Augustwest
Member
Other than it being their unquestionable right to do so, you mean?
Stick around tetley, this place'll show you a thing or two...
Getting Stopped by the Police w/ a Car/Truck Shoulder Weapon?
- Thread starter BerettaNut92
- Start date
- Status
Other than it being their unquestionable right to do so, you mean?
Stick around tetley, this place'll show you a thing or two...
"If you just had firearms in the truck/car after being pulled over and I saw it, or you told me about it, you would be pulled out at gun point. This would depend upon the officer. I'm considered to be a little more aggressive then most (at the sametime, I go home alive everynite too)."
I don't understand this logic. If I had firearms in the car, but secured and I told you the truth that they were there then you would pull me out at gun point. If I don't tell you the truth then you don't pull me out at gun point.
How about if I just don't answer the question? You would have to get a search warrant to search the vehicle. But on what basis if the firearms were not visable?
Tetleyb, I think you are a little out of control. I live in NJ where we have some of the strictist firearms laws in the country, but we also have basic laws that protect even firearms enthusiasts when transporting weapons. One of these days you will pull your little stunt with an attorney and you will find yourself looking for another profession.
Bill
I don't understand this logic. If I had firearms in the car, but secured and I told you the truth that they were there then you would pull me out at gun point. If I don't tell you the truth then you don't pull me out at gun point.
How about if I just don't answer the question? You would have to get a search warrant to search the vehicle. But on what basis if the firearms were not visable?
Tetleyb, I think you are a little out of control. I live in NJ where we have some of the strictist firearms laws in the country, but we also have basic laws that protect even firearms enthusiasts when transporting weapons. One of these days you will pull your little stunt with an attorney and you will find yourself looking for another profession.
Bill
Dot_mdb wrote, "How about if I just don't answer the question? You would have to get a search warrant to search the vehicle. But on what basis if the firearms were not visable?"
In response:
Actions a LE officer may take when a vehicle is lawfully stopped. - ...may ask for consent to search. ...may question the occupants of the car. In response, the US Supreme Ct has made it clear that such questioning may take place without any prior Miranda-type warnings, etc. etc. Despite the fact that no warnings are required, persons being questioned do enjoy a constitutional right not to respond, and although a failure to respond MAY be taken into consideration as an officer weighs facts in assessing whether probably cause to arrest or search exists, a person's failure to respond probably cannot constitue in itself a criminal offense, since the person is merely exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Actions without a search warrant. - Ask for consent to search. Under a Terry or investigative stop - ...a frisk or pat down protective search, A search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle for weapons. In addition, the Carroll rule, or automobile exception affirms that every part of the vehicle may be searched as well as containers in the vehicle. Any mobile vehicle - aircraft, watercraft (boats and ships), snowmobiles, trucks, and buses are included.
Search of Detained vehicle. The US Supreme CT held that where officers reasonably suspect the presence of weapons in a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may make a limited search of the vehicle's interior to locate and control the weapons. Such searches must be limited to places where weapons might be concealed.
EricO
"I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television!"
In response:
Actions a LE officer may take when a vehicle is lawfully stopped. - ...may ask for consent to search. ...may question the occupants of the car. In response, the US Supreme Ct has made it clear that such questioning may take place without any prior Miranda-type warnings, etc. etc. Despite the fact that no warnings are required, persons being questioned do enjoy a constitutional right not to respond, and although a failure to respond MAY be taken into consideration as an officer weighs facts in assessing whether probably cause to arrest or search exists, a person's failure to respond probably cannot constitue in itself a criminal offense, since the person is merely exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Actions without a search warrant. - Ask for consent to search. Under a Terry or investigative stop - ...a frisk or pat down protective search, A search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle for weapons. In addition, the Carroll rule, or automobile exception affirms that every part of the vehicle may be searched as well as containers in the vehicle. Any mobile vehicle - aircraft, watercraft (boats and ships), snowmobiles, trucks, and buses are included.
Search of Detained vehicle. The US Supreme CT held that where officers reasonably suspect the presence of weapons in a lawfully stopped vehicle, they may make a limited search of the vehicle's interior to locate and control the weapons. Such searches must be limited to places where weapons might be concealed.
EricO
"I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television!"
