How do you tell a LEO that you are armed at a traffic stop

I have talked to 3 different LEO and got 3 different answers. One: Don't say anything. Two: tell him/her as she walks up to the bike. Three: Hand the LEO your carry permit with your license, and look Harmless.

I'm in Indiana, but I travel a lot. In Illinois, I just lock the gun in one saddle bag and the clip in the other. The rest of the states, I follow the law (speed limits, etc)

Answer one I don't like. If they do find i'm carrying, They might get REAL miffed!
Answer two I don't like. Well, I think every one can figure that one out. "Hi Officer! I'm Armed!!
I think answer three is the least stressful for all involved.

Your Thoughts, Gentlepersons

It depends on the rules of your state. In some states, you have a duty to verbally inform. In other states there is no duty to inform.

http://handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf

I used to live in NC, we had to inform. I live in VA now, we don't have to inform. I still intend to inform. I don't inform when engaged in casual conversation with one. With my job I interact with LEO almost daily. But I think all of the local ones I know, know that I carry anyway.

My cousin actually got off from a ticket and he thinks it's because he told the LEO even though he didn't have to.

My exact line as they walk up to the vehicle, with permit and license in hand is, "Officer I have a concealed weapons permit and I am currently armed/unarmed."

One

Like you kind of already said, it all depends on what the state law is. Here in Kansas you are not obligated to tell the officer on a routine traffic stop. Now if for some reason they ask to search you then its smart to simply state that you do have a CCL. Then he/she may ask if you are currently carrying. When I live in Iowa I had a similar incident. The cop pulled me over and as I was pulling my DL out he saw my CCL which was barely even visible and he asked me if I was armed which kinda caught me off guard as I didnnt think he could even see my CCL. I wasnt carrying at the time and he went about business as usual. I think most are pretty casual about it. Just make sure you know the state laws and you'll be fine.

Here is the way I've done it:

When asked for license and registration I say, "I need to let you know before I start reaching for things I'm law enforcement and armed, let me know how you want me to proceed."

I don't see why you can't simply change the wording for having a permit for concealed carry.

It is on record that you have A CCP in IN. I was ask if I had my gun on me when I was at A stop and I said yes and they ask for my gun till it was over! I was not even involved in the stop. I was a witness of what happen.

My exact line as they walk up to the vehicle, with permit and license in hand is, "Officer I have a concealed weapons permit and I am currently armed/unarmed."

My CCW instructor in NC told us to say that exact thing. We were also supposed to roll the driver's window down halfway, and leave hands on the wheel - this was the signal to officers that we had permits, upon which the officer should ask what he needs to.

I am lucky that I live in a state that does not requiring informing the police officer. My feeling is this: I feel no desire to tell a police officer about an object that I am carrying that is perfectly legal for me to possess and carry and that has absolutely no bearing on the reason for the traffic stop. I don't feel the need to tell them about my cell phone, a pocket knife, the tire iron in my trunk, what flavor air freshener I use, or the gun on my belt.

This has proven time and again to be the least stressful for all of us: the police officer, me and my passengers. The firearm has never been a concern raised by anyone involved.

My firearm is in the safest condition when it is safely in it's holster with nobody handling it. All that informing the officer does in my state is offer the officer an invitation to needlessly handle my firearm, placing himself, me and innocent bystanders in more danger from a negligent discharge. I simply refuse to offer that invitation. If the officer is concerned about a firearm, all they have to do is ask. If they are not concerned enough about it to ask a simple question, I am not going to be concerned about it either.

In a state that does require notification - I would do the minimum required by law. Typically that would be producing the permit with the driver's license and calmly inform them verbally whatever is required by law.

How do you tell a LEO that you are armed at a traffic stop? Carefully.

(Ba-dum-crash! I'll be here all week).

Seriously, though . . . carefully. If you're going to inform, regardless of whether you're required to, remember that there's a world of difference between:

1) "Sir, I should let you know that I am a CCL holder, and am carrying a concealed pistol. How would you like for me to proceed?"

and

2) "I'VEGOTAGUN!"

I've had a couple of encounters with local police since I started carrying, and always used Example #1, above. Based on the circumstances of my contact, it was not entirely clear whether or not I was required to notify the officers. I chose to do so, and they were entirely nonchalant about it. The conversation went something like this:

Spats: Here's my driver's license & my CHCL, and yes, I am carrying.
Officer Friendly: Ok.

In none of my contacts did the officers ever ask what I was carrying, where I was carrying it, ask me to surrender my gun, etc.

I also think it's a good idea to organize your vehicle documents (proof of insurance, registration, etc) in some place that you can get to them without having to reach into places where an officer cannot see what's in your hands. For example, my car has a mirror on the back of the driver's side visor. As I never use that mirror, I have all of the aforementioned documents in an envelope held in place by the cover to the mirror. If I get pulled over at night, I don't really want to have to reach into the glove compartment after handing an officer my CHCL. I'm not interested in making Officer Friendly nervous.

Answer one I don't like. If they do find i'm carrying, They might get REAL miffed!
Their being "miffed" is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATEVER.

Obey the LAW where you happen to be.

Ohio law (hopefully soon to be repealed) requires notification. Handing the cop your CHL (or recognized equivalent) is NOT sufficient notification. You must VERBALLY announce.

Where there is no law requiring notification, there is no reason to do so. Whim of the police is NOT a reason.

Answer two I don't like. Well, I think every one can figure that one out. "Hi Officer! I'm Armed!!
"I have an Ohio CHL and I have my firearm (cite location)."

I obey the LETTER OF THE LAW, nothing more, nothing less. I don't do made up shows of servility euphemistically painted as "courtesies". The police have no right to expect ANYTHING else.

In my occupation I drive about our metro area during the wee hours. I have been stopped many times. For me I have discovered the best way to handle is to offer my CHP and say "I am exercising my right to carry". If I were the LEO I would want to know. Always they appreciate it and never have I been cited. It was several years before I discovered that they alrealdy know before the stop that I have a CHP.

If they ask I say yes(or no,depending). If they don't ask,I don't tell.

From everything I've read...they "should" feel more comfortable knowing you are able to legally carry whether you are or aren't carrying shouldn't.

Before they approach your car, if they already have knowledge of your carry license (if you're in a state that requires that), they know they're not pulling over a career criminal right away. Same thing once you inform them and hand them your license and CHL (TX). I am sure in some ways they may go on guard with knowing you are armed, but they KNOW you aren't a career criminal.

I think it is a good idea to disclose, even if it's not required. If I'm stopped, I'll produce my DL, registration, retired Navy ID, and CHP. If I'm carrying, I'll tell the officer what it is and where it is. "I'm carrying a [firearm] in/on my [location]." If I'm not, I'll say, "I'm not carrying." The officer will know I have a CHP anyway in my state, and I see no drawback to informing.

But the words you use matter. I avoid saying, "I am exercising my right to carry." That sounds as if the speaker feels the need to remind the officer that he has the right to carry, which you can rest assured he or she does know. It's borderline arrogant.

As soon as you stop, turn off your motor, apply your parking brake, and activate your emergency flashers. Remove hat and sunglasses. Roll down you window ALL THE WAY DOWN before the officer reaches your door. Do not open your door.

"Good afternoon officer.

I have a permit for my concealed handgun.
My handgun is secured in my belt-holster on my right side."

Keep your hands stationary, empty, and in plain sight.
Wait for further instructions.

If you and your ride don't look gangsta or defective, and you are not stopped at a late hour, or in an area known for criminal activity, it is highly likely the officer will simply tell you to give him your license and registration. Further discussion of your firearm is likely to be omitted altogether.

Va. does not require disclosure, but they know when they run your plate.

I advise, " Hands on steering wheel, and say: Officer for your safety and mine I am armed. my retired badge is in the console. How do you wish to proceed"

My experiences have all been positive.

As an L/E I always appreciated it when a CWP holder advised me that they were armed. On the two occasions this happened I asked the person to slowly and carefully place their weapon on the right front floor board and leave it there until we finished our business. I also tended to be very lenient ;) with folks who were open and honest with me.

If you have no duty to disclose, don't disclose.

I disclosed when asked directly and ended up having the weapon temporarily seized and unloaded by the officers. They then went and disarmed my wife whom was a passenger sitting in the car with a baby.

The officers told me if they found out I had been carrying and had answered dishonestly, that it is "the quickest way for things to turn bad" and, implicitly, get shot. If they intend to shoot me, I'd rather be armed.

All in all, I think its best not to disclose unless your state requires it. Police officers are infrequently firearm academics and I have no reason to believe that they can safely disarm and unload my firearm which they are not familiar with. There is also the possibility that they are fake cops.

Unless you enjoy being disarmed and feeling helpless and violated, don't disclose. Avoid being pulled over at all costs.

This is a free country, after all, and officers of the law are public servants, not gatekeepers to our right to ccw.

As an L/E...I asked the person to slowly and carefully place their weapon...
That just strikes me as a very dangerous thing to force someone to engage in under the circumstances. Surely you'd agree that it is 100% safe where it is to begin with, as opposed to having the nervous driver try and un-holster it under your scrutinizing eye, right?

If you and your ride don't look gangsta or defective, and you are not stopped at a late hour, or in an area known for criminal activity, it is highly likely the officer will simply tell you to give him your license and registration. Further discussion of your firearm is likely to be omitted altogether.
...OR, he may prevent you from notifying as required by law (if required), then when you obey his instructions, threaten to murder you in a vulgar tirade.

Then when you obey his instructions, threaten to murder you in a vulgar tirade.

This.

As a retired state police officer I will tell you that the best way to handle a stop is sit tight, keep your hands on the wheel 10 & 2 o'clock and when approached advise you are armed and ask how they want to handle it

Unless you enjoy being disarmed and feeling helpless and violated, don't disclose.

Are you asking us to believe the story you related is typical?

Avoid being pulled over at all costs.

So, if a police car lights up behind me, and I know I'm speeding, I should make a run for it?

I always liked the response a friend of mine gave. "hey officer, is my barrel dirty. this is said as you point it in his face. (this is a joke, the friend was a "ride along" partner for the local pd and knew most of the cops on the street.)

I usually keep quiet and don't say a word unless I need to. This is because I have had several encounters with officers who get an major attitude and extend the stop with un-necessary questions. For those occasions where I must declare I usually do it as I am handing over my D.L. and state I have a carry permit and ask how to proceed.

1) Know the law in the jurisdiction where you are, and FOLLOW IT.
2) If you are not required to disclose, do not do so. The gun has nothing to do with the reason you were stopped, it isn't pertinent to the traffic offense, and introducing it into the situation is simply an invitation for things to get weird.
3) If you are in a jurisdiction where you must disclose, do so at the first opportunity, politely, calmly, and clearly. You are not a guilty criminal, so don't act like one. When the officer approaches, have your window whatever portion of open you prefer and your hands at the 12:00 position on the wheel where s/he will see them as they approach. "'Evening officer, I need to let you know that I am a concealed firearms license holder and am currently armed. How would you like to proceed?"
4) If you did not disclose, but for some reason the officer asks you to exit the vehicle, after you've exited the vehicle (and locked and closed the door if you follow that procedure), you should probably notify before things go any further as there's a good chance you'll be frisked shortly and it is generally better to notify than have the officer find it by surprise.

