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

[teratos]

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.

Nobody is going to touch a loaded gun that is attached to me. ND's tend to happen when unholstering and holstering. I have seen how some police officers handle a firearm at the range...

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?

Your choice. Comply with Unconstitutional behavior by agents of your government, or politely decline, asserting your rights. If there is escalation, a 1983 lawsuit should be the next step.

 

[USAF05]

Your choice. Comply with Unconstitutional behavior by agents of your government, or politely decline, asserting your rights. If there is escalation, a 1983 lawsuit should be the next step.

Got ya

 

[6-Pack]

Malicious compliance: Carry no less than 20 guns in your car and let them run each serial. Then sue for the lengthy wait time.

 

[spoon059]

Seems like running every serial equates to guilty until proven innocent

Seems like it opens the agency up to a civil lawsuit for an illegal detention and search. Respectfully do not consent to a search if you do not want, and respectfully repeat that you are not consenting, but I would not resist an illegal search on the side of the road. Fight it in court and get rich on the process.

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Abuck]

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.

Agreed.

How is it safer to constantly disarm, comply with safe storage proposals, leave it in your vehicle where there is a risk of it being stolen, than just having the weapon remain on your person? MGA wants to make it so problematic that you choose to not exercise that right.

It’s going to take times, and several precedent setting cases to figure it all out.

 

[USAF05]

Agreed.

How is it safer to constantly disarm, comply with safe storage proposals, leave it in your vehicle where there is a risk of it being stolen, than just having the weapon remain on your person? MGA wants to make it so problematic that you choose to not exercise that right.

It’s going to take times, and several precedent setting cases to figure it all out.

and hopefully no injuries or deaths...

 

[teratos]

and hopefully no injuries or deaths...

As Spoon said, if they decide to perform an illegal search, don't get combative. Call an attorney.

 

[swinokur]

Seems like it opens the agency up to a civil lawsuit for an illegal detention and search. Respectfully do not consent to a search if you do not want, and respectfully repeat that you are not consenting, but I would not resist an illegal search on the side of the road. Fight it in court and get rich on the process.

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

Exactly sir

 

[swinokur]

As Spoon said, if they decide to perform an illegal search, don't get combative. Call an attorney.

1 800 I’m gonna be rich

 

[babalou]

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.

oh I agree. They can ligma. None of their business. I am sure they do fishing expeditions.

 

[babalou]

Malicious compliance: Carry no less than 20 guns in your car and let them run each serial. Then sue for the lengthy wait time.

awesome

 

[swinokur]

As in ligma Richard?

 

[Biggfoot44]

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.

And the counterpoint will be that is analogous to checking the car for being stolen at every traffic stop .

Are they correct ? It will involve 4A Rabbit Hole # 13A to eventually find out .

 

[teratos]

And the counterpoint will be that is analogous to checking the car for being stolen at every traffic stop .

Are they correct ? It will involve 4A Rabbit Hole # 13A to eventually find out .

It is only peripherally analogous to that, since there is no Constitutional right to drive. There IS, as you know, a Constitutional amendment that explicitly gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It must be assumed that any citizen exercising this right is doing so lawfully unless there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is prohibited.

 

[Biggfoot44]

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?

Just the edited part above is at least 1.5 conversations , each with multiple contexts .

No , refusing direct instructions to exit vehicle has no upsides .

IF , you are packing , and up until that point you had been discreetly not voluntarily disclosed your gun & permit status , it would be wise & prudent to disclose so , Before exiting vehicle . ( Not saying the Statute requires it , just that it is Wise & Prudent . If you've been awaiting further development to decide to disclose , this is it .)

Once outside , feel free to stand on your 4A . Don't consent . but don't physically resist .

Esculate ? The context has now changed . It is given that you are being inconvienced . Talking your way out of a citation is no longer on the table .

Get vehicle searched anyway with your saying No ? Even if somehow arrested for * something * , you will be unlikely to be Convicted .

 

[Biggfoot44]

It is only peripherally analogous to that, since there is no Constitutional right to drive. There IS, as you know, a Constitutional amendment that explicitly gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It must be assumed that any citizen exercising this right is doing so lawfully unless there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is prohibited.

Didn't say that they are correct , just that will be their predictable position .

 

[spoon059]

And the counterpoint will be that is analogous to checking the car for being stolen at every traffic stop .

Are they correct ? It will involve 4A Rabbit Hole # 13A to eventually find out .

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Registration of your vehicle is public information, required to be posted on the outside of the vehicle.
Gun ownership is a right. <full stop>

 

[vanquish1]

What are they doing when they run the gun SN? Do they have access to your info to know that gun is registered to you?

 

[teratos]

What are they doing when they run the gun SN? Do they have access to your info to know that gun is registered to you?

If you bought it in MD.

 

[Brikhaus]

Just the edited part above is at least 1.5 conversations , each with multiple contexts .

No , refusing direct instructions to exit vehicle has no upsides .

IF , you are packing , and up until that point you had been discreetly not voluntarily disclosed your gun & permit status , it would be wise & prudent to disclose so , Before exiting vehicle . ( Not saying the Statute requires it , just that it is Wise & Prudent . If you've been awaiting further development to decide to disclose , this is it .)

Once outside , feel free to stand on your 4A . Don't consent . but don't physically resist .

Esculate ? The context has now changed . It is given that you are being inconvienced . Talking your way out of a citation is no longer on the table .

Get vehicle searched anyway with your saying No ? Even if somehow arrested for * something * , you will be unlikely to be Convicted .

A great summation!