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

HorseSoldier said:

So what you're proposing is the normal de facto reality, even if it's not the law.

Click to expand...

Not really.

The situation you describe leaves the sort of discretion to the officer that invariably throughout history winds up being abused.

We already give too much leeway and discretion to the bigotry of the police in this country, and rarely hold them accountable for their abuses of authority.

It started long before the event, but 9/11 really accelerated the over reach of the executive branch.

It's long past time to rein them in.

We already give too much leeway and discretion to the bigotry of the police in this country, and rarely hold them accountable for their abuses of authority.

Click to expand...

The abuses get noticed. It gets serious when a citizen takes the department to court. I know of a police chief that "retired" due to this exact thing and he clearly was becoming more abusive as his career progressed. He will likely cost his department (and ultimately the taxpayer) many thousands of dollars in a judgement against the department. It just doesn't need to happen this way. By the same token, he has had friends who did routine traffic stops and were shot as they walked up to the car. So, I am a little understanding of his situation.

The situation you describe leaves the sort of discretion to the officer that invariably throughout history winds up being abused.

Click to expand...

Since motorists during traffic stops who inform are left in possession of their firearms for the duration of the stop in the vast majority of cases, and if they are seized by officers it's for the duration of the stop and then they're returned with no drama, I have a hard time seeing where the histrionic assertion that this law, at least here in Alaska is "invariably . . . being abused."

So at least from my experience (doing a lot of stops, interacting with the public, rarely taking possession of weapons and never having anyone get bent out of shape about complying with our MIW 5 statute up here) I have the sense your declaration is just hyperbole and drama.

Your mileage may vary. Localities tend to get the sort of law enforcement they demand (and are willing to pay for), and so if you're living somewhere where local government goes out of its way to not attract the best and brightest to the career, your mileage likely does vary.

We already give too much leeway and discretion to the bigotry of the police in this country, and rarely hold them accountable for their abuses of authority.

Click to expand...

Additional rhetoric with no substance to support your assertion. So police are now not only invariably bound to abuse their authority but they're bigots as well?

It started long before the event, but 9/11 really accelerated the over reach of the executive branch.

Click to expand...

Ah, so the real issue is that the darn old guvmint is just bad? I see.

It's long past time to rein them in.

Click to expand...

Rein in what? Abuse of authority by law enforcement is not only subject to internal review by departments, external review by the courts and other government agencies, but also subject to a media establishment that will jump all over itself for bad cops run amok stories as the finest sort of it bleeds it leads journalism. As an LEO I operated in a fish bowl with magnifying glasses pointed at it all the time. I'm not sure how much more "reined in" a profession can be.

Seems to my that lying to the officer on the street is not the way to go about this. He is going to follow what his supervisor tells him to do. If you start off lying to him and he finds out, you are going to have a bad day. IF you want to do something out of spite, get a citizens group together and go to the city/county council meeting and bring it up there. THAT is what endangers the chief, and that is how you can be spiteful and effective.

IMO, in the past we have been too standoffish with our gov. That has led us to not participate and his has handed our gov to the anti's. They need to see ACTIVE participation from us if we want to restore our 2A rights.

Since the CCW will come up on the computer as soon a they run the license, I have on two occasions handed over by license/registration/insurance/Mil-ID/CWpermit along with the statement "...I have no weapons at this time."

Both cases brought the response "thank you sir," and eventually no ticket.
(Treat others as you would have them treat you.)

Another classmate offerred the above along w/ the statement "I am armed at this time, in a left shoulder holster." He was given a "thank you, sir..." asked to keep his hands on the steering wheel... and then also let go w/ a warning.

The sense that you are (a) responsible and (b) not trying to hide something that may later be revealed as an unknown threat is 9-times-out-of-10 appreciated.

I think a lot of the attitude you will receive is dependent on your geography. While somewhere in the south you may get a "thank you sir" for telling the patrol officer you are armed, I seriously doubt that would be the same demeanor where I am. If I did that, I would expect to be asked at gunpoint to exit the vehicle and have the officer disarm me for nothing more than telling him/her that I have a gun.

Is there any cases where an officer has been shot at during a traffic stop from someone with a conceal carry permit? I'm not asking to be sarcastic, but I am honestly curious.

Again I think geography and local politics has a lot to do with this.

Shawn

Cops in my area are fond of asking "Any guns, knives, blowpipes,drugs, grenades, in the car?"
God I hate hearing that tired old line.

Right now I'm tempted to say "No, but remember that Cobra snake they lost over in New York?"

