This goes to show that some folks should not be police officers.
A Officer that " if the first indication I have is that you have a gun in the vehicle is me seeing it we're going to do a bunch of talking with my pistol between us" when I am lawfully carrying and fully complying with the written law has no business working the street. This attitude is exactly why many civil rights experts recommend recording all interactions with the Police with their cellphone.
When I worked the street when I made a traffic stop I assumed everyone in the vehicle was armed and practiced good safety procedures until I was convinced they were not a threat.
Did they test the Officer blood to see if he had drugs in his system?
I'm going to assume you weren't directing the first sentence of that directly at me. Based on the second quote I'm also going to presume it's been a while since you worked the street. A mandatory blood draw for the officer involved in an OIS has been standard for quite a while now.
So onto your second paragraph: at least in the last 12 years every agency that I have had the reason to talk to about this issue (multiple states, and a lot of different sized agencies), would have the school house answer of draw and create space, followed by issuing immobilizing commands for as much cover as you can get to, and go from there if a gun is revealed on the violators person and they're reaching in the vicinity of it. Now is that a bit more specific of a series of events then what I posted, yes it is, because is this is not an LEO forum, inservice, or cadet training. I'm painting with a broad brush to make a point. Much as your first sentence was designed to do.
I'd hazard to ask you how you would know if the violator was lawfully carrying and fully complaint with the written law prior to running them? Additionally depending on the state thy may have violated the law by not informing the officer they were in possession of a firearm, or presenting their license if so required by that state. Yes my statement is not the answer to every occasion a firearm is observed in a vehicle, however you and I both know from working patrol that there is always an exception to everything. I'd also ask in your patrol experience what would you have done if a violator exposed a weapon they had not told you about, and were reaching it's general area. I can pretty much guarantee it would involve a bare minimum putting your hand on your weapon and issuing immobilizing commands. If that's not part of it, then I am very curious to here what you were trained to do. Feel free to PM me rather then respond publicly here if it's an OPSEC issue to discuss.
Do you live and work in a state which has statutorily mandated notification?
If not, you may very well be committing aggravated assault.
In Texas it is absolutely legal to posses a handgun in your vehicle regardless if you have a license if it is A) concealed and B) you are basically in a private vehicle and not committing a crime other then violating a traffic or boating ordinance. License holders may carry with the weapon openly displayed so long as it is secured in a belt or shoulder holster. License holders do have a duty to notify they are a license holder IF they have a handgun on or about their person and they are asked to display identification. Non-license holders ironically do not.
I'm not terribly familiar with laws other then my home state, but I know of no state where this would be true for a peace officer (again I'm only familiar with my state, there may be one where this is the case). It is absolutely not an offense for me to point my weapon at someone who I have an objectively reasonable belief may present a risk of serious bodily injury or death. I can employee lethal force, rather then merely make a threat of it in response to my objectively reasonable belief. Reasonable belief is based on an several factors, with one being the officer having probable cause to believe there is a risk of serious bodily injury or death. Probable cause, as the courts have defined it, is less then the legal standard of preponderance of evidence. This is defined as "more likely then not" or as it is sometimes referred to, 51% or more. Now there is no defined percentage of likelihood, but the courts do place it above reasonable suspicion. So with all that said....
If I stop a violator, and during the course of my contact they do not notify me they are a license holder, and they are, they are in violation of the Texas Government code and run the risk of having their license to carry revoked. This is an administrative violation, not a criminal violation. If they are a private citizen they have no duty to do. Through my training I know that license holders are required to notify me that they are carrying, so if they do not notify me then they are more likely then not, not a license holder. I also know through my training and now experience (multiple years a patrol officer, FTO, etc) that citizens will normally inform an officer they are carrying. I know through my training and experience the those who are either in commission of an offense other then a violation of a traffic or boating ordinance, or who are prohibited form possessing a firearm will not inform an officer that they are carrying. When I see them reaching towards and area that contains a handgun that I wasn't notified about, it is more likely then not that they are not legally in possession of that firearm. I know through my training and experience that those who are not legally in possession of a firearm, when they reach for them they are attempting to use them.
I know through my training and experience that action beat reaction. They have already begun to react and I am now behind the power curve if they access the handgun. A handgun presents a threat of serious bodily or death by it's very nature. I do not have time to wait and see if they reach for the gun, or their wallet, or their dropped cell phone. In the time it takes me to see what they are doing, they can access the handgun and attempt to end my life. In an attempt to gain some reaction time back, displacing from the contact position, while drawing my weapon is an objectively reasonable option, followed by issuing immobilization commands if deadly force is not currently warranted.
Now, it absolutely could be a violation of the law or an individuals rights (the latter would be the case here in Texas) to hold someone at gun point if there is no particularized set of facts and circumstances giving rise to the objectively reasonable belief that there was a risk of serious bodily injury or death. For example if a suspect has been frisked/searched and is detained in handcuffs in the back of a patrol car, it would take some pretty major specific additional facts to articulate an objectively reasonable belief that there was a risk of serious bodily injury or death from that suspect. So to stand there with a gun drawn and pointed at the suspect in this situation for a long time period could result in liability.
Please remember that a law abiding private citizen knows they are a law abiding private citizen. The officer contacting them, knows only what they have in front of them. What to the public may appear as a dramatic overreaction or even criminal conduct is usually the result of many hard earned lessons in blood and lives for officers. Where the law abiding citizen may only encounter an officer in an enforcement capacity a handful of times, the officers encounters people everyday. Where I worked patrol, which had one of the largest interstate highways in the nation, and a major state highway as well I only encountered probably 20 or so people legally in possession of a firearm in a vehicle. I however encountered large number of guns in my time on patrol. Again we as officers don't have a clue which side of the line you are going to be.
