Coping With Concealed Carry

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 2SAM22

    Moderator Emeritus
    Apr 4, 2007
    7,178
    This was an interesting article. I think he makes some great points and cautions police and citizens to use their heads in reference to CCW.


    http://www.officer.com/publication/printer.jsp?id=44942


    Citizen Concealed Carry Concerns

    Coping With Concealed Carry

    Posted: January 11th, 2009 10:23 PM GMT-05:00
    STEVE DENNEY
    Firearms Contributor


    In my column last month, I talked about some of the trends in the firearms industry and how they affected both individuals and their agencies. Interest in concealed carry is another area that has seen a significant increase in activity by ordinary citizens, presumably because of both the current economic situation and the political climate. People are concerned about a perceived increase in crimes of opportunity, as well as more aggressive behavior by criminals. Applications for concealed carry licenses in Florida, for example, have sky-rocketed and firearms safety training classes generally fill up rapidly. Many people tell me that they are getting their carry permits while they can, in anticipation of the need to carry more as times get tougher.
    Overall interest in concealed carry has been increasing throughout the country as more and more states adopt some form of shall issue concealed carry laws. At last count, 38 states now have laws that allow concealed carry by anyone who is not disqualified by some particular problem in their background. These are usually referred to as shall issue states. 10 states still have discretionary issue laws, but in some of these states there are few, if any, permits actually granted. There are two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, that do not have any provisions for lawful concealed carry.
    In addition, the passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, originally known as H.R. 218 when it was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2004, has opened up more concealed carry to qualified active and retired police officers. As more and more agencies are complying with the provisions of that law, their personnel are becoming more inclined to carry concealed weapons for their own protection and the protection of others. There are also more and more states that are entering into reciprocity agreements to recognize permits issued to residents of other states, as well as some states that have provisions for issuing permits to non-residents. My home state of Florida, for example, not only issues permits to non-residents, but has reciprocity with 33 other states as well. On top of all of the concealed carry states, there are also a number of states that permit open carry, under at least some circumstances. All of this means, of course, that the potential for law enforcement officers to encounter lawfully armed citizens is increasing nationwide.
    Such potential, however, also increases the possibility of dangerous interactions between the police and the public. When you consider the number of mistaken identity problems that already occur with off duty or plainclothes officers, you can see that some prior thought and planning is necessary to react appropriately and professionally to the situation. Most officers that I've talked with about civilian concealed carry support the concept, but do have legitimate concerns about what could happen when their duties bring them into contact with such lawfully armed citizens.
    I deliberately use the term lawfully armed citizen because it is necessary to differentiate between those folks and people who are armed for criminal purposes. Some officers seem to feel that anyone who is armed is either a criminal or a potential criminal, and react accordingly. In some cases this leads to over-reaction and some very unpleasant consequences. It does make your job more difficult when you have to decide how to react to someone who is lawfully armed, but this is just one more area that requires decisions made based on the totality of the circumstances at hand. When I did a seminar, Coping With Concealed Carry, about this several years ago at the last ASLET (American Society for Law Enforcement Trainers) annual conference, most people understood that you can't do a felony take-down of anyone you meet that happens to be armed. As with other aspects of police work, the circumstances dictate the response, and people who are not acting in any illegal or threatening manner cannot be subjected to arbitrary actions simply in response to exercising their legal rights.
    Some states have attempted to assist with this by passing laws that establish what is required when such meetings occur. Some states, for example, require that people carrying concealed weapons must notify an officer they are carrying when any contact is initiated, for any reason. Some states do not. Some states have their drivers license and vehicle registration systems linked to their carry permit data bases. Some do not. Some agencies have developed policies for such encounters, but some seem to leave it up to the individual officers. My recommendation is that each agency needs to have a consistent policy, based on applicable laws in each jurisdiction, that is understood and followed by their officers. It also needs to be a policy that can be articulated to the public, so they know what to expect and what is expected of them.
    I tried to come up with some broad guidelines for both sides of the equation and found that there were three things for each side that are nearly identical, depending on your perspective. From a police standpoint, I think these three things are reasonable to expect from any armed citizen:
    First, the armed citizen should know and follow the laws that are applicable in their state or particular circumstance. Choosing to be armed in society is a serious responsibility and before you do so I think you have an obligation to know what the laws are and to follow them. This is an area where agencies can help everyone by having information or training available for the public, so that people can get the information they need as easily as possible. Yes, there are going to be some yahoos out there that don't want to make the effort to thoroughly understand their responsibilities, but the information needs to be available, as least.
    Second, I think that lawfully armed citizens must comply with the instructions of any officers that they encounter. Simply put, do what the nice police officer tells you to do.
    Third, don't do anything stupid. This is probably the tough one and is admittedly sort of a catch-all that depends on the circumstances at the time. Unfortunately, many of the mistaken identity shooting of police officers by police officers are the result of not understanding that armed people have a serious obligation to have their brain cells front-and-center at all times.
    From the citizen's perspective, I think there are three things that are reasonable for the armed citizen to expect from the police.
    First, the police should know and follow the law. Sounds familiar, yes? You'd be surprised how many officers don't know what the laws are that apply to carrying firearms in their jurisdictions. I've heard some things said by officers that are simply made up on the spot. Law enforcement officers must know and follow the laws, just like the citizens. Agencies are responsible for ensuring proper training and officers are responsible for properly applying the law. I can assure you that many people who are carrying have researched the law and some know it better than the officers. It's good that the citizens make that effort, and it is essential that the police do their homework as well. If this doesn't happen, I expect to see an increase in lawsuits when officers violate the law themselves, whether unintentionally or otherwise. One thing I always try to get across to officers whom I talk with is that citizens are doing their research and it can be embarrassing, at the very least, when the citizen knows more about the law than they do.
    Second, then, the instructions that officers give the lawfully armed citizen must be legitimate and based on the law. If the citizen is going to do what the nice police officer tells him to so, the nice police officer has the obligation to give the correct instructions.
    Finally, the same caution applies to the officer: don't do anything stupid. If everyone is using their heads, there should not be any problems, regardless of the circumstances. This includes if an armed citizen has actually had to use the gun for self defense. My seminar went into a lot of detail about this, but there isn't room for that here. Suffice it to say that if shots have been fired, things really escalate and the potential for mistakes rises exponentially. Tactics for police response to these types of incidents are very involved, as are the appropriate actions by someone who has had to use deadly force in self defense.
    Again, a proactive approach by all concerned can help prevent dangerous situations from turning into tragedies. The closest corollaries that we have are the mistaken shootings of off duty or plainclothes officers, by responding officers, in the aftermath of deadly force encounters. The same sort of tragedies can occur with armed citizens.
    Obviously, this is just a broad overview of the kinds of things that I try to teach to both police officers and ordinary citizens who feel the need to be armed in public. The devil, as they say, is in the details. My purpose here is to try to get everyone thinking before the need for action arrives. As more and more people make the choice to carry firearms for self defense, there will be more potential for police interaction with lawfully armed members of the public. Being prepared and treating the situation, and each other, with the necessary respect will go a long way to minimizing the inherent dangers. Please, be careful and be safe.
     