While somewhere in the south you may get a "thank you sir" for telling the patrol officer you are armed, I seriously doubt that would be the same demeanor where I am.

Click to expand...

Really? You're still in PA, right? My last traffic stop in PA (St. Patrick's Day) ended in a 15-minute chat about gun shops and cool guns in which the officer didn't bother to ask for my LCTF, didn't check my vehicle registration, and forgot to give me the fix-it ticket he'd promised for my dead headlight. And that was a cop who grew up in Philly!

(I love it here...! )

Just so.... circumstances always temper judgement. Virginia-no problem. Arizona-no problem. Ohio-you gotta be kidding.

Sign of the times: While returning along I-80 to Sacramento from a hunting trip in the northern Sierras, we had a blowout on the trailer tire. I was carrying (openly) a 1911 on my right hip as we pulled off the shredded tire/wheel along the side of the road.

Up drives a state trooper. He gets out/comes over and looks over my shoulder at the problem. He then asks if he can give me/the wheel a ride to the nearest gas station.

Into the trunk goes the tire.
Into the passenger side go I -- still cocked/locked and carrying.

He never batted an eyelash, ...and I thanked him for the ride when we got to the tire place.

It was, of course, 1973.

Sam, my only official interaction with any LE in the nine years that I have lived in this area was a recent speeding ticket. In that case, as I think I stated on here before, he didn't ask if I had a gun and I didn't offer, was extremely cordial and professional. I will admit that some of my feeling on this is based on heresy, however over the years I have struck up conversations about this with half a dozen officers in a non official capacity and five of the six said flat out that they were not really comfortable with people carrying. They said that they have no problem with people defending their home, but that they didn't feel it was necessary for people to carry outside of their home, "that is what we are here for". Is this an accurate assessment of all the LE on the area? God I hope not, but that has been my experience. None were rude, but some did feel stronger than others on subject.

In my opinion duty to inform only give the LEO a reason to be on edge. Now whether or not they will treat you differently is completely dependent on that particular officer.

Shawn

In my opinion duty to inform only give the LEO a reason to be on edge.

Click to expand...

And I agree. If I'm going to shoot them, I'm not going to alert them to the gun. If I'm not going to shoot them, they don't need to know about the gun.

And by the way I love it here too. Especially considering that I moved here from just south of Baltimore and I do not miss it any little bit.

Drail said:

But if we proceed on the assumption that everybody should be detained and searched because they "might" be dangerous that is not a free country. That is a police state.

Click to expand...

I agree, and it's law in my state to inform the police of carry. I don't like it one bit, but I'll comply until my state gets it's head out of it's rear like it generally does.

I agree, and it's law in my state to inform the police of carry. I don't like it one bit, but I'll comply until my state gets it's head out of it's rear like it generally does.

Click to expand...

Mine does too. If anything, I try to keep it in a positive light. The least it does is keep surprises (particularly for inexperienced jumpy cops) if a gun is suddenly seen and it let's the cop know, that I am not a raving lunatic as they would tend to not tell a cop where the gun was.

In a perfect world though, the cop ran my plates, he know who owns the car, he comes up a car with lights on, hands on wheel, that should be enough to put him at ease a bit. On the other hand I once saw a video where an officer saw just that scene and as soon as he started to talk to the guy ("the reason I pulled you over sir is..."), he pulled out a gun and shot him point blank 2 or 3 times (in the vest thankfully). Rare...absolutely. Would it be something on my mind if I was a cop doing a traffic stop? Yeah.

HorseSoldier said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can understand your reasoning (at least more so) why Alaska has a "duty to inform" law, since you don't need to be licensed to carry. But in Michigan, CPL holders throw up a flag when a cop runs your plates anyway, so before they even get to the window they know who you are. It's more like a test just to see if you'll follow the rules (as silly as they are). And they are silly rules. The chances of a cop being shot by a CPL holder are probably 10,000 times less than getting hit by a car while having said CPL holder pulled over.

However, if I'm ever asked by a LEO if there's a gun in my car, I'm gonna lie through my teeth just out of spite.
Just my "standard operating procedure".

Click to expand...

It might not be illegal to lie to a non-federal LEO, but it's monumentally stupid and sets precedent for the future when it's documented that you've lied to the police before (especially where a firearm is concerned, regardless of the overall situation).

DO NOT lie to the cops. I'm not saying that you should exhibit diarrhea of the mouth around the police, but do NOT lie to them because it can come back to bite you in the tail later.

