You have to read this.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by murf26

You're exactly right...I randomly picked out two responses to the message and looked at their profiles. The avatar didn't match up at all with the profile. One kid was 22 and a "law enforcement enthusiast". That DOESN'T make an LEO. As my grandma would say, "They are too big for their britches". Just a spit in the wind.

Let's just be thankful that these mall ninja LEO wannabes aren't actual LEOs.

[HillBilly]

I read through quite a bit of the referenced thread. I can see both sides.

My feeling is that both parties need to respect the other. It is always the best policy to follow the "Rules" of conduct when in an "interaction" with an officer, armed or not. If you "cop" (no pun intended) an attitude with the officer, he has cause to more aggressivly assert authority. The nature of their job, in todays society, understandably drives their alert level up.

This is contingent on the Officer maintaining their end of the deal. The officer has a responsability to maintain a certain level of conduct. (Defining this level of conduct is beyond the scope of this post.) I do not envy their position, but that does not relive them of the duty to reciprocate a repectfull demeaner. I do not know who this persson is that is wanting to take posession of my weapon. If I was not to be trusted with a weapon, why would I have a licence? If they must have it, I would comply, completley. I would feel entitled to an explanation of what situation caused them to feel the need to disarm me. The officer is almost certainly armed. So now I have an unknown armed person on my case. Should the fact that they were able to put on a uniform make me trust them? Just a little devils advocate there...

The botom line is that each of us as members of society must fufill a responsabity to our co-persons. The fact that there are those who would not act appropriatly is the main reason we carry a firearm to begin with. This brings us back to the begining of the cycle and each iteration of the cycle can add more complexity...

I don't pretend to know all the answers and I will respectfully consider any constructive comments. We are in this together...

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by HillBilly

I read through quite a bit of the referenced thread. I can see both sides.

My feeling is that both parties need to respect the other. It is always the best policy to follow the "Rules" of conduct when in an "interaction" with an officer, armed or not. If you "cop" (no pun intended) an attitude with the officer, he has cause to more aggressivly assert authority. The nature of their job, in todays society, understandably drives their alert level up.

This is contingent on the Officer maintaining their end of the deal. The officer has a responsability to maintain a certain level of conduct. (Defining this level of conduct is beyond the scope of this post.) I do not envy their position, but that does not relive them of the duty to reciprocate a repectfull demeaner. I do not know who this persson is that is wanting to take posession of my weapon. If I was not to be trusted with a weapon, why would I have a licence? If they must have it, I would comply, completley. I would feel entitled to an explanation of what situation caused them to feel the need to disarm me. The officer is almost certainly armed. So now I have an unknown armed person on my case. Should the fact that they were able to put on a uniform make me trust them? Just a little devils advocate there...

The botom line is that each of us as members of society must fufill a responsabity to our co-persons. The fact that there are those who would not act appropriatly is the main reason we carry a firearm to begin with. This brings us back to the begining of the cycle and each iteration of the cycle can add more complexity...

I don't pretend to know all the answers and I will respectfully consider any constructive comments. We are in this together...

Welcome to USA Carry, HillBIilly. You have said it about right, brother. Being knowledgeable of the fact that we're armed law abiding citizens does not absolve us of the responsibility to behave a certain way when in the presence of LEOs.

[{TEX}Hawaii((]

i am not sure what to think on the issue. I don't think all LEOs will react the same. Some younger LEOs believe they are the only "qualified" ones to carry a loaded weapon and that us civilians put them in danger.

[crazycathed]

Originally Posted by gpbarth

Just dropped in on this topic, but have to add my $.02. IF - I :

• Legally purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer;
• Wait for 3 days for a cooling-off period;
• Fill out and sign all of the pertinent paperwork;
• Take a class required by the state I live in;
• Pay all of the fees (usually over $100) for my permit;
• Carry my permit and openly provide it to the LEO;

THEN - the LEO should respect me enough to understand that I am a law-abiding citizen, and very possibly no threat to him or interested in interfering with his enforcement duties. If he cannot conduct himself in a professional manner, he doesn't deserve to be wearing his badge. I have several friends in LE, and none of them would harass someone with a permit unless the carrier asked for abuse first. As long as I comply with the officer, am not rude and/or combative, LEOs have no rights or powers to abuse their authority.

yea.....what he said
I am getting my CWP and reading these kinds of posts is making it spooky scary. if civilians needed to be disarmed during a traffic stop for a leos safety we wouldn't have been issued a permit. when I got my first gun a month ago I remember the feeling of great responsibility that comes with owning one. there's an even greater responsibility with a CWP. If a leo takes my sidearm I would feel he's saying' the state may trust you but I don't'.

