concealed carry + Minor traffic stop

[dalepres]

Thanks, Art. I think many of us are glad to know that not all of the senior members of TheHighRoad.com fail to recognize those licensed for conceal carry generally represent a bunch of law abiding folks.

 

[coyotehitman]

That is the hallmark of the inexperienced and/or complacent officer.

I am a little surprized that you would make such a blanketed statement. I do not want to argue tactics or say one way is better than another, but I can better insure my safety the way I do things. To me, getting someone out of the car adds a whole new element of danger, as does losing my reactionary gap.

 

[bogie]

My philosophy:

"Officer, just so there aren't any surprises, I've got a permit for the .45 that's digging into the my side. It's with my license and insurance card. Do you want me to do anything?"

Fine. No problem.

I also don't drive stupid.

 

[jonmerritt]

I was asked once, "why do you carry?" I replied " because I can't get an officer to fit in my holster". I did get a chuckle, and a ticket.

 

[Powderman]

I am a little surprized that you would make such a blanketed statement. I do not want to argue tactics or say one way is better than another, but I can better insure my safety the way I do things. To me, getting someone out of the car adds a whole new element of danger, as does losing my reactionary gap.

I didn't mean to offend, or to lump everybody together. My apologies.

While you have developed an effective way to deal with this situation, I do not give ANYONE the chance to have a lethal weapon in their hand.

A little while back, Calibre Press (as part of their Street Survival series) did a number of tests to measure action and reactionary time where different officers played both the aggressor and the good guy. One of the scenarios was for the BG, seated in a car, to turn and fire one round at the responding officer.

The measured average time, with the driver having the gun in hand, was .09 seconds. That's NINE HUNDREDTHS OF ONE SECOND.

I don't want them to gain the advantage.

 

[paintballdude902]

even if its not needed i think that it is best to inform the officer that you are carrying

just to avoid a possibly worse situation that could get you in trouble say sumthing like if your state does make a new law that you arent aware of

 

[conw]

Tell them this: "I really don't feel right handling a loaded firearm in your presence under these circumstances. I'd prefer that YOU get it; what do you want me to do now?"

I mostly agree with this. I think that more bad things could happen for both of you. Horrible time to have an ND occur, whether you or he is holding the gun.

I am in a "required to disclose" state (NC) and pray I don't get a cop who wants to "see" my gun.

 

[Art Eatman]

There is no "One size fits all." From ten years of TFL and THR, I gather that in some states the cops are hostile toward handgun owners; others are not.

So: If you live in a state where you worry about cops/CHL/traffic, there is a self-defense mode: Make sure you have tail & brake & license plate lights. Use turn signals. Don't drive enough over the speed limit such that you attract unwanted attention. If you are stopped, your only hope is courtesy, politeness and common sense. But the deal is to avoid being stopped for minor traffic violations, which gets back to the subject of the thread.

We've worked hard in Texas to have it differently: It is official state government policy to facilitate CHLs. Absent really stupid behavior, cops regard us as good guys. I've yet to hear of any problems for CHL folks here from minor traffic stops.

 

[Patrick Henry]

I've never been pulled over, but if I were, I would not inform unless in a state where it's required. Think of it like this: in what other situation do you inform people you have a concealed weapon? You don't, because that's usually taken as a threat. There is no real way to courteously say "Oh by the way, I have a gun" which cannot be construed as a threat/brandishing a firearm, and rightfully so. Then why is it considered "safe" or "smart" to imply you are a threat to the police?

As some others have noted, CC permit holders have passed a thorough criminal background check (not just your 10-minute gun shop deal) and most have to surrender their fingerprints as well. A CC permit is about as close as you can get to a "registered non-criminal" card. The fact that some cops perceive us as more dangerous to their safety than non-registered, criminal gun-toters shows a fundamental misunderstanding of who commit crimes. Kind of sad for somebody whose job is to enforce the law.

I tore up a warning ticket one night after I stopped a speeder, made contact, everything felt cool, so I waved off backup and started writing the written warning. In the couple of seconds I had my eyes off him, he had decided that I was writing him a citation and the next thing I know, he's at my window (I had told him to wait in his car) yelling; "You're not going to write me a expletive that would really offend Art's gramma ticket are you?!!"

And did he have a permit? I take it not. So you had to deal with a real butthole...my condolences. But unless he was a permit holder I don't see the relevance. Are you saying you believe a permit holder would be more likely or even just as likely to behave in this way? If yes, I think you don't give enough credit to law-abiding citizens.