Think about it.
I'm a LEO (let's say). I pull you over. I ask if you are armed.
Now that is really stupid because the freak who would shoot a cop would have no problem lying also.
So, as a LEO it's a stupid question. The guys who say yes won't shoot you, and the one's you need to fear won't tell the truth, so don't waste my time.

What do you think? Old Billy Bob is gonna' say, "I wuz' gonna' shoot that cop, but he asked if I had a gun and I hada' say yes."

I'm definitely of two minds here. I'd probably just hand over my CPL and DL at the same time, as the cop's gonna know once he runs my license anyway. At the same time though, I feel it's unreasonable, provided that up to that point I've been courteous and not exibiting any weird behavior, that the LEO can then decide that for no other reason than he can, I'm to be disarmed.

Just do what you are required to do, no more no less. Trying to figure out the mindset of the officer who stopped you is a wast of time and effort. You don't know how he or she is going to react, so just follow the procedures.

I think a lot of the attitude you will receive is dependent on your geography. While somewhere in the south you may get a "thank you sir" for telling the patrol officer you are armed, I seriously doubt that would be the same demeanor where I am. If I did that, I would expect to be asked at gunpoint to exit the vehicle and have the officer disarm me for nothing more than telling him/her that I have a gun.

Click to expand...

Having lived in FL and OH I couldn't agree more with the above. FL was the most friendly gun state I've ever had the pleasure to be in. OH on the other hand is horrible.

I've had one incident here in OH already that has soured me. While traveling on Lake Erie we were stopped by the CG under the pretense of "Homeland Security" and asked for ID's. Along with producing ID's the CG did a vessel safety check, which in my opinion is illegal under the pretense of "Homeland Security".

At this point a Sheriff accompaniying the CG chastised me in front of a whole boat load of people because I handed him a drivers license and did not include my CCW. Number one, I don't think everyone needs to know who has a carry license. Number two, I was asked for an ID and had no weapon on me. Welcome to the northern geographical region.

I don't understand why some of you think that negative consequences will befall you if you lie to a cop about this. The only way that lying about this will get you in any kind of trouble, official or otherwise, is if they actually find out that you're lying... which is unlikely. If they ask you if you're armed and you answer "no," like 99% of people they stop, they won't treat you any different than any other traffic stop. They may ask you to let them search the car, but you can always refuse.

I don't understand why some of you think that negative consequences will befall you if you lie to a cop about this. The only way that lying about this will get you in any kind of trouble, official or otherwise, is if they actually find out that you're lying... which is unlikely. If they ask you if you're armed and you answer "no," like 99% of people they stop, they won't treat you any different than any other traffic stop. They may ask you to let them search the car, but you can always refuse.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, I don't understand why any law abiding person would feel the need to lie to the police. To my way of thinking, if you are a good citizen you wouldn't have any reason to hide anything from the police. Especially a firearm that you are legally carrying. I really have to question the way someone is presenting themselves if the police feels the need to disarm them.

When I come into contact with a LEO, it's just like at the range, everone is exceedingly polite. I think that's a good thing.

tx it is a must if you are a chl holder you must disclose if no chl you dont have to tell
unless they ask

tx it is a must if you are a chl holder you must disclose if no chl you dont have to tell
unless they ask

Click to expand...

Well technically that's true but be aware of the legislative intent here. The legislature removed any civil or criminal penalty for NOT informing if you are carrying with a CHL. Previously your CHL could be suspended, that is no longer the case.

So it's illegal to not inform but there are no consequences if you don't. That was just easier than removing the law entirely for a number of reasons.

To my way of thinking, if you are a good citizen you wouldn't have any reason to hide anything from the police. Especially a firearm that you are legally carrying. I really have to question the way someone is presenting themselves if the police feels the need to disarm them.

Click to expand...

Aside from the repeated admonitions here and many other places that police officers are not just being good pals when they make official contact with you and that you owe it to yourself to limit that contact to the legal minimum as a general matter of course ... here's a very direct example for you:

Here in PA, the PA State Police maintains a database of handgun sales. All handgun sales must go through a dealer and all sales must be reported. (But this isn't a firearms registry ... oh NO ... that would be against PA state law!)

It has been common practice in some areas for troopers to disarm anyone they find to be carrying a weapon and for them to run that weapon's serial numbers through their database (which, remember, isn't a registry!). If that serial number isn't present in the database (and there are several perfectly legal reasons why the gun might not be: owned before moving to the state, inherited, owned before the non-registration scheme was started, etc.), the gun is confiscated until the owner manages to successfully petition the agency that his gun was lawfully owned. Much hassle, much time/expense wasted on what should be a totally illegal confiscation of property without cause.