEO knows every proper interpretation and every court decision when it comes to a convoluted subject such as firearms, in fact some of them really do not know a heck of a lot about firearms or firearms law, nor do they care to. So if you get pulled over on a friday night before a 3 day weekend, and found with a loaded magazine which is separate from the gun, the LEO could mistakenly accuse you of having rounds "attached to the firearm or any part thereof". If the guy was a real A-hole, when you argue with him he could slap the mag in the gun, toss it in your trunk and then say "now I'm going to look in your trunk... whoa! look what we have here?!" Either way you might end up spending Friday night thru Tuesday morning in jail waiting for your lawyer to explain to the judge the finer points of the law. The cop says, "oops, my bad, just thought I was doin' my job, yer honor". You go on your merry way, minus only 4 days & nights of your life, plus lawyers fees. Assuming of course that the cop hasn't taken the low road and was simply making an (honest?) mistake.

You're probably (strictly speaking) legal with a loaded mag/unloaded handgun. Truth told, you're probably SAFER with an unloaded mag/unloaded handgun.

AJAX22
June 15, 2006, 08:50 PM
Sawdust- Before you condem me for not sifting through page after page of law to satisfy your curiosity perhapse you should do the reading yourself.

If you have any refuting evidence please offer it up, but keep it free of harsh attitudes.

It takes a certain amount of time to research a subject like this, and while it takes just a few seconds to sumarize previous readings of the material it takes a fair amount of time to prepare a lengthly discussion.

Anyway here is some of the documentation that I found.



http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf

Section 5.

Loaded Firearms in a Public Place

It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm on one's person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on any public street, or in any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm (Penal Code 1231(a)(1)

A firearm is deemed loaded when there is a live cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including but not limited to, the firing chamber, magazine or clip thereof attached to the firearm. A muzzle loading firearm is deememd loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powdercharge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder (Penal Code 12031(g)

For the purpose of Penal Code section 12023 (commission or attempted commission of a felony while armed with a loaded firearm) a firearm is deemed loaded when both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.

Note, this section goes to the spirit of the law, and the common deffinition of what a loaded firearm is

It is unlawful for the driver of any motor vehicle, or the owner of any motor vehicle irrespective of whethere the owner is occupying the vehicle, to knowingly permit any person to cary a loaded firearm in the vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 12031, or Fish and Game Code sectoin 2006 Penal code 12034 Also, see "Other Prohibited Acts, Page 49.

In order to determine whether a firearm is loaded, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street or in any prohibited area of an unincorproated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to these provisions is, in itself grounds for arrest (Penal Code 12031)



This allows for an officer to inspect anyones guns, regardless of permit status, furtuer grounds for arrest are specified in the CCW permit application

http://www.sdsheriff.net/mgt_serv/licensing/ca_ccw_app.pdf

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license. The licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
*Refuse to show the licence or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon demand
* Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/appndxa/penalco/penco171e.htm

Loaded Firearm Defined

171e. A firearm shall be deemed loaded for the purposes of Sections 171c and 171d whenever both the firearm and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from such firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.

In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing Section 171c or 171d, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his person or in a vehicle while in any place or on the grounds or any place in or on which the possession of a loaded firearm is prohibited by Section 171c or 171d. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to the provisions of this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of Section 171c or 171d.


Imidiate posession = loaded in magazine = quick to make firearm functional


So in summary, I know for a fact (as illustrated above) That there is an extremly good chance that it will be construed as illigal to transport ammunition which is loaded in a magazine or clip thereof the firearm being transported. as it constitutes ammunition being in immediate posession.

The exact legality is relative to how nice the officer wants to be, how nice the judge wants to be, and how good of a lawyer you can afford. Its subjective, and in any subjective case, without a letter from the DOJ stating that its A-ok, then there is a darn good chance its going to get you in trouble, get your guns taken away, earn you a free nights stay somewhere and signifigantly depelte your bank account

Go ahead, do whatever you want, its your money/time/life thats going to be wasted on legal fees and court time.

If you admit to having a firearm (or you have a ccw which offers probable cause that you have a firearm), you have to allow the officer to inspect it to make sure it is the one on your permit, or if you don't have a permit to make sure it isn't loaded, refusal to allow the police officer to inspect the car for suspected firearms IS probable cause for arrest and they search it anyway.

Personal attacks and demands that I pull a post are uncalled for, and I don't feel that it is in keeping with the spirit of The high road. Its one thing to offer a correction and put your opinion forward for debate, its another to demand that someone pull their statement on the grounds that it had not YET been substantiated. this is an open forum for mutual discussion and education.

I don't mind being proved wrong, but there should be a certain amount of decorrum and courtasy, this community is what WE make of it.

AJAX22
June 15, 2006, 09:12 PM
I just inquired the following of the CA DOJ

Hello,

Some friends and I are engaged in an accademic debate over what constitutes a 'Loaded Firearm' for the purpouse of penal code Penal Code 12031(g)

Is it ok to transport a loaded magazine in conjunction with a unloaded firearm. provided that the magazine is not attached to the firearm at the time of transport.

Likewise is it alright to transport a full speedloader in conjunction with a revolver.


Is it ok to keep a rifle in the trunk of your car along with a seperate locked container that contains a loaded magazine?

Do stripper clips constitute a loaded magazine? as the clip does not at any time attach to the rifle during function. (the specific example would be that of the SKS)


on a second debate that is going on is whether or not a legal firearm, properly stored has to be disclosed during a traffic stop.

Is refusal to answer grounds for a probable cause search of the vehicle?

Are CCW permit holders required to reveal that they have a firearm in the vehicle?

We appriciate the help, it will be nice to resolve this debate.


Thank you,

we look forward to your answer

it will be nice to get the inside scoop on this.

I will update when they respond to me

ready4shtf
June 15, 2006, 09:40 PM
I'm in Texas....

Officer: Sir, Do you have any firearms in the vehicle.
Me: Just the shotgun visible on my rear window gun rack.......


Or...

Officer: Sir, Do you have any firearms in the vehicle.
Me: Sir, I am only legally required to tell you my name and address. Both of which are present on the DL I have provided.

Any LEO's want to comment about what they would do if answered in that fasion?


The only time I was actually asked, I just said "No" and they didnt think twice about it. (just speeding)

rustymaggot
June 16, 2006, 12:30 AM
a loaded magazine in the same locked container as the firearm considers it loaded. if the mag is in a locked side pocket of the locked case it is not considered a loaded firearm.

source, personal experiance from a road side stop many years ago. i am unsure what it is when the magazine is locked bu the firearm isnt and viceversa.

kikr
June 16, 2006, 02:22 AM
The question is posed out of concern for the Officers and the publics safety...If you are legal and you tell them "Yes, I have a legally stored firearm in the trunk" then thats normally the end of it. If you lie to them and they find it, they are going to wonder why your lieing and what else your lieing about. Honesty is the best policy.

Otherguy Overby
June 16, 2006, 03:07 AM
kikr:
The question is posed out of concern for the Officers and the publics safety...If you are legal and you tell them "Yes, I have a legally stored firearm in the trunk" then thats normally the end of it. If you lie to them and they find it, they are going to wonder why your lieing and what else your lieing about. Honesty is the best policy.

Grasshopper, this thread has morphed. California firearms restrictions have no effect in Florida.

In Florida there's no problem with telling an LEO there's a firearm in the trunk of your car. Conversely in California, there is. California law requires the officer to "determine" if the firearm is loaded, authorizes search, and the law states he gets to decide.

kikr
June 16, 2006, 04:01 AM
Location doesn't change the intent of the question, LEO's ask that question during every stop for the purpose of protecting themselves and the citizens in their jurisdiction. It's not a matter the cop looking to give you a hard time. The only people who have to be concerned with being honest with a LEO are the people who have something to hide. If your legal your legal. Its not really a matter of "Do I have to give this officer the respect of an honest answer" its a matter of an honest person giving respect to a person trying to protect themselves. Just my opinion.

Sawdust
June 16, 2006, 11:30 AM
Sorry Ajax22, but you will get no free passes here when you post incorrect information.

You want me to prove my position? How does one prove that a statute does not exist in the Penal Code?

No, it is up to *you* - the one who posts claiming a certain fact to back that claim up with citation.

You *still* have not proven your positions - even with all of the copy and paste that you posted; in fact, if you had bothered to read what you posted in bold, you would see that you're original claim is wrong:

"Here in the peoples republic of california a loaded magazine or speedloader for either a rifle or pistol constitutes a loaded firearm.

It doesn't matter how it is locked or stored, you aren't allowed to transport loaded magazines."

And I see that you haven't even attempted to prove your other claim (that a CA CCW licensee must inform a LEO upon contact).

So, yes, if you can't back-up your claims and you post false information, you are obligated to the membership here to remove those posts.

I see that you are relatively new around here; again, I would gently suggest to you that you sit back and observe and learn before you lose any more credibility.

I'm done with this.

Sawdust

Gordon Fink
June 16, 2006, 12:43 PM
The only people who have to be concerned with being honest with a LEO are the people who have something to hide.…

Well, you had better be damned sure that you have nothing to hide before you blithely give law enforcement a reason to search you and your possessions. Are you sure you haven’t broken a law that you weren’t aware of? Are you sure that co-worker you drove to lunch didn’t leave any contraband behind?

~G. Fink

'Card
June 16, 2006, 02:06 PM
You *still* have not proven your positions - even with all of the copy and paste that you posted; in fact, if you had bothered to read what you posted in bold, you would see that you're original claim is wrong:
I disagree. I think the information he posted has, at the very least, demonstrated that there is some level of validity to his statement, depending upon how one construes the text. The fact that there appears to be some room for 'local interpretation' in the law wouldn't exactly shock anybody, would it? This is California you're talking about, after all.

I see that you are relatively new around here; again, I would gently suggest to you that you sit back and observe and learn before you lose any more credibility.
This is The High Road, where adults engage in conversations about subjects of mutual interest. We are not lawyers in a coutroom. Adult conversation (at least among people not burdened with massive inferiority complexes) does not consist of sitting around barking statutes at each other, and pretending that you're having a discussion.

You had the opportunity to engage in an interesting, perhaps even informative adult conversation about a law that could obviously be interpreted in several ways - and at the very least could be easily misconstrued by the well-intentioned. Instead, you decided to challenge, insult, provoke and repeatedly demand. And then you're going to issue a lecture on appropriate forum behavior and credibility?

*snork*

gopguy
June 16, 2006, 02:46 PM
So are you saying that in order to be completely legal in Ohio while transporting firearms to/from the range, the firearm's magazines must be empty as well...even if it is in a separate case from the firearm?
Hi Q Lock, The ammo, gun and magazines may be in the same bag......The rifle magazines may not be loaded even if in a seperate bag. Ohio only allows, now, the carrying of a loaded handgun in your car on your person or in a locked case. In both cases you must have a CCW license and in both cases they must be in "Plain Sight". You may not carry a loaded shotgun or rifle, you may not carry loaded magazines for a rifle or shotgun. That is Ohio DNR policy.

2923.16 and 1547.69 ORC No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless it is unloaded, and is carried in one of the following ways:

(1) In a closed package, box, or case;

(2) In a compartment which can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;

(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;

(4) In plain sight with the action open or the firearm stripped, or, if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.

As used in this section, “unloaded” means, with respect to a firearm employing a percussion cap, flintlock, or other obsolete ignition system, that the firearm is uncapped, or that the priming charge is removed from the pan.

The above sections also apply to watercraft, except while LAWFULLY engaged in hunting.

The ODNR attitude is if you have loaded magazines for a rifle in your car then the gun is loaded.....even if the magazines are kept somewhere other than near the gun intended. This is not specifically spelled out......nor is having a loaded shotgun prior to hunting hours or after.....but you can be charged for that too.

rustymaggot
June 16, 2006, 03:14 PM
ok guys, simmerdownnow *tm(saturday night live).

lets argue politely. if the thread gets locked then we dont get to finish the debate.

