What do CCW holders do when they are pulled over?

[Partsproduction]

I think it is possible that your past experience as a LEO has jaded your faith in your fellow man. Please try to remember only a very few of us are really "Bad Guys" despite the fact that you had to deal with the worste of us day in and day out as a LEO.

Let's also always remember that there are bad police, very rare, but they exist.

What works for the goose works for the gander, obviously when an officer walks up to my car I know he's armed, I don't tell him "Please don't touch your sidearms officer". Why would I say that? To say that implies that I think he may be one of the bad guys. To say that implies that by saying it he isn't going to gun me down and say "He didn't tell me he was a CHL holder, and I saw him reaching for something".

I understand what those who say to make the statement are saying, but it's all one sided, the safety issue, the "p****d off" issue, the wondering if the other guy is a whacko issue. They all can go either way.
If it's going to cause a death because the officer is too nervous, then make it a law.

But that goes to the very heart of gun control too, that since a few do take arms without restraint all must be restrained. The fact that some cops are criminals, or that some CHL holders are criminals must not effect the rights given all law abiding citizens by the Constitution.

The whole issue is about trust, the police don't trust us.


Edit: The rights given by God and enumerated in the Constitution, not the rights given by the Constitution.

 

[NK777]

They trust me

 

[RVNvet]

I'll offer one more observation (not argument) on this subject, which will hopefully be my last post on the matter.

I've never tried to imply that a person must tell a LEO he is carrying when approached during a traffic stop. True, except in some jurisdictions, there is no law that says one is required to. However, one more issue I take into consideration is that, like those who join the military (and if you've been in, you'll know what I mean), when a person joins law enforcement, he/she gives up, willingly, some Constitutional Rights. The most obvious is the right of free speech, while on the job. An officer can be disciplined, or even fired, for saying things the rest of us can get away with, for one example.

And if the officer is willing to give up his/her rights to make of career of protecting and serving me and my family, then I'm willing to give up my right to not inform the officer that I'm carrying, for the many reasons I've previously posted. Tit for tat, as they say...

Max

 

[KENOC]

I'll offer one more observation (not argument) on this subject, which will hopefully be my last post on the matter.

I've never tried to imply that a person must tell a LEO he is carrying when approached during a traffic stop. True, except in some jurisdictions, there is no law that says one is required to. However, one more issue I take into consideration is that, like those who join the military (and if you've been in, you'll know what I mean), when a person joins law enforcement, he/she gives up, willingly, some Constitutional Rights. The most obvious is the right of free speech, while on the job. An officer can be disciplined, or even fired, for saying things the rest of us can get away with, for one example.

And if the officer is willing to give up his/her rights to make of career of protecting and serving me and my family, then I'm willing to give up my right to not inform the officer that I'm carrying, for the many reasons I've previously posted. Tit for tat, as they say...

Max

I will not tell unless asked, I have been told some officer's are the opposite of you, and actually view it as a threat if you tell them you are armed.
I have been told the best course of action in Oregon, is to already have my DL and CHL out before he approches, keep my hands on the wheel when LEO approaches, and hand both items to him when asked. if he then asks if I am armed, I tell him yes, and tell him where my handgun is. From there, it is his call and hopefully that will be the end of any conversation regarding my handgun.. However....If he asks for my weapon, I will offer to get out of the vehicle and allow him to disarm me while i keep my hands on my head.
This entire process seems to be the least offensive and safest for both parties.

 

[Partsproduction]

RVNvet, I'm sorry your not continuing, because either I'm right about this or you are. Obviously we see things from different sides, I'm absolutely over the edge paranoid about anyone in government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, and my issues go to that and the notion that an armed man is automatically a dangerous man who needs to be watched carefully.
It seems to me that when the Constitution was written things were, of course, a lot different than they are now.
Questions related;
1. Were more people armed during normal daily discourse than now?
2. Did police of that era automatically assume that an armed person was dangerous? I realize also that a concealed handgun was probably much less common, so that may have meant the dynamics were different, most armed people were openly carrying.
3. Did police disarm people while they were being questioned?

That brings up the fact that the whole thing is related to a man walking up to a closed vehicle from behind, while (Justifyingly) being watchful of traffic from behind (Far more dangerous than dealing with a CHL holder IMHO).