[justplainjim]

I've been in law enforcement for almost 32 years. There are so many good cops out there but it only takes a few like in this thread to make the entire profession look bad. I've seen so many changes in the attitudes of police officers over the last 32 years. The term "public servent" is now derogatory to many leo's.
The reason they disarm you at a traffic stop is because they can. Just pushing their authority to the limit. The answer to their question as to why you think you need a concealed weapon is it's none of their business.
The ones in the earlier thread are nothing but thugs with badges.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by crazycathed

yea.....what he said
I am getting my CWP and reading these kinds of posts is making it spooky scary. if civilians needed to be disarmed during a traffic stop for a leos safety we wouldn't have been issued a permit. when I got my first gun a month ago I remember the feeling of great responsibility that comes with owning one. there's an even greater responsibility with a CWP. If a leo takes my sidearm I would feel he's saying' the state may trust you but I don't'.

If an LEO can disarm a citizen for their safety, then shouldn't a citizen be able to disarm a LEO for their safety?

I can see both sides of this issue.I have never had any trouble at license checks, etc. here in NC, but then I am seldom out after dark, and if I am it si usually something church related. Many local LEOs know me, and some are freinds, etc. A CCW has probably gotten me out of more trouble than it has ever gotten me in. I seldom wear a seatbelt(dumb, I know) and having presented a CCw permit has taken their mind off the obvious, so to speak.

Another thing, I usually wear a coat and tie if I am going to a church function, or even when I go to bid a masonryjob, a jacket. Very short, LEO hair cut, amd unflappability go a long way toward avoidin conflict. Add to rhat, I actually like most cops. I think they can sense that, and being willing to co operate will never get you in trouble.

On the other hand, as citizens of this republic, we retain all rights and powers not specifically granted to the Gubment. The words "public servant" don't mean what they used to. I hate @$$holes with badges. Can not stand them. Problem is, Some of my good freinds in LE probably qualify for this title, if they are having a bad day, feeling bad, or just got spit on , literally, by the last three people they pulled over.

Give the guys a break. Don't get your hair up so easily. Just comply, and take careful note of the atitudes of the leos you deal with. Try to help every way you can with charities and benevolent societies for le. And remember who was naughty and who was nice when voting time comes around.

[toreskha]

Originally Posted by FN1910

I don't really think that these posts represent even a small minority of LEO's and wonder at times if those even are LEO to start with. However the attitudes range all over the place on how to handle anything. For instance watch this and see how you would handle it if you were a LEO and if you were the one being stopped. Usually the most vocal ones about these types of things are in the minority whether right or wrong. If this has been posted before I apologize but......

https://www.checkpointusa.org/DHS/video/BPRoadblock.wmv

I got into a lengthy (but not heated) debate with my mother about this once. My position was that randomly questioning someone's citizenship for no apparent reason - ie, one is not applying for a job or anything - is illegal. One of our inherent rights of living in a free country is that our government should not doubt or be suspicious of us. Thus, the average "man on the street" should be assumed to be a citizen and that should be the end of it. Accepting that criminals will have more freedom is one of the drawbacks of living in a free society. But, we value our freedom more than we value getting back at those who would abuse it - because if we all give it up, then no one can enjoy it.

Her position is that of many concerned with illegal immigrants - that they're able to "hide" because questioning citizenship has long been taboo. They're able to hang out and take advantage of our generosity, and we're somewhat limited in being able to actively question them. That works very much in their favor, and they just get jobs that allow them to skirt the law. They can avoid getting a job at all, and never be in danger of getting caught.

My response to that is basically that I don't want illegals here either, but I'm not going to allow my own rights to be limited by their presence. The Constitution does not become irrelevant just because of a criminal act by someone who doesn't respect it.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by toreskha

I got into a lengthy (but not heated) debate with my mother about this once. My position was that randomly questioning someone's citizenship for no apparent reason - ie, one is not applying for a job or anything - is illegal. .

And I guess that suppressing the freedom of speech of an LEO who suspects illegal activity is legal?