Q-Lock
June 16, 2006, 03:49 PM
Thank you for that information Tim, I wasn't aware of the "loaded magazine issue," but it's good to know...that's for sure.

gopguy
June 16, 2006, 06:06 PM
Yeah, we have to be careful in the land of Bobby Taft. Like I said before the SKS with strippers clips is legal because that is not a magazine. The SKS does not make a bad little trunk gun. ;)

Mannlicher
June 16, 2006, 06:22 PM
as with so many threads here, this one has degenerated into "My Dad can beat your Dad's butt". I think any possible benefit of continuing this thread has passed into the sunset.

Art Eatman
June 16, 2006, 06:27 PM
Few threads ever get past three pages without becoming a waste of bandwidth. Some, not past two.

Art

Molon Labe
June 16, 2006, 07:16 PM
The ODNR attitude is if you have loaded magazines for a rifle in your car then the gun is loadedgopguy:

Pardon my skepticism here, but the law in Ohio is completely defined in the ORC. The ODNR cannot make law; it can only enforce it. And the ORC says nothing about loaded magazines. It would be completely improper for some bureaucrat to arbitrarily declare "unloaded firearm + loaded magazine = loaded firearm." It doesn't matter what the ODNR's "attitude" is; the law is defined in the ORC. And if the law doesn't say you can't have a loaded magazine in your vehicle, then you can.

Can you cite a case where someone has been arrested for having an unloaded firearm + loaded magazine in a vehicle?

gopguy
June 16, 2006, 09:41 PM
Michael, as you and I both know bureucrats do things all the time they are not supposed to. The fact I can't find it spelled out exactly either does not mean that is not the policy... As I mentioned before in this thread about 3 game wardens back, down here in Clinton Co., they nailed a member of my gun club for having loaded magazines in his range bag when he arrived on the range. The member did not contest this citation and paid the fine. The game warden explained to us that we could not have loaded magazine for our long guns in our vehicles and he would bust any of us he saw doing this. I have adhered to that advice since.

Can you cite a case where someone has been arrested for having an unloaded firearm + loaded magazine in a vehicle?

Not without researching it.

Now if you really want to know what will happen call your local sheriff, OSHP and your local ODNR and see what they say..They are the ultimate authority who will or will not cite. Then let us know here what they tell you.

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 02:36 AM
I can't believe it...



I can't believe I read the whole thing...:)

I can't believe there are so many 'law-abiding citizens' out there who advocate deception as a preferred method of communication...

I can't believe there are so many people on the RKBA bandwagon, who refuse to accept the responsibility that goes along with the exercising of these rights...

I can't believe there are so many folks out there willing to do the right thing ONLY when it is convenient or personally expedient to do so...


Since when did the LEO become the Bad Guy? (yes, we all know there are a few rotten apples out there, but they are the exception, not the rule)...

Since when did doing the Right Thing become so unpopular?

Is this the example you want to set for your children and grandchildren when it comes to making wise and honorable decisions?

You WONDER why LEOs Might be a Little Wary out there on the street?

With attitudes and responses like some represented in this thread, I think you have Answered Your Own Question!

Creeping Incrementalism
June 17, 2006, 07:25 AM
TC-TX,

Seriously, what planet are you living on?

Oh, Texas.

Some of us here are talking about California. It's not the same. In a nutshell:
Since when did doing the Right Thing become so unpopular?

Because The Right [Legal] Thing will often get your guns taken and you thrown in jail.

Creeping Incrementalism
June 17, 2006, 07:35 AM
A firearm is deemed loaded when there is a live cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including but not limited to, the firing chamber, magazine or clip thereof attached to the firearm. A muzzle loading firearm is deememd loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powdercharge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder (Penal Code 12031(g)

For the purpose of Penal Code section 12023 (commission or attempted commission of a felony while armed with a loaded firearm) a firearm is deemed loaded when both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.

"magazine or clip thereof attached to the firearm"

I'll give you that if you have a loaded mag in one pocket and are also carrying a firearm while you walk down the street, it is considered loaded. Otherwise, a loaded mag isn't--according to the law.

I also suggest you consult CalGuns.net before believing anything the Cal DOJ tells you. Not to mention the "58 DAs" boilerplate they often put on any response.

An important point is, in California, there is a clear distinction between what the law says and what the government forces upon you. What I'm arguing here is what the law says.

Michael Courtney
June 17, 2006, 08:14 AM
Repeat after me:

"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."

"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."

"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."

"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."

"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."

"I am in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws."

Michael Courtney

cropcirclewalker
June 17, 2006, 12:08 PM
Since when did the LEO become the Bad Guy? (yes, we all know there are a few rotten apples out there, but they are the exception, not the rule)...

Since when did doing the Right Thing become so unpopular? Mr. TC-TX, I think I know.

When the leo asks if you have any "weapons" he became the bad guy.

Do you think if you answer in the affirmative that he will want to go to the range with you? Talk guns? Reloading info? You think he'll say, "Fine, move along." Sheesh.

All of us here know that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right. That's why we're here. Yes, many states like Ohio and CA have dreamed up some stupid laws which alienate that right and then along comes leo to ask if you have any.

Does that make him a good guy? Or an enforcer?

Biker
June 17, 2006, 12:14 PM
Heh, last summer I got pulled over on my scoot by a cop that hangs around at the local scooter shop and a new, young cop I'd never seen before. The young guy rushes up to me and immediately asks "Have you been drinking or using any drugs?" to which I replied "Just a fifth of Beam and a little acid".

The young guy got that 'Amos and Andy' look and the older cop I knew busted out laughing.

It was a Kodak moment.

Biker

otasan
June 17, 2006, 12:20 PM
Why of course! How many do you need?


or . . .


What's wrong with the one you're carrying?

:D

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 01:13 PM
Creeping Incrementalism,

Doing the Right Thing is Always Right... Doing the Wrong Thing is Always Wrong. Whether it is You or Them...

Wrong behavior on another's part does not give license for the same on yours.

If you have issues with your local laws or enforcement tactics, then get them changed. Or perhaps consider a change of scenery.

I understand (some of) the folks out west (and other places) can be very unforgiving to RKBA and other personal liberties. But remember - it is that way ONLY because the residents of your Great State ALLOW it to be so.

Good luck out there...

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 01:45 PM
cropcirclewalker,

You can not be Serious here, Can you?: When the leo asks if you have any "weapons" he became the bad guy.

You are DEAD WRONG! That LEO has EVERY RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to ask that question of anyone he has stopped, detained, retained, etc., in order to completely assess the situation at hand.

And BTW - YES - Do you think if you answer in the affirmative that he will want to go to the range with you? Talk guns? Reloading info? You think he'll say, "Fine, move along." Sheesh. When LEOs are treated in an appropriate manner, most will respond in-kind. Most of the time, NOTHING at all happens - you have just provided one point of information to help the LEO in his assessment. The rest of the time, it DOES spark up a conversation about CCW, weapons, carry choices and other related topics.

What most of the folks commenting here within this thread tend to forget is that the LEO is the one at the disadvantage here - Always coming into an engagement (DOZENS of times in a Single Shift) not knowing what is on your mind nor what is in your pockets nor what is about to take place. The VERY NATURE of his/her job is TO BE CAUTIOUS (with LOTS of conditional variables to consider, stop after stop, no two ever the same) and PROTECTIVE (of You, of themselves and of the other people and property in the immediate area).

May I suggest you put yourself in their place for a moment BEFORE deciding what to say or how to respond to a simple question. If you had a Real Need To know, how would YOU want the other person to respond to you?

Like them or not, LEOs put their lives on the line Every Day - MANY TIMES A DAY - for the Safety and Well Being of You and Your Family. YES I KNOW - this is a Chosen Field - No one forced them to make this career choice. But MOST choose this career field in order to Serve Others.

That makes them All GOOD GUYs / GALs in my book. They all deserve the benefit of the doubt, until they individually prove otherwise.

I prefer to be Part of the Solution, NOT part of the problem.

Good luck out there...

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 02:07 PM
Since When does the RKBA negate the Responsibilities that go along with the Right itself? You retain the Rights afforded to All citizens as long as you assume and properly address the responsibilities as well. If you are willing to accept - and Fight For - these rights, you need to be equally prepared to accept the responsibilities that accompany them.

This includes Being truthful when questioned in a lawful manner...
This includes Abiding by the laws you live under...
This includes Choosing Right over Wrong when faced with the choice.

This also includes being willing to accept responsibility for your actions when you break the law... regardless of what the law is or whether you agree with it or not.

YES - The RKBA is afforded to All Citizens in the 2nd Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. However - You as a Citizen have a Duty to Abide by the law... Failure to do so can result in the loss of rights.

YMMV... Good luck out there...

cropcirclewalker
June 17, 2006, 03:09 PM
When LEOs are treated in an appropriate manner, most will respond in-kind. Most of the time, NOTHING at all happens - you have just provided one point of information to help the LEO in his assessment. The rest of the time, it DOES spark up a conversation about CCW, weapons, carry choices and other related topics. You may be right there. The only time I was asked if I had any "weapons" by a leo I responded politely and honestly. And yes, as I sat chained to a bench for 2 hours, the cop at the table filling out the forms of my arrest report did strike up a conversation about my piece. He even tried to buy it from me.

I have no idea and am probably wrong but maybe you just got out of the academy or are trying to be unnaturally obtuse.

Missouri Constitution, Article 1, Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Shall not be questioned. Hum, I wonder what that means.

I hope you don't mind a little constitution lingo.

I know you are from Texas, maybe their constitution says that it is the responsibility of every leo to find out if you are armed.

Hey, have a good weekend. :D

Soybomb
June 17, 2006, 03:51 PM
I can't believe there are so many 'law-abiding citizens' out there who advocate deception as a preferred method of communication...
I think its a matter of privacy. Would you think its wrong for an officer to ask you if you have any condoms in your walmart bag or pornography in the blockbuster bag? Declining to answer such a question about firearms has a decent chance of making the situation more lengthy and interrogative. But as was said earlier I can't imagine this is a question thats asked all that often either.

meef
June 17, 2006, 04:04 PM
Would you think its wrong for an officer to ask you if you have any condoms in your walmart bag or pornography in the blockbuster bag?
Well..... if there was a chance you might be planning on using them on him, I could see where it might be relevant.

:D

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 04:20 PM
Soybomb - ALL LEOs have the right to ASK anything they - in their assessment of the situation at hand - deem necessary.
If the answer to the theoretical question you pose here: Would you think its wrong for an officer to ask you if you have any condoms in your walmart bag or pornography in the blockbuster bag? puts the interaction between you and the officer at risk, then NO - it is NOT WRONG if the question is germain to the situation. He/She has Every Right to ask the question. Whether you Answer or not is within your right to decide... remembering that All decisions have consequences.

However I seriously doubt that condoms or pornography would lend an element of Unknown Danger to the encounter... I believe you are comparing apples to manhole covers at this point.

YMMV... Good luck out there...

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 04:33 PM
cropcirclewalker:

unnaturally obtuse - I don't think so. I am merely pointing out the obscure notion some people have when it comes to Right and Wrong...
1) The obscure notion that I HAVE RKBA RIGHTS (but no responsibilities when it comes to exercising these rights) and
2) The notion that one can Act in a criminal manner (Lying to a LEO, improper carrying of a weapon, etc.) and then raise Holy Noise when they are Treated like a criminal after the fact.

No One is Questioning NOR Infringing upon your Right to KBA... You totally misinterpret the language in this statute.

A LEO asking the question is merely looking to be informed of the condition at hand... Whether you like it or not, The LEO has a Responsibility to do so...

Good luck out there...

Otherguy Overby
June 17, 2006, 04:35 PM
TC-TX:
Soybomb - ALL LEOs have the right to ASK anything they - in their assessment of the situation at hand - deem necessary.
If the answer to the theoretical question you pose here:

Uh, in this case they are powers, not rights. Asking someone a question where the answer may affect that person's freedom is POWER.

Am I free to go?

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 04:46 PM
Otherguy Overby: Uh, in this case they are powers, not rights. Asking someone a question where the answer may affect that person's freedom is POWER.

Otherguy Overby - it is incumbant upon the LEO (read: DUTY) to ask...

It is OPTIONAL as to whether you answer or not.

While Honest Answers are not compulsary, they are always the right thing to do.

If you are engaged in some behavior where an Honest Answer puts your liberties at risk, maybe you should reassess your priorities and actions. It is in this case your Actions and not your Answers that put you at risk.