5) If at any point things get "weird" -- COMPLY with all orders, remain calm and polite -- and take careful notice of what is done and said, and get names of each officer involved. If you feel you have been mistreated, follow up with an official complaint, or involve a lawyer if the offense was serious.

As an L/E I always appreciated it when a CWP holder advised me that they were armed. On the two occasions this happened I asked the person to slowly and carefully place their weapon on the right front floor board and leave it there until we finished our business. I also tended to be very lenient ;) with folks who were open and honest with me.

This, to me, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you feel that you are safer with the gun out of reach of the subject, then why on God's earth would the first thing you ask the subject to do is handle their gun?!? You don't feel safe with the gun in the holster, so you tell the subject to take the gun in hand?!? Does that pass any kind of common sense check whatsoever?

I can be open and honest with the officer during a traffic and never tell them about my gun. By open and honest, are you suggest waiving their fourth and fifth amendment rights? For example, "Do you know why I pulled you over today?" That is a question which is really askng for the subject to confess to a violation they think they might have committed.

I will be polite and socialable...but I won't waive my fourth or fifth amendment rights. And I certainly won't invite you to tell me to handle my gun with no need by telling you about my gun when I am not required to by law.

Hardly an expert, but here's my moderately informed opinion (take with appropriate salt)...

At a minimum:
1) If required by law to notify, do so immediately, calmly, and clearly as has been stated in other posts.

2) Otherwise, calmly engage with the officer, hands visible with no sudden movements. If any of the requests the officer makes of you might bring your firearm into view, disclose immediately, calmly, and clearly and await further instructions.

3) If the officer is asking you to exit the vehicle, disclose immediately, calmly, and clearly and await further instructions.

I understand the concerns people have raised above re: disclosing information to an officer to which they are not properly entitled. If I'm being stopped for speeding, there ought to be no reason for the office to need to know about a firearm in my possession. I think there is a fair skepticism towards the motives and conduct of police officers in many situations, to boot.

That said, I would personally take the course outlined above. I would disclose to the officer immediately, no matter the context. "Officer, I am carrying a concealed firearm [location] in accordance with my 2nd Amendment rights. How would you like to proceed?"

While there are 'bad cops' (and, sadly, seemingly more of them all the time), I think most officers are just trying to do their job to the best of their ability and get home alive. (And, sadly, there are seemingly more crazies all the time, too.)

By politely disclosing as soon as is possible, I think I do the best service to both of us. YMMV.

Times sure have changed since I worked the street.

I ALWAYS assumed that the occupants in the vehicle were armed and conducted the stop accordingly using the tactics I was taught for officer safety. There was no drama like is so commonly described on this forum.

So, if a police car lights up behind me, and I know I'm speeding, I should make a run for it?
No, OBEY THE LAW.

The way to avoid speeding tickets isn't to render made up "courtesies" to cops.

It's to OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT.

During a traffic stop, OBEY THE LAW, nothing more, nothing less.

In Ohio, I'm required by law to notify during a police encounter, IF ARMED. That's not good enough for cops. They want you to notify if NOT armed. My answer in a word, "NO".

I ALWAYS assumed that the occupants in the vehicle were armed and conducted the stop accordingly using the tactics I was taught for officer safety. There was no drama like is so commonly described on this forum.And that's as it should be. Assume everyone is armed. Assume the folks who mean you harm won't be the ones to admit they're armed and politely surrender the weapon. Assume that the good folks don't need to be disarmed and the bad folks won't declare and disarm peaceably. Therefore, asking and disarming is at best a waste of time and at worst a divisive and inappropriate power play.

While there are 'bad cops' (and, sadly, seemingly more of them all the time), I think most officers are just trying to do their job to the best of their ability and get home alive. (And, sadly, there are seemingly more crazies all the time, too.)
My notifying a cop that I'm carrying (or worse that I'm NOT) won't extend that cop's life one SECOND. On the contrary, if I DO intend to kill him, my notifying may lull him into a false sense of security.

Any cop who doesn't suspect that ANYBODY could be armed and act accordingly, is too stupid for the job.

In NC duty to notify is law. At a traffic stop I just silently hand my CHP with my NCDL. They usually ask: "are you armed?" I answer yes. Sometimes they will ask "where's your weapon?" I answer truthfully but briefly, such as "IWB at 4:00".

I do deal with Local LEO a few times a year in an official capacity on various things, and I always punctuate the howdy-do's with "duty-to-notify, I am permitted and armed." They usually blow it off with some pithy comment like "as long as you don't shoot me we're cool."

Do as you think best. Here's my experience.

I drive fast. OK, I said it. Agree with my wife. :o Anyway, I've been stopped a few times when carrying, and my procedure is to stop, put the car in park, turn off the engine, place my hands on the steering wheel, and wait for the nice officer. When he asks for my DL, I place my CHL on top of the DL and hand both to him. Generally (at least in Texas) they ask if I am armed, and ask where the gun is. They usually say to just leave it there and proceed to conduct their business. I do have to say I have received one ticket in 4 stops, so make from that what you will. The ticket was from a very small-town cop FWIW. The other stops were by state police who have all been extremely professional and courteous. Hats to Texas DPS.

i open carried in fairfax in the late 70's early 80's/ drove too fast a lot. i used to leave pistol on seat next to me. i would pull over toss keys on dash stick both hands out my window and tell em as they walked up that there was a pistol on seat next to me and let them take it from there. never had trouble.

Do as you think best. Here's my experience.

I drive fast. OK, I said it. Agree with my wife. :o Anyway, I've been stopped a few times when carrying, and my procedure is to stop, put the car in park, turn off the engine, place my hands on the steering wheel, and wait for the nice officer. When he asks for my DL, I place my CHL on top of the DL and hand both to him. Generally (at least in Texas) they ask if I am armed, and ask where the gun is. They usually say to just leave it there and proceed to conduct their business. I do have to say I have received one ticket in 4 stops, so make from that what you will. The ticket was from a very small-town cop FWIW. The other stops were by state police who have all been extremely professional and courteous. Hats to Texas DPS.
Agree with medal. I tend to forget my speed, and freely admit it if at fault and stopped, however in more than 34 years have not received a speed cite. I'm working on allowing more time. The CHP actually makes me more careful.

As a LEO here is my advice. While you don't HAVE to inform in most states it is really a moot point. When the officer runs your license plate, he will already know you have a license to carry before you reach for your wallet. It depends vastly on the officer in how he will handle the situation. Be very calm and cooperative, but know your rights. I hate to say it but there are lots of crooked police officers who will try to strong arm you into something even when you follow the law. Do not outright and say the word "gun, weapon, or firearm" you might scare some rookie on the beat to acting irrationally. Most officers will ask you if you are armed and where is it if you are. I have heard of some officers asking to put the CCW on the dashboard where they can see it but the vast majority will just tell you not to reach for your firearm during your roadside business.

I think it is a good idea to disclose, even if it's not required. If I'm stopped, I'll produce my DL, registration, retired Navy ID, and CHP. If I'm carrying, I'll tell the officer what it is and where it is. "I'm carrying a [firearm] in/on my [location]." If I'm not, I'll say, "I'm not carrying." The officer will know I have a CHP anyway in my state, and I see no drawback to informing.

But the words you use matter. I avoid saying, "I am exercising my right to carry." That sounds as if the speaker feels the need to remind the officer that he has the right to carry, which you can rest assured he or she does know. It's borderline arrogant.
IMO you violate a rudimentary and cardinal rule when you tell the LEO you "have a 'firearm' (gun, little friend, equalizer, heater, etc)". For me it is a a grave error to needlessly put them on red alert with the word 'gun'. It sounds like a smart-alec remark. I simply say 'exercising my CHP privilege (or 'right', or similar)'. Much more respectful. Wrks fer mee - I've been stopped so many times I've gotten to know many LEO, and they now wave and give me a pass.

When he asks for my drivers license...I hand him my license and my carry permit...with the permit ON TOP...all my other paperwork is in a compartment in the drivers door, right there where he can see it.


I'm a truck driver, I keep both the license and the permit where I can have them in hand before the LEO gets to the drivers door...that way I'm not digging around for stuff while he's wondering if I'm gonna pull out a weapon. It gets everything out in the open fast and without words...I've probably dealt with cops and DOT more than most...I drive about 140,000 miles per year, more miles in a month than the average person drives in a year...between license checks on holidays and DOT inspections I average about 10 stops per year.

Never had a problem with it done that way...but I've never been stopped in NY, CA, or Cook county either....if that ever happens, I'm just gonna hope for the best.

The few places with strict laws make it difficult for a person who has no control over where he has to go...

If State law requires you to inform...inform...Otherwise...

My state does not require you to inform, and as my being armed, or not, has absolutely nothing to do with a traffic stop...it is as relevant as saying Hej Officer Friendly, how do you like my hat?..I do not mention it.

In our state, if you have a CPL, it will come up on the officers screen when he runs your DL. In 42+ years of carry I have NEVER been asked if I was armed when stopped for a traffic violation. It is just NOT relevant.

Many years ago my sister was dating a WSP officer. We went shooting together, and did a lot of things together until he was moved out of the area. One day I asked him what he thought you should do at a traffic stop.

His response was: Have your DL, registration and insurance card handy so you don't have to dig for them. roll down your window and have your information in your hand, and both hands on the steering wheel. If you do that, the office will feel comfortable with you.

What is scary for an officer is to see you digging for your information...he has no idea where your hands are, or what is in them.

RJTravel, re: Post #39:

I don't use the word "gun" or any of the words you mentioned. In my post used an [insert], meaning the exact word is situation dependent, and I would be specific. I might say, "J-Frame" and "IWB 8 o'clock" or "1911" and "console," but never "gun" and "person." I'll say again, in case you missed it, that I think saying something about RKBA sounds arrogant, and I noted why. That's just me, so you do what works for you.

Deanimator, re: Post #31:

Of course I don't make a run for it. I'm also very careful about attracting any sort of LEO attention while driving, as I hold a CDL-A and don't wish to place it at risk.

As a LEO here is my advice. While you don't HAVE to inform in most states it is really a moot point. When the officer runs your license plate, he will already know you have a license to carry before you reach for your wallet.

That's amazing! Do the license plates automatically sense who is driving the car? In my state of Washington the license plates only indicate who the registered owner of the vehicle is. Then the law enforcement officer can take the registered owner's name and address and find out if the registered owner has a Washington Concealed Pistol License or not. The license plates in Washington state in no way indicate who is driving the vehicle.

I live in a "must inform" state. I have a wallet with a removable two-window piece. License in one, CHL in the other.

