Positive LEO Interaction

As you can see you are still obliged to notify. But if you don't and are "discovered", there is no penalty! Makes sense,right?! But hey,Don't Mess with Texas!

Click to expand...

It's just the way Texas tends to do business. Not the first time Texas decided to "repeal" a law by removing the penalty as opposed to deleting the whole thing from the books.

NavyLCDR said:

So, it is safer to ask you to handle your gun unnecessarily in pubic, increasing the chance of a negligent discharge, in order to remove it from it's safe storage location in the holster on your body into a relatively unattended glove box?

At least he was calm and polite while he was asking you to handle your gun in public without need to do so.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, ANY act we take has risks associated with it. From stepping out of our vehicle on the emergency lane, to crossing the street, to picking up a piece of kitchen cutlery. The question is whether or not the perceived/real potential benefits of taking any given action outweights the perceived/real potential risks inherent in the action itself.

Reality and perception must be weighed against every decision, a process we all do whether we realize it or not.

The officer probably did not wish to constantly apportion a percentage of his attention to the firearm while dealing with the routine business of the traffic stop. At any rate, he was not concerned with the legality of carrying the weapon or he would have taken totally different actions.

And, as you said, at least he was calm and polite about it.

Sapper771 said:

Amen.


I always notify LEOs regardless of the law. Most of them appreciate the honesty. I know I did when I was an LEO.

Click to expand...

Sure beats several minutes later hearing some other LEO yell "GUN!" if you happen to turn the wrong way ....

Sounds like a reasonable enough officer.
Arkansas did some good things this legislative session with regards to 2A rights, but unfortunately, we do have a duty to inform.

RetiredUSNChief said:

The officer probably did not wish to constantly apportion a percentage of his attention to the firearm while dealing with the routine business of the traffic stop.

Click to expand...

Why would he have to apportion ANY percentage of his attention to the firearm he knew was being carried by a permit holder? I'll bet you a paycheck against a doughnut that he did not ask a single other person at the scene of the accident if they were armed or not and had no idea whether they were carrying a concealed firearm or not. If the officer was not informed of the lawfully possessed and carried firearm by the OP would the officer have apportioned ANY of his attention to the gun he did not know about? 99% chance the answer is no.

And that is exactly why I won't tell an officer about my lawfully possessed firearm unless I am required to by law. If the officer wants to know if I have a gun, all he has to do is ask. If he isn't concerned about it enough to ask, then why should I raise that concern for them?

I'm curious LCDR, how many times in your career have you successfully changed the opinion of a chief?

I think Chief's point is that once an officier knows about a gun it'll be nagging in the back of his mind (if he's a little insecure, which is entirely possible). Having it removed from the crowd might have soothed his nerves some, which is something a lot of folks feel a need to do.

Alternatively, if he hadn't been told about it in the first place, the result would have been the same, only with less handling of a loaded gun in public. I agree with you on one crucial point: the fewer times a gun clears leather in public, the better.

GoWolfpack said:

I'm curious LCDR, how many times in your career have you successfully changed the opinion of a chief?

I think Chief's point is that once an officier knows about a gun it'll be nagging in the back of his mind (if he's a little insecure, which is entirely possible). Having it removed from the crowd might have soothed his nerves some, which is something a lot of folks feel a need to do.

Alternatively, if he hadn't been told about it in the first place, the result would have been the same, only with less handling of a loaded gun in public. I agree with you on one crucial point: the fewer times a gun clears leather in public, the better.

Click to expand...

I'm agreeing with the Chief. I'm just saying it doesn't make any sense. Like the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Association's argument against open carry in Oklahoma when it came up saying that open carry would present MORE of a danger to officers. Really? The guns the officers CAN see present more of a danger to them then the guns hidden from the officers?!?

NavyLCDR said:

I'm agreeing with the Chief. I'm just saying it doesn't make any sense. Like the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Association's argument against open carry in Oklahoma when it came up saying that open carry would present MORE of a danger to officers. Really? The guns the officers CAN see present more of a danger to them then the guns hidden from the officers?!?

Click to expand...

Odd, Chief didn't think you agreed with him. Miscommunication between officers and enlisted. Whodathunkit?

GoWolfpack said:

Odd, Chief didn't think you agreed with him. Miscommunication between officers and enlisted. Whodathunkit?

Click to expand...

Respectfully, you might want to go back and reread who responded to whom.

1. I responded to Craig_VA that, imo, the safest place for my gun is in my holster without anyone handling it.

2. Chief responded to my post that the officer probably felt the gun was better located in the glovebox, so the officer would not have to devote attention to it.

3. I responded to Cheif's post that it does not pass the common sense check for officers to show more concern about guns they know about, especially by asking the bearer of the firearm to handle it, when they show no concern at all whether or not the other parties have guns or not. Not concerned enough to even ask a simple question, in most cases.

4. Chief never responded to that. So, I am not sure where the perception comes from that the Chief and I disagree.

It comes down to this for me....I have been through numerous traffic stops in the past while possessing a CPL and firearm. There are officers who will feel that it is safer for me to handle my gun or for them to handle my gun, once they find out about it. If they aren't concerned enough about the presence of a firearm to just ask me, then why should I offer them the invitation to handle my gun or tell me to handle by telling them about my gun when I am not required to by law?

In the numerous traffic stops I have been through - the officer never asked about my gun, I never mentioned my gun, I treated the officer exactly the way Chief suggests, and we both go our merry ways. I've never had an unpleasant encounter and used to run about 50/50 warnings v. tickets.

In the last few years I have learned the best practice of all is to pay closer attention to my driving

I work with Chief. He and I talk out in the real world. Can't get the guy to shut up sometimes. We say some awful stuff about you guys.

Clearly I'm no longer contributing anything positive to this thread. Sometimes I feel a little sad at the things we get excited over. A cop doesn't freak out when he finds out you have a CHP, and it's something we celebrate. I wish we lived in a world where this was routine and expected.

NavyLCDR said:

Why would he have to apportion ANY percentage of his attention to the firearm he knew was being carried by a permit holder? I'll bet you a paycheck against a doughnut that he did not ask a single other person at the scene of the accident if they were armed or not and had no idea whether they were carrying a concealed firearm or not. If the officer was not informed of the lawfully possessed and carried firearm by the OP would the officer have apportioned ANY of his attention to the gun he did not know about? 99% chance the answer is no.

And that is exactly why I won't tell an officer about my lawfully possessed firearm unless I am required to by law. If the officer wants to know if I have a gun, all he has to do is ask. If he isn't concerned about it enough to ask, then why should I raise that concern for them?

Click to expand...

Where there is no legal requirement to inform LEO, then certainly that remains the choice of the individual.

If you choose not to inform an officer where there is no legal requirement for you to do so, then so be it. That's your choice. However, you've never seemed to be short on knowledge and common sense on this site, so I trust you would make a wise decision about that choice given whatever circumstances you may find yourself in.

For example, what if the act of obtaining your drivers license necessitated revealing your concealed weapon in the process? And in close proximity to your strong hand? Requirement to inform LEO or not, this would be a case where common sense would dictate informing the officer first.


Permit holder or not, the officer still does not know the man from Adam nor does he have any idea what state of mind the man may be in for a variety of reasons. I'm pretty sure that many of us on this site either know, or have run into, someone who was somewhat less than mature/responsible about carrying a weapon, concealed or not. And some people out there who do carry aren't the most stable people in the world, either.

The man was armed...legally so, but armed. For whatever reason (which we don't know because we aren't told), the officer evidently did not wish to have the possession of a firearm as a concern while dealing with the other routine matters of the stop. It's that simple.

