If an officer asks if you have guns in the car....

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Seems that many here are a bit hot under the collar, one is even trying to make the point of “This is the reason why people shoot cops over petty traffic stops.â€

Brilliant…

One would think that as most of you (who are responsible gun owners) this statement from a fellow gun owner would cause you more consternation than me posting a bunch of GA law and then explaining how it is applied to the ridiculous situation you have described in this thread and the legal remedy I have to handle such situation IF they ever arise.

 

[Flyboy]

Which is why I maintain that you shouldn’t stop drivers for minor infractions. Photograph the car and cite the owner of record, just like you do at stoplights and toll stations.

The problem with this being that cars don't commit traffic offenses, drivers do. There have been a number of cases where photo-radar and such tickets were overturned on those very grounds. Now, the stationary systems typically take two pictures: one from the front, to get the driver's face, and one from the rear, to get license plate, prove the infraction, etc.

Unfortunately, that won't work as well with a roving squad car, as the officer would have to speed ahead of the offending vehicle to get a picture from the front. That can be hazardous to the officer, the offending driver, and innocent bystanders.

Neat idea, but I just don't think it's workable.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Of course it’s workable. It’s the same principle as parking citations! No drivers present there usually, but most tickets stick. So what if some citations are successfully contested in court? This already happens.

Why risk officers’ lives for faulty taillights and expired registration stickers?

~G. Fink

 

[jojo]

Let me apologize up front if this was addressed somewhere back in the thread. Some of it got a bit silly and I passed over most of it.

I had an officer from another state tell me that if I'm asked to get out of the car, do so, and lock the doors as I get out. I would probably not do that myself, but am curious if that is an "advisable" thing to do.

jojo

 

[Molon Labe]

I had an officer from another state tell me that if I'm asked to get out of the car, do so, and lock the doors as I get out. I would probably not do that myself, but am curious if that is an "advisable" thing to do.

If the cop tells you to exit the car, always lock the doors after exiting, and then put the keys in your pocket. This will keep a rogue cop from using double-speak to get easy access to your car.

(As mentioned by another poster, some cops ask, “Do you mind if I take a look in your car?†If you answer “No,†then it means you don’t mind, and he’ll look in your car. If you answer “Yes,†he may pretend to interpret this as you saying, “Yes, you may look in my car,†and then he’ll look in your car. So no matter how you respond, you have given him permission to search your car. Neat trick, huh?)

If the cop asks why you locked the doors, just tell him, “Habit.â€

Some additional advice when pulled over by a cop:

1. Just as a cop assumes you’re a bad person, also assume the LEO is a rogue cop who has no respect for your natural rights, no matter how nice and genuine he appears to be. Always be on guard, and don’t say any more than you have to.

2. Never admit to a crime. If he asks, “Do you know why I pulled you over?†tell him, “No.†If he asks how many beers you had, do not tell him “Two or three.†Tell him “None.â€

3. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, under any circumstance, give permission for a cop to search your car. I don’t care if you’re late for a flight. I don’t care if the only thing in the car is a candy bar wrapper. I don’t care if he threatens to “call the dogs in.†I don’t care if he threatens to arrest you. Never, under any circumstance, give permission for a cop to search your car.

4. Ask the cop, “Am I free to go?†And then ask him again. And again. And again. Keep asking him this question until he lets you go.

5. Unless required by state law, do not answer any question you do not want to ask. Politely refuse, and then ask, “Am I free to go?â€

6. Be polite, be patient, and do not get mad. But do stand your ground, and do not be intimidated by a bad/rogue cop. Simply lock yur door and keep your mouth shut (other than asking the “Am I free to go?†question).

 

[Old Dog]

TheFederalistWeasel: I'd been trying to ignore that one outrageous remark. I totally agree with you; for someone who wants to be thought of as a responsible gun-owner to make a statement like that ... whoa! And, FWIW, I understand what you've been trying to communicate.

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.

 

[why_me]

well your wrong too

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.

Its not an anti law enforcement bias.
Its for protecting our collective rights. I dont think weasel is a bad cop. I think he has the potential to be one. And that is not his fault. The laws have been distorted to allow weasel to totally F&^% with us. And aloow him and ever other LEO carte blanche, to go on fishing expedtions. That is what people are upset about.
Standing up for your rights doesnt make you a criminal.
same as being against the war in Iraq doesnt make you un-patriotic

 

[Molon Labe]

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.

I’m not anti-cop. God knows we need cops. and while I believe most cops are good, I believe too many (20%?) have absolutely no respect for a person's inalienable rights.

I won't bore you with them, but I could relate numerous instances of me being harassed by local (and rogue) cops when I was a late teenager, and for absolutely no good reason. I've also heard way too many stories – even from other cops - about immoral and unconstitutional actions conducted by rogue LEOs.

But I don’t dwell on it… just as most cops are "on guard" when pulling someone over, I am always "on guard" when interacting with an LEO.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Of course it’s workable. It’s the same principle as parking citations! No drivers present there usually, but most tickets stick. So what if some citations are successfully contested in court? This already happens.

Why risk officers’ lives for faulty taillights and expired registration stickers?

Parking citations where I work are $10.00 per violation and it’s not even reported to the state, no criminal/drivers history entry, and no insurance/extortion inquiry anything.

Just pay the tax… Uhhh fine and be done with it.

Most all officers I know understand the hazards of traffic stops just as we understand the hazards of answering a domestic in progress or answering the hold up alarm at the community bank in town for the 10,000 time…

The one time we let our guard down is the one time it’s real.

 

[Igloodude]

Thanks Weasel, I think you have done a fine job explaining the laws and offering honest advice. If you ever pull me over, I will say, "Aren't you The Federalist Weasel?" and we will end up having a nice conversation.

Only catch is, if you get pulled over in Georgia you're probably facing 1000-to-1 odds that it is him, and I'm not sure you'll get a positive reaction from most police if you ask them if they're federalist weasels.

On the whole I concur with you, most here seem to have missed TFW's Devil's Advocate stance. I've learned a lot from the thread so far...

 

[R.H. Lee]

I somehow suspect I would get along just fine with FW during a roadside stop. Other than CA plates on the car and me having no accent whatsoever except maybe a slight damnyankee twang, he'd have no reason to roust me.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

and I'm not sure you'll get a positive reaction from most police if you ask them if they're federalist weasels.

 

[Byron Quick]

Things are a bit easier on me. I live in Georgia and work in an Emergency Department in South Carolina. When I get stopped in SC, it's usually by an officer who knows me and knows I might be giving him emergency care one bad day. If he knows me then he knows there are firearms in the vehicle. The only possible question would be if I have more than the basic three handguns and a rifle.

My experience in Georgia has been that barring other suspicions the police don't really care. A trooper spotted my 1911 as I bent over to retrieve my dropped wallet one day after he wrote a warning ticket. He asked if I had a permit and I said yes. He didn't ask to see it and we hung out on the shoulder for about a half hour talking about guns, shooting, and hunting.

Got asked,"Any weapons in the truck?" by a Richmond County deputy one day. My answer was,"16 rifles, 4 shotguns, 8 handguns, 10 Mauser Yugo bayonets, a Blackie Collins Bowie, and a 400 year old Japanese katana. Might be a few other odds and ends." He didn't blink an eye. Didn't search the vehicle. Didn't ask to do so. Sent me on my way with,"Have a good day."

I've never had the dubious pleasure of getting stopped in one of the states with screwy laws. I try to avoid these places and when I fail to do so then I have everything in working order and drive very carefully.

