What is it worth for you to carry

trickg said:

...and I used to keep a pair of Cooperman Guardsman drumsticks in my car. (I used to tap on my steering wheel when stuck in traffic) Those babies were 95 grams apiece and made from persimmon, a heavy, dense, hard wood...

Click to expand...

Nice idea, but I've banned drumsticks in my truck since my ex's little brother dimpled the hell out of the dash. Tho with the proper motivation, I could allow them back in. Now where's my Pantera CDs....?

edit: Just had an image of a carjacker getting "A New Level" drummed out on his noggin. I crack myself up sometimes.

Rattlesnake46319 said:

Nice idea, but I've banned drumsticks in my truck since my ex's little brother dimpled the hell out of the dash. Tho with the proper motivation, I could allow them back in. Now where's my Pantera CDs....?

edit: Just had an image of a carjacker getting "A New Level" drummed out on his noggin. I crack myself up sometimes.

Click to expand...

If you want insane drums make sure you check out Death, and even Isis... some really tricky progressive rhythms there! And some SPEEEEEEEED!

novus collectus said:

Something tells me this is not right. From what I gather from the Terry search is it is for the officer's safety because if someone is armed they can attack the officer. If the car door is locked, then it cannot be argued they can reach a weapon in it because it is locked.
The suspicion part, it is not probable cause and, correct me if I am wrong, you need probable cause to enter a locked vehicle to search it without permission.
I will never consent to a search though and not always do everything they ask. Let's face it, while 99.9% of all police officers in MD are professional and are good, there are still a few asshats that just don't give a shit and will step over the line with you in a second. Where I live, Prince George's county used to be full of them (more than a few went to prison since then).

Click to expand...

Well my good man, there is a thing called reasonable articulable suspicion. As a LEO I have the ability to explain the circumstances, and my instincts, gut feeling and experience will come into play. The higher probably of someone having something to hide is what my training and experience will tell me and I will tell the courts, rather than some smart ass who felt he had something to prove by locking his vehicle when he got out. If you have nothing to hide don't act like you do. What you have done is raised the level of suspicion, and why would you want to do that if there is nothing to hide?
Read up on the Carroll Doctrine for your right to privacy as it pertains to vehicles, it is actually a very low expectation due to the ability of evidence/contriband to be easily moved or destroyed. Once again as far as consent goes, which is a nasty word, on a traffic stop LEO's have the right to remove ALL occupants and do a pat down on them and then search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. ALL of this can be done without any consent whatsoever. Then we can go a step farther and bring a K9 to the scene, and if the K9 indicates at all, all bets are off. The Supreme Court once again ruled on that and I have seen many cases in all levels of court, District, Circuit and Federal, that have tried to argue the dogs training and everything else and NEVER won. The K9 alert is apparently indisputable, as I have seen it, and most people take whatever plea is offered after getting their suppression motion squashed by the judge.
All I am saying is that I recognize all walks of life and they need to recognize LEO's also. We are under intense scrutiny all the time, however the courts and the law allow us a certain degree of leverage to actually go out and perform our job and get the bad guys.
There is an element of LEO's that are bad...guess what? There is a certain element of society as a whole that is also bad. But LEO's are held to a higher standard and rightfully so, but LEO's are still human and prone to error as is everyone else. We have a set of parameters that we operate under to protect your rights as well as our safety. You see society as a whole has sort of lost sight of the fact that the bad guy, who had 10 felony convictions, had 10 pounds of marijuana, 2 fully automatic assault rifles, a fully loaded pistol, $10,000.00 in cash and was driving a car that was stolen. The police officer wasn't polite to him and the officer didn't ask for consent to search when he saw the assault rifles in the vehicle or the pistol dropped out of the bad guys lap when he got out of the car. These are all things I have seen or heard defense attorneys argue, BUT WE ALL FORGOT THE BAD GUY HAD ALL THE OTHER STUFF!!! Its get him off on some technicality, never mind the evidence or that he was guilty as sin. Even if the officer got it all on tape the defense attorneys will argue against it, this is what society is up against.
Back to the topic....carrying without a permit also makes law abiding gun owners look bad and gives the government the leverage to make stifffer laws. And that is, after all, what we are trying to avoid.
One other thing.......black and white are very thin. The gray area in the middle is vast and thats where the law comes in because the law is the one thing that is open to each and every persons own interpretation.