    Spot77

    Active Member
    May 8, 2005
    11,591
    Anne Arundel County
    I like it, and if that were a contract to be signed in order for MD to issue me a permit I think I'd find it quite fair. The article also fairly sums up what 97% of legally armed citizens and 97% of police officers feel about police/ccw encounters.

    Thanks Vince.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    16,204
    PA
    Very good read, and informative to have a little bit of insight to how police are trained to respond to people like me, who CC anytime, anywhere it is legal to do so. So far I have only been approached while carrying once, I was open carrying on my property doing some yard work only a couple weeks after moving to PA, Officer Mike used to hang out in the gun shop that is now my basement, and just wanted to stop by to say welcome. He barely made any mention of the 686 on my hip, other than to invite me to shoot at the neighborhood gun club/range. In fact all dealings I have had with the police here have been extremely positive, Windsor is a small town where most everyone knows each other, the police are very courteous, and are well respected by the citizens, it is a complete 180 from the fear of police, and disrespect bestowed upon them that seemed so prevalent in Baltimore city. Concealed and Open carry in the area are also VERY common, firearms are viewed completely different than what I am used to in MD, there is no mystique, no prevalent culture of fear, guns are simply a way of life that everyone either embraces, or at least silently tolerates. I also make it a point to know the law, follow it to the letter, and keep a copy of the PA uniform firearms act with me incase of a "misunderstanding". There have been a couple of incidents in places around PA, and the resulting lawsuits have led to more training of police to avoid unnecesary confrontations with armed citizens, the PAFOA has been very succesful in this reguard, to both educate police and citizens to their rights and responsibilities, to take action aggainst those who commit injustice, and to protect citizens and officers who are within their constitutional rights.
     