I have only had occasion to present this three times...once when I was involved in an accident (not my fault, I was rear-ended while on my motorcycle, and I was on a back board by the time the police arrived). I havded him the wallet insert, told him where the pistol was, and when I was released from the hospital I went to the Police station and picked up my pistol (unloaded), the empty mag and the loose rounds..

Once when pulled over for speeding (guilty as Hell, but he let me slide).
He acknowledged the CHL, never asked "where it was" or anything.

Once when my bike quit and backed up traffic...the officer called a tow truck, invited me to sit in the front seat of his car while we awaited the tow truck...I let him know at the beginning of our conversation that I was licensed and exercizing my 2A right, he told me that was fine as long as it remained right where it was. We continued to have a pleasant conversation on a number of subjects in the next 30 minutes.

Tow truck arrived, we went our separate ways, and I made sure to send a detailed letter hitting the high spots of our interaction to his Department Chief praising his professionalism.

A guy who does a great job like he did deserves a positive letter in his file.

That covers the last ten years. Perhaps, as I grow older, my interactions with LE will become less frequent. Here's hoping. :)

Based on my experience in a must-inform state, I would never inform in a need-not-inform state unless necessary.

The short version, after being disarmed and everything short of a cavity search performed in a situation where I HAD CALLED POLICE AS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME, when it came time to return my weapon the officer refused to return both my weapon and ammo as "I might reload and shoot him before he could leave". I had to negotiate to get my ammunition back, and have him lock it in my trunk so he would have time to drive away before I could reload. :rolleyes:

The whole incident was very stressful, and needlessly so. Never again unless the law requires.

beatledog,
Do whatever you wish - but if you were to respond with what appears to be a smart-alec answer in my city you would be inviting real trouble. I have close family LEO locally - highly trained and have my respect - but they would not put up with that kind of combative retort.

Beatledog, as Deanimator noted, my comment not to get pulled over at all costs should be read as "do not violate traffic mandates that will attract an officer's attention".

Of course you should follow the law and any local ordinances that dictate traffic in your area and that dictate ccw and duty to inform in your area. The high road mandates that you do so, especially when carrying a weapon.

If you are pulled over, however, and the law does not mandate that you disclose, it is foolish to disclose.

An officer is sworn to protect the law, thats it. So follow the law. Anything an officer requires of you that is beyond the law should be met with nonviolent civil disobedience, or compliance followed with political followup. Treat officers with respect, and keep them accountable to their duties, which do not include harassing civilian ccw permit holders.

Everything Sam1911 says I tend to agree with in this thread.

Tony: I should have added the rolling eyes thing to my original response:I knew you didn't mean we should flee. As for informing, do whatever works for you. I still see no reason not to disclose, especially given that he's probably going to ask anyway. Then again, I have been stopped exactly zero times since I got my CHP.

RJ: We simply disagree on what sounds smart-alec. Please explain what is combative about what I posted.

That's amazing! Do the license plates automatically sense who is driving the car? In my state of Washington the license plates only indicate who the registered owner of the vehicle is. Then the law enforcement officer can take the registered owner's name and address and find out if the registered owner has a Washington Concealed Pistol License or not. The license plates in Washington state in no way indicate who is driving the vehicle.


Was typing faster than my brain was thinking. Yes the license plate only pings back the registered owner of the vehicle.

Everything Sam1911 says I tend to agree with in this thread.

Copy that,Tony.:)
And only 10 states require informing the LEO.

http://photos.imageevent.com/kraigwy/pentest/websize/CCW%20must%20inform%20states.jpg

Was typing faster than my brain was thinking. Yes the license plate only pings back the registered owner of the vehicle.

Your previous statement was one that is very commonly made: "The officer is going to know about your permit before he comes to the window." That is simply an impossibility, unless the officer recognizes you personally or is a psychic.

--------break--------

We clearly have two schools of thought. Do tell and don't tell. I doubt if either side is going to change their mind.

Here is what I tell my students, and it applies pretty much ONLY to Utah. Maybe AZ, but I haven't had occasion to try it there.

You aren't required to disclose. Do it anyway. Some agencies in Utah have access to the database indicating whether or not you are a permit holder, some don't. But what happens is, if the cop pulls your info, and you didn't inform, he will likely give you a ticket. If you DID tell him, he probably won't. Of course, the best solution to all of this is to develop driving habits that minimize the chances you will get pulled over in the first place. Carrying is part of living a risk-averse lifestyle, it should be in ALL aspects of your life. The reason I say this is only fur Utah, is because I know that by and large, Utah cops are very supportive of carry, and won't use it as a reason to abuse you in any way. I can't recommend that in other states.

If you are pulled over, put your hands at the top of the wheel with your fingers spread. When greeted, say; "Officer, I am permitted to carry, and I am carrying right now. How would you like me to proceed?" The few times I have been pulled over, they asked me where it was, I told them, they told me not to reach for it and didn't say another word about it. I haven't gotten a ticket in about 12 years.

We clearly have two schools of thought. Do tell and don't tell. I doubt if either side is going to change their mind.

We ran a poll on this question 14 months ago,Navy. The results were overwhelming. Do not reveal unless you are in a must notify the LEO State.


http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?423584-Should-It-Be-Obligatory-to-Notify-LE-That-You-Are-Carrying-Concealed-With-a-Permit



The 40 States got it right,remain silent
59 - 86.76%

The 10 States got it right,notify the LEO
4 - 5.88%

Undecided
5 - 7.35%

Deleted.

Ohio leaves us no choice in the matter. We must inform the officer upon arrival at the vehicle. Of course, they already have a hunch, as CCW shows up in LEADS here in Ohio.

Your previous statement was one that is very commonly made: "The officer is going to know about your permit before he comes to the window." That is simply an impossibility, unless the officer recognizes you personally or is a psychic.


Not impossible. Before I started working in corrections I was pulled over by a county sheriff who asked if I was armed that day. Before seeing my carry license. Just because it is impossible in your state doesn't make the matter true nationwide.

I like that map of which states have duty to inform. Interesting results as I thought it would be closer to 50/50.

As A retired LEO from Washington State who worked out in the sticks alone, I appreciated a person telling me they were armed when I approached the car. I was more inclined to give a gun toting honest law abiding citizen a break. There is no requirement to inform L/E you are armed here in Washington. But again I returned the same respect to the driver they had given me.

Now sure, some LEO’s might pop a vein when told these things but they will learn that the people who tell you are going to be easy to deal with. The likely hood of harm coming from a person who tells you they are armed is way less than those who don’t. Nine times out of ten I would get a heart felt thank you even after the Performance evaluation. (ticket)

Bad guys are dang sure not going to let you know they are armed.

I revert to the laws of where I happen to be at....if my duty is to inform, I'll do so. Otherwise, I tend to agree with NavyLCDR... I won't LIE if asked, but see no need to volunteer the information if not required to. South Dakota has no dutyt to inform, and, last I checked, had one of the highest rates of ccw per capita. Encountering people with guns is nothing new to law enforcement here, and most cops have told me they just presume everyone is armed until they find out otherwise. I've yet to encounter an officer while carrying, but I'm not going to make my gun an issue if the officer doesn't, and therefore will follow my legal right to remain silent regarding my weapon

Ehtereon11B, the idea that a cop "already knows as soon as he runs your plates whether or not you have a permit" is blatant misinformation. While it may be true in certain states, it is NOT universally true by a long shot, so the decision to inform or not is hardly a "moot point" as you erroneously claimed.....some states may link databases that may indicate whether the registered owner of the vehcile has a permit, or a database that links drivers license's to permits, but again, that is NOT something every state does. SD has a ccw database that is independant from either DL or plate data

I do have to say I have received one ticket in 4 stops, so make from that what you will. The ticket was from a very small-town cop FWIW. The other stops were by state police who have all been extremely professional and courteous. Hats to Texas DPS

Why are officers that let offender off are "extremely professional and courteous" but ones that choose to enforce the law especially on a repeat violator a "small town cop?"

Leave hands on wheel.

Don't interrupt the officer.

State something to the effect of, "before we begin, may I show you my concealed weapons permit? My gun(s) is(are) [tell officer where guns are, don't reach for them].

Smile and be polite.

Seems to me that I would inform the officer when my hands were still on the wheel before reaching for anything. I think that he would feel safer and so would I. Then he can determine the course of action he would like.

If the goal of disclosure when not legally required is to reduce one's chance of getting a ticket then I guess it's just another tool in the toolbox, may as well use it. On the other hand, if safety is the primary concern, mums the word.

IF I tell a LEO I'm armed it's done by giving him my D/L and CCW and asking what he wants me to do.

I'm in Florida most of the time. My CCW is NOT linked to DMV so there's no way of knowing I have a CCW with a license check.

When I leave the state I always show my CCW right away.

I never say the word GUN.

AFS

In my state we are not required to notify, so I would say nothing unless specifically asked if I had a weapon in the car. If I lived in a state that required notification, I would hand my permit along with my DL and proof of insurance when he came to my window.

Some of you guys are missing the point on whether the cop knows you're carrying by running your license plate.

Running the plate may or may not turn up the vehicle owners concealed weapons permit. But there are no states where running a license plate magically informs the officer who is driving the car that day.

From reading through this thread, it looks like we have two possible outcomes in mind, in regards to informing or not in a state where it is not required.


One outcome of informing when not required is the possibility of no ticket.
One outcome of informing when not required is the possibility of... very bad things.


The odds of getting out of a ticket? Better than average maybe?
The odds of the interaction becoming a nightmare you wish to forget? Slim.

The stakes?

A ticket isn't the end of the world.

The odds of getting out of a ticket? Better than average maybe?
The odds of the interaction becoming a nightmare you wish to forget? Slim.

Then it comes down to a simple risk matrix. I'll take the reasonable chance that being open and cooperative may get me by with a warning and has relatively little chance of making things worse over the minuscule probability that this particular officer is going to hassle me over being a permitted carrier.

If I'm wrong, and he does hassle me over it, I have recourse. His badge number is right there on the ticket.

My notifying a cop that I'm carrying (or worse that I'm NOT) won't extend that cop's life one SECOND. On the contrary, if I DO intend to kill him, my notifying may lull him into a false sense of security.

Any cop who doesn't suspect that ANYBODY could be armed and act accordingly, is too stupid for the job.
Just to be clear: My purpose in disclosing is to protect *my life*, not his.

I have gotten very few tickets in my driving career and only one was, I thought, undeserved. The other were for something I knew I was doing like driving a bit over the limit, had a light out, etc. Whether the officer was courteous and professional wasn't an issue, I deserved the ticket. However, I have only ever had two instances where an officer was rude or unprofessional and those two were ten years apart and seperated by three time zones.

Tickets or nor aside, I have been a little surprised by a few cops reactions when carrying. Ohio law requires us to inform, not doing so is a felony here. When the officer comes to my window, I just turn on the dome light, keep two hands on the wheel, tell them I have a permit and a handgun. Permit is in my wallet on my left, handgun in a holster on my right. They smile, tell me to get my wallet and registration. The couple times I've been stopped while carrying have been for license plate lights in two different vehicles (go figure). They do what they do, I sit there. They've come back, given me a warning or ticket, and told me they wished more people would handle stops this way.