Good luck out there...

AJAX22
June 17, 2006, 05:06 PM
The problem seems to be that the law itself is so convoluted that it is impossible for the average man to have a full and complete understanding of it. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, and there is a good chance that despite the best of intentions you may be breaking a law that you did not know was in existance.

Its up to the discression of the officer at the scene to determine if there is probable cause that you are breaking the law, and it is within the purview of the individual officer as to what stringency they use to enforce the law. Unfortunately guns in many places at best have a negative connotation and make some people uncomfortable, and at worst open you up to the adgenda of the individual or community that you are traveling through.

If you do comply fully with the law to the best of your knowledge and abilitys, a misinterpritation by the enforcing officer, or an error on your part could wind up costing you your freedom, your guns, or in a good scenario, simply a large amount of money in legal fees.

It is my opinion that it is best to do all that you can to limit your exposure to those kinds of scenarios. For that reason, and only for that reason, it is my opinion that "NO" is the most correct answer. It tears at me inside that it is necicary, but as the only other situation which would allow me to answer factually "NO" involves my discontinued use and posession of firearms, which I consider necicary to the preservation of freedom and the safety of my family, I feel that "NO", while it does constitute a distastefull untruth, is the answer which best serves.

I can understand the motivation for the officers to ask the question, but as I do not seek to do harm in any way shape or form to the officer, whether it be with my hands, words, or other impliments, In this case The spirit of the question, I feel, is answered.

I would like to be a moral absolutist in this case, but I fear that this situation falls under a grey area.

This is just my opinion, I understand if others differ.

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 05:20 PM
But don't you see AJAX22 - it is people like you - with thought processes that lean toward deception FIRST - that create the confusion to begin with!

The LEO is not asking the question (specifically) to see if you are breaking the law - He/She is asking the question to assess the situation and to know how to best respond to all conditions going forward.

It is NOT the Known that causes confusion and chaos at the scene - it is the UNKNOWN. Intentionally giving false information to a LEO in the assessment of a situation is WRONG.

- It puts you in the position of a person Willing to put the safety and security of a LEO and others at risk.
- It is Criminal Behavior.
- Criminal Behavior voids all rights to KBA.

Would you condone this behavior if it put one of Your Family Members or one of Your Loved Ones at risk?

cropcirclewalker
June 17, 2006, 05:35 PM
The policeman is not your friend.

As much as some leos like to think that they are serving the people, in actuality they are mostly serving the state.

When I say state, I mean the political subdivision that employs the leo.

The mission of leo is to catch bgs doing crimes. By definition "Law Enforcement Officer" means a person who enforces the law. How much simpler can it get?

So here is me, a law abiding citizen, minding my own business, driving down the road. The last speeding ticket I got was in 1989. That's seventeen years ago.

I have been pulled over or stopped many times since then. No, I have not been stopped because of a light out. Usually for soberiety checks or driving while poor.

When leo pulls me over for whatever reason, since I don't speed, he is trying to determine if I have committed a crime. If he finds that I have infracted some rule of the state, then he gets to think that he has succeeded. He has done his job.

It is folly to suggest that leo will pull me over to ask me to go shooting with him at the range. Folly.

He will engage me in conversation in an attempt to determine which rule I have infracted. He will ask me if I am armed, like Mr. TX-TC suggests, to assess the situation should he also have determined that I am an infractor.

They justify that by shouting "Officer Safety".

If leo finds that I am armed, there is a chance that I am in noncompliance with some stupid unconstitutional law dreamed up by some anti 2a statist to stifle our freedoms. He will, therefore, investigate my situation to insure that I have dotted the ts and crossed the Is.

All of this investigation is in an attempt to find some infraction for which I can be charged.

Although there is a legitimate need for them, like directing traffic around accidents and getting kittens out of trees,

The policeman is not your friend.

TallPine
June 17, 2006, 05:37 PM
Somehow I just don't think that when a cop pulls over for a traffic violation a guy who just held up a store, that the guy is going to be totally honest about whether he has a gun or not ... :rolleyes:

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 06:00 PM
cropcirclewalker,

You are certainly entitled to your personal opinions of LEOs, but I truly feel sorry for anyone who carries around such a jaded view of individuals who have accepted the responsibility to serve and protect you and your family and your community... Honorable Professionals who have taken an oath to protect the likes of individuals like you, obviously out to make their job increasingly more difficult.

It is folly to suggest that leo will pull me over to ask me to go shooting with him at the range. Folly. - Who in this thread EVER suggested such a thing? Maybe you should go back and re-read what you mis-read before.

To suggest that LEOs are 'not your friend' is juvenile and paranoid.

It is sad that you would have the gall to paint all of law enforcement with that broad brush.

I prefer to look at the glass as Half-Full. You might try it some time, it will improve your outlook on life immensly.

Good luck out there...

cropcirclewalker
June 17, 2006, 08:06 PM
2) The notion that one can Act in a criminal manner (Lying to a LEO, improper carrying of a weapon, etc.) and then raise Holy Noise when they are Treated like a criminal after the fact.

No One is Questioning NOR Infringing upon your Right to KBA... You totally misinterpret the language in this statute.

A LEO asking the question is merely looking to be informed of the condition at hand... Whether you like it or not, The LEO has a Responsibility to do so... I am not offended by your characterizations of my views as being jaded and somehow trying to color leos as otherwise non professional and refer to me as one who, like you, obviously out to make their job increasingly more difficult I think I am helping you to understand that when leo pulls me over or runs me through a soberiety check it is to try to find some infraction for which I may be charged. Simple as that.

Do you pretend that when I get pulled over or stopped it is for any reason other than finding me in violation of some rule?

Do you think leo says to himself, "This guy is driving a rusty truck. I better pull him over and I sure hope he isn't armed or impaired in some way. Yeah, I sure hope that."

Don't lie.

Let's say leo does find me infracting, doing, say like you posted above, "improper carrying of a weapon", is he going to politely point it out or is he gonna write me up or run me in?

Why should I not be unhappy about
1) Lawfully driving while poor.
2) Being stopped at a soberiety check point while sober.
3) Getting unwillingly engaged in in conversation by leo who is trying to asses the condition of my soberiety so that he can charge me with a crime.
4) Getting asked if I am bearing arms so that if I am improperly bearing one I can be charged with a crime.
5) Getting my time wasted and my vehicle tossed for "Officer Safety" so that they can charge me with a crime.

I was not committing any crimes to begin with. Is this how I get protected and served?

p.s. How the heck can one improperly carry a weapon? Just wondering on 2a grounds.

TC-TX
June 17, 2006, 08:42 PM
cropcirclewalker, I am not painting you as anything - you have described your actions yourself. I am merely pointing out that your self-proclaimed position on several points is unproductive at best, and criminal at worst.

So don't be surprised when your questionable actions are met with distasteful responses from those folks Sworn to Protect and Uphold the Law.

I have no idea why you get pulled over... if it happens, I am sure it is not without some cause... It may be something completely out of your control, I do not know. The WHY is really not the point here, because we ALL get pulled over from time to time for various reasons, sometimes for reasons outside of our control. The point here is NOT Why you get pulled over but HOW you handle the situation as it unfolds.

HOW you act and react in a situation goes a long way to determining where it goes from there.

If you are seen committing a violation, a LEO as a Duty to investigate further. How far can depend GREATLY upon your attitude... Whether you are released, ticketed or hauled to jail ALSO has a lot to do with your attitude, as - sometimes - these things are at the Sole Discretion of the LEO (sometimes local policies will require certain actions).

1) I have No Idea what Lawfully Driving While Poor is... Never heard of it... doesn't sound like a crime to me, unless you are speaking of vagrancy, which can be an offense in certain situations...

2) We do not have sobriety check points down here (they are illegal) so I can not comment on them other than to say I think they Are a good Idea... if you are not drinking, and not operating a vehicle illegally, you have no problem...

3) If you are not intoxicated, then you have no issues

4) If you are not carrying illegally, you again, have no issues

5) Attitude and History will have a lot to do with getting tossed... In my experience, this does NOT happen with no provocation, YMMV...

P.S. - Improperly carring a weapon can be a couple things here in TX - exposure and printing to be specific.

Good luck out there...

TallPine
June 17, 2006, 08:47 PM
we ALL get pulled over from time to time for various reasons
It's been almost 25 years for me :)

cropcirclewalker
June 17, 2006, 09:11 PM
Driving while poor is sort of like driving while black except that since I am not black and since my ol' truck ('87 Chevy pickup with bad paint) looks bad, sometimes when I get out of town like to the Loo, I get stopped.

You know, they say like, "You were weaving a little and I thought maybe you were tired."

Like that. DWP. Now you know.

Mr. TX-TC, I am like as law abiding as they come. Like I said previous, Only one time have I worn the bracelets and that was because I told a rent a cop that I had a hand gun in my car when they were about to search it at the airport at the Loo.

Open car carry in MO is not a crime, but somehow, like the babe at the desk where I got my copy of the arrest report said, "You really shouldn't have a gun at the airport."

Naturally, after they went through all the laws and such they had to return my piece and send me on my way because there really is no law that says that. At least not in MO.

You see, I did all the stuff you say I should and I still got hooked up and hassled. Me, an old law abiding coot.

Finally, I asked about how to improperly carry a weapon based on 2a. Printing and showing is not in 2a.

The leo that runs you in for those crimes is not your friend. He is an agent of the state.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
June 18, 2006, 12:02 AM
Having said that, I don't believe it is criminal, as you have not been sworn to anything at that point, but pissing off the wrong officer can be worse than a crime!! Depending on the situation, you COULD claim the 5th Ammendment, but you will only be stalling for time. "Are you carrying any weapons?". Your options if you are legally carrying are simple. "Yes", or ,"No". He will probably search you anyway, or he wouldn't have asked the question. If you say,"no", and he finds your weapon somewhere, you will probably be charged with,"obstruction of justice", just for pissin' him off. If you say,"yes",(or yes sir as I do) you will be treated like a criminal until you are proven not to be, but you won't take,"the ride". Damn the righteous indignation at this point; it is non-winnable situation, innocent until proven guilty only applies until you are a suspect:uhoh: ! So decide for yourself, piss off an officer and take,"the ride", or go on about your merry way with a loss of time and your righteous indignation intact.

PS- Just like cropcirlcewalker's sig says, the answer to it may be,"Yes, I do mind if you search my car", the problem is, if the Officer has asked the question, it is too late to change his mind....Still 2 Many Choices!?

glummer
June 19, 2006, 11:18 AM
I have asked a similar question once or twice before, and no one seems to want to answer, but I'll try it again:

Why does an LEO ask the question at all? What possible good can it do?
Please don't just recite "Officer Safety", without an explanation. Tell me how it helps.

As in:
Officer Thug approaches the car; unknown to him, the driver is armed, and dangerous; he asks "the question"; he is now safer because ______.
Fill in the blank with something that makes sense in the real world.

gopguy
June 19, 2006, 12:40 PM
Just to throw a little gasoline on the fire...:evil: over the weekend I picked up a Beretta Storm CX4 9mm carbine at the PRO show in Columbus .....Naturally I also have a 92FS and they use the same magazines.....Now if I CCW with the Berretta pistol and have the carbine in the trunk......might be a interesting dilemma here in Ohio. I will have to ask my friends who wear a badge about this.

Old Dog
June 19, 2006, 01:32 PM
A little hesitant to enter a thread after seven pages with little light shed on a contentious subject, but ... the question was asked:
Why does an LEO ask the question at all? What possible good can it do?
Please don't just recite "Officer Safety", without an explanation. Tell me how it helps.
Well, kinda-sorta like the question, "Do you have anything in your pockets that could hurt me?" preparatory to a pat search. But additional reasoning behind the question. First, if one is legally carrying or transporting a firearm, it doesn't automatically follow that:
you will be treated like a criminal until you are proven not to be, but you won't take,"the ride". Damn the righteous indignation at this point; it is non-winnable situation, innocent until proven guilty only applies until you are a suspect !(unless of course you've got warrants or are guilty of a serious driving infraction, i.e., DWI/DUI, reckless driving)

Some folks get emotional -- or are already emotional -- when pulled over. Officers will ask simple questions to get people back to a cognitive state (from an angry, upset, sad state of mind where they're not capable of thinking logically). The question can also indicate to an officer whether the individual IS lying with the answer or is going to be lying about or is nervous about something else. Asking about an activity that is normally legal is better than asking the driver about an illegal activity (i.e., "Do you have any illegal substances in your vehicle), making it less of an accusatory question, and the answer can be used to gauge the driver/vehicle owner's state of sobriety, truthfulness, nervousness, whatever ...

