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

[Henry Bowman]

You're under no moral obligation to tell the truth to some badged-up putz who asks such a question for no reason.

Ignoring your low road remark "badged-up putz," and even assuming your "for no reason" premise, there is a real and significant difference between a moral obligation and a legal obligation. As stated a hundred times in this thread already (and go ask Martha Stewart), you may not have to answer the question, but you can't lie.

 

[hso]

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?

In general it's best to know the laws in your state on this so you'll know what you're obligated to tell an officer.

"Best" in your case would probably be to tell the officer, "I'm on the way to the range and I have A, B, C in the trunk. I don't think of them as "weapons", but I figured you'd be more comfortable if I told you.". That way he's fully informed (whether you're required by law to tell him). The LEOs that I know can usually tell when you're nervous and making something up so sticking to the truth that you're 110% comfortable with is the best practice.

 

[Art Eatman]

I don't really understand all the fear and animosity about being stopped by the cops. I got a speeding ticket for 120 in a 55, and the Highway Patrol guy and I had a ten-minute bull session about various aspects of lifeitsownself. It was simple enough; I had just washed the car and I was driving it to dry it off. No big deal.

I go through Border Patrol checkpoints regularly, and today I went through US Customs up at Presidio. In my experience, a smile and a friendly attitude will keep you from being hassled. I don't guess I've ever had any LEO of any sort just arbitrarily give me a hard time about anything.

But I don't have my stinger out for them, either.

IIRC, I've been stopped for exhuberant locomotion maybe three or four times since I first got my CHL. Only once have I been asked the location of the pistol--and after I said, "Console," he lost interest. Just no big deal.

Maybe if you don't look at cops as The Enemy, they won't regard you as their enemy? Hmmm?

 

[ilbob]

Art - my suspicion is that abusive and obnoxious cops are not something that is universal. Some areas seem to have mostly decent human beings working as cops, and a few areas have real problems. People who live (or have lived) in areas with the problems never really trust any cop ever again.

 

[springmom]

I don't really understand all the fear and animosity about being stopped by the cops. I got a speeding ticket for 120 in a 55, and the Highway Patrol guy and I had a ten-minute bull session about various aspects of lifeitsownself. It was simple enough; I had just washed the car and I was driving it to dry it off. No big deal.

ROTFLMFHO!!!!! Need to remember that one, although I think you'd have to be Art himself to get away with it.

There is, of course, always the option of staying with the flow of traffic and not flagrantly disobeying the rules of the road, if you're so terrified of a traffic stop.

Then there was my mother.

My aunt (dad's sister) had died two days before, and it was the evening we were having the Rosary for her at the funeral home. Springfield was one of many towns that have different rules between 4-6 p.m. (when there was actually TRAFFIC on the streets, lol). I was 16 and sitting firmly in the back, as dad never let me drive his car except to learn to drive. Mom was in the passenger seat up front.

Dad made an illegal left turn...illegal only between 4-6. And it was about 5:55. Seriously. Of course that would be the time a traffic cop was there, and yes, he got pulled over. The officer was polite, unlike my mother, who just WOULD NOT SHUT UP. She reamed him at least three new ones for pulling over a man whose sister had just died (yeah, you can tell from the tail lights....) and eventually the officer, trying to be sympathetic to dad but reaching the end of his patience, said, "Sir, control your wife or you'll be going to jail."

I kicked her under the seat and hissed "SHUT UP!" (One and only time I got away with saying that to my parents). She got so mad at me, dad, and the cop she lapsed into silence.

Thankfully.

Do yourself a favor and don't act like my mother. Bad juju from that. Just be nice, they'll be nice, and if they're not, that's why there's a badge number written on the ticket....

Springmom

 

[Art Eatman]

Ah, family. I was on US 67 between Fort Stockton and Alpine and got stopped for what would have been warning-ticket speeding. I got out and handed my DL to the Highway Patrol guy. He asked the usual, "Is there some reason for you to be in a hurry?"

I replied, "No, not really. I've got my wife and my mother with me, we're bringing her back from the doctor in Odessa..."

He just grinned, shook his head, and went away. I guess he figured I already had more than enough grief for one day...

, Art

 

[grampster]

A few posts back, Art, as usual, brought a good bit of light and less heat to the conversation. I concur with his remarks and add this little piece of history.

I was driving my wife's Toyota Celica GT a few years ago. I crested a hill with a fair amount of open sky between my wheels and the pavement. Across the valley I saw what appeared to be a sheriff's patrol car. (Being as I had a bit of altitude, I could see further) Knowing that no self respecting LEO would not have his radar on out here in the country, I immediately lowered flaps, throttled back, made contact with the pavement and began to deaccelerate in order to pull to the shoulder, which I was doing as the LEO passed by, preparing to make a u-turn.