Then it comes down to a simple risk matrix.
So the two sides of this discussion are fixed on different focus points.

One is focused on the odds.
One is focused on the stakes.

In Ohio, I'm required by law to notify during a police encounter, IF ARMED. That's not good enough for cops. They want you to notify if NOT armed. My answer in a word, "NO".

In Ohio, you must notify, regardless if you are armed or not. I listen to my local PD on a handheld scanner. They know when approaching the vehicle, that the registered owner of the vehicle, has a CHL. I cant tell by your post if you are saying you WILL NOT notify if NOT carrying, but I advise you TO notify if NOT carrying. It is my understanding of Ohio law, that you must notify even when not carrying.

Regarding "Must inform Officer",Ohio law says this:
2923.16 (E) No person who has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a license to carry a concealed handgun that was issued to the person by another state with which the attorney general has entered into a reciprocity agreement under section 109.69 of the Revised Code, who is the driver or an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped as a result of a traffic stop or a stop for another law enforcement purpose or is the driver or an occupant of a commercial motor vehicle that is stopped by an employee of the motor carrier enforcement unit for the purposes defined in section 5503.34 of the Revised Code, who is transporting or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle or commercial motor vehicle in any manner, shall do any of the following:
(1) Fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then possesses or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle;
(2) Fail to promptly inform the employee of the unit who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then possesses or has a loaded handgun in the commercial motor vehicle.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

In Alabama,having a pistol permit is no big deal. A large percentage of folks have one. The LEOs don't know by vehicle registration if the owner is permitted or not and the subject rarely comes up at a stop. I have had a concealed weapons permit since 1973 and have only been asked for it twice(handgun was visible to officer at a license check)in that time. Only once did the officer take control of the firearm until I produced the permit(that was in 1976). Unless specifically asked,I don't offer.

In Ohio, you must notify, regardless if you are armed or not. I listen to my local PD on a handheld scanner. They know when approaching the vehicle, that the registered owner of the vehicle, has a CHL. I cant tell by your post if you are saying you WILL NOT notify if NOT carrying, but I advise you TO notify if NOT carrying. It is my understanding of Ohio law, that you must notify even when not carrying.

False information. Johnny Dollar also posted the statute that is applicable only when in a motor vehicle. Here is the actual "must notify" statute for Ohio:

2923.12 Carrying concealed weapons.
(B) No person who has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a license to carry a concealed handgun that was issued by another state with which the attorney general has entered into a reciprocity agreement under section 109.69 of the Revised Code shall do any of the following:

(1) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun;

Notice the portion highlighted. Also, the rest of the statute has a lot of other requirements as well:

(2) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and if the person is carrying a concealed handgun, knowingly fail to keep the person’s hands in plain sight at any time after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the person while stopped and before the law enforcement officer leaves, unless the failure is pursuant to and in accordance with directions given by a law enforcement officer;

(3) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose, if the person is carrying a concealed handgun, and if the person is approached by any law enforcement officer while stopped, knowingly remove or attempt to remove the loaded handgun from the holster, pocket, or other place in which the person is carrying it, knowingly grasp or hold the loaded handgun, or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the person’s hands or fingers at any time after the law enforcement officer begins approaching and before the law enforcement officer leaves, unless the person removes, attempts to remove, grasps, holds, or has contact with the loaded handgun pursuant to and in accordance with directions given by the law enforcement officer;

(4) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and if the person is carrying a concealed handgun, knowingly disregard or fail to comply with any lawful order of any law enforcement officer given while the person is stopped, including, but not limited to, a specific order to the person to keep the person’s hands in plain sight.

Notice that these requirements apply ONLY to persons who possess a permit and are LEGALLY carrying a concealed handgun. If you are a criminal who is illegally concealing a handgun - these requirements no longer apply. How stupid is that?

Double tap

As A retired LEO from Washington State who worked out in the sticks alone, I appreciated a person telling me they were armed when I approached the car. I was more inclined to give a gun toting honest law abiding citizen a break. There is no requirement to inform L/E you are armed here in Washington. But again I returned the same respect to the driver they had given me.

Now sure, some LEO’s might pop a vein when told these things but they will learn that the people who tell you are going to be easy to deal with. The likely hood of harm coming from a person who tells you they are armed is way less than those who don’t. Nine times out of ten I would get a heart felt thank you even after the Performance evaluation. (ticket)

Bad guys are dang sure not going to let you know they are armed.
I also live on the dry side, and I also normally OC...I consider my sidearm no different than my shoes, hat or pocket knife. IMHO: If I am armed, or not, is totally irrelivent to any traffic stop.

Why would you want me to insert a variable that is unnecessary into that traffic stop? My carry, OC or CC, in it's holster is not a danger to anyone. Not shutting off the car's engine is potentially more dangerous...Don't you think?

Their being "miffed" is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATEVER.

Obey the LAW where you happen to be.

Ohio law (hopefully soon to be repealed) requires notification. Handing the cop your CHL (or recognized equivalent) is NOT sufficient notification. You must VERBALLY announce.

Where there is no law requiring notification, there is no reason to do so. Whim of the police is NOT a reason.


"I have an Ohio CHL and I have my firearm (cite location)."

I obey the LETTER OF THE LAW, nothing more, nothing less. I don't do made up shows of servility euphemistically painted as "courtesies". The police have no right to expect ANYTHING else.
Please cite the Ohio law that requires one to announce verbally or admit that you are making things up. For a guy who claims to follow the letter of the law, you sure seen to be asking others to comply with your ill-informed opinion of it.

Several people have said that they teach and that they inform the officer of their permit and the gun because it might help them to get out of receiving a ticket. Here is my feeling on that:

1. I don't carry a gun to become friends with LEO and increase my chances of getting out of a ticket. I carry a gun for self protection.

2. The Washington State Constitution says that I have the right to be secure in my personal affairs, papers and property from ANY search and seizure without due course of law. I won't waive that right simply to try to avoid a ticket. If the officer does not see my gun, and I present no indications otherwise, there is no reasonable suspicion to indicate that I am armed and present a danger to him. If I immediately tell him about my gun, and present to him an UNVERIFIED CPL - I have just provided him with the reasonable suspicion that I am armed and present a danger to him (no matter how slight) and have just given him the legal justification to frisk me and search the front area of my vehicle, without my consent. That is according to the US Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio and several other cases.

3. I do everything I can during a traffic stop to show the officer I am a good guy. I turn on my hazard lights until I pull over in a safe place. Turn off the engine. Have a minimum of my military ID card and out-of-state driver's license in my hand resting on the fully lowered driver's side window. I have the folder with my registration and insurance on my lap. My free hand is on the steering wheel. At night the interior light is on. I greet the officer with a friendly greeting. If that isn't enough to keep a paranoid officer from shooting me if he happens to see a properly holstered firearm, than chances are he will also be the type that will freak out anyway if I tell him about my gun.

4. I put myself, the officer and others at risk from a negligent discharge if I tell the police officer about my gun, and he chooses to then handle my firearm needlessly. The safest place for my gun is in it's holster not being handled. Telling the officer about my gun increases the chance that it won't stay in it's holster. I won't increase the danger to anyone simply to try to get out of a ticket.

5. I won't put the police officer on a pedestal and treat them special just because of the career they chose to be in. My garbage man has more of a chance of dying on the job than the police officer does. My garbage man contributes to everyone's health and safety every single day by taking away the trash. The farmer has more of a chance of dying on the job than the police officer has. He contributes to my health and safety every day by putting food on my table. I don't tell the garbage man, the farmer or the police officer about my gun and I am equally courteous, polite and respectful to all of them, as well as the cashier in the grocery or convenience store.

6. Even if I do inform and show my CPL - how does the officer know my CPL is valid until he knows who I am and calls in my information and receives confirmation that it is valid? All I have done is indicate to him that I might hold a valid CPL, but he would be foolish to trust the validity of that until he verifies. Just like he won't trust the validity of my driver's license just because I handed it to him, he will verify that it isn't suspended or revoked. The officer isn't really going to know I possess a VALID CPL until he receives that information from the state of Washington anyway, regardless of if I hand him a piece of paper or not.

I do have to say I have received one ticket in 4 stops, so make from that what you will. The ticket was from a very small-town cop FWIW. The other stops were by state police who have all been extremely professional and courteous. Hats to Texas DPS

Why are officers that let offender off are "extremely professional and courteous" but ones that choose to enforce the law especially on a repeat violator a "small town cop?"
Why are you accusing someone of being a repeat violator with no evidence?

Louisiana only requires that one inform when carrying on their permit. The requirement is part of the terms of the permit. As one does not need a permit to carry in their vehicle, there is no requirement to inform when stopped while carrying in their vehicle. The permit does not obligate you to do things that are unrelated to the permit.

Please cite the Ohio law that requires one to announce verbally or admit that you are making things up. For a guy who claims to follow the letter of the law, you sure seen to be asking others to comply with your ill-informed opinion of it.

Mr. Courtney, you might want to study the ohio law yourself before you make such rash comments.

(1) If the person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun;

How would you suggest that the officer be informed that the person is actually carrying a concealed handgun if they don't verbally tell them? I would think that a motion taken to expose the handgun would probably be frowned upon. Showing the officer a CHL in NO WAY informs that officer of the actual presence of a handgun. Two SEPARATE AND DISTINCT notifications are required: 1. the person has been issued a CHL AND 2. the person is carrying a concealed handgun.

Would it not be a fair statement for a police officer to make to the court, "Judge, he showed me an Ohio CHL, but I was offered no indication by the subject that he was carrying a concealed handgun. It wasn't until I frisked him and found the concealed handgun that I was made aware of it's presence."

Around here:

1. Hand officer driver's license, and CWP.
2. Officer asks "are you carrying" (they look it up anyway here, so they will know if you don't tell them, and they prefer to be notified)
3. Yes, sir (tell them where the pistol is located)
4. cop says "okay, leave it there"
5. Of course, sir
6. get ticket (or not)

Re post 82,

This is what I recommend as well, I stated before that Utah cops are overwhelmingly supportive of carry, and highly unlikely to cite permit holders. They are also highly UN likely to use carrying against you in a negative way. Now, if you ASK them, they won't tell you which agencies can and cannot pull up your permit info. What I have been able to determine, and I'm pretty sure this is the case, the highway patrol is interlinked to the BCI, and they have access to that information. Other agencies don't. Now, they will SAY they do, but I think they are bluffing.

But yeah I agree. IN UTAH, the result is overwhelmingly good for informing. Not informing may be bad. If I ever hear otherwise I will tell everyone. If I am anywhere else I will shut up, because police love to cite out of staters whether they are carrying or not.

