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

[Will]

If the LEO ask for your firearm I expect he has a reason. Latter if you feel the reason wasn't right then file a complaint. If you want to refuse to give up your firearm we will see you on the news.

Why even ask this question?

 

[ORBrit]

The Oregon Constitution does have a section regarding unreasonable searches or seizures.
Article 1 Section 9
Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.–

Generally this article doesn't hold up in court when an officer has the responsibility to make the judgement call on their own safety.

Examples:

A134236 State v. Morgan
State v. Amaya
S056299 State v. Foster

"Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present."

Id. at 524. This court added that police must be given some discretion in the officer safety context:

"t is not our function to uncharitably second-guess an officer's judgment. A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations. Our inquiry therefore is limited to whether the precautions taken were reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time that the decision was made."

 

[ORBrit]

So in summary.
If a LEO asks for your gun, co-operate. The law permits them to do whatever is reasonable to protect themselves.

 

[NK777]

Orbits I appreciate your efforts and willingness to attempt to support your opinnion thank you. Thus far however you have not showed me a LAW that states a LEO can indiscriminately disarm a law abiding citizen without cause.

Can anybody produce a law stating a LEO can disarm without cause?

FWIW I too am scouring the internet attempting to find such a law and I am coming up empty handed so far. I find sugestions on how to handle the situation which generally state you should let them disarm you but no law stating that you must submit.

 

[SheepDog223]

Isn't there some law forbidding any non federal officer to touch a nfa gun without permision from the owner?

 

[Wenis]

Why would you be talking to the police if you were not breaking a law? I mean, really, why would an officer disarm you just for the heck of it? You don't get a cop's attention for doing nothing.

 

[ORBrit]

So the first issue is the "lawful stop"
Once you have been stopped, you are actually being detained.

Once in detention they can do whatever is reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Still can't find a "Law" but this is precedent which is basically as good as the law in this judicial system.

 

[NK777]

So in summary.
If a LEO asks for your gun, co-operate. The law permits them to do whatever is reasonable to protect themselves.

See there that is the point. It is not reasonable, logical, or rational in the situation I described that he should fear for his safty.

If I had no permit and had a shotgun in my lap or mounted in a gun rack it is reasonable, rational, and logical that he ask to see it and unload it.

Quite frankly I would probably comply if asked to surender my weapon but that isn't the point. The point here is am I legally required to do so. Since I've never been disarmed by the police even after making them aware I'm carrying and I'm licensed, I'm guessing they have no law stating they can disarm me unless I some how comunicate a threat to them.

This thread was never about whether or not you should or shouldn't comply with the officers instructions people. For the last time I'm asking if anybody knows the law in regards to this. Please stop telling me how it's obviously wise to allow them to disarm me. Under almost every circumstance I would agree with you on that point.

 

[NK777]

Why would you be talking to the police if you were not breaking a law? You don't get a cop's attention for doing nothing.

Not so! I've been pulled over at least 3 times in my life for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Unlawful stops do happen. Profiling is practiced.

I mean, really, why would an officer disarm you just for the heck of it?

I don't know but apparently that happens as well. My guess would be that they have an irrational fear of law abiding CHL holders.

 

[Wenis]

Not so! I've been pulled over at least 3 times in my life for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Unlawful stops do happen. Profiling is practiced.



I don't know but apparently that happens as well. My guess would be that they have an irrational fear of law abiding CHL holders.

"I was driving along one day not breaking any laws and I get pulled over by Johnny Law. He approaches my door and says he's randomly profiling people and if you have any guns, I'm going to have you surrender those as well."

 

[NK777]

"I was driving along one day not breaking any laws and I get pulled over by Johnny Law. He approaches my door and says he's randomly profiling people and if you have any guns, I'm going to have you surrender those as well."

Don't be rediculous please. If you've never been profiled or stopped unjustly good for you but it does happen and has happened to me. No sir they never say that they are profiling and again I have never been disarmed. They always say something in regards to why they pulled you over but it isn't always the truth I assure you. I call them on lies BTW when I know they are lieing. They have never challenged me when I've told them they are mistaken. They tap dance instead knowing full well they were caught in a lie.

FYI my record is squeeky clean. I haven't even had a speeding ticket in over a decade. Is your record this clean? I doubt it.

 

[wichaka]

One and only warning, ease up on each other gentlemen or risk this thread being closed.

 

[RVNvet]

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.

Yes. See (f) below

***************************************
Oregon Revised Statute 810.410¹
Arrest and citation

(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 (Arrest by peace officer) and 133.310 (Authority of peace officer to arrest without warrant).

(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) 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 (Permissible objects of search and seizure).

(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.

******************************************************

The Supreme Court of the United States has always been inclined to allow actions which protect police officers. The attitude is well illustrated in The United States vrs. Jamal Williams, in which the Supreme Court stated:

Furthermore, the public concern for officer safety here is as weighty as it was in Wilson. We have no reason to believe, nor has Williams provided any evidence to the contrary, that traffic stops today present safer encounters for police officers than they did less than ten years ago when Wilson was decided. We are convinced that in this case the continuing importance of, and the public interest in, promoting officer safety outweighs the marginal intrusion on personal liberty. Rogala, 161 F.3d at 53; Moorefield, 111 F.3d at 13; see also Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111, 98 S.Ct. 330 ("What is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.").

 

[NK777]

I've read that but I still argue that it is "unreasonable" to disarm a CHL holder that is not comunicating any threat. See my point here. The clause of the law is "reasonable" force. I argue that it is irrational to use any force what so ever just because the person in the vehicle is legally concealed carrying. You are not automaticly a threat because your carrying a gun. It is irrational to believe other wise.

