(Photo: AP)
You’re at a traffic stop.
The officer asks to see your license and registration, and, like a responsible concealed handgun permit holder, you offer your CHL along with your driver’s license.
Immediately upon seeing your handgun license, the officer forces you from your vehicle, frisks you, and removes your handgun from its holster.
Despite this clear violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, you keep your cool. Neither before, during, nor after the incident have you acted strangely, suspiciously, or aggressively.
When you ask why you’re being treated this way, the officer responds, “I had reason to believe you had a handgun. Your possessing a handgun makes the situation inherently dangerous, both for you, me, and other people.”
Crazy, right?
Unfortunately, no. After the Fourth Circuit Court’s recent decision, that situation is not out of the realm of possibility—or legality.
The Fourth Circuit recently ruled that after a lawful traffic stop, the police may frisk any person who they believe may possess a firearm, regardless of whether that person possesses a concealed-carry permit.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the Court’s opinion, word for word (emphasis added):
The danger justifying a protective frisk arises from the combination of a forced police encounter and the presence of a weapon, not from any illegality of the weapon’s possession.
The case, U.S. v. Robinson, arose after police stopped and searched a West Virginia man named Shaquille Robinson. Robinson, a convicted felon, who had been seen earlier that day with a loaded gun, challenged the stop and frisk on the basis of the Fourth Amendment. He said that, while the officer had good reason to believe he had a gun, his possession of a gun did not give the officer grounds to believe that he was dangerous. Yes, as mentioned, he was breaking the law because he was a felon in possession of a firearm but how was the officer to know that he was a felon just by looking at him? The search, Robinson argued, therefore, was unconstitutional.
The Court ate this line of reasoning for lunch. In the decision, Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote that Robinson “argues illogically that when a person forcefully stopped may be legally permitted to possess a firearm, any risk of danger to police officers posed by the firearm is eliminated….Robinson’s position…fails as a matter of logic to recognize that the risk inherent in a forced stop of a person who is armed exists even when the firearm is legally possessed. ”
In other words, regardless of whether you are a law-abiding citizen when you are armed, you are not only armed but you are also dangerous.
“The presumptive lawfulness of an individual’s gun possession in a particular State does next to nothing to negate the reasonable concern an officer has for his own safety when forcing an encounter with an individual who is armed with a gun and whose propensities are unknown,” the majority opinion concludes.
Following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion means that if one is armed, they are dangerous and if they are dangerous they can be searched.
In her dissent, Judge Pamela Harris wrote the following:
I cannot endorse a rule that puts us on a collision course with rights to gun possession rooted in the Second Amendment and conferred by state legislatures. Nor would I adopt a rule that leaves to unbridled police discretion the decision as to which legally armed citizens will be targeted for frisks, opening the door to the very abuses the Fourth Amendment is designed to prevent.
Since when does exercising one constitutional right bar an American citizen from exercising others?
It shouldn’t, but that’s exactly the kind of faux logic arguably being employed here. If guns are inherently dangerous, then those who carry guns must be equally so.
40 years ago in Las Vegas where I grew up a friend of mine was an armed security guard. He was pulled over by a Clark County Deputy for speeding. He rolled down his window and then put both hands of the steering wheel so they would be visible to the officer when he approached his car. When the Deputy walked up to the window and said good morning my friend informed the deputy that he was an armed security officer on his way to work and there was a loaded gun in the car. My budds hands never left the steering wheel. The Deputy immediately pulled his pistol and started screaming at him to not move as he called for backup. When the second deputy arrived he to drew his pistol and they ordered my friend out of his car and allowed him to carefully pull out his wallet and withdraw his Drivers Licencing, his Gun licence/Permit, his employee work permit (you used to have to have them in Vegas even though you are a citizen) and his employers ID. Then they left him cuffed on the ground for 20 minutes as they searched his car for his gun and waited for his records to come back from dispatch. He was cleared so the cop wrote his ticket before uncuffing him and dropping his creds in his lap while he was on the ground and his sidearm back in the trunk. Didnt even help him off the ground.
Long story but its an example that when you get pulled over its a crap shoot on how the officer is going to react. Had some friends where the officer asked them to surrender their firearm where upon the officer unloaded it and tossed it into the back seat along with the mag and round ejected. They asked them not to reload the weapon until the officer was back on the road again. That way there would not be any mistakes made on either side that could cause a problem.
Hmm, so if I am carrying, I am a dangerous person? Sounds like that’s what they’re saying. So I can assume that if I am unarmed, I am no longer a danger? Just for hits and shiggles, should I tell the officer I’m a United States Marine? Most, if not all Marines (and Army, Navy and evening Air Force) don’t need a firearm to be “dangerous”. By virtue of our training, we have been given/earned skills that make us dangerous to our country’s enemies. Perhaps we’ll need to present the officer a copy of my DD 214 just so they know I’m “dangerous”?
I’m all for supporting law enforcement. Anything I can do to make their job easier is okay by me. On the other side of the coin, where does this issue stop? If I have a screwdriver, I can be frisked and cuffed? Maybe if I’m carrying a pry bar, I get the full bodily cavity search?
Trust between the public and law enforcement is almost nonexistent these days. I wonder who’s fault that is?
” If guns are inherently dangerous, then those who carry guns must be equally so.” Doesn’t that make Police armed and dangerous by definition as well? I don’t want dangerous persons roaming around with guns… isn’t that the anti-gun rights advocates line?
The average citizen, minding their own business, has not demonstrated any dangerous propensities, but the sheer number of Police involved shootings, makes even law-abiding citizens afraid of them and the danger they represent.
Seems to me, the two sides are ratcheting up the rhetoric, and that in itself is scary and dangerous as well. The courts and the Government are pinching average citizens rights, riling up one part of the population, and Police involved shootings are making people afraid of the Police, riling up another… Where does it end? Loss of complete freedom? Really abusive Police State? Or total Anarchy?
I don’t like any of those choices.
“In other words, regardless of whether you are a law-abiding citizen when you are armed, you are not only armed but you are also dangerous.”
I mean, unless we’re going to admit the notion of being “armed and harmless,” which seems kind of ridiculous.
By the rationale that simply possessing a firearm endows a person with the title of “dangerous”, it would then follow that the officer conducting the traffic stop and the heeled citizen are therefore equally deadly. By that thinking, one should not be any less or more inconvenienced; the ticket may be issued, or the driver released unencumbered; but to cause the disarming of the latter creates an air of superiority by the uniform that is both unfair and fascist in its assumption.
Well, if the law is “fascist,” then the only thing keeping you from “pleading the second” is an armed police officer enforcing a fascist law.
This article is very misleading and misstated the facts of the case. As an avid supporter of the second amendment I believe articles that mistate facts do a disservice to those who stand to protect our rights. This case does not take away your 4th amendment rights, because the officers would have had a reasonable suspicion with articulable facts that criminal activities were afoot. There for the officer was justified in conducting a “Terry stop.”
Sorry spell check changed therefore to there for.
Please read this: https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/attorney-aspiring-nra-board-member-clarifies-court-decision-saying-2a-rights-forfeit-4a-rights/
The definition of “Dangerous” is: “able or likely to cause harm or injury”. If you are carrying a weapon, you are indeed dangerous by definition. We don’t conceal carry for any other reason. We are ABLE to cause harm or injury. We CHOOSE to be law abiding for the most part, but firearms are inherently dangerous, that’s why we like them. I don’t have a problem with Law Enforcement getting “comfortable” by frisking me or removing my weapon, I try to put myself in their shoes, and imagine some of what they have gone through previously. It’s like a “Red Light Camera” to me, it’s only a problem for those breaking the law, not me.
Being dangerous has nothing to do with unconstitutional behaviour like this. A moving vehichle is dangerous, if you jump out infront of it…. A clown can be dangerous, if hes a pedophile in a mask… Your chewing gum is dangerous if you choke on it. Police are dangerous because of the repeated proof that they pull guns on you and blame it on the “feared for thier lives” card, but you dont see a cop telling you to go home because the police are out driving and hosting traffic stops. By the logic that was used to conduct the search, the officer with a gun is just as threatening as the “felon” with the gun, actually in thus case more threatening because the felon knows that the officer is more than one man, and still has the authority to kill with witnesses and get away with it. So before you think about danger. Remember when your parents told you matches were dangerous? Well you can commit arson or cook your next meal, its up to you. The definition of danger should be changed so its about how someone feels, instead of whats actually a threat to your well being. Welcome to 2017.
A law abiding citizen carrying concealed may be able to cause harm or injury, but Not necessarily likely.
I think the headline of that article hysterically overstates the case. If one considers the court’s wording and intent in Terry vs Ohio, it was directed SPECIFICALLY at situations where an officer stopped someone and, for the officer’s safety, he was permitted to pat someone down for a weapon.
Mind you that was in situations which only required reasonable suspicion for a stop, whereas many if not most traffic stops are based on the higher standard of probable cause. To my mind that more than meets the Terry requirement. The majority opinion nails it:
“The presumptive lawfulness of an individual’s gun possession in a particular State does next to nothing to negate the reasonable concern an officer has for his own safety when forcing an encounter with an individual who is armed with a gun and whose propensities are unknown,” the majority opinion concludes.”
The article’s criticism falls under the “Well, duh!” realm of the patently obvious:
“Following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion means that if one is armed, they are dangerous and if they are dangerous they can be searched.”
The article also conflates two totally different situations: one where a citizen has a CCF permit and one where an individual (a felon it turned out) was seen handling a firearm. If I stop a citizen with a CCF permit, I don’t need to pat him or her down. I already KNOW they have a weapon. All I need to do, and have done, is ask them to surrender it temporarily while I check their DL, write them a ticket, or whatever. That assures me that if I do write them a ticket they aren’t going to shoot me if it angers them. LOL.
The article also misses two more important points. First, it decries the apparent assumption by police that people with weapons are dangerous, yet it wants police to assume all CCF holders or people with weapons are law-abiding and even-tempered; something which police officers can’t afford to do. Second, as evidenced by the case of the felon with the firearm, if police simply ignored those displays then crimes such as that one would go unenforced. Welcome to Chicago on steroids.
Thank you for your well worded, and obviously experienced, comment. It is good to hear a logical response from a LEO.
Stories such as this make me extremely glad to live in a small city/state that respects law abiding citizens who choose to carry a firearm. There have been two occasions where my carry license has actually REDUCED the amount of harassment received by law inforcement while being pulled over. Example: I was driving my wife’s car to the store not aware that she had let her insurance lapse and the tag was one day out of date. Got pulled over, handed over my drivers license, carry permit, and invalid insurance verification. Officer says “are you armed right now?” I respond “yes, I’m carrying in the waistband right hip.” He replies “alrighty. I’ll be right back with a warning.” I don’t get pulled over often. It’s only happened a few times in my whole life, but until I started carrying, I never had a pleasant experience. Since I started carrying, police around here treat me like any traffic violation that I may have committed was nothing.
On another note, in regards to the statement in the article about law abiding gun carriers being dangerous, it is odd to me that so much offense has been taken from this assumption. Fact is, we are dangerous. That’s the whole point of carrying a firearm, so that when life and limb of yourself or loved ones is threatened, that threat can be violently put down with no hesitation. I proudly accept the accusations of being dangerous for carrying. “An armed society is a polite society.” This is not made true because carrying automatically makes you polite, but because of the fact that people tend to be much more respectful when acting otherwise could be dangerous. I truly believe that we 2nd amendment advocates will do much better at restoring our rights if we, as a whole, take a more firm stance and embrace the things that make the 2nd amendment meaningful. Owning a gun isn’t just an example of good ol’ American freedom. It means that you will fight with your whole life to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your country from evil and tyranny, and this commitment does, in fact, make us dangerous to anybody who may challenge our existence.
Right on. “Fact is, we are dangerous. That’s the whole point of carrying a firearm…”
If someone doesn’t want to be dangerous, they should carry a feather duster for personal defense. LOL.
The part I have a real problem with is just because I have a gun, the officer (who is the one forcing the confrontation) has a right to disarm me (usually done with their gun pointed at my head) so they can go home safe tonight…. I am all for officers going home safe every night, but why do I have to have my life put in danger to accomplish this noble effort? Why don’t I have a right to go home safe tonight? I don’t know the stats off the top of my head, but I’m sure more civilians are shot by police than police are shot by civilians every year. Why don’t I disarm the officer so that he can see my papers in a safe and friendly manner?
I couldn’t have said it any better , you are 68 % more likely to be shot an killed by a cop than any other person , , proven fact. what make a cop any safer with a weapon than me with a weapon ?
The vehicles everyone drives are potentially dangerous…
It is time to STOP all this political bandying for power. We have a constitution; it would be great if we could start using it again.
There is one small problem in the state of Oregon. All Concealed Handgun Licenses information is contained in the DMV information data bank. When the officer calls in your license plate the return information indicates you are a concealed handgun license holder, and most likely are armed. Also if it currant or suspended for any reason. If you have gone to this much trouble, I would think that your being armed, the danger level would be very low!
Interested parties – NRA, law enfocement, others – should get together and come up with a suggested protocol for police and civilians to follow when an officer contacts someone with a firearm or CCW. That way, everyone would know what they are supposed to do, to promote safety and dignity for all concerned.
Here’s a protocol which I used to follow for 30 years as a police officer. Assuming they had a CFF permit or were otherwise legally carrying, if someone I stopped told me they had a firearm, I asked them to hand it over until our business was concluded. Once I’d written them a ticket, issued a warning, or whatever, I’d hand it back to them UNLOADED. After we’d parted company they were free to reload it and go on their merry way, and I was free to know I wasn’t shot by someone who temporarily lost their mind because they got a $150 speeding ticket.
The public complains that cops act as if people are trying to kill them. That’s because THEY ARE, as evidenced by the rash of incidents where cops, or even firemen for that matter, have been shot simply for being cops or firemen.
Whether or not one or both of you lost your respective minds during the stop, it seems to me that the danger lies inherently in the stop itself. You have no more or less guarantee of the drivers’ intent to harm you or being unable to do so if and when he/she chooses to inform you of their posession. If another officer happened upon the scene, you would no more attempt to disarm him than you would a bear or lion. As the old saying goes:”There is nothing more polite than a room full of armed men.”
There is one, and the office knows before he leaves his vehicles when your plate is run in Oregon. If in doubt, he will ask.
The judge is right, cops carry guns, so they are dangerous. But they are above the law.
No.. They ARE the law. Don’t be one of those people -.-
No. They are TOOLS of the legal system…they have simply superceded their authority, unimpeded.
Hold on! I read the American Bar Association synopsis of the case to see if the decision is currently under appeal. What I found is the opposite of what this article reflects. The court found the officers did not have probable cause to search merely because the suspect carried a gun (in a “shall issue” state).
Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) held that although Robinson was armed, he was not dangerous simply because he was reported as carrying a concealed firearm.
There’s plenty going on to warrant getting outraged over RTKBA but this doesn’t appear to be one of them.
Stupid ruling, which will be overturned by SCOTUS at the first opportunity. Most Police Officers aren’t insecure enough to follow such a course.
As to the “How could they know” he had a permit, that info is provided by the State anytime his drivers license is run. THAT is for the Officers safety, but I’ve never heard of any licensed carrier being disarmed on a simple traffic stop, and I’m a Police Communications Officer in Texas…
What about open carry States. The cops must be shitting their pants.
Actually, I open carried in AZ for years before the constitutional carry was enacted. I only had one incident: officer pulled me over for speeding (I was not speeding that time, I think he took offence to my bumper sticker “fear the government that fears your gun”) when he spotted the firearm he freaked and drew down on me, forcibly removed me from my car, handcuffed me, slammed my face into my trunk, patted me down for other weapons, then ordered me to not move for the 35 minutes he took to write a speeding ticket, before finally allowing me to go with my gun in the trunk…. at court I learned he was retired nypd…. what was a jerk like that doing in AZ?
If the officer does not ask, I do not volunteer ANYTHING other than the required license, registration, and proof of insurance. That CCW card stays tucked away in my wallet, and the guns, are usually pushed under the seat, during the rummaging around for the registration. Times I have been ask about guns? “0”. I have been ask about drugs, weapons, or “other contraband” but being I know my card is valid in that state, therefor my guns are NOT contraband, so I reply “NO” and we leave it at that, Why over-complicate a simple situation. The presence of a gun in my car had NOTHING to do with me going 70 MPH down a hill posted “Speed Limit 65”. The gun had nothing to do with my rental car’s worn tires & suspension grabbing every rut in the road, and making it look like I am drunk. It had nothing to do with me rolling that stop sign, so why even mention them??? If the cop asks, I will reply, “Why yes, officer, I do carry a small firearm for my protection, and I do have my permit with me, in my wallet. Would like to secure the weapon(s) for your safety, or can we just leave them safely tucked away, while you check my permit?” Depending on the state my guns may be locked in a box separate from the ammo, or they may be tucked between the seat and the center console locked, cocked and loaded.
The concealed carry permit is what tells the officer you have been vetted trustworthy to carry a firearm.
The second and fourth amendments are separate and unrelated. Each provides a separate individual guarantee of protection.
Geesh, this was easy, and I’m not even an attorney.
So just because you have a drivers license that makes you a good driver? Seriously are you trying to say that just having a CCW means you will never use your gun unlawfully or even know how to use it safely to begin with? That’s hilarious.
Most states require a minimal 4 hr training class for a CCW permit. And background checks merely look for a felony history or history of violent offenses. I mean the neighbors of most serial killers say “they were such quiet nice people, we had no idea that was going on”. So when would a background check identify that a serial killer shouldn’t have a CCW. It wouldn’t.
So you are saying after your minimal class & background check that all CCW holders are an expert? And that as such you have been extensively trained on live fire drills with partners, knowing your backstop, participated in countless shoot vs no shoot scenerios, been trained in handing mentally deficient person situations, and so on. Plus been evaluated & retrained semi-annually or more frequently on all of the above? And you wonder why LEO’s feel so safe that tons of people have a CCW.
Don’t get me wrong I’m all for concealed carry, but people need to stop acting like they have a clue how to actually react and use their CCW safely in a real world incident anywhere near the level of a trained LEO in any branch of the government. Are there folks who have an extensive level of training and are better marksman than some LEO’s…absolutely. But merely having a CCW does not mean you are automatically considered trustworthy to carry or wield a firearm.
Neither, unfortunately does a badge…
I have a problem with frisking for “officer safety” when there is no obvious threat to the officer. Claim and exercise of a constitutionally-guaranteed right cannot be converted to a crime. It should follow that the same claim can’t become “probable cause” for a search. The claim or exercise of a right does not involve threats to innocent people, including any officers making a stop.
Here’s my proposal – Make the fruits of all “officer safety” frisks ineligible to be entered as evidence of criminality. This would prevent officers from invoking “officer safety” merely in order to conduct a fishing expedition for evidence of criminality that they might not have even suspected when they made the stop. The second effect is more subtle, but could actually increase officer safety – If the word on the street were that the fruits of an “officer safety” frisk can’t be used against a suspect, then subjects approached by the police would have less cause to either resist or flee – both actions being potentially dangerous to the officers involved. They would actually be better off allowing a cop to take their dope and their illegal weapons, because they would know that they would be unlikely to face charges for them. Just let the officer frisk and be cool.
But even if this idea could demonstrably increase officer safety, they would be loath to give up benefits (in evidence of criminality) that they reap as a “side effect” of officer safety frisks – demonstrating that the frisks aren’t about “officer safety” at all.
I was pulled over for my tag light bulb and same scenario happened to me. I was asked to hand over my license and registration, proof of insurance. I said for all parties safety i have a weapon on me. Before i knew it the officer flipped out and things got pretty heated fast. Never once did he ask for my concealed permit to identify im following all laws and allowed to carry. I was really not happy with the way it was handled but I sleeped on it and the next day i understood why the officer was overall excited. With the craziness going on and officers getting shot they want to go home to there families too. I think its perfectly normal for officers to take the step and actions to protect them selves and others. That is there job to protect and serve. I honestly thought what he did and the steps that he took were so wrong in every way but he was doing his job and when a weapon is involved there are more possibilities for danger and things that can escalate into lives in jeopardy. I respect officers and what they do. He let me go with a warning and i was on my way. Its protocol for them to pull u out and get you away from the weapon and if your not doing anything wrong then you don’t have to worry
The officer did exactly right. This is a personal safety issue, not a violation of the 4th amendment. He is within departmental policy. When I was working, My partner and I stopped a uniformed security guard for a traffic violation. Prior to writing the citation, I politely disarmed the gentleman while my partner stood ready to instantly react to any move by the gentleman to disobey my request until I took his revolver into my possession, unloaded it and secured it. After the citation was issued, I returned his unloaded revolver and cartridges to the gentleman and he went on his way. I am retired and I carry more than one concealed weapon.
If I get stopped or have any reason to be in the presence of a uniformed police officer for an investigation, as a witness, etc., I will always advise him or her that I am CCW. I expect at that point to be politely disarmed and possibly frisked. It is apparent that some of you don’t realize how dangerous the street has become with well-funded, subversive groups targeting police officers and all. So instead of busting the officers’ chops, why don’t you pitch in and show your support for them? They are, mostly, NRA, members just like many of you. I joined NRA in the police academy. The officers just want to stay alive and go home after shift. Is that okay? Or did you agree with Obama and Hillary and their anti-police BS? Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Your dept policy violated the 4th and 2nd Amendment.. which always trump anything lower
Innocent until proven guilty. If the job is too scary, interacting with legally armed citizens, get another job
You alienate a lot of people who would be your biggest supporters if you acted strictly withion the Constutution
The Trump SC will over turn this utterly unconstitutional and tyrannical decision
I have to agree with with Mr.Frundsberg! At the end of the day we all just want to go home safe and sound! I will continue doing it like this until told by my superiors otherwise
It is what 👮 should do. They want to go home to there families too. If you are not breaking the law then you get your weapon back and you are on your way. The problem is that most police officers are getting shot and killed by people who have ccw permit. 👮 officers are doing there job.
You’re incorrect. MOST Police shootings are done by someone who has a felony record, therefore they are NOT allowed to carry a weapon in public and have no “Carry Permit” in ANY State. A felony conviction is a disqualifier for a carry permit in all States.
While I agree that an Officer should have the right to secure “any and all weapons” while he conducts a search, the question of a “legal search” must be properly addressed BEFORE it takes place. IF an officer asked to search my vehicle, THAT’S the point where I would advise him of the presence of my weapons and of my permit to carry. He should already know about the permit by simply running my drivers license…
Rob”soil oil wrote, “The problem is that most police officers are getting shot and killed by people who have ccw permit.”
Please provide the source of the information on which you base that statement. I don’t believe it is close to accurate, but if you provide a reliable source, I will change my mind and admit that I was wrong.
I will watch for your reply.
Mr. Frundsberg,
I agree whole-heartedly with what Capn Stefano said regarding your dept. VIOLATING the 2nd and 4th Amendments. GOD-GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS always trump whatever ordinance, statute, code or “law” you are “sworn to enforce”. As Capn Stefan said, “IF YOU FIND YOUR JOB TOO SCARY, INTERACTING WITH LEGALLY ARMED CITIZENS, THEN GET ANOTHER JOB!”
For your information, I’m reposting below, the top 10 MOST DANGEROUS JOBS. You’ll see “COP” is number 10 on the list. There are plenty of other occupations that are far more dangerous than playing Cops & Robbers! You certainly don’t see those people whining and crying about “I JUST WANNA MAKE IT HOME AT THE END OF THE DAY” and “TO HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE’S RIGHTS, I GOT A RIGHT NOT TO DIE”, blah, blah, blah.
My particular profession is #3 on the list, and considering that I don’t fly scheduled airlines, rather contract in the middle east flying combat missions, I’d say my ranking probably trumps #1 (Alaskan King Crab Fishing in the Bering Sea). Do I whine and cry and expect “special attention”? HELL NO! When the day comes (and it probably will) that I can no longer “DEAL” with the danger, I’ll find something else to do. So should you! You have NO RIGHT whatsoever to strip a law abiding individual of any of their GOD-GIVEN, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!
Here’s the list:
10 most dangerous jobs for 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, are:
Fishers and related fishing workers, at a rate of 116 deaths per 100,000
Logging workers, at a rate of 91 deaths per 100,000
Aircraft pilots and flight engineers, at a rate of 71 deaths per 100,000
Farmers and ranchers, at a rate of 41 deaths per 100,000
Mining machine operators, at a rate of 38 deaths per 100,000
Roofers, at a rate of 32 deaths per 100,000
Refuse and recyclable material collectors, at a rate of 29 deaths per 100,000
Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers, at a rate of 21 deaths per 100,000
Industrial machinery repair and installation, at a rate of 20 per 100,000
Police and sheriff’s patrol officers, at a rate of 19 per 100,000
TJ,
Thank you for your service, your commonsense, and your respect for the Constitution.
When law enforcement, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, picks and chooses what laws to enforce and/or manipulate, we have tyranny.
NO ONE has the right to deny another of their Rights, which is the very foundation of the Constitution and the American Way.
This court ruling allows bad cops to be worse, allows untrained cops an excuse to remain untrained, and relieves supervisors of their accountability of actually doing their job to properly train the next generation of good cops.
In ALL situations, the Constitution has to come FIRST, lest our Shining Light to the rest of the world be extinguished.
Has anyone wished you or your family dead or tried to attack or kill you simply because you’re a roofer, pilot, machine operator, garbage man, fisherman, etc. Doubtful, but when they do then we can talk.
And God did not create or grant us the Constitution, man did.
Very well said. My nephew is both a police officer and a member of the US Army special forces, he tells me occasionally that he feels safer when he takes part on missions with his Army unit than when he is patrolling alone on his cruiser at night, I can fully understand his concerns, especially with today’s unfortunate news of indiscriminate attacks on police officers. I do agree with Seth Burgin. comments and when politely asked if I am CC I would reply with “ … officer if for your safety, would you like to secure my weapon… “ . We can have a long debate whether or not this violates the 4th amendment, but not until police officers developed ESP or are able to read peoples state of mind before a direct encounter, this situation will continue to happen proportionally to the insane news above mentioned.
I was pulled over by Pueblo, Colorado police they saw a broken shovel and broken shovel handle in the bed of my truck, they said it was a weapon and that it gave them the right to searched my vehicle without my consent. In the locked glove box they found my pistol, 10mm, Chamber empty. They said that they had reports of a large caliber firearm being discharged earlier in the day. They took my pistol into their possession, and told me I could pick it up in three days at the police department. Which I did, the ammunition was gone of course. They said to me “We are taking it for their protection, my protection and everyone else’s protection.” Can the police do that? I told my story to the local gun preachers at the gun store, they said NO!
We were out cruising around looking for something to do cruising chicks and what not, so just maybe the police kept me out of trouble. Nor did I have a CC Permit. But was it legal to take my firearm into their possession for 3 days? No paperwork or nothing, just showed my license at the police department and they handed over my pistol! They could have sent me up now that I thing about it! Scary!
You do have the undeserved gang reputation in Pueblo. Yeah there is some gang violence in Pueblo, but most of that image is trumped up bullsh** courtesy of the media in Colorado Springs. Trust me, I feel lots safer in Pueblo than I do in The Springs. CSPD routinely shirks their duty, refuses to respond to crimes, refuses to make reports and even throws away police reports, to maintain an artificially low crime rate in the statistical data bases, for Colorado Springs. My grandparents lived in Colorado Springs and their home was burglarized about every 8 1/2 months, whereas, we NEVER had a problem living in Pueblo. I am looking for a house out on the Mesa, or maybe in Sunset. I lived in Pueblo in the 1970s, and I still love it there. I am in Phoenix Arizona, and have friends and neighbors from Africa, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Ecuador, Argentina, Austria, Samoa, Iraq, etc. Pueblo was about 60% Hispanic in the 70s. I was southern Colorado born & raised, and Arizona is a border state. I fear Pueblo PD may be over reacting to those stupid news stories about how Pueblo is “the most dangerous city in Colorado”. Yeah, BULL! Go wander around Five Points, or Clofax in Denver on a Saturday night, and tell me that one again. Pueblo has its rough parts, but it ain’t nothin like the bad parts of Phoenix. I had a 998 call come over the radio, and realized Az DPS officers were taking fire within 300 yards of my front door, and a gunman was on the loose. Two weeks earlier, I had the SWAT team assembling in my yard to enter a house, where a murder suicide had taken place. Any cop with half a brain can tell be smell is a gun was recently fired. I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. I’d have jokingly said, “Well I guess I’ll have to go home and get my 11mm handgun, and use it for the next 3 days.” Sorry they did that to you. Knowing Pueblo, there is a 2 out of 3 chance you are Latino, but that should have no bearing on your treatment. Unfortunately, it usually does. I am not Hispanic, but my father spoke fluent Spanish, as do my uncle, and so did 2 other uncles who have passed away. Colorado always had a large Latino population, and it’s part of Colorado’s heritage. Non-natives need to get over it, or go back where they came from.
Under Texas law and federal law, you already have a gun permit. Just carry weapons made before 1899. If a cop asks you if you have a firearm, tell him “No.” If he searches and finds it anyway, show him a copy of the law and reiterate: No, it is not a firearm, it is a totally unregulated antique under sate and federal law.
You may be technically right about antique firearms in Texas, but your common sense is definitely questionable. Don’t believe me? Try taking your antique non-pistol in your carry on at any Texas airport and see what happens.
As a former law enforcement officer, I can tell you that uniformed patrol officers almost never know who they are stopping. Usually, it’s just an average citizen who committed an inadvertent traffic offense, but occasionally, it’s a violent criminal who just committed another felony or an ex-con who rather fight than go back to prison. Officers are very cautious during traffic stops and do not want you to make sudden or unexpected movements. Never jump out of your car, rush back to meet the officer while reaching for your wallet. Stay put and follow his instructions.
When I get stopped, I pull over in a safe location, shut off the engine, turn on the interior light, turn off the radio, open the window and put both hands on the steering wheel. I don’t do anything until directed by the officer. Before reaching for my DL, registration and insurance card, I tell the officer that I have a concealed weapons license and that I am armed with a pistol and exactly where that pistol is located. I wait for the officer to give me further direction before taking my hands off the steering wheel. I speak to the officer in a neutral, courteous and professional manner no matter how he speaks to me. I do nothing to provoke a confrontation. If you feel the officer is abusive or unprofessional, you can always make a complaint later. Your complaint will be much more credible if you maintain control of your emotions and do nothing to make the situation worse. Confronting an officer is a no-win proposition.
When I made a traffic stop I didn’t care if a person was packing a gun. It only became an issue if the offense was a criminal arrest, as opposed to a traffic infraction. If it was criminal where the person was going to be placed into custody, then it was a concern. Otherwise it is just a damn traffic ticket and almost everyone getting a traffic ticket was a good guy that just did a simple screw up worthy of a fine. Why hassle people?
You are an example of a traditional Peace Officer, as opposed to today’s “Law Enforcement”. Well done, friend
As the recipient of a traffic ticket I feel the same way. The presence of a gun, did not make me roll that stop sign, so lets do the ticket formalities with license, registration, proof of insurance, the obligatory signature, a few friendly words, like “Stay safe”, and get it over with. I don’t ever offer up information that is not relevant, unless I am ask for it. I am usually NEVER ask if I have a gun or drugs. In some areas the drug questions come up, and I usually do want to have at least one gun, in those areas. One of my offices was in a high crime area, and I was always getting jacked up, for GP. I understood why, and it was just part of putting the business in a super low rent building. I think the losses from theft, and increased insurance premiums offset any savings on the rent. I was felony stopped a few times coming home from that office. Throw the keys out the window, open the door from the outside with my right hand, keeping my left hand on the steering wheel, walk backwards, lay face down on the pavement, arms out to my sides, cross my ankles, the whole routine, and then, “Oh you work there?” “Yes, sir, and I was ripped off again last night, so go get the burglary forms, again”. LOL Crack cocaine, powder cocaine, meth & heroin were rampant in that area, along with some prostitution to a point.
We don’t have to have any permits to carry where I live. I think the police just assume that everybody has a gun…..most do. Since I have no permit to offer I would simply say nothing unless asked. Then be as careful and truthful as possible as to if I do have my (I will) and where it’s located.
I don’t see it that way. I suspect when the cop checked the drivers license that he received a message that told him the suspect was a felon. If we stopped a known WA state felon we would be told the person is “DOC active” or “DOC inactive”, meaning he was out on “community corrections” (we didn’t have parole) or he had served his time as was no longer on “community corrections”. Either way we knew we had a convicted felon. In that case we would know if they could have a gun or not. IF that was the case in this incident, the cop had every right to search the suspect.
Did you read the dase?
Police got a tip that a man with a handgun was parked outside of a 7-11 in a high crime neighborhood. The officer found the person meeting the description and recovered the loaded gun. The man possessing the gun was indicted for being a felon in possession of a handgun.
The Defendant said that the state, I believe is was West Virginia, allowed possession of a gun by licensed carrier. This guy had no license.
I am a former elected District Attorney. I have a concealed carry license. I support Texas law to allow the carry of handguns. But, gun are dangerous. They are made to be dangerous. Responsible citizens should support keeping guns from the hands of felons.
Pick your battles. This case does not stand for having handgun licenses forfeits IVth Amendment rights!
While I completely understand what you are saying, we are not so much standing up for the scumbag defendant, we are worried about the case law precedent this ruling sets…. remember a case a few decades back called miller and all the bs we have gotten for almost a century because of it!!!
So, as a ccw permit holder the first thing I was taught many years ago (by a state trooper and deputy sheriff) was never offer information to the officer stopping you with the exception of the vehicle registration and your license, he already knows you are a ccw when he runs your plate prior to the stop. In the event that he or she asks then you are legally obligated to state that you are in possession of a firearm and where that is located either in the vehicle or on your person, at which time need to present your permit. Never submit your ccw unless told to period, that is just a being a wanker wanting recognition of your own lack of self respect. If asked to step out of the vehicle, the first thing out of your mouth needs to be to tell the officer that you are in possession and then to ask how to proceed and where it is located on your person. Use common sense people.