urbanwarrior said:

Well my good man, there is a thing called reasonable articulable suspicion. As a LEO I have the ability to explain the circumstances, and my instincts, gut feeling and experience will come into play. The higher probably of someone having something to hide is what my training and experience will tell me and I will tell the courts, rather than some smart ass who felt he had something to prove by locking his vehicle when he got out. If you have nothing to hide don't act like you do. What you have done is raised the level of suspicion, and why would you want to do that if there is nothing to hide?
Read up on the Carroll Doctrine for your right to privacy as it pertains to vehicles, it is actually a very low expectation due to the ability of evidence/contriband to be easily moved or destroyed. Once again as far as consent goes, which is a nasty word, on a traffic stop LEO's have the right to remove ALL occupants and do a pat down on them and then search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. ALL of this can be done without any consent whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Sorry, even though you know way more about this than I ever will, it still sounds erroneous. If what you say is true and you can search a car so easily, then why did the Supreme Court rule DUI roadblocks are ok but only if they are not too invasive and does not hold people too long?
I can understand what you are saying about someone locking the car being suspicious though, but I am still not completely convinced.

All I am saying is that I recognize all walks of life and they need to recognize LEO's also. We are under intense scrutiny all the time, however the courts and the law allow us a certain degree of leverage to actually go out and perform our job and get the bad guys.
There is an element of LEO's that are bad...guess what? There is a certain element of society as a whole that is also bad. But LEO's are held to a higher standard and rightfully so, but LEO's are still human and prone to error as is everyone else. We have a set of parameters that we operate under to protect your rights as well as our safety.

Click to expand...

I think you got the wrong feeling from my statement, I was not cop bashing, I was just trying to really say that I treat people the way they treat me. Since all but a few officers are professional and good, I will of course treat them with the respect they deserve.
Also, every encounter I have had with PG police in recent years has been positive. I think they cleaned house and besides a dead pet dog or two here and there, they are probably a force made up of decent officers.

Back to the topic....carrying without a permit also makes law abiding gun owners look bad and gives the government the leverage to make stifffer laws. And that is, after all, what we are trying to avoid.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, but for the person threatened and living in valid fear of being attacked and killed, I will not try to talk them out of doing what they gotta do.
If they have to use the handgun in defense of that known threat and that is how they get caught with it, then it can help us as much as it hurts us as far as gun laws go, but it will still make us look bad generally.

I have had a friend that was living in valid fear and she was doing something legally questionable that I did not approve of, but I did not talk her out of doing it because her being dead was much worse.

Don't want to see this thread locked, but it's starting to look like it's headed to a LEO bashing. I'm gonna be the voice of reason (I know, that's a switch) and suggest we avoid that.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what it's like to walk a beat or pull a dismounted patrol. I'm an intel puke, confirmed fobbit, whatever you want to call me. Only time I spent outside the wire was a 2 day convoy. The rest of my 11 month tour was in a palace complex. Little to no worry of snipers, limited exposure to local nationals, and solid overhead to protect from incoming rounds. We have veterans and LEOs on this forum who have seen far more than I have. That being said, EVERY combat veteran is a different creature than your average citizen. Just as every LEO is. We've been in similar situations, and at least in my case, seem to have far more tolerance and understanding for a LEO's actions during a stop. It's kind of like the old joke of "how many Vietnam veterans does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man! You weren't there!" It was funny when I was in high school, and as I told my old man when I came home from Iraq, it's not so funny now because it makes far too much sense.

As for the asshat LEOs, and we've all dealt with one before, remember this much. Not every OIF veteran is responsible for Abu Gharib, and not every Vietnam veteran was responsible for My Lai.

Finally - urbanwarrior, love the quote. That was my daily prayer when I was downrange.

edit - Novus posted before I did. Disregard impression of LEO bashing.

Rattlesnake46319 said:

Don't want to see this thread locked, but it's starting to look like it's headed to a LEO bashing. I'm gonna be the voice of reason (I know, that's a switch) and suggest we avoid that.

