Saf Says Anti-gun Missouri Police Chief

SAF SAYS ANTI-GUN MISSOURI POLICE CHIEF
SHOULD SHELVE CONFISCATION PLAN
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today said Hazelwood, MO Police Chief Carl! Wolf should set his personal anti-gun politics aside and shelve an order to have his officers seize firearms from motorists they encounter in routine traffic stops, when the state's concealed carry law takes effect.

SAF obtained a copy of Chief Wolf's memorandum to his officers, ordering them to check any firearm they find in any vehicle they stop, to determine whether it is lost or stolen, and finally, "Officers shall then seize the firearm, package as evidence, and forward the firearm…to the St. Louis County Firearms Lab, to determine if the firearm has been used in the commission of a crime."


"This is an outrage, and it violates Fourth and Fifth Amendment provisions regarding illegal search and seizure, and due process," stated SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb. "Chief Wolf's vehement anti-gun attitudes and his long-standing opposition to concealed carry for Missouri residents are well known. By issuing this order, Wolf is clearly allowing his personal biases to influence ho! w he runs his department.


"Seizure of a firearm for no other reason than blind suspicion to find out whether it's been used in a crime amounts to a legal fishing expedition, and tramples all over such long-standing legal principles as 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'probable cause'," Gottlieb added. "Chief Wolf is a vocal opponent of concealed carry in Missouri, and he even allowed himself to be quoted in a 1999 Handgun Control news release.


"By ordering his men to seize all firearms-and there is no indication in his memo that there should be any exceptions, despite his claims of officer discretion to the contrary-Chief Wolf is practicing a new, and contemptibly low form of harassment," Gottlieb observed. "Law-abiding Missouri gun owners should not be fearful of driving through Hazelwood, and having their property confiscated, pretty much on a whim, because Chief Wolf doesn't like a new gun law. Has this guy ever heard of the Bill of Rights?


"Missouri gun rig! hts activists," Gottlieb concluded, "are justifiably concerned that Chief Wolf's order could result in a tragic incident that might later be used to justify his opposition to the citizens' right to bear arms. If Wolf wants to practice politics, he should first get out of law enforcement. This kind of demagoguery should not have the protection of a police chief's badge."


The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun ! makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >
Copyright © 2003 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: info@saf.org


To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to safalerts@liberty.seanet.com with REMOVE in the subject line.

From: Carl Wolf
> > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:56 AM
> > > To: PD Everyone
> > > Subject: Concealed Weapons Law
> > >
> > > As you all know, the State Legislature over road the Governor's veto
>and
> > > the Concealed Carry Law is due to begin @ 12:01 AM 10/11/03. There
is
>a
> > > court challenge and a good possibility it will postponed. The Judge
>will
> > > make a decision today, 10/10/03 sometime after 2:00 pm. If it does
go
> > > into affect, there will be no permits issued as most Sheriff's Offices
> > > will be closed over the weekend and for a holiday on Monday. It will
>take
> > > them probably a week to turn around an application. The City will
pass
>an
> > > ordinance on Wednesday 10/15/03 on concealed carry and a modified
> >
> > > trespassing ordinance. We will cover these ordinances at a later
date.
> > > The big concern if this goes into effect, is that the law allows
for
> > > anyone 21 years of age or older to possess a loaded concealed firearm
>in
> > > the passenger compartment of a vehicle, as long as the firearm is
>legal.
> > > They do not need a permit! Until we get a formal policy, the following
> > > will apply.
> > >
> > > * Officers are to take every precaution necessary to ensure their
own
> > > safety.
> > > * Officers have the right to ask the driver if a weapon is in the
car
> > > and where it is located.
> > >
> > > If a firearm is indicated (OFFICERS SHALL IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR BACKUP)
> > > * Officers shall have the driver and all occupants to exit the vehicle
> > > while the officer retrieves the firearm/s.
> > > * Officers shall immediately unload the firearm and inspect the
> > > firearm to see if it has been defaced or altered (this would make
it
>an
> > > illegal weapon).
> > > * Officers shall conduct a REJIS/NCIC check of the serial number
to
> >
> > > check for lost or stolen.
> > > * Officers shall then seize the firearm, package as evidence, and
> > > forward the firearm, according to department procedure, to the St.
>Louis
> > > County Firearms Lab, to determine if the firearm has been used in
the
> > > commission of a crime.
> > > * Officers shall issue a property receipt (HPD form 219) to the
> > > driver/owner.
> > > * Officers shall write a brief report reflecting actions taken.
> > >
> > > Officers should exercise extreme caution while approaching vehicles
>and
> > > controlling the occupants. Officers should be in a tactical response
> > > posture. Officers should be of a mindset that they could be
>immediately
>be
> > > confronted with lethal force on any traffic stop and be prepared
to
> > > respond with lethal force.
> > >
> > > Any complaints about an officer's tactical approach to a vehicle
shall
> > > immediately be forwarded to the Chief of Police.
> > >
> > > These are dangerous times and officer safety should be foremost in
>your
> > > mind.
> > >
> > > Stay safe!
> > >
> > > Chief Carl Wolf
> >
> > > Hazelwood Police Department
> > > VP-Treasurer IACP
> > > 314-839-3722
> >