As a US Marine Combat Vet who has carried concealed handguns for his entire life, I understand the concerns behind this decision. I can say I have encountered good cops and bad, courteous and rude, pro 2A and against it. As a currently certified active police officer on the street in a terrible neighborhood assigned to an active enforcement role, here is my opinion:
Police have a very dangerous job. They have a duty to enforce laws and keep the public safe. Their duty, responsibility, and safety (as well as public safety) trumps the indiviuals right to possess a firearm for a brief time during a lawful stop. Look at it like this, the cops have you covered. If you are a felon, you shouldn’t have a gun, PERIOD.
Hmmm.. My bullshitometer just caught on fire and blew up. I’m tired of the “jedi-like” mumbo-jumbo “super-powers” LE claims to have. Lets get some straight- you work for the taxpayers. Your paycheck comes from taxes that are collected from citizens. You took an oath (verbal contract) to uphold the Constitution. That means FOLLOW your oath and follow the Constitution or go find a new job. Anybody that has a CWP/CCL has been vetted. They have had a background check, they have been finger printed, they have been trained. Because permit/license holders do not wear a donut stained police uniforms, does not make them bad guys. Hassling your employers is a sure way to get no help when you need it the most. The “us VS them” BS does not wash. You should do some soul searching if you feel a CWP/CCL holder is one of the bad guys and maybe find new employment in another field.
YEAH! What he said!
Mr. Nelson, the only BS meter that’s going off here is the one you’re connected to. NOWHERE did this guy make any statement to the effect of him having, “jedi-like” mumbo-jumbo “super-powers,” he simply said he was a cop in a high crime neighborhood. Apparently you have some strong anti-cop bias going on to think they all have “donut stained” uniform, and find the need to remind them where their pay is derived from. When here’s a little fact about the pay, once the officer puts in the hours of work and receives his paycheck for that period of time worked, it’s no longer the taxpayers money, it’s HIS money, he worked for it and earned it fair and square. Officers do not work for YOU, they work for society, to serve and protect EVERYONE EQUALLY, no matter how much tax money someone may or may not have contributed.
On the actual topic here, I will say as a recently retired police officer from a large urban and very dangerous city in Ohio (and no, I don’t have any super jedi powers, just stating a fact), the CCW holders are required by Ohio law to IMMEDIATELY inform the officer who has contacted them that they have a CCW license and have a firearm, either on their person or in their vehicle. And no, computer checks are sometimes not up to date or unavailable at the time of stops, hence the reason for the required notification to the officer. Now I don’t know of a single officer in my department that disarmed any valid CCW holder in the course of simply issuing a citation or releasing on a warning, the mere fact that the person qualified as a CCW holder means the person is typically not a criminal, though that’s not a hard and fast 100% rule, there have been notable exceptions. That being said, the incident that spawned this whole ruling must be looked at in the totality of the circumstances, this was no simple traffic stop for a traffic violation, it was a stop for a person with a weapon, and was conducted as such. I feel that the ruling has gone too far and the mere possession of a firearm by a person should not be looked at as a negative, but certainly has to be looked at as a cautionary fact as sometimes even the most minor of citizen contacts turn into physical confrontations due to the actions of the citizen being contacted.
Oh, and by the way, the largest consumers of donuts are certainly not the police, if everyone had to have a sign on their car indicating what they did for a living I’ve no doubt you’d be singing a different song.
My rights are never suspended for the *perceived* safety of anyone, especially a government employee.
As for a dangerous job, it doesn’t even hit OSHA’s Top 10.
Get over yourself.
Cops have a dangerous job, unlike other jobs in that people feloniously are out to kill you. Just like everyone else they face the same dangers as the average citizen PLUS there are people that want you dead. How many other jobs involve being murdered.
Uh being a cop is not even in the top 10 of dangerous jobs. You have a better chance being killed being a construction worker Number one is being a logger Cops need to take a chill pill
The OSHA stats are for people killed, they don’t take into account people injured on the job, or the negative psychological aspects of doing police work, and seeing the worst of people every single day you work. Yup, I knew it when I signed up, not complaining, just pointing out the facts.
I heartily agree. So long as it is a temporary taking possession of the firearm; temporary being for the period required to conduct the traffic stop and write a citation; is not a burden on anyone exercising their 2A right. It is highly unlikely that that person will find themselves in a situation where immediate access is necessary during the traffic stop.
If, while conducting a traffic stop, I am permitted by law to frisk someone, and even place them in handcuffs for my own safety while conducting an investigation, then I should be able to disarm the individual, including knives.
No citizen should object to a police officer taking steps to protect themselves and others for a brief period. If you are not doing anything wrong, then you should have no reason to object to being disarmed for a short period.
Remember that in many jurisdictions, law enforcement patrols are manned by a lone patrolman who is quite often outnumbered. You never know who might be armed. More than once, a patrolman has been killed by a passenger in the car while dealing with the driver. I’ve had passengers try to get out from the back seat, passengers who dropped guns as they were dismounting even though they had not been directed to dismount the vehicle. Quite often the driver has been cooperative and the passenger(s) have been problems. Even had one drunk woman come to the aid of the driver with her .357 Derringer. Fortunately she stumbled and dropped it before her face found the ground.
The problem, DaveW, is that enough police officers have tarnished the badge through their unlawful behavior that the public is losing trust in the police. To be comfortable with having an officer disarm me, if I were actually armed, would require me to trust the officer. If I have been pulled over for a traffic stop I am not actually guilty at that point in time; I have not yet had my day in court. But hey, I should trust the benevolent police, it is not like I had a state trooper threaten my safety for miles with his car just this week. As a side note, anyone that thinks that a vehicle is anything less than a deadly weapon should think again about how many people die in car accidents every year or how much energy a car going 30 MPH has compared to even a .50. My favorite example of horribly unprofessional police conduct is a case from 2006 in Redmond, WA where a woman crashed her car into a building and when she did not respond to the police they broke her window and proceeded to Taser her; she was experiencing diabetic shock and could not respond which was why she lost control of her car.
Mark, every day there are millions of police/citizen contacts in the US that result in zero controversy, many thousands of arrests that have no use of force involved, and of those that do involve use of force, far more often than not, it’s justified. So please, save me the melodramatic BS about the cops that didn’t perform up to the standards we all want, they’re human beings and they make mistakes, too, just like you, the difference being that they’re often in situations that require split second decision making that could cost them their lives or well being. The bottom line is, the vast majority of time, officers get it right, far more often than most realize, and in situations that would leave most people pissing in their pants.
Way to armchair quarteback Mark. It’s very easy to see why the public sees all cops as bad when people like you make dumb comments and reference old case law out of any real context. Let’s see you arrive on scene of a call with crashed car and the driver still in the vehicle not reacting to your commands and refusing to get out of the car. You have no idea what actually occurred or how this person reacted. If the person was actually having a diabetic episode it would be easily recognizable…seen it 100’s of times. A person in a health crisis can also look very similar to a person high on PCP that is about to go in a violent rage. Get a clue and stop being a liberal Police basher just because you think you are above the law because you say you can legally carry a gun.
I don’t give a damn what some lawyer does to misconstrue my rights-I WILLNOT SUBMIT TO ANY SEARCH WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL-citizens have to stop and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
I am struggling to see how US vs Robinson applies. A case is brought that was obviously an attempt to get cops in hot water for racial profiling–“how did they know I was a felon”? Well, Shaquille, FBI Stats might pose an answer: In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. Any sane officer might be suspicious because you are a black male, and act as described. However, if a citizen is stopped for what ever reason, and voluntarily reveals his concealed carry permit–issued to him by the local authority after appropriate checks–it seems overkill to immediately go on the defensive. As the Los Angeles officer noted in his comment, and I paraphrase, it may not be a card blanche acceptance of an ongoing safe encounter for the officer. However, taken into account with other observations of demeanor, it should carry weight.
I am a 30yr retired military person. I never volunteer Information. I am always respectful and courteous. I do exactly as ORDERED. If asked if I know why the officer stopped me I say no. If you answer in any way to the affirmative, no matter how oblique, you have just admitted to the infraction and the officers are trained to remember or write down everything you say. I typically have my DL and proof of insurance available prior to them arriving at my window. I typically turn the interior lights on and rest my hands on the steering wheel and I don’t fidget around. If I am asked to step out of the car, I will then tell them that I am a legal concealed permit carrier. I typically leave my wallet open and on the dash in front of the wheel. If the officer asks to see my permit, I tell them that it is in my wallet and that I am going to reach for the wallet to produce it. If the officer still asks me to step out of the car, I ask him or her how they would prefer me to perform the task so as not to cause any anxiety.
The officers usually ask why I do things that way, I advise them that I am retired military and that I understand how valuable it is to not cause any anxiety to the LEO people since we are both professionals who voluntarily put our lives on the line for the people we serve and protect.
To date I have never had and bad interactions with the LEO community and in fact, they have generally been very nice back to me and have engaged me in personal stories. Of course I probably just jinxed myself.
Thank you for serving the nation.
To further point out how ridiculous this is, the CPRC did a study showing that POLICE commit crimes at a significantly higher rate than concealed carry permit holders. Yes, I understand this case was based on a scumbag convicted felon, but the legal argument laid out by both the police officer and the judge. The premise that “the police officer and nearby civilians are at a greater risk just because the civilian is armed during a traffic stop”, is factually incorrect! In fact, statistically speaking, the permit holder and nearby civilians are at 23 times greater risk because the officer is armed and NOT the other way around.
This isn’t a knock on cops, I’m just laying out the facts:
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/
So the lesson here goes against what a State Trooper once advised that I should do just as the man did and present my CCP with my license.
I’m in WA State and we have no requirement to inform. Nor would I. What does a traffic infraction have to do with my personal RKBAs?
Yeah! We don’t ever want cops to have and use discretion! Never!
I agree with the ruling. I am a ccw holder in Michigan and would be completely willing to cooperate if an arresting officer (you are technically arrested if you are stopped by police) feels inclined to control my weapon during a stop. In which case I would expect the officer’s professionalism with me as a cooperative citizen.
This is EXACTLY the reason that it has come to this point because Patriots BEND OVER AND TAKE IT UP THE KAZOO
I WISH THAT THEY HAD THAT ATTITUDE WITH WOMEN DRIVERS, DOPE ADDICTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS! KNOWING THAT COPS MURDER NON-COPS AND ARE ALL ARMED THEN SHOULDN’T THE SAME LAW BE APPLIED TO THE COPS? ALL COPS MUST THEN BE DISARMED BEFORE APPROACHING A NON-COP? IF THEY THOUGHT OF IT THAT WAY THEY WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS STUPID RULING!
Just a quick note of interest for all out there who seem to think that everyone else shares the same mindset as you with regard to being a respectful law abiding citizen. Let me first begin by saying that I am a Los Angeles Police Detective with 16 years in law enforcement, and that I was previously a reserve officer in Texas and a police officer in New Jersey, so I have a pretty good feel for people with different regional perspectives. I have never searched a CCW holder, or their vehicle, and I have no plans to do so… EVER…same team and all. I have never met a CCW holder that was not polite, respectful, and cooperative. What I have met though, on MULTIPLE occasions, are people who were absolute anti-authority types, complete cop haters, and even several sovereign citizens. What nearly all of these people had in common, was that they COULD have had a legally possessed weapon on them during our encounter. This is because despite their clear penchant for being a$$holes, they did not have criminal records. Most of the people marching here in the BLM protests of late spewing cop hatred are probably legally eligible to carry also, but fortunately with regard to them, this is Commiefornia. Would they deserve the same trust and confidence that that you feel you should be shown on a traffic stop? My point here, is that it is not as clear and simple as some think, and should not be so easily offended because immediate trust is not conveyed to you by an officer upon your presentation of a CCW.
In Oregon we call it a CHL and my actions always include having my drivers and handgun licenses ready as the officer approaches and with my hands on top of the wheel. Sometimes I am asked where my firearms are but often not. We are all different (on both sides of this stop) I am a bearded long haired man often driving older vehicles or sometimes riding my Harley in my leathers. There are always exceptions but I have found that when I show respect for the uniform that has contacted me (I do not know the person in the uniform yet) thus notifying them I am legally armed (this requires a decent record and temperament) I am usually given very courteous treatment. My wife has commented that I get away with a verbal comment and well wishes when she thought I would get a citation. My opinion is that a thinking man or woman who sees a licensed gun carrying respectful fellow citizen with a background check already done, is worth treating the way you would treat someone that could have your back in an actualy dangerous situation.
This is a perfect example of stirring the pop and spinning things to arouse tension, and not something I expected to see in this forum. The officer was responding to a call that a person had a weapon. Said person was identified and stopped. A simple run of the license plate could have easily shown the driver was a felon. Felon + seen with a gun = probable cause for search. I totally disagree that this would lead to forced searches of legal CCW holders. If it did, so be it. Take the officers name and contact the department after the fact with your concerns and maybe that officer will get some additional training.
The point of the article is that the court decided that if we exercise one of our Constitutional rights, we forfeit another. This is unconstitutional, plain and simple.
That then actually means all off duty officers of any kind who carry concealed are also subject to stop and frisk. If plain jane citizens like that get stopped and frisked SO SHOULD THE POLICE WHO ARE OFF DUTY. Otherwise we will be creating different classes of citizens, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL no matter how you look at it. That Judge should be spit on. Typical democratic BULLSHIT. Who wants to bet that judge has a concealed carry and keeps it on her person even in court, which is supposed to be illegal! Remember this ‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety’. A free society is by far NOT FREE! Ask all the service men from the Civil War up to now.
In the State of Florida you are not required to tell an officer you are a conceal carry licensee nor that you are carrying a conceal handgun when police stop you. However, the key word here is “required”. You may want to volunteer this to the officer and follow his commands without refusing any instruction. Let the officer do his job and then return the handgun to you or you can just don’t say anything and take your chances if he decides to frisk you and you have a lawful concealed handgun but didn’t inform you. Neither option will place you in trouble with the law but the surprised officer could make things a little hectic. My own personal experience, I was involved in a car accident in Tampa FL. The officer investigating the accident asked me for my license. Never asked me if I was armed. I gave him my drivers license together with my conceal carry license and told him I had a handgun in my waist. He returned the conceal carry license back to me, said thank you for that information and continued working on his paperwork. Didn’t disarm me or had a problem with it. It all depends in various scenarios, which officer stop you, the time of the day and location may influence his/her decisions.
Personally, it would piss me off just for their reason stated.. I’m not too happy to see one walk up to Mr in a rear view mirror with their had gripping the butt of a gun…..I do understand their apprehension tho, but if you’re that fearful, you’re in the wrong line of work…
What was questionable to me is their term…..forcefully or forcably stopped….that term should NOT be used if you comply peacefully and sounds simply like bullshit.
Do you believe in the Boy Scot motto – “Be prepared”? I have always believed it is better to be prepared than face the consequences of not being so. That’s just my take.
Why should you have to surrender your firearm or be frisked when you notify and show proof that you have a c.c.w.? You have just as much rights as the officer does to carry a firearm. Most people who legally carry are good responsible person just like most police officers are. Our fourth amendment rights have changed for the bad.You can be stopped for a bad taillight. The officer will ask you to step out of the car to show you the light. When you do he says he has to pat you down for your safety as well as his own. After that he ask’s you if you have anything illegal in the car and is it ok if he can search it. If you say no he will make you wait till the dog comes and smells your car. The probable cause laws are pitiful all they have to state is ” I smelled weed or the driver is not acting right” and they can search the car and all of the occupants. I am not saying all law enforcement do this,but none should.If you are pulled over for simple traffic infraction and all your paperwork is ok then you should just get a ticket or warning and sent on your way.The passengers in your car has nothing to do with your stop and should be left alone. They should have two officers at all times for safety or call for back up just in case.
Why should you have to surrender your fire arm or be frisked when you notify and show proof that you have a c.c.w.? You have just as much rights as the officer does to carry a firearm. Most people who legally carry are good responsible person just like most police officers are. Our fourth amendment rights have changed for the bad.You can be stopped for a bad taillight. The officer will ask you to step out of the car to show you the light. When you do he says he has to pat you down for your safety as well as his own. After that he ask’s you if you have anything illegal in the car and is it ok if he can search it. If you say no he will make you wait till the dog comes and smells your car. The probable cause laws are pitiful all they have to state is ” I smelled weed or the driver is not acting right” and they can search the car and all of the occupants. I am not saying all law enforcement do this,but none should.If you are pulled over for simple traffic infraction and all your paperwork is ok then you should just get a ticket or warning and sent on your way.The passengers in your car has nothing to do with your stop and should be left alone. They should have two officers at all times for safety or call for back up just in case.
When you open the door just a crack, or erode the right even slightly, regardless of the reason, it is extremely dangerous.
All of the rights are written so even a person with no knowledge of law can understand them, so any reason given to deny the right is wrong. It appears to me, that the way the decision was written, it is saying anyone with a gun is dangerous, and that one size fits all is typical of the way govt. and courts think, that is wrong, for it makes one think or says cops carry guns, therefore they are dangerous.
In the videos I;ve seen where people are exercising their constitutional right, almost all roll down the window no more than to be able to talk to and hear the officer at the window.
I’m with many others here. I not only think the Court’s ruling isn’t that problematic, but also think that we as concealed carry permit holders need to be on LE’s side.
Let’s face facts. The primary reason many of us carry is to make us more likely to survive deadly encounters. You don’t carry a gun because you think it’s going to make you LESS dangerous. Frankly, to presume that you’re NOT more dangerous when you’re carrying a firearm is pretty disingenuous. I would strongly recommend that anyone who thinks that the introduction of a gun into a stop doesn’t make things more dangerous for the officer try a training event in which you are put in the officer’s shoes. I promise you’ll come out with much more appreciation of what our thin blue line has to deal with, and how likely it is that they’ll get shot in any traffic stop, or response to a call, etc. Situations go south VERY quickly. I am legally required to show officers my CHL in my state, but I also tell them where my firearm is when I’m carrying, so they don’t have to be as concerned. I’ve never had an officer frisk me or require me to get out of the car, although I’d be happy to comply. Frankly, compliance goes a long ways. Not to mention, if you’ve been pulled over, you’ve likely broken the law in some fashion. That’s hardly strong recommendation for your general law-abiding nature.
The police are not on our side. They want the same things we want–community safety, a decent place to live and work–but if that means lumping in a few good guys with guns along with the bad guys, I’ve seen too many times that they’re willing to make that sacrifice. They don’t consider me “on their side,” to them I’m just another potential bad guy. I’ve had too many bad encounters with police, it just goes that way sometimes when you’re brown. The one time I did brandish my weapon, though, the police asked me two questions: do you have a permit? And where is the gun now? “Yes,” and “in my house.” They didn’t ask about it again. But up front, no, they don’t consider me “on their side.” They’ll toss me in jail for having an 11-round magazine in my possession while they themselves are loaded up with 11-round magazines. No, law enforcement is not on my side, but we do have very similar objectives.
Whether you are dangerous or not has nothing to do with the gun! I carry every day but no one I know considers me dangerous unless I am attacked and then they see me as defending myself, NOT being dangerous to police or bystanders.
Dangerous is a state of mind NOT a state of being armed or not! They way things go around here lately I am much more likely to be wrongfully killed by several county’s sheriffs or town police than I am likely to kill one of them. I have shown two Nashville Metro officers my permit and was told to put it away (they knew before they even left their cruisers because they all have computers that tie my car and my D.L. to my Carry Permit!
Having said that nice thing about Nashville officers I would feel no where near as safe with Rutherford County or Cannon County officers. In those counties I would fear for MY life anytime they pull me over (which they have not) due to violence wrongfully committed to legal law abiding citizens. I had a very embarrassing interaction with a Rutherford County officer in the Court House ( I was just visiting taking a young lady to court because she could not drive due to restricted D.L.) just because I had a HOLSTER! Ended up with my pants around my ankles in front of many people and the officer ranting at me and threatening me. I am 64 and disabled and no record of any kind!! I explained to the officer that due to my disability and the type of holster I could not take my belt off with out my pants falling down and he called me a liar, yanked the belt forcefully off of me while I asked him repeatedly to take his hands off me as he had no right to treat me that way and he WENT OFF!!
This same county has repeatedly sent their over manned SWAT team to the wrong houses. 3 times in less than 3 months they forced their way into the houses because they had the wrong address or they had the right address and went to the wrong house!!
Police like THESE are certainly more of a danger to the public than a 64 year old disabled person that is legal in every way. This ruling, if it stands, is a great leap backwards to the rights of law abiding carry permit owner and anyone else they “suspect” is dangerous!
I do not see how a legal carry permit owner can see it any other way and I am amazed you do….
“Dangerous is a state of mind NOT a state of being armed or not!”
Exactly.
I live in a state in which concealed carriers are NOT required to announce that they’re armed when stopped by the police. However, should an officer ever ask me “Is there anything on your person or in your vehicle that could pose a danger to me?”, my response will be “No.” For exactly the reason you stated. A firearm is not inherently dangerous, and, lacking intent to harm, the bearer isn’t dangerous either.
I go along with you on this, Nick. I had a 25-year career as a criminal defense attorney, and it’s safe to say that I’ve pretty much seen it all. Many of my cases involved firearms over the years, both in Federal Court and in State Court. Some of my clients did some really stupid and really bad things with their guns. Sometimes these clients were legally in possession, and sometimes not. Most of the time the responding officers didn’t know that the contact would involve possession of a firearm. In many situations, how could they know in advance? A key concept here is officer safety. In my state a LEO is allowed, in some situations, to make a limited search to find out if the person they are speaking with has the means to stab them or blow them into eternity. Sometimes they find a weapon, and usually not, but the officer making the contact can’t be sure in advance that things will go well. In one case my client was legally carrying; in fact, it was an open carry situation. The officer knew my client well. She had no reputation for violence, and he knew that she wasn’t dangerous. He went up to talk to her ….. she turned ….. she saw him ….. she raised her weapon ….. she shot him point blank in the chest. He knew that she was a safe person to speak with, and yet he very nearly died. Another client fled the state during proceedings in which he was charged with a felony. A LEO in another state later stopped my client for speeding. That LEO didn’t know my client and didn’t know about the outstanding felony warrant. The LEO didn’t know whether my client was armed or would be violent. The LEO made the approach ….. they talked ….. the LEO asked for identification ….. then ….. Suicide By Cop. Fortunately the LEO survived. In yet another gun case my client was a LEO who had carefully followed all the rules regarding possession of a particular type of firearm, and yet the BATF went after him because of their interpretation of a particular regulation that didn’t even apply to my client’s situation. In this case the investigators knew my client, knew he was a LEO, knew that he had no history of violence, and knew that they would be safe talking to him. They contacted my client at home. He let them in. He gave them ready access to his firearms. He talked with them freely. He cooperated fully ….. and yet ….. before the contact ….. how could the investigators be certain that they would be safe? They were, but they couldn’t be sure.