Click to expand...

I did read your last statement in regards to Novus and do want to mention that I agree too and do not feel at all that this thread has led or is leading to LEO bashing. As a matter of fact I think its one of the best threads lately bc it is full many different points of view that everyone can agree or disagree with.

Just a few things Id like to mention.

As briefly stated when you get pulled over do keep your hands where the officer can see them ie on top of the steering wheel, always turn on the cab light (from what I hear it helps put the officer at ease to try and assure him that you are not hiding anything) and always be as polite as possible even if you get pulled over for doing 68 in a 65. I am not a LEO, but can damn well tell you that honesty and being polite with the officer goes a long way. My respect towards an officer one night got me out of a lot of repair orders and tickets. He said he was giving me written warnings bc I did not try and argue with him and was being as honest, polite, and respectful as I could possibly be. Now I do understand that this method does not work every time with every LEO, but it does look good in court if it comes to it.

Now back to the subject of if you feel like your life is being threatened, I will not argue with you like Novus about doing what you need to do. I think the option in that case would be stay alive and take the punishment or be killed/seriously injured. But that all depends on how you look at it.

Great thread and I hope it doesn't get shut down

Are there any cases where someone, who if this was a shall-issue state could have easily gotten a lisc, was in fear of their life and did carry illegally, and then did defend themselves against the very threat they carried for? What was the outcome?

Redneck17 said:

Great thread and I hope it doesn't get shut down

Click to expand...

+1

foxtrapper said:

Are there any cases where someone, who if this was a shall-issue state could have easily gotten a lisc, was in fear of their life and did carry illegally, and then did defend themselves against the very threat they carried for? What was the outcome?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately in MD, if there was such a case, they are probably still sitting in a jail cell

I need help finding the story i have been looking for. From what i am told. In Baltimore there was a mta bus driver bad part of town night shift shot and killed a man that was trying to rob him. He was only charge with the misdemeanor charge of carrying without a permit he got pbj for it but was fired for violating mta policy. I work for the state police and work with other agency's i like to talk about scenarios with Leo's just to see how they feel about things. A Leo can not articulate searching a car if he did not see anything in plan sight from outside of the car. From the poll i took it was unanimous.

Side note - what would be the legality of carrying a rifle (such as a semi-auto regulated rifle) in the trunk/back area (no trunk in some vehicles) with a couple loaded mags locked up in the glove box (no way to access the glove box while driving, as the key is in the ignition)?

smores said:

Side note - what would be the legality of carrying a rifle (such as a semi-auto regulated rifle) in the trunk/back area (no trunk in some vehicles) with a couple loaded mags locked up in the glove box (no way to access the glove box while driving, as the key is in the ignition)?

Click to expand...

Here is the thread about when I called the licensing division about this very matter.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=7050

smores said:

Side note - what would be the legality of carrying a rifle (such as a semi-auto regulated rifle) in the trunk/back area (no trunk in some vehicles) with a couple loaded mags locked up in the glove box (no way to access the glove box while driving, as the key is in the ignition)?

Click to expand...

Loaded mags for rifles with a rifle in the car is a tricky one, loaded stripper clips makes it even trickier. It has to do with the hunting statute. Then one has to wonder if the statute only applies to when hunting or poaching.
Personally I think the magazine in the rifle cannot be loaded when in or on a vehicle, but when not in the rifle it is fine, and since it says nothing about stripper clips, stripper clips should be even more fine. So an SKS with a fixed mag and stripper clips sounds like a plan, but loaded mags for rifles while somewhat questionable should be fine too.

From what I gather, there is no state law about unloaded rifles and shotguns in the car and there is no state law prohibiting the open carry of loaded rifles when not in or on a vehicle (except for around public demonstrations).
Local laws may apply and they may not apply because of state preemption.

I am not a lawyer.

shawn said:

Here is the thread about when I called the licensing division about this very matter.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=7050

Click to expand...

Call them again, I will almost guarantee you will get a very different answer if another trooper answers.

