CCW DISARM

[Jeff White]

There is plenty of case law giving the police the right to seize weapons that may be a threat to him even without the specific sections of the various CCW laws that require you to surrender your weapon.

I have disarmed people in their homes during domestic disturbances. I have temporarily seized baseball bats, kitchen knives and firearms.

You've got a long, hard legal fight ahead of you if you wish to change the law to permit a person to be armed during an encounter with a police officer, if that officer doesn't want you to be armed. You need to start by getting one of your group to refuse to de disarmed then you will have status to appeal your conviction all the way through the USSC where you will run smack in Terry:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation. We are now concerned with more than the governmental interest in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded. [392 U.S. 1, 24] Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives. 21

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.

Which of you volunteers? Hawkeye? Molon Labe?

Like it or not a traffic stop is an investigation into a violation of the law. So are most field interviews. The notification provisions in most CCW laws simply spare you the indignity of being patted down. There are reports posted here all the time about positive enconters between CCW holders and the police. Stating that you are armed is simply a courtesy. I tell any officer I encounter while off duty that I am armed.

In a perfect world everyone would be able to carry anything they wanted for self defense without any kind of government permission. But even in that perfect world a police officer is entitled to safe working conditions.

Jeff

 

[GTSteve03]

Just remember that there's no more "innocent until proven guilty" in the eyes of the government and its agents.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

I have posted this before....
In WA you are required to present your license only when the LEO asks for it. Since I got my CPL, I have had 2 traffic stops. The second stop was because I had forgotten to change the tags on my car (it was Jan 30th). The cop asked for license and reg, ran the plates to make sure that the car wasn't stolen, then he came back and told me to be sure and get those tags changed. The whole time my gun was in the center console, and because the only way that it would be accessed was if they searched the car, I didn't feel the need to tell him about it. (out of sight, out of mind... no problems)

The first time I was stopped (I was going 53 in a 45), I had wedged the gun and holser between the seat and center console and it was in plain view of the LEO. Naturally the frist words out of my mouth were "I have CWL and there is a pistol in the car." This is where the problem of police securing concealed weapons comes up. I could not undo my seatbelt or get to my wallet w/o putting my hand right near the gun. So the LEO did possibly the stupidest thing I could imagine, he reached between my arms and across my chest to grab the gun. That exposed him to all kinds of harm that I could have inflicted if I was a BG.

Now that was just one LEO making a bad call, but it just underscores the fact that there is rarely an easy way to disarm a person without getting them out of the car and putting them over the hood or on the ground. That seems a tad exessive for a minor speeding stop or expired tags (I got a warning for both BTW). I think the police policy of securing concealed weapons not only harrases citizens when there isn't PC, but also can put officers in needless danger.

I do agree that LEOs should secure weapons on more serious stops like DWI, reckless driving, or trying to evade the police. On simple traffic stops with complient citizens, if it's not a problem, lets not make it a problem.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Thanks for your reply, but you just gotta start reading these posts! As I stated originally, Ohio law does allow leo to disarm during a traffic stop. As for the law, I was asking about the constitutionality of the procedure even tho allowed in the law. Sorry If I wasn't clear about that.

Do you want a real, strict constructionist ("originalist") view of constitutionality, or an activist court view?

The 2nd amendment says that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Any law that allows or instructs a law enforcement officer (or any other agent of the State) to disarm me, even for a moment, is by definition unconstitutional from a strict construction perspective.

Unfortunately, the courts have been swayed more and more over the years by the "officer safety" mantra, and they tend to look at things through a lens of "competing harms" to arrive at the unsupportable conclusion that the language of the Constitution does not say what it says because it is less harmful for me to be disarmed by an LEO than for an LEO to risk being shot by an armed citizen. So, the short answer is that until such time as either the Ohio Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court rules your Ohio law unconstitutional, it is the law.

Don't hold your breath.

To Jeff White: Your quotation from the Terry decision ends with this:

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.

How does this relate to disarming a motorist during a routine traffic stop. Speeding is not a violent crime, it is (depending on jurisdiction) either a misdemeanor or a civil infraction. Absent an overt threat by the motorist to the officer, what in a routine traffic stop would give rise to the officer "being justifed in believing that the individual ... is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." Note that the Terry decision (which you cited) does not just say "armed," it says "armed and presently dangerous."

Further, Terry doesn't really apply at all. Terry grew out of a case involving suspicion of a crimnal act, and the decision speaks at length about the need for the officer to be able to show suspicion based on reasonably articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. Routine traffic stops do not involve crimes, thus references to Terry are red herrings.

 

[Jeff White]

Routine traffic stops do involve crimes. Period. Cases are tried in court. People can be fined and in some cases imprisoned for violating the traffic laws. It's a lower level of crime, but it is a crime none the less. From the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition:

crime (krim) n. 1. An act committed in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity Crime is on the rise. 3. A serious offense, esp. one in violation of morality. 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition. [ME< OFr.< Lat. crimen]

It seems that a traffic offense fits the definition. See 1. above.

In most places the ability to sign the ticket after the officer marks the block promise to comply is simply a courtesy to the public and to streamline the process. You can make a custodial arrest and take the violator to jail and let them make bond there. what happens when traffic violators refuse to sign the ticket? They go to jail.