Louisiana only requires that one inform when carrying on their permit. The requirement is part of the terms of the permit. As one does not need a permit to carry in their vehicle, there is no requirement to inform when stopped while carrying in their vehicle. The permit does not obligate you to do things that are unrelated to the permit.


Same here in FL. I agree 100% with your post. We have the right to carry in our vehicles and are covered by the castle doctrine should we need to defend ourselves while in our personal vehicle. I view it as an officer coming to my house on a noise complaint and then I blurt that I have guns in my house. It's not Germaine to the situation.

Thanks Everyone, I think that about covers it. Also, Thanks Johnny Dollar for the map. Also, Thanks P200SK for the link.
Indiana is an open carry state, but they push decorum. sort of "please don't make the sheep nervous". My son carries "semi open" and has never had a problem. He is discrete and likes the thought that if a bad guy opens fire, he will not be the first target because of the weapon.

What I have been able to determine, and I'm pretty sure this is the case, the highway patrol is interlinked to the BCI, and they have access to that information. Other agencies don't. Now, they will SAY they do, but I think they are bluffing.
Highland/Alpine cops have access... at least the one that pulled me over did. I didn't inform and he came back and asked if I was carrying... and he said it comes up anyway when they run your license, so it's more polite to inform them up front. Since then I just hand over my permit up front. All have been pleasant re: carrying.

Why are you accusing someone of being a repeat violator with no evidence?

Self-admission of guilt is acceptable in a Court of Law but not on the THR?:confused:

"do have to say I have received one ticket in 4 stops, so make from that what you will"

Repeat is more than one occasion. :banghead:

But my point is not about how often a person is stopped for speeding but why it was necessary to describe the officer that choose to enforce the law by writing a ticket was described as a "small town cop." :fire:

My garbage man has more of a chance of dying on the job than the police officer does.

Sunday evening, I was beating the bushes around a wooded area in Tacoma, in the rain, looking for someone that had just fired off four rounds with a rifle. I was with a Tacoma officer; she had a sidearm, and I had my AR carbine.

Does your garbageman do that?

Another time on duty, we were talking a guy up from a ravine, after he dived into it, totaly naked, after running around the street yelling at folks, near an elementary school in session. The guy was yelling that he had found Jesus in that dry creek bed. He was off his meds, on a couple of bags of meth, and HIV positive.

Does your garbageman do that, too?

As far as informing on a traffic stop, usually if I pull someone over and see hands on the wheel and the lights on, I know that they're legaly armed. If someone tells me that they are armed, I make a deal with them--if they don't reach for theirs, I don't reach for mine.

To the folks who open carry--good on ya, but PLEASE take some classes on weapon retention, will ya? I use a retention holster to help slow down a gun grabber--what do you have?

Here in VT, I have never been asked, and I have never volunteered such info...

As for a 'traffic stop', I have not had one since 1986, and I always suggest people obey traffic laws and keep their vehicles legal in order to not get stopped...

Sunday evening, I was beating the bushes around a wooded area in Tacoma, in the rain, looking for someone that had just fired off four rounds with a rifle. I was with a Tacoma officer; she had a sidearm, and I had my AR carbine.

Does your garbageman do that?

Another time on duty, we were talking a guy up from a ravine, after he dived into it, totaly naked, after running around the street yelling at folks, near an elementary school in session. The guy was yelling that he had found Jesus in that dry creek bed. He was off his meds, on a couple of bags of meth, and HIV positive.

Does your garbageman do that, too?

I have the utmost respect and gratitude for police officer's and the job they do. But there is a certain segment of population that feels that police officers should be put on pedestals for their career choice. One way this comes out is the feeling that you should tell the police officer about your gun and permit "out of respect and courtesy". So, I have to ask this question:

Take a tent, your guns and a police officer with you and live at the local landfill for 1 week preferably in the rain and cold of winter. Don't take any food or water - just a tent, guns and a police officer. After that week, honestly evaluate if you had to go without the services of a profession for any length of time, which would you rather do without?

The farmer - who is killed more often on the job than the police officer, who puts the food in the grocery store for your family to live on?

The lumberjack - who is killed more often on the job than the police officer, who provides the wood that shelters your family and provides for their security in the house they live in?

The garbageman - who is killed more often on the job than the police officer, who takes all that trash from everyone's house and delivers it to the landfill?

Or the police officer - who is in the #10 profession according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics likely to be killed on the job - who does his best to keep your family safe from criminals (however, you still feel the need to carry a gun to protect yourself with).

So for those that show their permits and tell about their guns to police officers only, and use the reason of "respect and courtesy", I must ask....why are they more worthy of respect and courtesy than any other person out there in a job of greater danger which has a more immediate and continual affect on our health and safety?

I appreciate the honesty of those that fully admit they will only disclose to a police officer about their permits and guns because they think it holds some advantage to themselves to do so. But I must question, for myself, the motive of those that claim to do so due to some heightened entitlement reserved only for police officers to know about your permit and your lawfully possessed firearm which poses no more threat to the police officer (while the gun is in the holster) than your cell phone does.

I am not saying police officers are not worthy of courtesy and respect...the good ones (99%) most certainly are. I just can't see the justification for a pedestal for them.

Answer one I don't like. If they do find i'm carrying, They might get REAL miffed!
Their being "miffed" is of NO CONSEQUENCE WHATEVER.

I tend to disagree. Their being "miffed" might well decide your fate for the worse.


Where there is no law requiring notification, there is no reason to do so. Whim of the police is NOT a reason........

I obey the LETTER OF THE LAW, nothing more, nothing less. I don't do made up shows of servility euphemistically painted as "courtesies". The police have no right to expect ANYTHING else.......

Any cop who doesn't suspect that ANYBODY could be armed and act accordingly, is too stupid for the job.



If you haven't noticed, Deanimator visits these threads, boasts at how he allegedly thumbs his nose at authority figures and puts them in their place, and generally gives advice encouraging behavior geared at bucking those in authority or escalating a situation. Some people are just difficult. Most of what he preaches is guaranteed to make any interaction with the police worse on you.

My advice: Obey the law, be courteous, forthright, and compliant. There is nothing wrong with informing, even when you don't have to, and I think it is a good idea to do so.

Mr. Courtney, you might want to study the ohio law yourself before you make such rash comments.



How would you suggest that the officer be informed that the person is actually carrying a concealed handgun if they don't verbally tell them? I would think that a motion taken to expose the handgun would probably be frowned upon. Showing the officer a CHL in NO WAY informs that officer of the actual presence of a handgun. Two SEPARATE AND DISTINCT notifications are required: 1. the person has been issued a CHL AND 2. the person is carrying a concealed handgun.

Would it not be a fair statement for a police officer to make to the court, "Judge, he showed me an Ohio CHL, but I was offered no indication by the subject that he was carrying a concealed handgun. It wasn't until I frisked him and found the concealed handgun that I was made aware of it's presence."

You put a sticker on the permit that states, "I am armed". There is no requirement that you speak to an officer at all. If you are not armed, you do not have to give him your permit.

Why are you accusing someone of being a repeat violator with no evidence?

Self-admission of guilt is acceptable in a Court of Law but not on the THR?:confused:

"do have to say I have received one ticket in 4 stops, so make from that what you will"

Repeat is more than one occasion. :banghead:

But my point is not about how often a person is stopped for speeding but why it was necessary to describe the officer that choose to enforce the law by writing a ticket was described as a "small town cop." :fire:
He wrote that he had been stopped, not that he was guilty of anything. He wrote that he drove fast. 85 MPH is fast, but it is legal in Texas, where he is from, so that is not an admission of guilt, either. A LEO doesn't even need probable cause to stop, so that doesn't make him guilty. Where are you getting this mess from?

I've received a total of 5 tickets in my 20 years of driving. I've never been frisked or asked to step out of the vehicle. I have been asked every single time if I know why they pulled me over lol.

in oregon we don't have to disclose the fact were armed.i don't inform. i have heard of cases where the cop was informed and shot to death the person just out of fear.may it never happen to me or you,but i don't want an excuse to fire back at a scared cop just to save my life.some cops are just fearful and i don't trust them.btw i was a leo in the 70's.whole different breed out there today.just saying!

^^Um....YOU HEARD WRONG.

If they ask if I have a gun I would tell them but otherwise I wouldn't. Just adds extra hassle.

Jerry47, what you are suggesting has absolutely NO basis in reality, and has never been documented to have happened in the manner you suggest. Its ignorant hyperbole that serves to benefit no one. I follow the laws in the jurisdiction I am in. if doing so results in me being shot, I hope my wife enjoys the settlement that is sure to arise from it. Barring any other additional information, I have no fear of being shot for carrying a concealed weapon and disclosing...or not disclosing...whichever the law reads where I'm at.....whether or not I am carrying a gun.

What I am afraid of is a situation where safety is compromised by an officer insisting he disarm me and clear my weapon while not necessarily being familiar with my particular firearm. I fear an accidental discharge from such overzealous behavior far more than I fear the cop whipping out his own gun ans shooting me because he takes notice of the fact I am armed. When I get pulled over, the officer doesn't detail to me everything that is in his pockets, on his duty belt, or in his car.....why should I extend him that curtsey?, if not legally subject to a search? I comply with the law at all times, but see no reason to inform if not legally required to.....unless POSSIBLY a law was passed barring officers from handling a private citizins firearm during a routine stop. If I could be assured the officer only needeed to KNOW about my gun, but had absolutely no intentions of handling it in any fashion, i may be more willing to inform. AS it stands now though, I think the safety issues alone far outweigh the idea's of "officer safety" or "putting him at ease". I'm at ease with my pistol concealed and in my possession at all times, and I'm more concerned with my comfort level than I am his. How many other professions do people suggest walking on eggshells around and going far out of your way to put them at ease? Police fill a need in our society, but at the end of the day, its a job or career not unlike any other one may choose. If the risk is so high you feel the need to constantly trumpet to the public about how hard youer job is, how dangerous it is etc....maybe you need to find a line of work you are more comfortable doing. The pedestal some officers put themselves and their profession on concerns me. I was raised working on a farm and ranch. My dad still operates it. Even though his job statistically was among the most life-threatening, he didn't dwell on it, mention it, or bring it up in conversation. He just DOES it, because he LOVES it. The rewards outweigh the risk in his eyes, and I respect that fully. Do your job because you enjoy it and find it rewarding, not so you can preach about how dangerous you have it as a cop. Your job carrying certain risks doesn't mean I should surrender any of my legal rights in order to make you more comfortable. Your comfort level is secondary to my personal comfort level. Thats not meant to be an insult or to provoke controversy, just a statement of fact from my POV

I always inform the officer for the simple reason that they always ask. Whether it's DUI checkpoint or a vehicle safety check that seems to be one of the first questions out of their mouth. I've never had an officer have a stroke over it and most have been very polite when they tell me what they want me to do.

Only one has asked me to get out of the car, and he still didn't ask me to surrender or remove my weapon. All he wanted me to do was place my hands on the trunk lid while standing by the passenger side of my car. The stated reason for asking me to get out was to keep an eye on me while he made sure my carry permit was still valid. I was back on the road with a friendly thank you in 5 minutes.

