"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"

[cropcirclewalker]

2) The notion that one can Act in a criminal manner (Lying to a LEO, improper carrying of a weapon, etc.) and then raise Holy Noise when they are Treated like a criminal after the fact.

No One is Questioning NOR Infringing upon your Right to KBA... You totally misinterpret the language in this statute.

A LEO asking the question is merely looking to be informed of the condition at hand... Whether you like it or not, The LEO has a Responsibility to do so...

I am not offended by your characterizations of my views as being jaded and somehow trying to color leos as otherwise non professional and refer to me as one who,

like you, obviously out to make their job increasingly more difficult

I think I am helping you to understand that when leo pulls me over or runs me through a soberiety check it is to try to find some infraction for which I may be charged. Simple as that.

Do you pretend that when I get pulled over or stopped it is for any reason other than finding me in violation of some rule?

Do you think leo says to himself, "This guy is driving a rusty truck. I better pull him over and I sure hope he isn't armed or impaired in some way. Yeah, I sure hope that."

Don't lie.

Let's say leo does find me infracting, doing, say like you posted above, "improper carrying of a weapon", is he going to politely point it out or is he gonna write me up or run me in?

Why should I not be unhappy about
1) Lawfully driving while poor.
2) Being stopped at a soberiety check point while sober.
3) Getting unwillingly engaged in in conversation by leo who is trying to asses the condition of my soberiety so that he can charge me with a crime.
4) Getting asked if I am bearing arms so that if I am improperly bearing one I can be charged with a crime.
5) Getting my time wasted and my vehicle tossed for "Officer Safety" so that they can charge me with a crime.

I was not committing any crimes to begin with. Is this how I get protected and served?

p.s. How the heck can one improperly carry a weapon? Just wondering on 2a grounds.

 

[TC-TX]

cropcirclewalker, I am not painting you as anything - you have described your actions yourself. I am merely pointing out that your self-proclaimed position on several points is unproductive at best, and criminal at worst.

So don't be surprised when your questionable actions are met with distasteful responses from those folks Sworn to Protect and Uphold the Law.

I have no idea why you get pulled over... if it happens, I am sure it is not without some cause... It may be something completely out of your control, I do not know. The WHY is really not the point here, because we ALL get pulled over from time to time for various reasons, sometimes for reasons outside of our control. The point here is NOT Why you get pulled over but HOW you handle the situation as it unfolds.

HOW you act and react in a situation goes a long way to determining where it goes from there.

If you are seen committing a violation, a LEO as a Duty to investigate further. How far can depend GREATLY upon your attitude... Whether you are released, ticketed or hauled to jail ALSO has a lot to do with your attitude, as - sometimes - these things are at the Sole Discretion of the LEO (sometimes local policies will require certain actions).

1) I have No Idea what Lawfully Driving While Poor is... Never heard of it... doesn't sound like a crime to me, unless you are speaking of vagrancy, which can be an offense in certain situations...

2) We do not have sobriety check points down here (they are illegal) so I can not comment on them other than to say I think they Are a good Idea... if you are not drinking, and not operating a vehicle illegally, you have no problem...

3) If you are not intoxicated, then you have no issues

4) If you are not carrying illegally, you again, have no issues

5) Attitude and History will have a lot to do with getting tossed... In my experience, this does NOT happen with no provocation, YMMV...

P.S. - Improperly carring a weapon can be a couple things here in TX - exposure and printing to be specific.

Good luck out there...

 

[TallPine]

we ALL get pulled over from time to time for various reasons

It's been almost 25 years for me

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Driving while poor is sort of like driving while black except that since I am not black and since my ol' truck ('87 Chevy pickup with bad paint) looks bad, sometimes when I get out of town like to the Loo, I get stopped.

You know, they say like, "You were weaving a little and I thought maybe you were tired."

Like that. DWP. Now you know.

Mr. TX-TC, I am like as law abiding as they come. Like I said previous, Only one time have I worn the bracelets and that was because I told a rent a cop that I had a hand gun in my car when they were about to search it at the airport at the Loo.

Open car carry in MO is not a crime, but somehow, like the babe at the desk where I got my copy of the arrest report said, "You really shouldn't have a gun at the airport."

Naturally, after they went through all the laws and such they had to return my piece and send me on my way because there really is no law that says that. At least not in MO.

You see, I did all the stuff you say I should and I still got hooked up and hassled. Me, an old law abiding coot.

Finally, I asked about how to improperly carry a weapon based on 2a. Printing and showing is not in 2a.

The leo that runs you in for those crimes is not your friend. He is an agent of the state.

 

[Still 2 Many Choices!?]

Lying to an Officer is bad!

Having said that, I don't believe it is criminal, as you have not been sworn to anything at that point, but pissing off the wrong officer can be worse than a crime!! Depending on the situation, you COULD claim the 5th Ammendment, but you will only be stalling for time. "Are you carrying any weapons?". Your options if you are legally carrying are simple. "Yes", or ,"No". He will probably search you anyway, or he wouldn't have asked the question. If you say,"no", and he finds your weapon somewhere, you will probably be charged with,"obstruction of justice", just for pissin' him off. If you say,"yes",(or yes sir as I do) you will be treated like a criminal until you are proven not to be, but you won't take,"the ride". Damn the righteous indignation at this point; it is non-winnable situation, innocent until proven guilty only applies until you are a suspect ! So decide for yourself, piss off an officer and take,"the ride", or go on about your merry way with a loss of time and your righteous indignation intact.

PS- Just like cropcirlcewalker's sig says, the answer to it may be,"Yes, I do mind if you search my car", the problem is, if the Officer has asked the question, it is too late to change his mind....Still 2 Many Choices!?

 

[glummer]

One more time

I have asked a similar question once or twice before, and no one seems to want to answer, but I'll try it again:

Why does an LEO ask the question at all? What possible good can it do?
Please don't just recite "Officer Safety", without an explanation. Tell me how it helps.

As in:
Officer Thug approaches the car; unknown to him, the driver is armed, and dangerous; he asks "the question"; he is now safer because ______.
Fill in the blank with something that makes sense in the real world.

 

[gopguy]

Just to throw a little gasoline on the fire... over the weekend I picked up a Beretta Storm CX4 9mm carbine at the PRO show in Columbus .....Naturally I also have a 92FS and they use the same magazines.....Now if I CCW with the Berretta pistol and have the carbine in the trunk......might be a interesting dilemma here in Ohio. I will have to ask my friends who wear a badge about this.

 

[Old Dog]

A little hesitant to enter a thread after seven pages with little light shed on a contentious subject, but ... the question was asked:

Why does an LEO ask the question at all? What possible good can it do?
Please don't just recite "Officer Safety", without an explanation. Tell me how it helps.

Well, kinda-sorta like the question, "Do you have anything in your pockets that could hurt me?" preparatory to a pat search. But additional reasoning behind the question. First, if one is legally carrying or transporting a firearm, it doesn't automatically follow that:

you will be treated like a criminal until you are proven not to be, but you won't take,"the ride". Damn the righteous indignation at this point; it is non-winnable situation, innocent until proven guilty only applies until you are a suspect !

(unless of course you've got warrants or are guilty of a serious driving infraction, i.e., DWI/DUI, reckless driving)

Some folks get emotional -- or are already emotional -- when pulled over. Officers will ask simple questions to get people back to a cognitive state (from an angry, upset, sad state of mind where they're not capable of thinking logically). The question can also indicate to an officer whether the individual IS lying with the answer or is going to be lying about or is nervous about something else. Asking about an activity that is normally legal is better than asking the driver about an illegal activity (i.e., "Do you have any illegal substances in your vehicle), making it less of an accusatory question, and the answer can be used to gauge the driver/vehicle owner's state of sobriety, truthfulness, nervousness, whatever ...

And yeah, like it or not, it is an officer safety issue. And, strangely enough, the bad guys often do come up with the correct answer to these questions ... Unless some criminal you've pulled over is planning to go down with guns blazing, more often than not, a criminal will 'fess up to the fact he/she has firearm(s) in the vehicle, because they (1) don't want the stop to get more dramatic (thrown face down on the pavement under drawn guns) and (2) they know that since they're busted anyway, better to go cooperating.

Believe it or not, often bad guys will immediately respond truthfully to a simple question, i.e., "Do you have a gun on you?" or "Do you have any drugs/stolen items on you?"

It's really too bad many of you cannot understand this and choose to be insulted that a law enforcement officer would ever come to ask the question. Mountain out of a molehill anyway, since in most jurisdictions (especially up here), you'll never get asked the question (even while driving an '87 pick-up with bad paint) unless the officer has a pretty good suspicion there's something else up besides you're appearing to be a poor person or a person of color.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Mr. Old Dog, Howdy.

It's nice of you to log on and try to allay the paranoid fears of those who live in states like Ohio and PRK. I thought maybe a little less patronizing might have been in order, but I guess that's hard for an authoritarian.

I sense that part of the problem here on THR with many of us non leo types is that most of us, probably an overwhelming majority of us are just so darned law abiding. Then you gotcher cops. Most cops spend their days dealing with criminals (or people they suspect to be criminals (or at a minimum, traffic infractors)) and they tend to be suspicious of anybody.

So there you have it. Leos on THR are used to looking for criminals and most others here are not. We are not used to being treated like criminals and perhaps that is why we get our dandruff up.

See?

I am reminded of the Friday night back in the summer of 1990 when I was driving through California, MO (no, not the state, but a little town on US 50 between Sedalia and Jefferson City) I was driving my old '67 pick up at the time (I sold it eventually on ebay for a handsome profit and moved up to my '87) and it was loaded down with shingles and a riding lawnmower.

The local cop gives me this "Looks like you were weaving a little" comment and asks what's in my 20 oz thermal traveling mug. "Coffee", I sez and asked him if he wanted a sip.

Then he points up at the SKS hanging on the rack in the rear window. Wifey says he looked a little nervous and he says, "What's that?"

I guess the SKS was sorta new in those days (even had the bayonet on it, since Lord Bentsen hadn't made them illegal yet) so I told him.

He asks, "Is it loaded?"

"Of Course," I says, looking at him in astonishment.

I guess he didn't feel the need to throw down on me, since it would have been hard for me to hurt him with it since it was long and was hanging behind me. He coulda got off a few shots before I could get it pointed at him. Probably coulda got wifey too.

Anyway, the cops have grown up a lot in Missouri, since then, lost some of their paranoia, and I guess that in PRK and Ohio they will too some time in the future.

We just have to be a little more understanding and try to let them get over their "Anybody armed must be a criminal" complex.

 

[Kelly J]

Molon Labe, Here in Missouri it is strongly suggested that if you have a loaded gun in the car (which is Leagal as a MO. Resident as long as you are 21 or over no permit required) that you keep both hands on the upper side of the stearing wheel until you notify the officer that you have a loaded weapon in the vehicle, same with a carry permit but here in Missouri if you have a CCW license it is on your Drivers License unless you opt for a seperate ID, if a resident or from out of state passing through, This jester could prevent you from looking down the business end of a Policeman's own weapon because they know you could very well be packin' all boils down to a common sence aproach and a courtesy, If however you are a fellon or want a be criminal all bets are off YOU ARE ONY OUR OWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are packin leagel no reason not to inform the officer you are, just don't make the mistake of denying possetion then have it discovered for some reason might not go over well.

 

[Art Eatman]

CCW, I didn't see Old Dog's comments as being anywhere near "patronizing". Very straight forward, seemed to me.

And I've never been treated like a probable problem by any LEO. As though I had a stupid-attack, maybe, but not as though I were a criminal awaiting an opportunity.

And Lord knows I've driven through most of the lower 48, and generally a tad on the fast side of the speed limits.