Here are the rules in Illinois:

PART B. BAIL SCHEDULES

NOTE: The bail provisions of Rules 526, 527 and 528 do not apply to arrests on warrant. Bail is preset to avoid undue delay in freeing certain persons accused of an offense when, because of the hour or the circumstances, it is not practicable to bring the accused before a judge. When the accused is actually brought before a judge, the bail amounts specified in these rules do not control. Nothing in these rules is intended to limit a peace officer’s discretion to issue a Notice to Appear in an appropriate case (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 107–12 725 ILCS 5/107–12).

A traffic ticket, a city ordinace violation, are arrests. When you are issued a citation you have been arrested.

Terry is not a red herring. If I've have pulled you over for a traffic violation I have more then reasonable suspician a crime has been committed, I have probable cause to make an arrest. As we've established earlier, a traffic ticket or a notice to appear on an ordinance violation is in fact an arrest.

No court in the country is going to say I don't have the right to disarm someone I am arresting, even if it is not a custodial arrest.

I'll make you a deal, when people stop flipping out and going crazy on routine contacts with the police, I'll support your right to conduct those routine contacts armed. Why don't you watch one of those hokey police dash cam shows and see if you're ready to guarantee that every member of the public is a mature enough adult to handle a routine contact with the police while they are armed? Don't give me the CCW holders are special citizens one step below saints line either. They aren't! There have been plenty of instances of doctors, lawyers and clergy flipping out when faced with minor enforcement action. We even had a member of the state supreme court who had at least two incidences of flipping out when pulled over for a traffic offense.

At what point is someone a threat? Can you come up with a definition that is comprehensive enough to cover all situations?

I suppose you would require the officer to wait until the traffic offender started cursing him before he attempted to disarm him? That would be really safe. I can see you guys posting on THR when that story hits the street:

jackbooted thug shot the poor innocent CCW holder because he wouldn't give up his gun. Just because the guy lost his temper and called the officer a and a and made some remarks about his parentage and said he'd get out of the car and kick his right now if he wasn't late for a meeting....then the jackboted thug asked him to step out of the car and tried to disarm him...By george it's a 1st amendment issue, a guy has a right to express displeasure with the system..its not like he acted on the threats he made......

The cop started all anyway. Traffic laws are just revenue enhancement. If he was out searching for real criminals instead of raising revenue for the state our brother CCW holder would be alive today......

The bleeping JBT shouldn't even have taken the fact the guy was a CCW holder into consideration until he went for his gun. What kind of training are the cops getting these days that they are worried they can't outdraw a guy sitting in a car.......

If more people stood up for their rights to free, uninhibited travel on the public highways and just shot the JBTs as they approached the car, they'd stop pulling people over for speeding.....

The speed limits are set way too low anyway. The roads are engineered to be safely travelled at speeds of at least 20 mph more then the speed limit. A good man is dead because the legislature is filled with pansys and wimps who can't drive and don't think others can either......

Why didn't the officer just get back in his car and leave after the guy went crazy on him? No one should lose his life over a $75.00 fine.........

There has to be a balance between the right of all the people to live in a safe and orderly society and the right of the individual to do as he pleases. The founding fathers did not found this nation on anarchy. They tried to balance things. I think there are a lot of anarchists here.

Jeff

 

[makarova]

Fair enough, Jeff

Since you have posted that you dont accept that CHLs are saints, would you mind posting the number of police officers who have been assaulted or shot during traffic stops by CHLs? And then if you wouldn't mind, could you also give the number of police officers reprimanded, dismissed, or prosecuted for actions they committed during traffic stops? And btw, didn't bratch post that its now illegal to disarm CHLs during traffic stops in OK? Bratch could you find us a link for that? maybe your instructor could get it for you.

 

[Jeff White]

Makarova,
I'm not sure that anyone keeps those statistics but I will look. There are very few saints in our population and just like there are bad police officers there are bad CCW holders. No screening system can possibly be 100% certain of deciding a person is good all the time.

All a CCW proves is that you have no prior criminal record. Heck a NICs check will tell you that. Many states require a fingerprint check, it's not all that much more comprehensive then the NICs check. A person either has a criminal history or he doesn't. It is not an accurate predictor of anything.

To be hired as a police officer in most places you have to take a written test, a physical agility test, a psychological exam, undergo a background check where an investigator goes out and interviews people about you, then you have to pass a ploygraph. All of that and bad people still slip through,

And you want me to accept that because you went down to the sheriffs office, submitted to a fingerprint background check and paid a fee, you're a super citizen? Sorry that dog won't hunt. Police officers go through a much more thorough background investigation and bad people still slip through.

I think a more valid comparison would be the number of CCW holders arrested for various offenses to the number of school bus drivers and daycare workers arrested. The level of investigation into their background is about the same, a fingerprint background check.

What is your basis for the theory that CCW holders are more responsible then school bus drivers or daycare workers, who also have been found to have no criminal record by a fingerprint background check?

