Obligation to Notify vs. Advised to Notify - Virginia

[BlisteringSilence]

BlisteringSilence, in my state, I am not required to notify the officer that I am carrying a weapon. Nothing in the fact that I chose not to notify him is a LIE, "of omission" or otherwise. The matter is not pertinent to the stop. I have no obligation, duty, or moral compunction to offer that information -- or any other information not having to do with the matter of my traffic violation. Is it a lie of omission that I don't also tell him what I ate for dinner, the color of my socks, or anything else I might know that doesn't have anything to do with why we're having the little roadside chat?

I'm not saying that you have to notify, and nothing I wrote should be misconstrued to say so. I agree with your statements above. However, I still maintain that it's a good idea to notify the officer. You are more than welcome to disagree with me, and as I don't have any firsthand experience with your local law enforcement, I can't speak to your local customs and experiences. However, I would ask that you extend to me the same courtesy. Arkansas is a very, very, VERY different place than Pennsylvania.

Also, the straw man about the color of your socks, while cute, doesn't help the strength of your argument.

That doesn't make me a criminal, and gives the officer no probable cause to put me on the pavement. An officer who discovers somehow that I am armed, and prones me out because of that fact alone, will be discussing the matter with his Chief at the very least. The presence of a weapon does not equate to me presenting a deadly threat to him.

See, this is where we diverge. While I agree that a concealed weapon in and of itself is not enough to warrant an investigation (also, I don't need probable cause to engage an investigative detention), you have to look at the totality of the circumstances. Not only do you have a concealed weapon, but you chose to not tell me about it (deception). That is sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain you and investigate you further, and the presence of the deadly weapon means that I am going to do it in the manner that is the safest for me. Since I work in rural areas, where backup is a long, long way away, you're getting proned out. You're welcome to speak with the Sheriff about it, but I don't think you're going to get the outcome you're looking for.

Further, and perhaps you missed this point before, I have perfectly sound reasons for not wanting to introduce the presence of my firearm as a topic of discussion with the officer. It isn't a matter of proving that I'm a good guy or not a criminal. Officers' responses to such information tend to be all over the map. Some are very bad. In my state, there is a precedent of a serious abuse of a misguided system that has prompted some officers to confiscate legally-owned firearms from drivers. I'm going to avoid that if I at all can.

Again, while I see the reasons behind motivation, I neither personally agree with them nor can I professionally recommend them as wise. That being said, one must keep in mind the regional differences in mindset and training between officers in your locale and mine. Unless you're NavyLCDR, it's not a matter of right and wrong, or black and white. But, as I don't have the same knowledge and experience as you, I can't say how I would act were I in your shoes.

I'm sorry, officer, I simply will not waive my 4th Amendment rights for the sake of speed and courtesy during our interaction (and I can certainly refuse to waive my 4th amendment rights and remain courteous while doing so, so courtesy really has nothing to do with it). And I certainly will not engage in a voluntary encounter with a police officer who is incapable of engaging in a mature, rational or professional discussion.

Did I ever suggest that you waive your 4th amendment rights? Ever? Show me where I did. Telling the officer that you are armed and have a license for it does not waive your 4th amendment rights any more than not telling him and he finding out some other way. You are free to act as you want. That's one of the reasons this country is so great. But all actions have consequences, and I simply trying to point out some of the potential ones to your stated desired actions.

I think your fundamental issue is that you have a vastly different interpretation of unreasonable than the Supreme Court.

I've got to ask, apparently BlisteringSilence, you consider not saying anything to be a 'lie of omission'. So, does that mean I should sit there racking my brain for any potentially dangerous object in my car if pulled over, lest I lie to the officer? Should I mention the tire iron in my trunk? Should I tell you "My car has gas", after all, I could do some damage to you with that...

What if I just have a small pocket knife I always carry around, should I jump to saying that I have a knife in my pocket?

The only reason to tell the officer is if the law requires it, and if you assume every person that ran a stop sign or sped a bit to be a hardened criminal if you notice one of those many things if they didn't jump up and tell you, then, honestly, I have a feeling it's only a matter of time until you get your department sued, unless your posts are internet bravado.

I treat every traffic stop as if the driver is going to pull out a gun and kill me. Traffic stops are the most dangerous action regularly undertaken by the police. More of us are killed or wounded by gunfire each year doing traffic stops than any other activity. The moment you get complacent is the moment that you get killed. It's a very different mindset than what 99.9% of the U.S. is used to.

