I got pulled over today.....

[Blitzkrieg]

One has to wonder how many Old West lawmen would have been shot if they acted as jumpy as many do today

 

[The B]

One has to wonder how many Old West lawmen would have been shot if they acted as jumpy as many do today

And they were NOT given the benefit of the doubt. They were considered just as subject to the law and fallible as anyone else, which is (should be) just as true today.

 

[Redcap]

One has to wonder how many Old West lawmen would have been shot if they acted as jumpy as many do today

All of them.

 

[Misterbill]

One has to wonder how many Old West lawmen would have been shot if they acted as jumpy as many do today

You mean the VERY MANY OF THEM that banned ALL carried firearms within the city limits? THOSE paragons of virtue?

You guys really need to read Terry Vs. Ohio an the relevant case law.

It's actually pretty damned reasonable.

An officer has a right to take action that assures he will live through his shift. Disarming you for five minutes on an otherwise reasonable stop (speeding in this case) is not an abridgement of your right to keep and bear arms.

If this had been some random stop because the OP had merely open carried a gun, I would feel differently. But RHIS case was a perfectly rational stop for a lawful reason, which the OP admitted to.

A gun on the seat is SO easily accessible that id I were a trainer, I would have given the cop Hell for NOT taking it until he had assured that the OP wasn't a felon with a warrant.

The OP wasn't proned out, wasn't hassled, wasn't having his guns returned disassembled, wasn't returned his gun to his trunk unloaded, WASN'T in fact, more than minisculely interrupted in any way.

The hysteria over the OP just mystifies me. A routine traffic stop in which the OP got away with a speeding violation and had a five minute delay in having his firearms returned to him.

WTF do you want in the REAL WORLD, as opposed to some fantasy?

 

[Modly]

THAT one I would sure as heck have brought up, either in court where he did not show up, or in a registered letter to his Chief. completely out of line for him to do that.

I brought it up to another deputy, who said that he talked to him about it.

Officers should not be that jumpy over a CHL.

MisterBill; If officers aren't ok with the risks involved with their career, it's time for a new line of work.
Making one person safer by taking away the rights of others is not how this country works.

As it stands, my line of work has a higher serious injury/death rate than being a police officer. I'm fine with that. The only other job that I've taken interest in is even higher risk.

 

[Father of four]

I brought it up to another deputy, who said that he talked to him about it.

Officers should not be that jumpy over a CHL.

MisterBill; If officers aren't ok with the risks involved with their career, it's time for a new line of work.
Making one person safer by taking away the rights of others is not how this country works.

As it stands, my line of work has a higher serious injury/death rate than being a police officer. I'm fine with that. The only other job that I've taken interest in is even higher risk.

"Making one person safer by taking away the rights of others is not how this country works." Nicely said.

 

[Father of four]

You mean the VERY MANY OF THEM that banned ALL carried firearms within the city limits? THOSE paragons of virtue?

You guys really need to read Terry Vs. Ohio an the relevant case law.

It's actually pretty damned reasonable.

An officer has a right to take action that assures he will live through his shift. Disarming you for five minutes on an otherwise reasonable stop (speeding in this case) is not an abridgement of your right to keep and bear arms.

If this had been some random stop because the OP had merely open carried a gun, I would feel differently. But RHIS case was a perfectly rational stop for a lawful reason, which the OP admitted to.

A gun on the seat is SO easily accessible that id I were a trainer, I would have given the cop Hell for NOT taking it until he had assured that the OP wasn't a felon with a warrant.

The OP wasn't proned out, wasn't hassled, wasn't having his guns returned disassembled, wasn't returned his gun to his trunk unloaded, WASN'T in fact, more than minisculely interrupted in any way.

The hysteria over the OP just mystifies me. A routine traffic stop in which the OP got away with a speeding violation and had a five minute delay in having his firearms returned to him.

WTF do you want in the REAL WORLD, as opposed to some fantasy?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

 

[Father of four]

An individuals right goes beyond another individuals comfort.

 

[Misterbill]

An individuals right goes beyond another individuals comfort.

It's not comfort, it's reasonable expectation of safety.

Read Terry Vs. Ohio, which is the case governing this.

The cop did EVERYTHING right. You guys are posturing on some mythical standard which doesn't exist.

 

[lamrith]

You mean the VERY MANY OF THEM that banned ALL carried firearms within the city limits? THOSE paragons of virtue?

You guys really need to read Terry Vs. Ohio an the relevant case law.

It's actually pretty damned reasonable.

An officer has a right to take action that assures he will live through his shift. Disarming you for five minutes on an otherwise reasonable stop (speeding in this case) is not an abridgement of your right to keep and bear arms.

A gun on the seat is SO easily accessible that id I were a trainer, I would have given the cop Hell for NOT taking it until he had assured that the OP wasn't a felon with a warrant.

The OP wasn't proned out, wasn't hassled, wasn't having his guns returned disassembled, wasn't returned his gun to his trunk unloaded, WASN'T in fact, more than minisculely interrupted in any way.

This is key, based on the description of the encounter this sounds exactly like what happened. Open weapon on the seat in the car of an unknown person. The officer takes the weapon until such time they verify who the driver is. Concealed is concealed and out of sight is out of mind, just don't leave your guns laying out in open view and it would not have been an issue to begin with. If you have a cpl and don't want to carry on body, just throw a shirt, towel, bag over it and you have no worries even if you get stopped.

Just be sure to have that done BEFORE they are on your tail, sudden movement or movement to cover something will get noticed and does give them probable cause to investigate deeper...

 

[hermannr]

Here's my 2 cents. I retired 2006 with 32 yrs state service Highway Patrol/State Police - Sergeant, with 18 mths city pd before that and 4 yrs USAF Security Police before it all. And 9 1/2 yrs reserve and army nat'l guard MP time mixed in with the civiliian work. In addition to HR-218 carry, I also have a non-resident Washington CHP or CCW its called in California. First your CHP/CCW laws are a little bit looser that California. In California, first - your permit lists the firearms you are authorized to carry. Second - Calif law allows law enforcement officers to inspect any firearm they see in public to see if its loaded, with some exceptions. Again with some exceptions, if you refuse, the refusal is PC to arrest. But back to the permit. In contacts with off-duty Calif officers and out-of-state officers I never asked for their firearm. Same for CHP/CCW permit holders. Just asked where it was and to not reach for it unless you need to.

I ofter heard officers would say they would take the firearms away from a civilian CHP/CCW. Maybe an out-of-state officer. But none would take a firearm away from an off-duty Calif officer. I always asked how do your know which one is real? While there are at least 450+ LE agencies in Calif, all have their own format for id cards. Calif DOJ mandates the same CHP/CCW form be used by all.

This is my take on this: You state that California specifically states that an officer my disarm a person and inspect a legal firearm...OK, that is California. In Oklahoma the law (effective 1 Nov 2012) specifically states that an officer MAY NOT disarm a person solely because he is carrying a legal firearm. Both states require a license to carry a loaded firearm in public.

In OR there is a law that specifically states an officer may demand and inspect a persons CHL...IF...in a public building (defined specifically as places like a city hall, university and other publicly owned buildings where a person carrying a firearm must have a CHL ORS 166.360-380) However, it does not state that the officer can disarm the person, only "inspect" the CHL.

In WA there is neither.

Terry, as I understand it, says that an officer may disarm an individual suspected of criminal activity. OC without a license in ID, OR and WA is a legal activity. Because it is NOT criminal activity the officer does not have any right to inspect the firearm, or even require someone to ID themselves or produce a license to carry, just because they are open carrying a firearm. There must be some extenuating circumstance that would lead the officer to believe there is some criminal activity before a stop would be warrented.

BTW: I have carried in WA since 1970, mostly Open Carry (unlicensed OC for many of those years). I have never been disarmed, never been asked for my CPL or ID, and never been hasseled in any way. Talked to LE in that time? Sure, but conversations like "hunting?" (6" Colt Revolver in a hunting holster)..."What is it...Nice gun" (CZ85 in a custom leather holster)..."When are you going to join our gun club?" (6" Colt)

 

[fd15k]

"Making one person safer by taking away the rights of others is not how this country works." Nicely said.

That is exactly how this country works. Perhaps we can argue that it should not be this way in some or all cases. Then there is also the matter of identifying the rights and their boundaries in the first place. But the simple thing of being realistic is what usually lacks in these conversations.

 

[fd15k]

Terry, as I understand it, says that an officer may disarm an individual suspected of criminal activity. OC without a license in ID, OR and WA is a legal activity. Because it is NOT criminal activity the officer does not have any right to inspect the firearm, or even require someone to ID themselves or produce a license to carry, just because they are open carrying a firearm. There must be some extenuating circumstance that would lead the officer to believe there is some criminal activity before a stop would be warrented.

I think you understand it correctly, but you are limiting the scope to the firearm, which is not the case. The traffic violation is a valid pretence for the interaction, and from that point on LEO has a broad authority to expand the context based on their observations .

 

[Blitzkrieg]

It's not comfort, it's reasonable expectation of safety.

Read Terry Vs. Ohio, which is the case governing this.

The cop did EVERYTHING right. You guys are posturing on some mythical standard which doesn't exist.

Trouble with your little feel good thesis is it's 150% a violation of our individual liberties

 

[python287]

The message to everyone - if you have a bad attitude regarding the stop - then you will probably a get a ticket or worse - just be polite - leave the bad attitude at home
and everything will be fine.

 

[Father of four]

The message to everyone - if you have a bad attitude regarding the stop - then you will probably a get a ticket or worse - just be polite - leave the bad attitude at home
and everything will be fine.

Unless you are the officer. Then you can cuss, belittle, threat, beat, taze, shoot, arrest and lie. And not worry about it because your good buddies will not say anything unless they have too.

We all see how it often works. They might even pass some laws...or ignore a few to help you guys out...o'yeah they already have.

 

[python287]

Unless you are the officer. Then you can cuss, belittle, threat, beat, taze, shoot, arrest and lie. And not worry about it because your good buddies will not say anything unless the have too.

We all see how it often works. They might even pass some laws...or ignore a few to help you guys out...o'yeah they already have.

You must have a lengthy criminal record ! Not very officer you encounter acts like that. I suspect that you have had problems with Law Enforcement because you do bad things or you have a real bad attitude.. Either way you have no doubt earned those responses !
!

 

[Father of four]

Some of us are law abiding and want to be left alone. We want to be able to protect our family and yourself. We do not like it when the government says that they are more important then us. We are both United States Citizens and deserve equal protection. The officers safety does not and should not trump my personal protection afforded me by the 2nd Amendment. i should have a right to protect myself and the government officials should not be taking that right away unless I have committed a crime.

 

[Father of four]

You must have a lengthy criminal record ! Not very officer you encounter acts like that. I suspect that you have had problems with Law Enforcement because you do bad things or you have a real bad attitude.. Either way you have no doubt earned those responses !
!

No I do not. I have spent the night in jail once for being drunk. I do have a few speeding tickets...

 

[Father of four]

You must have a lengthy criminal record ! Not very officer you encounter acts like that. I suspect that you have had problems with Law Enforcement because you do bad things or you have a real bad attitude.. Either way you have no doubt earned those responses !
!

Very true, not every officers is bad. I imagine a bunch are very good people. The problem I see is the good covering up for the bad. And the courts making laws to take away the rights of the citizens and give more power to the government.