Here is the document censuring Illinois Supreme Court Justice James D. Heiple:
http://www.clr.org/hei1-3.html

Justice James D. Heiple
Illinois Supreme Court
Judicial Misconduct Charge

COURTS COMMISSION
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS





IN RE JUSTICE JAMES D. HEIPLE )
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE )
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS )


COMPLAINT

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15(c) of Article VI of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board ("The Board")1/ complains against Chief Justice James D. Heiple ("The Respondent"), the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and charges Respondent with conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct P that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

Allegations

1. Respondent has been a Justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois since 1990 and has been Chief Justice since January 1, 1997. Prior to serving on the Supreme Court, Respondent served as Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, and Circuit Court Judge, 10th Judicial Circuit.

2. During the time period alleged in this Complaint Respondent failed to cooperate with and disobeyed law enforcement officials who were investigating him for violations of local traffic laws. In addition, Respondent volunteered information that he was a member of the judiciary after being detained by police officers who suspected that he had violated traffic laws. In so doing. Respondent knew or should have known that communicating such information was likely to influence the officers who were investigating him and would be perceived by them as an effort to use his judicial office to keep from being charged with a traffic violation.

January 27, 1996 Arrest by Pekin Police

3. On January 27, 1996, at approximately 1:3O a.m., Respondent was driving his Chevrolet Tahoe through Pekin, Illinois. At that time, a Pekin police officer determined through the use of radar that Respondent was driving approximately 13 miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit. That Pekin police officer then attempted to stop Respondent as Respondent traveled southbound on South 5th Street in Pekin.

4. Respondent did not immediately stop his vehicle when the Pekin police officer first indicated that he should stop, despite locations where he could stop safely. Rather Respondent continued to drive his vehicle for approximately three blocks while the Pekin police officer followed him. During this initial pursuit, the Pekin police officer activated the emergency flashing lights and siren on his squad car. There were no other vehicles separating Respondent's vehicle and the Pekin police officer's squad car during this pursuit.

5. After Respondent finally pulled his vehicle over, the Pekin police officer informed Respondent why he had been stopped and asked Respondent for his driver's license and proof of valid insurance. Respondent produced these items, while contending that the Pekin police officer was hassling. Respondent was again informed by the Pekin police officer that he had been stopped for speeding and the Pekin police officer instructed Respondent to wait in his car. The Pekin police officer then returned to his squad car to begin the process of checking Respondent's driver's license information.

6. Instead of following the directions of the Pekin police officer to remain at the scene of this initial traffic stop, Respondent drove away before the police officer gave him permission to do so. After Respondent began to drive away, the Pekin police officer pursued Respondent in his squad car, using the emergency flashing lights, a spotlight, and the siren on his squad car. While pursuing Respondent, the Pekin police officer used his radio to notify his dispatcher that he was in pursuit.

7. Although the Pekin police officer was approximately one car length behind Respondent during this second pursuit, Respondent refused to pull his vehicle over to the side of the road immediately as required by Illinois law. Instead, Respondent drove approximately three blocks to the driveway of his own home. The Pekin police officer pursued Respondent as Respondent drove to his home; the Pekin police officer used his spotlight, emergency police flashers, and siren throughout this second pursuit, including at a stop sign at the intersection of Washington and Buena Vista where the Pekin police officer was directly behind Respondent. Notwithstanding all of these indications that the Pekin police officer wanted him to stop immediately, Respondent refused to stop despite having numerous safe opportunities to do so.

8. When Respondent arrived at his driveway, he got out of his car and acknowledged that he knew that the Pekin police officer had been following him. At that time, the Pekin police officer believed that he detected the odor of alcohol and administered a field sobriety test to the Respondent. Respondent failed the field sobriety test.

9. After the Pekin police officer finished administering this field sobriety test, the Pekin police officer instructed Respondent to wait for him and to remain outside while the Pekin police officer completed his paperwork in his squad car. The Pekin police officer told Respondent that he could either stand outside his vehicle in the driveway or wait inside his own vehicle.

10. Instead of obeying these instructions, Respondent chose to disregard them and began walking towards the door to his home. At that time, he was repeatedly instructed by another Pekin police officer who had arrived on the scene to remain outside of his home. Instead of obeying these instructions, Respondent began arguing with the Pekin police officers on the scene, telling them that he believed "this is stupid." Respondent also stated to the officers "Oh shut up, do you know who you are talking to?

11. After Respondent began arguing with the officers and acting belligerent, he was placed under arrest and handcuffed. While being handcuffed, Respondent struggled and resisted arrest by attempting to make it difficult for the officers to place him in handcuffs. While being handcuffed, Respondent again asked the Pekin police officers "do you know who I am?"

12. Respondent was then transported to the Pekin Police Station where he was processed. While at the Pekin Police Station, a Breathalyzer test was administered which Respondent passed. He was subsequently released on bond.

January 8, 1996 Tazewell County Traffic Stop

13. On January 8, 1996, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Respondent was driving southbound on Illinois Route 29 in Tazewell County, Illinois. At that time, a Tazewell County deputy sheriff stopped Respondent because the deputy had determined that Respondent was driving approximately 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

14. After the Tazewell County Deputy Sheriff stopped Respondent in his vehicle, the deputy Sheriff approached the driver's window. When the Deputy Sheriff approached the driver's window, Respondent, who was sitting in the driver's seat, was already displaying an official State of Illinois Supreme Court Justice identification credential -- but not his Illinois driver's license -- for the Deputy Sheriff to see.

15. As a result of Respondent's use of this judicial identification credential, Respondent was not issued a traffic citation.