 

[el gringo loco]

RVNvet, I'm sorry your not continuing, because either I'm right about this or you are. Obviously we see things from different sides, I'm absolutely over the edge paranoid about anyone in government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, and my issues go to that and the notion that an armed man is automatically a dangerous man who needs to be watched carefully.
It seems to me that when the Constitution was written things were, of course, a lot different than they are now.
Questions related;
1. Were more people armed during normal daily discourse than now?
2. Did police of that era automatically assume that an armed person was dangerous? I realize also that a concealed handgun was probably much less common, so that may have meant the dynamics were different, most armed people were openly carrying.
3. Did police disarm people while they were being questioned?

That brings up the fact that the whole thing is related to a man walking up to a closed vehicle from behind, while (Justifyingly) being watchful of traffic from behind (Far more dangerous than dealing with a CHL holder IMHO).

I'm not RVNvet, but I would like an opportunity to respond.

I understand what your concern is, but I have to say that I think it is a bit misplaced. The goal of the average police officer is make it home alive after the end of his shift and he probably rarely contemplates the larger issues of your feelings about the right to bear arms when he is conducting a stop. You acknowledge hat you are "absolutely over the edge paranoid about anyone in government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms." I realize that this statement contains a little hyperbole, but keep in mind that most cops work for a municipality, probably one that begrudgingly acknowledges the necessity of his/her existence and who is willing to throw said officer under the bus at the first sign of political fall-out. That cop is a working stiff, not a finely sharpened instrument of government oppression, and, because he works for a local government and sees its warts and suffers its mindless bureaucracy on a daily basis, he probably has a lower opinion of said government entity than you do.

The fact is that it is completely disingenuous to pretend that an armed man somehow lacks a greater potential for danger than an unarmed man. An armed man should be watched carefully. People who attack police officers do not wear signs and do not telegraph their intentions. Additionally, police officers are often in possession of a handful of facts and by interacting and questioning people, are often able to close cases and capture previously unknown criminals. Often they are in possession of facts you are not privy to (ie. a white car of the same make and model you are driving was used in a homicide last night). They do this by contacting lots of uninvolved parties, all of which have the potential to be the suspect that they are looking for. A desperate suspect who thinks that police officer has it all figured out, may pose a threat. Again, the officer has no idea who you are.

I put this in another thread, but I think it applies here:

Understand that officers are people too. Fairly or unfairly, they use previous experiences and observations to determine how they will respond to situations. While not all encounters with motorists, citizens, etc prove to be dangerous, they have likely experienced, witnessed, and heard about enough incidents that went south with little or no warning to be on guard. Police officers prepare for the possibility of what will happen, not the probability. Many cities, most nights, only a handful of unarmed cops could handle every call for service. That would be preparing for the probability that something may go wrong. We expect our police to be prepared to respond to incidents that have a possibilty of occurring. A CHL holder has the possibilty of hurting a police officer, not neccessarily the probability.

As to your questions,

1. According to the movies, people were more often armed. From what I have read, on a daily basis, in America, no. Did more people own arms? Yes, probably. They used them for hunting or defense when living out of the cities. But few carried their musket about on a daily basis.

2. During the time when the Constitution was written, like throughout history, people probably assumed an armed person was more dangerous, for that is the very purpose of arms: TO MAKE YOU MORE DANGEROUS. At that time, "policing" was done by armed militias and the citizenry. There was not the separation of police and military duties and a sheriff or marshall would summon others to his assistance when a crime had occurred. There were no police, as you and I know understand the term, in those days. The modern police force, as we now think of it, was created in the late 1820s in London with the creation of the London Metro Police at Scotland Yard. The philosophy of policing, the responsibilities of a police force, and expectations from the public of the police were outlined by Sir Robert Peel (often credited as the father of modern policing). It was not until several decades later that
police forces, as we think of them, began to appear in America.

3. Although I do not know this in fact, I find it hard to believe that an armed militia (the "police force" of the era), seeking out a person for questioning, would not disarm a potential suspect. This was a group of citizens, with guns, confronting someone about a specific crime. The group probably behaved with only a bit more discipline than an armed mob and was surely not concerned with ruffling a few feathers to ensure their safety.