Looks like the chief is trying to set the stage for a gunfight between his officers and any armed adult they encounter. Sounds vaguely like the FBI's rules of engagement for the Randy Weaver affair.

Pilgrim

I couldn't find the Hazelwood web page. Several LEO web pages had dead links to it.

Rick

http://www.mule57.org/news/News_Archives/swat.htm
Hazelwood Police Chief Threatens Officer’s
Wives With Lawsuit

Chief’s Attorney Says He Will Sue SWAT Team [name of the wives' support group} for Comments

October 20, 1998


Chief Carl Wolf
Hazelwood Police Dept.
415 Elm Grove Lane
Hazelwood, Missouri 63042

I called (left a message on his voicemail) and said that I had heard that he had planned to harrass Missouri CCWers by confiscating their guns (and doing felony-stop procedures).

I gave him my name and number and told him I wanted him to defend his position. I also thanked him for inspiring us to activism against him.

Rick

Officers shall then seize the firearm, package as evidence, and forward the firearm…to the St. Louis County Firearms Lab, to determine if the firearm has been used in the commission of a crime.

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state.

Good Sweet Lord. . . one hopes this was a spur-of-the-moment thing that will be withdrawn. I also have to hope that when he talked about a "firearm" being "defaced or altered," he meant to say the serial number. Altering or "defacing" a firearm is NOT illegal, of course, or there would be a lot of guys in jail over the desecrations that are all too often committed against innocent mil-surps.

You guys called the Chief, right?

Lets not forget this is the same chief who said that regardless of whether the supreme court finds concealed carry prohibited in the state constitution that his oficers will still have the right because they have power of arrest. He is either not very familiar with how the constitution works or just does not care! From the above info I would say he displays a reckless disregard for the law. How long before hw gets sued?

I'm from Cauleefornya for crying out loud, and I feel sorry for the residence of Hazelwood MO. Talk about your JBTs.:barf:

Who allows people like this to obtain power? Oh wait, the blissninnies.

:fire: :banghead: :barf:

Truly astounding - isn't it?

License to carry is really driving 'em out of the woodwork.

This Carl Wolf appears to be your usual left-wing police chief:

http://www.theiacp.org/leadership/images/wolf.jpg

Included in Carl's breathtaking resume is his current position as vice president and treasurer of the IACP. (International Association of Chiefs of Police)

http://www.theiacp.org

Perusing their website quickly reveals them to be wrong on just about every issue imaginable.

Regards

I don't pretend that most of the chiefs support this law. Traditionally they have been a strong voice of opposition. But most don't so blantantly disregard the law to serve their own purposes either! Oyr Atty. General has gon on record that he is opposed to CCW but he is fighting for it in court because that is his job! At least I can respect him for having integrity and a sense of duty. It sounds like the city board and businessis in Hazelwood need to hear how well Chief Wolf's abuse of citizen's rights will be accepted. The chief has a boss that he must report too just like any of the rest of us, that group needs to feel the pressure that his attitude and reckless disregard for law and citizens rights are not welcom in Missouri.

I see y'all have been doing some research.

EMAIL Police Chief Carl Wolf at wolf@ci.hazelwood.mo.us

I hope you have been letting him know how you feel.

Rick

The MO. CCW law doesn`t require a liscencee to disclose they are carrying and a liscence is not required for car carry, so if asked, is it illegal to say you don`t have a gun if you are in fact carrying? Is it legal to lie to the police?