Gentleman, and ladies (if present), as I wrote before I think that we should let TetleyB qualify his statements before condemning him. I believe that he meant if the weapon was uncased and accessible, which is illegal in the area he represents. With this so, you would be a fool not to take measures, those measures would vary based upon the situation at hand. Based upon the above, I daresay that if you were in his shoes and approached a car (lawfully pulled over, by the way) and saw a weapon easily accessed next to the driver, I seriously doubt that you would not take it seriously. Am I to believe that you would not take defensive measures for your safety, but simply ask for license and registration of the unknown (at this point) driver, and allow the person to have access to the weapon while you were running this info? Get serious! This would place you well behind the curve. When you critique LE officers for their actions, first try to place yourself in their shoes (honestly) and ask yourself if you would really do things the way you thought. Most of all, have the guts to honestly analyze the situation. If, in the above situation, you still wouldn't take defensive measures, then you failed, and you simply won't make it long in the profession. It will just be a matter of time.
EricO
EricO
On the issue of the CRV... Was kinda curious, since I have a Rav4...
Source: CA Attorney General's Homepage @ http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/travel.htm
General Guidelines for Transporting Firearms in California
HANDGUNS
California Penal Code section 12025 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not within any of the classes excepted from firearm possession and who resides or is temporarily in California from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.
The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code Section 12026.1.
SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES
Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container. However, as with any firearm, nonconcealable firearms must be unloaded while they are being transported. A rifle or shotgun that is considered an assault weapon in California must be transported in accordance with Penal Code section 12026.1.
REGISTERED ASSAULT WEAPONS
California Penal Code section 12285(c)(7) requires that registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations and must be unloaded and in a locked container when tranported.
The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code Section 12026.1.
-----------------------------------------------------
I take this to mean that it's legal for me carry my unloaded pistol in my padlocked case anywhere in my vehicle, or to carry my unloaded rifle in plain sight. I certainly hope I wouldn't get dragged out of my vehicle at gunpoint, simply for pointing out the fact that the small, locked box in the back of my Rav had a firearm in it.
-Tom
Source: CA Attorney General's Homepage @ http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/travel.htm
General Guidelines for Transporting Firearms in California
HANDGUNS
California Penal Code section 12025 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not within any of the classes excepted from firearm possession and who resides or is temporarily in California from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.
The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code Section 12026.1.
SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES
Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container. However, as with any firearm, nonconcealable firearms must be unloaded while they are being transported. A rifle or shotgun that is considered an assault weapon in California must be transported in accordance with Penal Code section 12026.1.
REGISTERED ASSAULT WEAPONS
California Penal Code section 12285(c)(7) requires that registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations and must be unloaded and in a locked container when tranported.
The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code Section 12026.1.
-----------------------------------------------------
I take this to mean that it's legal for me carry my unloaded pistol in my padlocked case anywhere in my vehicle, or to carry my unloaded rifle in plain sight. I certainly hope I wouldn't get dragged out of my vehicle at gunpoint, simply for pointing out the fact that the small, locked box in the back of my Rav had a firearm in it.
-Tom
Tom wrote, "I take this to mean that it's legal for me carry my unloaded pistol in my padlocked case anywhere in my vehicle, or to carry my unloaded rifle in plain sight. I certainly hope I wouldn't get dragged out of my vehicle at gunpoint, simply for pointing out the fact that the small, locked box in the back of my Rav had a firearm in it. "
--I should certainly hope not Tom, and I doubt that it would happen also. However, if you place an unloaded rifle in plain sight, quickly accessible to you, the driver (if alone in the car), do not assume that the officer won't take measures for his safety. Remember firearm's laws - Every weapon IS loaded! He doesn't know it is unloaded, and would be a fool for assuming it. Let's (not talking specifically to you Tom) use some friggin common sense here!
EricO
--I should certainly hope not Tom, and I doubt that it would happen also. However, if you place an unloaded rifle in plain sight, quickly accessible to you, the driver (if alone in the car), do not assume that the officer won't take measures for his safety. Remember firearm's laws - Every weapon IS loaded! He doesn't know it is unloaded, and would be a fool for assuming it. Let's (not talking specifically to you Tom) use some friggin common sense here!
