I have posted this elsewhere and been told "Dont make a mountain out of a molehill." A little background, I first read on a VIN SUPRYNOWICZ editorial that it was standard operating procedure for Highway Patrol to disarm ccw holders at routine traffic stops for "Officers' comfort and safety" . Sure enouph when Ohio passed the ccw law the Ohio Highway Patrol started doing just that. That bothered me given the safety and legality of ccw holders in the past fifteen years. A number of organizations like Sarah Bradys Bunch have desperately tried to find cases where CCWs have threatened or assaulted Law enforcement officers and come up with nada. That would leave the comfort argument, and I dont think the "Comfort" of a civil servant out weighs a fundamental civil right. Remember the scenario would be a standard traffic stop. The driver remains polite and obeys all rules we are usually told to follow. If the officer were challenged in court I think he would have trouble justifying the safety issue given the history and I doubt comfort would carry much weight. I know LEOs are trained to trust no one, but I'm talking legal and civil rights issues here not SOPs.
civil right question
- Thread starter makarova
- Start date
- Status
Vernal45
member
This one will open a can of worms.... 
Sindawe
Member
Ya think?
Do you have a link to where you originally posted your question makarova? I'd like to read that thread.
The disarming of CCW holders at traffic stops has always bothered me somewhat. I understand the rational behind it from the standpoint of Officer safety, but IMAO someone who's jumped through .gov hoops to get permission to exercise one of their rights has already shown themselves to be "good guys".
Vernal45
member
An officers comfort and safety does not trump my civil rights. During a traffic stop, if one has done nothing to make the officer fear for his safety, the gun should stay put. Just because the citizen has a permit, and is armed, is not a reason to seize the firearm. I know it happens, and there is not much that can be done about it, but that does not make it right.
Also, we all know most police officers are not gun people. Removing a gun from someone, can be dangerous if you do not know how to handle the gun and make is safe. Better to write the ticket/warn the driver and leave the citizens gun where it belongs, on his/her side.
Also, we all know most police officers are not gun people. Removing a gun from someone, can be dangerous if you do not know how to handle the gun and make is safe. Better to write the ticket/warn the driver and leave the citizens gun where it belongs, on his/her side.
If you look at it from the legal standpoint, people who are under arrest don't have Second Amendment rights for the duration of their arrest.
While I did politely disarm several CHL carriers during the first year after the CHL went into effect, I later decided that anyone who went to the trouble of getting a CHL wouldn't be getting a ticket from me unless they demanded one -- so I haven't disarmed (nor written a ticket to) any CHL carriers since then.
I think most agencies probably leave the disarming of CHL carriers up to the discretion of the individual officer.
LawDog
While I did politely disarm several CHL carriers during the first year after the CHL went into effect, I later decided that anyone who went to the trouble of getting a CHL wouldn't be getting a ticket from me unless they demanded one -- so I haven't disarmed (nor written a ticket to) any CHL carriers since then.
I think most agencies probably leave the disarming of CHL carriers up to the discretion of the individual officer.
LawDog
The US supreme court has held that an officers safety (what has been characterized as comfort by some) is important and does, in some cases like traffic stops in particular, temporarily outweigh the rights of the detained. An officer can order passengers in and out of vehicles according to several decisions. If an officer can order the occupants of a vehicle in and out of a vehicle, do you believe that if an officer makes a decision to remove a gun from a person during the temporary detention of a traffic stop that the US Supreme Court would disagree with this decision to disarm.
That being said, I live in a state with no CCW law exist yet. There is a loophole in Illinois law though that does allow carry (separation of gun and ammo in a fannypack). I am not sure how I would deal with this situation. My guess is that if someone were to tell me they were armed legally, I would let it ride. It is obviously situationally dependant as to how I would deal with it.
That being said, I would disagree that most officers are anti gun. Maybe in the northeast would be an exception to that statement...
That being said, I live in a state with no CCW law exist yet. There is a loophole in Illinois law though that does allow carry (separation of gun and ammo in a fannypack). I am not sure how I would deal with this situation. My guess is that if someone were to tell me they were armed legally, I would let it ride. It is obviously situationally dependant as to how I would deal with it.