I dunno. I once got busted for 130 in a 55 and the LEO wasn't particularly excited. We just sat around and BSed about cars for a while...

, Art

 

[glummer]

Old Dog, thanks for the effort. I appreciate your efforts at explanation. You said:

And yeah, like it or not, it is an officer safety issue. And, strangely enough, the bad guys often do come up with the correct answer to these questions ... Unless some criminal you've pulled over is planning to go down with guns blazing, more often than not, a criminal will 'fess up to the fact he/she has firearm(s) in the vehicle, because they (1) don't want the stop to get more dramatic (thrown face down on the pavement under drawn guns) and (2) they know that since they're busted anyway, better to go cooperating.

Believe it or not, often bad guys will immediately respond truthfully to a simple question, i.e., "Do you have a gun on you?" or "Do you have any drugs/stolen items on you?"

Are you talking about an ordinary traffic stop (which was the root of this thread), or something more definite? "They know ... they're busted ..." sounds like the latter. But that's a little off-topic; we're concerned here with routine use of "The Question" where there is no particular reason for extra suspicion. Are you saying BG's commonly 'fess up right off the bat when you ask, without you showing any suspicion? And if they do, doesn't that sort of indicate that there wasn't much danger anyway?

Also:

Asking about an activity that is normally legal is better than asking the driver about an illegal activity (i.e., "Do you have any illegal substances in your vehicle), making it less of an accusatory question, and the answer can be used to gauge the driver/vehicle owner's state of sobriety, truthfulness, nervousness, whatever ...

and

It's really too bad many of you cannot understand this and choose to be insulted that a law enforcement officer would ever come to ask the question

I have a hard time believing it's that innocent. Would you stop a black man, and ask if he has raped/dated any white women lately? It's the same sort of implication. If I'm legal, it's none of your business.

 

[TC-TX]

Great Job Old Dog...

I just got back to the forum and read the follow up question that you answered so eloquently...

Why does an LEO ask the question at all? What possible good can it do? Please don't just recite "Officer Safety", without an explanation. Tell me how it helps.

Couldn't have answered it better myself...

Yes - Like it or not, folks, it about Obtaining Information for the sake of Safety...

NOW - Old Dog - I would appreciate your input on the ORIGINAL Question:

To Lie or Not To Lie? - That is the question...

Looking forward to your follow-up...

 

[ProficientRifleman]

I will try to be civil here. I would answer the question in the affirmative. I wouldn't be carrying if it wasn't legal to do so in that juridiction. Such as in Oklahoma or in Utah, you can have a handgun in your vehicle, but you can't have it loaded (?!?!).

We have covered Texas Law about "traveling". Most Texas DPS types won't bother you if you say "I'm from El Paso and am on my way to Austin". Makes sense, no problem.

I have covered here also about going through a sobriety checkpoint in NC where open carry is legal. As the officer approached, I had my DL and Military I.D. in hand. The officer saw my handgun first thing and then asked me why I had it, then dressed me down as to how it had to be in plain view (it was the first thing he saw). Ultimately there was no issue. I went about my business. I got the dressing down I suppose because the officer felt like i needed it. Why?

Once, driving from Austin to Dallas, I was stopped for speeding (I was indeed speeding). I told the officer I was armed when I handed him my DL, CHL, and Military I.D.. He asked me where the gun was...I told him it was on my right hip. I was ordered out of the vehicle, hands on the rail of the truck bed, pistol removed, then asked the question...

"Now why are YOU carrying a handgun?"

It did make me aggrivated to be asked that after I handed him three I.D.'s, one of which was a CHL, and I had told him up front I was carrying.

Why was that question necessary? What good did it do to ask such a question when you have proof in your hand of all the hoops I had to jump through to be able to carry legally?

Ultimately there was no issue there either. I didn't get a ticket for speeding.

What aggrivated me was (and is) the LEO attitude of, "You don't NEED to carry a handgun...Only a squared away fellow like ME should be allowed to carry a handgun." Why is that atitude so prevalent?

