Traffic Stop: Will "Are You Armed?" Question Become SOP?

[kyletx1911]

Well technically that's true but be aware of the legislative intent here. The legislature removed any civil or criminal penalty for NOT informing if you are carrying with a CHL. Previously your CHL could be suspended, that is no longer the case.

So it's illegal to not inform but there are no consequences if you don't. That was just easier than removing the law entirely for a number of reasons.

thanks for the heads up but i think it is better to let them know.
but thats just me

 

[TexasRifleman]

thanks for the heads up but i think it is better to let them know.
but thats just me

Oh yeah, not arguing either way, just a lot of people are not aware that the penalty was removed. In Texas my experience has been that showing the CHL increases your chances of getting a warning instead of a real ticket, especially with the State Troopers

 

[HorseSoldier]

I don't understand why some of you think that negative consequences will befall you if you lie to a cop about this. The only way that lying about this will get you in any kind of trouble, official or otherwise, is if they actually find out that you're lying... which is unlikely. If they ask you if you're armed and you answer "no," like 99% of people they stop, they won't treat you any different than any other traffic stop. They may ask you to let them search the car, but you can always refuse.

Depending on location it can get you charged with a crime you've clearly committed, such as here in Alaska. Besides a criminal charge this means you've just lost your pistol for the duration of your trip through the court systems (as it is evidence of the crime you've committed) plus, even if found not guilty or just tossed by the DA, however many months it takes an under-staffed evidence section to get your property processed and ready to return to you. (Not to mention whatever $$$ you're out for a lawyer, unless you're trusting your situation to a Public Defender . . .).

Big moral win there, I guess.

Plus "it's only a big deal if you're caught" . . . if you're driving late at night and make any sort of traffic violation because you were on your phone, messing with the radio, not paying attention, whatever . . . you're likely to find yourself doing field sobriety tests, which will definitely involve a search of your person and possibly a safety search looking for weapons in the lunge zone of your vehicle. You may not be drunk and may be completely free to go on your way after that . . . except your "I always lie to the police about weapons" brilliant policy means you're going on your way with a Cite & Release court date for a misdemeanor crime and your pistol is going into evidence like I mentioned.

In a jurisdiction where no crime is involved and you just got caught in a lie . . . I can't imagine you're getting the benefit of the doubt from thereon out in the contact. People seem to endlessly go on about "the police are bad, mmmkay?" stuff, but as an officer on the street I always approached everyone (even people I knew I was going to be putting in cuffs for some really messed up stuff) with a give respect/get respect sort of equation. Provided someone didn't want to fight and have to be basically pummeled into cuffs, even people getting arrested deserve professionalism and decency from law enforcement (and that helps as an investigatory tool, but I digress). People who obeyed Alaska's duty to inform law -- my basic notion was almost always "good for you for exercising your right to carry". The vast majority of people on the street are law abiding, good folks, even if in LE you tend to deal mostly with the 1-10% of scum bags who account for 90% of police contacts.

People who don't inform, and actually lie to avoid compliance with our law up here -- you have now immediately stepped out of the "good folks" category. You're a liar, which I don't have a lot of patience for in any case (since everyone in that 1-10% scumbag population lies to me every day in my dealings with them). You've knowingly and willfully broken a law (another hallmark of those 1-10% scumbag types). And you've done all that to conceal the fact you're armed which, in a profession where people do occasionally offer armed resistance only after it's determined they have a warrant or are going into cuffs for whatever other reason, etc . . . no benefit of the doubt coming your way when I already know you're a liar and a criminal. Because however much you style yourself a law abiding citizen, you're now comporting yourself like the frequent flying scumbags that make up most of my work load.

"But I don't agree with that law" -- wow, and the guy who beat his wife to a pulp only did it because she cheated on him etc etc etc blah blah blah. Never mind then, I didn't realize there was an excuse. Since no one I've ever arrested for anything ever offered me an excuse before to explain whatever stupidity they involved themselves in, we'll just give you a pass on this one because your amateur internet fueled Constitutional scholarship obviously trumps local/state/federal law.

You're right that if you actively lie to an officer when asked about weapons during a traffic stop it's unlikely to be discovered. Having been on the other half of that equation, however, if you are discovered I would argue that the full weight of whatever penalties are available need to be dropped on you like a cartoon piano at the top of a ten story pulley line. Because you're acting exactly like any number of scumbags and (depending on location) breaking a law -- in short, you're not acting like someone society as a whole probably has a real vested interest in allowing to carry a concealed weapon. And you're embarrassing and discrediting those of us who think that is a vitally significant right.

 

[armoredman]

Arizona law is a bit different, as we have this...http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03102.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:
(a) In the furtherance of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706, a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 or any other felony offense; or
(b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon; or
...


J. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact....

L. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Contacted by a law enforcement officer" means a lawful traffic or criminal investigation, arrest or detention or an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer that is based on reasonable suspicion that an offense has been or is about to be committed.

That last bit we tried to get removed, but it was thrown in as a sop. OK. It also means that the officer must ask, then we must not lie, or additional charges may be brought. And he may retain temporary custody of the weapons during the lawful contact.
I have no idea how well it works - my last traffic violation was 20 years ago.

As for good guys have no reason to hide anything, my answer always is, "the mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives nobody the right to ask."

 

[mgmorden]

Even if not required by law, it's generally a stupid action to outright lie to a LEO. Realistically, if you piss them off, there is a TON of infractions they are often able to write you up for but normally overlook unless provoked.

Only time I've ever been asked if I had a gun in the car was when I was pulled over on the way home from the range - I had a target sitting on the seat. I answered completely truthfully. At the end of the stop the officer even asked what type of gun it was I told him it was a SIG and he complimented me on my taste in firearms.