It would be a bit tougher for someone that is liscenced since you have to go to the Dept. of Revenue to get an endorsment on your drivers liscence or state ID. It would show up if they run your plates and might be used as probable cause for a vehicle search.

It is pretty clear that emailing the chief is not going to accomplish nothing. The people he is responsible to need to hear about people's opinion on his disregard for citizens rights. This is the city's home page there ought to be some useful info here on who to voice your displeasure to,. The city counsel would be a very good place to start

Home page for Hazelwood MO (http://www.ci.hazelwood.mo.us/)

Thank you for that homepage address. Here is the email I sent to their city manager:

Dear Mr. Carlstrom,

It has recently been publicized on the Internet that your Chief of Police has issued orders to his officers to harass law abiding Missouri citizens who pass through your community while legally posessing firearms. He has also ordered the confiscation of such firearms in direct violation of Missouri law and the 2nd, 4th, and 5th ammendments of the United States Constitution. Finally he has ordered his officers to approach such citizens in a "tactical response posture" (ie. weapons drawn) and be prepared to use "lethal force" against the motorists. As a result I no longer feel that it is safe to pass through Hazelwood on my frequent visits to the St. Louis area. Furthermore, I will gather and post online the names of Hazelwood businesses so that individuals traveling through the area can know not to patronize such establishments. Obviously it is difficult to imagine that you would wish your police department to function like that of a police state, but illegally searching citizens vehicles and confiscating their property is exactly the sort of behaviour one would expect from the officers of a dictatorial regime. This cannot reflect well upon your city government should you allow this out of control law enforcement officer to continue in his position as chief of police.

Sincerely,

GR

Cheif Wolf's Orders Copied Below

From: Carl Wolf
> > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:56 AM
> > > To: PD Everyone
> > > Subject: Concealed Weapons Law
> >

etc, etc....

I hope this BS is Carl's undoing. Moron!!! :fire:

I sent a message to the City.

It would be a bit tougher for someone that is liscenced since you have to go to the Dept. of Revenue to get an endorsment on your drivers liscence or state ID. It would show up if they run your plates and might be used as probable cause for a vehicle search


Something else to consider. From reading his memo, it appears that he's told his officers to confiscate every firearm they find in a vehicle.

What'd happen if they stopped me for speeding while I was on my way to Oklahoma and asked me about guns and I answered, 'Yes. I have a pistol (or better yet, a rifle) unloaded and secured in my trunk.'?

If he confiscates my firearm, this is what I'd do.

I'd go get a copy of his report and hope that he notes the location in the vehicle where the gun was found and the fact that it was unloaded and there was no ammunition in the car.


Then I'd contact a lawyer about filing a Federal suit for violating my rights under the 1986 FOPA.

I hope this is all BS, but after having called his voice mail and e-mailed him, I have not gotten a response. (Has anybody?).

One would think if this was a hoax, the man would take steps to clarify.

Rick

I sent an email this afternoon with the text copied to it and asked if he in fact did write it. I have not heard anything back but it was late afternoon when I sent it. I wrote a very non confronttional email that basically asked for clarification becaues I do not want to get into a bad situation wiht the police and have a gun confiscated if that is in fact their policy. We will see if and what he replies. I am guessing he is probably getting a lot of email about now though.

The MO. CCW law doesn`t require a liscencee to disclose they are carrying and a liscence is not required for car carry, so if asked, is it illegal to say you don`t have a gun if you are in fact carrying? Is it legal to lie to the police?

Providing false information to a police officer is illegal.

The police have a right to ask you if you have any weapons.

You have a right NOT to answer the question.

You may or may not respond in any way that you choose; however, if you choose to answer the question, and you lie to the officer, and he finds your weapon; then, he will probably charge you with providing false information to a police officer, and you could find yourself arrested and detained for further investigation.

Thanks, CS.

I`m just wondering what a liscencee could say to avoid a vehicle search in the wonderful little town of Hazelwood.

Officers should exercise extreme caution while approaching vehicles and controlling the occupants.

Officers should be in a tactical response posture.

Officers should be of a mindset that they could be immediately be
confronted with lethal force on any traffic stop and be prepared to
respond with lethal force.

Any complaints about an officer's tactical approach to a vehicle
shall immediately be forwarded to the Chief of Police.

These are dangerous times and officer safety should be foremost in
your mind.