 

[N003k]

You know, that might almost be a strawman if not for some of the statements you've made such as

'While I agree that a concealed weapon in and of itself is not enough to warrant an investigation (also, I don't need probable cause to engage an investigative detention), you have to look at the totality of the circumstances. Not only do you have a concealed weapon, but you chose to not tell me about it (deception).'

Can a pocket knife not be used as a weapon? What if a tire iron is out of sight in my back seat for some reason, is that not a concealed weapon, granted not concealed on my person?

You're taking the stance that if someone doesn't inform you they have a weapon concealed on them, yet you discover it some other way, that suddenly they should be proned out and treated as if they intended to use it on you all along. If I'm misinterpreted your position, please, feel free to correct me. I'll grant the car bit was an exaggeration however. By that logic though, why stop at a gun, why not a knife? What if somethings in the glovebox, like a long knife? What if the traffic stop is nearly over (citation/warning issued, about to send them on their way) and you discover they had something in the car? Will you still treat them to a taste of dirt?

What do YOU consider a concealed weapon? On the person only? Or around them? What do you consider a weapon? Tire iron? Pocket knife? hunting knife in the back seat?

Hell, what if I'm just plain tired, heading home from work, and forget I had something that you would consider a concealed weapon, and didn't even think to tell you?

What if I DO have a concealed handgun on me legally, since the law says I don't have to tell you, chose not to tell you, and have been perfectly calm, rational, even friendly, and you notice it printing when I put things back in my glovebox? Do I still get to eat dirt/pavement?

YOU took the stance of proning someone out if they didn't (as they are not required to by law) inform you of having a concealed weapon, I'm just trying to clarify the position, and STILL maintain if you actually prone someone out because they legally have a gun, haven't shown themselves to be a threat, but just didn't tell you they had it, and you do that every single time, you are just begging for the wrong person with enough time and money to file a lawsuit against your department. Treat every traffic stop as the risk it is, by all means. But I'd say the same thing if you proned everyone out that was speeding, or everyone that reached into their glovebox to get their registration and insurance out, and honestly, you don't sound too far off from it.

 

[Sam1911]

However, I still maintain that it's a good idea to notify the officer. You are more than welcome to disagree with me, and as I don't have any firsthand experience with your local law enforcement, I can't speak to your local customs and experiences. However, I would ask that you extend to me the same courtesy. Arkansas is a very, very, VERY different place than Pennsylvania.

I don't buy it. The legal code may be different, but the fact is the physical reality of the situation doesn't change just because you're far south of me. If someone is not legally required to tell you something, them choosing not to tell you does not indicate that they are a threat. You should be neither more nor less on your guard, whether you know they are armed or not -- and whether they are licensed, or not.

Also, the straw man about the color of your socks, while cute, doesn't help the strength of your argument.

Wasn't intended as a straw man, but to illustrate other things that aren't pertinent to the conversation. However, I'll admit I like N003K's examples better. I'm pretty sure I could strangle you with jumper cables if I really wanted to, beat you to death with a tire iron or pool cue, stab you fatally with a screwdriver, or commit any number of other violent acts. But I'm not going to tell you if I'm in possession of those items. And, as I don't intend to do any of those things, those objects aren't pertinent to the conversation. I don't intend to shoot you either, so my gun isn't pertinent, similarly.

Since I work in rural areas, where backup is a long, long way away, you're getting proned out. You're welcome to speak with the Sheriff about it, but I don't think you're going to get the outcome you're looking for.

And that's always the excuse offered. "You can talk to my boss but he'll take my side, so there!" As others have pointed out, that kind of might-makes-right thinking only works until the right lawyer comes along. It would be MUCH wiser for all involved to come up with a better way of handling this without being forced to through a legal judgment.

Again, while I see the reasons behind motivation, I neither personally agree with them nor can I professionally recommend them as wise.

I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm referring to is that the PSP has a documented habit of misusing a sales record database as an owner registration record. If an officer runs you gun's number, and it doesn't appear in the record, the gun is confiscated until some later date at which you petition to have your property returned. That isn't the lawful intent of the database, and since the fact that your gun does not appear in that database is NOT indicative of any crime, the taking is not just or in accordance with the law. This is a hassle, a (seemingly clear) 4th Amendment violation, and an almost certain monetary loss (if nothing else, in terms of time off work to deal with recovery of the firearm).

So when I say, "no thanks, I don't need my gun's numbers run," I know from whence I speak. And I'd imagine you can agree with that point of view.

That being said, one must keep in mind the regional differences in mindset and training between officers in your locale and mine. Unless you're NavyLCDR, it's not a matter of right and wrong, or black and white.

Again, I don't see any way to claim, "we don't do it that way 'round these parts" as a legitimate excuse for this kind of behavior from the "servers and protectors" toward the "servees and protectees." While I won't put it in terms as vitriolic as NLCDR, I agree with his view.

In essence: let's all just keep our guns safely holstered and we'll all go home safe and sound.

 

[BlisteringSilence]

Can a pocket knife not be used as a weapon? What if a tire iron is out of sight in my back seat for some reason, is that not a concealed weapon, granted not concealed on my person?

Yes, both can be used as a weapon. However, neither of them are an immediate danger to me while you are sitting in the passenger compartment of your vehicle. A firearm is. Certainly you can agree on this.

You're taking the stance that if someone doesn't inform you they have a weapon concealed on them, yet you discover it some other way, that suddenly they should be proned out and treated as if they intended to use it on you all along. If I'm misinterpreted your position, please, feel free to correct me. I'll grant the car bit was an exaggeration however. By that logic though, why stop at a gun, why not a knife? What if somethings in the glovebox, like a long knife? What if the traffic stop is nearly over (citation/warning issued, about to send them on their way) and you discover they had something in the car? Will you still treat them to a taste of dirt?

Again, that's why you have to consider the totality of the circumstances, and this is not a black and white job. Police work is TERRIBLE for absolutists.

Guns are different from knives, tire irons, and other weapons. In fact, they're so different that they got their own amendment to the constitution, which I personally think is pretty cool. That being said, I don't fear a man lunging out his driver's window at me with a knife (even a Paul Hogan special). I have training on how to deal with that. But a man who conceals a pistol and doesn't alert me to it's presence, is presumed to be breaking the law and will be treated thus until confirmation otherwise.

What do YOU consider a concealed weapon? On the person only? Or around them? What do you consider a weapon? Tire iron? Pocket knife? hunting knife in the back seat?

Hell, what if I'm just plain tired, heading home from work, and forget I had something that you would consider a concealed weapon, and didn't even think to tell you?

The law, legislative and case, defines what is a concealed weapon. My interpretation has nothing to do with it. That being said, the definition is pretty damn broad. But again, firearms are treated differently than other weapons because of the immediate danger they present.

What if I DO have a concealed handgun on me legally, since the law says I don't have to tell you, chose not to tell you, and have been perfectly calm, rational, even friendly, and you notice it printing when I put things back in my glovebox? Do I still get to eat dirt/pavement?

Again, it depends. But likely yes, we're going to go from traffic to felony stop in as little time as it takes me to draw my weapon. You are now displaying primae facia evidence of a crime, which I am going to investigate. I am going to use the safest manner of investigation possible, with the following order of importance:

1. Everyone else
2. Me
3. You

YOU took the stance of proning someone out if they didn't (as they are not required to by law) inform you of having a concealed weapon, I'm just trying to clarify the position, and STILL maintain if you actually prone someone out because they legally have a gun, haven't shown themselves to be a threat, but just didn't tell you they had it, and you do that every single time, you are just begging for the wrong person with enough time and money to file a lawsuit against your department. Treat every traffic stop as the risk it is, by all means. But I'd say the same thing if you proned everyone out that was speeding, or everyone that reached into their glovebox to get their registration and insurance out, and honestly, you don't sound too far off from it.

First off, the fact that I am consistent in my actions is a defense against these kinds of suits, not evidence. Everyone gets treated the same, no matter if you're a black guy in jeancos and '88 Cutlass Classic or a white guy in a suit and a 2011 BMW. I don't profile because, frankly, it doesn't work.

Secondly, I don't know if your concealed gun is legal or illegal until I investigate. And because I value my life and my safety, I am going to put you on the ground until I know you're disarmed.

OR, you can avoid all of it by being considerate of my concerns and safety, as well as your own, and just politely mention to me that "I have a valid CHL and I have my pistol [in location X]." Honesty, professionalism, respect. It's a two way street. If you're solid with me, I'll be solid with you.