There was no denial of the man's legal right to carry concealed, or there would have been an entirely different set of actions and attitude displayed.

As to whether or not the officer asked anybody else at the scene if they were carrying, that would be a matter of pure conjecture on our part and therefore has no bearing on this. If he did, he did. If not, then he didn't.


And as a side note:

I agree with you whole heartedly with respect to your comment about open carry and Oklahoma. Open carry doesn't make anything more dangerous to the officers. If anything, it takes some of the uncertainty out of the equation when dealing with someone...but other than that, certainly no more dangerous than concealed carry at all.

This thread caught my attention because I am kind of in a unique position to have daily interaction with LEOs. I work as IT support for my county government. It gives me opportunities to deal with everything from health departments to law enforcement. I have many friends who are LEOs and have had some pretty enlightening conversations about this.

First off, none of the officers I know really care if you inform them or not. The logic that I hear a lot is that if you are law abiding enough to get a CC permit, your not very likely to be a problem. Several officers have told me that, if you are not sure whether to inform or not, just hand the officer your CC permit with your license. That notifies the officer that you have a permit (which will show up when he runs your license anyway), and kind of clears the air without really bringing up the issue. They all pretty much universally agree that you are setting yourself up for a tense moment if your gun is in your glove box or something and happens to pop out while reaching for your papers... The bottom line is use good judgement.

One thing I have seen over the years that is very telling, is that whether LEOs support CC or OC seems, like almost every other social issue, to follow political lines more than anything. I live in a state that is so red that it is rare to even run into a liberal LEO but, the few that I know are the only ones opposed to CC or OC. It was very amusing to me when I started working at the jail admin building and asked the sheriff how he felt about me carrying in the office. I couldn't find a policy about non LEO workers doing this and wanted to be sure I was covered.

"Feel free... Doesn't bother me at all". Needless to say, I keep voting for the guy.

Texas has a duty to inform BUT no penalty for not informing. They removed it because without a CHl you can carry in your vehicle, with no duty to inform.

Johnny Dollar said:

And BTW, it is virtually impossible to change the ideology of informing with the Charlie's and the Ragnar's. Both do reside in must inform states.

But I believe it goes beyond that. It is part of their wired being. In other words,it is them,IMO. And that will be their rationale to the end.

C'est la vie.

Click to expand...

In my area I would be hard pressed to come in contact with an LEO that didn't know I have my Commander in my purse. Talking about it would be a waste of my time and theirs.

I think it has a lot more to do with "do I actually care that this officer is a human being doing a hard job?"

If all you see is a uniform and a badge issued by the State, than you probably are more likely to think of that officer as a possible enemy, and informing him is giving something up. On the other hand if you recognize he's just a guy doing a pretty tough and thankless job, and that in his shoes you'd probably want to know how many guns there are within arms reach of the people you're talking to (remember, they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are often until after something goes wrong), than informing just seems like something a decent person would do. It's not about obedience to the State or any of that. It's about looking at the officer as a real person with a family and then extending a bit of courtesy to make his job a bit easier and less stressful.

It's common decency. Some have it. Some don't.

...

I think it has a lot more to do with "do I actually care that this officer is a human being doing a hard job?"

If all you see is a uniform and a badge issued by the State, than you probably are more likely to think of that officer as a possible enemy, and informing him is giving something up. On the other hand if you recognize he's just a guy doing a pretty tough and thankless job, and that in his shoes you'd probably want to know how many guns there are within arms reach of the people you're talking to (remember, they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are often until after something goes wrong), than informing just seems like something a decent person would do. It's not about obedience to the State or any of that. It's about looking at the officer as a real person with a family and then extending a bit of courtesy to make his job a bit easier and less stressful.

It's common decency. Some have it. Some don't.

Click to expand...

This is a very pretty idea. But not a very sound one for two reasons.