I think he's out to harass more than just gun owners. If they treat
every traffic stop with a tactical response posture, as if it might involve lethal force, there's a good chance they'll scare a whole lot of sheeple. Then he can blame CCW as the cause. Maybe it's his twisted way of getting the sheeple's suport?

That may be the case but sheeple have been trained to be scared of guns. Having one screwed into their ear every time the speed sure is not going to win much public support. My thoughts are that the firearms lab will quickly become very backlogged and as a resul there will be long delays in geting your guns back creating at least a short term confiscatin. This may also qualify as an illegal registration if they plan on retaining the info from the guns as balistic fingerprints. They would ave all the info on who the gun belongs to up front not just a serial number from the Mfgr tied to the info. One thing is for sure he is going to be generating alot of excess work for the police department.

I`m just wondering what a liscencee could say to avoid a vehicle search in the wonderful little town of Hazelwood.

Best to avoid trouble and simply stay out of Hazelwood until it's sorted out. OTOH, if you want to be an Activist on the Leading Edge, it sounds like Hazelwood may be a good place to start.

In Missouri it will be an endorsement coded on your drivers license and will thus be obvious to any Missouri LEO the moment he looks at your Drivers License.

What is the first thing an LEO usually asks when he approaches after stopping a vehicle? "Can I see your Driver's License?"

If you are driving a car registered to yourself, the LEO will probably know you have the CCW license after 'running' your license plate through the computer before he even stops you. Some may even use this information to start looking for 'probable cause' to stop you.

If an LEO knows that you are 'Licensed to Carry' it will generally be assumed that you are doing so unless/until proven otherwise. If he asks and you deny, you may find yourself ordered out of the car and frisked and the passenger compartment searched. If you lied, you're in trouble.

BTW, many other states issue separate Permits for CCW and do NOT show an endorsement or code on the Driver's License; but, many of them make it an obligation of the Permitee to immediately inform the LEO if they are carrying a weapon whenever they are stopped or approached by an officer.
If you are traveling in one of these other States and fail to do this you could be in trouble. You must make the effort and know the law where ever you travel.

IMHO this will all be sorted out in time and Missouri LEO's will come to realize, as those in other states have, that LTC holders are, in effect, Certified Good Guys. :D

Actually, you can get your ccw endorsement on a non- drivers liscence. It is basically a state ID card and thats the route I plan on taking. That way if I`m in a place that has posted "no ccw" and need to show my ID the person working the checkout counter won`t know I`m liscenced.

As happy as I would be to avoid Hazelwood, I work there....:barf:

I was under the impression that the State I D Cards were for those who did NOT have Driver's Licenses.

Can you get Both? :scrutiny:

Hmmmmm! :what:

you can get both.

One of the main reasons that John Ross et alia pushed the drivers -or- non-drivers license choice was so that anyone can put their CCL endorsement on their "less necessary" form of ID -- thus, when you need to show your driver's license for some reason or another, you don't have to take a victim-disarmament onslaught. Nice work, I say.

The unnerving thing is that the CCL permit shows up on the cop's computer when he runs your plates. Some people say that this will put the officer at ease, since he knows you have had some pretty heavy-duty background checks performed on you lately. I'm not so optimistic. I think it's going to be about 6-12 months before the officer is put "at-ease" and doesn't want to immediately search your vehicle/person...

Be safe & be smart, all.
-sch40

Best to avoid trouble and simply stay out of Hazelwood
And make sure you let the local Chamber of Commerce know you and your money will not be visiting Hazelwood untill Hier Chief is either leashed or fired.

A few thousand Missourians calling, writing and emailing the COC will get action taken against the Chief.

Just thought ya'll might be interested in the latest on Hazelwood's Chief Carl Wolf:

<http://www.sophorist.com/archives/000471.html>

Sounds like somebody's changeing his position. :D

Also, take heart. Sounds like others have been at odds with him, within his own department!

<http://www.mule57.org/news/News_Archives/swat.htm>

And it sounds like he is still at odds with members within his department:
Wolf said he hoped to find the employee who supplied the memo to Gottlieb, saying that person might have dangerously revealed "tactical information about how we do things in the city."

<http://www.showmenews.com/2003/Oct/20031018News008.asp>

Enjoy! :neener:

Sounds like the prelude to a full bore departmental witch hunt to me.
:rolleyes: