CC/OC safety during a disarm.

[Gentleman Ranker]

Greetings.

This could be seen as more of a safety question than a "tactical" one as that's usually used, but it seems like something that could come up and that could have non-trivial consequences.

Law-abiding citizen (LAC) is legally carrying their preferred handgun in a retention holster (I am thinking specifically of the Blackhawk CQC SERPA, but it could apply to others). Said preferred handgun is loaded, one in the chamber if applicable, any safeties applied. The question is simpler if one assumes open carry, but it applies to concealed carry also.

Law-abiding citizen is detained by Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). It comes to LEO's attention that LAC is armed (this may happen because LAC is carrying openly, because LAC is legally required to inform LEO, because LAC is "printing", which caused the stop, or some other reason). LEO wishes to disarm LAC for the duration of the detention. LEO is not familiar with the operation of LAC's retention holster.

Assume that

• this is a detention, not a consensual encounter. LAC may not simply walk away.
  
  
• both LAC and LEO are at least attempting to be polite, or at least non-hostile, about it. LAC has shown valid ID (and permit, if applicable) if requested by LEO.
  
  
• neither LAC nor LEO wishes to be shot, accidentally or otherwise
  
  
• no felonies have been committed and this is not a felony stop.

How should everyone proceed?

Is your answer different if LAC does not wish to be disarmed, but decides to follow the often-heard advice "don't consent, but don't resist" ?

Replies from serving LEOs or those who have had this experience are especially welcome. Replies to the effect that "You shouldn't get into that situation in the first place" may be made, but will be considered Not Helpful.

Are there other forums (such as "Ask a Cop" forums) where this question could be usefully asked?

Thanks in advance, and

regards,

GR

 

[vicdotcom]

My opinion is to listen to the LEO and allow him to disarm you or ask if you can do it SLOWLY and fingers off the trigger at all times. If he is unfamiliar with the retention holster, explain it to LEO. If it is a detention then they need to make sure you are not armed for the safety of everyone. At that point its not a question of "i respectfully decline" but it should be a demand from the officer at that point.

You may be acting respectful but he doesnt know you and what you may do. The LEO has a responsibility to HIMSELF to make sure the situation is safe for he and anyone that may be arround. In some states refusing a legal direction from an officer is an offense in which case you will be disarmed anyways.

Last point is, if you didnt do anything wrong what is the point of not complying? Think the LEO is would shoot you? If nothing is wrong, you will get your CCW back after the situation is resolved. The LEO is armed and the chances of "bad things" would be lessened anyways.

Those are my thoughts on it.

 

[Treo]

If it is a detention then they need to make sure you are not armed for the safety of everyone

I'm a law abiding citizen. If we get to the point of disarming me ( BTW how does that make things safer for me) The cop already knows that I have CHP ( read safety class, fingerprint & background check) I'm not a felon & I'm not wanted for anything. So how does me being disarmed add to the safety of the situation?

. The LEO has a responsibility to HIMSELF to make sure the situation is safe for he and anyone that may be arround

Again, I'm one of the good guys remember? how is me being disarmed ( unnecessary gun handling) going to make " anyone that may be around" any safer than they were 5 minutes before when I was just as armed but no one knew it?

The LEO is armed and the chances of "bad things" would be lessened

So the cops going to suddenly freak out when he sees my legally carried/ concealed firearm and start shooting? maybe he's the one that should be disarmed.

 

[Jeff White]

the officer is in charge. Do exactly what you are told. Do not argue, deviate from any instructions or make any suggestions. The last thing you want to do is get in any kind of discussion on the street with a police officer. The officer holds all the cards on the street. He/she is right, even if later in court they are proven wrong. There is nothing to gain from doing anything different then you are instructed to do and a lot to lose.

If the officer asks for your weapon but doesn't instruct you in how he wants you to handle it, ask him. If the officer asks you to handle your weapon in an unsafe manner, don't get in a discussion about the four rules, just follow the instructions as safely as you can.

Jeff

 

[jorb]

I agree. The officers first duty is to go home after his/her shift. In my state we have to inform LE that we are carrying and that we have a permit to do so. I haven't been in that situation as of now but it is wise to follow the officers directions.

 

[FCFC]

Since it is a given in the scenario (an interesting one!) that the LEO has decided to disarm the LAC, then the first and most important thing is to be cooperative about it. Not the least of which will be not trying to talk the LEO out of it. If I know that disarming is not justified I would advise the LEO that I will cooperate fully but that he has no cause to disarm and that I don't consent to it but will do it per his instructions.

I would just do whatever he wants to get the firearm. If he is unfamiliar with the retention, or even if he is familiar with it, I'd tell him/her what it is. I might suggest taking the whole holster, if that is easier.

Once disarmed to the LEO's satisfaction, I would feel free to not only continue to cooperate in the stop but to gather information relevant for any complaint against the officer that would be appropriate.

 

[ctdonath]

Upshot is that the holster makes drawing difficult/tricky?

LAC should suggest he remove his belt while the cop hold & remove the holster. That keeps the piece secured in a safe location, nobody has to screw around with explaining & learning the "knack to opening this thing", the trigger does not become exposed, and anyone can do it safely.

 

[Treo]

BTW I forgot to mention that if I was being detained & disarmed I probably wouldn't be saying much more than to ask what I'm being charged with & informing the cop that I do not wish to answer any questions W/ my lawyer present.
But hey, that's me

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

A small clarification.

Just to be clear ...

This is not about LAC's 2A rights, the lawfulness of the detention, LE-bashing or anything else. This is about LAC's not having one of their own 155gr Gold Dots in their femoral artery. No offense LE folk, but you know exactly what I'm talking about.

The question about not wanting to be disarmed is only there because I have seen others talking about it, and there seem to be some who would say "I won't resist you, but you can take it if you want." Please don't assume that that's what I would prefer to do. If that does happen, what's the best thing for both to do to keep anyone from being shot?

For example, I've actually seen someone post (not here) that they'd suggest that the LEO cuff them rather than fumble with a retention holster the LEO didn't understand. To me, that seemed to be a safety suggestion, not defiance of the LEO.

It's all about no one getting shot. I've never been shot (though I've seen a few GS wounds), and don't want to be. Neither does the officer. I assume that LAC and LEO both agree that an accidental shooting is not "better" than a hostile one in any realistic way if one is the shootee.

Thanks to those who have commented thus far. Please continue.

regards,

GR

 

[Captain38]

As a former career LEO who worked my way up through the ranks, I would suggest that if a disarming was going to be attempted, that the officer should have the LAC turn with his back away from him until the firearm (and holster, if any) could be safely removed and placed on a flat surface of some kind (if not the hood or trunk of his vehicle, then on the ground or pavement).

The LAC could then be instructed to move forward away from the firarm allowing the LEO to step up and retrieve it. This is, of course, all from the LEO's perspective.

From the other side of the fence, the LAC should do EXACTLY what he's told by the LEO!

 

[ilbob]

Bottom line is do as you are told. It can only go downhill for you if you don't. You do not have near immunity for bad acts, while the other guy does.

You can complain about it later, but chances are it will do no good, so just suck it up and take it.

I realize that is not all that appetizing but it is reality. Better then being dead and billed as a guy trying to kill a cop, because that is what will be claimed.

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

A couple of my own comments.

Jeff White (Today 10:02 AM) says:

the officer is in charge. Do exactly what you are told. Do not argue, deviate from any instructions or make any suggestions. The last thing you want to do is get in any kind of discussion on the street with a police officer.

Would you modify this advice, particularly the part about suggestions, if you thought that the LEO was fumbling the disarm, or doing it in a manner that threatened LAC's safety? Note that I'm not talking about resisting the LEO, passively or otherwise. My understanding is that most LEOs don't want LAC touching the firearm at all, which I do understand.

ctdonath (Today 10:21 AM) asks:

Upshot is that the holster makes drawing difficult/tricky?

Just so. As a retention holster, it is deliberately designed so that anyone but the wearer will have trouble removing the firearm. I would imagine that normally this is a Good Thing, but perhaps not in this instance. Hence the question.

regards,

GR

 

[vicdotcom]

If it is a detention then they need to make sure you are not armed for the safety of everyone

I'm a law abiding citizen. If we get to the point of disarming me ( BTW how does that make things safer for me) The cop already knows that I have CHP ( read safety class, fingerprint & background check) I'm not a felon & I'm not wanted for anything. So how does me being disarmed add to the safety of the situation?


Quote:
. The LEO has a responsibility to HIMSELF to make sure the situation is safe for he and anyone that may be arround

Again, I'm one of the good guys remember? how is me being disarmed ( unnecessary gun handling) going to make " anyone that may be around" any safer than they were 5 minutes before when I was just as armed but no one knew it?

The problem with these arguments is that the Officer doesnt know for sure if your one of the good guys. He doesnt know you or how you react to situations. He doesnt know if you are going to sit there like a good LAC or try to shoot him in the back. Just because someone has a CCW permit doesnt mean anything. Some drug dealers have CCW permits.

All he knows is that you have a firearm and that might be a danger to him. Thats all he has to know.

Lets say someone is getting pulled over and you show your ccw permit. LEO allows person to keep the gun. Now the officer is running your tags and ID. Well now he finds something wrong or a warrant and knows that you have a gun in the car. Situation is more dangerous than it would have been if he just took the firearm to be safe.

Bottom line is listen to the LEO. Its his life on the line.

 

[Treo]

If that does happen, what's the best thing for both to do to keep anyone from being shot?

The best thing to do ( I'm serious ) is you leave the gun right where it's at and you instruct the citizen not to touch it. Last time I was pulled over that's exactly how it was handled.

 

[Treo]

He doesnt know if you are going to sit there like a good LAC

Or to put it another way :

He doesnt know if you are going to sit there like a good little sheep

In all seriousness before I bail on this thread:

Best & safestest (imo) way to handle it: "Please do not touch your firearm during the course of our interaction sir"

If I have to hand it over, " I'm going to unsnap my keepers and hand the entire holster to you butt first. My weapon is chambered and is not on safety"
And do exactly that.

He's takes the weapon( unsafest imo): turn my side to the cop pull up my shirt let him take the weapon (preferably W/ holster)

Think of name of good pro 2A lawyer ( especially if I was stopped solely for carrying) so I can sue what ever government ( city, county,state ) said officer represents

 

[ilbob]

Think of name of good pro 2A lawyer ( especially if I was stopped solely for carrying) so I can sue what ever government ( city, county,state ) said officer represents

why waste your time and money suing? you will lose every time.

 

[FieroCDSP]

Personally, I use holsters that can be removed from my belt with only a little effort. A Blackhawk Serpa with the paddle-rig for OC, and a Comp-Tac CTAC IWB for concealment.
The CTAC can be removed by loosening the belt and pulling up on the clips, never touching the gun itself, except perhaps with the heel of the hand incidently.
The Serpa can take a bit of effort due to it's numerous grip-hooks that, when set right, hold to pants and belt very well. It can still be done in less than a minute.

If I'm in an encounter where the officer askes to retain the weapon for the duration, I plan to ask whether or not they'd like it handed over in the holster or not. Keeping the gun in the holster removes one more possibility of an ND on both sides.

 

[Jeff White]

Would you modify this advice, particularly the part about suggestions, if you thought that the LEO was fumbling the disarm, or doing it in a manner that threatened LAC's safety?

No! The officer is in charge, period, end of discussion. Dealing with someone who is armed is not a comfortable thing. Follow his instructions exactly. Do not deviate. Do not engage in conversation, just comply. I worked in Illinois where there is no CCW so I never disarmed someone who was legally carrying. There are ways of letting the subject disarm himself. I think your fears of an officer fumbling around in your waistband are a bit overblown.

I'm a law abiding citizen. If we get to the point of disarming me ( BTW how does that make things safer for me) The cop already knows that I have CHP ( read safety class, fingerprint & background check) I'm not a felon & I'm not wanted for anything. So how does me being disarmed add to the safety of the situation?

Having a CCW permit does not mark you as one of God's chosen people. What the officer knows is that at the time you were issued the permit, you were not a convicted felon. A CCW permit in most states that do background checks tells the officer that you passed the same background check as a day care worker or school bus driver. And all it means is that your background was clean the day the check was done. It doesn't mean that you aren't a criminal that has never been caught. It's no guarantee that you, the ordinarily good guy didn't just have your significant other leave you and then get fired from your job because you were late because you were discussing it with her and this speeding ticket is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back. It doesn't mean that you didn't just murder your spouse in a fit of rage and you are convinced the officer knows and you must escape. It doesn't mean that you won't go berserk over a minor enforcement action because you are having a bad day, like an Illinois State Supreme Court Justice did a few years back. There are no credentials that guarantees the officer that those things won't happen. And in light of the Ohio officer who was murdered on a traffic stop by a CCW holder, no rational person could blame an officer for disarming a CCW holder. I would have had no problem disarming an officer from another jurisdiction if my gut told me to. People from every background and profession you can name have flipped out during minor enforcement actions. There are no guarantees.