One thing to keep in mind. Things will usually go better for you if you are up front with the officer, especially if you are stopped for an infraction. If he or she notices you are carrying, and you have tried to conceal that fact, things may not go as smoothly for you.

Hermanner wrote: I also live on the dry side, and I also normally OC...I consider my sidearm no different than my shoes, hat or pocket knife. IMHO: If I am armed, or not, is totally irrelivent to any traffic stop.

Why would you want me to insert a variable that is unnecessary into that traffic stop? My carry, OC or CC, in it's holster is not a danger to anyone. Not shutting off the car's engine is potentially more dangerous...Don't you think?

You missed the point I was making. When someone told me they were carrying, I still did my job. But you see I viewed the permit holders as my back up since real back up could be 30 miles away. I was hoping if I was getting wopped a law abiding citizen would help out. And yes there were a couple of times I was helped out and an arrest was effected. And no not because I was getting beat up but sometimes folks would point me in the right direction. One guy even sat on the lids on a dumpster a bad guy was hiding in until I got there after chasing that guy around. LOL.

For those who don't know.. Giving radio a plate number would not alert to a carry permit. If the owner of the vehicle had a warrant they would let us know. Most of the time I was back in the car getting ready to run the driver’s license before radio would ask if I was clear for traffic to get me that information. Running a carry permit would tell me if it was valid or not and which fire arm they were said they would carry on the app. Washington State is a shall issue state. Each person is given a back ground check and the gun crime rate for permit holders is like .01%. So when you told me you were carrying and had a permit, you just told me you were the salt of the earth.

He wrote that he had been stopped, not that he was guilty of anything. He wrote that he drove fast. 85 MPH is fast, but it is legal in Texas, where he is from, so that is not an admission of guilt, either. A LEO doesn't even need probable cause to stop, so that doesn't make him guilty. Where are you getting this mess from?

Friend,

I don't know what your grudge is with LEO's and speeding but you need to address it with them not with me as I have nothing to do with your problems.

...i don't inform. i have heard of cases where the cop was informed and shot to death the person just out of fear....Do you have an evidence to support your claim? Can you provide us with good documentation that anything of the sort has happened?

I was the front car stopped at a construction zone in a 3-car rear-end accident (pickup hit car behind me and drove the car into my rear bumper). When the police arrived, I quietly, away from the other drivers, informed the responding officer that I was a CCH and that a weapon was in the center console in my car. He just smiled and said, "that's fine, just keep it there." The police in this town welcomed (for the most part) CCH when it went in and this officer was very professional.

To my understanding, I don't have a duty to inform, but in my state your CCH is tagged to your driver's license so if they look you up via license plate or license, they know anyway. I'd rather be upfront about it.

Just because you have a permit doesn't mean you carry 24/7. I know I don't.

I also don't view myself as any officers back up. I won't be sitting on trash can lids or anything like that. If we're pinned down together or I see him being brutally assaulted that's a different story. Otherwise I just remain a good witness.

Running a carry permit would tell me if it was valid or not and which fire arm they were said they would carry on the app. Washington State is a shall issue state. Each person is given a back ground check and the gun crime rate for permit holders is like .01%. So when you told me you were carrying and had a permit, you just told me you were the salt of the earth.

That's interesting, since there is no place on the Washington State CPL application to record ANY firearms information. The information you were given regarding firearms was the Department of Licensing's records of what handguns that individual purchased from Washington FFLs, which is completely useless information because I could be carrying a handgun I purchased in a private sale....and I might have sold the handguns in the DOL database in a private sale. If a LEO does not understand that in the field, they can get needlessly twitchy when they run the serial number of a gun and the Department of Licensing comes back with another owner's name unrelated to the person possessing that gun.

The Washington State Department of Licensing database of handgun purchases from Washington FFLs is a complete waste of public money and resources.

What I am afraid of is a situation where safety is compromised by an officer insisting he disarm me and clear my weapon while not necessarily being familiar with my particular firearm. I fear an accidental discharge from such overzealous behavior far more than I fear the cop whipping out his own gun ans shooting me because he takes notice of the fact I am armed.

NEGLIGENT discharge, not accidental, in my humble opinion. If a properly functioning handgun discharges during unloading, there is only one reason for that, the trigger was pulled fully to the rear by the operator with a round in the chamber.

Just to be clear: My purpose in disclosing is to protect *my life*, not his.
Are you saying that you're afraid that a cop will unlawfully MURDER you because you fail to do something NOT required by law?

What does that say about the police in your area?

Nothing good, from my perspective.

Don't interrupt the officer.
In Ohio you'd BETTER "interrupt the officer" if that's what it takes to notify. Otherwise you may be charged with "failure to notify".

Harless' Greatest Hits (http://www.theagitator.com/2011/07/31/officer-daniel-harless-greatest-hits/)

Until the notification requirement in Ohio is repealed, I'll shout over a cop to notify if I have to.

PLEASE arrest me for obeying black letter law. Even better, tase or pepper spray me. You'll be recorded (and or streamed to the internet) while you do it.

Please cite the Ohio law that requires one to announce verbally or admit that you are making things up. For a guy who claims to follow the letter of the law, you sure seen to be asking others to comply with your ill-informed opinion of it.
Current consensus in OFCC is that VERBAL notification is required.

Feel free to come here and put it to the test.

I suggest Canton.

My advice: Obey the law, be courteous, forthright, and compliant. There is nothing wrong with informing, even when you don't have to, and I think it is a good idea to do so.
You're not advising people to be "compliant".

You're advising them to be servile.

I advise people to obey the law. If the law does NOT require notification, notifying is simply an act of ritualistic submission.

You're perfectly free to tug at your forelock and debase yourself to strangers.

I'm free NOT to, and the LAW is on my side.

And I couldn't care less who likes it or not, cops included.

I think this thread has run its course :D

In MI you must inform the LEO
Blow .02 or better kiss your CPL bye bye

The first time I was pulled over after obtaining my CPL, I notified the officer out of "respect". He stepped back and pulled his gun the first 1/2" from his holster and ordered me to place it on the dash.

I calmly looked him in the eye and then looked at his gun and said "I believe it would be safer if we both left our weapons alone."

That has stuck with me. Ive never volunteered that info since (not required here, unless asked).

He was probably just a nervous rookie. But he ruined it for those LEO that like to be told that info. (I know his actions are not typical and/or representative of MOST officers.)

[EDIT] I know Ill get flak for this but if I had been gunned down by a nervous LEO,, Im sure his report wouldnt read that he got freaked and started shooting. It would say I went for a weapon and he did his job. (thats in regards to the earlier post where someone said "Ive heard stories..." and was challenged with "show proof". History is written by the survivors.)

In today's world, with dashcams and recording devices part of nearly every cop car's equipment, what happens, for better or worse, is quite plainly clear in many cases. If you aren't familliar with the Officer Harless case from Ohio, I suggest reading up on it. His asinine behavior was caught on dashcams....repeatedly (though he was known to shut them off on occasion as well)...The report can say whatever the officer says happened, but if the tape doesn't back it up, theres going to be issues. I don't doubt there are overzealous cops out there that act foolish on occasion. I also don't believe that any rational, reasonable human being would open fire at the first mention of being armed. An outright assassination of a law-abiding citizen is going to be hard for any department to cover up, and few departments would ever want an officer who would be such a liability on their police force

Here you go

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/you-fu-with-me-cop-threatens-concealed-carry-gun-owner-during-traffic-stop/

In today's world, with dashcams and recording devices part of nearly every cop car's equipment, what happens, for better or worse, is quite plainly clear in many cases. If you aren't familliar with the Officer Harless case from Ohio, I suggest reading up on it. His asinine behavior was caught on dashcams....repeatedly (though he was known to shut them off on occasion as well).
But as you above state, they can... and DO turn off dashcams.

That's why it's VITALLY important to:

Stick to the letter of the law.
Do not engage with the cop beyond what's required by law.
ALWAYS use a recording device where lawful to do so.


Ohio is a one party consent state for recording. I NEVER leave the house armed without having a voice recorder of some sort running. A cop who would violate your rights... and the LAW, won't hesistate to lie about it after the fact... and they almost invariably do. That's what criminals do.

But as you above state, they can... and DO turn off dashcams.

That's why it's VITALLY important to:

Stick to the letter of the law.
Do not engage with the cop beyond what's required by law.
ALWAYS use a recording device where lawful to do so.


Ohio is a one party consent state for recording. I NEVER leave the house armed without having a voice recorder of some sort running. A cop who would violate your rights... and the LAW, won't hesistate to lie about it after the fact... and they almost invariably do. That's what criminals do.

Those dash cams should be set up so the officer does not have the ability to shut them off, or if he does it immediately notifies his superiors. Unfortunately they don't, and as the above case states following the law and informing the officer doesn't always work.

They should know when they run your plate.

^^^^^^
Running a plate does not tell me you are armed. NCIC does not return that info. I have to ask you on a stop if you are armed. Also, I assume everybody is armed, that is why I have a preference to do traffic stops in a way I feel is safe.

Running a plate does not tell me you are armed. NCIC does not return that info. I have to ask you on a stop if you are armed. Also, I assume everybody is armed, that is why I have a preference to do traffic stops in a way I feel is safe.
Hence the instances here of cops demanding that you notify them when you AREN'T armed, something CLEARLY not required by law. My answer in a word, "NO". The last cop to try to demand that of me backed down when I knew the law and refused to cater to random whim.

It only proves the innate foolishness of notification laws in general.

They're nothing but ritual shows of submission by citizens and invitations to dangerous lapses in situational awareness by cops.

The last time I was pulled over in MI the LEO knew that I had a CPL.
I was driving wife to work at 6AM & did not have gun
"" where is gun"" I told her I don't have it on me so I didn't mention it.
She said OK--no problem

BTW--she let me go with warning

The first time I was pulled over after obtaining my CPL, I notified the officer out of "respect". He stepped back and pulled his gun the first 1/2" from his holster and ordered me to place it on the dash.

I calmly looked him in the eye and then looked at his gun and said "I believe it would be safer if we both left our weapons alone."

That has stuck with me. Ive never volunteered that info since (not required here, unless asked).

He was probably just a nervous rookie. But he ruined it for those LEO that like to be told that info. (I know his actions are not typical and/or representative of MOST officers.)

And this is exactly what I find so weird. We carry a gun to defend ourselves from a stranger who is going to commit a violent act against us. 99.9% of the strangers we encounter every day don't commit a violent act against us. But we carry a gun in case we encounter one of the .1% that will.

One of the reasons many people choose to conceal, vice open carry when available, is that they don't like the reaction that strangers might have at the sight of their gun.