I firmly believe in my rights to open carry and concealed carry. I firmly believe in my rights for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. I also believe that LEO’s should be allowed, within reason, to make limited searches and temporary seizures to avoid the possibility of being killed or wounded in the course of carrying out their duties. I would pull and use my weapon if I thought it appropriate under the circumstances. One difference between me and LEO’s is that I’m not making traffic stops or responding to calls or being dispatched to unknown and possibly dangerous situations. Let the LEO’s make reasonable decisions under limited circumstances. If the LEO violates his or her discretion, let the LEO be properly disciplined. I don’t think that allowing such LEO actions opens the door and starts us down the slippery slope to the end of our Second Amendment rights.
I understand what the judge was “attempting” to do in the attempt not to let a convicted felon bend to law to slide on an offense they were obviously guilty of. I suppose the question should be, “Did the officer “know” he was dealing with a convicted felon or not?” If not, then the officer should be dealing with the individual just like any other Joe… affording the same courtesies that the constitution provides. On the other hand, if an officer “knows” he’s dealing with a convicted felon, some of the laws provided to the general populations are curtailed, and therefore I would think that the officer should have the right to search the individual. This makes sense to me. The only problem with this is that once a person has served their time and are no longer governed by the conditions of parole/probation, they have the same rights as every other citizen. The other problem is that a felony can be charged for many “non-violent” offenses. It would make more sense if the laws accommodated the fact that dangerous felons (those that commit armed robbery, assault, battery, rape, murder, etc), should then have limited freedoms restored upon release from prison. Most states have laws stating that felons are now allowed to possess firearms… so it seems practical to amend the law to include that if they are a “Dangerous” felon, as noted above based on violent offences, that they also have limited rights when it comes to search and seizure.
I was once pulled over and the officer asked if I had a gun. I replied no because I was not armed at the time. He went back to his car and ran my license and found out I had a CCW. He came out of his car with gun in hand screaming where was my weapon. I explained to him just because I’m a CCW holder I do not always carry a gun he was totally out of control.
I don’t mind if a Police Officer wants position of my gun at a traffic stop.I just can’t stand the way they mis-handle the gun when they unload it for no reason I can think of.
I had a cop pointing my S&W at his leg while racking the slide before he even dropped the magazine. All that did was put another round in the chamber.hen he told me ” I know what I.m doing” as he dropped the magazine and left the round in the chamber.
He ran the serial # to see if it was stolen and after he did that he handed me the gun back with a round still in the chamber along with the magazine.
It would have been much much much safer for him to just take it and run the #’s and hand it back when finished.
He should know if he keeps his finger off the trigger, it won’t fire anyway.
Police need more training and use more common sense when handling a gun.
The ruling has to be understood within the context. It was a felon in possession of a gun who sued against being “illegally” searched. Of course the judges have to rule against him and hopefully keep him locked up.
I’m a legal CCW holder in the State of MI, and it is State law to give your permit to LE when stopped. Otherwise you can incur a $500 fine. I had a car deer crash last year, told the deputy who stopped by that I was legal to carry but actually had a handgun in my vehicle not on me. He just checked the permit, my DL, reg & insurance, then thanked me for being upfront, gave me an accident report and sent me on my way. I think we as legal gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters need to be on LE’s side.
If I got stopped otherwise and an Officer decides he wants to search me and / or my car because I have a CCW permit, I would not have a problem, either. But I think if you behave nicely and with respect, you probably will not get searched..
Preposterous. The wording is not so specific to be exclusive to this one particular man.
Also, you behave nicely when stopped because you ought to anyways, not to grovel to a police officer so as he doesn’t infringe our rights.
Your last point first. Yes, if you act like an azz, expect to be treated as such.
Then, I don’t think Florida doesn’t require you to inform, which is where I live, but I’m thinking how police respond, besides your behavior, and the state you live in, will also affect this. Some states are basically anti-gun, so one would expect the police to often reflect that attitude.
As for being searched, whether you or your vehicle, there suppose to be probably cause, or exigency, but of course, that will depend on many things, and they usually can justify it, even if there isn’t any.
And yes, if you are a felon, then its pretty dumb to file suit arguing that you shouldn’t be searched. It’s dumb people like this that make it hard for the rest of us.
I agree with Part of your statement, be on the side of LE. Also to inform them if I am carrying, at the time.
However, unless I have broken a law, I do NOT believe neither I nor my vehicle should be searched for no reason. I am NOT a criminal. And to assume that I am is just plain stupid!
If you ever applied for a CCL in NYS you know that after the local police check, then it being sent with your finger prints to the FBI for a national records check, Then a home interview by a county LEO for his opinion on you, Then getting Rechecked every five years to make sure you have Never broken ANY law, or your guns will be taken away from you if you do, and finally a judge “in their opinion” decides that your should be ALLOWED to own and carry a handgun..Only Then do you get a permit..Well. All that plus a long course in pistol safety, and about $200 in Fees now or more..Then you can have a permit. In from 3-6 monthes in a friendly county..Up to and over two years in a unfriendly one!!
After all that crap you think they have a right to search me or my vehicle?? No way in hell.
Instead it should be a PASS to keep moving..Show your permit and move on! As you KNOW for CERTAIN that person has not broken a law of any kind in NYS, or he wouldn’t even have a permit!
This is BS..Simple as that. I am sick of living in a police state! And this PC Crap of treating Everyone like a criminal, when THEY know damn good and well WHO NEEDS to be searched and who doesn’t before they ever even ask for your ID.
Just admit who does the highest percentage of the crimes and search THEM!! Not me!
OR, you will be spending ALL Your free time in court along with ME, when I Refuse to allow you to do ANYTHING without a warrant!!
The asinine legal rulings this judge is making on a daily basis are used as examples for other rulings. The fact you brought up that it some how only pertained to a felon in position of a firearm, means exactly zero in this context as it will still be used out of this context. That is the entire reason it’s so very troubling!
As this supposedly took place in West Virginia I feel compelled to point out that we are a constitutional carry state. Therefore asking about a CCW is a worthless exercise.
I live in WV and I have a CCP. When I lived in VA I also had a permit and would tell the officer I had a gun with me as the CCP was tied to my DL. Has anyone thought that the officer might know the person. We don’t have many large cities and this person might have been known to the local police. If he was seen with a gun and someone reported it the officer had every right to search him. Also where the hell did he get a CCP? In 20 years I have never had a problem as I am always polite.
For most responsible people, law abiding citizens you have to know your records are not secrete, but public to the Gov of this Republic. If anyone thinks you can have a S.S.N / D.L/ Birth certificate, employment history, service record, and a cell phone in this country and the Gov NOT know who you are and what you do, your living in a dream world. Besides a C.C.P. so all the ‘opinions’ are just that. Consider, many carry a closed bladed knife on their person, is this not a ‘dangerous’ weapon, what about the vehicle they are driving – is this not a danger weapon – more people are killed, and injured every year with vehicles than guns.
What is ‘suspicious behaviour’ and what is ‘threatening’ perhaps a person’s language, and assertiveness is just that ‘threatening’. I have a C.C.P. in the State of TX, I was pulled over for speeding, I DID NOT tell the officer, he was polite enough to ask me if I was armed, I replied yes! I was given a speeding warning, and nothing more. No drama, no issues. Treat people respectfully, and they too will do so.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, look it up. This isn’t news, it’s been a legal precedent since 1977. CCW, gun, no gun, etc… you can absolutely be frisked during a traffic stop.
What happened to, “Innocent Until Proven Guilty.”??
The same thing that happened to the right to free speech at Berkley.
We aways advise students for CCW classes to follow tge advice of LAPD Captain Massad Ayoob.
And hand the drivers license an insurance over together with their CCW permit.
In the feedback we get from them,when stopped this action is aways appreciated by the officers.
Two points i would make on is posting.
If the firearm holder was a convicted felon,how did he obtain a CCW. Also if anyone who lawfully possessa firearm is inherently dangerous,then where does that leave our police force. A judgement such as this is in itself dangerous. It follows the liberal mantra that all guns are dangerous and should be banned.
I wonder how the democratic elite feel about these dangerous and unpredictable secret service and aw enforcement officers they have surrounded themselves with.?
Thankfully it appears that the new administration will swiftly return law and order to our nation. President Trump will appoint probably ar least one more member of SCOTUS.hopefully more.
As a former law enforcement officer ,i have some sympathy with this one. If the officer suspected this man was a felon,his actions were correct. BLM have decleared war on cops,encouraged and supported by Clinton and Obamas rhetoric. The answer is simple, clear the streets of the lawless element and clear congress of te Democratic party. Then we can move forward.
the 2 A clearly says The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, I read that to say any American citizen has the right to carry a weapon anytime anywhere. That said a cop has to assume EVERY driver has a weapon, that said he would have the duty to stop and frisk EVERY driver according to the judge who proposed the “Everyone with a gun is dangerous and needs to be frisked.” which would nullify the fourth A.
OK…by that logic…then cops…also armed…are also dangerous…at all times…right?
Speaking as a retired police officer who served for 24 years as well as a strong supporter of the 2nd and lifetime member of the NRA, I can live very comfortably with this decision. Especially in the world we live in today a police officers life is on the firing line much more than ever. An officer has no idea what the law abiding, legally concealed carry citizen, may have just gone through when stopped. Perhaps the driver just had a relaxing morning sipping his coffee at DD or perhaps the driver just learned that his spouse was unfaithful and he just shot and killed him/her. Never knowing what is going on in the mind of the driver an officer must take all precautions to protect themselves. I know if I’m stopped I immediately place both hands on my steering wheel and inform the officer that I’m a retired law enforcement officer and that I’m armed. After that I wait for instructions. Simple and respectful works every time.
Well sure it works! The part about being a retired LEO has NOTHING to do with it…Right??
Want to give an Opinion on the subject do so without adding advice others can NOT use. How many here can say your a retired cop? If so, tell me it carries No weight with the LEO that pulled you over!
I agree with Michael. I am a retired Police Det. with 26 yrs. of service. Please think, be respectful, wait for instructions. It does work.
Exactly!
http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/isysquery/f9022164-58f6-43c3-8085-0a79ecfb7f31/1/doc/144902A.p.pdf#xml=http://New-ISYS/isysquery/f9022164-58f6-43c3-8085-0a79ecfb7f31/1/hilite/
Please read the first few pages and it will answer most of your questions
Also this was the fourth circuit court of appeals, it only effects certain states
How do I know the policeman that stops me has his head screw on right?As far as I am concerned he is a threat to me as much as I am to him because he is carrying a piece also.This thing works both ways.Just because he carries a badge doesn’t mean It puts him above the law.
So much this. A few years ago a friend and i were pulled over for speeding. We were held at gun point for 20 minuites and nearly executed while he screamed and cussed at us. He was suffering from severe ptsd. Thankfully when backup arrived he calmed down. He was later fired. We weren’t the only ones he acted like this too.
There are two separate issues here. The first is the officer removing the firearm from the person. This has long been ruled allowed for officer safety. This isn’t new. It does not, however, allow them to search you or the vehicle by default, which is what this judge seems to have ruled.
Not in Massachusetts,there’s a good chance you’ll find yourself cuffed,in the back of a police car or flat on your face until they decide if your permit is valid or not…..
That’s because in Mass they only have 5 or 6 REAL permits to begin with! Laugh!!
For the people that think NY is a commie state, (and believe me..It IS!) wait till they visit yours!!
I used to go there at least once a year to Gloucester on vacation. Not any more..For years now it’s been York Maine or even better NH!!
Good luck to you pal.