    Charybdis69

    Member
    May 20, 2008
    243
    Takoma Park, MD
    Very good read. Thanks for posting. It makes me wonder what the future holds for "legally armed citizens" when police officers make little distinction between us and criminals.
     

    2SAM22

    Moderator Emeritus
    Apr 4, 2007
    7,178
    Very good read. Thanks for posting. It makes me wonder what the future holds for "legally armed citizens" when police officers make little distinction between us and criminals.

    I think you may have misread it then. When a police officer comes upon someone who is armed. Their first instinct is to protect their ass because that person could kill them quickly. So, initially, yes, little distinction is made regarding the officers safety. The difference is the criminal will do and make stupid decisions while the law abiding, legally armed citizen will probably use and abundance of caution in following the officers requests.

    Split second reactions have to be made. This article is warning both police and armed citizens to be careful and make appropriate decisions.
    Personally, I'd prefer the responsible, law abiding citizens of this state be armed. They are the GOOD GUYS!
     

    Rattlesnake46319

    Curmidget
    Apr 1, 2008
    11,027
    Jefferson County, MO
    Good read, Vince. I like the fact that he mentions that some officers have made up laws on the spot that were completely wrong. Easiest way to deal with it, know the laws yourself, be polite and professional, and if you feel you've been wronged, get the officer's name and take a trip down to the station. It DOES get taken care of.
     

    krucam

    Active Member
    A great read AS a Sticky. MD in general...DC, NY, Chicago in particular...have for so long gone without 'lawfully armed citizens'. This puts a burden on officers, it puts an awesome responsibility on those who choose to be 'lawfully armed'. As armed citizens, we hope to never use what we carry, as an Officer hopes. The media repurcussions of an Officers use of their sidearm is grave, for a 'lawfully armed' citizen, the repurcussions would be ten fold for our effort, particularly if it were against a member of the Police force.

    Sound thinking and thought processes are always required...on both sides. (Which in my book, is the SAME side).
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 22, 2009
    46,697
    Bel Air
    Perhaps I'm wrong, but in a state like MD, if we became "Shall Issue" many officers wouldn't know quite how to react, at least early on. I dread being pulled over for speeding (I do tend to drive a bit on the fast side) and being asked if there is a gun in the car. Of course there is. I almost always carry. Where? on my right hip, or small of back, depending on the holster. depite having a permit, I imagine myself being frisked on the shoulder of I-95 or in handcuffs. I would certainly not resist. It may be just my imagination running wild. I am the last guy in the world who would consider shooting anyone who wasn't trying to kill me first...much less shoot a police officer doing his job.

    As folks who choose to carry a firearm, we have a big responsibility. We can no longer give the finger to the guy who cut us off, slam on our brakes when being tailgated, be rude when the nice lady in front of us in the express lane pays for her 47 items in pennies. There can be no indication that we are looking for trouble. I think those in law enforcement have a hard enough job as it is. I can understand any reservations those in the field may have about dealing with an armed citizen. Thankfully, most are in favor of the idea.
     

    Markp

    Active Member
    Dec 22, 2008
    9,392
    As folks who choose to carry a firearm, we have a big responsibility. We can no longer give the finger to the guy who cut us off, slam on our brakes when being tailgated, be rude when the nice lady in front of us in the express lane pays for her 47 items in pennies. There can be no indication that we are looking for trouble. I think those in law enforcement have a hard enough job as it is. I can understand any reservations those in the field may have about dealing with an armed citizen. Thankfully, most are in favor of the idea.