That being said, I would disagree that most officers are anti gun. Maybe in the northeast would be an exception to that statement...
fastbolt
Member
Depends on your state's laws, to some extent.
In CA, a traffic enforcement stop is a form of an arrest. If the officer has probable cause to detain your person, detaining your weapon probably isn't going to appear to be that unreasonable, in the broadest sense of how the courts have interpreted reasonable and prudent conduct intended to protect the safety of the officer.
Also, some states may make it a requirement in their CCW laws that a permit holder surrender their licensed weapons to L/E upon demand ... not just if the permitee feels it's merited. What are your laws?
BTW, it's not unknown for working L/E to ask an out-of-town, non-local, off-duty cop to surrender their weapon during an enforcement stop. It just depends on the cirumstances.
Nobody 'likes' to surrender their weapons ... probably something atavistic, buried in our more primitive selves, perhaps ... but that doesn't mean it's automatically a violation of our collective 'rights'. If anything, this sort of concern would be more appropriately considered a seizure of property, and perhaps viewed from the perspective of the 4th amendment.
I still think it wouldn't often be considered 'unreasonable, upon court review, in the majority of circumstances that it might occur during traffic enforcement stops, though.
Personally, if you properly identified yourself as a CCW permit holder, unless you were acting in some suspicious manner, or appeared intoxicated, with impaired judgment, I'd be more inclined to simply ask where the weapon was located, and then ask that you refrain from reaching for it unless I specifically instructed you to do so. Naturally, if I decided to permit you to maintain possession of your CCW weapon while I was conducting whatever business was involved in the course of my enforcement stop, and our continued contact, you'd be wise to consider any movements on your part very carefully, since I KNOW that you're armed with AT LEAST one weapon.
FWIW, if I was stopped by another cop while off-duty, and I was armed, I'd inform the cop of my status and that I was armed with an off-duty weapon ... and do whatever he/she asked in this regard, without feeling slighted ... and I'd also make sure I didn't make any sudden or suspicious movements that might cause the cop concern.
Just my thoughts ...
In CA, a traffic enforcement stop is a form of an arrest. If the officer has probable cause to detain your person, detaining your weapon probably isn't going to appear to be that unreasonable, in the broadest sense of how the courts have interpreted reasonable and prudent conduct intended to protect the safety of the officer.
Also, some states may make it a requirement in their CCW laws that a permit holder surrender their licensed weapons to L/E upon demand ... not just if the permitee feels it's merited. What are your laws?
BTW, it's not unknown for working L/E to ask an out-of-town, non-local, off-duty cop to surrender their weapon during an enforcement stop. It just depends on the cirumstances.
Nobody 'likes' to surrender their weapons ... probably something atavistic, buried in our more primitive selves, perhaps ... but that doesn't mean it's automatically a violation of our collective 'rights'. If anything, this sort of concern would be more appropriately considered a seizure of property, and perhaps viewed from the perspective of the 4th amendment.
I still think it wouldn't often be considered 'unreasonable, upon court review, in the majority of circumstances that it might occur during traffic enforcement stops, though.
Personally, if you properly identified yourself as a CCW permit holder, unless you were acting in some suspicious manner, or appeared intoxicated, with impaired judgment, I'd be more inclined to simply ask where the weapon was located, and then ask that you refrain from reaching for it unless I specifically instructed you to do so. Naturally, if I decided to permit you to maintain possession of your CCW weapon while I was conducting whatever business was involved in the course of my enforcement stop, and our continued contact, you'd be wise to consider any movements on your part very carefully, since I KNOW that you're armed with AT LEAST one weapon.
FWIW, if I was stopped by another cop while off-duty, and I was armed, I'd inform the cop of my status and that I was armed with an off-duty weapon ... and do whatever he/she asked in this regard, without feeling slighted ... and I'd also make sure I didn't make any sudden or suspicious movements that might cause the cop concern.
Just my thoughts ...
Last edited:
I'm afraid not
Sorry Sindawe I dont. It was on one of Vins editorials that I thought I had saved but apparently not. He said it was simply SOP, for routine traffic stops.