But, it's up to you. You're not legally obligated to inform me that you're packing heat. You won't go to jail for not telling me. You are perfectly within your rights to withhold that information. Again, I don't recommend it.

Side note: in the last 5 years, do you know how often I've proned out someone who had a valid CHL and was concealing a gun? Once. And that guy was so drunk, he didn't know where he was or where he was going. He forgot about the gun entirely. So this discussion, while interesting from an academic perspective, is almost moot.

 

[BlisteringSilence]

I don't buy it. The legal code may be different, but the fact is the physical reality of the situation doesn't change just because you're far south of me. If someone is not legally required to tell you something, them choosing not to tell you does not indicate that they are a threat. You should be neither more nor less on your guard, whether you know they are armed or not -- and whether they are licensed, or not.

You're welcome to buy it or not buy it as you wish. The legal code, as well as how it is interpreted by our local courts system, is what guides our training and actions. My level of alertness is never lowered during a traffic stop, but it can certainly be raised.

Wasn't intended as a straw man, but to illustrate other things that aren't pertinent to the conversation. However, I'll admit I like N003K's examples better. I'm pretty sure I could strangle you with jumper cables if I really wanted to, beat you to death with a tire iron or pool cue, stab you fatally with a screwdriver, or commit any number of other violent acts. But I'm not going to tell you if I'm in possession of those items. And, as I don't intend to do any of those things, those objects aren't pertinent to the conversation. I don't intend to shoot you either, so my gun isn't pertinent, similarly.

As I replied to N003K, the difference is that a gun can easily cause my death from inside the passenger compartment with little to no noticeable actions on your part. The same is not true for the rest of the weapons you cited.

And that's always the excuse offered. "You can talk to my boss but he'll take my side, so there!" As others have pointed out, that kind of might-makes-right thinking only works until the right lawyer comes along. It would be MUCH wiser for all involved to come up with a better way of handling this without being forced to through a legal judgment.

It has nothing to do with might makes right. Felony stop procedures have developed over the last 30 years of legislative and case (mainly case) law. The presence of a firearm has long been established as grounds to initiate a felony stop.

I'm not sure I follow you. What I'm referring to is that the PSP has a documented habit of misusing a sales record database as an owner registration record. If an officer runs you gun's number, and it doesn't appear in the record, the gun is confiscated until some later date at which you petition to have your property returned. That isn't the lawful intent of the database, and since the fact that your gun does not appear in that database is NOT indicative of any crime, the taking is not just or in accordance with the law. This is a hassle, a (seemingly clear) 4th Amendment violation, and an almost certain monetary loss (if nothing else, in terms of time off work to deal with recovery of the firearm).

So when I say, "no thanks, I don't need my gun's numbers run," I know from whence I speak. And I'd imagine you can agree with that point of view.

Because I have no knowledge of the system of which you speak, I'm not going to pass judgement. However, if it does indeed operate in the manner in which you describe it, I would have serious issues with it. Not that I doubt you, but there's more than one side to every story.

Moreover, I'd like to go off on a tangent for a moment: Down here, we're nuts about the 4th Amendment. If not for a respect for it (which would me many if not most of the officers), then for a desire to make our cases stick. We don't want to have a case thrown out for 4th Amendment issues, because that reflects poorly on me as an officer. Not to mention, do you have any idea how much paperwork it is to seize a firearm? The ONLY way I'm going to do that is if it's evidence in an actual, serious, crime.

Back OT.

Again, I don't see any way to claim, "we don't do it that way 'round these parts" as a legitimate excuse for this kind of behavior from the "servers and protectors" toward the "servees and protectees." While I won't put it in terms as vitriolic as NLCDR, I agree with his view.

In essence: let's all just keep our guns safely holstered and we'll all go home safe and sound.

You don't buy regional differences as an excuse for what kind of behavior? I don't think I'm alone in my views here.

 

[N003k]

I think if you leave me in my car and I really want to cause you harm, odds are I can turn the car on and send a 2 ton chunk of metal hurling at you before you can respond...so the gun probably should be the least of your worries in that regard.

As far as totality of the circumstances being considered...YOU'RE the one sitting here saying you'll do that every time. Then saying you only did it once, then saying if you are sued it'll go in your favor since you have it as a blanket policy.

the fact that I am consistent in my actions is a defense against these kinds of suits

in the last 5 years, do you know how often I've proned out someone who had a valid CHL and was concealing a gun? Once. And that guy was so drunk, he didn't know where he was or where he was going. He forgot about the gun entirely

So, which is it? Do you only do this in extenuating circumstances, or do you do it for every person with a gun, that doesn't tell you they have it but you somehow discover they do?

As far as weapons go, if the right person decides they want to stab you, odds are they'll wait til your nice and close and probably hide it by the door, so, once again, knives are a threat, if you don't consider them one...well, here's hoping you don't run into someone that decides to prove otherwise to you.

Look, think whatever you want, but as I said before, if you keep making that assumption, and actually DO prone them all out at gunpoint like you claim you do, though given your "I've only actually had to do it once" statement where the person was drunk, I have a bit of a feeling its more bravado than fact, then it really is only a matter of time until you piss the wrong person off. Make all the claims you want, but when a high dollar lawyers representing a client with a valid permit you proned out at gunpoint because he didn't notify you, despite not having a legal requirement to do so, all your arguments are going to go out the window.

Maybe you'll never be unlucky enough to do it to someone with enough money and time to sue, maybe you will, until then, keep doing it if you so choose, I'll just make sure to stay out of any part of Arkansas I know you patrol.

With that, I'm ducking out of this.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'll just make sure to stay out of any part of Arkansas I know you patrol.

Why alter your plans/path simply because of what some blow-hard cop threatens he will do to you?

 

[N003k]

@NavyLCDR: To be fair, I never actually foresee myself travelling through Arkansas, and I suppose even if I were to go through the state, I wouldn't in fact make any effort to avoid it. However that statement sounds a lot better than: "While I never see myself travelling through your state, if I shall, I won't make any attempt to avoid the area you patrol, however I vehemently disagree with your position!"

@Johnny: That does make a bit of a difference, the problem is BlisteringSilence, the officer from there has said in previous posts he'd do that, and I'm paraphrasing 'although you'd go home after' (See post 42) That would have been a simple reasoning, the problem is, it sounds like from the way he's phrasing it he either doesn't realize they have to inform, or more likely, doesn't care, and would do it whether there was a legal requirement or not to inform.

 

[JRH6856]

What I have learned from this discussion is that in the state of Arkansas,

1. it is illegal to have a firearm accessable on or about my person in a vehicle.

2. it is an affirmative defense if I have a valid CHL.

3. I am required by law to inform an LEO of BOTH conditions if I am stopped.

BECAUSE the first condition applies BEFORE the second. By having access to a firearm, I appear to be in violation of the law. If I seek to hide that fact, it will be assumed to be an indication of guilt and I will be likely treated accordingly.

OTOH, if I readily admit to the act AND offer a valid CHL as proof of an affirmative defense, I am complying with the law, there is no indication of guilt and I also will likely be treated accordingly. (This act on my part is a likely to good idea even in the absence of a legal requirement to do so, except in Pennsylvania.)

This is good to know because I am likely to be traveling in Arkansas at some time, and not likely to be traveling in Pennsylvania.

Now, there have been a lot of objections to this by people asking should they also disclose the presence of a tire iron, gasoline, or the color of their socks. IMHO, if having a tire iron, gasoline or socke of that particular color are illegal in Arkansas and if you have a valid permit to posess them, then yes. Otherwise, don't be caught with them in Arkansas. Sheesh.

 

[BlisteringSilence]

I think if you leave me in my car and I really want to cause you harm, odds are I can turn the car on and send a 2 ton chunk of metal hurling at you before you can respond...so the gun probably should be the least of your worries in that regard.

Fair point. But there are ways for me to minimize being hit by your car.

As far as totality of the circumstances being considered...YOU'RE the one sitting here saying you'll do that every time. Then saying you only did it once, then saying if you are sued it'll go in your favor since you have it as a blanket policy.

I've never pepper sprayed anyone either. That doesn't stop me from using my policies and procedures as a defense in the event that I have to do so in the future.

So, which is it? Do you only do this in extenuating circumstances, or do you do it for every person with a gun, that doesn't tell you they have it but you somehow discover they do?

Gun = Felony Stop

As far as weapons go, if the right person decides they want to stab you, odds are they'll wait til your nice and close and probably hide it by the door, so, once again, knives are a threat, if you don't consider them one...well, here's hoping you don't run into someone that decides to prove otherwise to you.

Again, I never said knives are not a threat. But they are significantly less of a threat to me when you're seated in your car, and I'm standing next to it. One step can get me out of range. The same is not true with a gun, and surely you're not trying to make the two equivalent.

Look, think whatever you want, but as I said before, if you keep making that assumption, and actually DO prone them all out at gunpoint like you claim you do, though given your "I've only actually had to do it once" statement where the person was drunk, I have a bit of a feeling its more bravado than fact, then it really is only a matter of time until you piss the wrong person off. Make all the claims you want, but when a high dollar lawyers representing a client with a valid permit you proned out at gunpoint because he didn't notify you, despite not having a legal requirement to do so, all your arguments are going to go out the window.

I said it before, I'll say it again. Gun = Felony Stop

Maybe you'll never be unlucky enough to do it to someone with enough money and time to sue, maybe you will, until then, keep doing it if you so choose, I'll just make sure to stay out of any part of Arkansas I know you patrol.

With that, I'm ducking out of this.

You know, I get threats of lawsuits every day I work. They're like water on a duck's back at this point. Sue, don't sue, I really don't care. Of all the suits in which I've been named, I've yet to have one even make it to the settlement offer stage.

And you're welcome to visit Central Arkansas any time you wish. But people down here are apparently a little different than the parts you hail from. You might want to check your attitude at the state line, relax, and just have a good time. And avoid Little Rock south of 630 and north of 30.

In Arkansas ,it is required that you notify the officer if carrying.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/

@Johnny: That does make a bit of a difference, the problem is BlisteringSilence, the officer from there has said in previous posts he'd do that, and I'm paraphrasing 'although you'd go home after' (See post 42) That would have been a simple reasoning, the problem is, it sounds like from the way he's phrasing it he either doesn't realize they have to inform, or more likely, doesn't care, and would do it whether there was a legal requirement or not to inform.

Yes, that is the curious thing about the exchanges between BS,you and others.It is like ignoring the elephant in the room.
There is no choice in Arkansas and 9 other states.Informing is the law. That's why I threw up post #56.To reveal that point.

OK, just so that we're clear on this, it is NOT a criminal offense to fail or refuse to notify a law enforcement officer of your CHL status if you're carrying.

The provision that requires notification is an administrative rule (which is legal, but not criminal), and violation of the rule only subjects the license holder to suspension or revocation of his license.

Because this is an administrative rule, it is (from what we were taught when they changed the rules in 2009) only applicable to those who hold an Arkansas CHL, thereby not applying to N003k when he doesn't drive through, or MicroTecniqs when he does.

The only absolute notification rule has nothing to do with Law Enforcement: when entering a private home, you are required to notify the homeowner(s).

Does that muddle things up sufficiently?

What I have learned from this discussion is that in the state of Arkansas,

1. it is illegal to have a firearm accessable on or about my person in a vehicle.

2. it is an affirmative defense if I have a valid CHL.

3. I am required by law to inform an LEO of BOTH conditions if I am stopped.

BECAUSE the first condition applies BEFORE the second. By having access to a firearm, I appear to be in violation of the law. If I seek to hide that fact, it will be assumed to be an indication of guilt and I will be likely treated accordingly.

OTOH, if I readily admit to the act AND offer a valid CHL as proof of an affirmative defense, I am complying with the law, there is no indication of guilt and I also will likely be treated accordingly. (This act on my part is a likely to good idea even in the absence of a legal requirement to do so, except in Pennsylvania.)

This is good to know because I am likely to be traveling in Arkansas at some time, and not likely to be traveling in Pennsylvania.

Now, there have been a lot of objections to this by people asking should they also disclose the presence of a tire iron, gasoline, or the color of their socks. IMHO, if having a tire iron, gasoline or socke of that particular color are illegal in Arkansas and if you have a valid permit to posess them, then yes. Otherwise, don't be caught with them in Arkansas. Sheesh.

Other than #3, exactly. Fair warning, anyone caught wearing yellow socks on Thursday is subject to summary execution on the side of the road.

 

[JRH6856]

I said it before, I'll say it again. Gun = Felony Stop

Or perhaps, undisclosed and subsequently discovered Gun = Felony Stop?

I stand corrected on #3. (but I'm still telling)

 

[BlisteringSilence]

Or perhaps, undisclosed and subsequently discovered Gun = Felony Stop?

Good correction.

I stand corrected on #3. (but I'm still telling)

And thank you.

 

[Bovice]

Why alter your plans/path simply because of what some blow-hard cop threatens he will do to you?

It isn't worth the hassle and I'd rather not spend a minute of my time explaining myself to a self-righteous boy scout.

That's my logic anyway.

 

[AirForceShooter]

"What actions should I take if I’m approached by a police officer?
* Follow the officer’s instructions
* Keep your hands clearly visible
* Make slow and deliberate movements
* If a weapon is present:
. 1. Verbally inform the officer of its exact location
. 2. Do not make any gestures towards the weapon
. 3. State whether you possess a concealed handgun permit
. 4. Wait for specific instructions before making any movements
. 5. Remain calm and do not become argumentative
Cooperation can greatly reduce the time you are detained"


Too many steps.
If you notify for whatever reason.

Hand the LEO yout CCW with the other stuff
Keep your hands on the whell
Ask what the LEO wants you to do.

AFS

 

[shootinxd]

WOW,I think this has gotten to be one of the most heated threads in a while.Cops have a hard enough time doing thier job,why make it any harder?I would hand them my PERMIT along with my licence,insurance card and let them dictate how to handle it.Most(not all ) will appreciate you being up front.

 

[NavyLCDR]

WOW,I think this has gotten to be one of the most heated threads in a while.Cops have a hard enough time doing thier job,why make it any harder?I would hand them my PERMIT along with my licence,insurance card and let them dictate how to handle it.Most(not all ) will appreciate you being up front.

My 4th amendment rights are too important to me to waive immediately upon coming into the presence of a stranger wearing a badge and uniform, unless I am required by law to waive them. If the totality of my cooperative actions during a routine stop and pleasant behavior/demeanor/conversation towards the police officer doesn't make his job easy enough - telling him about a gun that is 90% likely not going to be seen or become an issue and that has no bearing on the traffic stop isn't going to do anything more. All that is accomplished is that I have invited the officer to handle my gun without need, to possibly check the serial number of the gun with no reasonable suspicion that it is illegally possessed (a whole different topic by itself), and to check the validity of my CPL <--all three actions entirely a complete waste of time and resources and entirely unrelated to stopping me for 12mph over the speed limit.

 

[Deanimator]

I find it HIGHLY ironic that the Fairfax County police would offer such "advice", given that they committed one of the most egregious violations of rights during a traffic stop of which I'm aware... at least in which nobody was beaten or shot.

A guy from NC was stopped by Fairfax County cops for ALLEGEDLY running a stop sign. When stopped, he unnecessarily notified them that he was carrying, with the following results. He was arrested for:

• Carrying a concealed weapon across state lines (not a crime)
• Having hollowpoints (not a crime)
• Carrying a concealed weapon (with a Virginia recognized credential)

When brought before a magistrate (who EASILY confirmed his out of state credential by calling the number printed on it), he was freed. That magistrate characterized the arrest as a FALSE one. Nobody seems to know why, but he didn't sue the buffoons involved, as well as the Fairfax County PD.

The incident was described in detail on the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) web site.

I've never seen a example of why you should NOT inform where not SPECIFICALLY required to by law.

Ohio requires notification. Thanks to the Harless incident in Canton, that's probably going to change. The ONLY reason to notify is because it's required by law.

 

[Deanimator]

Hand the LEO yout CCW with the other stuff

That would not meet the legal notification requirement in Ohio.

 

[Deanimator]

I guess it's a regional thing, but I (and you) don't have anything to lose by telling an officer (or someone telling me) that they have a legally-carried handgun.

...other than getting falsely arrested for a bunch of imaginary "crimes", which is EXACTLY what the Fairfax County PD did to somebody a few years ago.

Fairfax County PD THEMSELVES demonstrated why you shouldn't notify, and THEM in particular.

 

[Flintknapper]

BlisteringSilence,

Your attitude, policies, training and total distrust of the public is going to come back and bite you (and your dept) someday.

The best thing about it though is this: YOU POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET, it has been quoted and clearly shows your feelings and intents.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen and I hope that not ALL officers (as you imply/stated) have similar views/training.

Wow.

It wouldn't (and doesn't) "fly" here in Texas.