To make a long story short, after joshing with him a bit about my bad luck and his good luck, and my willingness to take my medicine without leading him on a chase around the county, I got a ticket for 10 over. I thought that it was a fair deal as I had been traveling about 40 over the 55 mph limit. Oh...I also told him I had a General CCW permit (in those days there were not many of us that had General permits.) and that I had a pistol under the seat. That was a non issue for him.

 

[coloradokevin]

Guys, after all these pages, there's one answer.

Know the laws of the state you are in, and obey them if you're stopped.

Those of you who want to "respectfully decline to answer" are going to, at the very least, have a bad day in Texas. Maybe other states would allow it, but IF you are a CHL holder and IF you are carrying, then IF you are asked you'd bloody well better answer it honestly.

There are battles worth fighting in life. This just flat isn't one of them.

Well said... that just about sums it up.

I suspect many of the so called sobriety tests were primarily selected because many people will fail them sober or not and it gives police the opportunity to claim they had good cause to proceed with their wild goose chase.

No, the test are chosen because the average person WILL pass them sober. Certainly folks with disabilities are exceptions, which is why we ask about anything that might prevent them from completing the tests. And, the results of standardized field sobriety tests are not the final word... A certified blood or breath test is ultimately utilized to determine the level of intoxication.

Also, you will only really fail the HGN test (that is Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) if you are drunk, brain damaged, or under the influence of certain drugs. Look here for information on this test: http://www.horizontalgazenystagmus.com/alcoholandnystagmus.html

Oh, and I should add that I had to attend a three day class on alcohol intoxication alone before becoming DUI field sobriety test certified, and this class culminated in a set of practical exams where I was required to perform field sobriety tests on various voluntary subjects that were under different levels of intoxication. I then had to record my opinion of their level of intoxication. The results of my tests were then checked against those of a certified breath test to determine whether I was accurate enough to pass. I also have to re-certify for SFST every two years! (actually, it is kind of a neat idea... the department solicits the help of volunteers who choose to come in to our academy facility and drink themselves silly on the city's dime. They get free pizza, free booze, and have a lot of fun. The department provides to-and-from transportation, and it helps us with our jobs!).

Also, a final word on DUIs: Don't drink and drive. If you are stopped and an officer has articulable reasons to believe you are intoxicated (with or without SFST being performed), you will be taken into custody. Your level of intoxication will be verified through your choice of a blood or breath test, and if you refuse this test (in Colorado) you will automatically have your driver's license suspended for a year. If you have the breath/blood test and you are not intoxicated, you are free to go! But, the best advice I can tell you is not to drink and drive, which saves yourself and a lot of innocent people a lot of potential grief!

 

[Kurt S.]

Hi folks, haven't posted in a long time but this is a good thread.

All I've got to say is that a bunch of y'all must be either be under 20 or in a big hurry all the time. Y'all get sure get stopped a lot.

coloradokevin wrote:

Also, a final word on DUIs: Don't drink and drive.

Words of wisdom, Lloyd, words of wisdom....

 

[Sans Authoritas]

grampster wrote:

I was driving my wife's Toyota Celica GT a few years ago. I crested a hill with a fair amount of open sky between my wheels and the pavement. Across the valley I saw what appeared to be a sheriff's patrol car. (Being as I had a bit of altitude, I could see further) Knowing that no self respecting LEO would not have his radar on out here in the country, I immediately lowered flaps, throttled back, made contact with the pavement and began to deaccelerate in order to pull to the shoulder, which I was doing as the LEO passed by, preparing to make a u-turn.

To make a long story short, after joshing with him a bit about my bad luck and his good luck, and my willingness to take my medicine without leading him on a chase around the county, I got a ticket for 10 over. I thought that it was a fair deal as I had been traveling about 40 over the 55 mph limit. Oh...I also told him I had a General CCW permit (in those days there were not many of us that had General permits.) and that I had a pistol under the seat. That was a non issue for him.

What I'm getting here is that you were either putting other people's lives in jeopardy, or not. If you were not, why were you ticketed? If you were, why weren't you thrown in prison? All I've really learned is that a cop lied on an official document.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[rbernie]

All I've really learned is that a cop lied on an official document.

In the interest of being A Nice Guy.

Unexpected, but nice.

Why do you find that so offensive?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

rbernie wrote:

In the interest of being A Nice Guy.
Unexpected, but nice. Why do you find that so offensive?

The end does not justify the means. But maybe I'm just an old-fashioned fool for believing that in this modern, "morally enlightened" age. In any case, it doesn't address either of my points.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[rbernie]

The end does not justify the means.