Rattlesnake46319 said:

Nice idea, but I've banned drumsticks in my truck since my ex's little brother dimpled the hell out of the dash. Tho with the proper motivation, I could allow them back in. Now where's my Pantera CDs....?

edit: Just had an image of a carjacker getting "A New Level" drummed out on his noggin. I crack myself up sometimes.

Click to expand...

ahhh another pantera fan.

novus collectus said:

Call them again, I will almost guarantee you will get a very different answer if another trooper answers.

Click to expand...

I know......................sigh


One thing I have learned.

LEO's are NOT lawyers and do NOT know the law as well as a lawyer does.

Our only hope is to know the law BETTER than LEO's and if we are arrested wrongly then we have to fight it out in court with lawyers and judges.

I guess it is just one of the things you have to put up with living in this state.

Spot77 said:

It's not worth my honor and breaking my word.

I've tried to live my life by the law, and I've testified countless times in front of the legislature about how I, as a law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry.

I'd rather die with my integrity than live without it.

Click to expand...

That'll make a lovely headstone, Spot. I hope it never has to be carved, though. I'd like to see you die of old age 40 or 50 years from now, instead of sooner as "proof" that you were a man of your word.


Me? I don't give a damn about my honor, or who thinks what of me. I act on the principles of self/family preservation. I'm gonna carry if I feel a genuine need/fear to, laws be damned.

Fortunately, most of the time (nearly all, really) I don't feel it's a "need" for me. Perhaps it's because I spend a lot of time in sketchy places at work (I log more ghetto time than most cops I know) and my comfort zone/situational awareness is a little more tuned than most peoples....


But back to the topic at hand.... I'm gonna carry if I feel there's a need. I'm not willing to die just to prove that I was a good, law abiding citizen. I AM a good citizen - I pay lots of taxes, keep my grass cut, give to the local VFD and USO and all my neighbors love me - but I'm gonna do what I have to do to if I feel a threat warrants it.


If there was a law that said I had to stick a red hot fireplace poker up my ass before making a left turn I wouldn't follow that one, either....

shawn said:

I know......................sigh


One thing I have learned.

LEO's are NOT lawyers and do NOT know the law as well as a lawyer does.

Our only hope is to know the law BETTER than LEO's and if we are arrested wrongly then we have to fight it out in court with lawyers and judges.

I guess it is just one of the things you have to put up with living in this state.

Click to expand...

We have an advantage over LEOs. A police officer has to know many laws from traffic and local ordinances, to felonies of all kinds.....but we gun owners just have to know the gun laws well. We can focus on the minutia of the gun laws, but they don't have the time.

That is why many have the small digest of criminal laws with them, it is so they can look up an offence on the spot I guess.

urbanwarrior said:

Once again as far as consent goes, which is a nasty word, on a traffic stop LEO's have the right to remove ALL occupants and do a pat down on them and then search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. ALL of this can be done without any consent whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Say what? I don't think you meant to say that. Maybe on a traffic stop where you arrest the driver you can then do that.

novus collectus said:

We have an advantage over LEOs. A police officer has to know many laws from traffic and local ordinances, to felonies of all kinds.....but we gun owners just have to know the gun laws well. We can focus on the minutia of the gun laws, but they don't have the time.

That is why many have the small digest of criminal laws with them, it is so they can look up an offence on the spot I guess.

Click to expand...

We do have an advantage in that respect.

What worries me is when you carry the law book as well as the officer carrying the law book but he refuses to look it up because he "knows" the law.

Kind of like that Sgt I talked to at the licensing division (whose job is to know all things firearms) who DID know the law and said that he would still ignore it and make the arrest anyway.

To me that sounds like willfully disobeying the law as written.

What also worries me is when LEOs have the thought process of "Ill just make the arrest and let the court sort it out"


Now take the trooper who built the deck on my house for example.

I asked him about traveling with an unloaded shotgun in my truck behind the back seat (definitely out of lunging distance)

He said that he thought it was illegal. But he didnt know for sure.

What that said to me is if he was ever in that situation he would look it up or radio in to have someone look it up for him.

I believe that is the right way to handle that type of situation.


Now I am not LEO bashing here. I have the utmost respect for LEOs.

Except for the ones who enforce their opinion instead of the law.