Jeff

 

[ilbob]

if you don't like the extraordinary amount of power given to LE, complain about it to your legislators. they are the ones that did it, and the only ones that can change it.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Your ONLY option is to do your best to follow whatever instructions you are issued by the LEO who contacts you. In the duration of the contact, the LEO is right, and you are wrong if you do anything but follow instructions. Discussion should be limited to clarifying those instructions, or further informing the LEO ("This is a retention holster, this holster is hard to remove from my belt, there's a round in the chamber," etc.). Objections, refusals, or the like are out of place and will probably be reacted to in a negative fashion by the LEO.

Treating a LEO you have met only in this one contact as a jackbooted thug probably means that you will have created a self-fulfilling prophecy... NOT a good plan. Yes, some LEOs are jerks (guess what- so are some CCW permit holders). Some are incompetent in handling firearms, even their own (guess what...).

But acting as if you think the particular LEO you are in contact with is less than capable is not going to improve the situation. Find a way to cooperate. It's not impossible, it may only be difficult. But it is up to you to make the effort. Anything else is a losing proposition.

lpl/nc

 

[Treo]

Having a CCW permit does not mark you as one of God's chosen people

But then again neither does having a badge, I hear a lot about gangs of crooked cops , crooked CCWers ? Not so much.

it's no guarantee that you, the ordinarily good guy didn't just have your significant other leave you and then get fired from your job because you were late because you were discussing it with her and this speeding ticket is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Of course I don't have any guarantee about you either do I.

Bottom line I'm not gonna get in a pissing contest W/ a cop over being disarmed. It's not going to go good. but I'm not going to be happy about it, and I am certainly going to protect myself legally. and if I feel that I have been flagrantly wrong I'm going to consult a lawyer.

 

[Gentleman Ranker]

Jeff White (#18) says:

Would you modify this advice, particularly the part about suggestions, if you thought that the LEO was fumbling the disarm, or doing it in a manner that threatened LAC's safety?

No! The officer is in charge, period, end of discussion. Dealing with someone who is armed is not a comfortable thing. Follow his instructions exactly. Do not deviate. Do not engage in conversation, just comply.

I'm not trying to be deliberately contrary, but let me make sure I understand what you're saying.

LAC is being disarmed by LEO. LAC notices that LEO is having trouble with LAC's loaded firearm, or not using the retention mechanism properly. You are saying that it is wrong for LAC to say "Excuse me, officer, would you like me to tell you about how my holster works?"

Is that right?

I worked in Illinois where there is no CCW so I never disarmed someone who was legally carrying.

Okay.

There are ways of letting the subject disarm himself.

If LEO does not choose to use one of those, it is wrong for LAC to suggest it? Note that I am not asking about refusing, but about making a polite suggestion for LAC's own safety.

I think your fears of an officer fumbling around in your waistband are a bit overblown.

Perhaps. I have it on good authority that not all LEOs are "gun people", and certainly in the smaller and less well-funded departments, they may not be familiar with the equipment they may encounter.

I've also read that even LEO prepare themselves with mental "what-if" exercises, for things that may not be especially likely, but which would be very bad if they did happen. I'm just trying to educate myself in the same way.

I understand that LEO doesn't know who LAC really is, and needs to take precautions. Nevertheless, it is part of the scenario presented that LAC is being polite and cooperative (or at least not actively resisting), no felony RAS, valid ID presented. Someone could take some of the statements in this thread as meaning that the personal safety of the otherwise-unoffending LAC is secondary to that of LEO. I'm sure that's not what's meant.

regards,

GR

 

[ilbob]

But then again neither does having a badge, I hear a lot about gangs of crooked cops , crooked CCWers ? Not so much.

did anyone else catch the remark gura made in his speech to VCDL about a national journal article that indicated cc permit holders are less likely to commit crimes than are police officers?

 

[ilbob]

Someone could take some of the statements in this thread as meaning that the personal safety of the otherwise-unoffending LAC is secondary to that of LEO. I'm sure that's not what's meant.

I am pretty sure that is often the case though. It still does not change anything.

 

[Templar223]

I wonder if the OP here is worrying about a non-issue.

I've carried a gun for not quite ten years now and never once been asked to disarm.

Granted, 99 and 44/100ths of the time I'm not OC, but still...

Tip for the day: Unless law mandates otherwise: Don't ask, Don't tell.

John