 

[el gringo loco]

I've read that but I still argue that it is "unreasonable" to disarm a CHL holder that is not comunicating any threat. See my point here. The clause of the law is "reasonable" force. I argue that it is irrational to use any force what so ever just because the person in the vehicle is legally concealed carrying. You are not automaticly a threat because your carrying a gun. It is irrational to believe other wise.

The reasonableness standard, as applied in this set of case law, is not about what you consider reasonable. The standard applies to what an average police officer would find objectively reasonable. Note that this is not the same as saying that it is what the average police officer would do, just that they would think another officer was acting reasonably if they saw them do it. Your opinion of reasonableness, just like your opinion that the light wasn't really red, does not matter at the roadside. This standard and the ability for law enforcement to disarm you during a lawful encounter have been held up in court literally thousands of times.

 

[Marc1911]

Since you seem to be unwilling to accept an opposing viewpoint, I would suggest that if this situation presents itself that you refuse to submit your weapon and then let us all know how it went for you.

Like it or not, the LEO has the right to do what he/she feels is necessary to keep himself and others safe. This would include removing access to a firearm during contact.

A ccw permit is issued on past behavior and while it is generally a good indicator, it is not absolute. I would not expect anyone (leo or otherwise) to base a decision on a permit if the current circumstances would give any indication that an individual might present a threat.

I can think of lots of circumstances where it would be appropriate to separate a person from their weapon while the LEO determined what had happened. A traffic stop on a car that is similar to the description of one involved in a crime, contact with a permit holder who is with a group of intoxicated or unruly people, a car stop where the LEO can smell alcohol, even if is later determined that there was no violation.

These things happen every day. An officers arrival at a reported crime scene can be extremely chaotic and things are rarely what they are initially portrayed to be.

Anyway, the reality is that they can do this. If you think this is wrong and feel like it should be challenged if you are in this situation then go ahead and challenge it. I don't think that you'll enjoy the experience.

 

[wopinc]

I think I would rather do what the nice officer asks than what the angry officer demands. It is called "officer safety" and until they run you through dispatch they have no idea who you are or if your CHL has been revoked. Just hand it over and they will give it back following their inquiry through dispatch. Most of the time the officer won't take it once they know you have a CHL, but if they ask and you refuse it is definately going to send red flags off.

 

[Shamusaiello]

It may be difficult to find case law in regards to this matter(I am sure its out there) but the courts also run on what is called "common law." This means that while it may not be on the books, if it is a commonly accepted practice it is allowed. An officer requesting your firearm during a stop if for his own safety and will be given extrodinary leway by the courts. As an officer I have gone to houses where the subjects opened the door with a firearm in hand. I politely asked him to place the gun on the table and step outside so I may have a talk with him. The gentelman was a former marine, very polite and the finger never strayed towards the trigger but I can tell you that is an experience I NEVER want to go through again. So my recomendation is that if an officer asks for your firearm to comply with his request so both you and he can get on with their day as quickly as possible because in reality...it doesn't matter what you think.

 

[stitchclimber]

Why would you be talking to the police if you were not breaking a law? I mean, really, why would an officer disarm you just for the heck of it? You don't get a cop's attention for doing nothing.

Are you kidding? I've been pulled over multiple times for merely looking out of place. Not to mention if you're legally open carrying.

 

[NK777]

Since you seem to be unwilling to accept an opposing viewpoint, I would suggest that if this situation presents itself that you refuse to submit your weapon and then let us all know how it went for you.

That isn't true at all. What I want is proof in the form of a formal law that states a LEO can disarm me anytime he feels like it. So far I have not seen hard evidence to support your opinion that the police officer can do what he feels like in this regards.

Like it or not, the LEO has the right to do what he/she feels is necessary to keep himself and others safe. This would include removing access to a firearm during contact.

Okay, prove it then.

A ccw permit is issued on past behavior and while it is generally a good indicator, it is not absolute. I would not expect anyone (leo or otherwise) to base a decision on a permit if the current circumstances would give any indication that an individual might present a threat.

I can think of lots of circumstances where it would be appropriate to separate a person from their weapon while the LEO determined what had happened. A traffic stop on a car that is similar to the description of one involved in a crime, contact with a permit holder who is with a group of intoxicated or unruly people, a car stop where the LEO can smell alcohol, even if is later determined that there was no violation.

These things happen every day. An officers arrival at a reported crime scene can be extremely chaotic and things are rarely what they are initially portrayed to be.

Agreed but again these situations you present is not the situation I am talking about. I'm talking about getting pulled over say for a tail light out which happened to me recently BTW. You present your ODL, CHL, Insurance, and Registration. You are cooperating, being respectful, and polite. You have not comunicated a threat in anyway to the LEO. Does he have reason to feel threatened? Nope and thats probably why no officer has ever disarmed me but apparently others have been disarmed in the same kind of situation, so this makes one curious as to whether or not there is a law that allows him to disarm a law abiding citizen for no reason at all. So far no one has presented a law that says he has any right to do so and thats why I'm still discussing this issue.

Anyway, the reality is that they can do this. If you think this is wrong and feel like it should be challenged if you are in this situation then go ahead and challenge it. I don't think that you'll enjoy the experience.

Is that the reality? Again I say prove it! You glibly sugest that I act a fool to prove my point when I merely wish you or somebody would site a law stating the LEO can in fact disarm me for no reason. The information provided thus far only shows that it is exceptable on a case by case basis which obviously means that they can not disarm somebody for no reason.