Traffic Stop: Will "Are You Armed?" Question Become SOP?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you guys seeing this out in the world? I've never been asked this question before. My lead foot and I have (unfortunately) some pretty regular contact with LE and this has never come up.

Sometimes I hand over the CHL, sometimes I forget, but I've never been flat out asked if there was a gun in the vehicle other than when I had a long gun visible to the LEO.

Really, TexasRifleman? That surprises me, because I feel like I get asked every time. Fortunately (and surprisingly?) I haven't been pulled over much in the past few years, but I feel like I've been asked several times if there are any weapons in the vehicle, especially on the I-35 corridor, where most of my vehicle stops have happened (I went back and forth from Dallas to Austin a lot during college).

So I guess, yes, I do think it has become standard, at least for some officers in some areas.

At the time, I did not own any weapons, so I said no, truthfully. Now, I would simply hand over my CHL along with the license. If they had further questions, they could ask away, and I'll decide based on the totality of circumstances whether I want to answer. It's been a good 5 years since I've had to deal with this, though.
 
Last edited:
I've been driving since I was 17 (I'm 29 now) hand have been pulled over probably fifteen or twenty times for various reasons. Never once been asked for anything other than my license, registration and insurance.

The only time I was ever questioned about guns in my car was after a traffic accident in highschool, where I was traveling with a bunch of my friends in my dad's car. One of the responding officers was a bit overzealous, and in (illegally, mind you) searching the car found an ancient shell casing left over from a day of target shooting. Besides that one incident, no other inquiries have ever been made of me regarding my armed status.
 
The best way to handle this is to say, "Officer, I have NOTHING to say".

I did that to a cop a few weeks ago, the guy was literally speechless, his mouth was moving, but no words were comming out.

It was raining, I had my headlights on, I had my windshield wipers on, I was under the speed limit.

He pulled me over for not having a seat belt on, which pissed me off insanely as I DID have my %#%$ seat belt on!

Took him a while to get turned around and drive as fast as possible to get to me while I was stopped at a stop sign.

He came to the window, and said " do you know why you were pulled over, you didn't have your seat belt on when I passed you, but now I see that you MUST have put it on".

I said, "I'm sorry officer, I have nothing to say". His expression made my day.
 
When they first started giving out picture carry permits in Lee Co. Ala. the first year I did the paper work and sent it in and when I got my permit it had my drivers lic. picture on it. I usually get mine in person but my wife mails her's in and each time it has her drivers lic. picture on it. So at least in my county I'm pretty sure that my permit and drivers lic. are linked. The last leo that pulled me over (a friend) asked my if I had a weapon in the truck and I told him NO I have 5 or 7, according to how you classify the 2 pocket knives that I carry. Got a bit of a funny look and I've known him for 20 years.
 
So I must ask, "Why does this law exist? What purpose does it serve?"

Same reason the AWB law existed and banned bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds etc. etc. The law makers are ignorant and they are receiving one sided information from people more ignorant than they are who have an agenda.
 
We don't even have legal carry here and "Do you have any weapons in the car" is a standard question from Cops for everyone but old ladies and soccer moms. I'm honestly surprised it's not SOP in the places that do have CCW or gun in car laws or whatever.
 
"Duty to inform" laws are completely ridiculous. By definition they are only enforceable on those who legally carry (and statistically are the least likely people to pose a physical threat to law enforcement), because those carrying illegally can exercise their fifth amendment right against self incrimination, invalidating the duty to inform.

So I must ask, "Why does this law exist? What purpose does it serve?"

As I've discussed in a previous thread, your understanding of how duty to inform laws work doesn't gel with my experience in actually enforcing them. Since I outlined purposes the Alaska version thereof serves I won't reiterate them here in detail but, broadly, in terms of purpose -- they reduce risk to law abiding citizens during police contact, and provide an enforcement tool against those who do not comply with the law due to whatever motives.
 
One-Time said:
There is NO X amount of step/moves rule for carrying a gun in a car in Florida, not at ALL...never has been

The rule is it must be securely encased and not immediately accessible for use Securely encased is defined as in a glove box, snap holster or a container that has a lid to that has to be opened to access the gun etc, immediately accessible is defined as in as easy to grab and use as if it were on your person, storing as above it is not immediately ready for use

just keep it in the glove box, or center console w/ a lid or just in a snap holster, if you tell the cop you have it expect them to take it, and unload all mags and then they will drop the empty mags, gun and loose bullets in your trunk and tell you you may go

In Florida there is NO duty to notify

You would be surprised at the number of people who keep telling me that there is a two or three step rule in Florida.