I won't lie to a cop at any time. Lying to the police is a felony here in Georgia from what I've read in newspapers. However, I've never heard of a law requiring me to answer questions. I've just found that answering the weapons question is not a problem here.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Got asked,"Any weapons in the truck?" by a Richmond County deputy one day. My answer was,"16 rifles, 4 shotguns, 8 handguns, 10 Mauser Yugo bayonets, a Blackie Collins Bowie, and a 400 year old Japanese katana

I've never tried it, but I'm sure an answer like that almost anywhere in CA would bring out SWAT, helicopters, bomb-sniffing dogs, HAZMAT, and who knows what else. Your name would be at the top of the page, that's for sure.

 

[Byron Quick]

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.

I work closely with many cops in the emergency department. I even have cops bring me donuts

However, I also live in a world where the police are human beings not angels. Maybe you live in a different world.

I know of two officers who were convicted of premeditated murder while on duty and in uniform. They were convicted of shooting my crippled cousin six times in the back of his head from a range of 18 inches. Their main defense was that they thought his walking cane was a firearm. Didn't work. I don't much care for these two people. Is that an example of anti-law enforcement bias?

Riley,
That's one of the reasons you won't be finding me in California on a voluntary basis. Abduction is the only way I'll be there.

 

[Byron Quick]

During a traffic stop, I pull my wallet as I'm stopping my vehicle. I have my driver's license and insurance in hand before the officer exits his car. I then rest both hands dangling out of the window sill with my license and card.

Traffic stops are dangerous for him. If I don't make him nervous then he probably won't feel the need to make me nervous. I like calm officers.

 

[SMLE]

Byron Quick said;

During a traffic stop, I pull my wallet as I'm stopping my vehicle. I have my driver's license and insurance in hand before the officer exits his car. I then rest both hands dangling out of the window sill with my license and card.

I carry my DL and CHL in a little card folio in my left shirt pocket. I can reach for it without my hands going out of sight. I just hand it over and say; "You probably want to see both of these." So far the reaction has always been very positive. I will soon be working in EMS, so I expect to make aquaintance with a fair number of local cops.

 

[Old Dog]

However, I also live in a world where the police are human beings not angels. Maybe you live in a different world.

Huh? Something I said suggested I believe police aren't human beings with the same failings as the rest of us? Actually, I live in the world where, if you treat someone courteously and with respect while they are doing their job, you normally won't have too many problems. Life is too short to worry about the bad apples -- and life is certainly too short to to go through with the attitude that one must automatically assume an adversarial attitude with law enforcement during traffic stops ...

I don't believe in, for example, things such as:

while I believe most cops are good, I believe too many (20%?) have absolutely no respect for a person's inalienable rights.

Hmm. How did you come up with that figure? Why not 19%? Or 23%?

Or:

The laws have been distorted to allow weasel to totally F&^% with us. And aloow him and ever other LEO carte blanche, to go on fishing expedtions.

If this is what you believe working in law enforcement is about, perhaps it's time to get some education, to get to know some law enforcement officers -- and the law itself -- which is mostly set up to PROTECT citizens from law enforcement officers. One of the underlying hypocrisies of many forum posts on the Internet: constant, interminable complaints that the laws are stacked in favor of the criminals or illegal aliens or would-be criminals and that law enforcement agencies don't do enough about enforcing existing laws against criminals and illegal aliens, etc. - BUT -- should someone have a complaint about an unfavorable encounter with law enforcement (or they've heard on an internet forum about someone's brother having an unfavorable encounter with law enforcement -- then the complaints come flooding in that the laws favor the LEOs and are stacked against the law-abiding citizens, while at the time cops and other LE agents have nothing better to do than fabricate probable cause, evidence and just love getting into ugly confrontations with citizens, hooking them up and doing the tons of resultant paperwork. Sheesh!

 

[Specialized]

I'd been trying to ignore that one outrageous remark. I totally agree with you; for someone who wants to be thought of as a responsible gun-owner to make a statement like that ...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. In a similar vein, I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the other tone or content in this thread either. I would like to thank TheFederalistWeasel and others who have contributed to this thread for their patience and for sharing their points of view, research, and experiences. I have learned from it and appreciate it.