1) There are abuses. They are generally minimized when the topics of guns present does not come up. I personally consider being disarmed against my will to be an abuse of my rights, but even in my wonderful commonwealth the abuses can and have gone far further than that. I won't willingly subject myself to such things. I strongly support law enforcement but I understand that their job and the way any individual officer may choose to pursue it may conflict with my and my family's best interests. I will act very positively toward them and respect them, but understand the harm they can do and so do not make choices that will encourage or allow them to harm me.

I love and respect animals, too, but I understand that you don't make dumb choices that could encourage them to harm you. Same basic idea. Be polite, respectful, and helpful, but know your ground and act smartly to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm.

2) To the part of the quote in blue: This is the most backward thinking and it really does illustrate a logical disconnect of fundamental significance. The only folks who are going to tell you they have guns with them are those who present no threat whatsoever to you, the officer. Those who would hurt you will simply lie. Hurting you would be a major felony. If they're willing to commit a major felony, probably THE major felony, lying to you is not even going to give them a moment of pause.

So, unless you're saying that you consider someone's affirmative response that yes, they do have a gun with them, to be notice that they are good folks and you should relax your guard and stop bothering these nice folks ... and let's just go ahead and admit that this is not the case for 99% of law officers ... then the information you're receiving, either affirmative or negative, is useless. Whether you understand it or not, it's all just playing control games, most of which are of more potential harm than good, even to the officer.

Nope. I'm saying exactly what I typed out. Not something you typed out.
More information is always a good thing. For you and for the officer. It's a lot harder for anyone to get hurt or rights trampled when both parties find out more information sooner into the encounter. That's just fact.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Nope. I'm saying exactly what I typed out. Not something you typed out.
More information is always a good thing. For you and for the officer. It's a lot harder for anyone to get hurt or rights trampled when both parties find out more information sooner into the encounter. That's just fact.

Click to expand...

The same information can also be used against you in the form of harassment by a ill-informed or unprofessional LEO.

Fact.

There are two sides to every argument.

Fact.

Dealing in absolutes when trying to argue a point is ridiculous.

Fact.

It's a lot harder for anyone to get hurt or rights trampled when both parties find out more information sooner into the encounter. That's just fact.

Click to expand...

How does that make the kind of universal sense you're implying?

It is a FACT that officers of the PSP here in PA have used volunteered information about carried firearms to take it upon themselves to confiscate those weapons, to "run the numbers" on those weapons, and to check them against PA handgun sales records (unfortunately available through the PSP database) -- and then hold those guns, legally owned, lawfully carried, if they do not appear in that database until the owner can in some way PROVE s/he is the rightful owner. Thus without any laws being broken (except possibly by the officer himself using the PSP database in a way they really aren't supposed to) the owner may be disarmed and then has to take personal time off work to go to a PSP barracks, possibly on the other side of the state!, to present evidence that s/he is the rightful owner of their own property and plead to have his/her gun returned.

You somehow think telling the officer is a good thing? More information is always beneficial to both parties? HARDLY.

Aside from that, there is certainly a reasonably high possibility that any given officer will choose to disarm "for his safety" any person he officially encounters who admits to having a firearm in his possession. That is a well-documented phenomenon. If I have any ability to not provide an officer with an excuse to act like an ass, I will.

I live in Oklahoma, yes, a "notify" state. The self defense law was changed last year to add "open carry" as an option for handgun licensees. Other than open carry what changed was this: "The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand." In other words, you have to tell the police that you are carrying, but you cannot be disarmed on the police officer's whim.

ECS

I'd much rather that the officer know I'm carrying, than see my handgun when I'm going for my wallet and misread the situation and have things go south. I know that sounds like a stretch, but I like to plan for the worst and expect the best.

Click to expand...

If the officer sees your handgun when you are reaching for your wallet then you need a better carry setup.

Shirts are probably one size too small.

I also would have politely refused to follow the LEO's request that I place my firearm in the car.

Click to expand...