Including my boss

Who is a civilian and works for the local S. O.

Who has also been a reserve Deputy for 30 years.

I keep a copy of the State Statutes in my truck.
 
THE DARK KNIGHT said:
We don't even have legal carry here and "Do you have any weapons in the car" is a standard question from Cops for everyone but old ladies and soccer moms. I'm honestly surprised it's not SOP in the places that do have CCW or gun in car laws or whatever.

Again, this to me just seems to be completely backwards thinking. Why does it seem to be so common for people to say that the MORE indication that a police officer has that a firearm will be LEGALLY carried, they should be MORE concerned about asking?

Maybe I am missing the big picture here, but it would seem to me that the greater chance there is an ILLEGAL gun present, would be MORE reason to ask, not the other way around.

HorseSoldier said:
As I've discussed in a previous thread, your understanding of how duty to inform laws work doesn't gel with my experience in actually enforcing them. Since I outlined purposes the Alaska version thereof serves I won't reiterate them here in detail but, broadly, in terms of purpose -- they reduce risk to law abiding citizens during police contact, and provide an enforcement tool against those who do not comply with the law due to whatever motives.

How about we compromise? How about we make it a law that IF I am carrying a concealed firearm, once I am detained by LEO I am required to inform them of the concealed firearm and present my license; upon doing so, by law, the LEO would then be prohibited from disarming me unless they were going to take me into actual physical custody?

In states like Alaska, Vermont, Arizona and soon to be Wyoming, the person carrying a concealed firearm must simply inform the officer of the concealed firearm, and then by law, the LEO would be prohibited from disarming me except for being taken into actual physical custody?

Everybody wins - I can then inform the officer with no danger of him taking my gun, trying to unload it, and calling in the serial number to see if it is stolen, even though he has no reasonable suspicion that it is.

Then both parties would be "protected", right?
 
How about we compromise? How about we make it a law that IF I am carrying a concealed firearm, once I am detained by LEO I am required to inform them of the concealed firearm and present my license; upon doing so, by law, the LEO would then be prohibited from disarming me unless they were going to take me into actual physical custody?
I'll go along with that one! Especially if we remove the "require to inform part." :neener:
 
Yes, I've been asked that a lot. I will never tell them I have a gun in the car. The reason being that if you say yes, at least around here, they usually handcuff you, perform a consent-less, warrantless search of your car, seize your gun, write down the serial numbers, and radio them back to base. No thanks. I will just lie and tell them I don't have a gun, and skip all the violations of my liberty.

Anybody who is so terrified of armed citizens needs to find a different line of work... or go be a cop in some less-free country.

Depending on my mood, and whether I am being pulled over for some minor violation that I don't care about getting a ticket for, I might just tell them that's nobody's GD business. Which it isn't.
 
Last edited:
As I've discussed in a previous thread, your understanding of how duty to inform laws work doesn't gel with my experience in actually enforcing them. Since I outlined purposes the Alaska version thereof serves I won't reiterate them here in detail but, broadly, in terms of purpose -- they reduce risk to law abiding citizens during police contact, and provide an enforcement tool against those who do not comply with the law due to whatever motives.
IIRC, you feel it reduces risk to law abiding citizens because it supposedly reduces the chances of a cop shooting them unnecessarily given specific circumstances. This concept completely misrepresents burden of guilt and responsibility. It is entirely the officer's responsibility to not shoot those who don't need to be shot, when interacting with them. You could just as easily say that a law abiding citizen would be much safer during a police encounter if all police officers were banned from carrying firearms, and it would be just as valid a point.

As for my understanding of the law not gelling with your experience in enforcing them, that's because most criminals have little to no idea what their legal rights really are; and just like with jury nullification, the judge and prosecutor aren't about to point out all the rights and powers of laypersons in a court of law.

As for an enforcement tool, it serves none. A criminal is not going to tell you he's carrying either way, and the existence of a "duty to inform" law does not magically conjure reasonable suspicion to do a frisk for weapons. Any illegal weapon you discover, could just as legally have been discovered without the duty to inform law.
 
I have never been asked that I recall. The only time I have heard of law enforcement asking if you have a gun or knife is when they have a suspicion of other illegal activity. Admittedly, that gives police very wide latitude in enforcing laws or investigating a potential illegal act such as poessession of illegal substances (drugs etc.) A friend had his car searched for drugs after a traffic stop. That required waiting for the drug dog car to show up. So at this point, there are probably three police cars involved which if you are a law abiding preson is pretty embarrassing. The line between harassment and prudent enforcement is sometimes pretty thin.
 