November 24, 1995 Creve Couer Village Traffic Stop

16. On November 24, 1995, at approximately 12:50 a.m., Respondent was driving on North Main Street in Creve Couer, Illinois. He was stopped by a Creve Couer Village Police officer who had determined through the use of radar that Respondent had been driving approximately 28 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

17. When Respondent was stopped by the Creve Couer Village police officer, the police officer asked Respondent to display his driver's license. Instead of producing his driver's license as requested, Respondent displayed his Illinois Supreme Court Justice identification credential. Only when the police officer stated that this was not what he had requested did Respondent finally produce his actual driver's license.

18. As a result of Respondent's use of this judicial identification credential, Respondent was not issued a traffic citation.

November 14, 1992 Mason City Traffic Stop

19. On November 14, 1992, at approximately 11:08 pm, Respondent was driving on Route 29 through Mason City, Illinois. At that time, a Mason City police officer determined through the use of radar that Respondent was driving approximately 19 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.

20. After determining that Respondent was driving in excess of the speed limit, the Mason City police officer who was driving a marked squad car equipped with flashing emergency lights, attempted to stop Respondent. The Mason City police officer drove within a few car lengths of Respondent and signalled him to pull over to the side of the road by activating his flashing red and blue emergency lights on the roof of his car, as well as the alternating flashing lights on the grille of his squad car.

21. Instead of pulling over immediately as required by law, and despite having numerous safe locations to do so, Respondent continued driving. The Mason City police officer pursued Respondent for approximately five minutes, over a distance in excess of five miles, before Respondent finally turned onto a side road outside the Mason City city limits and stopped his car.

22. After Respondent finally stopped his car, the Mason City police officer approached the driver's window and asked Respondent to produce his driver's license and proof of current insurance. Instead of immediately producing his driver's license as requested, Respondent displayed his Illinois Supreme Court Justice identification credential. Only after being told by the Mason City police officer that he would still have to produce his driver's license did Respondent finally display his driver's license.

23. When asked to produce a current proof of vehicle insurance card as required by Illinois law, Respondent was unable to do so, producing instead only an expired insurance card. When the Mason City police officer admonished Respondent that he was required to have a current insurance card, Respondent replied that he was well aware of the law and that he had previously served as a judge in traffic court.

24. At the end of his encounter with Respondent, the Mason City police officer reminded Respondent that Illinois law required him to keep his seat belt buckled to which Respondent replied that he was well aware of the law.

Violations

25. The above-described conduct of Respondent violated the code of Judicial conduct, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 61, which provides:

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective;

and constituted conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

26. The above-described conduct of Respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62, which provides:

A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary;

and constituted conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Board, charging that the above-described conduct of Respondent constitutes conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute, prays that the Illinois Courts Commission, after notice of public hearing. make such order in accordance with Section 15 of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution as the Commission may deem appropriate.


DATED: January 23, 1997


Respectfully submitted,
Judicial Inquiry Board
of the State of Illinois


By:________________________
Milton H. Gray
Acting Chairman


Trial Counsel:
Jeffrey E. Stone
McDermott, Will & Emery
227 W. Monroe
Chicago, IL 6O6O6
(312-984-2064)

________________________

1/ In this matter, William F. Conlon, Board Chairman, recused himself from any participation in the Board's investigations, discussions, findings, voting, or any other Board action.

If doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, members of the clergy and Supreme Court Justices are capable of flipping out over a traffic stop, why should I believe that someone who is a CCW holder won't?

Jeff

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

All a CCW proves is that you have no prior criminal record.

And, pray tell, what does a tin badge tell us about you, sire?

 

[Jeff White]

It tells you that you have hired me to work in your criminal justice system. It tells you that I have been through the process I described in my last post.

It doesn't tell you that I am a good guy. But since the American police are not the Mexican police or the KGB or gestapo, despite what many of you say here, it's not real likely I am a threat to your safety. I'm sorry but people are not routinely shaken down, beaten or murdered in contact with the police here. And when an anomoly like that happens it is dealt with. I could point you to a lot of other places in the world where your dealings with the police would be not at all like they are here.

Am I to surmize that you object to being disarmed during a contact because you need your weapon to defend yourself from the police? If so you make my point for me.

Based only on your posts here at THR a reasonable person might surmize that any official contact with you might be dangerous. There are several others here who are the same.

You extremists are the reason CCW has been such a fight everywhere. There is no groundswell of public opinion demanding it. The gun culture is demanding it. And not all of the gun culture. CCW has been passed by the efforts of small groups of dedicated individuals who worked their butts off for years.

And you extremists come on a forum whose mission is promoting the responsible use of firearms and insinuate that you need to the right to remain armed during a police encounter because you may need to shoot the police officer...:banghead:

I'd love to see CCW here in Illinois so my family can legally protect themselves. But the extremist wing certainly isn't making passing it any easier.

I wonder how many fence sitters who might be surfing in you're convincing that CCW is a good thing?

Jeff

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It tells you that you have hied me to work in your criminal justice system. It tells you that I have been through the process I described in my last post.

It doesn't tell you that I am a good guy. But since the American police are not the Mexican police or the KGB or gestapo, despite what many of you say here. I'm sorry but people are not routinely shaken down, beaten or murdered in contact with the police here. And when an anomoly like that happens it is dealt with. I could point you to a lot of other places in the world where your dealings with the police would be not at all like they are here.