Yet, when the stranger approaching them happens to be wearing a uniform and badge...everything changes. To me, that person wearing the uniform and badge is still a stranger. I have know idea how they are going to react in regards to my firearm, whether I tell them about it or not. If a valid reason for concealing my gun is to avoid reactions from strangers, than that reason remains valid regardless of what uniform or job that stranger is in (within the bounds of law, obviously). So it stands to reason to me that it just best if they don't know about my gun. I don't show my CPL and tell about my gun to every other stranger, it doesn't matter what clothes they are wearing.

During a traffic stop, it is that stranger's job to write me a ticket for the infraction and otherwise leave me alone. That's all. So I can't understand why I should change my behavior or feelings towards this particular stranger standing in front of me, than any other stranger I would happen to meet. Unless the law requires me to, of course.

Hermanner wrote:

You missed the point I was making. When someone told me they were carrying, I still did my job. But you see I viewed the permit holders as my back up since real back up could be 30 miles away. I was hoping if I was getting wopped a law abiding citizen would help out. And yes there were a couple of times I was helped out and an arrest was effected. And no not because I was getting beat up but sometimes folks would point me in the right direction. One guy even sat on the lids on a dumpster a bad guy was hiding in until I got there after chasing that guy around. LOL.

For those who don't know.. Giving radio a plate number would not alert to a carry permit. If the owner of the vehicle had a warrant they would let us know. Most of the time I was back in the car getting ready to run the driver’s license before radio would ask if I was clear for traffic to get me that information. Running a carry permit would tell me if it was valid or not and which fire arm they were said they would carry on the app. Washington State is a shall issue state. Each person is given a back ground check and the gun crime rate for permit holders is like .01%. So when you told me you were carrying and had a permit, you just told me you were the salt of the earth.
P-32. When you run my DL you will see my CPL...that is all you need to know. I have a CPL, I do not have any outstanding problems with the police (never have had any problems that would ever get me to set foot in a court..OK? and I am of the SS crowd.)

There is absolutely no reason to insert my CPL into a traffic stop. There is absolutely no reason to expect any special treatment (good or bad) because I have a CPL...that status may tell you I won't give you any problems, but other than that...it should mean not 1 thing.

As for what I might be carrying? No relation. Most of my weapons were purchased before 1968, inherited, and given to me as gifts. I think I only have 3 pistols that I purchsed since 1968, here in WA through a FFL, and 2 of those are C&R...so that leaves you thinking I have one possible weapon I may be carrying, when in fact I have many others.

Granted, that one just happens to be the one I carry most becasue who wants to need to defendthemselves with a valuable collector's item...eh? It might not come back as pristine as when it was siezed. (which I disagree with the siezing part...so I have need to use my weapon properly in SD, and now you are going to disarm me so I cannot protect myself anymore??? Ya, I know evidence, but there are other ways to handle that in a SD situation...not everyone has a collection to fall back on you know)

When you run my DL you will see my CPL...that is all you need to know. I have a CPL, I do not have any outstanding problems with the police (never have had any problems that would ever get me to set foot in a court..OK? and I am of the SS crowd.)

hermannr,

That is not true in most locations with mine being one of them.

There is absolutely no reason to insert my CPL into a traffic stop. There is absolutely no reason to expect any special treatment (good or bad) because I have a CPL...that status may tell you I won't give you any problems, but other than that...it should mean not 1 thing.

I disagree. In my opinion there is reason to insert that info into a traffic stop. Immediately the officer knows that you are not a habitual criminal, drunk, or drug abuser. You don't make a habit of beating the snot out of your loved ones, and as far as the world can see, you are not mentally ill. In other words, your ability to even qualify for that carry permit tells the officer that you are a law abiding citizen. Knowing this may help him/her knock down the anxiety level a notch or two, and that is officially a good thing for you.

By the same token, how you tell the officer you are armed makes a huge difference, too. Doing your best Jack Nicholson imitation while stating, "I have a gun." is not the way to do it. A simple, "Officer, I have a concealed carry permit, and right now I have a firearm on my <state location>. What would you like me to do?" will work wonders. Always state that you have a permit before you admit to the concealed weapon.

The absolute last thing you want to happen is for the officer to find out you are carrying a concealed weapon that you didn't tell him about. At that point they tend to get a lot less polite than they could have been, permit or not.

During any dealings with the police there is one thing to remember. Their attitude feeds off of yours. If you don't respect the uniform you will not have as easy a time with it as you could have. Nobody says you have to respect the individual officer, but you need to show the uniform and what it stands for the respect it deserves.

During any dealings with the police there is one thing to remember. Their attitude feeds off of yours. If you don't respect the uniform you will not have as easy a time with it as you could have. Nobody says you have to respect the individual officer, but you need to show the uniform and what it stands for the respect it deserves.
Do they have to reciprocate?

Why so often don't they?

What should happen when they don't?

Doc3402 said it right!

LEO's are just as human as everyone else. They get tired, annoyed, constipated and have kid/ spouse issues. They are not mechanical extensions of civil authority.

They also have successes and great joy in thier lives.

You can't predict how they are feeling when they stop you.

Just as they can't predict how you are feeling that day. Maybe you got that big promotion @ work and are happy. Maybe you just found out your kid just flunked all thier classes because they are ditching school, your spouse says it all your fault and you are upset.

They are trained to ignore irate, smart mouth citizens and roadside Matlocks.

Just as you don't like your kids lying to you, they don't like it when they ask if you know why you're being stopped and you KNOW how fast you were going and lie.

I have been stopped once by DPS since getting my CCW. I produced it, my DL and retired Army ID. I told the officer I was not carrying, but had ammo in the back of my SUV.

He asked if I knew why I was being stopped. I admitted to going 15 milies over the limit. He thanked me saying, "I appreicate your good attitude, just slow it down, have a good day sir."

No ticket, no problem.

Now in Texas, we call that common politeness and honesty. Others, in other locals may call it being subservient. Maybe it's how you view life.

I am expected to be a polite, composed, responsible, law abiding citizen. Why is it too much to expect the police officer to be professional on their jobs, and remain within the lawful bounds of their authority? I don't feel the need to cater to the police officer and walk on egg shells around them in case they might be having a bad day.

I will be polite, respectful, and offer to them ONLY what I am required to offer to them by law during an official encounter. I expect the same from them. During an official encounter where they are performing their official duties that they are getting paid to do, I don't care what their kid's grades are in school, just like they wouldn't care if I was going 60 mph in a school zone because my wife and I just had a fight.

This is just plain getting ridiculous....and I hope the thread gets closed soon before it degrades any further.

Do they have to reciprocate? No, they don't. Will they reciprocate? Most will to the limits they can while still maintaining control of the situation.

From reading some of your earlier posts I would guess that you have had some unpleasant experiences with law enforcement. If this is true, you will probably carry that experience over to your next meeting with them. Trust me, if you do your experiences won't get any better.

What should happen when they don't? That depends on what you are talking about. If you expect them to bend over and kiss your butt because you're nice to them, forget it. You should expect the same level of courtesy you give them, but no more. If you're talking about a criminal act I think they should answer to the law the same as everyone else.

They are trained to ignore irate, smart mouth citizens and roadside Matlocks.
I don't know if they're "trained" to do so, but an awful lot of them seem to ignore the law, be it on notification, means of carry or a variety of other firearms related matters. The idea is apparently that the citizens will "ignore" THAT.

No sale.

From reading some of your earlier posts I would guess that you have had some unpleasant experiences with law enforcement. If this is true, you will probably carry that experience over to your next meeting with them. Trust me, if you do your experiences won't get any better.

I have had 1 bad experience with a police officer. He kicked me out of a restaurant because I was lawfully carrying a firearm AGAINST the wishes of the owners of the restaurant (his presence was against the wishes of the owners of the restaurant. My firearm was welcome there), not only interfering with my peaceful dinner, but also affecting the business of the owner of the restaurant who had no desire to have me removed from the property. The officer's action was due to a MWG call made by another patron. The Chief of Police received a warning that such action would not be tolerated and this was his one chance to correct his officer's behavior, and such actions disrupting the operations of a private business against the desires of the business owner would be dealt with via the filing of a lawsuit.

I have had many, many other completely 100% positive and professional encounters with police officers, a few of which have even resulted me in receiving a ticket for whatever traffic infraction I committed. And none of the officers showed one tiny bit of concern about my firearm or my CPL - whether or not they even knew they existed or were present. I feel no need to prove to a police officer my good standing as a citizen. I don't know what the history of the officer is in front of me, they may be a good cop, or they might be the cop who has been reprimanded 10 times in the past and the cops sure aren't going to offer me any of their history.

99% of police officers are hardworking people, doing their jobs in a professional manner. But I am not going to hand over to them any right I have just because it might make them feel better....I will interact with them within the bounds of law, nothing more, and I fully expect that as a paid servant of the citizens that they will do the same. We are not the servants of the police. They are the servants of the citizens from whom they receive their salaries.

From reading some of your earlier posts I would guess that you have had some unpleasant experiences with law enforcement. If this is true, you will probably carry that experience over to your next meeting with them. Trust me, if you do your experiences won't get any better.

So the public should act like abused spouses and just forget the last beating... until the next beating?

But I guess we had it coming. We "provoked" them...

So the public should act like abused spouses and just forget the last beating... until the next beating?

But I guess we had it coming. We "provoked" them...
That seems to be a nice summation!

We provoked them by knowing our rights, knowing the law, and not laying our papers and guns at their feet hoping to be granted favor in their eyes.

No duty to warn here, but I asked the local chief of police what he thought I should do if stopped and he said to hand them my permit along with my drivers lic. to let them know. He said that since the permit is tied to my drivers lic. that they would know if they ran it so a heads up would help keep the situation calm.

I don't know what the history of the officer is in front of me, they may be a good cop, or they might be the cop who has been reprimanded 10 times in the past and the cops sure aren't going to offer me any of their history.
I treat cops like hitchhikers.

Most hitchhikers aren't serial killers.
Some are.
I don't pick up hitchhikers.

Most cops aren't violent, racist pyschopaths.
Some are.
I deal with police ONLY in ways MANDATED by LAW.

I don't want ANYTHING to do with the police. That's why I work VERY hard to have NOTHING to do with them. To this end, I don't speed, drive drunk, get intoxicated in public places or start fights.

I've found that staying out of trouble eliminates the need to bow and scrape in a servile fashion before the police. That leaves only a need to be "liked" by cops. I have no such need. Clearly some people do.

No duty to warn here, but I asked the local chief of police what he thought I should do if stopped and he said to hand them my permit along with my drivers lic. to let them know. He said that since the permit is tied to my drivers lic. that they would know if they ran it so a heads up would help keep the situation calm.

So, you don't hand them the permit. They go back and run your driver's license and find out you have a permit to legally carry a firearm, that you have passed all the background checks required for the permit, and that you have remained enough of a law abiding citizen to keep the permit. I have to ask....why would that affect the calmness of the situation at all? Why would gaining that information when they run your driver's cause any added concern at all? Why would an officer have any reason to question why you did not offer them the permit? If I don't tell the officer about a pilot's license and they find out I am a licensed pilot, would they ask me about that?

