Decision to make if an officer pulls you over for a routine traffic violaiton

[B2Tall]

I've done a 180 on this one. I was always of the mind that I'd alert the LEO to the fact that I was armed, but after speaking to numerous LEOs on the subject I've changed my mind. The story was pretty much the same - sure, the LEO would appreciate it but it's not worth the trouble if you're stopped by a skittish cop, rookie, etc. None of the cops said they'd be angry if the person didn't volunteer that they were legally carrying.

I won't bring the subject up.

[AirBear]

Shortly after 9-11-01, I drove wife to regional airport for departure flight to visit relatives.
National Guard had set up checkpoint on entry to airport stopping all traffic and asking to open trunk. I refused to comply under 4th ammendment. Was motioned to side lane and another supervisors car arrived. He asked if I was aware of what had happened a few days earlier, I replied that I was,but that the 4th ammendment was not suspended due to that incident. I was refused to allow to drive any closer to the terminal, so removed wife's bag from trunk, out of sight of officers observation. She walked remaining 150 yards to terminal. Officers radioed ahead as to the situation and her bags were hand searched prior to her being allowed to board.

[Munkeyhunter]

From an interview with Larken Rose: posted yesterday

We're all taught that obedience to authority and obeying the law is what makes civilization possible. We were all told that lie, but it's still a lie. The belief that some people have the right to forcibly dominate others, even in a limited way, is the opposite of being civilized. It's an attempt to legitimize theft, murder and other violent aggression, by way of pseudo-religious political rituals − constitutions, elections, legislation, and so on. In short, the belief in authority has led to more death and destruction than anything else in history…And right now, I don't know of any issue in the world that even comes close to this in importance.
The very concept of government, which hinges on the concept of authority − the idea that some people can acquire the right to forcibly control everyone else − is probably self-contradictory and logically bogus. I don't just mean it's a bad idea on a practical level. I mean it's an insane idea.
This may sound odd, but believing in government makes as much sense as believing in Santa Claus, and that is remarkably easy to prove…One example is: Can someone delegate a right he doesn't have? No,of course not. If I don't have the right to steal, I can't give someone else the right to steal. It's so elementary it's ridiculous. The problem is that obvious truth completely rules out all government. If normal people don't have the right to tax, and forcibly interfere in the lives of non-violent people, then they can't possibly have given such a right to those in government − not by any election, or constitution, or any other document or ritual − and that means that just about everything that government does is inherently illegitimate.
To call it government implies that it has authority, that it has the right to rule, that it has rights that us mere mortals don't have. Those in power claim they got these super-human rights from us, from the people, despite the fact that we never had such rights to begin with, and still have no such rights and couldn't possibly have given them to anyone else. That's just one example of how what we're taught as basic civics is absurd, insane and horribly dangerous garbage.