It is my right to protect myself by limiting my interaction W/ Das Gestapo

Actually Gestapo is feminine, so it's die Gestapo. Sorry.

If you see a gun in a traffic stop, you have every right to respond to protect your life.

Agreed. So....explain how telling a cop "I've got a gun" and subsequently producing a handgun, even upon request, makes the situation more safe.

Personally, I always have the subject clear the gun and I hold onto it for the duration of the stop, returning it upon conclusion.

I respectfully ask you the following question: If you trust me enough to produce a loaded handgun in your presence, why can't you just trust me to keep it safely in its holster where it belongs? I mean think about this logically. I tell you I have a gun, and your response is in effect "OK, now draw." But if you still genuinely fear the registered law-abiding like myself, you should call for backup and have the second officer cover you as you disarm me.

Twinsburg- Ashford Thompson, who faces the death penalty if convicted of killing Twinsburg police officer Joshua Miktarian, is accused of using a "pocket pistol," a gun designed specifically to be easily hidden and used at close range...
Although Thompson had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, he was charged with that crime because it's illegal to hold or use the weapon while stopped for a law enforcement reason, according to state law.

Way to go using a single tragic and heart-wrenching story to try to convince people that that is typical or normal in even a small minority of cases. You might want to consider putting in an application at the Brady Campaign. They sure could use you.

I don't know about Ohio but in Virginia if you have an alcohol-related conviction you can't get a permit. In one of the articles it stated Thompson had been convicted of drunk driving and carrying in a place that serves alcohol. So let's see, you got a convicted drunk who's also been convicted of violating concealed carry laws. This guy is not one of us. He does not represent 99.99% of permit holders. In my opinion from that very first DWI he should have been denied a permit or had it revoked.

There is a difference between this guy and the other 99.99% of us who when you run our names and plates in the computer nothing comes up except "concealed handgun permit." This guy was a convicted law-breaker. We aren't. He should have been disarmed. We shouldn't.

 

[dalepres]

A CC permit is about as close as you can get to a "registered non-criminal" card. The fact that some cops perceive us as more dangerous to their safety than non-registered, criminal gun-toters shows a fundamental misunderstanding of who commit crimes. Kind of sad for somebody whose job is to enforce the law.

While all of your post is right on, I especially wanted to give you a +1 on this point which insired another thought for me: How does disarming a law-abiding, licensed gun carrier help a cop feel safe? If it really makes them feel safer, it is a misguided and false sense of security. Disarming a CCL holder does nothing to disarm the the real threat: the law-breaking unlicensed criminal with a hidden weapon the cop never knows about. This is exactly the opposite of what logic dictates.

A more logical behavior for the police would be to approach everyone they pull over as though they might be an armed criminal and then, when presented a concealed carry license, they can breathe easier on this particular stop. I'm not saying treat everyone as though they might be an armed criminal or to assume that everyone actually is an armed criminal, but only to take the physical approach as though it is possible until proven otherwise - proven perhaps by seeing that the person pulled over has a CCL.

 

[Jeff White]

Patrick Henry said;

The fact that some cops perceive us as more dangerous to their safety than non-registered, criminal gun-toters shows a fundamental misunderstanding of who commit crimes. Kind of sad for somebody whose job is to enforce the law.

What do you personally know about people who commit crimes? How many years experience do you have in LE or corrections? Are you a criminologist? Sociologist? Time to put up or shut up Patrick. Let's see the creds that give you more of an understanding of the people who commit crimes then me. Post them here or send them in a PM, but send them. When you claim special knowledge of a subject don't be surprised if you are called on it my friend.

And did he have a permit? I take it not. So you had to deal with a real butthole...my condolences. But unless he was a permit holder I don't see the relevance. Are you saying you believe a permit holder would be more likely or even just as likely to behave in this way? If yes, I think you don't give enough credit to law-abiding citizens.

There are no permits in Illinois, of course he didn't have a permit. The relevance here is that if he had a gun, permit or not he could have shot me and I'd never have seen it coming. If you are naive enough to trust everyone then that's your problem. If you think I would ever let someone I know was armed out of my sight if my gut told me that he might be hinky then you are wrong. You only have to make that mistake one time. He wasn't a law abiding citizen. If he was I wouldn't have had any contact with him. I just love how you people think that the traffic laws aren't really laws.