99% of police officers are hardworking people, doing their jobs in a professional manner. But I am not going to hand over to them any right I have just because it might make them feel better....I will interact with them within the bounds of law, nothing more, and I fully expect that as a paid servant of the citizens that they will do the same. We are not the servants of the police. They are the servants of the citizens from whom they receive their salaries.

Let me ask you a question. You say you are going"interact with them within the bounds of law". What do you think would happen if you acted within the law and decided not to disclose the fact that you are armed. You with me so far? Suddenly, and still within the law, the officer decided for reasons of officer safety that you needed to get out of the car to be frisked? What do you think the immediate reaction to your concealed weapon would be?

There is a difference between being right, and being smart.

There is a difference between being right, and being smart.
That cop can do whatever he's willing to try to justify in an administrative hearing, in civil court or in front of city council.

There's a difference between being "smart" and being a serf.

I don't knuckle under to bullies.

I especially don't knuckle under to bullies merely because they get a government paycheck.

You appear to be saying that my actions should be governed more by fear of the police and their reaction to anything but a fawningly servile demeanor, than by a desire to uphold the law.

I care about the LAW, not the police, who are merely a problematic tool of that law.

Let me ask you a question. You say you are going"interact with them within the bounds of law". What do you think would happen if you acted within the law and decided not to disclose the fact that you are armed. You with me so far? Suddenly, and still within the law, the officer decided for reasons of officer safety that you needed to get out of the car to be frisked? What do you think the immediate reaction to your concealed weapon would be?

There is a difference between being right, and being smart.

1. If the officer decided I needed to get out of the car to be frisked, it would have to be, legally, because he had reasonable suspicion that I had a weapon within reach which posed a threat to him. Otherwise the frisk, without consent, would be illegal. The mere existence of a license to carry a firearm is not reasonable suspicion that I am armed, just like the mere existence of a driver's license in my pocket is not reasonable suspicion that I own or drive a car, until actual evidence of the vehicle becomes evident.

2. Since the officer is going to perform a search without my consent anyway, I will inform of the presence of the firearm, and that I am legally licensed to conceal it and have it loaded inside the vehicle.

3. What we are talking about is not offering the police officer the reasonable suspicion required for the search without consent right up front, with no requirement in law to do so. The officer comes to my window, I tell them about my license AND my gun, I have now given them the reasonable suspicion that is legally required for them to perform a frisk search of my person, and the area of my car from which a weapon may be obtained, without my consent. I simply will not voluntarily offer that reasonable suspicion to them when not required to, by law. If they develop that reasonable suspicion on their own - good for them. If they articulate that reasonable suspicion to me in the form of a question, "Do you have any firearms or weapons in the car?" I will answer the questions truthfully.

You are welcome to interpret what I am saying in any way you want. I'm merely trying to offer some advice having been on both sides of the badge. What you do is totally up to you. Only you will have to live with the rewards or consequences of your actions.

1. If the officer decided I needed to get out of the car to be frisked, it would have to be, legally, because he had reasonable suspicion that I had a weapon within reach which posed a threat to him.

Wrong answer. There is nothing in the decision by Sandra Day and the Supremes that states there must be a reasonable belief that a weapon is present. There must be a reasonable suspicion that there has been involvement in criminal activity. The search is to determine whether there is a weapon present for officer safety. Any contraband found during the frisk is obtained legally and can be used against you providing the reasonable suspicion holds up.

2. Since the officer is going to perform a search without my consent anyway, I will inform of the presence of the firearm, and that I am legally licensed to conceal it and have it loaded inside the vehicle.

That's a 180 degree turnaround from that 'I know my rights' stuff you were spewing earlier. Wow. Who would have imagined? Now that the risk of discovery is higher you decide to CYA? Pitiful.

Only you will have to live with the rewards or consequences of your actions.
What are the "consequences" of obeying the letter of the law?

What are the "rewards" for catering to the extra-legal whims of a cop?

There must be a reasonable suspicion that there has been involvement in criminal activity.
And in the example you cited, what is the EVIDENCE "that there has been involvement in criminal activity".

I will tell you upfront that in Ohio, absent other factors, mere possession of a firearm is NOT RAS that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.

Cops need to get it into their heads that their merely wanting something doesn't give it the force of law. When they have that mistaken impression, corrective actions, sometimes painful ones, must be taken.

Wrong answer. There is nothing in the decision by Sandra Day and the Supremes that states there must be a reasonable belief that a weapon is present. There must be a reasonable suspicion that there has been involvement in criminal activity. The search is to determine whether there is a weapon present for officer safety. Any contraband found during the frisk is obtained legally and can be used against you providing the reasonable suspicion holds up

Doc3402, you are greatly confusing the legal ability of a police officer to detain an individual and the legal ability of the police officer to conduct a search of the individual.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

The legal ability of a police officer to detain an individual is a reasonable suspicion that the individual has/is/is about to commit a crime (or a traffic infraction, which rarely are considered crimes in state law).

However, the US Supreme Court, in Terry V. Ohio ruled that a frisk goes beyond the scope of mere detainment. I would suggest you read the actual opinion of the court, in it's entirety, linked above.

In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is, in fact, carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.

We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [p31]

The act of detaining a person can be justified solely upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (or traffic infraction). The ADDITIONAL action of the frisk search requires ADDITIONAL reasonable suspicion that the individual detained is also "armed and presently dangerous".

What say you now, Doc3402?

I think the Dude said it best?

Some people here seriously have a chip on their shoulder.

And from watching that video on blazer, that cop should absolutely lose his job....he threatened to kill one guy, threatened to assault the woman and was beyond unprofessional...he lost it. He's a loose cannon and is going to get someone killed.

[snip]

The act of detaining a person can be justified solely upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (or traffic infraction). The ADDITIONAL action of the frisk search requires ADDITIONAL reasonable suspicion that the individual detained is also "armed and presently dangerous".

What say you now, Doc3402?

And in Florida it actually requires Probable Cause, not just R.S.

Now here is a great Constitutional question...

Let's say I live in a state that does have the duty to inform. As soon as I admit to possessing a firearm, during a legal detainment, that gives the right the legal justification to perform a search without requiring my consent. So...

1. How does that not violate the 5th Amendment? I am being required, by law. to "confess" to possessing an object that will end up providing justification for a warrantless search and seizure!

2. How does that not violate the 4th Amendment in that basically I am being required by law to be subjected to a warrantless search only by my required admission that I am obeying all applicable laws?

I would think that in order to pass Constitutional muster, the police should be prohibited from performing a search and seizure for/of my firearm, if I obey a law that requires me to inform them of a lawfully possessed firearm.

I believe there have already been court rulings stating that the sole act of legally possessing a firearm is not just cause to perform any search, nor is it grounds to assume any crime has been committed.

There's a famous video on YouTube of a law student open carrying a Glock and when police approach him, he cites 3 or 4 court cases that basically say the police cannot search him, seize his weapon, and he doesn't have to give them his name at all.

I believe there have already been court rulings stating that the sole act of legally possessing a firearm is not just cause to perform any search, nor is it grounds to assume any crime has been committed.

There's a famous video on YouTube of a law student open carrying a Glock and when police approach him, he cites 3 or 4 court cases that basically say the police cannot search him, seize his weapon, and he doesn't have to give them his name at all.
Correct, but the argument you'll get from many is that situation was clearly a consensual encounter, but the traffic stop we are discussing is a lawful detainment and therefore a terry frisk is permissible for 'officer safety'.

The problem that most of the "no harm, no foul", "the officer just wants to go home at the end of his shift", "I told him I have a permit/license and/or a gun in the car so he thinks I'm a good guy and might not give me a ticket" crowd is that each and every case has and continues to further erodes our Constitutional protections.

If every person that was subjected to such extra legal treatment filed a complaint and/or law suit, we would not be having this discussion.

ETA: In Florida we have a conflict between two District Courts of Appeal, one says simply carrying a firearm is PC that a crime is being committed (No OC is Florida except in limited situations and concealed carry requires a license - except in most of those those same situations where OC is permitted) and therefore grounds for a Terry Stop, and one that says it's not, so the Florida Supreme court will have to make the final (almost) decision.

Think about driving a car. It's illegal unless you have a license, but the police cannot stop you to just to check (not talking about roadblocks here), so why should they be able to stop you to check to see if that firearm you are carrying is carried pursuant to a CWFL (or other lawful non-licensed situation), or demand to take possession of it while they are dealing with you?

Answer: Guns are icky and scary, that's why!

OK fixed this question in their new law that allows OC...IF LE requests to see your license to carry, and you produce one, it is a criminal offence by the LEO (Class a Misdemeanor if I remember correctly) to disarm you if your openly carried pistol is the ONLY reason they stopped you and they do not have RS of criminal activity.

Sorry, I don't have a link the reference at the moment, it is in Oklahoma SB 1743.

Sorry - haven't read all of the previous posts - here in FL, I do NOT have to inform; it is NOT tied to my DL, and, IMO, that is the way it should be - it is none of the LEO's business as part of a routine traffic stop

Think about driving a car. It's illegal unless you have a license, but the police cannot stop you to just to check (not talking about roadblocks here),

Unfortunately, in Washington they can - during daylight hours, using marked patrol cars only, and only the WA State Patrol is allowed to make the stop. Specifically allowed by state law :fire:. I've never heard of them doing it, though.

If you live in a state with one of those BS notification laws, if you choose to comply with it, you could always turn it into an opportunity to register your displeasure with the law. You could say something like "there is a ridiculous law in this state that requires me to tell you that I have a gun."

RS of being armed during detention does not give them the right to seize the gun. RS of you being armed AND dangerous does. You can't forget the "dangerous" element. It is a separate and distinct element, and being armed does not automatically lead to a determination of being dangerous, especially when they have absolutely no reason to believe that anything about your gun or method of carry is illegal.

Be careful out there, fellas.

Not impossible. Before I started working in corrections I was pulled over by a county sheriff who asked if I was armed that day. Before seeing my carry license. Just because it is impossible in your state doesn't make the matter true nationwide.

I like that map of which states have duty to inform. Interesting results as I thought it would be closer to 50/50.
Even though it isn't 50% of the states, it is about 50% of the area.

What are the "consequences" of obeying the letter of the law?

What are the "rewards" for catering to the extra-legal whims of a cop?
Beats me.

And in the example you cited, what is the EVIDENCE "that there has been involvement in criminal activity".

As pointed out earlier they don't need EVIDENCE, they need a reasonable suspicion. Here, let me post that sentence again.

There must be a reasonable suspicion that there has been involvement in criminal activity.

Do you have it this time? It's Terry vs Ohio in case you want to Google it.

And now, I'm done with you. You will do things the way you want to do them, and that's fine with me. I'm going to do what common sense tells me to do. Get over it.

Let us all get over ourselves. The question was asked and answered on page one.
Follow your state law.
Use good judgement.
Take the good advice given or not, your choice.
And for some,
Take the chip off your shoulder and act like a responsible gun owner.

Enough