EricO
Any LEO pulls me out at gunpoint for having a rifle in a rifle rack is gonna get a formal complaint from me, along with anything else I can think of doing that could possibly harm the LEO. The SF cop is a Nazi who needs to figure out the difference between a gun which is capable of being used to threaten him and one which is not. Also not a bad idea for you to get in the habit of looking to see where the occupant's hand are - as I keep my high and open on the top of the steering wheel when stopped - can you see why I might be pissed for being pulled out at gunpoint when acting as I do, gun or no gun? There are many ways/factors you can use to make the distinctions you need to make to do your job without increasing your risk, while at the same time preserving the civil rights of the people. It's bad to say, but with that attitude, I truly hope a few good citizens get you cornered in an alley and beat the crap out of you someday, since an extreme attitude adjustment is in order, IMO. You shouldn't be an LEO if you can't distinguish between a threat and a non-threat. OK, flame away; I'm ready..... 
BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
Whoa there! I understand your frustration, but careful with the namecalling.... (And he said 'SF Bay Area' not SFPD).... Letting emotions control oneself is for liberals
Tetley, did you mean a rifle in plain view, or one being transported lawfully?
Tetley, did you mean a rifle in plain view, or one being transported lawfully?
EricO said:
I didn't say it was a GOOD idea!
I should have qualified that statement.. The law as stated on the Attorney General's page seems somewhat vague [from what I gather] in regards to the rifle. No way in hell would I carry ANY firearm or firearm replica in plain sight in my vehicle, or even in my backyard [in this state]. Just because you can [arguably], doesn't mean you should!
-Tom
I didn't say it was a GOOD idea!
I should have qualified that statement.. The law as stated on the Attorney General's page seems somewhat vague [from what I gather] in regards to the rifle. No way in hell would I carry ANY firearm or firearm replica in plain sight in my vehicle, or even in my backyard [in this state]. Just because you can [arguably], doesn't mean you should!
-Tom
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
okay, help me understand...in tetleys area, is it in fact ILLEGAL to have a weapon in the vehicle? if so, that might explain the felony stops on anyone who admits to having a firearm with them.
i guess i should just be thankful to live in a state where gunowners are not treated like thugs. to answer the question of this thread, in Alaska, any long gun must be unloaded while being transported in a vehicle, trunk or not.
longtom4570
Member
There are many dead officers, who failed to recognize a threat and payed for it with their lives
, perhaps we can set up a widows/widower trust fund and some one can step forward,when an officer is killed and present it to the wife or husband and kids
, perhaps we can set up a widows/widower trust fund and some one can step forward,when an officer is killed and present it to the wife or husband and kids45R
Member
Generally IIRC in CA its not illegal to transport a firearm in the vehicle as long as it is in a locked container. Seperate from Ammo.
IMHO management of persons lawfully transporting firearms is a communication skill. If you dont have the communication skills to deal with the public without pointing your loaded firearm at them.....you shouldnt be dealing with the public.
IMHO management of persons lawfully transporting firearms is a communication skill. If you dont have the communication skills to deal with the public without pointing your loaded firearm at them.....you shouldnt be dealing with the public.
Glockster35
Member
Longtom4570,
You said it, so I nominate you to do the deed!
Now having thought about this topic for a bit. I guess I understand Tetleyb's stance, and some of the other LEO's posting. He is in the PRK where it is illegal to do anything if it involves thinking for yourself.
You said it, so I nominate you to do the deed!
Now having thought about this topic for a bit. I guess I understand Tetleyb's stance, and some of the other LEO's posting. He is in the PRK where it is illegal to do anything if it involves thinking for yourself.
If that is, indeed, what he meant, I could uncomfortably accept that he is acting in accordance with, and in support of the unjust laws of his jurisdiction.
But he brought up two possible circumstances ...
In this case, a visible, accessable long arm.
In this case, it certainly implies to me that he's talking about any firearms that he sees or otherwise knows about.
I'm willing to be wrong, though. And hope for the sake of all the law-abiding citizens living in the SF Bay area that I am.
Which excuses heavy-handed, us-v-them actions on the part of officers ... how?
If Jeff White pulled me over and explained that "No, Mr. Cordex, that rifle in your passenger compartment is illegal ... here, lemme give you a blanket to wrap it up in and you be careful, okay?", I'm going to come away from that encounter feeling pretty kindly towards Mr. White, and law enforcement in general. If, instead, the officer pulling me over draws down on me, calls in the SWAT team, informs the FBI and sends the K9 unit after me, I'm going to come away (assuming I'm not shot by the overeager cop) feeling pretty negatively towards the officers involved, as well as law enforcement in general.