What the heck does that MEAN?

The poster was speeding. He was pulled over. He was given a break. What was the means that was used inappropriately to some end?

Either way, it doesn't address either of my points

You're correct. But it DOES illustrate that you'll do dang near ANYTHING to get your panties bunched into a wad over authority.

 

[phorvick]

Helpful hint. If there are firearms in the car, do not respond when asked by saying ..."They are in the trunk of the car, stored in accordance with State law."

Instead, simply state, "Yes, officer, in the trunk of the car, stored in accordance with State law."

Trust me,... there is a difference in the two responses. Speaking here from personal experience!

 

[Sans Authoritas]

rbernie wrote:

What the heck does that MEAN?

Great.

rbernie wrote:

The poster was speeding. He was pulled over. He was given a break. What was the means that was used inappropriately to some end?

The poster was speeding. Was he putting other people's lives in jeopardy? If not, he should not have been ticketed. If he was, he should be in prison with other reckless and dangerous people. As it is, they're walking free, much like the two police officers who stepped over a variety of yard tools to shoot at (and miss) a nonpoisonous snake, yet killed a boy who was fishing. Where would a civilian be right now? But I digress.

The inappropriate means was the act of lying. The end was to "give him a break."

rbernie wrote:

You're correct. But it DOES illustrate that you'll do dang near ANYTHING to get your panties bunched into a wad over authority.

Unless it is a natural, contractual and/or a voluntary arrangement, no man has any more authority than any other man. Some people have more power. That does not mean "authority." Authority is the moral power to command obedience, not to force compliance. To take a familiar example of "authority" vs. "power." Pilate told Jesus, "Do you not know I have the authority to let you go, or to have you crucified?" Jesus said, "You would have no authority if it were not given you from above." Did Pilate actually have the "authority" to put an innocent man to death? (And Pilate did know that Jesus was innocent.) No. Pilate had the power to put an innocent man to death: not the authority.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[grampster]

SA,

Put your hand over your heart and swear that you've never, ever broken any law ever. If you say yes, I guess I'll believe you (probably because you like guns and are a member of this forum.) but that's probably why you're so sour on some stuff. You've never had any fun. An awful lot of laws constrain fun, fellah.

Sort of like the hockey game I was at the other night with my son's father in law, Bob. We were booing the refs for a bad call and Bob said the arena must be full of Calvinists. I said ? He said because Calvinists think that having fun is a sin. again. He grinned at me and said the reason he knew that was that he was a Calivinist.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

grampster wrote:

Put your hand over your heart and swear that you've never, ever broken any law ever.

Why would I do that? I've tested my vehicles' abilities more than couple times, under very safe, very police-free conditions. I've had lots of fun with other things not approved by statute, either.

grampster wrote:

An awful lot of laws constrain fun, fellah.

If, in this usage of "laws" you mean, "governmentally-drafted statutes," you're entirely right. Human laws, on the other hand, are ordinances of reason, and protect the life, liberty and property of individuals. An awful lot of "laws" do not fit this definition in the slightest. This is because the majority of lawmakers, and, obviously, those who vote for them, have a horrible grasp on reason.

grampster wrote:

Sort of like the hockey game I was at the other night with my son's father in law, Bob. We were booing the refs for a bad call and Bob said the arena must be full of Calvinists. I said ? He said because Calvinists think that having fun is a sin. again. He grinned at me and said the reason he knew that was that he was a Calivinist.

There's nothing wrong with having fun. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with going grossly over the statute speed limit, as long as you don't endanger yourself or anyone else. I'd be the last person who would support a regulation prohibiting the "demon rum," cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other drugs (drugs which I have never, and will not use, except for the demon rum) fully auto weapons, or just about any other military weapon that can make things go 'splode.

Even if I did want to ban these inanimate things or non-aggressive behaviors, I wouldn't force other people to obey me or anyone else at gunpoint, and call it "authority." A lot of people will never be able to swear to that with their hand over their heart. I can.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[coloradokevin]

Unless it is a natural, contractual and/or a voluntary arrangement, no man has any more authority than any other man. Some people have more power. That does not mean "authority." Authority is the moral power to command obedience, not to force compliance. To take a familiar example of "authority" vs. "power." Pilate told Jesus, "Do you not know I have the authority to let you go, or to have you crucified?" Jesus said, "You would have no authority if it were not given you from above." Did Pilate actually have the "authority" to put an innocent man to death? (And Pilate did know that Jesus was innocent.) No. Pilate had the power to put an innocent man to death: not the authority.

Spoken like a true anarchist, though I'm sure you've come up with a more politically correct banter to describe your views on the subject.