 

[evan price]

Stilltoomanychoices: Lying to a police officer is a crime. It may be, "lying to a police officer", or it may be "Obstruction of justice" but it is a crime.

'Super Dell' charged with lying to police about gun
By Stephen Hunt
The Salt Lake Tribune




WEST JORDAN - Add "lying" to the crimes "Super Dell" Schanze allegedly committed last summer when he sped through a Draper neighborhood and pulled a gun after being confronted by several concerned citizens.
The new charge - a class B misdemeanor count of "written false statement" - is based on Schanze's interviews with news reporters, which allegedly conflict with what he told police.
The Utah computer store owner has told reporters he pulled a handgun from his pants pocket to protect himself from what he called "a gang of vigilantes," one of whom was threatening to break the tail lights of his Jaguar with a rock.
But in a written statement to police, Schanze never mentioned a gun. Instead, he claims he pulled out a cell phone and offered to call police, according to a criminal complaint amended this week against Schanze.
Deputy Salt Lake County District Attorney Chris Bown said Friday that Schanze - who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon - also made verbal denials to police about displaying a gun.
But defense attorney James "Mitch" Vilos claimed police failed to ask Schanze the right question.
They asked Schanze if he had "brandished" a weapon, and Schanze denied it because that word carries the connotation of making a threat, Vilos said. The attorney insisted that showing a weapon is not "brandishing or threatening" if it is done in self-defense.
Vilos said Schanze merely pulled the gun and held it by his hip. When the man with the rock saw the gun, he dropped the rock and Schanze put the gun back in his pocket, Vilos said.
But according to charging documents, Schanze not only exhibited the gun, he pointed it at Clinton Sanderson, the man with the rock.
The confrontation occurred May 21 after the residents followed Schanze, 36, and his 8-year-old daughter to the Point of the Mountain Paragliding Park. Schanze was reportedly driving at a high rate of speed through a neighborhood.
Schanze, who was not present for Friday's hearing, is also charged with "threatening with or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel," a class A misdemeanor, and reckless driving, a class B misdemeanor.
On Friday, 3rd District Judge Royal Hansen canceled a three-day trial, which was set to begin next month, and reset it for May 10.
The judge also heard arguments on several trial issues, including whether a firearms expert can testify if Schanze responded according to his training when confronted with potential danger.
Vilos said Schanze and others are taught that once an aggressor approaches within 21 feet, the aggressor can be on you before you can pull a holstered or pocketed gun.
"I want to explain [to the jury] why concealed permit holders are trained to take their weapons out and place them at the ready," Vilos told the judge.
Bown said he has no problem with the defense expert so long as he refrains from expressing opinions about whether Schanze was in a self-defense situation. "That's a question for the jury."
Schanze was allegedly carrying two handguns the day of the incident, a Glock 10 mm handgun in his pocket and another handgun in an ankle holster.
Vilos accompanied his arguments with a Power Point presentation that included gun-toting images of John Wayne and "Miami Vice" star Don Johnson.
Schanze is known for goofing for news cameras - making faces, defending his right to bear arms and shouting the name of his line of local businesses: "Totally Awesome!"

As far as "driving while poor" goes, every LEO is trained in tactics to take a minor traffic violation and turn it into a major investigation, just by observation, consent searches, etc. Lots of people have something to hide.
However, saying that, by not doing anything illegal like having baggies of MJ in your console, or a bottle of Johnny Walker in your lap, you have little to worry about. If you lie to the officer they will most likely figure you REALLY have something to hide and then the gloves come off.

 

[Old Dog]

So the thread is still going on ... I pondered actually responding to a couple of the posts since my post ... but remarks such as this

I have a hard time believing it's that innocent. Would you stop a black man, and ask if he has raped/dated any white women lately? It's the same sort of implication.

rather make me believe that some folks hereabouts are just looking for slights and insults; no matter what an officer of the law does, offense will be taken regardless, simply because a citizen is interacting with a LEO.