Futo Inu wrote, "The SF cop is a Nazi who needs to figure out the difference between a gun which is capable of being used to threaten him and one which is not. Also not a bad idea for you to get in the habit of looking to see where the occupant's hand are - as I keep my high and open on the top of the steering wheel when stopped - can you see why"
Look Futo, I'm almost certain that TetleyB miswrote about pulling someone out of a vehicle because the ind. said that he had a weapon in the car, cased and inaccessible. However, if you can't understand about action beats reaction, and the fact that one could reach from the top of the steering wheel to the seat and back again before the LE reacts and draws, then you're simply not up on tactics. I suggest you cool down and think these things through a little better. I don't believe you're LE from your response, so unless you're willing to strap on the rig and do this yourself, then perhaps you should try to understand these things from the LE officer's point of view. You made a nice comment, "There are many ways/factors you can use to make the distinctions you need to make to do your job without increasing your risk, while at the same time preserving the civil rights of the people. " but I believe your version, or the one you think you'd do, would leave you dead. There's a lot of armchair quarterbacks out there, who think they know everything. Every situation doesn't require at gunpoint, felony stop like. Some may require only hand on grip, and a quick, stern warning not to move towards the weapon. You guys are reacting too hard and quick to this stuff.
Also, I can't believe your comment about some citizens beating the crap out of him. That was uncalled for, and (from your own words) it's bad to say, but with that attitude, I'm kinda wishing that you get pulled over carrying and start your indignant routine with a LE officer who tunes you up.
Tom wrote, "I didn't say it was a GOOD idea!
I should have qualified that statement.. The law as stated on the Attorney General's page seems somewhat vague [from what I gather] in regards to the rifle. No way in hell would I carry ANY firearm or firearm replica in plain sight in my vehicle, or even in my backyard [in this state]. Just because you can [arguably], doesn't mean you should! ""
--And there ya go. Someone with some commonsense.
Spacemanspiff wrote, "okay, help me understand...in tetleys area, is it in fact ILLEGAL to have a weapon in the vehicle? if so, that might explain the felony stops on anyone who admits to having a firearm with them. "
--I believe this is covered already. Please read the entire discussion. When you say weapon in the vehicle, let me cover this. Yes, it is illegal to have a loaded weapon (let's just say handgun in this case) in your vehicle.
There will be no felony stop or weapons pointed at you if you inform a LE officer that you are transporting a weapon/s in your vehicle. You will probably be asked as to the location of them in your vehicle (to determine if you are doing it properly) and if they are in a locked container, ammo separate. This is the law, and as such, anyone encountered not doing so, and with a weapon immediately accessible, maybe detained, patted down in a protective search, placed under arrest, etc. It all depends on the situation, the ind. officer, etc.
EricO
Look Futo, I'm almost certain that TetleyB miswrote about pulling someone out of a vehicle because the ind. said that he had a weapon in the car, cased and inaccessible. However, if you can't understand about action beats reaction, and the fact that one could reach from the top of the steering wheel to the seat and back again before the LE reacts and draws, then you're simply not up on tactics. I suggest you cool down and think these things through a little better. I don't believe you're LE from your response, so unless you're willing to strap on the rig and do this yourself, then perhaps you should try to understand these things from the LE officer's point of view. You made a nice comment, "There are many ways/factors you can use to make the distinctions you need to make to do your job without increasing your risk, while at the same time preserving the civil rights of the people. " but I believe your version, or the one you think you'd do, would leave you dead. There's a lot of armchair quarterbacks out there, who think they know everything. Every situation doesn't require at gunpoint, felony stop like. Some may require only hand on grip, and a quick, stern warning not to move towards the weapon. You guys are reacting too hard and quick to this stuff.
Also, I can't believe your comment about some citizens beating the crap out of him. That was uncalled for, and (from your own words) it's bad to say, but with that attitude, I'm kinda wishing that you get pulled over carrying and start your indignant routine with a LE officer who tunes you up.
Tom wrote, "I didn't say it was a GOOD idea!
I should have qualified that statement.. The law as stated on the Attorney General's page seems somewhat vague [from what I gather] in regards to the rifle. No way in hell would I carry ANY firearm or firearm replica in plain sight in my vehicle, or even in my backyard [in this state]. Just because you can [arguably], doesn't mean you should! ""
--And there ya go. Someone with some commonsense.
Spacemanspiff wrote, "okay, help me understand...in tetleys area, is it in fact ILLEGAL to have a weapon in the vehicle? if so, that might explain the felony stops on anyone who admits to having a firearm with them. "
--I believe this is covered already. Please read the entire discussion. When you say weapon in the vehicle, let me cover this. Yes, it is illegal to have a loaded weapon (let's just say handgun in this case) in your vehicle.
There will be no felony stop or weapons pointed at you if you inform a LE officer that you are transporting a weapon/s in your vehicle. You will probably be asked as to the location of them in your vehicle (to determine if you are doing it properly) and if they are in a locked container, ammo separate. This is the law, and as such, anyone encountered not doing so, and with a weapon immediately accessible, maybe detained, patted down in a protective search, placed under arrest, etc. It all depends on the situation, the ind. officer, etc.
EricO
Let's not turn this in to another LEO bashing thread...
First of all, let me say that there are anti RKBA police officers just like their are anti RKBA people in every other profession. By and large you'll find that most street cops are pro RKBA.
Everyone posting in this thread needs to understand that there are different ways to do the very difficult job of being a police officer. And what's appropriate in one jurisdiction may not be appropriate somewhere else. Often the way the police have to do their job varies between neighborhoods in the same jurisdiction. Like it or not, there are some places in our country where stronger tactics and techniques are needed then in others. Some neighborhoods require a different approach in order to protect the good people who live there and to keep the very bad people who prey on them in check. It would be nice if you could be Reed and Malloy from Adam 12 everywhere in this country. But unfortunately you can't. There are a lot of places where you won't be effective or even survive long unless you are constantly dealing from the position of strength.
Did anyone read Erick's excellent article on gangs in the current issue of S.W.A.T.? If so, then you'll get an understanding of what officers in some places deal with on a daily basis. You have to always be stronger then the gangbangers. They only understand strength, espceially in their neighborhoods. And they will be the first to exploit any perceived weakness.
I think we all know where tetleyb comes down on RKBA. He's here sharing his experience in the Strategies and Tactics Forum. Let's not hold it against him because he works a rougher neighborhood then I do. Why don't you think about how he might handle things in a different environment before you condemn him?
Jeff
First of all, let me say that there are anti RKBA police officers just like their are anti RKBA people in every other profession. By and large you'll find that most street cops are pro RKBA.
Everyone posting in this thread needs to understand that there are different ways to do the very difficult job of being a police officer. And what's appropriate in one jurisdiction may not be appropriate somewhere else. Often the way the police have to do their job varies between neighborhoods in the same jurisdiction. Like it or not, there are some places in our country where stronger tactics and techniques are needed then in others. Some neighborhoods require a different approach in order to protect the good people who live there and to keep the very bad people who prey on them in check. It would be nice if you could be Reed and Malloy from Adam 12 everywhere in this country. But unfortunately you can't. There are a lot of places where you won't be effective or even survive long unless you are constantly dealing from the position of strength.
Did anyone read Erick's excellent article on gangs in the current issue of S.W.A.T.? If so, then you'll get an understanding of what officers in some places deal with on a daily basis. You have to always be stronger then the gangbangers. They only understand strength, espceially in their neighborhoods. And they will be the first to exploit any perceived weakness.
I think we all know where tetleyb comes down on RKBA. He's here sharing his experience in the Strategies and Tactics Forum. Let's not hold it against him because he works a rougher neighborhood then I do. Why don't you think about how he might handle things in a different environment before you condemn him?
Jeff
Cordex wrote, "If Jeff White pulled me over and explained that "No, Mr. Cordex, that rifle in your passenger compartment is illegal ... here, lemme give you a blanket to wrap it up in and you be careful, okay?", I'm going to come away from that encounter feeling pretty kindly towards Mr. White, and law enforcement in general. "
--Yes, Cordex. I too was impressed with White's response regarding the question. However, I want to mention something here. I don't recall if Jeff wrote about any of the circumstances of a stop like that. It all depends on the situation when you come upon it. He's describing a best case scenario, where the lawful pull over is a minor infraction perhaps, not something that would raise your caution level much. After running the plates they're clear. The citizen is pleasant and not nervous about anything. Sure, in that case I'll bet what he described happens all the time in areas where firearms can be transported in the car uncased. However, if the situation was different, I'll bet Jeff (hopefully being a tactically wise ofc) would treat it differently. Perhaps the stop was in a area known for illegal activity, at night, with the driver doing something erratically. Perhaps they're acting nervously. Now, do you think that he should deal with this the same as the previous example. Sure, here's a towel to cover that illegally carried handgun, take care now. And as he turns to walk back to his unit gets shot in the back. Remember that an officer can do many things after lawfully pulling over a vehicle, to his satisfaction due to the courts ruling that vehicles are not given the same expectation of privacy, and that they are mobile.