And yeah, like it or not, it is an officer safety issue. And, strangely enough, the bad guys often do come up with the correct answer to these questions ... Unless some criminal you've pulled over is planning to go down with guns blazing, more often than not, a criminal will 'fess up to the fact he/she has firearm(s) in the vehicle, because they (1) don't want the stop to get more dramatic (thrown face down on the pavement under drawn guns) and (2) they know that since they're busted anyway, better to go cooperating.

Believe it or not, often bad guys will immediately respond truthfully to a simple question, i.e., "Do you have a gun on you?" or "Do you have any drugs/stolen items on you?"

It's really too bad many of you cannot understand this and choose to be insulted that a law enforcement officer would ever come to ask the question. Mountain out of a molehill anyway, since in most jurisdictions (especially up here), you'll never get asked the question (even while driving an '87 pick-up with bad paint) unless the officer has a pretty good suspicion there's something else up besides you're appearing to be a poor person or a person of color.

cropcirclewalker
June 19, 2006, 02:10 PM
Yo, Mr. Old Dog, Howdy.

It's nice of you to log on and try to allay the paranoid fears of those who live in states like Ohio and PRK. I thought maybe a little less patronizing might have been in order, but I guess that's hard for an authoritarian.

I sense that part of the problem here on THR with many of us non leo types is that most of us, probably an overwhelming majority of us are just so darned law abiding. Then you gotcher cops. Most cops spend their days dealing with criminals (or people they suspect to be criminals (or at a minimum, traffic infractors)) and they tend to be suspicious of anybody.

So there you have it. Leos on THR are used to looking for criminals and most others here are not. We are not used to being treated like criminals and perhaps that is why we get our dandruff up.

See?

I am reminded of the Friday night back in the summer of 1990 when I was driving through California, MO (no, not the state, but a little town on US 50 between Sedalia and Jefferson City) I was driving my old '67 pick up at the time (I sold it eventually on ebay for a handsome profit :) and moved up to my '87) and it was loaded down with shingles and a riding lawnmower.

The local cop gives me this "Looks like you were weaving a little" comment and asks what's in my 20 oz thermal traveling mug. "Coffee", I sez and asked him if he wanted a sip.

Then he points up at the SKS hanging on the rack in the rear window. Wifey says he looked a little nervous and he says, "What's that?"

I guess the SKS was sorta new in those days (even had the bayonet on it, since Lord Bentsen hadn't made them illegal yet) so I told him.

He asks, "Is it loaded?"

"Of Course," I says, looking at him in astonishment.

I guess he didn't feel the need to throw down on me, since it would have been hard for me to hurt him with it since it was long and was hanging behind me. He coulda got off a few shots before I could get it pointed at him. Probably coulda got wifey too.

Anyway, the cops have grown up a lot in Missouri, since then, lost some of their paranoia, and I guess that in PRK and Ohio they will too some time in the future.

We just have to be a little more understanding and try to let them get over their "Anybody armed must be a criminal" complex.

Kelly J
June 19, 2006, 02:17 PM
Molon Labe, Here in Missouri it is strongly suggested that if you have a loaded gun in the car (which is Leagal as a MO. Resident as long as you are 21 or over no permit required) that you keep both hands on the upper side of the stearing wheel until you notify the officer that you have a loaded weapon in the vehicle, same with a carry permit but here in Missouri if you have a CCW license it is on your Drivers License unless you opt for a seperate ID, if a resident or from out of state passing through, This jester could prevent you from looking down the business end of a Policeman's own weapon because they know you could very well be packin' all boils down to a common sence aproach and a courtesy, If however you are a fellon or want a be criminal all bets are off YOU ARE ONY OUR OWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are packin leagel no reason not to inform the officer you are, just don't make the mistake of denying possetion then have it discovered for some reason might not go over well.

Art Eatman
June 19, 2006, 02:44 PM
CCW, I didn't see Old Dog's comments as being anywhere near "patronizing". Very straight forward, seemed to me.

And I've never been treated like a probable problem by any LEO. As though I had a stupid-attack, maybe, but not as though I were a criminal awaiting an opportunity.

And Lord knows I've driven through most of the lower 48, and generally a tad on the fast side of the speed limits.

I dunno. I once got busted for 130 in a 55 and the LEO wasn't particularly excited. We just sat around and BSed about cars for a while...

:), Art

glummer
June 19, 2006, 03:20 PM
Old Dog, thanks for the effort. I appreciate your efforts at explanation. You said:

And yeah, like it or not, it is an officer safety issue. And, strangely enough, the bad guys often do come up with the correct answer to these questions ... Unless some criminal you've pulled over is planning to go down with guns blazing, more often than not, a criminal will 'fess up to the fact he/she has firearm(s) in the vehicle, because they (1) don't want the stop to get more dramatic (thrown face down on the pavement under drawn guns) and (2) they know that since they're busted anyway, better to go cooperating.

Believe it or not, often bad guys will immediately respond truthfully to a simple question, i.e., "Do you have a gun on you?" or "Do you have any drugs/stolen items on you?"

:confused: Are you talking about an ordinary traffic stop (which was the root of this thread), or something more definite? "They know ... they're busted ..." sounds like the latter. But that's a little off-topic; we're concerned here with routine use of "The Question" where there is no particular reason for extra suspicion. Are you saying BG's commonly 'fess up right off the bat when you ask, without you showing any suspicion? And if they do, doesn't that sort of indicate that there wasn't much danger anyway?

Also:
Asking about an activity that is normally legal is better than asking the driver about an illegal activity (i.e., "Do you have any illegal substances in your vehicle), making it less of an accusatory question, and the answer can be used to gauge the driver/vehicle owner's state of sobriety, truthfulness, nervousness, whatever ... and It's really too bad many of you cannot understand this and choose to be insulted that a law enforcement officer would ever come to ask the question

I have a hard time believing it's that innocent. :scrutiny: Would you stop a black man, and ask if he has raped/dated any white women lately? It's the same sort of implication. If I'm legal, it's none of your business.

TC-TX
June 19, 2006, 09:21 PM
I just got back to the forum and read the follow up question that you answered so eloquently...

Why does an LEO ask the question at all? What possible good can it do? Please don't just recite "Officer Safety", without an explanation. Tell me how it helps.

Couldn't have answered it better myself...

Yes - Like it or not, folks, it about Obtaining Information for the sake of Safety...

NOW - Old Dog - I would appreciate your input on the ORIGINAL Question:

To Lie or Not To Lie? - That is the question...

Looking forward to your follow-up...

ProficientRifleman
June 20, 2006, 02:21 AM
I will try to be civil here. I would answer the question in the affirmative. I wouldn't be carrying if it wasn't legal to do so in that juridiction. Such as in Oklahoma or in Utah, you can have a handgun in your vehicle, but you can't have it loaded (?!?!).

We have covered Texas Law about "traveling". Most Texas DPS types won't bother you if you say "I'm from El Paso and am on my way to Austin". Makes sense, no problem.

I have covered here also about going through a sobriety checkpoint in NC where open carry is legal. As the officer approached, I had my DL and Military I.D. in hand. The officer saw my handgun first thing and then asked me why I had it, then dressed me down as to how it had to be in plain view (it was the first thing he saw). Ultimately there was no issue. I went about my business. I got the dressing down I suppose because the officer felt like i needed it. Why?

Once, driving from Austin to Dallas, I was stopped for speeding (I was indeed speeding). I told the officer I was armed when I handed him my DL, CHL, and Military I.D.. He asked me where the gun was...I told him it was on my right hip. I was ordered out of the vehicle, hands on the rail of the truck bed, pistol removed, then asked the question...

"Now why are YOU carrying a handgun?"

It did make me aggrivated to be asked that after I handed him three I.D.'s, one of which was a CHL, and I had told him up front I was carrying.

Why was that question necessary? What good did it do to ask such a question when you have proof in your hand of all the hoops I had to jump through to be able to carry legally?

Ultimately there was no issue there either. I didn't get a ticket for speeding.

What aggrivated me was (and is) the LEO attitude of, "You don't NEED to carry a handgun...Only a squared away fellow like ME should be allowed to carry a handgun." Why is that atitude so prevalent?

evan price
June 20, 2006, 02:56 AM
Stilltoomanychoices: Lying to a police officer is a crime. It may be, "lying to a police officer", or it may be "Obstruction of justice" but it is a crime.


'Super Dell' charged with lying to police about gun
By Stephen Hunt
The Salt Lake Tribune




WEST JORDAN - Add "lying" to the crimes "Super Dell" Schanze allegedly committed last summer when he sped through a Draper neighborhood and pulled a gun after being confronted by several concerned citizens.
The new charge - a class B misdemeanor count of "written false statement" - is based on Schanze's interviews with news reporters, which allegedly conflict with what he told police.
The Utah computer store owner has told reporters he pulled a handgun from his pants pocket to protect himself from what he called "a gang of vigilantes," one of whom was threatening to break the tail lights of his Jaguar with a rock.
But in a written statement to police, Schanze never mentioned a gun. Instead, he claims he pulled out a cell phone and offered to call police, according to a criminal complaint amended this week against Schanze.
Deputy Salt Lake County District Attorney Chris Bown said Friday that Schanze - who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon - also made verbal denials to police about displaying a gun.
But defense attorney James "Mitch" Vilos claimed police failed to ask Schanze the right question.
They asked Schanze if he had "brandished" a weapon, and Schanze denied it because that word carries the connotation of making a threat, Vilos said. The attorney insisted that showing a weapon is not "brandishing or threatening" if it is done in self-defense.
Vilos said Schanze merely pulled the gun and held it by his hip. When the man with the rock saw the gun, he dropped the rock and Schanze put the gun back in his pocket, Vilos said.
But according to charging documents, Schanze not only exhibited the gun, he pointed it at Clinton Sanderson, the man with the rock.
The confrontation occurred May 21 after the residents followed Schanze, 36, and his 8-year-old daughter to the Point of the Mountain Paragliding Park. Schanze was reportedly driving at a high rate of speed through a neighborhood.
Schanze, who was not present for Friday's hearing, is also charged with "threatening with or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel," a class A misdemeanor, and reckless driving, a class B misdemeanor.
On Friday, 3rd District Judge Royal Hansen canceled a three-day trial, which was set to begin next month, and reset it for May 10.
The judge also heard arguments on several trial issues, including whether a firearms expert can testify if Schanze responded according to his training when confronted with potential danger.
Vilos said Schanze and others are taught that once an aggressor approaches within 21 feet, the aggressor can be on you before you can pull a holstered or pocketed gun.
"I want to explain [to the jury] why concealed permit holders are trained to take their weapons out and place them at the ready," Vilos told the judge.
Bown said he has no problem with the defense expert so long as he refrains from expressing opinions about whether Schanze was in a self-defense situation. "That's a question for the jury."
Schanze was allegedly carrying two handguns the day of the incident, a Glock 10 mm handgun in his pocket and another handgun in an ankle holster.
Vilos accompanied his arguments with a Power Point presentation that included gun-toting images of John Wayne and "Miami Vice" star Don Johnson.
Schanze is known for goofing for news cameras - making faces, defending his right to bear arms and shouting the name of his line of local businesses: "Totally Awesome!"




As far as "driving while poor" goes, every LEO is trained in tactics to take a minor traffic violation and turn it into a major investigation, just by observation, consent searches, etc. Lots of people have something to hide.
However, saying that, by not doing anything illegal like having baggies of MJ in your console, or a bottle of Johnny Walker in your lap, you have little to worry about. If you lie to the officer they will most likely figure you REALLY have something to hide and then the gloves come off.