I've got a solution to your problem. If you don't want to be stopped and disarmed, DON'T BREAK THE LAW. Pretty simple concept. Don't speed, signal when you turn, make complete stops at the stop signs, don't disobey traffic signals and this won't be a problem for you or the officer. You cease being a law abiding citizen when you break the law. That includes the vehicle code.

As some others have noted, CC permit holders have passed a thorough criminal background check (not just your 10-minute gun shop deal) and most have to surrender their fingerprints as well. A CC permit is about as close as you can get to a "registered non-criminal" card.

Aha! The elitism shows up again. Registered non-criminal card that's a good one. Are day care workers, the cooks in the school cafeteria, school bus drivers, teachers and foster parents all registered non-criminals too? If not, why not? They all passed the same criminal background check you did.

There are no registered non-criminals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people who have held top secret clearances, police officers, FBI agents, clergymen, doctors, lawyers, any profession you can name have committed crimes. There is no such thing as a registered non-criminal. There are just human beings who are subject to the same faults and weaknesses as other human beings.

Way to go using a single tragic and heart-wrenching story to try to convince people that that is typical or normal in even a small minority of cases. You might want to consider putting in an application at the Brady Campaign. They sure could use you.

It happened didn't it? Do you deny that a CCW holder murdered a police officer during a traffic stop in Ohio last month? Kind of shoots the heck out of your theory that a CCW permit makes one a registered non-criminal doesn't it?

I don't know about Ohio but in Virginia if you have an alcohol-related conviction you can't get a permit. In one of the articles it stated Thompson had been convicted of drunk driving and carrying in a place that serves alcohol. So let's see, you got a convicted drunk who's also been convicted of violating concealed carry laws. This guy is not one of us. He does not represent 99.99% of permit holders.

I never said he did represent CCW holders. My point is that his CCW permit was not a registered non-criminal card. It turned out he was a criminal after all. So just how do you suppose an officer is supposed to tell the difference between a "registered non-criminal" and one who shouldn't have been issued "registered non-criminal" credentials? Do you actual registered non-criminals have any special identifying marks? Maybe a little halo above your head? How about a special aura about you? Please educate me here. Tell me how I'm supposed to know the difference.

There is a difference between this guy and the other 99.99% of us who when you run our names and plates in the computer nothing comes up except "concealed handgun permit." This guy was a convicted law-breaker. We aren't. He should have been disarmed. We shouldn't.

You know for someone who professes expert knowledge about criminals, you don't know much about how the system works do you? You don't get a person's criminal history when you run a license or registration. You have to ask for it separately. If officers asked for a criminal history on everyone they stopped it would probably crash the system.

I'll be waiting to hear about your credentials and special experience that give you more knowledge about people who commit crimes then my 22 years experience on the street.

Jeff

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

pats not even hip on va law vis a vis an alcohol related conviction.

 

[rondog]

FWIW - I can hand a LEO my DL and CWP, and state that the address on my license is old, and the permit has my correct, current address. But I haven't been stopped in years anyway. Benefits of being a boring old fart.

 

[dalepres]

You know for someone who professes expert knowledge about criminals, you don't know much about how the system works do you? You don't get a person's criminal history when you run a license or registration. You have to ask for it separately. If officers asked for a criminal history on everyone they stopped it would probably crash the system.

I'll be waiting to hear about your credentials and special experience that give you more knowledge about people who commit crimes then my 22 years experience on the street.

So with your 22 years experience on the street, just how many CCL holders have you had to arrest? You've implied that they are no different from the rest of the criminals and thugs you deal with.

Oh, wait. Illinois doesn't have permits. You've possibly never, likely very seldom, ever dealt with a CCL holder. So please provide the references or sources that demonstrate the criminal nature of CCL holders and gives you such contempt for CCL holders.

This will likely get this thread locked and possibly get me banned from THR, but I just have to say that you represent everything that scares me about elitist LEOs who think that their job is to rule citizens rather than to capture and jail criminals.

 

[Intune]

If a patrolman chooses to fondle my potentially unfamiliar to them weapon on the side of a dark road because it makes them feel safer THERE IS NO CHOICE in the matter. Go for it. Now that you "feel" safer do you also want the one under my seat? :banghead:

My certifications, credentials & degrees held in order to educe an opinion on this thread include:
Armorer- Weapons were mentioned.
Construction worker- Road was mentioned.
Married for 20+ years- Fondle covered. Repeatedly...
-15 points for mentioning patrolman without ever having been one.
-50 points for even typing this post. I'm not an English major. Oops!