I was stopped in my town in MA. Yes this state has issues with firearms. I drove through an intersection and the light turned red before being half way thru. The officers legally stopped me. An officer and a sergeant. I was asked for my license and registration. I informed them I am legally licensed to carry a firearm and that I had it on my person. I told them the type and where it was on me. I asked them how they wanted to handle it, as I didn’t want to risk an accidental incident. They asked me to slowly provide both licenses and my registration. I did as asked and they asked me to sit tight. They did not remove my firearm or ask me out of my vehicle. They didn’t search my vehicle either. It took a while for all the background checks on both driver and firearm license. The sergeant came back to inform me of the time delay. He asked me why I informed them of my firearm. He said he never informs anyone. I said I didn’t want them to think I had anything to hide. I am a law abiding citizen and respect the law and those that enforce it. He thanked me. I got a written warning for the red light infraction and told to have a good day. I thanked them and said for them to have a good day as well. This has been my experience Everytime I have gotten pulled over. The police officers appreciate my honesty and respect, so they have treated me with the same respect. Remember, if they are pulling you over, you had broken the law and thus they have their guard up. So if you show respect and courtesy, they see you are not a threat. And remember, I live in Massachusetts.
Background: Earlier in the evening 911 received a call of a black male outside a 7-eleven holding a gun, load it, and get into a described car. Not long after a car matching the description was pulled over; the news story I read was that the occupants were not wearing seat belts, and IMO their mistake in all this. The state is a carry state by accounts and so 911 should have said to the caller a simple “Thank you”. The bulletin being sent to patrols in the first place should be challenged IMHO because possessing a firearm in a carry state is not cause to send ‘the team’ out looking for the car. The patrols; however, were alerted but really had no cause to pull the car over without the seat belts not being on. They did not know at the time, until the car was pulled over and ID was checked, that he was a felon.
So wait…blue lives don’t matter? You wI’ll get your gun back if you aren’t doing anything illegal. Cooperate and be glad you aren’t philando castille.
Blue lives do matter. However, our constitutional rights matter just as much as their lives. You stand on a very slippery slope any time you are giving up any portion of your God given rights to freedom. If I’m exercising my right to keep and bear arms, that should not come with a cost of giving up my right against illegal search and seizure. Mr. COP has a sidearm…Does that give me a right to assume he is dangerous and start digging through his pockets? I’ll assume your answer is no… Lets keep our encounter cordial, respectful, peaceful, and keep intact both American’s Rights and Blue Lives. How does that sound?
Sounds like you were born with that rare birth defects called logic and common sense….
Blue lives do matter. However, our constitutional rights matter just as much as their lives. You stand on a very slippery slope any time you are giving up any portion of your God given rights to freedom. If I’m exercising my right to keep and bear arms, that should not come with a cost of giving up my right against illegal search and seizure. Mr. COP has a sidearm…Does that give me a right to assume he is dangerous and start digging through his pockets? I’ll assume your answer is no… Lets keep our encounter cordial, respectful, peaceful, and keep intact both American’s Rights and Blue Lives. How does that sound?
Rodger, you are assuming all police are good guys or gals who have your, and their, best, lawful, safety interests in mind. Not always the case. Yep, Im former LEO and military and have seen officers that will abuse this interpretation due to many factors. Cooperation is relative. Some cops consider being an informed citizen (someone who knows his or her rights) as someone that is being uncooperative, even if they say sir, ma\’am, officer… If an officer asks me to do anything that is contrary to my constitutional rights, I\’m probably going to politely respond \”no sir, and this is why\”. Does that mean that I am being \”uncooperative\” by your definition? I love my LEO friends, but I have seen LEO\’s lose their credentials and sent to jail for forgetting why they are in the post they are, and looking at everyone as a piece of meat that is a threat. But here is my greater concern, will this be interpreted to extend to one\’s domicile? Should it? I promise you that as I type this, somebody in law enforcement is interpreting this to mean that they have the authority to kick someone\’s door in if they suspect a firearm is in the domicile based on a civil complaint, or the lawful gun owner tells them that a gun is in the domicile when they come to investigate a barking dog, under the guise of safety. Not no, but hell no. That is one of my many concerns with this decision. Sorry but in my opinion, our constitutional rights trump (no pun intended) all other things.Operating a 2 ton lead sled is inherently risky, so is operating my chainsaw. We can\’t mitigate risk 100% in every circumstance. We shouldn\’t infringe on lawful members of societies rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in an attempt to do so.I write this with my law abiding friends in mind. This felon gave up his constitutional rights at some point in his life and knew that possessing a firearm was, in his case, likely a violation of law based on his previous conviction and his failure to society.
The cop that shot Orlando Castile got nervous when he was told Castile had a permit. Castile got killed and the officer’s life is ruined. Minnesota doesn’t require you to tell the officer you have a permit and are carrying. Word of advice; keep your mouth shut and be cool. Police are like everyone else, some are good people, some are assholes. You don’t know who your dealing with. I don’t feel it’s anybody especially business that I’m excersizing one of my Constitutional rights. I know some states require that you inform the police that you’re carrying. In that case you should do so. However make sure you use people procedure for doing so.
Just obey the officer’s orders politely and then after it’s all over make a huge stink with the media, at the next council meeting (if you can) and via a letter to the city officials and everyone else.. If your brother is an attorney and is willing to write that letter, so much the better. Spook the police agency and make them think twice. But only afterwards.
Any Violation of the Bill of Rights only leads to a More Dangerous environment! As long as I am a Honest Citizen and a Policeman requests to politely hold my firearm until he gets ready to leave the area, I have no problem. But to use force upon my person invites his getting shot. He is no longer a Policeman but just another thug attempting to molest my person.
Unless you are a good friend of mine–if I see or know you are in possession of a firearm I go condition yellow automatically. All other facets of law and rights don’t mean anything to me when someone I don’t know has a potentially loaded weapon on them. By the same token, when I carry I assume that the potential is there for others to perceive a potential threat from me depending on my actions, behaviors, suspicions, whether there is a full moon etc.
This story IS TRUE. i used to show my gun permit when i would get pulled over for anything. i no longer do that. EVERY single time i did that the cop asked me if i had a firearm on me and i said yes, he asked to see it and took it back to his police car and brought it back to me with all of the bullets out of the mag, i even had them set the bullets on the rear bumper and set the empty mag on the hood and told me to wait till he was gone to collect my stuff, needless to say now if i get pulled over i only give the cop my drivers licence.
you are required by law to identify yourself as a concealed carry license holder and whether you are armed or not anytime an officer approaches you on business. To fail to do so can get you arrested and your C.C.W. license connfiscated prermanently.
No, laws vary by state, do not assume the law in your state is the law in all states!
you are required by law to identify yourself as a concealed carry license holder and whether you are armed or not anytime an officer approaches you on business. To fail to do so can get you arrested and your C.C.W. license connfiscated prermanently.
This ruling sounds like it will be going back and fort to the court. In Michigan you are required to identify yourself as a CPL holder. Most officer’s that I have come in contact with are usually OK with you telling then that you have a CPL. They like having that information. The only time I got some push back was when an office had not gotten full control of the scene and did not know the good guys from the bad. Once she knew who was whom she said that she understood what I was trying to do.
I guess that depends on the police officer. I have been pulled over and handed my DL and CCW permit. The officer looked at it and that was it. Took my DL and went back to his car, came back with a warning (which I did deserve for speeding). There was no discussion about the fact that I had a gun on me.
I do understand the apprehension police officers have of a person who they stopped being armed. They have a dangerous job and I guess any cooperation from law abiding citizens even when we are inconvenienced is OK in my book.I want to be safe and so do they.
Trouble is, in the state I live in, when you are stopped the officers already know you have a permit because it is in the LEIN system on their computers and if you don’t tell them it’s goodbye CCW and hello ticket/jail.
And that will get you in trouble in some States, such as Alaska where when pulled over you are obligated to inform the Trooper that you are armed or have guns in the vehicle.
It’s best to follow the rules of the State you are in, NOT make your own rules.
If you think reloading your mag is a nuisance, making bail and getting your property back is a nightmare.
Ohio it is worse. CCW is tagged to your vehicle registration. And when pulled over the first thing you MUST state to an officer is that you are a CCW holder (if you have a gun in the vehicle). I’ve been pulled over due to a local Deputy ran my plates and seeing my vehicle registration was tagged with CCW; then he proceeded to arrest me for violating the “Must CCW ID” to officer – pull me out and frisk due to this violation. But I did not have to ID – I DID NOT have a gun in the car or person. It was clearly an attempt to entrap. I asked the officer what traffic law did I violate – none other than my registration had CCW. Stupid deputy could have made some bogus reason butttt ego’s sometimes create brain farts. Later I reported him to his watch commander for retraining and sweated bullets driving in my home County for the next year. .
The next extension of the court’s ruling is by obtaining a CCW permit a person gives up all rights under the Fourth Amendment during any encounter with a police officer. If you dutifully surrender your CCW along with the ordered-up driver’s license, you are a potential threat and may be searched and handcuffed. If you fail to surrender your CCW with the driver’s license, when the computer tells the officer you have a CCW as well, you are behaving suspiciously and are even more of a potential threat, so you most certainly will be searched and handcuffed. Either way, expect to be searched and handcuffed the next time officer friendly pulls you over for failing to wear a seat belt.
As I’ve always stated, WHY, OH WHY do you people insist of groveling before a PUBLIC SERVANT and beg to fork over “money” in order to obtain a government granted privilege/permission to exercise WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, which just happens to be outlined in Black & White in the Bill of Rights as a “HANDS OFF” for the government??? I don’t get the logic. I’ve carried “constitutionally” for nearly 40 years. NEVER have I begged for a “permit”. WHY? Because the 2nd Amendment IS my “permit”.
I can see a lot more REVENUE AGENTS getting shot over this idiotic ruling. The judges in the majority on this decision need to be thrown off the bench and never given a position above dog-catcher as they are obviously, fundamentally ignorant of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about.
Hopefully, this will wind up before the Supreme Court and THOMAS, GORSUCH, Whomever replaces the old hag GINSBERG and a few other ORIGINALISTS, can set these mentally deficient lower court clowns straight, once and for all.
Easy way to fix this is for all states to Follow Vermont’s example and don’t have a CCW. The very fact of having a CCW requirement is bogus. A person has the right to defend ones self so weather he chooses to open or conceal carry is nobodies business, especially not ant government representative at any level of authority.
To say the sky is falling is a bit light. This was a convicted felon not a person who is carrying legally. Somehow the police saw a crime nvicted felon with a loaded firearm earlier and did nothing? How did the know it was loaded? If this story is true at all, why was he not arrested in the first instance? This sounds totally fictional
I.e. hi ever wrote it needs to prove their facts and not type so in his little worldview he might have 15 minutes of fame.
I happen to agree with you. In MI., you are required by law, to show your CPL if you are in fact carrying or concealing a firearm in your vehicle. You are still protected by the 4th amendment in the USA.
Earlier in the evening 911 received a call of a black male outside a 7-eleven holding a gun, load it, and get into a described car. Not long after a car matching the description was pulled over; the news story I read was that the occupants were not wearing seat belts, and IMO their mistake in all this. The state is a carry state by accounts and so 911 should have said to the caller a simple “Thank you”. The patrols; however, were alerted but really had no cause to pull the car over without the seat belts not being on. They did not know at the time, until the car was pulled over and ID was checked, that he was a felon. The bulletin being sent to patrols in the first place should be challenged IMHO because possessing a firearm in a carry state is not cause to send ‘the team’ out looking for the car.