Old Dog
June 20, 2006, 03:17 AM
So the thread is still going on ... I pondered actually responding to a couple of the posts since my post ... but remarks such as this
I have a hard time believing it's that innocent. Would you stop a black man, and ask if he has raped/dated any white women lately? It's the same sort of implication.
rather make me believe that some folks hereabouts are just looking for slights and insults; no matter what an officer of the law does, offense will be taken regardless, simply because a citizen is interacting with a LEO.
NOW - Old Dog - I would appreciate your input on the ORIGINAL Question:
To Lie or Not To Lie? - That is the question...
Why would you lie? The ONLY reason I can see that one would lie in answer to "The Question" is that one has no faith whatsoever in any LEO conducting himself/herself professionally, in accordance with the law, and with respect to the Second Amendment and the state laws concerning concealed carry.

Where do you guys live? Is it that bad that so many of you have reason to feel that you cannot get through a mere traffic stop without having to lie about your status as a lawful concealed-carrier because you are fearful or concerned about extending your interaction with a LEO or even worse, having things go real bad if you should disclose that you are -- gasp -- in lawful possession of legal firearms?

Really, it just looks to me like whining that you would be stopped in the first place and then would deliberately choose to be offended by a simple yes-or-no question that has nothing to do with "infringing" upon your rights to keep and bear arms.

What aggrivated me was (and is) the LEO attitude of, "You don't NEED to carry a handgun...Only a squared away fellow like ME should be allowed to carry a handgun." Why is that atitude so prevalent?Never seen that attitude up here. Again, it would seem that some of you are just engaging in projection -- that's the attitude you expect, so that's what you see.

ProficientRifleman
June 20, 2006, 03:25 AM
What state are you in? I don't believe I have projected at all. I have always tried to be courteous and respectful without acting like a scared rabbit. I stated the locations where I experienced the "attitude". If you are from a state such as Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or even New Mexico or Arizona, those states still have much of the poineer ethic and fully respect the citizen's right to bear arms. I know that in many places, particularly in the North East of the U.S., it is much worse.

Jim Diver
June 20, 2006, 05:49 AM
I truly feel sorry for anyone who carries around such a jaded view of individuals who have accepted the responsibility to serve and protect you and your family and your community... Honorable Professionals who have taken an oath to protect the likes of individuals like you, obviously out to make their job increasingly more difficult.

Protect me? Please. The police are not there to protect anyone. They are there to take reports AFTER the crime has been done. The police do not appear till AFTER the crime is over.

Talk to any cop. Ask him the last time he or ANY of his dept actualy stopped a robbery in progress. Or a murder in progress. Or a rape in progress. Or a burglar in progress. Unless it is a big big dept, I'll wager the answer is never or not with in the last 10 years.

So don't tell me that they are there to protect me. It's simply not true. In EVERY state, the cops are not even required to respond when you call them. Read PRK Government Code 845 if you don't believe me. EVERY state has a similar law. There is only one person who can protect you, and you see him in the mirror.

Honorable professionals? Perhaps. But my view is this. Until proven otherwise, all cops are rogue. Why? Simple. They treat ME like the criminal until proven otherwise AND how do I know the cop that I am dealing with is honorable? He just may be a rogue. Why treat all cops like this? It's because the good cops KNOW who the bad cops are and do little or nothing about them. Read this post (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2506919&postcount=85). There are several there bad cops in that post. Being a 'good cop', knowing who the bad ones are, and doing nothing about them makes a 'good' cop BAD.

As to the bit about a loaded mag w/o reciever = loaded gun in PRK. This is SOMEWHAT true. A lawyer friend of mine who follows firearms cases closely informed me a few weeks back that the courts are split on this and its making it's way though the legal system. Till one goes to PRK SC, it all depends on what your local judge thinks.

Jim Diver
June 20, 2006, 05:56 AM
Where do you guys live? Is it that bad that so many of you have reason to feel that you cannot get through a mere traffic stop without having to lie about your status as a lawful concealed-carrier because you are fearful or concerned about extending your interaction with a LEO or even worse, having things go real bad if you should disclose that you are -- gasp -- in lawful possession of legal firearms?

In San Jose, admitting that there is a gun in the car WILL get you drawn on, cuffed, and sitting on the curb while they search your car. Just admitting that you have a gun in the car, the law gives them the right to search the car to make sure it is unloaded. Fear my local PD? You bet. I have had enough experiance with them to know they are not to be trusted.

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 10:23 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, but as to the original question, if you have a carry license, you are probably legally bound to respond truthfully to that question, since you put your name to a legal agreement that you would do this in exchange for the authorization to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. If you have not put your name to any such document, then you are perfectly within your rights to ignore the question, i.e., not answer it. If he asks if you have any weapons in the vehicle, you are free to reply, for example, "I prefer not to discuss the contents of my vehicle, officer, as I value my privacy, other than to say that everything in my car is in full compliance with the law." At that point he is bound by the Supreme Court rulings relating to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and may not legally detain you short of having one of them, at least not regarding the question of weapons in the vehicle.

As for the first issue I raised above, you could take the position that since you theoretically do not need permission from the government to exercise a right, the agreement you signed was illegal, and therefore not binding (no consideration, to put it in contracts language), but expect to be arrested, lose your license, and take your case all the way to the US Supreme Court, where you will probably lose.

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 12:28 PM
You all are Incredible!

I am amazed and saddened by the total lack of Honor and Integrity in your Paranoid and Negative Answers.

I am fully aware that some folks out there may have had negative experiences in the past - some may even be unprovoked, in certain instances... But GEEZ folks... Why Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater?

GROW UP ALREADY!! NOTHING on the face of this planet is Perfect... GET OVER IT!

If you see a Wrong or an Injustice - WORK TO FIX IT! DON'T BECOME PART OF THE PROBLEM BY LOWERING YOURSELVES TO THE LOWEST COMMON FACTOR!

Also - don't think for a moment that your attitude toward LEOs doesn't come across loud and clear during all of the INNOCENT stops being made.

What are you communicating by Choosing to Carry and then find the need to LIE About It? THIS - to me - DEMONSTRATES A TOTAL LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY ON YOUR PART. People who demonstrate responsibility lapses like this should NOT be allowed to carry in the first place! (oh, Yeah - they are not... they are called Criminals...)

* Life is all about Choices... Choose Wisely.
* Maintain the Integrity necessary to Be Willing to Stand Up for the choices you make - good or bad.
* Contribute to the Solution - Don't Become Part Of The Problem.

Make it a Great Day!

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 12:41 PM
TC-TX, I hope you are not referring to me. A statement indicating a preference not to discuss the private contents of ones private vehicle is not a lie. Cops can ask anything they like, as I can ask anything I like to anyone I choose. We are also at liberty to politely remind them that this is a free country, and that unless we are under arrest on suspicion of a crime, we'd like to be on our way.

TallPine
June 20, 2006, 12:42 PM
The ONLY reason I can see that one would lie in answer to "The Question" is that one has no faith whatsoever in any LEO conducting himself/herself professionally, in accordance with the law, and with respect to the Second Amendment and the state laws concerning concealed carry.

I think that is pretty much the case in some jurisdictions, though thankfully not around here. I dunno, I haven't been stopped in nearly 25 years, but I would expect that the only reason for me to be asked that question in MT was if there was an accident and I was going to the hospital and my vehicle was being towed - or if I reported a vehicle stolen they would want to know.

Besides, in MT it would be about like asking if you have a jack or a spare tire ;)

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 12:52 PM
I was asked that question by a cop who pulled me over for a traffic violation that I wasn't aware I had committed having to do with orange cones and road work. As I passed him slowly, he waved me over, looked in the hatchback of my car, apparently seeing my AR-15 partially hidden by a blanket (it had been totally hidden when I started the trip), and then asked me if I had any weapons in the vehicle. I said yes sir, I do. He asked the reason, and I said I'm heading out to Calverton to do some shooting at the range. Is it loaded? No sir. Then he asked me if it was an assault rifle. I told him, no, sir, an assault rifle is full auto, while that rifle is semi-auto only. At that he had to call his supervisor while I waited in the car for a half hour. Long story short, he had to let me go with the moving violation ticket, but he meant to give me a hard time about the rifle. By this time the window of time I had to spend shooting had gotten so short that I decided to turn around and go home. By the time I set up to shoot, I would have had about a half hour of shooting before I had to start packing up again.

Gordon Fink
June 20, 2006, 12:53 PM
Old Dog and others, it’s a matter of reasonable fear for many and bad experience for some. What positive outcome can one expect from unwanted contact with law enforcement?

~G. Fink

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 01:16 PM
I am only referring to those individuals who have stated in this thread that their First Inclination is to LIE to a LEO.

When it comes to Carrying - A LEO has a Responsibility to Know... A Person (legally) Carrying has a Legal responsibility to Inform Accurately.

Whether you choose to side-step a legitimate question put to you by a LEO is up to you. I do not equate this to lying. But I do see this as a lack of honor on your part. When you were awarded a license to carry, you assumed the full responsibility to Inform.

Whining about the Need (or requirement) to Inform - AFTER THE FACT (after you have accepted the license) is dishonorable at best, illegal at worst.

If you do not wish to uphold your end of the agreement, forfeit your license.

Otherwise, be prepared to be treated as a common criminal...

Have a Great Day!

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 01:33 PM
Gordon - I find there is NOTHING Reasonable about Harboring Fear of LEOs. Your statement says it all:

What positive outcome can one expect from unwanted contact with law enforcement?

Sounds More like a Guilty Conscience to me....

Can you spell P*A*R*A*N*O*I*A ???????

Paranoia is Not Normal for Honorable People who make choices based on Integrity and Honesty.

Paranoia is usually used to describe excessive concern about one's own well-being, sometimes suggesting a person holds persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property and is often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories.

I CHOOSE to Contribute to the Solution, NOT be part of the Problem...

Have a great day!

glummer
June 20, 2006, 01:38 PM
TC-TX, your arguments are just repeated assertion, with no justifying logic to them.
Try making a parallel claim for behavior that is (at present) accepted as a basic right.

Suppose Nazi Germany had licensed Jews, like we do gun-owners; or if segregationist States had come up with a license requirement for interacial dating; your pattern of argument would still fit perfectly:

I do see this as a lack of honor on your part. When you were awarded a license to carry[practice Judaism][date white women], you assumed the full responsibility to Inform [the Gestapo][the Klan].
Whining about the Need (or requirement) to Inform [the Gestapo][the Klan]- AFTER THE FACT (after you have accepted the license) is dishonorable at best, illegal at worst.

If you do not wish to uphold your end of the agreement, forfeit your license.

Otherwise, be prepared to be treated as a common criminal...

Being a Jew, dating people from other races, or possessing rightfully-owned firearms - these are NOT things one is AWARDED a license for, if it is a free country, with government that repects fundamental personal liberty. And the desire to engage in these activities without kissing some policeman's butt is neither dishonorable, nor criminal.

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 01:52 PM
Glummer - it is like this...

First - this is NOT About Possessing Weapons - this is about Carrying Weapons...

LIKE IT OR NOT, in order to Legally Carry (outside of your domicile) in most states, there is a Licensing Proceedure you must go through... LIKE IT OR NOT - IT IS WHAT IT IS... (and NO - I don't like it either, but I prefer THIS WAY to NO WAY)...

If you have a CCW/CHL License to Carry, YOU HAVE ACCEPTED A RESPONSIBILITY That goes along with it. PERIOD.

If you have ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY (signed on the dotted line) You have a LEGAL and MORAL Responsibility to Uphold The Agreement.

If you CHOOSE NOT TO, you can either A) Forfeit your License and Nullify the Agreement OR B) Be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, and prepare to be treated like a criminal, in response to your criminal behavior.

Your attempt at a Jews to Guns comparison is an Apples-To-ManHole Covers comparison...

Gordon Fink
June 20, 2006, 02:26 PM
Gordon - I find there is NOTHING Reasonable about Harboring Fear of LEOs.…

Again, what positive outcome can one expect from unwanted contact with law enforcement? The answer is almost certainly none. The best case scenario is that one will not be cited or arrested.

~G. Fink

bowline
June 20, 2006, 02:29 PM
Let me re-state the question, just a bit...
Officer Friendly "I'm here to help. Do you have any firearms?"
NOLA Homeowner "Why yes, officer!"