Am I to surmize that you object to being disarmed during a contact because you need your weapon to defend yourself from the police? If so you make my point for me.

Based only on your posts here at THR a reasonable person might surmize that any official contact with you might be dangerous. There are several others here who are the same.

You extremists are the reason CCW has been such a fight everywhere. There is no groundswell of public opinion demanding it. The gun culture is demanding it. And not all of the gun culture. CCW has been passed by the efforts of small groups of dedicated individuals who worked their butts off for years.

And you extremists come on a forum whose mission is promoting the responsible use of firearms and insinuate that you need to the right to remain armed during a police encounter because you may need to shoot the police officer...

I'd love to see CCW here in Illinois so my family can legally protect themselves. But the extremist wing certainly isn't making passing it any easier.

I wonder how many fence sitters who might be surfing in you're convincing that CCW is a good thing?

Jeff

So, I take it that you find insulting the suggestion that you might be under suspicion simply because you are legally carrying a firearm? Now you know how we feel.

 

[Joe7cri]

Hey Jeff, step out from behind that tin badge and enter the real world. You are far less likely to be assaulted by a CCW holder, than any other citizen. We don't go through all that paperwork to carry legally just so we can get our permit revoked for something stupid.

And don't feel all high and mighty because you passed an investigation to become an L.E.O. Most cops are hired because they have family and friends on the job, not because they are more qualified

 

[spacemanspiff]

I'll bet even in Alaska and Vermont, there are some leos who do ask if a gun is present and routinely disarm if the answer is yes

in Alaska, whether you have the permit or not, if you are carrying you MUST disclose it to the officer IMMEDIATELY.
you must also co-operate if he wishes to disarm you for the duration of his contact with you.

why do people try to be so difficult? i have grown tired of the rhetoric, the 'its my god given right to have a gun with me at all times!', the 'id rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it', the 'my life is worth more than blah blah blah'.

sorry guys, i'm disillusioned. if you think its such a violation of your rights to be forced to disarm yourself at the officers discretion, then take it up with your legislators. stop whining about it here. collect signatures at gun shows, in gun shops, fight back where your efforts will make a difference.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Stop whining about it here. Collect signatures at gun shows, in gun shops, fight back where your efforts will make a difference.

Where better to persuade liberty-minded gun owners than here?

P.S. Jeff, you want to know what I had to do to get my concealed handgun permit in 1980, at the age of nineteen? I had to produce three affidavits from non-relatives of good standing in the community declaring that they knew me for at least ten years and that I was a responsible and upstanding citizen of good reputation. I had an FBI background check. Each person who vouched for me in an affidavit was then contacted by the police in person. I had to be interviewed in person by a specialist in the police department. Do you think I would have gone through all of that if a police contact with me was going to be, as you suggest, "dangerous?" Hardly. I have far more to fear from the police than they have to fear from me.

P.P.S. Of the first three people I asked for affidavits, one was a cop who was a long time friend and patient of my father's (He, by the way, gave each of us little tin badges to put in our wallets to get us out of tickets. We just had to mention his name and show the badge. Nice to be special.). He refused because he believed that only policemen should carry guns. Fortunately, I was able to find a replacement for him.

 

[Jeff White]

The Real Hawkeye said;

So, I take it that you find insulting the suggestion that you might be under suspicion simply because you are legally carrying a firearm? Now you know how we feel.

No, I find it insulting that I am under suspicion because my job is to enforce laws that you disagree with. In every off diuty encounter I ever had with a police officer, I have always told them I was armed and asked them how to proceed. It's a courtesy nothing more. I view it as the way armed professionals treat each other.

Have you ever heard the story of where the salute in our present military culture came from? Supposedly (and I have a little card titled Why We Salute that they gave me at Ft Leonard Wood in basic in 1974 that says the salute orgininated in ancient times as a greeting between armed men. When they met they would raise their right hand, the sword hand to signify that they were a fellow soldier and meant them no harm.

Where better to persuade liberty-minded gun owners than here?

P.S. Jeff, you want to know what I had to do to get my concealed handgun permit in 1980, at the age of nineteen? I had to produce three affidavits from non-relatives of good standing in the community declaring that they knew me for at least ten years and that I was a responsible and upstanding citizen of good reputation. I had an FBI background check. Each person who vouched for me in an affidavit was then contacted by the police in person. I had to be interviewed in person by a specialist in the police department. Do you think I would have gone through all of that if a police contact with me was going to be, as you suggest, "dangerous?" Hardly. I have far more to fear from the police than they have to fear from me.

Lets see you were 19 in 1980 that makes you 34 or 35 now. What are the requirements for a CCW in your state now? Are they the same?

You want me to believe that you only vent your anti-government, anti-police views on the internet, but you need to keep your weapon during a routine encounter with the police because you have reason to fear them?

Just what do you fear from the police where you live? That they might enforce a law you don't agree with? That they will abduct you and you'll never be seen or heard from again?

Jeff

 

[spacemanspiff]

Where better to persuade liberty-minded gun owners than here?

Because I've lost count of the number of posters who have gotten all fired up and raring to go, pounding out post after post of 2nd-Amendment-Fire-and-Brimstone, only to have all that well-deserved and well-meaning energy fizzle out.

