Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO - Page 3
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 177

Thread: Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO

  1. Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    Talked to a second amendment attorney. He said that the officer couldn't do that, but advised me that it's probably better to go ahead and comply, regardless of how unconstitutional the request is since the officer could try to make up some criminal charge.
    My personal opinion:

    I never would have informed the officer about the gun to begin with, and it would have been in a holster on my belt, or in the closed glovebox which would not have any paperwork in it the officer would need.

    I think you offered a perfectly acceptable and appropriate response to the officer's "request" for you to voluntarily disarm yourself (which was a completely foolish request on the officer's part).

    If the officer had chosen to ask you to exit the vehicle, frisk you, temporarily seize the handgun for the duration of the stop, and searched the area of the vehicle from which you could readily obtain a weapon before allowing you to enter the vehicle again (without your consent required), the officer would have been perfectly well within their right to take those actions, based upon US Supreme Court decisions. That's something you have to be prepared for if you are going to choose to inform the officer about the presence of a gun.

    What the officer did choose to do: threaten you with revocation of your carry permit to intimidate you into future blind compliance, was a total load of crap.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    NavyLCDR, Could you please post which Supreme court ruling it is that you just mentioned? I tried doing some research on this subject and didnt really get anywhere with it, my google-fu was weak on this one....

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    NavyLCDR, Could you please post which Supreme court ruling it is that you just mentioned? I tried doing some research on this subject and didnt really get anywhere with it, my google-fu was weak on this one....
    Michigan v. Long:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...3_1032_ZO.html

    In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right "to neutralize the threat of physical harm," id. at 24, when he possesses an articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous. We did not, however, expressly address whether such a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest. In the present case, respondent David Long was convicted for possession of marihuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the [p1035] automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. We hold that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. We also examine Long's argument that the decision below rests upon an adequate and independent state ground, and we decide in favor of our jurisdiction.
    More info:
    Criminal Procedure Capsule Summary - Chapter 3

    So then there is this argument of "armed AND dangerous". Let me ask you this: I inform the officer about my gun and permit to have it. Is it a guarantee to the officer that I am not dangerous just because I say I am not dangerous and give him a piece of paper that he has no idea is real and valid or not? Does the officer take it for granted that my driver's license is still valid just because I give it to him and tell him it is valid? NO.

    It would be an extremely uphill argument to convince a court to rule that a person poses no danger to a police officer simply because they tell them about a gun and present a piece of paper that the officer would be required to ASSUME to be authentic and valid and for that court to require the officer to leave gun with the person.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    One thing I haven't heard mentioned yet is the implications of the "must inform" or not thing. Even if you are in a state that does not require you to inform the officer, you can't un-ring a bell. Everything that follows after you say "hi, I have a gun" nullifies anything regarding whether or not you must inform.
    -
    I think the cop acted poorly as mentioned by NavyLCDR, and IMHO is probably a danger to himself and others. If I was a cop and pulled you over, then you told me "I have a gun but I don't want you to see it or touch it" My WTF-o-meter would have red-lined. The "officer safety" procedures would have commenced, and I would probably been taken out of "maybe I'll give this guy a warning" mode. Keep in mind that all of this can be done politely, cuffs might not be necessary, but a pat-down would be; and it might all still end with "have a nice day and drive safe".

  6. I did let him see the gun, and I didn't say he definitely couldn't take it. Rather he requested and I said I'd rather not. I kept my hands out the window the entire time.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    I did let him see the gun, and I didn't say he definitely couldn't take it. Rather he requested and I said I'd rather not. I kept my hands out the window the entire time.
    The point I was trying to make is that once you tell the officer that you have a firearm, the officer automatically has the right, under current US Supreme Court decisions, to frisk you without your consent, and to search the area of the vehicle from which you may immediately obtain a weapon without your consent. Period (as long as they have a reason to detain you initially, such as a traffic stop for speeding). So my point also is, why would I voluntarily provide the officer with the exact information they require (there is a gun present) in order to search me and part of my vehicle without my consent? If I just let the traffic stop proceed, and they don't ask about a gun, and I don't tell them about a gun, and they don't see a gun, they have no reasonable suspicion that I am armed in order to base the searches on.

    Once they return to their vehicle and find out from dispatch that I have a concealed carry license, then their ability to perform the searches without my consent falls to nearly zero because 1. They showed no initial concern about a firearm before they knew I had a valid permit and 2. They just received information that I have a valid permit, which requires a background check, and any firearm that I MIGHT be carrying is approved to be carried by the state. Both of those facts together should eliminate the "and dangerous" requirement for the searches.

    Remember, just because you show the officer a carry permit, that officer is under no obligation to assume it is valid.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  8. Ah I see. The only reason I informed him initially that I had a permit is because that was what I was trained to do in my ccw class. It would help the stop go more smoothly in my instructors opinion. He asked then if I had a weapon. I suppose I could have invoked the 5th in that case (now that the supreme court has decided we have to invoke our rights to have our rights) but why?

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    Ah I see. The only reason I informed him initially that I had a permit is because that was what I was trained to do in my ccw class.
    What does your state law say?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    It would help the stop go more smoothly in my instructors opinion.
    Did it?


    Someone else is going to say it if I don't so let me be the one to tell you some of the worst legal advice you can get will come from cops, gun shop owners and CCW instructors.
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    Ah I see. The only reason I informed him initially that I had a permit is because that was what I was trained to do in my ccw class. It would help the stop go more smoothly in my instructors opinion. He asked then if I had a weapon. I suppose I could have invoked the 5th in that case (now that the supreme court has decided we have to invoke our rights to have our rights) but why?
    there is the problem, you relied on an OPINION rather than knowing the LAW

  11. I knew the law. I chose to inform as a courtesy. It seems to me it's a lose lose, because either way the cop is going to be on edge thinking I have a weapon. That's the logic behind telling him straight up.

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast