Question About Situation Monday

[Guest devonjevon]

Did you hear on the news that a guy was arrested in murfreesboro for possession of a stolen weapon. I listened to how the arrest was made and I have some questions about what happened.

Ok the guy has/had a valid carry permit. He was a bad guy suspected gang member but I have questions about his stop

The officer pulled over the man and discovered he had a handgun permit and a handgun. The officer was suspicous of the weapon and ran the serial number and it came up HOT. SO he was arrested. Cool

But it also says that the officer went the extra mile because he could have just let the man go with a no seat belt ticket.

My quetion is what do you have the right to do or refuse to do during a traffic stop.

If your weapon is concealed can the officer ask u to see it?

If so do you have to give it to him?

Just wondering how This guy pulled over without a seat belt escalated to the officer running his guns serial number.

Dont get me wrong im glad a bad guy is off the street.

[Guest Revelator]

If, during a trafic stop, a police asks if you have a carry permit you must show it to them. And they can find that out simply be running your DL.

I don't think there's a law saying you must show your weapon upon demand, but if they ask and you refuse what do you think's going to happen? Just show them. Unless you've got a warrant, the response will probably be anything from, "Cool, carry on," to "Hey I like those grips! Where did you get them?"

Whether To Tell or Not To Tell is a topic of molten-hot discussion here at TGO. I guess it's going to depend on the officer if they want to actually see your weapon.

Edited May 20, 2009 by P. Stegall

[Guest Policek9Trainer]

Yep, I posted about it yesterday http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/21495-gang-member-arrested-who-had-handgun-carry-permit.html

[Fallguy]

39-17-1351(t) says an officer can disarm you if he "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals". Nothing in it prevents him from doing a stolen check on the firearm once he has taken it from you.

[eapking]

Something tells me the officer knew this guy was dirty. Good for him. I hate hearing about gang-bangers with HCPs. They need to lose them, quickly.

[gfd_703]

Just shows how dumb some people are. If this "gang banger" could get a HCP he could have walked into any store and purchased a firearm just like the rest of us. He was the clean one for his group, he could have purchased dozens of firearms legitimately. He screwed up, he was stupid. Good thing for us, crooks are so dumb. Glad he was caught before he had a chance to use the weapon on some innocent victim.

[Guest canynracer]

Yep, I posted about it yesterday http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/21495-gang-member-arrested-who-had-handgun-carry-permit.html

I detect a thread merge!!!!

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

Very little. Be polite. Comply with the officer's directives. Great way to not get shot, not get proned out, not get arrested.

My quetion is what do you have the right to do or refuse to do during a traffic stop.

[mcurrier]

Just shows how dumb some people are. If this "gang banger" could get a HCP he could have walked into any store and purchased a firearm just like the rest of us. He was the clean one for his group, he could have purchased dozens of firearms legitimately. He screwed up, he was stupid. Good thing for us, crooks are so dumb. Glad he was caught before he had a chance to use the weapon on some innocent victim.

BUT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!! The system has failed. How did the Commercial Appeal NOT catch this????? Surely this guy's name was on the "list" if he was a legal HCP holder. I thought that was the whole point of the Commercial Appeal printing all of our names, so that stuff like this would NEVER happen? Am I wrong?? There must be a flaw somewhere. Oh, the humanity!

[Fallguy]

BUT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!! The system has failed. How did the Commercial Appeal NOT catch this????? Surely this guy's name was on the "list" if he was a legal HCP holder. I thought that was the whole point of the Commercial Appeal printing all of our names, so that stuff like this would NEVER happen? Am I wrong?? There must be a flaw somewhere. Oh, the humanity!

LOL...while I think you are being sarcastic....

Being in a gang is not illegal in-and-of-itself. So apparently he had not been convicted of anything that would prevent him from getting a HCP at the time he applied. Even if his name was published in the paper (which is not actually what the CA did) not sure what difference it would have made.

[Guest Bill Lumberg]

Well put.

LOL...while I think you are being sarcastic....

Being in a gang is not illegal in-and-of-itself. So apparently he had not been convicted of anything that would prevent him from getting a HCP at the time he applied. Even if his name was published in the paper (which is not actually what the CA did) not sure what difference it would have made.

[mcurrier]

LOL...while I think you are being sarcastic....

Being in a gang is not illegal in-and-of-itself. So apparently he had not been convicted of anything that would prevent him from getting a HCP at the time he applied. Even if his name was published in the paper (which is not actually what the CA did) not sure what difference it would have made.

Yes, being sarcastic...about the need to print names of HCP holders in publication.

As far as the "gang" thing, I never even saw that, so my commentary was not even on that, it's irrelevant to my comment.

It was in regards to any HCP holder having done something 'illegal' (i.e. having a "hot" gun as was originally stated). According to the Commercial Appeal, these are just the sort of things that publishing our names in public is supposed to prevent. The irony is, how exactly does printing our names in public 'prevent' anything? It doesn't.

[Fallguy]

Yes, being sarcastic...about the need to print names of HCP holders in publication.

As far as the "gang" thing, I never even saw that, so my commentary was not even on that, it's irrelevant to my comment.

It was in regards to any HCP holder having done something 'illegal' (i.e. having a "hot" gun as was originally stated). According to the Commercial Appeal, these are just the sort of things that publishing our names in public is supposed to prevent. The irony is, how exactly does printing our names in public 'prevent' anything? It doesn't.

Completely agree!!