If you are unsatisfied with your states current laws, encourage your lawmakers to revise the laws. Thats the only way you will ever get your way.

Anything else is keyboard-commandoism.

 

[ctdonath]

Is RKBA a civil right?

In New York, yes. The 2nd Amendment is quoted virtually verbatum (only replacing "shall not" with "can not") very specifically within NY Civil Rights Law.

Of course, that doesn't mean anything in NY. I asked a state judge about it and she just shrugged "dunno".

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Lets see you were 19 in 1980 that makes you 34 or 35 now.

Man, I wish, but your math is really bad.

What are the requirements for a CCW in your state now? Are they the same?

I believe they are the same now, but I don't live there anymore.

You want me to believe that you only vent your antigovernment, antipolice views on the Internet, but you need to keep your weapon during a routine encounter with the police because you have reason to fear them?

I happen to be one of the most pro government people you are likely ever to meet. I frequently have long drawn out debates with anarchists on other sites. Government, by the way, is that which we institute for the purpose of securing our rights for ourselves and for our posterity. What I oppose is despotism, not government.

I am also extremely pro police. I wish we still had policemen. Law Enforcement Officers are a poor substitute, in my opinion (My use of the word "police" in above posts was purely out of habit. I should have referred to them as Law Enforcement agents or officers).

Just what do you fear from the police where you live? That they might enforce a law you don't agree with? That they will abduct you and you'll never be seen or heard from again?

Jeff

Well, I don't particularly like the idea of having a gun pointed at me, for one thing, merely because I'm lawfully carrying a firearm. I would never point a gun at a Law Enforcement agent merely because he's carrying a firearm. Like I said, though, I have nothing to fear from the police. They serve their communities, keep the peace, and are answerable to their communities if they do so incompetently or without due respect for individual rights. It is Law Enforcement agents that I increasingly fear.

As our nation slips ever further into tyranny, the laws that are enforced will inevitably become increasingly despotic. Further, don't joke about abductions and never being heard from again. Remember, the KGB were law enforcement agents, not policemen, as were the Gestapo. They did plenty of what you describe. My prediction is that Law Enforcement will increasingly be placed under the direct control of the Federal Government, for the children's sake, or some such nonsense. We are seeing it already. The Federal Government has admitted to abductions of American citizens so as to ship them off to Egypt for torture. This is reality, not some product of a paranoid delusion. So, again, no, I do not fear the police, but I do fear Law Enforcement in a nation which is moving steadily closer to a complete police state despotism.

 

[Joe7cri]

You want me to believe that you only vent your anti-government, anti-police views on the internet, but you need to keep your weapon during a routine encounter with the police because you have reason to fear them?

So am I to believe that you only vent your Anti-2nd beliefs here on the internet and I have no reason to fear you during a routine traffic stop when you want to disarm me for failure to signal?

 

[spacemanspiff]

oooo, is that the smell of revolutionary talk in the air?

i remember the last time we had this discussion, there were people claiming to live "off the grid" and were ready to "rise up and take this country back from the fascists".

ahhh good times, good times...

 

[halfacop]

Hey Jeff, step out from behind that tin badge and enter the real world. You are far less likely to be assaulted by a CCW holder, than any other citizen. We don't go through all that paperwork to carry legally just so we can get our permit revoked for something stupid.

We understand that your are a law abiding citizen sir - we are simply saying that at the time of stop and until we get back in the cruiser and "run you" we don't know who you are. We DO KNOW that we pulled you over for breaking the law (no matter how small an infraction it may be). Do you begin to think that just because you hand us a CCW permit and "look" honest that we HAVE to assume you are?

Like it or not - we LEO have to suspect that you are NOT just Mr. Dad coming home from work after stopping by the market to buy milk. If we go into situations with that mindset we will not beable to respond accordingly when we are faced with a criminal intent on harming us.

This job is the real world. Try getting shot at, holding people at gun point, being insulted on a daily basis and taken for granted for doing a job that helps ensure the safety of you and yours. Sounds pretty real to me.

Let me also say that you when you are home resting eating dinner with your family and preparing to get a good nights sleep, that you are doing this under the very protection from harm that we are trying to provide. So don't get on us about being slightly paranoid on traffic stop and such. When my shift ends I too want to go home and see my daughter and I will sleep under that same protection my brothers are continuing to provide for me as well.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

oooo, is that the smell of revolutionary talk in the air?

i remember the last time we had this discussion, there were people claiming to live "off the grid" and were ready to "rise up and take this country back from the fascists".

ahhh good times, good times...

Are you talking about me? No, my talk is liberty talk, not revolutionary talk. My position on revolution is a matter of record here at The High Road. I am firmly opposed to any effort in that direction. Nothing good can come of it, in my opinion. Even if the present regime were somehow toppled by force of arms, we'd have simply laid ourselves bare for some tin pot dictator to grab hold of the reins of power, and we'd be worse off than before. No, I see a lot of wisdom in the views of Sir Thomas More, as presented to us in A Man For All Seasons. If you go after the devil by tearing down every law and institution in England, what will you do when you've finally torn down the last law, and the devil turns round on you. There is no place left to hide. England is planted thick with laws for a reason. These are our only refuge from the demons who would use the force of the State to destroy us.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let me also say that you when you are home resting eating dinner with your family and preparing to get a good nights sleep, that you are doing this under the very protection from harm that we are trying to provide. So don't get on us about being slightly paranoid on traffic stop and such. When my shift ends I too want to go home and see my daughter and I will sleep under that same protection my brothers are continuing to provide for me as well.

