CHL/CPL guys/gals can a LEO disarm you for no reason?

[NK777]

So this has been discussed a little bit in the "pulled over" thread but not properly answered. I've never had a police officer ask me for my carry before. I honestly don't like the idea. Disarming me at a traffic stop does not make the situation safer for anyone in my opinion.

So if a LEO asks for my weapon do I have to let him disarm me? I certainly hope not because that just doesn't seem right to me. Please site the law in regards to this one. I'd personally like to refuse to submit to being disarmed for no reason as long as I am with in my rights to do so.

Read More

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

I bet your best answer would come from Oregon Firearms Federation, specifically Kevin Starrett. I think I'd e-mail him and see what he says. I'd be very interested as to his answer.


https://www.oregonfirearms.org/

T_H

 

[ORBrit]

Good luck if you think you'd get away with not surrendering your weapon to a LEO.

that would be such a huge red flag to them you'd suddenly find that they would have a very big reason to disarm you.

 

[NK777]

Good luck if you think you'd get away with not surrendering your weapon to a LEO.

that would be such a huge red flag to them you'd suddenly find that they would have a very big reason to disarm you.

WHY?

I am a licensed CHL holder. I have not comunicated a threat to him or anybody else. He has zero cause to disarm me. He has zero cause to search me. He has zero cause to feel threatened by me. He knows damn well I'm not a felon being a card carrying CHL holder.

 

[NK777]

I bet your best answer would come from Oregon Firearms Federation, specifically Kevin Starrett. I think I'd e-mail him and see what he says. I'd be very interested as to his answer.


https://www.oregonfirearms.org/

T_H

Thanks I'll send him an email.

 

[matt_w]

The guy who gave me CHL class said the officer has the legal right to disarm you during a traffic stop. I've seen this mentioned other places, although I can't seem to locate them now. I was pretty sure I saw this somewhere on the OFF website.

edit: It was written on the letter that came with my CHL (Washington County). I looked it up and it's also written on the Multnomah county letter. I've never actually seen the text in the Oregon law (assuming it exists)

 

[mpmax]

Your threat level(to the officer) is up to the officer.

 

[NK777]

Your threat level(to the officer) is up to the officer.

I see, so if I refuse to submit and am forcefully disarmed my only recourse is to sue the department?

 

[BlvdKing]

I believe its another discretionary law that isn't completely defined.

 

[ZachS]

I see, so if I refuse to submit and am forcefully disarmed my only recourse is to sue the department?

Yes, but your lawsuit will have to wait until you're acquitted of "Interfering with a Police Officer" or some other such nonsense.

And I recently learned the hard way that it takes a lot less than refusing to surrender a weapon to get charged with that.

 

[wolfwistle]

I carry concealed to protect myself,and my family And WE as a group of tax payers pay for police protection . These two facts complement each other.If it takes me giving up my handgun for a few minutes so the officer in question can feel safe enough to do watever he is going to do.I'm going to do just that. After it s all said and done ,And you feel like you have been wronged in some way then take leagal action . You don't have to agree with me,But please be safe out there.

 

[NK777]

Yes, but your lawsuit will have to wait until you're acquitted of "Interfering with a Police Officer" or some other such nonsense.

And I recently learned the hard way that it takes a lot less than refusing to surrender a weapon to get charged with that.

I submit to you that this is not the case. I have not interfered with the LEO however he is attempting to infringe on my civil rights without cause or justification.

Again as a CHL holder I have never been asked by a LEO to surender my weapon. All experiences I have had with the police before and after recieving my CHL have always been pleasent. I merely want to kow the specific law that states they can disarm a law abiding individual with a CHL with out cause or justification because apparently from other members comments here it has happened to them and I do not believe the LEO is justified in doing so.

 

[fred c. dobbs]

What you believe is "Irrelavent" , you , We, Have No Rights, we have privledges that can be rescended anytime they like, Free Speech, Right to Carry, drivers lic. property rights, You have none, and only a fool believes otherwise, Go ahead continue to pretend to be free, if you ever have an opportunity to talk with someone from Louisiana who went through Katrina, you will be educated as to how it really is. The naysayers will ridicule me, Say what you like, Try to put a room addition on your house without a permit, Try to cut down Timber without a cutting permit, Find a spotted owl on your property forget it, You loose. Find any endangered animal, they come and take your property. They can take your money ( by the way our money is not money, it's "FIAT" currency, Money is Gold and Silver, everything else is credit ), They can take your property, They can take your Guns, They can take your life. Americans Pretending to be FREE!!!

 

[vern357]

Legally no, but practically, YES!

No policy ever gets changed because of a roadside encounter. If you have a beef take it up the CoC or Sue, but do not be a jackass. Our cops up here are on defecon 4 with all the shootings.

 

[NK777]

Legally no, but practically, YES!

No policy ever gets changed because of a roadside encounter. If you have a beef take it up the CoC or Sue, but do not be a jackass. Our cops up here are on defecon 4 with all the shootings.

Why do you assume I will be a JackAss?

This is a legal question I pose here and not a question as to whether or not you or I are Jackasses. Your hostility is complete unwarrented. Please take a couple of seconds to take a few deep breaths... Thank you.

 

[ORBrit]

If you felt like the officer had no legal justification for pulling you over, because you're a law abiding legal drivers license holder, does that mean you don't have to stop?

Think about your actions for a second. If an officer chooses to ask for your weapon, it is because of their own safety and comfort level.
Refusing to hand it over only escalates that threat level to the police officer.

Anyways, here is a document from OFF. Looks like Linn Co.
https://www.oregonfirearms.org/

Note the parts about surrendering your weapon on page 3.
"If a police officer stops you while you are driving and armed, follow
some common sense rules (1) keep your hands visible, preferably on the
steering wheel; (2) if your gun is accessible in the car or if the
officer asks whether you have a gun, inform the officer that you are
armed, that you have a CHL, and the location of your gun; (3) follow the
officer's instructions (depending on the circumstances, you may or may
not be asked to surrender your gun during the traffic stop); (4) if you
are asked to surrender your gun, be certain that you communicate with
the officer clearly regarding how you are to present the gun and always
remember to follow gun safety rules."


Even if there is a law prohibiting them from confiscating your weapon, you won't get to take advantage of that until you're in front of a judge and jury, following an arrest (for resisting arrest/threatening a police officer or some other charges) and a quick trip to county, money out of your pocket and major inconvenience.

As most of us know, police officers aren't always clued up on the law - especially when it comes to legality of certain types of weapons. That doesn't stop them from acting on what they interpret to be the law.

Another document for Multnomah county
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/pdfs/RestrictionsandProtocals.pdf

 

[stitchclimber]

I've been disarmed of my carry piece on multiple occasions, though never on a traffic stop.

 

[ORBrit]

I merely want to kow the specific law that states they can disarm a law abiding individual with a CHL with out cause or justification because apparently from other members comments here it has happened to them and I do not believe the LEO is justified in doing so.

So the question isn't about the law. It is about what warrants justification, which as I've already said, is pretty much whatever the officer wants to do to ensure his or her own safety.

 

[Wenis]

So the question isn't about the law. It is about what warrants justification, which as I've already said, is pretty much whatever the officer wants to do to ensure his or her own safety.

Try asking a police officer to surrender their weapon to you for your personal safety during a traffic stop. Logically, it makes just as much sense as them asking you to do it. It's one thing to be disarmed, but surrendering your weapon sounds like an option to me (in Washington).

 

[ORBrit]

OK I think I've found the legal answer here.

<broken link removed>




71st OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2001 Regular Session

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .

LC 1593

Senate Bill 142

Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the
President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part
of the President (at the request of Joint Interim Judiciary
Committee for Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association)


SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

Requires peace officer, before seeking consent to search motor
vehicle, to inform motorist stopped for traffic violation that
legal detention has ended and motorist is free to leave.

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to traffic violation stops; amending ORS 810.410.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 810.410 is amended to read:
810.410. (1) A police officer may arrest or issue a citation to
a person for a traffic crime at any place within or outside the
jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the
police officer is authorized to act as provided by ORS 133.235
and 133.310.
(2) A police officer may issue a citation to a person for a
traffic violation at any place within or outside the
jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the
police officer is authorized to act:
(a) When the traffic violation is committed in the police
officer's presence; or
(b) When the police officer has probable cause to believe an
offense has occurred based on a description of the vehicle or
other information received from a police officer who observed the
traffic violation.
(3) A police officer:
(a) Shall not arrest a person for a traffic violation.
(b) May stop and detain a person for a traffic violation for
the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the traffic
violation, identification and issuance of citation.
(c) May make an inquiry into circumstances arising during the
course of a detention and investigation under paragraph (b) of
this subsection that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity.
(d) May make an inquiry to ensure the safety of the officer,
the person stopped or other persons present, including an inquiry
regarding the presence of weapons.
(e) { + After informing the person stopped that detention has
ended and that the person is free to leave, + } may request
consent to search in relation to the circumstances referred to in
paragraph (c) of this subsection or to search for items of
evidence otherwise subject to search or seizure under ORS
133.535.
(f) May use the degree of force reasonably necessary to make
the stop and ensure the safety of the peace officer, the person
stopped or other persons present.
(g) May make an arrest of a person as authorized by ORS 133.310
(2) if the person is stopped and detained pursuant to the
authority of this section.
(4) When a police officer at the scene of a traffic accident
has reasonable grounds, based upon the police officer's personal
investigation, to believe that a person involved in the accident
has committed a traffic offense in connection with the accident,
the police officer may issue to the person a citation for that
offense. The authority under this subsection is in addition to
any other authority to issue a citation for a traffic offense.
----------