Any meeting with an officer of the law during 'business hours' is almost certainly adversarial in nature. I've never been pulled over and given a gift certificate. The officer most likely wants to ticket you, or jail you.
THERE ARE exceptions to this, and some outstanding officers out there who truly are more interested in 'keeping the peace' than in enforcing the law. They have my deepest admiration.
There are, unfortunately, many officers who are much more interested in asserting their authority and dominance. The offence of POP isn't found in statutes, but is so commonly asserted that every officer reading this probably recognises it.
If the officer asks about firearms, it isn't a social question. He may be attempting to lower his 'fear factor'. He may be attempting to solicit information to see if you are in violation of the law (or, as has been demonstrated recently, his personal feelings on the subject).
Fifth amendment - when in doubt, keep your mouth shut. Is it dishonorable, or a crime, to exercise your constitutional right?
The question has become, I believe, how to exercise that fifth amendment right without becoming guilty of POP.
Unless someone here cares to assert that the officers' perception of his safety (which, as a law abiding, gun owning citizen, I really have no interest in endangering) overrides my constitutional rights?

cropcirclewalker
June 20, 2006, 02:43 PM
This has been an interesting string if for no other reason than to have Mr. Old Dog pat our heads and tell us not to worry because the leos up there around Puget Sound would never do to us what poster after poster has logged on to tell us has been done.

Then we get to listen to Mr. TC-TX lecture us about honor.

Mr. TC-TX, a ccw permit is not AWARDED. Those are merit badges you're thinking of.

When you get old enough to go to the academy you will learn that the majority of police work today is stopping innocent drivers who are just trying to get somewhere and wish to be left alone so that some citation can be awarded to them for some silly little infraction.

glummer
June 20, 2006, 02:45 PM
TC-TX, your assertions would mean compliance with ANYTHING that a government might issue a license for, regardless of the ethical, moral, or Constitutional wrongs involved. That is nonsense.

There are countries where newspapers are licensed, and heavily regulated.

If you have a ...License to ..., YOU HAVE ACCEPTED A RESPONSIBILITY That goes along with it. PERIOD.

If you have ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY (signed on the dotted line) You have a LEGAL and MORAL Responsibility to Uphold The Agreement.


Are you saying that newspapers in those counties are immoral if they try to evade government censorship? That they have a responsibility to disseminate lies, if the government requires it as a license condition? That they lack honor if they tell the truth? :banghead: :banghead:

A "responsibility" imposed at the point of a gun has NO ethical or moral weight, whatever the law says. If Nazi law says that a condition of having a license to sail a ship in German waters, was to co-operate with the Gestapo in capturing fleeing Jews, would the captain of such a ship be morally wrong to lie about his passenger lists?

If the government imposes restrictions of fundamental liberties, there can easily be a point where the immorality of the law becomes so great that one has to consider lying to evade it. The question here is, whether there are such laws operating in the USA. And some of the posts suggest there well may be, at least in some jurisdictions.

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 02:47 PM
As I stated gordon - it is All About Choices...

I CHOOSE to see the glass as half Full - I have NEVER had a poor encounter with ANY LEO - Ever...

I CHOOSE to Contribute to the Solution, rather than be part of the problem.

You and those of your ilk choose otherwise... Your choice, Your consequences...

Enjoy the day!

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 02:59 PM
cropcirclewalker - Concealed Licenses ARE, in fact AWARDED to (issued to) those individuals found legally capable of (qualifies for) possessing a license, and thus a firearm.

Whether you like it or not - there is a reason not everyone qualifies for a CCW/CHL.

And Finally - When you get old enough to go to the academy you will learn that the majority of police work today is stopping innocent drivers who are just trying to get somewhere and wish to be left alone so that some citation can be awarded to them for some silly little infraction. This is THE MOST malicious and paranoid statement I have ever heard...

I certainly hope you never have the need to depend upon those you have this deep-seated contempt for...

Just remember, though - they Will Be There to serve you no matter How you feel...

That is the Great Thing about the Honorable LEO folks who dedicate their lives to the protection of you and your family.

Have a Greaat Day!

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 03:06 PM
glummer - please try to stay on topic...

We are speaking of Lying vs. Telling The truth, HERE IN THE U.S.A.

It is REALLY SIMPLE:

You accept the License - You accept the responsbility (no one Pointed a Gun at you).

You don't like the responsibility - forfeit the license.

You choose to act in a criminal manner - be prepared for the consequences.



Your Choices -

Have a Great Day!

roo_ster
June 20, 2006, 03:10 PM
"When law and morality contradict one another, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect for the law."
----Frederic Bastiat

Some jurisdictions in America place their citizens in the above dilema. In some, the law contradicts morality (Chicago, IL & Wash, DC) and in others the law's enforcers act immoraly (as described by the unexcusable treatment of law-abiding folks carrying firearms).

I am fortunate to live where I do: where the local cops are mostly on board with the idea of an armed citizenry. I have no great fear of handing over my CHL to a local officer and telling him my current armed state.

Others are not so blessed. They must do what they think best in the face of immoral law or immoral enforcement. Calling them dishonorable for maintaining their sense of morality demonstrates a lack of understanding of how morality and law interact...and much else.

KINGMAX
June 20, 2006, 03:13 PM
Most of the time. :uhoh: Road trip always, even two guns sometimes. I like to take an AK in the back of the truck under the bed cover. Just drop the tail gate & there it is. I will have an AK & 2-4 30 rd magazines underneath a blanket or in a gun cover that zips open ready to go if all else fails. Thankfully - I've never had to go there. :scrutiny:

cropcirclewalker
June 20, 2006, 03:16 PM
This string is circling the drain. It was fun.

cropcirclewalker - Concealed Licenses ARE, in fact AWARDED to (issued to) those individuals found legally capable of (qualifies for) possessing a license, and thus a firearm.

Whether you like it or not - there is a reason not everyone qualifies for a CCW/CHL.

You are wrong on numerable things for the most part.

1) The majority of states have "Shall Issue" law. What that means is that the issuing authority (state, sheriff, police chief, whatever) must issue the license unless they can show that you do not qualify.

2) You started out with "Concealed Licenses" and finished up with "Possessing a license, and thus a firearm." Sorry, only the most socialist, citizen fearing states require a license for possessing a firearm. Even TX, fearful of the citizenry as they are do not, to my knowledge, require a license to possess a firearm, even concealable.

I know Missouri doesn't. Further, Missouri, unlike TX, requires no permit or license to open carry a firearm, even in public, even next to or near a leo.

It strikes me that the paranoia of which you speak is mostly eminating from out of the leo.

I am usually not fearful of leo having a firearm. Why is leo afraid of mine?

Ponder that.

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 03:24 PM
It strikes me that the paranoia of which you speak is mostly eminating from out of the leo.

I am usually not fearful of leo having a firearm. Why is leo afraid of mine?Absolutely! LEO paranoia is most blatantly illustrated in the practice of treating CCW license holders as if they are, by virtue of that fact, likely murderers, while a rational evaluation would lead them to feeling far more at ease in the company of a CCW license holder than that of a non-CCW license holder. That is what I call paranoia.

bowline
June 20, 2006, 03:32 PM
:D Hey, I'm an Ilk! Finally!

Seriously, though, TC-TX. No disrespect intended, but the courts have found that it is okay for an officer of the law to lie to a suspect to facilitate the investigation. It is a given that there are officers whose motives are not based in a profound desire for observing the law. Some of us have had to deal with those officers. We are attempting to find a way to do so which minimizes the risks - which can entail anything from unreasonable delay, contributing to the officers' gun collection, or arrest/incarceration, legal fees, and hassles pursuant to having the case (eventually) dismissed.
Perhaps you've never encountered this situation. Others have. Thank you for warning us of the dire consequences we no doubt face for attempting to comply with the law (the one on the books, not John Law) while avoiding an unpleasant, dangerous and expensive episode.
The topic, however, is how to do so.

Now, is there a secret decoder ring for the Ilks Club?:neener:

Biker
June 20, 2006, 03:41 PM
Welcome to the Ilk's Lodge!

Biker

neoncowboy
June 20, 2006, 03:43 PM
TC-TX
I don't advocate lying to the police...but do you include in your indictments those who (like me) simply don't want to or see any reason to talk about it?

Whether I have a gun or anything else in my car is simply none of the police business. If they want to search me because they think I've committed a crime, they can get a warrant and search. If not, we don't really have anything to talk about.

There's nothing illegal, deceitful, rude or uncooperative about that attitude. That is the relationship that exists between law enforcement and the citizenry. A cop that wants to take issue with it and consider it rude or uncooperative is, in my opinion, the one who is 'pushing it'.

Ira Aten
June 20, 2006, 03:43 PM
Quote in reference to asking questions:
"A LEO has a Responsibility to Know"


Gee, I thought he had a responsibility to write a traffic ticket for a traffic violation, since that is supposedley the only reason the gentleman was stopped. If you are correct in your statement that the officer has a "responsibility to know" anything he wants about a situation not relative to the suspected violation, then the motorist has truly been stopped for a general interrogation to be conducted rather than enforcement of a traffic violation as originally stated.

Does that motorist also have a responsibility to answer any and all questions asked during such an interrogation, just because an LEO believes he has a responsibility to conduct further interrogations relative to any type of civil law enforcement?

Say for instance, a Sherrif Deputy asking a driver if he has ever failed to pay municipal taxes due on real property owned within a county?
If he answers that he has paid all taxes in full, is the motorist required to produce proof of payment of those taxe immediately upon request of that Sherrif Deputy if he is unfortunate enough to have a tail light go out?

If the motorist answered that he had not yet issued payment for his 2005 municipal taxes on real property, should the "responsible" officer take him immediately into custody?


After all, the Sherrif is the legally assigned authority to enforce any liens given in judgement against a person owning real property in that county, so if he has a responsibility to interrogate someone about a matter he has no valid reason to suspect might be occuring, then doesn't he have a "responsibility to know" if all the taxes are paid to the county?

I think it might just be better to non LEO point of view from an average suspect.

ProficientRifleman
June 20, 2006, 03:45 PM
Absolutely! LEO paranoia is most blatantly illustrated in the practice of treating CCW license holders as if they are, by virtue of that fact, likely murderers, while a rational evaluation would lead them to feeling far more at ease in the company of a CCW license holder than that of a non-CCW license holder. That is what I call paranoia.

This is exactly the point I was illustrating!

bowline
June 20, 2006, 03:53 PM
To get back on topic, can we reach a consensus on how to politely tell an officer to mind his own business?

SSN Vet
June 20, 2006, 03:53 PM
Thou shall not bear false witness (commonly interpreted as lie).

Don't fear man who can kill the physical body....but fear God, who can send your soul someplace you really don't want to go, for a very long time.

Biker
June 20, 2006, 04:00 PM
SSN Vet...

Sometimes, in order to survive in this world, ya gotta lie to liars, cheat cheaters and deal with violent people in a violent manner.

I'm not necessarily saying this applies to cops, it's just a set of general rules.
I don't like 'em, but I didn't make 'em.

Biker

glummer
June 20, 2006, 04:03 PM
bowline,
To get back on topic, can we reach a consensus on how to politely tell an officer to mind his own business?

Politely would be easy; the problem is SAFELY. For some reason our LEO friends are not offering much helpful advice in that direction.

cropcirclewalker
June 20, 2006, 04:15 PM
I don't know if there is any cure for PRK other than moving away.

The paranoia the leos suffer from in Ohio could be cured with what I would call "Overloading". During their fight for ccw the informed of Ohio had their Open Carry Parades. It got the public's attention.

Part of the new law contains ridiculuous open carry in the car and need to immediately notify leo if you get stopped. Really stupid laws and there was a string a while back about a ccw type who stopped for a nap and had to have his piece in plain view and a concerned citizen called the cops and they did like a felony stop on him with guns drawn and like that.

Now, if a group of ccw type would pick a city like say Columbus and start calling in "Man with a Gun" complaints, like say 40 or 50 of them all at the same time, well enough to tie up leos all over the city and maybe block some traffic for some politicians on their way home on a Friday night, perhaps the law makers would wise up.

Of course, like the open carry parades, everything to be legal except no prior notification.

A few Fridays of this during the legislative session and one or two things might happen.

1) Leo would chill a little about ccw in the car carry.
2) The public would become aware that man with a gun is not a crime.
3) Politicians would cure the stupid law.

Until that happens, Ohioans are screwed.

Missouri? No problemo.

No duty to inform leo that you have a permit

Duty to present license only if leo requests it.

No duty to tell leo that you are packin'.

Concealed, loaded in car without permit is lawful.

Open carry is lawful.

So even if you wind up with a boy scout leo you just assert your right to remain silent and if they search the car and find the piece, so what?

Each state is different.

Good luck.

Risasi
June 20, 2006, 04:20 PM
I stopped in here to dig up some info on a new SP-101 I got. I see some things don't change.

SSN Vet. I'm dead to sin, holding that status I am not under "the Law", which is for an entirely different race, and that law was abolished 2000 years ago. There is no need to bring that set of codebooks to the table when they hold no juristiction here.

As for the subject at hand I can speak from experience. I told the officer I was carrying. For my honesty I received grief. Deservedly so. I did commit a minor traffic infraction. However I was not arrested. Even though I carried without a municipal permit, with a firearm whose serial number came back stolen (not my gun, different caliber), in a vehicle the same make as one just reported stolen. I would not do the same thing again.

To me this is a moot point. I make a point of not getting pulled over. I also make a point of knowing the law now (which varied based upon region). I also make a point of not lying to an officer. However because I know what my rights I am not always willing to kowtow to all LEO. Frankly circumstances be damned, principle is what's important. I'm single, I have money, and if someone pisses me off for not doing "the right thing", well we'll cross that bridge when we get there. If we get there. Seriously though guys, many of you worry too much. I haven't been pulled over in 10 years.
Except for two years ago by an Iowa cop running a fishing expedition for out of state vehicles carrying passengers without a proper seatbelt in use.
And if I was getting pulled over that much around my neck of the woods I'd either move (not practicle), or do something about it. Start a blog, record everything. Report to your local news, and other local groups. If it's really that bad in your area do something about it.

I also make a point of getting to know LEO in my area. Most are not unreasonable. A few are nasty. Some are just burned out and I don't blame them. And I suppose some are on the take, however I have no personal experience with that. So I will not speak out regarding JBT's or dirty cops or whatever other mudslinging goes on.

Most people here just need to chill out and de-escalate. I'm not out to change the world, but to live a peaceful life if I can.

TC-TX
June 20, 2006, 04:30 PM
Folks -- it is a Simple Question:

We are speaking of Lying vs. Telling The Truth

I, personally, prefer to take the High Road in these situations (pun intended...:) ).

I, personally, do not see the LEO as paranoid, just looking to assess the situation, as He/She is the one at the disadvantage in Traffic Stops and the like. This has been My experience.

I, personally, do not see asking nor answering questions not germain to the situation as pertinant to the Original question posed in this thread. Questions about concealed weapons are usually germain to a traffic-stop situation and, IMO, an honest answer is incumbant upon all license holders.

I, personally, do not think lying by either party is acceptable.

I, personally, have never been treated with anything other than respect in regard to my CHL. I believe this is the way it should be.

I am not judging anyone here - I have never walked in your shoes, nor is it my job to judge anyone. If I came off as otherwise, I apologize.

I was merely trying to point out that I believe CCW/CHL holders are and should be held to a higher standard. I believe an Honest Approach in regard to interaction with anyone - especially LE - is a Good Policy. I believe there is enough bad information and mis-information by those wanting to do away with RKBA already. I hate to see CCW/CHL holders feed that frenzy by supporting questionable ethics and communication practices.

I believe and support the tenet that RKBA is an inalienable right given to all by our Creator. I am also aware that we live (by choice) in a Nation governed by laws. I choose to support the laws. If I disagree with the law, I push for change. I do not intentionally break the law without regard for the consequences... When I speed I risk a ticket.

In all of these points YMMV... I respect that.

Now - I have got to get to the airport to catch a plane.

Have a great Day all... Peace.

bowline
June 20, 2006, 04:49 PM
Glummer
Politely would be easy; the problem is SAFELY. For some reason our LEO friends are not offering much helpful advice in that direction.
Noticed that myself. Apparently, even when it is legal, appropriate, and called for, you're on your own...

TC-TX
We are speaking of Lying vs. Telling The Truth
Ah... no. You are speaking of that. The rest of us are talking about something else.

This thread hasn't been very productive - but I got a new sig line out of it!

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 05:27 PM
To get back on topic, can we reach a consensus on how to politely tell an officer to mind his own business?

"I prefer not to discuss the contents of my vehicle, officer, as I value my privacy, other than to say that with regard to everything in my car I am in full compliance with the law. Now, unless there's something else I can help you with, I'd like to be on my way."

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 05:29 PM
Now, if a group of ccw type would pick a city like say Columbus and start calling in "Man with a Gun" complaints, like say 40 or 50 of them all at the same time, well enough to tie up leos all over the city and maybe block some traffic for some politicians on their way home on a Friday night, perhaps the law makers would wise up.

Of course, like the open carry parades, everything to be legal except no prior notification.

A few Fridays of this during the legislative session and one or two things might happen.

1) Leo would chill a little about ccw in the car carry.
2) The public would become aware that man with a gun is not a crime.
3) Politicians would cure the stupid law.CCW, you, sir, are a genius.

kmca
June 20, 2006, 05:56 PM
I believe this thread started out asking you should do to answer the question "do you have a firearm in the car?" Nothing was mentioned about CCW. Are there possibly 2 answers? One answer for a CCW/armed driver and another for a gun unloaded and locked in the trunk of your car?

Call me paranoid if you wish but since I am human, I could make a mistake...say leave a round in a magazine. Where I live loaded magazine = loaded gun.

Gordon Fink
June 20, 2006, 07:30 PM
Let me reframe the question. In order to exercise my right to travel within my own state, how many of my other rights must I surrender? At the very least, according to the police-state apologists, I must give up my right to arms, my freedom from unreasonable searches, and my right against self-incrimination.

I know. I know. That was a trick question. The state doesn’t recognize my right to travel either.

~G. Fink

Jim Diver
June 20, 2006, 07:38 PM
"I prefer not to discuss the contents of my vehicle, officer, as I value my privacy, other than to say that with regard to everything in my car I am in full compliance with the law. Now, unless there's something else I can help you with, I'd like to be on my way."

Nice, but try to remember that when you get an adrenalin dump... Remember, many people are very fearful when they get pulled over. You KNOW it's going to be confrontational. After all, who here has been pulled over just to be complemented on driving safely? Unless you called them, every contact with police needs to be done carefuly.

Back to lying to the police, other than to say that with regard to everything in my car I am in full compliance with the law. I do not advise this statement. It is bound to be a lie. These days, just waking up in the morning can be considered illegal. With the literally TONS of pounds of laws and regulations passed each year, you ARE breaking some law by just breathing.

308win
June 20, 2006, 07:57 PM
Unless you called them, every contact with police needs to be done carefuly.
Even if you did call them you need to be vewry vewry careful.

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 10:35 PM
Nice, but try to remember that when you get an adrenalin dump.You have my permission to have that whole statement printed on a card you can affix to your sun visor. When the policeman asks you the question, you can look up at your visor and read it to him. If he asks if you have anything to hide, read it to him again, word for word.

As someone here once suggested, as soon as you come to a stop, call your home phone and have the answering machine record the entire conversation. I'm sure that if this trend continues, someone will market a video camera positioned to secretly record the entire interaction, and then automatically upload it as a digital file and sent to your email address. Sort of like a technology cold war between the people and the police.

AJAX22
June 21, 2006, 12:03 AM
Alright guys, the DOJ finnally got back to me



This is in response to your questions about Penal Code section 12031

Is it ok to transport a loaded magazine in conjunction with a unloaded firearm. provided that the magazine is not attached to the firearm at the time of transport.

Likewise is it alright to transport a full speedloader in conjunction with a revolver

Is it ok to keep a rifle in the trunk of your car along with a seperate locked container that contains a loaded magazine?


Do stripper clips constitute a loaded magazine? as the clip does not at any time attach to the rifle during function. (the specific example would be that of the SKS)

You have cited the correct penal code section that addresses the issues your questions raise. However, I am not an attorney and cannot give legal advice. Answers to your questions constitute legal advice. It is up to the police officer whom you encounter to make a determination if the way your are transporting your firearms and/or ammunition is in compliance with this penal code section. The specifics of your questions are not addressed in the law; I see no obvious conflict but your questions should be asked of the local law enforcement agency who might be enforcing the law. You might speak to the Watch Commander of a shift, or if the agency has a Gun Unit, you could ask one of the officers who works there and would be more familiar with the firearm enforcement. Or, if there is a rangemaster at the law enforcement agency, he/she could give you their opinion. Another avenue you could explore is the City Attorney's Office or County District Attorney's Office as it would be up to them as to when to prosecute a violation of 12031.

I am sorry to be so ambiguous about an answer; however, a definitive answer from me would not protect you from consequences if a law enforcement officers believes you have violated the law.

Sally



Sally Carney, Field Representative
Firearms Division
(916) 263-4887

So the agency in charge of determining legality and applicability of laws can't tell me one way or another, and its up to the individual law enforcement officer to determine if I am in compliance with the law.

His bosses, bosses, bosses, boss doesn't know if its illigal or not, but a lowly beat cop fresh out of the accadamy gets to determine my future for the next year or so while we work out our differences in court.

It seems to me like there is a lot of leeway for injustice to occur here, allowing the subjective opinion of whatever individual pulls me over that day in conjunction with a politically motivated DA to set things in motion which could deprive me of my freedom, my rights, or at minimum my finances.

I do however stand corrected on my previous statement, I said that I knew for a FACT that it was illigal to transport a loaded magazine in conjunction with an empty gun. This statement was wrong.

No one knows if its illigal or not, It could be illigal, or it could be ok, depending on the whim of the officer. for me this ambiguity of the law is even more frightening.

so my revised statment is; I know for a FACT that carying a loaded magazine in conjunction with a unloaded gun in California, may be construed as illigal by the officer at the scene, it is totally up to his discression. if you go to trial, he will be paid to attend, wheras you will have to shell out money hand over fist. So Roll the dice if you feel like it.

I for one don't much care for playing russian roulette with my future, and as such, when I get asked the question, I'm answering "No". If and when I move somewhere where the law is clear, and infractions of the law are not strictly subjective, I look forward to answering honestly. Untill that day, my "No" will have to suffice.

The Real Hawkeye
June 21, 2006, 09:51 AM
For me this ambiguity of the law is even more frightening.Ambiguity in the law is the goal of every would-be tyrant. This way you never know if you are in complience. It is the opposite of the rule of law. Instead, we are under the rule of tens of thousands of little tyrants with badges.

cropcirclewalker
June 21, 2006, 11:39 AM
Mr. AJAX22,

It might be fun to print up a bunch of those letters and include one each to all the Publick Affairs type in each police dept through which you travel. You know, copy of the letter (which is your authorization) and a request for specific written response from each watch commander.

Then you could take all the results and stastically like do a bell curve and then send all the responses along with you stastical analysis back to the babe at doj and cure her of her ambiguity.

Then perhaps a letter to your state representative and/or senator with copies and annotations and ask that some RULE of law be legislated.

Maybe not.

emails would be cheaper, but institutions of the state lots of time don't have the will nor the ability to use computers with the public. Viruses and like that.

SSN Vet
June 21, 2006, 01:22 PM
sorry if I was "blunt".....

but I get a little exasperated at how loosely people recommend telling "bold faced lies" to those given legitimate authority in our society. (and yes I know that often that authority is abused).

We seem to be transitioning into a society where telling lies as a matter of routine, whether to cover our rear ends or just out of expediency.

Risasi....

Believe me, I'm not one to push off O.T. dietary regs. or customs on anybody, nor am I some prudish tea totaller who scowls at anyone having fun. But if we as a society can't find any common moral ground (I'd suggest the 10 commandments, as most of our founding fathers did, even the non-believers) then we've pretty well ceased to be a society.

Is any of this applicable to the question that started the thread?

The thread was about what to say to a police officer who inquires about guns in your car. Many (if not most) of the replies suggested lying as a legitimate response.

I suggest that people should not take lying lightly....

you might just become a liar!

