Interesting Talk to with Moco police officer today about country directives w/ ccw

[shrinkwrap]

probably already has with their other nom de plumes

Apparently this issue is not as dead a horse as some suggest. Somehow the assumption is that thousands of posts reduces the likelihood of - what - a LEO scouring MDS for what - irritated gun owners complaining about of having our rights violated?

I've been a paid member of MDS for years, even though it's not reflected in the frequency of my posts, since I don't feel a need to chime in on every topic. Of course, I'm so old I also don't comprehend Twitter, Facebook, and all the other nonsene things that waste time. I suppose if one is offended by a question, one can simply not reply.

Back to my nearly-dead horse: I asked the question because I honestly do not know how I would react if asked directly - "do you have a weapon with you?" My initial reaction is to say no, for all the reasons mentioned above. I am a firearms instructor, and I discuss with my students that it is a personal decision made at the moment. In a routine traffic stop I can't imagine how a LEO would find out I have a gun on me, since I usually carry in my pocket, with an anti-print shield over the gun. On the other hand, I don't like to lie in general and don't want to risk any legal repercussions should it somehow be discovered.

 

[teratos]

Apparently this issue is not as dead a horse as some suggest. Somehow the assumption is that thousands of posts reduces the likelihood of - what - a LEO scouring MDS for what - irritated gun owners complaining about of having our rights violated?

I've been a paid member of MDS for years, even though it's not reflected in the frequency of my posts, since I don't feel a need to chime in on every topic. Of course, I'm so old I also don't comprehend Twitter, Facebook, and all the other nonsene things that waste time. I suppose if one is offended by a question, one can simply not reply.

Back to my nearly-dead horse: I asked the question because I honestly do not know how I would react if asked directly - "do you have a weapon with you?" My initial reaction is to say no, for all the reasons mentioned above. I am a firearms instructor, and I discuss with my students that it is a personal decision made at the moment. In a routine traffic stop I can't imagine how a LEO would find out I have a gun on me, since I usually carry in my pocket, with an anti-print shield over the gun. On the other hand, I don't like to lie in general and don't want to risk any legal repercussions should it somehow be discovered.

Don't lie. That could be used against you.

Say:
" we don't need to discuss my day"
or
"I don't answer questions"

 

[spoon059]

Not trying to be a dick, but why is it on me to offer up extra information to try and ease you? I'm in the if not asked don't tell camp. If I get pulled over for a traffic violation and am polite and courteous to the officer (I always am). Why inject irrelevant information? I'll take my warning or ticket and be on my way.

You don't have to do anything to ease me or any other officer. Personally, I want the person who has the authority to issue me a ticket to feel as comfortable with me as possible, in the hopes that he doesn't issue me that ticket. By all means though, do what you feel is right.

 

[spoon059]

It my not be a bad idea to record any fishing expeditions on your cellphone.

Sure you can search me, if you can articulate which law(s) you believe I violated. Otherwise, pound sand.

I know what you wrote was facetious... but I would be very careful about saying "sure you can search me", as that could be interpreted by the court as consent. Even though you followed it up with something else. Not sure, just wouldn't want to test it...

 

[6-Pack]

Don't lie. That could be used against you.

Say:
" we don't need to discuss my day"
or
"I don't answer questions"

Or just answer with a lot of other questions until the cops gets pissed off enough to stop asking.

“What do you mean by ‘have’?”
“When you say ‘weapon’ what exactly do you mean?”
“I’m not sure what you’re asking, can you rephrase?”
“Philosophically, we all have weapons that are fists attached to us, is that what you mean?”
“Do you consider hammers and screwdrivers weapons? I have a toolbox in the back.”

I wouldn’t do this, but you can’t be faulted for asking for clarification.

 

[USAF05]

So the owner of PTP requested the body cam footage from his stop with the MSP. Outside of the normal questioning and answering, this occurrence in the video, if it becomes standard practice is what concerns me. Obviously they had a correct assumption that he would be carrying based on his vehicle being wrapped with company advertisement, but it is definitely an interesting early look at what these interactions could look like.

 

[teratos]

I know what you wrote was facetious... but I would be very careful about saying "sure you can search me", as that could be interpreted by the court as consent. Even though you followed it up with something else. Not sure, just wouldn't want to test it...

 

[JollyPedro]

So the owner of PTP requested the body cam footage from his stop with the MSP. Outside of the normal questioning and answering, this occurrence in the video, if it becomes standard practice is what concerns me. Obviously they had a correct assumption that he would be carrying based on his vehicle being wrapped with company advertisement, but it is definitely an interesting early look at what these interactions could look like.

So what was the legal reason for the search and seizure of his firearm? He had a permit, committed no crime; why would they run his gun looking for a crime? Aren't we innocent until proven guilty? 4th Amendment violation? I dont know that I would have let them do that without vocal opposition.

 

[LAC_MD]

Why does everyone here assume there is no database linking your DL, car registration and CCW status etc. If there is no law banning it your best bet is to believe in its existence especially in MD.