Ah, yes, the old thin blue line thing. Apparently, society would soon collapse were it not for an army of government agents running about protecting us helpless "civilians."

 

[Joe7cri]

OK HalfaCop,
I understand where you're coming from and my real gripe isn't necessarily being disarmed, my real gripe is in the manner in which it's done. I have no problem with the L.E.O. who asks me to get out of my car, and removes my pistol while maintaining a professional, polite attitude. My gripe is when I'm disarmed by an officer who believes only he has the right to be armed, and proceeds to ask me why I feel it's necessary to be armed, etc... And after reading a couple of Jeff's posts on this and other threads, he comes across as one of those officers who believes he is the all mighty because he has a badge and gun. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[silliman89]

I'm confused by those bringing the 2nd Amendment into this thread. The US Constitution, and the BOR, binds the Federal Government (theoretically anyway). Police powers are left to the states.

If the states choose to pass laws (or I guess have case law to the same effect) governing disarmament of suspects during an investigation of a crime or traffic infraction, that's the states business. It may or may not be wrong. It may or may not be something to get angry about and take up with your elected officials. It is not however any business of the Federal Government or the US constitution.

 

[Jeff White]

Hey Jeff, step out from behind that tin badge and enter the real world. You are far less likely to be assaulted by a CCW holder, than any other citizen. We don't go through all that paperwork to carry legally just so we can get our permit revoked for something stupid.

Do you think Justice Heiple jumped through all those hoops to become a supreme court justice only to give it all up to because he wanted to mess with the police? What about all the police officers who jumped through all those hoops only to throw it all away by acting stupid? What about all the medical professionas who throw all their years of education and experience away by doing stupid things? I'm sorry the statement that as a class CCW holders wouldn't do something that would cause them to lose their permit doesn't wash. Anyone can lose his temper, have a bad day and do something he will regret forever.

And don't feel all high and mighty because you passed an investigation to become an L.E.O. Most cops are hired because they have family and friends on the job, not because they are more qualified

They don't have merit hiring where you live? Most of the rest of the country does...

The Real Hawkeye said;

Man, I wish, but your math is really bad.

Sorry, I was doing about three things at once, I acutally can add and subtract if I put my mind to it .

I happen to be one of the most pro government people you are likely ever to meet. I frequently have long drawn out debates with anarchists on other sites. Government, by the way, is that which we institute for the purpose of securing our rights for ourselves and for our posterity. What I oppose is despotism, not government.

You know that on this site you often take the anarchist view. I agree with you about waht government is and if you'd read all of my posts you'll find out that our views on the issue of government as you just posted aren't far apart at all.

I am also extremely pro police. I wish we still had policemen. Law Enforcement Officers are a poor substitute, in my opinion.

Here's where your wrong. The public is treated better by the police now then at any time in our history. The good old days weren't really so good. Beating of suspects in order to get a confession was not all that rare. Street justice was routinely administered when making an arrest. In big cities the statutory requirement to charge a suspect in a certain amount of time was often rendered useless by moving the suspect from station house to station house and losing him in the system. Criminals who killed a police officer weren't often taken alive. Undesireables were often driven miles out of town and dumped out in another town so they would be someone elses problem. Petty criminals were encouraged to move elsewhere by being beaten. In those days the police really did divide the population into criminals and everyone else. Criminals (or those citizens the police thought were) were treated very poorly. Officers today would rightly be criminally charged if they treated the public the way they treated the criminal element.

There was no halt put to these practices until the Warren Court in the 1960s. Scenes like were portrayed in the film The Untouchables really happened. Probably the most accurate depiction of what it was like in those days was Michael Mann's series Crime Story where Dennis Farina played a Chicago detective in the late 1950s early 1960s.

The press pretty much ignored those practices. I guess they figured that that was cost of safe streets. It wasn't until the civil rights movement that those practices got any coverage.

Do you want to go back to those days? I don't.

Well, I don't particularly like the idea of having a gun pointed at me, for one thing, merely because I'm lawfully carrying a firearm.

I can't speak for every officer in the country, but I can say that I've seen very few reports of CCW holders having weapons pointed at them for announcing they were armed. If there are other circumstances involved such as Nashmack being complained about as a suspicios person with a gun, I can see it, although personally knowing what I know from his posts I wouldn't have done a felony stop.

Like I said, though, I have nothing to fear from the police. They serve their communities, keep the peace, and are answerable to their communities if they do so incompetently. It is Law Enforcement agents that I increasingly fear.

I think you had more to fear from the police of a few decades ago then you do from the law enforcement officers of today. I can think of all kinds of ways your legally possessed firearm would have disappeared forever in those days. Especially if you were not local.

As our nation slips ever further into tyranny, the laws that are enforced by them will inevitably become increasingly despotic.