    An armed society is a polite society. It is also a more egalitarian society, as those who can not protect themselves through raw physical prowess can with technology.

    I've been pulled over 2x while carrying... once I had a ticket. The state patrol officer in AZ was very professional and not concerned that I had a loaded weapon in the car. She gave me my ticket, asked me to drive safely and sent me on my way. Nice girl.

    Mark
     
    Great article yes... but Maryland is a rutterless ship with no sence of direction or the slightest idea on how to right itself. Baltimore City esspecially is one that is more racially, politically motivated than anything else. As long as "our" elected officials get their pockets filled they don't care what happens to the person who lives here or has come to visit the harbor. "We're losing much needed revenue from visitors to the city..." The answer is clear as day to everyone but the numbnuts talking, PEOPLE DON'T GO TO PLACES THEY DON'T FEEL SAFE GOING!!!! Sorry for the tirade, guess its just time to move, been thinking about it anyway, tired of the Maryland bullcrap.
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    I agree, the police reaction to seeing "man with a gun" is to be expected, just as Vince stated. You can't fault the police for exercising great caution, we wouldn't expect it any other way, or do any differently ourselves.

    Take this guy for example, at first I really didn't like the way he deals with the police (like not hanging up the phone, not giving the police officer his identification, giving only the minimum required information, not really cooperating). Then his friend shows up flailing his arms and even at one point waves his hand in front of the backup officers face to get his attention... all bad. This is a demonstration of sorts. The officer handles it very well, but I do have to wonder how much effect having everything recorded and several witnesses had on their behavior.

    After visiting Ridley's site and watching a few of his videos (he's really annoying, it wasn't easy), I think I get what he's trying to do, and although I agree in basic principle, the way they are doing it makes all of us lawful gun owners look stupid. Just my 2 cents, what do you think?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI
     
    Last edited:

    SonoraRebel

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    As for 'Ridley'... he's an idiot provocateur on a fishin' expedition for a paycheck. He's grandstanding for juvenile U-Tube creds. If he ever has a situation that actually called for deadly force he'd fill his drawers first. The guy in the striped shirt should have been FTO'd for disorderly... but the cops had a lot of patience.

    Should the 2A be incorporated against the states via the 14A as a result of McDonald vs Chicago, (as I hope) the MD GA will be forced to include a 2A type amendment to the MD state Constitution. Such was omitted from the MD Constitution during the Constitutional Convention of 1867 specifically to prevent blacks (former slaves) from bearing arms. This was in advance of the coming 14A which the MD delegates also voted against.

    "During the constitutional convention of 1867 the right to keep and bear arms was debated in the form of an amendment to what is now Article 28 to Maryland Declaration of Rights. Many delegates to that convention, who were either former slave owners or had served as officers in the Confederate army, were not about to guarantee the right of freed blacks to own guns. According to Debates of the Maryland Constitutional Convention of 1867, 150-51:

    Article 28 was read as follows: "That a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government."

    Mr. Giddings moved to amend by adding after the word "government" the words, "and every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

    Mr. Garey moved to amend the amendment by inserting the word "white" after the word "every".

    After some discussion, Mr. Giddings' amendment failed. White fear over free blacks owning guns was the critical factor in defeating the adoption of a right to keep and bear arms in Maryland's Constitution of 1867"


    And... it seems has been an endemic policy in MD politics ever since. The 'engine' of MD political ideology is the MDSP. The state police are not going to 'like' dealing with an armed citizenry. I fear it will not go well at all.

    Here... LEO's assume everyone is armed. They expect people to be armed. They'll even suggest it (depending upon your location) if you're not. Likewise the US Border Patrol. I have stopped at their various checkpoints with a loaded (modified) AK-47 clone stuffed between the seat and the center console... and the only comment was: 'Nice gun!' Imagine that same scenario in MD. :shocked: That sort of cultural attitude toward armed citizens will be the biggest hurdle... no matter what laws are enacted.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    258,682
    Messages
    6,537,253
    Members
    29,479
    Latest member
    Surf

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom