"Do you have firearms in the vehicle?"

[TC-TX]

Hawkeye

I am only referring to those individuals who have stated in this thread that their First Inclination is to LIE to a LEO.

When it comes to Carrying - A LEO has a Responsibility to Know... A Person (legally) Carrying has a Legal responsibility to Inform Accurately.

Whether you choose to side-step a legitimate question put to you by a LEO is up to you. I do not equate this to lying. But I do see this as a lack of honor on your part. When you were awarded a license to carry, you assumed the full responsibility to Inform.

Whining about the Need (or requirement) to Inform - AFTER THE FACT (after you have accepted the license) is dishonorable at best, illegal at worst.

If you do not wish to uphold your end of the agreement, forfeit your license.

Otherwise, be prepared to be treated as a common criminal...

Have a Great Day!

 

[TC-TX]

Gordon - I find there is NOTHING Reasonable about Harboring Fear of LEOs. Your statement says it all:

What positive outcome can one expect from unwanted contact with law enforcement?

Sounds More like a Guilty Conscience to me....

Can you spell P*A*R*A*N*O*I*A ???????

Paranoia is Not Normal for Honorable People who make choices based on Integrity and Honesty.

Paranoia is usually used to describe excessive concern about one's own well-being, sometimes suggesting a person holds persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property and is often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories.

I CHOOSE to Contribute to the Solution, NOT be part of the Problem...

Have a great day!

 

[glummer]

honor is not the same as obedience.

TC-TX, your arguments are just repeated assertion, with no justifying logic to them.
Try making a parallel claim for behavior that is (at present) accepted as a basic right.

Suppose Nazi Germany had licensed Jews, like we do gun-owners; or if segregationist States had come up with a license requirement for interacial dating; your pattern of argument would still fit perfectly:

I do see this as a lack of honor on your part. When you were awarded a license to carry[practice Judaism][date white women], you assumed the full responsibility to Inform [the Gestapo][the Klan].

Whining about the Need (or requirement) to Inform [the Gestapo][the Klan]- AFTER THE FACT (after you have accepted the license) is dishonorable at best, illegal at worst.

If you do not wish to uphold your end of the agreement, forfeit your license.

Otherwise, be prepared to be treated as a common criminal...

Being a Jew, dating people from other races, or possessing rightfully-owned firearms - these are NOT things one is AWARDED a license for, if it is a free country, with government that repects fundamental personal liberty. And the desire to engage in these activities without kissing some policeman's butt is neither dishonorable, nor criminal.

 

[TC-TX]

Glummer - it is like this...

First - this is NOT About Possessing Weapons - this is about Carrying Weapons...

LIKE IT OR NOT, in order to Legally Carry (outside of your domicile) in most states, there is a Licensing Proceedure you must go through... LIKE IT OR NOT - IT IS WHAT IT IS... (and NO - I don't like it either, but I prefer THIS WAY to NO WAY)...

If you have a CCW/CHL License to Carry, YOU HAVE ACCEPTED A RESPONSIBILITY That goes along with it. PERIOD.

If you have ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY (signed on the dotted line) You have a LEGAL and MORAL Responsibility to Uphold The Agreement.

If you CHOOSE NOT TO, you can either A) Forfeit your License and Nullify the Agreement OR B) Be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, and prepare to be treated like a criminal, in response to your criminal behavior.

Your attempt at a Jews to Guns comparison is an Apples-To-ManHole Covers comparison...

 

[Gordon Fink]

Gordon - I find there is NOTHING Reasonable about Harboring Fear of LEOs.…

Again, what positive outcome can one expect from unwanted contact with law enforcement? The answer is almost certainly none. The best case scenario is that one will not be cited or arrested.

~G. Fink

 

[bowline]

Let me re-state the question, just a bit...
Officer Friendly "I'm here to help. Do you have any firearms?"
NOLA Homeowner "Why yes, officer!"

Any meeting with an officer of the law during 'business hours' is almost certainly adversarial in nature. I've never been pulled over and given a gift certificate. The officer most likely wants to ticket you, or jail you.
THERE ARE exceptions to this, and some outstanding officers out there who truly are more interested in 'keeping the peace' than in enforcing the law. They have my deepest admiration.
There are, unfortunately, many officers who are much more interested in asserting their authority and dominance. The offence of POP isn't found in statutes, but is so commonly asserted that every officer reading this probably recognises it.
If the officer asks about firearms, it isn't a social question. He may be attempting to lower his 'fear factor'. He may be attempting to solicit information to see if you are in violation of the law (or, as has been demonstrated recently, his personal feelings on the subject).
Fifth amendment - when in doubt, keep your mouth shut. Is it dishonorable, or a crime, to exercise your constitutional right?
The question has become, I believe, how to exercise that fifth amendment right without becoming guilty of POP.
Unless someone here cares to assert that the officers' perception of his safety (which, as a law abiding, gun owning citizen, I really have no interest in endangering) overrides my constitutional rights?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

This has been an interesting string if for no other reason than to have Mr. Old Dog pat our heads and tell us not to worry because the leos up there around Puget Sound would never do to us what poster after poster has logged on to tell us has been done.

Then we get to listen to Mr. TC-TX lecture us about honor.

Mr. TC-TX, a ccw permit is not AWARDED. Those are merit badges you're thinking of.

When you get old enough to go to the academy you will learn that the majority of police work today is stopping innocent drivers who are just trying to get somewhere and wish to be left alone so that some citation can be awarded to them for some silly little infraction.

 

[glummer]

TC-TX, your assertions would mean compliance with ANYTHING that a government might issue a license for, regardless of the ethical, moral, or Constitutional wrongs involved. That is nonsense.

There are countries where newspapers are licensed, and heavily regulated.

If you have a ...License to ..., YOU HAVE ACCEPTED A RESPONSIBILITY That goes along with it. PERIOD.

If you have ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY (signed on the dotted line) You have a LEGAL and MORAL Responsibility to Uphold The Agreement.

Are you saying that newspapers in those counties are immoral if they try to evade government censorship? That they have a responsibility to disseminate lies, if the government requires it as a license condition? That they lack honor if they tell the truth? :banghead: :banghead:

A "responsibility" imposed at the point of a gun has NO ethical or moral weight, whatever the law says. If Nazi law says that a condition of having a license to sail a ship in German waters, was to co-operate with the Gestapo in capturing fleeing Jews, would the captain of such a ship be morally wrong to lie about his passenger lists?

If the government imposes restrictions of fundamental liberties, there can easily be a point where the immorality of the law becomes so great that one has to consider lying to evade it. The question here is, whether there are such laws operating in the USA. And some of the posts suggest there well may be, at least in some jurisdictions.

 

[TC-TX]

As I stated gordon - it is All About Choices...

I CHOOSE to see the glass as half Full - I have NEVER had a poor encounter with ANY LEO - Ever...

I CHOOSE to Contribute to the Solution, rather than be part of the problem.

You and those of your ilk choose otherwise... Your choice, Your consequences...

Enjoy the day!

 

[TC-TX]

cropcirclewalker - Concealed Licenses ARE, in fact AWARDED to (issued to) those individuals found legally capable of (qualifies for) possessing a license, and thus a firearm.

Whether you like it or not - there is a reason not everyone qualifies for a CCW/CHL.

And Finally -

When you get old enough to go to the academy you will learn that the majority of police work today is stopping innocent drivers who are just trying to get somewhere and wish to be left alone so that some citation can be awarded to them for some silly little infraction.

This is THE MOST malicious and paranoid statement I have ever heard...

I certainly hope you never have the need to depend upon those you have this deep-seated contempt for...

Just remember, though - they Will Be There to serve you no matter How you feel...

That is the Great Thing about the Honorable LEO folks who dedicate their lives to the protection of you and your family.

Have a Greaat Day!

 

[TC-TX]

glummer - please try to stay on topic...

We are speaking of Lying vs. Telling The truth, HERE IN THE U.S.A.

It is REALLY SIMPLE:

You accept the License - You accept the responsbility (no one Pointed a Gun at you).

You don't like the responsibility - forfeit the license.

You choose to act in a criminal manner - be prepared for the consequences.



Your Choices -

Have a Great Day!

 

[roo_ster]

Frederic Bastiat Understood

"When law and morality contradict one another, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect for the law."
----Frederic Bastiat

Some jurisdictions in America place their citizens in the above dilema. In some, the law contradicts morality (Chicago, IL & Wash, DC) and in others the law's enforcers act immoraly (as described by the unexcusable treatment of law-abiding folks carrying firearms).

I am fortunate to live where I do: where the local cops are mostly on board with the idea of an armed citizenry. I have no great fear of handing over my CHL to a local officer and telling him my current armed state.

Others are not so blessed. They must do what they think best in the face of immoral law or immoral enforcement. Calling them dishonorable for maintaining their sense of morality demonstrates a lack of understanding of how morality and law interact...and much else.

 

[KINGMAX]

Most of the time

Most of the time. Road trip always, even two guns sometimes. I like to take an AK in the back of the truck under the bed cover. Just drop the tail gate & there it is. I will have an AK & 2-4 30 rd magazines underneath a blanket or in a gun cover that zips open ready to go if all else fails. Thankfully - I've never had to go there.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

This string is circling the drain. It was fun.

cropcirclewalker - Concealed Licenses ARE, in fact AWARDED to (issued to) those individuals found legally capable of (qualifies for) possessing a license, and thus a firearm.

Whether you like it or not - there is a reason not everyone qualifies for a CCW/CHL.

You are wrong on numerable things for the most part.

1) The majority of states have "Shall Issue" law. What that means is that the issuing authority (state, sheriff, police chief, whatever) must issue the license unless they can show that you do not qualify.

2) You started out with "Concealed Licenses" and finished up with "Possessing a license, and thus a firearm." Sorry, only the most socialist, citizen fearing states require a license for possessing a firearm. Even TX, fearful of the citizenry as they are do not, to my knowledge, require a license to possess a firearm, even concealable.

I know Missouri doesn't. Further, Missouri, unlike TX, requires no permit or license to open carry a firearm, even in public, even next to or near a leo.

It strikes me that the paranoia of which you speak is mostly eminating from out of the leo.

I am usually not fearful of leo having a firearm. Why is leo afraid of mine?

Ponder that.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It strikes me that the paranoia of which you speak is mostly eminating from out of the leo.

I am usually not fearful of leo having a firearm. Why is leo afraid of mine?

Absolutely! LEO paranoia is most blatantly illustrated in the practice of treating CCW license holders as if they are, by virtue of that fact, likely murderers, while a rational evaluation would lead them to feeling far more at ease in the company of a CCW license holder than that of a non-CCW license holder. That is what I call paranoia.

 

[bowline]

Hey, I'm an Ilk! Finally!

Seriously, though, TC-TX. No disrespect intended, but the courts have found that it is okay for an officer of the law to lie to a suspect to facilitate the investigation. It is a given that there are officers whose motives are not based in a profound desire for observing the law. Some of us have had to deal with those officers. We are attempting to find a way to do so which minimizes the risks - which can entail anything from unreasonable delay, contributing to the officers' gun collection, or arrest/incarceration, legal fees, and hassles pursuant to having the case (eventually) dismissed.
Perhaps you've never encountered this situation. Others have. Thank you for warning us of the dire consequences we no doubt face for attempting to comply with the law (the one on the books, not John Law) while avoiding an unpleasant, dangerous and expensive episode.
The topic, however, is how to do so.

Now, is there a secret decoder ring for the Ilks Club?

 

[Biker]

Welcome to the Ilk's Lodge!

Biker

 

[neoncowboy]

TC-TX
I don't advocate lying to the police...but do you include in your indictments those who (like me) simply don't want to or see any reason to talk about it?

Whether I have a gun or anything else in my car is simply none of the police business. If they want to search me because they think I've committed a crime, they can get a warrant and search. If not, we don't really have anything to talk about.

There's nothing illegal, deceitful, rude or uncooperative about that attitude. That is the relationship that exists between law enforcement and the citizenry. A cop that wants to take issue with it and consider it rude or uncooperative is, in my opinion, the one who is 'pushing it'.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote in reference to asking questions:
"A LEO has a Responsibility to Know"


Gee, I thought he had a responsibility to write a traffic ticket for a traffic violation, since that is supposedley the only reason the gentleman was stopped. If you are correct in your statement that the officer has a "responsibility to know" anything he wants about a situation not relative to the suspected violation, then the motorist has truly been stopped for a general interrogation to be conducted rather than enforcement of a traffic violation as originally stated.

Does that motorist also have a responsibility to answer any and all questions asked during such an interrogation, just because an LEO believes he has a responsibility to conduct further interrogations relative to any type of civil law enforcement?

Say for instance, a Sherrif Deputy asking a driver if he has ever failed to pay municipal taxes due on real property owned within a county?
If he answers that he has paid all taxes in full, is the motorist required to produce proof of payment of those taxe immediately upon request of that Sherrif Deputy if he is unfortunate enough to have a tail light go out?

If the motorist answered that he had not yet issued payment for his 2005 municipal taxes on real property, should the "responsible" officer take him immediately into custody?


After all, the Sherrif is the legally assigned authority to enforce any liens given in judgement against a person owning real property in that county, so if he has a responsibility to interrogate someone about a matter he has no valid reason to suspect might be occuring, then doesn't he have a "responsibility to know" if all the taxes are paid to the county?

I think it might just be better to non LEO point of view from an average suspect.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Hawkeye

Absolutely! LEO paranoia is most blatantly illustrated in the practice of treating CCW license holders as if they are, by virtue of that fact, likely murderers, while a rational evaluation would lead them to feeling far more at ease in the company of a CCW license holder than that of a non-CCW license holder. That is what I call paranoia.

This is exactly the point I was illustrating!

 

[bowline]

To get back on topic, can we reach a consensus on how to politely tell an officer to mind his own business?

 

[SSN Vet]

it's called a commandment....

Thou shall not bear false witness (commonly interpreted as lie).

Don't fear man who can kill the physical body....but fear God, who can send your soul someplace you really don't want to go, for a very long time.

 

[Biker]

SSN Vet...

Sometimes, in order to survive in this world, ya gotta lie to liars, cheat cheaters and deal with violent people in a violent manner.

I'm not necessarily saying this applies to cops, it's just a set of general rules.
I don't like 'em, but I didn't make 'em.

Biker

 

[glummer]

bowline,

To get back on topic, can we reach a consensus on how to politely tell an officer to mind his own business?

Politely would be easy; the problem is SAFELY. For some reason our LEO friends are not offering much helpful advice in that direction.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I don't know if there is any cure for PRK other than moving away.

The paranoia the leos suffer from in Ohio could be cured with what I would call "Overloading". During their fight for ccw the informed of Ohio had their Open Carry Parades. It got the public's attention.

Part of the new law contains ridiculuous open carry in the car and need to immediately notify leo if you get stopped. Really stupid laws and there was a string a while back about a ccw type who stopped for a nap and had to have his piece in plain view and a concerned citizen called the cops and they did like a felony stop on him with guns drawn and like that.

Now, if a group of ccw type would pick a city like say Columbus and start calling in "Man with a Gun" complaints, like say 40 or 50 of them all at the same time, well enough to tie up leos all over the city and maybe block some traffic for some politicians on their way home on a Friday night, perhaps the law makers would wise up.

Of course, like the open carry parades, everything to be legal except no prior notification.

A few Fridays of this during the legislative session and one or two things might happen.

1) Leo would chill a little about ccw in the car carry.
2) The public would become aware that man with a gun is not a crime.
3) Politicians would cure the stupid law.

Until that happens, Ohioans are screwed.

Missouri? No problemo.

No duty to inform leo that you have a permit

Duty to present license only if leo requests it.

No duty to tell leo that you are packin'.

Concealed, loaded in car without permit is lawful.

Open carry is lawful.

So even if you wind up with a boy scout leo you just assert your right to remain silent and if they search the car and find the piece, so what?

Each state is different.

Good luck.