Centac; My info comes from OSHP PAO. Interestingly I was pulled over for license plate light and had to ask the ossifer. He said" I'm not going anywhere near that". I later questioned a rather senior looking sgt about it and he said "I've never heard anything about it"
I think it may have had something to do with the fact the actual policy which mandated the officer was supposed to reach into the vehicle and physically disarm the driver. I suspect the membership stood up on their hind legs and vented to leadership. Hence the formerly mandatory SOP is now MIA. Aint life interesting?
Sorry Sindawe I dont. It was on one of Vins editorials that I thought I had saved but apparently not. He said it was simply SOP, for routine traffic stops.
Centac; My info comes from OSHP PAO. Interestingly I was pulled over for license plate light and had to ask the ossifer. He said" I'm not going anywhere near that". I later questioned a rather senior looking sgt about it and he said "I've never heard anything about it"
I think it may have had something to do with the fact the actual policy which mandated the officer was supposed to reach into the vehicle and physically disarm the driver. I suspect the membership stood up on their hind legs and vented to leadership. Hence the formerly mandatory SOP is now MIA. Aint life interesting?
beerslurpy
member
How about Terry Stops then? That is what this article is talking about. Disarming citzens who are not even accused of a crime, based on the mere potential for violence that exists because someone who isnt a government official is armed.
This sounds dangeriously like something our favorite crisp-uniform-wearing germans might say today, and often did during the 1930s.
Since you aren't going to take care of my family when I get shot, then yes, I am going to take it away temporarily. This is not about how you feel. This is about real life people. Real people mean more then the 5 minutes it takes me to do whatever it is I need to do. You will get it back. For that 5 minutes, I will make sure that no knucklehead tries to rob you.
There is a reason that cops wear body armor and wear a second gun. People routinely try to kill them. When was the last time you had to be paranoid about everyone around you for 12 hours at a stretch???
Beleive it or not, most coppers are on your side...
There is a reason that cops wear body armor and wear a second gun. People routinely try to kill them. When was the last time you had to be paranoid about everyone around you for 12 hours at a stretch???
Beleive it or not, most coppers are on your side...
Somebody will have to fill me in because I dont understand what is going on. In TN we dont have idiotic laws like this btw.
Does the officer actually disarm the CCW and confiscate the gun? Does the officer disarm the CCW only for the duration of the stop and then give it back?
If its the latter, it isnt a 2A issue anyway, its a state issue. And the state could certainly draft a law mandating this. On practical grounds, it is just plain stupid and a waste of time and money and possibly dangerous. What happens if the officer accidentally fires the weapon and kills the CCW because he doesnt know what he's doing? If I were an LEO I would never do that unless there was some really compelling reason.
Does the officer actually disarm the CCW and confiscate the gun? Does the officer disarm the CCW only for the duration of the stop and then give it back?
If its the latter, it isnt a 2A issue anyway, its a state issue. And the state could certainly draft a law mandating this. On practical grounds, it is just plain stupid and a waste of time and money and possibly dangerous. What happens if the officer accidentally fires the weapon and kills the CCW because he doesnt know what he's doing? If I were an LEO I would never do that unless there was some really compelling reason.
I was under the impression that the article was talking about disarming people during traffic stops. During which citations or tickets are often issued, and noting that I am merely stating that there is a legal precedent for doing so.
Simply stating that there is a legal precedent for doing something does not imply either condoning the action nor opposing it.
It's Terry frisk, not Terry Stop.
See the part up top about the tickets or citations.
Don't even start.
LawDog
Lawdog,
I am guessin' we are on the same side, but just a quick point.
A frisk is a pat down for unknown weapons or contraband. A stop is a detention of a person. We are talking about a disclosure of a weapon to a copper during a detention and what happens from there.
I am guessin' we are on the same side, but just a quick point.
A frisk is a pat down for unknown weapons or contraband. A stop is a detention of a person. We are talking about a disclosure of a weapon to a copper during a detention and what happens from there.
Right.