NOW - Old Dog - I would appreciate your input on the ORIGINAL Question:
To Lie or Not To Lie? - That is the question...

Why would you lie? The ONLY reason I can see that one would lie in answer to "The Question" is that one has no faith whatsoever in any LEO conducting himself/herself professionally, in accordance with the law, and with respect to the Second Amendment and the state laws concerning concealed carry.

Where do you guys live? Is it that bad that so many of you have reason to feel that you cannot get through a mere traffic stop without having to lie about your status as a lawful concealed-carrier because you are fearful or concerned about extending your interaction with a LEO or even worse, having things go real bad if you should disclose that you are -- gasp -- in lawful possession of legal firearms?

Really, it just looks to me like whining that you would be stopped in the first place and then would deliberately choose to be offended by a simple yes-or-no question that has nothing to do with "infringing" upon your rights to keep and bear arms.

What aggrivated me was (and is) the LEO attitude of, "You don't NEED to carry a handgun...Only a squared away fellow like ME should be allowed to carry a handgun." Why is that atitude so prevalent?

Never seen that attitude up here. Again, it would seem that some of you are just engaging in projection -- that's the attitude you expect, so that's what you see.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Old Dog

What state are you in? I don't believe I have projected at all. I have always tried to be courteous and respectful without acting like a scared rabbit. I stated the locations where I experienced the "attitude". If you are from a state such as Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or even New Mexico or Arizona, those states still have much of the poineer ethic and fully respect the citizen's right to bear arms. I know that in many places, particularly in the North East of the U.S., it is much worse.

 

[Jim Diver]

I truly feel sorry for anyone who carries around such a jaded view of individuals who have accepted the responsibility to serve and protect you and your family and your community... Honorable Professionals who have taken an oath to protect the likes of individuals like you, obviously out to make their job increasingly more difficult.

Protect me? Please. The police are not there to protect anyone. They are there to take reports AFTER the crime has been done. The police do not appear till AFTER the crime is over.

Talk to any cop. Ask him the last time he or ANY of his dept actualy stopped a robbery in progress. Or a murder in progress. Or a rape in progress. Or a burglar in progress. Unless it is a big big dept, I'll wager the answer is never or not with in the last 10 years.

So don't tell me that they are there to protect me. It's simply not true. In EVERY state, the cops are not even required to respond when you call them. Read PRK Government Code 845 if you don't believe me. EVERY state has a similar law. There is only one person who can protect you, and you see him in the mirror.

Honorable professionals? Perhaps. But my view is this. Until proven otherwise, all cops are rogue. Why? Simple. They treat ME like the criminal until proven otherwise AND how do I know the cop that I am dealing with is honorable? He just may be a rogue. Why treat all cops like this? It's because the good cops KNOW who the bad cops are and do little or nothing about them. Read this post. There are several there bad cops in that post. Being a 'good cop', knowing who the bad ones are, and doing nothing about them makes a 'good' cop BAD.

As to the bit about a loaded mag w/o reciever = loaded gun in PRK. This is SOMEWHAT true. A lawyer friend of mine who follows firearms cases closely informed me a few weeks back that the courts are split on this and its making it's way though the legal system. Till one goes to PRK SC, it all depends on what your local judge thinks.

 

[Jim Diver]

Where do you guys live? Is it that bad that so many of you have reason to feel that you cannot get through a mere traffic stop without having to lie about your status as a lawful concealed-carrier because you are fearful or concerned about extending your interaction with a LEO or even worse, having things go real bad if you should disclose that you are -- gasp -- in lawful possession of legal firearms?

In San Jose, admitting that there is a gun in the car WILL get you drawn on, cuffed, and sitting on the curb while they search your car. Just admitting that you have a gun in the car, the law gives them the right to search the car to make sure it is unloaded. Fear my local PD? You bet. I have had enough experiance with them to know they are not to be trusted.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I haven't read the whole thread, but as to the original question, if you have a carry license, you are probably legally bound to respond truthfully to that question, since you put your name to a legal agreement that you would do this in exchange for the authorization to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. If you have not put your name to any such document, then you are perfectly within your rights to ignore the question, i.e., not answer it. If he asks if you have any weapons in the vehicle, you are free to reply, for example, "I prefer not to discuss the contents of my vehicle, officer, as I value my privacy, other than to say that everything in my car is in full compliance with the law." At that point he is bound by the Supreme Court rulings relating to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and may not legally detain you short of having one of them, at least not regarding the question of weapons in the vehicle.