 

[dalepres]

Registered non-criminal card that's a good one. Are day care workers, the cooks in the school cafeteria, school bus drivers, teachers and foster parents all registered non-criminals too?

You know what? All of those darn well better be registered non-criminals. That is the purpose of the back ground check law - and those background checks are performed by law enforcement. Are you saying that law enforcement is not doing their job? We send our children to school on the bus, to day care, to lunch at school. Are you saying that when law enforcement tells us our children are safe, they are really not? We send troubled children to foster homes for protection. Are you saying the state is endangering our (as a society) children by sending them into foster care?

Do you have statistics indicating that day care workers, cooks in the school cafeteria, scool bus drivers, teachers, and foser parents are not less dangerous to our children than other groups in society? I will bet you money that the state of Illinois and the head of police agency for which you work would say that all of those groups are less likely to be criminals than society as a whole - that's why they do background checks to protect our children.

 

[Byron Quick]

You need to realize exactly what a 'clean' background check means:
A) No criminal history. However, some of those people will have a criminal future...no way to predict that.
B) Extensive criminal history but never got caught.
C)Got caught, convicted, and put on first offender probation...no record.
D)Clerk never entered the information into the computer. (This does happen. I have personal knowledge of at least two separate cases where there is no record of crimes.)

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

d is very common as is wrongly entered info.

 

[dalepres]

A) No criminal history. However, some of those people will have a criminal future...no way to predict that.

That applies to cops, secret service agents (one was arrested just a couple weeks ago), Vice Presidents and Presidents.

Therefore, all citizens should be viewed with equal suspicion.

 

[Jeff White]

Therefore, all citizens should be viewed with equal suspicion.

Finally you understand where I'm coming from. I'm glad to see that we agree on this issue.

Complacency kills. Officers have been killed by people they have known for years and because they knew that person, they made fatal mistakes like not cuffing or cuffing in front.

Your statement that I quoted above is all I've ever tried to say about this issue. Treat everyone the same. If your gut says separate from the weapon while you are conducting enforcement action then do it, don't think because you know the subject or the subject is a police officer, firefighter, judge, clergyman, daycare worker, CCW holder or belongs to any other category don't let your guard down just because of that.

Jeff

 

[Byron Quick]

Jeff,

I've had officers take temporary possession of my weapons on a number of occasions during stops.

Except for the last stop, which was quite professionally handled, the gun handling was simply awful. I was swept by muzzles every single time except for the last.
The officers did not know how to clear the weapons correctly and were basically letting the muzzles swing all over the place.

Any way to get departments to work on this? I've had several instances where the officer was pointing a loaded gun at me while trying to figure out how to work the action, I'd move to get off the muzzle line, and he'd start barking at me to remain still.

 

[Jeff White]

I think that if CCW holders started writing to their legislators and to the Training and Standards Boards in their state, they could do something about this. It's not like you have to be some kind of firearms museum curator to figure out how to safely clear a semi automatic handgun. It wouldn't take a lot of hours of in service training to fix this problem.

Of course any training is an expense for an agency so getting that training mandated is the best way to make it actually happen.

Jeff

 

[Patrick Henry]

pats not even hip on va law vis a vis an alcohol related conviction.

I'm curious -- have you ever, I mean ever, said anything on here that was correct? Or even used correct punctuation?

§ 18.2-308...

E. The following persons shall be deemed disqualified from obtaining a permit:

...

9. An individual who has been convicted of a violation of § 18.2-266 or a substantially similar local ordinance or of public drunkenness within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, or who is a habitual drunkard as determined pursuant to § 4.1-333."

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

FYI, § 18.2-266 is the statute on drunk driving.

What do you personally know about people who commit crimes? How many years experience do you have in LE or corrections? Are you a criminologist? Sociologist? Time to put up or shut up Patrick. Let's see the creds that give you more of an understanding of the people who commit crimes then me.

I wasn't aware I needed to give credentials to express an opinion here.

There are no permits in Illinois, of course he didn't have a permit. The relevance here is that if he had a gun, permit or not he could have shot me and I'd never have seen it coming. If you are naive enough to trust everyone then that's your problem.

I've been used or scammed enough times already that no, I don't trust anybody until he proves he is trustworthy -- repeatedly. So yes especially in the case of police, I fully understand you have to regard everybody with suspicion. You don't know who you're dealing with. What I am saying is confirming somebody has a permit ought to markedly reduce that suspicion in your mind, at least insofar as fear of a violent confrontation. CHP holders are NOT violent people.