I don't believe there's room in this sort of discussion for the veiled threats or antagonistic "observations" like those in some of the posts, or even for anti-cop sentiments. That was not, in my mind, what we were debating at all, and if they are valid opinions I still don't find them worthy or think they have a place here. For those who care, I don't personally hold such an opinion, and if any of my arguments have been construed as such then I wholeheartedly apologize for not having exhibited the eloquence to more exactly describe my position. My point in all of this is that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government powers, and that (in my opinion) both sides of the debate -- LEO's and non-LEO's -- should each respect the other's position enough to regularly put themselves in the other's respective shoes.

Some of my work involves training LEO's (and others), and that coupled with my volunteer work put me in close contact with police officers and brass several days each week. If I had had my poop in a group as a younger man I would very likely have become a LEO myself. For those of you that are currently or formerly LEO's, thank you for your service, and for your dedication to what is a very noble, vitally critical, and supremely challenging means of public service.

And with that, I'm 10-7/OOV. Time to find some dinner.

 

[artherd]

I dont think federal is trying to be vindictive. I think he is being more educational. Maybe it is just coming out wrong. What he is pointing out is maybe things people dont know.

You know, you may well be right. I giving him the benefit of the doubt untill he articulated what HE personally would do in a situation in which a compliant suspect wished to confer with his counsul and had not been directed against doing so.

Though perhaps he was still playing devil's advocate.

Hopefully I provided a vaild 'counter-point'

 

[artherd]

I have a little word of advise for you Weasel, you seem to like to bully people into thinking you will arrest them and then they will have to spend a lot of money hiring lawyers to fight your trumped up BS charges. I have to tell you buddy, one day, your going to pick on someone that doesn't mind "wasteing" all that money to preserve their consitutional rights. And you my friend will soon have a hard time finding a job guarding an ice-cream stand. With an LEO like you, I hope your dept has some good lawyers because you are a walking liability. I now know why I carry in my wallet my license, registration, insurance and a bunch of telephone numbers to all my lawyer friends.

All cops who like to 'bend' the law to the breaking point in the name of intimidation, cajoleing, etc. will eventually meet a person with the money, time, and determination to deal with said officer in a fully legal mannar.

Hey, cops who don't break the law have nothing to worry about, so there's no problem, right?

 

[Phil Ca]

As a person who has walked in two camps at the same time as a federal officer and a police reserve officer I have seen interesting aspects of both. even with all my years in uniform and out I still get a quasi-nervous feeling when I am followed to closely by a patrol car.

One time I was driving a rental car outside Louisville when a County officer turned on his lights and followed me and stopped me. It was late and I was a bit in a hurry while heading to Fort Knox. The officer asked me if I had noticed my speed and where was I was heading? I told him that my rental car was a tad quicker than my family car and that I was going down to visit our field office. He looked at my license and ID and smiled and said to take it a bit slower and have a good night. I thanked him and drove off more slowly.

Another time in the Napa Valley I was driving home after being gone for several days and I was about 10 miles over the limit. The CHP officer that stopped me knew me and issued me a ticket for only five over the limit. The ticket did not do anyting to my insurance or my license but I did decide to "slow down and live" if just for the sake of my family I was going home to see. The CHP officer was know to be a fair ticket writer in that he would have ticketed his own mother.

In San francisco I have dealt with cops that in some cases appreciated a federal presence and some that did not like it. I have on occasion made an arrest while out of my specific jurisdiction but the SFPD handled the pick up and booking and in one case I was given a citation from the chief for coming to the aid of an elderly man that had been attacked by a street thug. I had requested a young man to assist me with the violent suspect and we subdued him and held him for the patrol car. The young guy I had helping me did not stay around to give his name as he seemed a bit nervous seeing so many cops appear.

One time I was going from one of our offices to my main office when I walked down a very windy street. An undercover police unit was just responding to an altercation not far fromwhere I was walking. As the unit pulled up past me the wind caugjt my jcket and blew the coat tail out of my hand exposing the 2" revolver I was carrying. I saw the officer on the passenger mouth the word "GUN!" to his partner as they stopped. I palmed my badge case and turned slowly with my arms extended and told the first officer, "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours." He smiled and waved me on.

One time in San Jose I was attending a survival seminar with a lot of notable speakers with many booths showing products or services. Larry Pratt and Jack Mclamb and a couple of well known financial wizards were there. I was with another federal officer and when we were talking to someone some character from a booth overheard us and came out and loudly said, "These guys are Feds and should be arrested!!!" He attempted to place an arm on me but stopped when we gave him a rather hard look and let him know we were both conservative and US Constitutional believing Feds. Some other attendees told him to get back in his booth.

When you stop to consider the make up of the police in this country you find that some jurisdictions have all college trained officers and some don't. Nowadays there are more of the former but some years ago an officer did not need a college degree as much as an uncle on the force. In some of the more rural areas you have some very reasonable level-headed officers and a few bubbas. The rural officers are more likely hunters and fisher folk and are more likely to appreciates helpful and sometimes armed citizens. In the city you find less tolerance of armed citizens and more of a 'us and them" attitude.

During the late 60's and the 70's with the "equal opportunity" crowd in charge you saw a number of black officers promoted to sergeant and many did not live up to the requiremnet of the job. That seems to be on the wane but it sure took a toll on the good officers that were relegated to the back of the promotion list due to government edict.

When I attended the federal police training school known as FLETC in Georgia we were advised that we should not get into any trouble in the surrounding counties in Georgia. One group of three US Treasury Agents were in a small bar in a rural area when the local sheriff came in and asked who that US Government vehicle belonged to. When the agents said it was their car the sheriff told them thay had 5 minutes to get out of his county. They left and went to a more amicable place.

During my years with a federal agency I had occasion to travel and I always took the opportunity to talk to local police in Boston, Kenebunkport, Washington D.C., NYC, Denver, Philadelphia, Kentucky and Chicago as well as other places. In Maine I talked to a small town cop that was more of a constable than a police officer. In NYC the cops were more officious yet still courteous. In SF I have met the gamut from friendly and decent, to outright uncivil and sorely in need of a blanket party.

The police have a tough job trying to sort out all the rules and laws that they are supposed to deal with and then to try to be fair and deal with the citizens in a proper manner. Than they have to cope with the gang problem and keep people from killing each other when they more than likely would just as soon see them do each other in.

The job of a police officer now is a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' type of job. I am not looking forward the day that all the police are federalized but I do believe that day is coming. I have more on that subject in a future post.

 

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

....In New Jersey

The correct answer (in my book anyways) is......

A) Nope, no illegal guns in the car. (A true statement)

This state is hostile when it comes to firearms.
My guns are legal hence the question, "Any drugs or firearms in your vehicle?"

"No. There are no "ILLEGAL" guns in this vehicle officer."

Everything is locked up legally, legally owned and out of sight. If he is after me for my gun possession he will check the vehicle anyway no matter what I answer.

For those of you thinking, "If it is all legally owned and transported why not tell him that you have guns?"

You definitely have not lived in this state!


RW3

 

[rlq9thrk]

concerning the original questions

My being involved in a traffic stop is far from "routine". Last time was at least 15 years ago, only 3 or 4 times since I started driving. In all cases both the officer and I were quite courteous and the officer never asked any questions about guns or anything else in the car.

If I were traveling through states other than mine and had concealed-weapon reciprocity with my state, I would be carrying, otherwise not.

If I were stopped in a state that requires CWPermittees to notify the officer, I would hand over the permit, driver license, and auto registration when advised. My state does not require such notification, but I would do the same here. And if it were at night, I would turn on the interior light to give the officer a good view. The state law here allows the officer to disarm me during the stop if he or she wishes. I would answer any questions, but there are never any other firearms or contraband in my vehicle and I never drink more than 1 beer per day (frequently 0 beer per day), so I would not expect any problems.

I would cooperate fully with the officer and would not hesitate to comply with any request or demand. I would not know laws about what the officer could or could not do and would not allow my ignorance to cause any problems.

To me, being disagreeable with a police officer would be similar to standing in the path of a tornado because I felt I had the right to stand my ground.

 

[Specialized]

For those of you thinking, "If it is all legally owned and transported why not tell him that you have guns?"

You definitely have not lived in this state!

As soon as I read this I realized I had neglected to mention where I live. The area of this state (IL) where I live is that way as well. If the cops in Chicago or many of the surrounding jurisdictions find out you have a weapon in the car, legal or otherwise, the game is definitely afoot. The majority of cops up here are convinced that (presence of firearm) = (up to no good). In the City of Chicago it's the worst, Cook County and the close suburbs it's (MAYBE) slightly better, and the more distant suburbs you're taking your chances. One of my friends is a local Police Chief, and his take on it is "Out of sight, out of mind". Some of them aren't so laid back about it.

The fastest way I know of to get the sh*t beaten out of yourself is to be young, driving a nice car, and caught in Chicago with a gun in your car. Maybe it's some sort of sick and twisted "tough love" thing or something, but it definitely a no-no to be found even with a legal gun in a car. The Daley administration, like so may before him including his father, like to blame all their crime woes on those evil guns and their easy availability to what he must believe were perfect angels prior to their acquisition of said evil. Daley has demonized guns and given them the status of evil spirits during his entire time as mayor. He has repeatedly picked weak "Yes-men" as police superintendents so that he can pick and choose what laws get enforced, against whom, and when, without any fear of the police brass growing a brain and opposing his wishes.

The Chicago Police have even had a task force for the last few years whose sole purpose appears to be to work with the ATF to close down gun shops that they believe are "running guns" to gangbangers. Mind you, the evidence in these investigations are very seldom proven valid, but that doesn't stop them. Illinois is also in trouble with the Justice Department for keeping a database of gun owners and gun data from the background check information that goes through the IL State Police; even though the courts have told them to destroy that database, they have flatly refused to do so repeatedly. This is the same information that, by federal law, is supposed to be destroyed after some number of days once the approval or denial has gone through.

So when a cop asks one of the locals here whether he/she has "guns in the vehicle", they must assume that it's a loaded question that may very well result in the confiscation of the gun(s), the filing of any and all charges the cop's imagination can come up with (quite possibly including "Impersonating a Pinata", if you don't cheerfully waive your rights), loss of your Firearm Owner's ID card (mandatory in IL to possess weapons or purchase ammo), and a protracted legal battle just to keep your shiny @ss out of jail, whether you're found guilty or not. By the time they've dropped or reduced the charges, you've at the very least lost your confiscated weapons for good and usually they're telling you that in consideration of the "favor" they're doing for you, you must make some sort of deal with the devil before they'll let you loose, usually agreeing to plead guilty to some lesser crime. The lawyers around here will tell you to take the deal, because if you don't the courts will almost certainly side with the cops, and then you're really lost.

Did I mention that residents of Chicago are not allowed to own or possess a handgun, unless you owned it and registered it with the city prior to 1984 and have re-registered it (at a pretty hefty cost) faithfully every year since then? You can still register long guns, but not handguns, and you can forget anything that even approaches a useful tactical rifle -- those are illegal too. That should tell you what the folks up here think of guns.

As I think about it, the last two presidential elections quite handily showed how votes in less populated areas count for more than those in heavily populated areas. Why do you suppose the framers of state constitutions didn't come up with similar protections? Then we wouldn't have population centers' corrupt politicians dictating their ways upon the rest of the state. Just a thought.