Just because an officer is being respectful of a citizen's rights doesn't mean that he should DROP HIS GUARD! Sarcasm on - Boy, he sure was a respectfull, nice, dead officer.
Jeff wrote, "
You have to always be stronger then the gangbangers. They only understand strength, espceially in their neighborhoods. And they will be the first to exploit any perceived weakness.
--Amen, and understood. I'm starting to think everyone lives in Mayberry! (a joke everyone, relax!)
EricO
--Yes, Cordex. I too was impressed with White's response regarding the question. However, I want to mention something here. I don't recall if Jeff wrote about any of the circumstances of a stop like that. It all depends on the situation when you come upon it. He's describing a best case scenario, where the lawful pull over is a minor infraction perhaps, not something that would raise your caution level much. After running the plates they're clear. The citizen is pleasant and not nervous about anything. Sure, in that case I'll bet what he described happens all the time in areas where firearms can be transported in the car uncased. However, if the situation was different, I'll bet Jeff (hopefully being a tactically wise ofc) would treat it differently. Perhaps the stop was in a area known for illegal activity, at night, with the driver doing something erratically. Perhaps they're acting nervously. Now, do you think that he should deal with this the same as the previous example. Sure, here's a towel to cover that illegally carried handgun, take care now. And as he turns to walk back to his unit gets shot in the back. Remember that an officer can do many things after lawfully pulling over a vehicle, to his satisfaction due to the courts ruling that vehicles are not given the same expectation of privacy, and that they are mobile.
Just because an officer is being respectful of a citizen's rights doesn't mean that he should DROP HIS GUARD! Sarcasm on - Boy, he sure was a respectfull, nice, dead officer.
Jeff wrote, "
You have to always be stronger then the gangbangers. They only understand strength, espceially in their neighborhoods. And they will be the first to exploit any perceived weakness.
--Amen, and understood. I'm starting to think everyone lives in Mayberry! (a joke everyone, relax!)
EricO
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
thanks for talking down to me. i did read the entire discussion before i posted. i asked that a point be reiterated. pardon me if its beneath you to have a man-to-man discussion.
why dont you go back and read the discussion yourself? the fact of the matter is, tetley is doing felony stops on anyone he comes across that has a firearm in their vehicle. now the law in cali may support that, but its interesting to note that tetley didnt say 'hey it sucks that i have to do this, but its just the way it is in this state'.
i'm not bashing anyone here. i'm merely pointing out the colors my eyes are seeing. i hope i'm wrong.
Spacemanspiff, pardon me if I stepped on your toes. I'm typing quickly and hitting send before I check it all out to see if it might affect someone wrong. There's no need to be so defensive though, I simply didn't think it was needed to go over something that was already posted. Look here, from barqfox's post above, read:
HANDGUNS
California Penal Code section 12025 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not within any of the classes excepted from firearm possession and who resides or is temporarily in California from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.
As for tetleyB doing felony stops on anyone he comes across having or admitting to have a firearm in his vehicle, I don't believe what he wrote supports that. He wrote, "If you just had firearms in the truck/car after being pulled over and I saw it, or you told me about it, you would be pulled out at gun point. This would depend upon the officer. I'm considered to be a little more aggressive then most (at the sametime, I go home alive everynite too)." He does not specify if he saw it accessible, not in a container (which is illegal) or if the person admitted it was accessible and loaded. Don't read too much into this. Let's let him explain, if he jumps back into this fray.
EricO
HANDGUNS
California Penal Code section 12025 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not within any of the classes excepted from firearm possession and who resides or is temporarily in California from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.
As for tetleyB doing felony stops on anyone he comes across having or admitting to have a firearm in his vehicle, I don't believe what he wrote supports that. He wrote, "If you just had firearms in the truck/car after being pulled over and I saw it, or you told me about it, you would be pulled out at gun point. This would depend upon the officer. I'm considered to be a little more aggressive then most (at the sametime, I go home alive everynite too)." He does not specify if he saw it accessible, not in a container (which is illegal) or if the person admitted it was accessible and loaded. Don't read too much into this. Let's let him explain, if he jumps back into this fray.