I have been stopped maybe 3 times in 15 years got 1 ticket in 35 years, and no one ever asked me for my license in either NY or FL, and I never offered. I don't even know what the laws were in NYC, pre 94, but somehow pre internet, this stuff wasn't an issue.
I think it has become a bigger deal the past few years only because people have been able to carry easier than ever before in many states. Where before if you carried a gun, you really didn't talk to the average joe about it. It's more acceptable now, when my doctor and his nurse talk openly about what guns they want next and what I think about this or that weapon. Kind of funny really.
 
Whip out that old cell phone and start recording. Ok, maybe it has to be a new cell phone to start recording.

To be funny, I've taught my kids that if they are ever in the car with me and I get pulled over they are to put their hands on their heads. Ridiculous irony on a cop trying to be a jerk with three cute kids making you feel like a jerk, mocking you.

And interstingly, I am pretty sure that if you have don't have a CCW permit in SC, you have no duty inform, though you can legally carry one in your car with no permit.
 
Dulvarian said:
To be funny, I've taught my kids that if they are ever in the car with me and I get pulled over they are to put their hands on their heads. Ridiculous irony on a cop trying to be a jerk with three cute kids making you feel like a jerk, mocking you.

It's better to teach them to sing the "COPS" theme song anytime they see a badge! (And, if it's a 'CCW' badge, it's even better!)
 
As I've discussed in a previous thread, your understanding of how duty to inform laws work doesn't gel with my experience in actually enforcing them. Since I outlined purposes the Alaska version thereof serves I won't reiterate them here in detail but, broadly, in terms of purpose -- they reduce risk to law abiding citizens during police contact, and provide an enforcement tool against those who do not comply with the law due to whatever motives.
They don't do that in Ohio. In fact, they do precisely the opposite. Beachwood PD ORDERED a driver to remain silent during a felony stop. After ***51*** seconds, he managed to inform... and was charged and TRIED for OBEYING THEIR ORDERS. He was of course acquitted.

The police proved that they cannot be trusted with mandatory notification. Given the opportunity, they shamefully abused it. That opportunity for abuse needs to be taken away from them. It needs to be eliminated YESTERDAY.
 
Just need to remember that the cop is just a person doing a job that he/she wants to go home from in one piece.
And informing him that you're LEGALLY armed does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING toward that end.

It's just part of the harassment of lawful concealed carriers pushed by the Ohio Highway Patrol to try to kill concealed carry in Ohio, exactly like the now defunct "plain sight" requirement in automobiles.

The Highway Patrol absolutely HATED the idea of lawful concealed carry in Ohio and did EVERYTHING they could to kill it for years. When that failed, they did EVERYTHING they could to make it as onerous as possible.

Their record of opposition to my right to self-defense outside of my home makes me completely unreceptive to what they want. Given the despicable abuse of mandatory notification committed by Beachwood police, they don't deserve to have it anymore.
 
The rationale that it increases the safety of individuals to force them to tell cops that they are armed is incredibly paternalistic and insulting to the intelligence of free people.

It is my own life. It is up to me to decide what course of action best protects it.

The rationale that it is one more charge to tack onto somebody who the cops think are guilty but can't prove is also totally bogus. We need less laws to give cops opportunities to do things like that, not more.

The only things that should be against the law are those things which actually threaten the rightful liberty of your fellow man. Simply staying silent about the fact that you are in possession of a weapon could never fit that criterion. It is an outrage to force someone to speak about something of that nature, and I refuse to submit to such violations of my liberty.

The fact that a cop has the authority to disarm a citizen for the duration of his contact with him is also completely outrageous. If the cop has some reason to believe the person is dangerous or is a threat to him, I can see where it might be OK... but just a random guy with a busted taillight, who for all the cop knows is just another armed citizen? Where is the threat there? Where is the danger?

These are the types of laws that belong in a fascist or totalitarian police state, not a country founded on the ideals of individual liberty.

I don't know how anyone feels OK about making a living enforcing such horrible and tyrannical laws, along with the myriad of other such laws police are required to enforce.
 
How about we compromise? How about we make it a law that IF I am carrying a concealed firearm, once I am detained by LEO I am required to inform them of the concealed firearm and present my license; upon doing so, by law, the LEO would then be prohibited from disarming me unless they were going to take me into actual physical custody?

While the Alaska law does require citizens to surrender weapons to officers during contact if so directed by the officer -- for the most part that doesn't happen. (As well as having a number of exceptions when the law does not apply -- for anyone who is interested look up Alaska's Misconduct Involving a Weapon 5th Degree law.)

So what you're proposing is the normal de facto reality, even if it's not the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top