I have no interest in removing my firearm any more than necessary. Now if the officer wishes to remove his sidearm and place it in his car during the duration of the event, then I'll return the favor. Otherwise, we're both entitled to carry our weapons during the exchange.

Likewise, if the issue was forced (with no real legal backing), I would request that the officer remove the firearm. I would prefer not to open myself to the liability of unnecessarily handling a loaded firearm.

I would have to say the only bad interaction, and it was a duzzie, was many years ago with a dorky little deputy sheriff in some tiny podunk town in upstate NY.

I was an active NYS peace officer at the time, and was caught speeding. No gripe there, I was speeding. At that time, the cops waited in their cars, and you walked over to them. I was carrying, and as a courtesy, mentioned I was. I didn't mention I was an officer. He gets out of his car and gets in my face, or as close as he could with about an 8" difference in our heights, and starts screaming with how dare I speed through his town (15 over on a limited access highway, NY RT 17), and why was I carrying a gun.

I worked in NYC, but as a state officer, the whole state was my jurisdiction and I explained that to him. He continues to scream at me. I ask him to stop, my wife and kids were in the car, and it was embarrassing. Finally I told him I wasn't going to listen to his crap anymore, if he wanted to write me a ticket go right ahead, and got back in my car.

He made me sit there for 15 minutes, and finally walks over, hands me back my license and registration, and without another word gets back in his car and drives away.

I was so furious I thought my head was going to explode, and told my wife I was going straight to his headquarters and filing a formal complaint. I had never been treated so disrespectfully by another officer. My wife calmed me down, and pointed out that despite his tirade, he hadn't issued me a summons. Just chalk it up to a bad experience, and go on. She also said who knows if his father (brother, uncle, etc.) wasn't the chief, because an officer with an attitude like that wouldn't last long otherwise.

I left it alone, but every time I think about it, like now, my blood pressure probably goes up 20 points.

And now retired after 40 years of service, I still inform an officer when stopped if I'm carrying. I do it for our mutual benefit. I don't want some nervous cop having a dangerous (to me) reaction if he sees a gun he wasn't expecting.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think it has a lot more to do with "do I actually care that this officer is a human being doing a hard job?"

If all you see is a uniform and a badge issued by the State, than you probably are more likely to think of that officer as a possible enemy, and informing him is giving something up. On the other hand if you recognize he's just a guy doing a pretty tough and thankless job, and that in his shoes you'd probably want to know how many guns there are within arms reach of the people you're talking to (remember, they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are often until after something goes wrong), than informing just seems like something a decent person would do. It's not about obedience to the State or any of that. It's about looking at the officer as a real person with a family and then extending a bit of courtesy to make his job a bit easier and less stressful.

It's common decency. Some have it. Some don't.

Click to expand...

I am curious, Ragnar. Do you apply this same "common decency" to other "human beings doing a hard job?" For example - you enter a convenience store at night. Do you tell the store clerk about your concealed permit and gun that you are carrying in order to "extend a bit of courtesy to make his job a bit easier and less stressful?" The store clerk has no idea if the person coming through the door next has the intention of buying a soda or robbing them.

Or how about the taxi cab driver when you get in their cab? Or the bus driver when you get on their bus?

Why not? Why is a police officer more deserving of "common decency" and other people working hard in dangerous jobs aren't? The Department of Labor statistics show that garbage collectors, farmers, and lumber jacks (as well as 5 or 6 other professions) are more likely to die on the job than a police officer is. And let me ask this - which profession contributes more to the health and safety of your family more on a daily basis? The police officer, or the farmer who works many days sun up to sun down to put food in your grocery store every day or the sanitation worker who takes away your trash every week?

I have and show the utmost respect for police officers and the job they do. I don't have to show them a concealed pistol license and tell them about my gun in order to show that respect for them.

And, while I have a good rant going....why was this thread allowed to even stay opened beyond the OP which has nothing to do with the topic of the legal forum?