As for the first issue I raised above, you could take the position that since you theoretically do not need permission from the government to exercise a right, the agreement you signed was illegal, and therefore not binding (no consideration, to put it in contracts language), but expect to be arrested, lose your license, and take your case all the way to the US Supreme Court, where you will probably lose.

 

[TC-TX]

HO-LEE Cow...

You all are Incredible!

I am amazed and saddened by the total lack of Honor and Integrity in your Paranoid and Negative Answers.

I am fully aware that some folks out there may have had negative experiences in the past - some may even be unprovoked, in certain instances... But GEEZ folks... Why Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater?

GROW UP ALREADY!! NOTHING on the face of this planet is Perfect... GET OVER IT!

If you see a Wrong or an Injustice - WORK TO FIX IT! DON'T BECOME PART OF THE PROBLEM BY LOWERING YOURSELVES TO THE LOWEST COMMON FACTOR!

Also - don't think for a moment that your attitude toward LEOs doesn't come across loud and clear during all of the INNOCENT stops being made.

What are you communicating by Choosing to Carry and then find the need to LIE About It? THIS - to me - DEMONSTRATES A TOTAL LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY ON YOUR PART. People who demonstrate responsibility lapses like this should NOT be allowed to carry in the first place! (oh, Yeah - they are not... they are called Criminals...)

* Life is all about Choices... Choose Wisely.
* Maintain the Integrity necessary to Be Willing to Stand Up for the choices you make - good or bad.
* Contribute to the Solution - Don't Become Part Of The Problem.

Make it a Great Day!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

TC-TX, I hope you are not referring to me. A statement indicating a preference not to discuss the private contents of ones private vehicle is not a lie. Cops can ask anything they like, as I can ask anything I like to anyone I choose. We are also at liberty to politely remind them that this is a free country, and that unless we are under arrest on suspicion of a crime, we'd like to be on our way.

 

[TallPine]

The ONLY reason I can see that one would lie in answer to "The Question" is that one has no faith whatsoever in any LEO conducting himself/herself professionally, in accordance with the law, and with respect to the Second Amendment and the state laws concerning concealed carry.

I think that is pretty much the case in some jurisdictions, though thankfully not around here. I dunno, I haven't been stopped in nearly 25 years, but I would expect that the only reason for me to be asked that question in MT was if there was an accident and I was going to the hospital and my vehicle was being towed - or if I reported a vehicle stolen they would want to know.

Besides, in MT it would be about like asking if you have a jack or a spare tire

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I was asked that question by a cop who pulled me over for a traffic violation that I wasn't aware I had committed having to do with orange cones and road work. As I passed him slowly, he waved me over, looked in the hatchback of my car, apparently seeing my AR-15 partially hidden by a blanket (it had been totally hidden when I started the trip), and then asked me if I had any weapons in the vehicle. I said yes sir, I do. He asked the reason, and I said I'm heading out to Calverton to do some shooting at the range. Is it loaded? No sir. Then he asked me if it was an assault rifle. I told him, no, sir, an assault rifle is full auto, while that rifle is semi-auto only. At that he had to call his supervisor while I waited in the car for a half hour. Long story short, he had to let me go with the moving violation ticket, but he meant to give me a hard time about the rifle. By this time the window of time I had to spend shooting had gotten so short that I decided to turn around and go home. By the time I set up to shoot, I would have had about a half hour of shooting before I had to start packing up again.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Old Dog and others, it’s a matter of reasonable fear for many and bad experience for some. What positive outcome can one expect from unwanted contact with law enforcement?

~G. Fink