Upon disclosure of a carried weapon, some officers will temporarily relieve the person being stopped of that weapon, returning the weapon at the end of the contact.
The reasons for this is usually Officer Safety, although some departments may have made it part of their G.O.'s.
Though I don't do it anymore, I have done it before, citing the fact that placing a person under arrest suspends their Second Amendment right.
LawDog
Upon disclosure of a carried weapon, some officers will temporarily relieve the person being stopped of that weapon, returning the weapon at the end of the contact.
The reasons for this is usually Officer Safety, although some departments may have made it part of their G.O.'s.
Though I don't do it anymore, I have done it before, citing the fact that placing a person under arrest suspends their Second Amendment right.
LawDog
Is a person really under arrest in a traffic stop? I would think arresting someone would trigger a Miranda ruling etc. I dont know, at what point is the person stopped under arrest?
I also do not think people have Constitutional rights suspended just by being arrested. They are certainly not suspended for a traffic stop.
The issuance of a citation, ticket, summons (whatever they are called in your particular area) is technically an arrest. The US Supreme Court has addressed the question of if Miranda applies to traffic stops. Miranda does not. No warning is provided or needed to conduct a stop.
The right to bear arms is suspended when a custodial arrest is made (for obvious reasons!). Other rights are not - 1st, 4th (to a certain extent), 5th and 6th for sure...blah blah blah
The right to bear arms is suspended when a custodial arrest is made (for obvious reasons!). Other rights are not - 1st, 4th (to a certain extent), 5th and 6th for sure...blah blah blah
If the stop does not result in a traffic ticket, then no. If you get a traffic ticket, then yes. The ticket is the complaint, and your signature on the back is a personal bond to appear in court.
The Miranda Act is used prior to custodial interviews and interrogations so that any admissions or confessions by the person being interrogated are admissable in court. It has little or nothing to do with the actual act of arrest.
As soon as you're told that you're getting a ticket. You are released on bond as soon as you sign the ticket. If you don't sign the ticket, then the arrest continues downtown.
LawDog
I don't see how disarming a CHL holder during a traffic stop particularly enhances 'officer safety'. Anybody with or without a CHL could be armed at any time and could or could not shoot the officer. It's the officer's awareness, training and decision making that protect him IMO.
I was recently stopped on my way home from the range. I had beaucoup firearms and ammo with me. The officer had no idea I was armed. I was polite, he was polite, gave me a warning and I was on my way.
I was recently stopped on my way home from the range. I had beaucoup firearms and ammo with me. The officer had no idea I was armed. I was polite, he was polite, gave me a warning and I was on my way.
beerslurpy
member
I only ever heard it referred to as a Terry Stop. I'll go reread Terry v Ohio later. Sorry for being imprecise.
I guess it really boils down to whether or not the LEOs are exercising common sense in whether or not they choose to frisk someone for weapons at a traffic stop. I've never had an LEO ask me about guns or anything along those lines, that I can remember. Most are looking for drugs these days.
I mean, if you arent planning on forcefully taking them into custody, why would you need to disarm them? If a police officer started a traffic stop by asking me to give him all my weapons, I would probably start to get suspcious. Kind of like that feeling you get in high school when someone asks you to give them 20 dollars and theyll show you a trick.
I think most CCW holders (myself included) would much rather get satisfaction in the courts than get into a shootout with the cops because I disagree with something he said. Unless the cops are up to really bad mischief, they have nothing to fear from armed citizens.
I guess it really boils down to whether or not the LEOs are exercising common sense in whether or not they choose to frisk someone for weapons at a traffic stop. I've never had an LEO ask me about guns or anything along those lines, that I can remember. Most are looking for drugs these days.
I mean, if you arent planning on forcefully taking them into custody, why would you need to disarm them? If a police officer started a traffic stop by asking me to give him all my weapons, I would probably start to get suspcious. Kind of like that feeling you get in high school when someone asks you to give them 20 dollars and theyll show you a trick.
I think most CCW holders (myself included) would much rather get satisfaction in the courts than get into a shootout with the cops because I disagree with something he said. Unless the cops are up to really bad mischief, they have nothing to fear from armed citizens.
- Status