Don't you think it might be more efficient to work to keep the more despotic laws from being passed then to alienate those who will be charged with enforcing them? How do you think it makes police officers feel when you insist that they have to give up a great deal of safety to spare the you the indignity of maybe being temporarily disarmed? I don't know any police academy that doesn't teach that if you are involved in an off duty traffic stop you turn on the dome light, place your hands on the top of the steering wheel in plain sight and when the officer is at your window tell him I am an off duty police officer from _______ PD. I am armed. How would you like to procede.

I have never been disarmed. alduro says that he has. He didn't feel it is any indignity and neither would I if the officer asked for my weapon. I think you might find that by giving the secret handshake so to speak, you'll relax the officer enough that your possession of a weapon isn't an issue.

My prediction is that Law Enforcement will increasingly be placed under the direct control of the Federal Government, for the children's sake, or some such nonsense. We are seeing it already.

Do you know how the feds are getting their nose under the tent? It's through federal grants. Instead of patting your elected officials for sparing you the taxes it would cost to have a good police department you should ask them what kind of strings are coming with the money.

I don't believe that local control of the police will ever be lost. Our society is not at all ready for that. Not even for the children. The laws are pretty much enforced to local standards. I rather doubt the good citizens of Key West would permit the feds to mandate that their police department stopped all of the open dope smoking that goes on there. The law is enforced different in my town then it is the next town over which is all of four miles away.

The Federal Government has admitted to abductions of American citizens so as to ship them off to Egypt for torture. This is reality, not some product of a paranoid delusion.

Who was abducted off the streets of an American city? Names, dates, place of abduction please....

I do fear Law Enforcement in a nation which is moving steadily closer to a complete police state despotism.

I think the courts are still doing a fine job of keeping things in check. In November 2003 the Illinois Supreme Court made a ruling that the police could not ask for a warrant check on anyone in a car but the driver unless they could articulate reasonable suspicion that the person they wanted to check was involved in criminal activity. So there is no more getting a warrant arrest or two from a car full of gang bangers that had an equipment violation or committed a traffic offense.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2003/November/Summaries/Html/92783s.htm

No. 92783 People v. Harris

Appellate citation: 325 Ill. App. 3d 262.

Opinion by FREEMAN, J.

FITZGERALD, J., joined by THOMAS and GARMAN, JJ., dissenting

THOMAS, J., also dissenting

In 1997, this defendant was a passenger in an automobile which was stopped by a sheriff's officer for an illegal left turn at Route 53 and Mills Road in Will County. The driver, it turned out, was not validly licensed. This defendant, a front seat passenger, was asked for identification and produced a state identification card. The officer ran a warrant check and found that there was an outstanding arrest warrant on defendant for failure to appear. Defendant was then arrested and searched, leading to the discovery of cocaine and drug paraphernalia on his person. That drug is the basis of the charge at issue here for unlawful possession. When brought to trial, he unsuccessfully sought to suppress the cocaine, and was convicted, but the appellate court reversed.

In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that an officer who stops a car for a traffic violation may ask a passenger for identification, but is not entitled to use that information to run a check for outstanding warrants where, as here, the officer had no fear for his own safety, there was no reason to suspect the passenger of criminal activity, and the warrant check was not only unrelated to the stop, but changed its fundamental nature into an investigation of past wrongdoing by the defendant.

The appellate court, which had reached the same conclusion, was affirmed.

The same month they placed greater restrictions on canine sniffs:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2003/November/Summaries/Html/91547s.htm

No. 91547 People v. Caballes

Appellate citation: No. 3-99-0932 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

Opinion by KILBRIDE, J.

THOMAS, J., joined by FITZGERALD and GARMAN, JJ., dissenting

This La Salle County defendant was convicted of cannabis trafficking in a bench trial. Marijuana valued at $256,136 had been found in the trunk of his car after he was stopped for going six miles over the speed limit on Interstate 80 on November 12, 1998. When questioned, the defendant refused permission to search the car and claimed he had never been arrested. A license check revealed that he was validly licensed to drive, but a requested criminal history check revealed two arrests for marijuana distribution.

The state trooper in question undertook to issue a warning ticket. When he radioed in that he was making a traffic stop, an officer with a drug-detection dog began driving toward the scene, although he had not been requested to do so. This dog alerted to the marijuana in the trunk of the car.

In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the use of the dog in these circumstances had constituted an unjustified expansion of the scope of the traffic stop into a drug investigation under circumstances in which there was no reasonable, articulable suspicion for doing so. Thus, the defendant's motion to suppress the contraband should have been granted. The appellate court had erred in affirming the conviction.

I think the courts are still doing a good job balancing the right of the individual with the right of the state.

There are court cases released almost daily all over the country. For every decision giving the state more power, there is one restricting it. Our system with all it's faults is still better then the system anywhere else.

We're not as far down the road to a police state as you think we are.

So am I to believe that you only vent your Anti-2nd beliefs here on the internet and I have no reason to fear you during a routine traffic stop when you want to disarm me for failure to signal?

You know, my seventh grade Social Studies teacher Mrs. Weisenstein taught me that the rights recogniszed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. For instance your right to play your AC/DC recordings at maximum volume through the speakers mounted on your roof end when it keeps me from sleeping. Your right to keep and bear arms ends when it places me in danger. I have seen too many ordinarily normal rational people end up in jail on serious charges because they just lost it when faced with a minor enforcement action. I am not going to give up the option to disarm someone I feel might be threat.

Jeff