EricO
EricO,
I saw the pickup pulling out of a gas station near the interstate. The only reason for the stop was the UUW in how the rifle was transported. The truck had either Wyoming or Montana plates (it's been several years ago, I don't recall, I can look it up on the computer if anyone is really interested). When I told dispatch that I was stopping the vehicle I mentioned that there was a high powered scoped rifle in the rack in the rear window. I had backup within about a minute, and I waited until backup arrived before approaching the truck. In the truck was an older man and his wife. I asked them both to step out of the truck ( I don't usually do that, but I wanted them away from the rifle while I talked with them). They were on their way to visit relatives somewhere East. There were no hits on the vehicle or the occupants and no one had a criminal history. The man told me he always carried the rifle there and didn't think about crossing state lines and other laws. He apologized and I told him that I personally had no problem with him carrying his rifle there, but other officers might. then I helped him stow the rifle behind the seat and let them go on their way. He seemed a bit surprised that any state could have laws like that. He's probably still cussing me for making him put his rifle behind the seat.
Now had I gotten all kinds of officer safety warnings when I ran the plate, my approach would have been exactly like tetleyb's. You have to deal with each instance as it happens. There is no boilerplate soluton for every situation.
Jeff
I saw the pickup pulling out of a gas station near the interstate. The only reason for the stop was the UUW in how the rifle was transported. The truck had either Wyoming or Montana plates (it's been several years ago, I don't recall, I can look it up on the computer if anyone is really interested). When I told dispatch that I was stopping the vehicle I mentioned that there was a high powered scoped rifle in the rack in the rear window. I had backup within about a minute, and I waited until backup arrived before approaching the truck. In the truck was an older man and his wife. I asked them both to step out of the truck ( I don't usually do that, but I wanted them away from the rifle while I talked with them). They were on their way to visit relatives somewhere East. There were no hits on the vehicle or the occupants and no one had a criminal history. The man told me he always carried the rifle there and didn't think about crossing state lines and other laws. He apologized and I told him that I personally had no problem with him carrying his rifle there, but other officers might. then I helped him stow the rifle behind the seat and let them go on their way. He seemed a bit surprised that any state could have laws like that. He's probably still cussing me for making him put his rifle behind the seat.
Now had I gotten all kinds of officer safety warnings when I ran the plate, my approach would have been exactly like tetleyb's. You have to deal with each instance as it happens. There is no boilerplate soluton for every situation.
Jeff
Jeff wrote, "Now had I gotten all kinds of officer safety warnings when I ran the plate, my approach would have been exactly like tetleyb's. You have to deal with each instance as it happens. There is no boilerplate soluton for every situation.""
--Exactly as I thought you'd say, which supports my stance on this whole issue. You're (like many others) a credit to the profession Jeff. Very professionally handled. People should notice that even though you didn't have any hits or flags on the plates, you still went through procedure, and had many systems in place before you even approached the vehicle.
EricO
--Exactly as I thought you'd say, which supports my stance on this whole issue. You're (like many others) a credit to the profession Jeff. Very professionally handled. People should notice that even though you didn't have any hits or flags on the plates, you still went through procedure, and had many systems in place before you even approached the vehicle.
EricO
It was this part that caught my attention:
I believe that the telling is not justification for removing you from your car at gun-point. The fact that an individual would tell a police officer that they had a gun in the car is an admission of trust, and any "gun pointing" after that based soley upon that admission is a violation of that trust and is more damaging than benificial.
I believe that the telling is not justification for removing you from your car at gun-point. The fact that an individual would tell a police officer that they had a gun in the car is an admission of trust, and any "gun pointing" after that based soley upon that admission is a violation of that trust and is more damaging than benificial.
chas_martel
Member
OK, I really wanted get in on this post and ream Tet a new one.
But, I realized I'd just be wasting my time.
Seems like there are only two fundamental types people left in the U.S. of A. I think we all know what I mean by that.
I just hope people like Tet, and those that defend his "attitude", stay the hell
out of Texas.
Just remember "you" people would be very unhappy here. And it is hot year 'round.
But, I realized I'd just be wasting my time.
Seems like there are only two fundamental types people left in the U.S. of A. I think we all know what I mean by that.
I just hope people like Tet, and those that defend his "attitude", stay the hell
out of Texas.
Just remember "you" people would be very unhappy here. And it is hot year 'round.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