And if you want statistics to prove that, I say just count the number of permit holders in this country. There's your statistic. You can have neither violence, alcohol, nor mental health history and get these permits.

Even if you take the weapon I'm carrying, InTune is absolutely right, what if the guy has another gun in the car? In fact, I personally often do carry a second gun in the car simply because my carry piece is not easily reachable sitting down. My understanding is, in a simple traffic stop, you do not automatically have cause to search my person or my vehicle. Nor would you receive my permission. I'm sorry if that offends you. It's tough being a cop in a free society. I commend you for doing such a difficult job.

Of course if police ask me if I am armed, I guess I would answer truthfully. But honestly -- and I address this not just to Officer White but to everybody -- I don't see that in a simple traffic stop, where I am otherwise compliant, the police have the right to disarm me. Imagine this: I'm not in my car but walking down the street and I'm jaywalking, so a cop stops me and starts writing a citation. I'm fully cooperative. Does he have the right to disarm me? Strictly speaking, I would think not. He cannot search or seize at that point. Now if I'm held at gunpoint and ordered to disarm, I guess I won't have a choice will I? Whether I will in fact disarm if requested is another matter...but I do not believe I am required to.

I've got a solution to your problem. If you don't want to be stopped and disarmed, DON'T BREAK THE LAW.

Minus the disarming, in another thread I have said the exact same thing before. I'm 25 and I've been driving since I was 16. I still have not been stopped. I just don't speed. That's doesn't mean I won't ever be stopped however. It might be difficult to concede, but I believe sometimes police do make mistakes. (As do drivers.)

You cease being a law abiding citizen when you break the law.

Except that you don't ultimately decide whether I broke the law, but a court.
That's why I would be referred to as a "suspect." Until then I am no criminal. You have to respect people even if you don't trust them. I'm sure you do, but I'm just saying it.

Aha! The elitism shows up again.

Elitism? I didn't demand to see credentials for the right to post a comment and then tout my 22 year experience. I think it's clear who the elitist is.

And maybe that's part of the problem. I should have noticed earlier you were from Illinois. I mean, you've worked 22 years enforcing the law in a state where everybody who has a gun is a criminal (Which is also, by the way, the same law they have in North Korea, Russia, and the People's Republic of China). I know, you don't make the laws you just enforce them. But 22 years of guns = criminals can be a hard mindset to break. I don't expect to break it overnight.

The fact is, carrying a gun is no proof somebody is violent or has violent tendencies. Merely that he is self-responsible.

My point is that his CCW permit was not a registered non-criminal card. It turned out he was a criminal after all. So just how do you suppose an officer is supposed to tell the difference between a "registered non-criminal" and one who shouldn't have been issued "registered non-criminal" credentials? Do you actual registered non-criminals have any special identifying marks? Maybe a little halo above your head? How about a special aura about you?

No, I figured the "special aura" was reserved for cops.

I never said a permit was a registered non-criminal card. I said it was "the closest thing" to one.

I guess you're right, you can never let down your guard completely. All I'm saying is 1) CHP holders as a class, have no history of violence. Again, I'm no "expert", but I gather violent people tend to have histories. Like that guy. And 2) Out in free America, police have to obey the constitution. If you don't have the right to search and seize, you don't have the right to disarm. Some may disagree. Whether I in fact would voluntarily disarm...I honestly can't say. Depends whether I feel like a federal lawsuit that day I guess. Anyway, I'm sorry I had to break it to you. I do wish all police safe work. But you're in Illinois, where only criminals can carry guns. So confiscate away.

EDIT: In addition I want to reiterate that anytime a loaded gun is drawn, the danger level to both parties goes up. So I hope I am never asked to do so. That's it.

You know what? All of those darn well better be registered non-criminals. That is the purpose of the back ground check law - and those background checks are performed by law enforcement. Are you saying that law enforcement is not doing their job?

Now that's pretty good.

 

[rondog]

I'm 25

Ah, that explains everything.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

pat did you read the part about 3 years? and do you see how your blanket
'you can't get a permit with an alcohol related charge" is bogus? i know at 25 3 years is forever but not to the rest of the world.. in the real world va is actually a fairly straight forward state for getting gun rights restored with more serious charges so the certified good guy really was good for chuckles.