 

[JollyPedro]

b

Why does everyone here assume there is no database linking your DL, car registration and CCW status etc. If there is no law banning it your best bet is to believe in its existence especially in MD.

because there isn't a link, lol!

 

[USAF05]

So what was the legal reason for the search and seizure of his firearm? He had a permit, committed no crime; why would they run his gun looking for a crime? Aren't we innocent until proven guilty? 4th Amendment violation? I dont know that I would have let them do that without vocal opposition.

Yea, I spoke to my trooper buddy after he watched this and he said he wouldn't have done that. I am guessing it is independent leadership at each barracks that would determine whether this happened. Even though this guy was training, don't use me for your on the job training.

I guess the big question for me is, can you deny the request to "run the gun" ? For me I'm already on side of the road in danger of being hit by an idiot. And now you want to handle guns unnecessarily on the side of the road?

 

[Abuck]

Don't lie. That could be used against you.

Say:
" we don't need to discuss my day"
or
"I don't answer questions"

“I have nothing illegal” is another reply I’ve seen used, and recommended.

I know what you wrote was facetious... but I would be very careful about saying "sure you can search me", as that could be interpreted by the court as consent. Even though you followed it up with something else. Not sure, just wouldn't want to test it...

Yes, never offer any form of consent, jokingly, sarcastically, or any other way, to avoid creating an affirmative defense for their actions. At that point, the less said, the better.

Of course, all this sounds good being typed here. My last encounter was being pulled over by PSP for a cooler on a hitch haul obstructing my plate. I was armed. It was dark. I had a buddies 13 yr old along. (who at that moment was on the phone with her aunt, my goddaughter, a deputy sheriff, who was an hour behind us in the highway) I turned on the interior lights, rolled all the windows down, explained to her why I did that, and had my DL, REG, and INS cards in my hands, on the wheel, as the officer approached. I was polite, the stop brief, with a warning.

I answered just enough questions, briefly, to understand the reason for the stop without admitting guilt, to judge the officers attitude, and try and convey that we were not a threat.

I do understand that if ordered out of the vehicle, all passengers must comply due to PA v. Mimms. I was glad it didn’t get that far. At the point of a Terry frisk I would have informed of my weapons. Other than that I see no reason to escalate.

 

[teratos]

So what was the legal reason for the search and seizure of his firearm? He had a permit, committed no crime; why would they run his gun looking for a crime? Aren't we innocent until proven guilty? 4th Amendment violation? I dont know that I would have let them do that without vocal opposition.

The cop can ask anything he wants. He cannot search your person or vehicle unless there is "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime". That includes running your gun.

 

[JollyPedro]

Yea, I spoke to my trooper buddy after he watched this and he said he wouldn't have done that. I am guessing it is independent leadership at each barracks that would determine whether this happened. Even though this guy was training, don't use me for your on the job training.

I guess the big question for me is, can you deny the request to "run the gun" ? For me I'm already on side of the road in danger of being hit by an idiot. And now you want to handle guns unnecessarily on the side of the road?

I dont know that I would have denied them access to my gun, but I definitely would have made vocal opposition to it for a potential case if it came down to that. End of the day, it is going to take some time for cops in MD to get used to good guys with guns.

 

[Micktaco]

So what was the legal reason for the search and seizure of his firearm? He had a permit, committed no crime; why would they run his gun looking for a crime? Aren't we innocent until proven guilty? 4th Amendment violation? I dont know that I would have let them do that without vocal opposition.

I can buy them disarming him for "officer safety", but like you asked how is running the run's serial warranted on this stop?

 

[JollyPedro]

The cop can ask anything he wants. He cannot search your person or vehicle unless there is "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime". That includes running your gun.

This is key! There was no RAS In this case. His vehicle being "suspicious" with its wrap is not a crime. Suspicious isn't a misdemeanor or felony.

 

[rseymorejr]

I can buy them disarming him for "officer safety", but like you asked how is running the run's serial warranted on this stop?

How does pulling a loaded gun out of a law abiding citizen's holster and messing around with it enhance anyone's safety? Leaving it alone is the safest thing to do.

 

[swinokur]

Seems like running every serial equates to guilty until proven innocent

 

[USAF05]

The cop can ask anything he wants. He cannot search your person or vehicle unless there is "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime". That includes running your gun.

I get that, but it went right to "step out of the car, we are going to run your gun" and not sure if you watched the whole thing but the troopers didn't even know if the guy could've refused even mentioning "it could be stolen." But based off historical events, if asked to get out of the car and subsequently refusing never ends well. So it's just a case of not escalating the situation unnecessarily at that point right?

 

[Micktaco]

How does pulling a loaded gun out of a law abiding citizen's holster and messing around with it enhance anyone's safety? Leaving it alone is the safest thing to do.

Disarming, not playing around with it. The playing around part was due to them taking it out of the holster to run the serial #. Having been in their shoes, I can understand both your approach (leaving him armed but informing him to make no movements toward the weapon), and their approach (which should have been to disarm but not run the gun which was a search without RAS).