 

[BlisteringSilence]

Nowhere does it mention Arkansas CHL carrier only.It seems to blanket any CHL from any state(reciprocal) quite straightforwardly.

Is there a back story to this Statute from 2009? Handgun Law tries to stay quite up to date.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer. The class that I took on enforcing these rules was 2 years ago, and was pretty boring. For legal advice, consult an attorney admitted to the Arkansas bar who is familiar with both criminal and state regulatory law.

Not so much back story, as the fact that there's no statute involved. The rule that you quoted above is promulgated by the Arkansas State Police, pursuant to the authority granted to them by statute. From the rules:

Rule 1.1 Authority; Purpose
(a) These Rules are issued under the Director’s authority under ACA §§5-73-317, and
§§12-8-104, et seq., and the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act at ACA §§25-15-
201, et seq., among others. The purpose of these Rules is to provide guidelines in
conformity with Arkansas laws as to issuance and governance of applicants for new,
renewal, or transfer licenses to carry a concealed handgun in the State of Arkansas as
issued by the Department of Arkansas State Police; and to provide standards and
guidelines to instructors who train concealed handgun carry license applicants.
(b) These Rules do not address federal law concerning active and retired law
enforcement concealed handgun carry authorization under 18 United States Code § 921
and § 922.
(c) These Rules do not address certified law enforcement officers or retired law
enforcement officers concealed handgun carry authorization under the provisions of
ACA §§12-15-201 and §12-15-202.

Because there is no legislation involved with these rules, there are no new criminal charges that can be defined by them.

Example: the rules say you can't lie on the application, and provide a criminal punishment, but lying on official paperwork is ALREADY a crime. The rules say you have to notify a LEO when you're packing if he asks for your ID, but since refusal to do this is not defined in the statues as a crime, a violation is civil rather than criminal, and is therefore not an arrestable offense.

Or at least that's how it was explained to us. That might be policy from our prosecuting attorney's office, and since we have a new PA since 2009, it might have changed as well. But if it has, no one's told me.

Just for information, below is the entirety of that rule:

Rule 3.2 Contact with law enforcement
(a) While in possession of a concealed handgun, the licensee shall present the original
license for inspection, along with an official form of photo identification, upon request
for identification by any law enforcement officer.
(b) In any official contact with law enforcement, if the licensee IS in possession of a
handgun, when the officer asks the licensee for identification (driver’s license, or
personal information, such as name and date of birth), the licensee shall notify the
officer that he or she holds a concealed handgun carry license and that he or she has a
handgun in his or her possession.
(c) In any official contact with law enforcement, if the licensee IS NOT in possession of
a handgun, when the officer asks the licensee for identification (driver’s license, or
personal information, such as name and date of birth), the licensee shall not be
required to notify the officer that he or she holds a concealed handgun carry license and
does not have a handgun in his or her possession.
(d) An official form of photo identification shall be, but is not limited to, any of the
following:
     (1) Current and valid Arkansas driver's license;
     (2) Current and valid military identification card; or
     (3) Current and valid United States passport.
(e) Reproduced copies of the official form of photo identification or copies of the original
concealed handgun carry license shall not be accepted.

Also, so that we're clear on this, I still recommend that EVERYONE notify at the beginning of a traffic stop, regardless of the criminal or civil implications. That being said, Arkansas CHL holders should be aware that the administrative rules contained in 130.00.08-001 are applicable regardless of what state you're in.

 

[HoboCoastie]

Here in VA, when he runs your plate before encounter, it'll flag that you have a CCP anyway. I haven't been pulled over in VA (knock on wood), but I did get pulled over on my Harley in OH where VA reciprocity is honored and I told the LEO I was carrying and presented my CCP with my DL and MID and he said no problem. He didn't ask to clear it or anything. He even turned his back to me to check the creds of my Dad and our buddy, who ironically was operating without a motorcycle endorsement, with an out of state license, and OTHER out of state plates!!!

The reason we were pulled over in the first place was because an ambulance lied and said we refused to get out of his way with his lights on. <deleted> We moved to the side and he didn't even have to slow down.

Believe it or not the LEO let us go with nothing!!! I shook his hand and thanked him. Coulda been bad news for our buddy.

 

[Art Eatman]

I don't see any sign of anybody changing their views, in this, the umpteenth iteration of this subject...