You feel that no laws should matter, unless they matter to you. You choose not to live as a part of a civilization, but rather to constantly describe how you are outside of it.

By the way, your definition of "Authority" is incorrect, at least according to the sources that define such things:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authority

As you can see in these two independant definitions, authority and power are inextricably linked. In short, authority comes from power. Without power, no authority would occur. Not once in any of the multiple definitions of the word do I see reference to "natural law" or "contractual agreements".

Put simply, you are not above the law, or outside of our society, even if you think you are!

 

[springmom]

The poster was speeding. Was he putting other people's lives in jeopardy? If not, he should not have been ticketed. If he was, he should be in prison with other reckless and dangerous people. As it is, they're walking free, much like the two police officers who stepped over a variety of yard tools to shoot at (and miss) a nonpoisonous snake, yet killed a boy who was fishing. Where would a civilian be right now? But I digress.

The inappropriate means was the act of lying. The end was to "give him a break."

Oh, for the love of St. Peter. Who on earth designated you judge and arbiter of all things, and even if you are, how does this tirade about grampster's aerial indiscretion have ANYTHING to do with the OP?

Can we get back on the topic and off grampster's behind? Ya think????

Springmom

 

[rbernie]

The inappropriate means was the act of lying. The end was to "give him a break."

But he didn't lie about it. He told the truth.

To make a long story short, after joshing with him a bit about my bad luck and his good luck, and my willingness to take my medicine without leading him on a chase around the county, I got a ticket for 10 over

Where do you see the lie in this? he was given a break because he DIDN'T TRY TO LIE. He stopped before he was pulled over, and he 'fessed up to his transgressions. His behavin' like an adult garnered him some good will.

Acting like a outhouse lawyer, on the other hand, generally does not.

Authority is the moral power to command obedience, not to force compliance.

Inventing your own taxonomy is Fun and Interesting, but isn't fair dinkum in a debate. You also happen to be wrong on this point; the English language definition does not support your view.

I repeat - some people are just itching to get their panties in a wad about something. And this is why I normally stay out of Legal. <sigh>

 

[Ergosphere]

I don't guess I've ever had any LEO of any sort just arbitrarily give me a hard time about anything. But I don't have my stinger out for them, either.

Yes, but you're in Texas.

Maybe if you don't look at cops as The Enemy, they won't regard you as their enemy? Hmmm?

See, there's a huge difference between an officer in Texas asking if you have firearms in the car, and an officer in San Francisco, Chicago, or NYC asking the same question. In Texas, the officer is likely just curious about what caliber you like to shoot or which shooting range you prefer. In, say, San Francisco, an affirmative response will result in an unpleasant turn of events even if you are not in violation of the law.

 

[rbernie]

In, say, San Francisco, an affirmative response will result in an unpleasant turn of events even if you are not in violation of the law.

Which is why, somewhere in the 195 posts before yours, somebody suggested knowing the law and not breaking the law.

You cannot fully control how others will react. You can only do two basic things: be in the right, and be polite.

 

[Ergosphere]

Which is why, somewhere in the 195 posts before yours, somebody suggested knowing the law and not breaking the law.

Read my statement again (emphasis added):

In, say, San Francisco, an affirmative response will result in an unpleasant turn of events even if you are not in violation of the law.

 

[grampster]

SA,

I'm nearly 65 years old. I'm in relatively good health on account of taking care of myself and smart doctors and technology. I have all my limbs and 90% of my hair, an extra 25% of body and about 50% of my brain still functioning for part of the day. I've never gotten anyone hurt or killed. Mainly that's because of good genes and I pay attention to stuff when I'm doing stuff and other stuff. (I'm still pretty good and multitasking; drinking, waiving my arms around and talking loud comes easily to mind. Uhh, throw in a little fried perch and holy mackeral, I'm doing 4 things at once.)

I pay particular attention to what I'm doing, if what I'm doing has an element of danger. I like danger, though. That's what freedom is, for the most part, danger. I obey the laws that I think that I ought to obey for my own good and sometimes the common good. I'm also accepting of the fact that there is a price to pay if I don't obey a law, even if it's a stupid one.

To stay on topic for a moment: Here in Michigan, because I am licensed by the state to carry a concealed firearm, I don't have to wait for a police officer asks me about firearms. When he asks for my driver's license, registration and proof of insurance, I'm to tell him immediately that I have a CWP and if I am carrying at the moment. So for me and anyone in Michigan with a CWP the question is moot.

Well, anyway, some laws are good and everyone ought to obey them. I only break the little ones that take away fun.

 

[rbernie]

Ergosphere: read my statement again:

You cannot fully control how others will react. You can only do two basic things: be in the right, and be polite.

Everything else is just pissing and moaning to no good end.