The Real Hawkeye
June 21, 2006, 01:32 PM
I get a little exasperated at how loosely people recommend telling "bold faced lies" to those given legitimate authority in our society.As a society transforms itself into a police state, routine deception when dealing with the authorities is a common response of the people laboring under it. It will only get worse as the transformation progresses.

Many (if not most) of the replies suggested lying as a legitimate response. Actually, I joined the discussion relatively late, and I didn't read the earlier posts. Could you quote someone who suggested that one should lie to a police officer?

cropcirclewalker
June 21, 2006, 01:51 PM
but I get a little exasperated at how loosely people recommend telling "bold faced lies" to those given legitimate authority in our society. (and yes I know that often that authority is abused).

We seem to be transitioning into a society where telling lies as a matter of routine, whether to cover our rear ends or just out of expediency.

Risasi....

Believe me, I'm not one to push off O.T. dietary regs. or customs on anybody, nor am I some prudish tea totaller who scowls at anyone having fun. But if we as a society can't find any common moral ground (I'd suggest the 10 commandments, as most of our founding fathers did, even the non-believers) then we've pretty well ceased to be a society.

Is any of this applicable to the question that started the thread? I think I am with Mr. SSN Vet here, well, mostly.

The ten commandments are a good rule of thumb by which to live. I try to.

Only trouble is, the founders used other stuff too. If there is a parallel in the big 10 (commandments) to the fifth amendment I am unaware.

If you lie to a cop you are a fool.

If you tell the truth to a cop you are a fool.

Then we got the third option, which authoritarians just can't handle.

If you say nothing to a cop you are mathamatically ahead.

We have poster after poster here tell us about admitting to be carrying a firearm and then getting hooked up, hauled in or having their vehicle tossed.

Odds are if you tell the truth, your car gets tossed.

If we had any poster here telling us that they lied and got their vehicle tossed, I cannot remember, but regardless, lying is wrong. Especially if you lie to a cop.

If wifey asks, "Does this dress make me look fat?" You all know how to answer regardless of the truth. Not the same when answering a cop.

But mathamatically, the odds are in favor of just asserting your right to remain silent. If leo searches your car and finds the piece you are going to get hassled. Whether you told him or not.

If you lied and he searched and found the piece, you are in trouble.
If you told the truth and he searched and found the piece, you are in trouble.


If you said nothing and he searched and found the piece, you are in trouble too, but not for lying. Now leo has to justify the search with probable cause. Not from some slip of the lip outa you.

Please out there.......Just keep your trap shut.

Old Dog
June 21, 2006, 02:55 PM
cropcirclewalker statedWe have poster after poster here tell us about admitting to be carrying a firearm and then getting hooked up, hauled in or having their vehicle tossed.
WRONG!
Read the whole thread again.

AJAX22, in post #21, alludes to his firearms being placed "in the dirt" but does not elaborate on the specific instance of his alleged traffic stop nor offer any salient details.

Bruss01, in post #30, speaks of an attorney acquaintance, his "firearms instructor" who allegedly was held at gunpoint by some cops during a stop subsequent to 'fessing up in the affirmative to "The Question."

MBane666 speaks of a horrific stop -- when no gun was in the car nor admitted to -- by an officer who was even chastised by his back-ups for his bad attitude to Mr. Bane.

JimDiver, in post #169, talks about all the nasty LEOs in San Jose, California, yet amazingly enough, does not bother to corroborate his negative attitude about his homegrown LEOs with ANY evidence, not even anecdotal, such as Bruss01 at least offered forth.

Bowline in post #181, another NO GUN traffic stop, speaks of 40 minutes of having to perform FSTs - again, NO GUN.

CCW, it's basically you and AJAX22 here trying to prolong the agony.

NINE pages, and no first hand accounts of being handcuffed (other than yours), having one's vehicle tossed, or being "hauled away" to jail.

I submit this is an imaginary problem and some of you are simply trying to take offense -- and project infringement upon your rights -- where there in fact, exists none.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
June 21, 2006, 03:27 PM
Both times my weapon was taken from me. Both times I told the officer I was carrying, and what would he like to do. Once, I was wearing the gun, the other time it was in the glove box. When I was wearing the gun, I had to get out of the car, place my hands on the roof, and I allowed the officer to take my Glock 23 for the duration of the stop. The State Trooper did his job(running my imfo), wrote my ticket for the infraction(registration out of date), then returned my pistol. I told him I was leery of situations like this, and he said I shouldn't be,"It is your RIGHT to CARRY a FIREARM, have a nice day". I even asked them about the side arms they were carrying, and they said due to climate, I should stay with the Glock. Got my licenses back, Reloaded my 23 RIGHT THERE IN THE ROAD, Reholstered, and went on about my merry way. The time it was in the glove box, I asked what the Officer(Sherrif) wanted to do and he asked for the firearm, which was in a holster. I handed it to him holster and all(using two fingers) while keeping the other hand on the wheel. He dropped the mag and placed it on my trunk, then unloaded the chamber and placed the round there also. Did his job(ran my imfo), gave me my ticket(for the same thing, registration:banghead: ) and told me,"Please don't reload your weapon until I leave:uhoh:, but whatever.
I took the firearm up off the trunk, loaded the magazine, racked a round into the chamber, the reloaded the single round to the magazine and placed the holster under my shirt before getting back into the car. Again, this was in the MIDDLE OF THE ROAD(well on the side but you get what I mean). Both times the Officers where not rude, their demeanor did not change after I presented my I.D., but both wanted to know if the gun was chambered and it's location, and both wanted my gun off of me... To clarify, when I said treated like a criminal in my previous post, I meant the Officer will probably take your weapon, but you won't get hassled for lying to The Wrong Officer....

PS- I did not have to pay the ticket for registration when the weapon was in my glove box as it was at home, just not affixed to the car and the D.A was a hottie. All in all, no problem. Still 2 Many Choices!?

cropcirclewalker
June 21, 2006, 03:33 PM
Mr. Old Dog, I am touched that you would go through all those posts.

I won't, don't have time nor inclination.

you forgot

Mr. Risasi in post 201, but that's as far as I will go back.

So out of all those posts we have at least seven of us. I only have 3 1/2 pages. (it is possible to configure the posts per page)

Since you are into stastics, why don't you evaluate actually how many posters there have been on this string. I know I have made a bunch, Mr. Hawkeye, Mr. AJAX22, Mr. Proficient Rifleguy, Mr. Glummer, Mr. TC-TX, (sorry if I left out a prolific poster) but even you are in for 3 unless I forgot one. Mr. Eatman has at least 2 and he shouldn't count being a mod.

So, add it up. Maybe 30 posters in this string and seven of them have been hassled.

I reiterate, how many lied "no" and then got tossed? I don't remember any.

Old Dog
June 21, 2006, 04:03 PM
CCW,
This statementAs for the subject at hand I can speak from experience. I told the officer I was carrying. For my honesty I received grief. Deservedly so. I did commit a minor traffic infraction. However I was not arrested. Even though I carried without a municipal permit, with a firearm whose serial number came back stolen (not my gun, different caliber), in a vehicle the same make as one just reported stolen.
supports whatever your major thesis is?

I won't, don't have time nor inclination.I'm not surprised.

Save you the trouble, though -- ZERO posts relating personal experiences of being handcuffed, having vehicles tossed or being taken to jail as a result of saying, "Yes" when asked by a LEO during a routine traffic stop if there were firearms in the vehicle.
Maybe 30 posters in this string and seven of them have been hassled.Really, though, you should count again, and then also note that of the few who claim to have been hassled, most of them did not have firearms in their vehicles.
I reiterate, how many lied "no" and then got tossed? I don't remember any.Gee, this must mean that one should lie if asked by a cop during a routine traffic stop whether one has firearms in the vehicle. God forbid one should be "hassled" in any way shape or form by being asked to show the firearms to the cop or produce one's CPL. Your use of, or should I say, your lack of, logic, escapes me.

Gordon Fink
June 21, 2006, 04:39 PM
Yes, God forbid. I believe that is exactly our point here on the pro-rights side of this debate.

~G. Fink

Creeping Incrementalism
June 21, 2006, 11:28 PM
ZERO posts relating personal experiences of being handcuffed, having vehicles tossed or being taken to jail as a result of saying, "Yes" when asked by a LEO during a routine traffic stop if there were firearms in the vehicle.

This doesn't fit your criteria exactly, though I doubt what happened would be any different if he actually had guns in his car at the time, and told the officer so. By the way, even admitting you are carrying firearms to a LEO in CA means they can pull them out to verify they are unloaded.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=35281&page=5



Contrary to popular belief, a cop cannot just toss your car. If your car is tossed, you have done something very wrong.

Boy do you live in la-la land. I was pulled over for speeding once on the I-5. I was going 10 over the speed limit. At the time I was going down the grapevine and didn't want to ride my brakes all the way.

Anyways was pulled over and given a ticket. I didn't argue or put up any protest as everyone going down that same mountain was going faster than the speed limit. Figured it was my time to get the ticket. No biggie, figured it was okay as I have spotless record.

Anyways to make a long story short. I was asked to step out of the car and searched. Handcuffed and made to sit by the side while the Chipper searched my car. Do you know what the Chiper used as PC.....I was wearing a black T-shirt with a small outline of a Deer on the right side of the my chest with a small logo that said "Browning...a tradition of excellence".

Apparently wearing a gun T-shirt is enough to get your car searched.

He isn't the only person in California that I've heard of getting a vehicle searched on PC of gun clothing or bumper stickers, though I'm not saying that it is common.

Creeping Incrementalism
June 21, 2006, 11:45 PM
Creeping Incrementalism,

Doing the Right Thing is Always Right... Doing the Wrong Thing is Always Wrong. Whether it is You or Them...

Wrong behavior on another's part does not give license for the same on yours.

Doing the wrong thing (lying) is not always wrong if it's for a good cause. Cops (hopefully) only lie for a good cause, right? By your definition, the Revolution was illegal, and therefore wrong. Saying "comparing apples to manhole covers" doesn't work when the situations are analgous. They are analagous because we are talking about lieing, or breaking a law, in certain situations, for the greater good. And an honest citizen not being humiliated, and not having his firearms seized, at no danger to the police, increases the greater good.

By the way, you come across as incredibly arrogant and self-righteous when you ungramatically use capital letters.

CAPTAIN MIKE
June 22, 2006, 02:11 AM
"Sure -- just like in your car".

TC-TX
June 22, 2006, 02:21 AM
Sorry Creeping, but Honest Citizens do NOT lie...

Lying Citizens are not honest...

You can not have it both ways, no matter how much you try to rationalize it...



And sorry if capitalization offends you...

carpettbaggerr
June 22, 2006, 02:39 AM
To get back on topic, can we reach a consensus on how to politely tell an officer to mind his own business?No sir, nothing illegal.

Completely true, and easier to remember than Hawkeye's formulation. Now, it doesn't necessarily answer their question " Do you have any weapons in your vehicle?" But it's a simple statement of fact, and no problem to repeat even if upset by a traffic stop.

No, sir, nothing illegal. :)

solareclipse
June 22, 2006, 05:05 AM
i answer them, followed by "no you can't play with them unless you want to arrest me"

they just tell me to either leave them where they are, or if it's on me they usually don't bother. once though he just took the holster out and put it on the hood. fine with me. checked me up and gave it back. then he wrote me up for whatever nonsense i was pulled over (failure to signal or something). :scrutiny:

cropcirclewalker
June 22, 2006, 11:35 AM
Sorry Creeping, but Honest Citizens do NOT lie...

Lying Citizens are not honest...

You can not have it both ways, no matter how much you try to rationalize it... OK, Mr. TC-TX, I got one more question for you and them I am outa here. This is your chance to compare the man hole covers like you want and really show us how the rubber meets the road.

So, pleasantly plump TX state trooper babe walks up to your car from the port quarter, hand above the grip of her piece, you with your hands on the wheel, and she says, "Does this uniform make me look fat?"

Don't lie. What do you tell her?

Bye. ;)

Biker
June 22, 2006, 12:02 PM
Hah! Good one. I told my wife The Truth once concerning this subject and The Truth did indeed set me free. I was free to sleep on the couch, cook my own dinners, spend money on Hustlers...:uhoh:

Biker

If you enjoyed reading about ""Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!