OSP - Very PO'd !!! that I did not disclose my CHL

[PlayboyPenguin]

I'll just leave this here:

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

You are making a false comparison here. Ignorance of the law is not a defense against prosecution once a crime has been committed. The officer committed no crime so there is no hypocrisy here.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

well all i can say is if you are going to be enforcing the laws you better damn well know them. this argument that . how are they supposed to know all the laws is pure bs .. you better study them and learn them or go get another job. and loose the im better than you attitude. cops look down on people all the time. they trully feel they are just a little better than you.

Do you realize how many codes there are? There is no way a person can know them all. Do you hold all professions to such ridiculous standards are just ones with which you have emotional issues? Is your doctor required to know all diseases and symptoms are is he allowed to use reference materials?

 

[Asp]

Do you realize how many codes there are? There is no way a person can know them all. Do you hold all professions to such ridiculous standards are just ones with which you have emotional issues? Is your doctor required to know all diseases and symptoms are is he allowed to use reference materials?

Agreed, but if they don't know there should be a system in place so they can investigate these things. At my work, if I don't know something, it is redirected to someone above me. I don't penalize the customer because I don't know, or don't like what they're telling me.

 

[Grunwald]

Do you realize how many codes there are? There is no way a person can know them all. Do you hold all professions to such ridiculous standards are just ones with which you have emotional issues? Is your doctor required to know all diseases and symptoms are is he allowed to use reference materials?

In that case, some laws would be UN-enforced, instead of imaginary ones enforced.

As a side note, I wish that the legislatures on all levels would take the time to go though existing laws and straighten them out, instead of adding more lawyers to this legal bubblegum cake.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

What you are failing to grasp here is that he (the OP) did not express any negative attitude to the officer, he simply did not hand his permit over with his license. This is NOT a responsibility of a holder as you seem to suggest and this is why he did not do so. When the officer ran his license she found that he had a legal right to carry and should have accepted the fact that he was a law abiding citizen that chooses to defend himself. She could have stated that it would be nice if he had let her know at first contact but instead became very angry after finding out and went into the mode of judge/jury. So why is she angry that he has a permit and is legally allowed to carry? Did he come up as a felon, wanted fugitive, etc. I would also expect that any officer that does routine stops (especially a M/C cop) at least know all the state laws pertaining to permits and vehicle carry of firearms as that is part of their daily routine.

The OP nows he is in possession of a CHL. The OP knows law enforcement is a dangerous profession. The OP knows he willingly and intentionally withheld information from the officer that could have easily been shared.

An officer has every right to take precautions against harm. They also have every right to be concerned why someone would not divulge that they are likely armed.

All I am seeing is an officer that was mistaken about whether or not the OP was required to provide the information and a situation that could have been avoided by a little courtesy. At least according to the OP. I did not read where he was falsely charged with anything. I also do not see a denial that he was breaking the law when stopped.

In the end the officer could have been more courteous, but so could have the OP If the OP had been more courteous he could have avoided the situation entirely. of course the blatant anti-authority issues that run so rampant among certain elements on gun forums usually clouds that reality.

 

[orygun]

I am not going to go second by second as to what happened but I never carry in A work vehicle and it wasn't even on my mind when I gave her my drivers lic and insurance info...

To you, and for this (above quote), I apologize. The way I read your initial post I assumed that you didn't inform her of your CHL on purpose, just to see what would happen. I guess that you didn't and I was wrong for my assumption. I once forgot to inform a Coast Guard officer who had stopped us on the river. He was a bit torqued off and chewed me a good one. Oh well, I've been called worse by better.

Also, in my posts I make no comment about her actions, except to say that "we all know she doesn't know her laws very well".

So, you have a ticket and it will show her name and badge #. If you believe that she treated you improperly, I'm sure it would be easy to find her superior and make a complaint.

 

[Grunwald]

The OP nows he is in possession of a CHL. The OP knows law enforcement is a dangerous profession. The OP knows he willingly and intentionally withheld information from the officer that could have easily been shared.

An officer has every right to take precautions against harm. They also have every right to be concerned why someone would not divulge that they are likely armed.

All I am seeing is an officer that was mistaken about whether or not the OP was required to provide the information and a situation that could have been avoided by a little courtesy. At least according to the OP. I did not read where he was falsely charged with anything. I also do not see a denial that he was breaking the law when stopped.

In the end the officer could have been more courteous, but so could have the OP If the OP had been more courteous he could have avoided the situation entirely. of course the blatant anti-authority issues that run so rampant among certain elements on gun forums usually clouds that reality.

Going by your logic if he were a cop he should have showed her his badge. After all a badge is like a CHL on steroids. Had he been a cop and showed her his badge, then we would all be having a conversation on how he was trying to get out of a ticket by flashing his badge.

Bottom line is that if he was not required by law to disclose that he has a CHL then he did nothing wrong and she had no reason to escalate it any further.
We're not mind readers and don't know what some cop might consider pertinent to him or her but that is not required by law to disclose. Had he taken Viagra 2 hours ago and was still under its "influence" (you know, call a doctor if more than 4 hours) should he had informed her of that too?

 

[Stomper]

I have been pulled over twice since my CHL was issued.

The first time was by a Woodburn LEO; I showed my CHL and disclosed the location of my firearm, everything was laid back and easy going but my WIFE got the ticket (the reason for the stop) for not wearing her seat belt properly (shoulder strap under the arm-pit due to "big-'uns")... LOL.. I even told her to not do that 3 mins. BEFORE the cop saw her!

The second time was an OSP Trooper, (polite younger fella in his mid-twenties or so), and I did NOT disclose (and I was packing my Glock-30). It never came up, there was no drama, I got my speeding ticket (in a construction zone) and was on my way in short order. (I got the bail reduced quite a bit with my accompanying letter of the situation)

For me, it will just depend on the situation if I disclose or not... every incident has its own merits, but the bottom line is... if I so choose to gun down a cop on a traffic stop, there is NOTHING they could do to stop me because they have almost no tactical advantage, and the rounds I sport in my kit would do it quite effectively regardless of their body armor.

Good thing I'm one of the "good guys", and actually have their backs (even if they usually don't want it anyway).

 

[Asp]

Had he taken Viagra 2 hours ago and was still under its "influence" (you know, call a doctor if more than 4 hours) should he had informed her of that too?

Yes he should have informed her if he had taken viagra, because wasting medicine is serious problem right now. Maybe this whole discussion could have been avoided if he had taken and had informed her of said taken medicine. Maybe the outcome would have been a phone number instead of escalation?...:huh:

 

[MrNiceGuy]

In the end the officer could have been more courteous, but so could have the OP If the OP had been more courteous he could have avoided the situation entirely.

Even better, the entire situation could have been avoided if the cop showed an iota of competence.

They also have every right to be concerned why someone would not divulge that they are likely armed.

I think that citizens have every right to be concerned about an overzealous officer that harasses innocent civilians solely because SHE is ignorant of the law.

You may look at it as anti authority, I prefer to think of it as pro-competence.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Going by your logic if he were a cop he should have showed her his badge. After all a badge is like a CHL on steroids. Had he been a cop and showed her his badge, then we would all be having a conversation on how he was trying to get out of a ticket by flashing his badge.

Bottom line is that if he was not required by law to disclose that he has a CHL then he did nothing wrong and she had no reason to escalate it any further.
We're not mind readers and don't know what some cop might consider pertinent to him or her but that is not required by law to disclose. Had he taken Viagra 2 hours ago and was still under its "influence" (you know, call a doctor if more than 4 hours) should he had informed her of that too?

Your logic is completely flawed. law officers often will let other law officers know they are sworn and armed. It has nothing to do with trying to get out of anything. It has to do with safety. The fact you see it the way you see says more about you than it does the topic at hand.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Even better, the entire situation could have been avoided if the cop showed an iota of competence.



I think that citizens have every right to be concerned about an overzealous officer that harasses innocent civilians solely because SHE is ignorant of the law.

You may look at it as anti authority, I prefer to think of it as pro-competence.

No it wouldn't have. Even if I was aware he did not have to notify me, the fact that he did not would have made me suspicious as an officer. Why did he want to hide the fact he is armed? Licensed CHL holders are often involved in shootings, so the fact that he has a license DOES NOT make him a good guy. It just means he hasn't committed any crimes yet.

 

[soberups]

I have only been pulled over one time in the last 15 years, it was about 3 yrs ago and I was so caught up in trying to find a safe place to pull over and digging my registration and insurance out of an overflowing glove box that it honestly never occured to me that I should inform the state trooper that I had a Glock 26 inside my belt. He never asked about it, I never mentioned it, we were both polite and courteous to one another, and he saw fit to let me off with a warning for doing 55 in a 45 instead of a citation. I always assumed that my CHL info would pop up on the screen when they ran my driver license?

 

[Father of four]

No it wouldn't have. Even if I was aware he did not have to notify me, the fact that he did not would have made me suspicious as an officer. Why did he want to hide the fact he is armed? Licensed CHL holders are often involved in shootings, so the fact that he has a license DOES NOT make him a good guy. It just means he hasn't committed any crimes yet.

Typical twisted thinking. All citizens are bad guys, they just haven't shown it to the apparently good LEO's yet? BS!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Typical twisted thinking. All citizens are bad guys, they just haven't shown it to the apparently good LEO's yet? BS!

How is it twisted thinking to wonder why someone you just made contact with for committing an offense decided to not let you know they're armed? Especially when doing so would in no way harm them or place them in jeapordy. Maybe if you have ever had to perform dangerous acts you would feel differently. And for the record, cops are citizens...so you might want to drop the attitude and deal with that chip.

 

[Mark W.]

Licensed CHL holders are often involved in shootings, so the fact that he has a license DOES NOT make him a good guy.

WHO are CHL holders involved with in these shootings? Cops? I'm pretty sure if it was a often occurance that CHL holders were involved in a shooting with Police we would sure be hearing about it on the nightly news.

 

[locobob]

No it wouldn't have. Even if I was aware he did not have to notify me, the fact that he did not would have made me suspicious as an officer. Why did he want to hide the fact he is armed? Licensed CHL holders are often involved in shootings, so the fact that he has a license DOES NOT make him a good guy. It just means he hasn't committed any crimes yet.

This is just a terrible line of thinking, cops shouldn't have an us vs them mentality, they should not regard civilians as guilty until proven innocent. I see absolutely no reason to disclose a concealed firearm permit during a traffic stop - it has absolutely zero to do with the reason for the stop and is completely inconsequential to anything that might transpire during or after. If the cop notices your weapon i.e. it becomes accidentally unconcealed then you should calmly notify them of you license and ask if they want to see it. A good officer should not freak out at the sight of a holstered gun or upon notification of a permit, if they do its because they regard you as beneath them and that is just not the right attitude.

 

[Father of four]

Maybe SOME of the LEOS...might want to drop the attitude and deal with that chip.

 

[Trlsmn]

You are making a false comparison here. Ignorance of the law is not a defense against prosecution once a crime has been committed. The officer committed no crime so there is no hypocrisy here.

Yes there is hypocrisy and I will highlight it for you. The original post states that the officer stated a CHL holder is required to inform on police contact the fact that he/she is a CHL license holder and the location of the firearm, ergo she is stating a law for which she is ignorant of, just because she can't be prosecuted for her ignorance is irrelevant other than to highlight even further hypocrisy.

 

[Trlsmn]

No it wouldn't have. Even if I was aware he did not have to notify me, the fact that he did not would have made me suspicious as an officer. Why did he want to hide the fact he is armed? Licensed CHL holders are often involved in shootings, so the fact that he has a license DOES NOT make him a good guy. It just means he hasn't committed any crimes yet.

CHL holders are "often involved in shootings"? Really? So what maybe 1 in 200,000? How do you define often?


Often means frequently, Seldom or Rarely is more realistic.