"Sir, do you have any weapons in the vehicle"?

[Harpo]

I've been guilty of engaging in side discussions, so I too will address the OP:

So, my question to you guys is this; if I were pulled over with lawfully owned and stored guns in my car, what is the best way to reply to the LEO if he asks if I have any weapons in the car?

I can't think of a good, universal answer. My impulse would be to say "Have you stopped beating your wife?", but I know that's wrong. My point is, this is a "fishing" question. Virtually every state allows lawful transportation of firearms, and frankly it is none of the officer's business if I'm carrying any. He stopped me for a reason, and I can be reasonably sure it wasn't for a weapons inspection, because that would be an illegal stop in the first place.

If he's "clearing the area" so he can "safely perform his duty", then I think he's a paranoid nut. And if he's "fishing", he already knows his questions are designed to create tension. The "verbal judo" employed by many officers is nothing less than schoolgirl mind games, and has no place in law enforcement.

The bottom line is that if the officer is trustworthy, he won't play games. If he's not, there is no good answer.

Harpo

 

[Grendel]

In my case a couple of weeks ago in the Sierra foothills of Calif. It went like this.

Red/blue lights in rear view mirror.
County Sheriff pulls me over and approaches car. I have window down and hands on steering wheel. Officer looks in car, looks at me and asks. "Is there anything in that fanny pack I should worry about"

I answer. "I have a Concealed Carry Permit and I am carrying a pistol"

"Please step out of the car" (I do)

"May I have your drivers license and carry permit, please"
I give them to him.

"What are you carrying right now?"

"My Kimber"

"May I see it?"

"Sure" I remove Kimber Pro Carry II, with white bone grips from fanny pack, defang it and hand it to officer with slide locked back.

"Cool" he says. He handles it for a minute then hands it back to me. He asks if I have any warrants out for me. I say if I do, that it is a surprise to me. I ask if I can load the gun and get the OK. I do so.

He calls for warrants, finds none. Comes back and tells me that the reason I was pulled over was because the plastic on my left tail light was broken and my towing ball obscured one or two letters on my license. (aka I was bored).

"I'm not going to give you a ticket, please take care of those and have a good day".

It could have been a lot worse. I was polite, he was polite and living in a rural county, I don't think it is rare for them to encounter CCW's.

Grendel

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Okay, you totally had me convinced that I was crazy... 'cause I couldn't recall asking a direct question to you in this thread.

Anyway, I re-read the entire thread (because I am bored, intrigued, defending my honor, and making sure I'm not completely nuts)... And, I found something out!!! Coyotehitman was actually the one who asked you the question that you responded to in this thread!

Hahaha! Wow, guess I shouldn't stay up past my bedtime posting to THR! My apologies again.

Darn, my ruse to convince you that you were crazy didn't work! I was gonna welcome you to the "Crazy Interwebz Club" and teach you the secret handshake, but now I can't...

In short, be honest, be polite, and 99.9% of the time the officer will return the favor. The exact same goes for officers, if we are polite and respectful, even the meanest most rowdy SOB can and usually is talked into cuffs rather then fought into them. It's a two way street that I personally always try to take advantage of.

You don't know how grateful I am to hear you say this. When the subject of politeness in any kind of police/citizen encounter comes up, it invariably comes down to the citizen being the obnoxious one and the cop, the professional one and as we all know, that is not always the case. IMHO, I am polite because I choose to be so; it's an officer's duty to be polite.

Far as locking your door as you get out and the like, sure if you feel like it. If I'm going to be searching your car, I'm either going to have your permission to do so, or be doing so under the legal authority to be able to open the car. So it really doesn't matter.

Where I agree with you for the most part, it does matter insofar as to make it that there is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that permission isn't and has not been given to search the car. After you get probable cause or get the warrant, you either bust out the window or confiscate and use the keys to open the door. Doesn't matter at that point, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no ambiguity concerning consent before then.

 

[dcal]

I'm chiming in because I live in a state were firearms are barely tolerated, NJ. Our firearms laws are many in number, vague in description, and penalties are stiff in punishment. In many cases these laws were put on the books to fight gangs, but can and have been used against normal, otherwise law abiding citizens.

I have yet to receive the privilege to own a firearm (yes owning a firearm is essentially a privilege in some counties here in NJ). But I am going to speak to a lawyer so I am in the know, should I be deemed capable of owning a firearm.

I am always polite and courteous, and have always done whatever I could to be on my way as soon as possible. Which usually means total submissive behavior on a stop. I respect LEOs and their sometimes difficult and dangerous occupation. In the city where I reside, the LEOs have more important things to do than hassle me for minor infractions, and are happy to let me pass when they see that I'm not up to no good. Unlike when I lived in a much smaller, wealthier community, where not much happens.

I've been stopped in a variety of situations and checkpoints, though less now that I'm getting older. In every stop there have been two questions that are always asked.

1. Where are you headed/coming from?
2. (Usually at the end of the stop) Are there any weapons or drugs in the car?

In the past I've always answered both questions. The answer to the latter has always been no, because there have never been weapons or drugs in the car.

Soon, my answers will likely be different than they have been in the past. These encounters will now be recorded.

In NJ unless you are headed to the range, gunshop/smith, hunting, or back to your home from one of those places, you are not allowed to have a gun or ammo (even if stowed in the legal fashion, locked in the trunk, separate from ammo). Stopping for gas, or to relieve oneself on the way to/from one of those places? Guess what, illegal.

The answer to those questions just got real important.

When something like an errant live round that was accidentally left in a pocket after shooting at the range could land you in prison, the answers to these questions are very critical.

As I said, I still need to talk to a lawyer to find out what I should/shouldn't/have to say. I can tell you though an answer of, I'm on my way to the range, is probably going to open a can of worms. An answer of, yes, to weapons in the car is probably going to open a can of worms as well. And it will be a tense and uncertain experience.

I say this because of the folks that think there is no merit in not giving a LEO info that he doesn't have the right to know, with the reasoning that if you're law abiding you have nothing to worry about. The fact of the matter is where I live, just being law abiding isn't necessarily good enough, accidents happen, and in NJ accidents can land you in jail.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

I used to live in RI, a state almost as bad as NJ with regard to gun laws (handguns anyway). One thing that seems to make a difference in regards to the issue of being en route to (or on the way back from) the range is what your "kit" looks like.

By that I mean, is the gun unloaded and encased in a proper container? Do you have eye and ear protection? Do you have a spotting scope? Things like that.

All of these things say (to a LEO), "Legitimate recreational shooter."

In contrast, a gun in a brown paper bag shoved under the seat says, "Possible crook, wise***, or banger."

Not an ironclad rule of course. Just my own experience.

 

[jjduller1946]

The Peoples Republic of NJ?

I have yet to receive the privilege to own a firearm (yes owning a firearm is essentially a privilege in some counties here in NJ). But I am going to speak to a lawyer so I am in the know, should I be deemed capable of owning a firearm.

DCAL,

Wow, your comments make me glad I am not living in NJ. After hearing the horror stories about how NJ coddles multi-offenders and child molesters I should not be surprised that they are hostile to the 2A.

I am glad to see that you have applied for a permit. One thing we can do is others in NJ to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms. Clearly, as you point out, you should read and understand the law. It looks like you have a good plan
With a little luck, with the Supreme Court decides the Heller case, my hope is states and cities like NJ and NYC will be forces to get in line with the Constitution.

Good luck!

 

[Jenrick]

If I'm pulled over for something that does not involve points, it is none of his jackbooted thug's business - and unless he has probable cause to believe I have committed a serious crime, asking if I have a gun in my car makes the cop a jackbooted thug who is only seeking to intimidate me and find a way to violate my rights. Cops have no reason to fear an armed law-abiding citizen and they have no reason to ask about my private business. He has no more reason to ask if I have firearms in my car than he does asking if I have groceries in my trunk. It is none of his business.

First off, there are very few if any agencies in the US that wear actual "jack boots." Now if you mean the higher calvary style boots some State Police agencies wear, I might go for it. I think the phrase "combat booted thug," (CBT) or possibly "tactical low quarter wearing thug" (TLQWT) would be more accurate. Anyways...

I understand that 99.9+% of the people (I'd say all, but you never really know on the internet) on this board are stand up folks, for whom the thought of using their legally acquired firearm to perform any kind of illegal act, let alone the felonious assault of a LEO is beyond comprehension. For the public in general those who LEGALLY acquire and own firearms, fall into the same category. (Now I know someone is going to launch into a registration tirade in a moment, to forestall that I'm mainly referring to not acquiring firearms through theft, trading narcotics for them, etc)
In response, very few officers are ever going to ask if there are weapons in the car without having suspicion or probable cause to believe so. A CHL returning when I run a DL for instance would be one indication that there might be a firearm in the vehicle. I will then ask the driver if they are carrying. If they reply in the affirmative, I'll usually ask what and where. I will then probably have a 2-3 minute conversation regarding their firearm, and my duty weapon. If they reply no, I will then tell them that it is my experience that I have never had to take a report from a victim who was armed, and that they might want to take full advantage of the CHL they have to be able to defend themselves.

As I noted for the VAST majority of people the thought of attacking a LEO if the farthest thing in their mind. However we can all agree that everyone has a off day/bad day. There are cases of off duty cops getting in shoot outs with on duty cops, etc. Asking that question is merely giving myself one more piece of information about my environment, just like checking my unit's tire inflation when I go one duty. In all likely hood it wont matter matter, some day it may be the heads up that'll save my life.

I think one of the issue a lot of people who aren't in LE misunderstand is that we do not think everyone is a criminal (well not all of us at least). We are not looking to arrest everyone or to get into everyone's business. Some times we're just displaying normal human curiosity. Other times, we're asking questions we feel we need to ask for our safety. Unfortunately the nature of the conversation and the authority roles during that conversation usually prevent this from being understood, clarified, or explained. I usually try to explain my actions at some point during my interaction with people so they understand where I'm coming from. Some days the other person doesn't want to hear, and doesn't care if you have the most legitimate reason in the world to ask the question.

-Jenrick

 

[dcal]

Frankie,

I agree that the latitude could go either way. The unfortunate consequence of the law's vagueness is there is no hard, legal guarantee of protection there. In all likely hood any of those situations could end with the LEO letting me go, and reminding me that technically what I did was illegal, but I've just been cut a break because I posed no real threat to anyone, which was made possible by a well kept "kit."

But since there is no legal guarantee that the LEO, judge, and jury will interpret the law as intended; I hope you all can understand the sensitivity and caution someone like me would use to keep my impeccably clean record impeccably clean.

And jj thanks for the encouragement. I'm trying to do my part to help change things. It's an uphill battle, but some of us are fighting.

Edit to add: jj, I see you are from VA. I'd like to apologize to you and your state. It's my understanding that our legislators are meddling in your state's business. Blaming your state for crime problems our state is incapable of controlling through ridiculous legislation.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

and unless he has probable cause to believe I have committed a serious crime, asking if I have a gun in my car makes the cop a jackbooted thug who is only seeking to intimidate me and find a way to violate my rights

So now we can't even ask if you are doing something illegal? You're just being way too sensitive.

I've asked if people have guns. I do it all the time. I'm not looking to snatch somebody for a minor violation of the laws regarding proper transport and neither is anybody I know. We're looking for the guy who will say "Uh, ya I have one under the seat" but has no permit. Or the people that will glance at the center console then say "Oh, no", while their anxiety level goes up.

Seems that lots of people here have the same type of uninformed, emotional, sky-is-falling opinions of the police as anti-gunners have about gun owners.

 

[LAK Supply]

Wow.... this thread has gotten quite long! Up here it's pretty much expected that you have a gun in the car. It's 100% legal to OC anywhere not prohibited by law, including in your car. There is a gray area about concealment in the car, and although it appears to be technically legal I keep it in the open while driving and put it in the console when I am not in the vehicle.

CCW should be here in another month or so... will be a non-issue then.

 

[jgo296]

you people keep talking about a corrupt DA
no where ive heard of is the DA out making arrests
so it would have to be bad policing before the DA could do anything

 

[coyotehitman]

so it would have to be bad policing before the DA could do anything

Don't you know, man, it's a conspiracy--the whole world is against the few .01% ers that post
here

With all the corruption, greed, egos, civil rights violations, malfeasance and misfeasance going on, we barely have time to maintain our conspiracy. I wonder why the news media is not showing all this corruption--they must be in on it too.

And thanks to Sage for the links I requested.

Some I justify, some I do not. And before someone asks, I will not detail why and why not.

 

[coyotehitman]

Police Officer 1:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenrick
I get paid to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and the ordinances enacted by the municipality that pays my salary. I frequently and often enforce laws and ordinances that I find pointless, ridiculous, stupid, etc. I however do not create the law or ordinance, and I do not think so highly of myself that I feel that I can decide what laws and ordinances are good/correct/useful/etc. and enforce only those. We all do things are work that we personally feel really are a waste of resources, but someone pays our salary to do them. In my case at least it's the citizens I work for who tell me what to do. If they want a change, it's their responsibility to enact that change. It is not my authority to simply enforce the law as I see fit. Rather it is my responsibility to enforce the law as the community wishes me to.

Police Officer 2:


Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotehitman
The best thing about contact (Especially one in which you intended to end on a positive note) with someone who is difficult, argumentative, sarcastic, overly assertive, confrontational, condescending, obstinate, impolite, belligerent, cocky, testy, or who could otherwise be construed as attempting to create friction through discourse, action, or inaction, by a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer, during the course of a lawful contact (lawful is determined by legislators, not by what some individual thinks is lawful, and that is not open for debate with me), is the point in which they realize they are not calling the shots/are not the big man/have taken the rope you handed them, tied a noose, placed it around their neck, and hung themselves with it/tripped over a certain body part/crossed the line you drew in the sand/opened their mouth and inserted their foot, and ultimately get what is coming to them.

In contrast, the best thing about having contact with the other 99.99% of the population, who I label as reasonable and normal everyday citizens, is the feeling I get by helping them, providing guidance, being a role model, and doing my part to better society--which is, coincidentally, a common goal for that part of the population.

Who would you rather be stopped by, Jenrick or the "hit man"? It's a clear choice to me - I'll take #1.

And BTW coyote, it doesn't take a welding expert to recognize a bad weld. Your suggestion that "if you haven't worked in LE, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about" is ridiculous. In any event, I have. So yes, even by your standards, I can tell you your approach is prejudicial.

It is the job of the officer to remain calm and objective, both externally and internally, in the face of whatever he meets. If personal opinion or fear for his safety overshadows this objectivity, he is in the wrong job.

The idea that everyone should be approached as a killer is fatally flawed. It promotes an "us vs them" mentality that destroys true communication and interaction between officer and citizen, and creates the "police state" that is now so common. Yes, you should be prepared - but if it your readiness manifests itself as the need for every citizen to "toe the line" to avoid getting shot or tazered, it's gone too far.

To borrow your words, coyote, even if a citizen is "difficult, argumentative, sarcastic, overly assertive, etc", a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" must still remain calm and courteous.

Harpo

You are funny. Am I Hitman or Coyote, or both, or does it depend on the self fulfilling statement you are making? PO 1 and 2 making statements about two different things. Relevance? Is fact twisting, implying things that were not said by anyone on this thread, and trying to place words into peoples mouths making you feel like you accomplished something?
Discourse closed Harpo, it's doing nothing for the topic at hand.

 

[daveruiz50]

Quite a can of worms!

This is my first post here and I hope I don't step on any toes.
Reading this thread has opened up a can of worms of feelings I have about being stopped. I have experienced LEOs abusing their powers on at least 10 occasions. I have also had Many LEO go out of their way to give me a break and treat me more than fairly. I actually got 7 warning tickets at one stop on my Harley! Starting my driving career at 17 in NYC and driving cross country and up and down the east coast for pleasure. I am now 58 years old. I still try and afford any LEO that I encounter with courtesy and dignity. Each one is different and I can't hold a grudge against one for another's actions. I may not agree with what is going down but the LEO is not the person to argue it with. Here in North Carolina I have a CCP. I am required to advise any LEO that stops me that I have a CCP. I feel it is advisable though not required that I inform him whether or not I have a sidearm concealed. I am glad I don't live in California and have to worry about the laws there. Texas doesn't sound too bad but I have personal experience in NJ.
I have visited this site many times and have found the most impressive arguments and discussions on many topics. You guys are the greatest for taking the time to write down your experiences and feeling. It helps balance the world! Thanks to all!

 

[Wheeler44]

Daveruiz50 welcome to The High Road. This topic (and others like it ie LEO related) are some of the most contentious, but if you've been lurking here you know that. Most of the time we can get along though.

Welcome
Wheeler44

 

[Vector]

tmg19103 wrote;

If I'm pulled over for something that does not involve points, it is none of his jackbooted thug's business - and unless he has probable cause to believe I have committed a serious crime, asking if I have a gun in my car makes the cop a jackbooted thug who is only seeking to intimidate me and find a way to violate my rights. Cops have no reason to fear an armed law-abiding citizen and they have no reason to ask about my private business. He has no more reason to ask if I have firearms in my car than he does asking if I have groceries in my trunk. It is none of his business.

I agreed with most of your post until this paragraph where you went off the deep end. First calling LEO's jackbooted thugs is no better than them generalizing that everyone a criminal until proven otherwise. Second, your attempt at a comparative analogy is absurd between a deadly weapon & groceries.

`

 

[Treo]

I have a CHP so I'm required to inform on demand & I don't mind that. I had a CSP trooper stop me one night, he told me why he stopped my (30 seconds) ,asked for my license,registration & POI (15 seconds). And then asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle. I handed him my CHP & told him I was carrying , he got irate & told me I was required to proactively inform ( nope I'm not please reference CRS 18-12-204)even if I WAS required he knew I had a gun less than a minute after he stopped me. What more did he want? (NOW I KNOW SOMEONE'S GOING TO SAY IT SO I WILL TELL YOU NOW IN COLORADO IT DOESN'T COME UP ON HIS COMPUTER SO NO HE WASN'T GOING TO KNOW ANYWAY ) That bugged me because he was just kinda making that one up as he went along. He didn't give me my (totally justified) speeding ticket though that was nice of him. Anyway ,long story short I NEVER proactively inform, if they don't ask I don't tell.

TO COLORADOKEVIN
So what's up W/ Colorado cops (I,m not the only person this has happened to) telling CHP holders that we're required to proactively inform when there is no such requirement in Colorado Law?

 

[csmkersh]

From Texas Government Code

§ 411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a
license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license
holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that
the license holder display identification, the license holder shall
display both the license holder's driver's license or
identification certificate issued by the department and the license
holder's handgun license. A person who fails or refuses to display
the license and identification as required by this subsection is
subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by
Section 411.187.

 

[JohnBT]

"I think one of the issue a lot of people who aren't in LE misunderstand is that we do not think everyone is a criminal "

I'm not in LE, but having lived in downtown Richmond VA since '72 (and Baltimore and D.C. before that) I pretty much think everybody I don't know is a criminal. Maybe you are in a nicer neighborhood.

John

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

It's an excellent question, and having thought about this and having a first hand experience with this question, I think about the ONLY good answer one can give, and remain truthful - i.e. prevent yourself from being accused of lying - is something like this:

"Officer, I don't mean to sound smart-alec or be uncooperative, but truthfully, I CAN NOT answer that question honestly and truthfully unless and until you DEFINE, specifically, carefully and to the letter, what you mean by the word 'weapon', exactly. For example, is a pocket knife a weapon? To me, it is not - it is simply a tool. To you it may be a weapon - you must tell me YOUR definition or your agency's definition of weapon for me to answer that - because the last thing I want to do is lie to you. I have several pens in the car - they COULD be utilized as weapons, if one had the inclination, but I don't know how restrictive or broad your definition is."

Something like that - if you DON'T do that, then some jackass cop can and WILL (he did to me), claim that you LIED when you said "no" but you have a pocket knife in your pocket - "You don't call that a weapon? Why did you lie to me?" Same thing for a gun "Do the word 'weapon' as you define it officer, depend upon the INTENT of the user or does it not depend upon the intent of the user? Because I have several rifles in here, but I don't intend to attack anything, so I don't think of them as weapons. But if YOU do, then yes, I have weapons. I also have a few knives, some pens, and a car jack that could be used as a blunt object - do you want me to include those". That's the only way you can be sure that you're not charged with obstruction/lying, is to make them clarify the question. Don't answer it until and unless they do - answer questions with questions. Ask him/her to please call a supervisor if he's not sure of his agency's definition of weapon.

But as mentioned, always be polite and courteous, and preface any contentious remarks such as I suggest with something like "I'm not trying to be a pain here or cause you trouble, BUT....."

 

[ShunZu]

A great majority of our LEO's a good people, just trying to do their job to the best of anyone's ability.

But that said, there are always going to be azzholes in ANY profession.

The banker that has a high-maintenance wife that's got him over $100K in debt and he resents you 'cause you have a decent savings account.

The geek squad 18 year pimple faced kid that hates you 'cause you can spell PC and ISP, and understand what a domain name server is. He no longer is the Supreme Being up against you, and his day is ruined because you've shot down his self-importance maniacal ego a notch. He'll have to go pull that on the old lady down the street that's his next service call. She doesn't know what a PC is.

The law enforcement office that is 8 inches shorter than the average, 60 pounds overweight, and balding at 25. He had the crap beat out of him every day in high school, dropped out of junior college 'cause he didn't know what he wanted to major in. But he was hired by the little town mayor 'cause he used to know his Dad well. That LEO, unfortunately, spends the rest of his life taking his frustration and canned-up-hate against society on everyone he pulls over for doing 8 MPH over the limit.

Can't pick on all the LEO's cause most are good guys. Most bankers are good guys. Most repair geeks are good guys. It's just the few bad apples in the barrel that make the whole batch stink.

 

[jjduller1946]

Shooters,

This thread inspired me to put up a poll that askes about your background experinece (mil, LEA, Hunt, etc.). Check it out.

Here it is: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4352752#post4352752

 

[moooose102]

Move!

 

[oda226]

Jeff,
You misspelled De Oppresso Liber
Craig
B-2-10 SFGA ODA 226 1978-1983

 

[coloradokevin]

I have a CHP so I'm required to inform on demand & I don't mind that. I had a CSP trooper stop me one night, he told me why he stopped my (30 seconds) ,asked for my license,registration & POI (15 seconds). And then asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle. I handed him my CHP & told him I was carrying , he got irate & told me I was required to proactively inform ( nope I'm not please reference CRS 18-12-204)even if I WAS required he knew I had a gun less than a minute after he stopped me. What more did he want? (NOW I KNOW SOMEONE'S GOING TO SAY IT SO I WILL TELL YOU NOW IN COLORADO IT DOESN'T COME UP ON HIS COMPUTER SO NO HE WASN'T GOING TO KNOW ANYWAY ) That bugged me because he was just kinda making that one up as he went along. He didn't give me my (totally justified) speeding ticket though that was nice of him. Anyway ,long story short I NEVER proactively inform, if they don't ask I don't tell.

TO COLORADOKEVIN
So what's up W/ Colorado cops (I,m not the only person this has happened to) telling CHP holders that we're required to proactively inform when there is no such requirement in Colorado Law?

Got me. I've never been told (or read anywhere) that there is a requirement to "proactively inform". In fact, that's the first I've heard of it.

Now, I will admit that I always recommend it as a matter of courtesy and safety... I do this when I am stopped on traffic personally, as I pretty much always carry. But, it is in no way a legal requirement in our state, in so far as I can tell... Though, if you are asked I would argue that answering truthfully would be required (not really an issue for most of us).

Also, I don't know about CSP, but I do get NCIC hits on my computer that show CCW permits.

I don't know if it is a 100% accurate system, but I have received two or three CCW permit hits in the past couple of years. I wouldn't necessarily expect more, simply because I work in the ghetto and most of the folks who carry down here are the felons (sadly), and not the good-guys.

Interestingly enough, our archaic MDT system pretty much displays the CCW permit in a coded line that looks nearly the same as the hit for a warrant (one letter different). So, in those instances I've found myself excited for an arrest, only to be let down when I click on the hit and find that it is just a fellow gun-owner, and not the neighborhood axe murderer!

Nevertheless, it is quite possible that a number of folks have had permits, chosen not to inform me during the stop, and I was never the wiser. I usually don't ask the question unless I have a reason to, and normal people rarely give me a reason to!

We never received any training as to whether or not all CCW permit holders are in the system, or if it is only entered by certain counties. It is just kind of a learn-as-you-go aspect of the system!