The story is true the police received an anonymous phone call that a man had just left a convenience store in a blue green Camry after loading a firearm and placed it in his pocket. The area was a high drug trafficking area surrounded by low income housing and was well known by police. The officer saw the described car and initiated a traffic stop because no one in the vehicle had a seatbelt on. A back up officer arrived and asked the man who was the passenger if he had any weapons, the man gave the officer what was described in court documents as an oh crap look. The back up officer asked the man to step out of the car at which time he frisk searched him, and found the gun. The officer recognized the man from previous dealings and knew he was a felon, so the officer arrested him. The police stated the had a reason to believe he was armed from the anonymous tip and was dangerous because of the area he was in. The courts stated that a traffic stop could be considered dangerous in its self as the majority of dangerous police situations start with a traffic stop.
HUH????
I carry in PA legally, and I think that not only in PA but in surrounding states that little goody re my having a CCW is in the state database. When I am pulled over for some alleged infraction by a law enforcement office, my hands will stay on the steering wheel and when the cop approaches, I will tell him that I have a CCW and that I am (or am not) carrying at that moment and that the gun is on my right side – and what would he like me to do next. And of course I don’t carry over into DE, MD, or NJ, as their laws re CCW are ridiculous to say the least – I also avoid going to or through those states unless it’s a necessity.
This guy who wrote this story is a real BS artist – this is not a real story, it’s an incitement, and invitation to get excited – and he obviously doesn’t know the first thing about carry laws and how you should act when pulled over if you have a CCW, whether or not you are carrying at the time. There was nothing wrong with the cop’s actions as described.
If you are being stopped for a summary offense,( motor vehicle violation, or similar non-violent offense) a police officer has no probable cause for a search. If during the course of his questioning, or interaction with you, he becomes aware of circumstances which elevate his concerns for his safety, then he is justified in removing you from the vehicle, and performing a search for his own protection.I suggest that CCW permit holders do not volunteer their status, unless specifically asked by an officer . By prematurely volunteering this information, you may give the officer a false impression that you have potential for danger. But if you give him no reason, then he has no probable cause, and therefore has no grounds to conduct a search.
To you, the driver, he has no probable cause, but he may have such that is unknown to you at the time…you or your vehicle may look like a suspicious or wanted person/vehicle, etc…and he has probable cause. I’ve been stopped five times for minor traffic violations (4 advisory warnings-only one ticket 🙂 and volunteered my CCW-permit status immediately every time…not one exit or search.
Stopped five times fir Traffic Violations is a cause for concern for other people on the road. Driver refresher course may be in order. Just Sayin!
You certainly can do as you like. However, I’d suggest you examine your driving history and ask yourself why you seem to have so many incursions with the law. In my lifetime, I’ve not been stopped as many times; for 5 decades.
you should post the names and email addresses of the concurring judges so people can express their thoughts directly to them. that’s what libtard/progressive/socialists do. use a page from their book.
duhhhh……If you google: 4th circuit court…..the website lists all of the judges and their phone numbers.
Good luck with that!!
This actually happened to a co-worker of mine several years ago in Dekalb Co., GA. He was pulled over for a minor speeding infraction on a side road. Being a “responsible” gun owner, showed the officer his carry permit. Immediately, he says, the officer asked him to exit the vehicle and called in for another officer. So now he has two police cars sitting there while they search his vehicle. My co-worker was a young college co-op working for us. Quite, smart, easy going, general nice guy. I was amazed to hear his story and what they did. I’ve had a carry permit for nearly 30 years now. I’ve never once showed it to an officer or voluntarily announced I had a gun in the vehicle when pulled over and never had an issue. Basically, I have a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
I agree. Having been an LEO at one time in my life, I tell you this; the police are not your “friends” or enemies. They are observers and investigators who have one real “boss”; the District Attorney. They will see what they think they see, and react to it. If you give them no reason to suspect anything is amiss, they will move on. But give them any reason to look further, and they will; regardless of what you think is indicated or fair.
The author of this piece is more fiction writer than journalist. He is fabricating one heck of a stretch from the facts of this particular case to his proposed scenerio. Talk about chicken little and falling sky!
The author and Judge Pamela Harris both, Right?
How do you figure? He is citing the actual court opinion. Are you too f’ing stupid to realize that rights are rights and don’t apply on an individual basis? Would the law have protected a felon here? Yes, but that means that most of the rest of the time it would protect the law abiding from police overreach. People are innocent until proven guilty, and that means police don’t get to search you unless they have a reasonable cause to. It’s not fiction when it is explicitly stated in the dissenting opinion.
I totally agree with your post. I am a 51 year old man and when i went to college one of my classes was Criminal Justice.
I specifically remember my prof stating that our laws were writen in such a way that unfortunately there may be times when a guilty person may go free. Im not sure which founding father said it, but one of them said “it is better that 100 guilty men should go free, before 1 innocent man should be found guilty.”
“In other words, regardless of whether you are a law-abiding citizen when you are armed, you are not only armed but you are also dangerous.” ~ Well no F’n shite a law-abiding citizen is legally armed and per the carry permit, dangerous. But, more importantly, only dangerous to those who would do him or his family great bodily harm, not including the police. This new ruling is bullshit!
Depends upon state you live in. My State of Iowa knows if you have a CCW as it is on their computer data base. They don’t even ask.
Some fuzzy factors here; what do the terms “forcefully stopped” and “forced stop” mean? Was the subject being stopped BECAUSE he was seen earlier with a gun? Was he stopped because he was a black man with a gun? The officer’s claim that possession of a gun was “inherently dangerous” was inherently wrong, and possibly discriminatory. This event sounds worthy of hearing by the Supreme Court, although the attorney fees might make it impractical.
“Forcefully stopped” means exactly what it sounds like. The cop didn’t inquire after the time-of-day nor whether the citizen agreed with his opinion that the weather was lovely. He stopped him to inquire after a reasonable suspicion that he might be up to no good because he was armed. That is about the thinnest pretext I’m willing to entertain; but, it happens to have been correct. Whenever a cop stops one of us the situation is one of confrontation. There IS a potential for it to get out-of-hand. How much? It ranges from negligible to acute.
Our beef, here, is with the LEO community. Either they treat law-abiding, permit-holding, carriers with respect; or, with contempt. They choose; and, we respond. We respond politically, with our elected sheriffs, municipal councilmen and State legislators. We can remove the databases to which police have access identifying CWP holders. We can remove the duty to disclose. We could decline to answer any question about whether we are carrying on 5’th amendment grounds by invoking the 5’thA at the first instant of the encounter. If the police think that’s response is worth their power to deal with us contemptuously, then we have a resolution. I expect that the police will come around and decide that they are best off exercising the power implied by this court case judiciously. They CAN rudely disarm everyone who hands them his CWP along with a DL; but, it’s really foolish to do so absent some other reason to imagine that the confrontation will escalate. I expect that cops will learn that it is in their own interest to make very few mistakes in disarming a law-abiding carrier. We will tolerate a few mistakes; we won’t tolerate a lot of mistakes.
Sounds like a short story that SHOULD be a small novel. Way too much missing information to rile me up at this hour! Happy Super Bowl Weekend Ladies & Gentlemen, stay safe and carry smart.
There must be more to the court decision, because the right to frisk only allows the search. The concealed permit gives the holder the right to poses so what bases does the officer have to proceed beyond frisk? If he wants to fondle my gun God bless him. If he wants to check serial numbers that is alright with me personally but I didn’t read that in the decision. Probable cause is needed. And there was no mention of inconveniencing a lawful gun owner by making them jump thru any legal hops to retrieve their weapon. He had the right to FRISK for the general safty, but once finding what he was told existed what then is his and the Concealed permit holders rights. Half a story. Follow up needed.
No knock entry is one of the most dangerous things I’ve ever heard of! It’s my Castle I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
No knock entry is about the most dangerous thing I can think of. It’s my castle I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone!
To call this piece misleading would be a major understatement.
Both quotes here are from a single judge’s concurrence, not part of the Court’s Opinion as you claim. The Court rejected those views, hence why the nonbinding concurrence was written.
You also left out all of the facts of the case the majority based their decision on. The defendant here was seen loading a gun and putting it in his pocket in the parking lot of a 7-11 in a high crime area. The officer asking him out of the car and asked if he had any weapons. After he refused to answer the officer conducted a frisk and found the pistol. The defendant was arrested once the officer identified him as a convicted felon. He had no carry permit, never claimed to have a carry permit, and in fact couldn’t legally possess a gun.
The defendant’s argument was that since it’s possible that he could have had a carry permit he can’t be subject to a stop and frisk. The Court rejects that following the Terry line of cases regarding stop and frisk. That’s the extent of it. Nowhere does the Court find that gun owners are inherently dangerous or waive 4th Amendment rights. Again a sole justice writes that separately because the Court rejected that view.
Actually 4 judges dissent, saying that changes in law have greatly expanded legal carry and this somewhat undermines the presumptions inherent in Terry.
In summary the hypothetical at the beginning is not what happened and those quotes aren’t from the actual Court opinion. To say this piece is misleading is an understatement.
Thank you so much for looking into this, you have my humble grattitude.
The author of the article never said that the hypothetical at the beginning is what happened to Robinson. Rather, it’s a reasonable extrapolation given the court’s ruling.
However, you were right about the quotes. Those have been edited to reflect the court’s actual decision.
As for whether the court finds gun owners inherently dangerous, did you read this part of the ruling: “Robinson’s position also fails as a matter of logic to recognize that the risk inherent in a forced stop of a person who is armed exists even when the firearm is legally possessed.”
Also wonder about states that prohibit stop and identify/frisk. Does that go out the window too?
So if I’m reading the second part of this ruling correctly, all they would need is “reasonable suspicion” that there was a firearm in a house and be able to do a no knock? Wow talk about putting people’s lives in danger.
If I’m reading this correctly, since the typical LEO is carrying:
all LEO’s must spend all day frisking each other, and
have no Constitutional rights…
OK, appeal time.
Remember the saying “Rules for thee, not for me…”
Another step towards our Orwellian nightmare has been taken. Soon, they’ll cite any inanimate object as being a threat to safety, then use it to justify their Gestapo tactics.
Don’t believe this will stand up in the Supreme Court, r/t “reasonable suspicion.”
“While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.”
from: https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/what-is-reasonable-suspicion/
Having a conceal carry permit does not constitute a “reasonable suspicion,” that you have/are/will be committing any crime.
Appeal this ridiculous decision to the Supreme Court AFTER President Trump appointee is confirmed…
This is pure bullshit! One of the reasons that I carry a firearm with a valid cpl is to protect my constitutional ights. Exercising one right DOES NOT stop you from exercising any and or all of the other rights protected by the constitution of the United States. Just because I choose to protect me and mine I will not give up my rights for anything or anyone. This is how revolutions start. We so far have avoided a big blow up in our country with the election of President Trump. Hopefully he will get good conservative judges in place and we can start getting these libtards out of power. I see this as a winning formula- strong military + strong borders + more legal firearms owners = a Great America!
LEAVE OUR RIGHTS ALONE!!!!!!!
I would thank the felon who willing broke the law and then tried to skirt responsibility. As a result he gave the libtards everything they needed. Again, proving bad people will break the laws regardless, those who try to forfeit and take our rights can’t seem to grasp that. Instead, as a firearm owner, I’m discriminated against just like those libtards say people who aren’t even citizens are. What a riot!
and what makes the fellow a felon? the fact that he has a concealed carry permit?
Red the actual opinion. The defendant didn’t have a carry permit. He was a convicted felon.
The hypothetical wasn’t based on the actual facts of the case.
That’s the whole point of the article. You can’t tell someone is a felon just by looking at them unless you are constantly looking at mugshots. Even then, they’re supposed to need something more than, he did something wrong somewhere at sometime. The ruling would leave it up to officer discretion, which is exactly the kind of abuse the 4th was meant to protect people from.