Surrendering your Weapon to an Officer

[Guest jth_3s]

Fallguy, if you don't know what you're talking about...you shouldn't respond. Everyone who is relatively cognitive knows that jth was implying that it was safer for the officer to leave it in the glove box than on the roof. And we know(the ones that can form a thought) that it is actually safer for the officer to have it on the roof than in the glove box.

I still want to know why jth even told the officer he was carrying if he's all fired up about his constitutional right to carry. If it wasn't an issue, he should have just kept it to himself unless asked.

I told him because I had my gun in the Glove box with my Registration and Proof of Insurance. I didnt want to freak him out when I opened my glove box. I have never before told an officer I was carrying and I will never again.

[Guest clsutton21]

.

[Kegger]

This argument is purely whining and moaning.

You say you want to abide by the law. Then just do it, quit being a baby. Wear your seat belt like a good boy, surrender your weapon when asked by a LEO, and generally act like a decent human being. Rather than try to rebel and fight every time something is done that hurts your sensitivity.

Wipe your nose, change your diaper, and follow the law as it is written. Not your interpretation of it.

[Guest logicprevails]

Nothing was infringed on. You didn't have you handgun for maybe 10 minutes. That amendment was created so that you couldn't have your firearms removed from your custody permanently. Furthermore, I think you are the one interpreting the laws wrong. The state law that says an officer can take your firearm is not unconstitutional at all(as pointed out by my above explanation) so the 10th has absolutely no purpose here except to say that since the constitution does not say "an officer can't remove a handgun from a citizen's possession for any period of time", that the state can make it's own law governing that particular item.

I hate it when I agree with clsutton21, as his delivery can be quite irritating (incidentally cl, I never apologized for my flame at you a month or so ago....so, my apologies). However, I must concur with him.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy, if you don't know what you're talking about...you shouldn't respond. Everyone who is relatively cognitive knows that jth was implying that it was safer for the officer to leave it in the glove box than on the roof. And we know(the ones that can form a thought) that it is actually safer for the officer to have it on the roof than in the glove box.

I still want to know why jth even told the officer he was carrying if he's all fired up about his constitutional right to carry. If it wasn't an issue, he should have just kept it to himself unless asked.

Wow....and you are the one that told somone else not to be so smug.

Maybe I misread the post...if so, my bad. In the mean time I'll be waiting to see the law that requires all of us to carry ID to be posted by those who better know what is being talked about.....

[TNTitan]

I cant believe this horse has made it 11 pages!

[EMTRN]

Wow....and you are the one that told somone else not to be so smug.

Maybe I misread the post...if so, my bad. In the mean time I'll be waiting to see the law that requires all of us to carry ID to be posted by those who better know what is being talked about.....

You are 100% right Fallguy. You are only required to ID yourself. It makes everything much easier if you show a DL.

[USMCJG]

If by the guy you mean the one with the camera...then he is wrong. You are req'd to carry photo ID on you at all times if you are over 18 and when an officer wants to see you, you show it. This guy is just being an asshat. If I was the officer, I wouldn't have backed down.

Fallguy is right. You are incorrect. Most states do not require you to produce your papers when asked, including NC where the video was taped. If you were the officer, you would probably be facing a lawsuit right now. The guy backed down because he called in to find out what the law actually was and left when he was informed that he(the officer) was wrong. Credit to the officer for calling in to find out what the law really was, and to the citizen for already knowing it.

[TGO David]

I told him because I had my gun in the Glove box with my Registration and Proof of Insurance. I didnt want to freak him out when I opened my glove box. I have never before told an officer I was carrying and I will never again.

If you keep stowing your firearm in the glovebox with your proof of insurance and registration, and you begin omitting that little detail when a cop asks you for those other two items... be sure to let us know how it works out for you!

[Guest clsutton21]

Wow....and you are the one that told somone else not to be so smug.

Maybe I misread the post...if so, my bad. In the mean time I'll be waiting to see the law that requires all of us to carry ID to be posted by those who better know what is being talked about.....

I'll admit when I'm wrong, you aren't required by the state to have an ID on you. Although you aren't required, it could be seen as interfering with police duty and could cause trouble. He would have to present his HCP no matter the situation since his handgun was clearly visible. I'm sure the officer wanted his DL so that he could check permit status. He did ask for the permit first, after all.

*

The law requires you present your HCP upon the request of an officer. It does not say you have to notify them if you are armed or not.

But I'm not sure I would play it that way.

*HCP traffic stop question - Tennessee - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum

But honestly, this thread isn't about that video or the ignorant cameraman in it.

[Fallguy]

If you keep stowing your firearm in the glovebox with your proof of insurance and registration, and you begin omitting that little detail when a cop asks you for those other two items... be sure to let us know how it works out for you!

I have to agree, if you are not going to inform...and that is ok with me, then I wouldn't store documents you may need and the handgun in the same place.

[macville]

Keep in mind also that the safety concern is purely based on the officers perception and judgment, NOT YOURS.

In my mind it goes something like, "I'm about to give this guy a ticket. Sometimes people get unreasonably angry when they get a ticket. This guy is known to be armed. I want to go home to momma after my shift. Just-in-case, I'm going to disarm this guy to be sure he won't get unreasonably angry and start shooting at me."

Guess who's perception of safety the judge is going to side with.

Wait, wait, wait.... there should still be some proof or an explanation that the LEO should be able to provide when asked why he disarmed someone. Your above thinking is along the same lines of I'm doing it because I can, and not because of any good reason. LEO's can just do something because they WANT TO (not legally at least.) I do not see how, if you are polite, friendly, etc. the LEO has any reason to believe you will attack them. The whole point of the law is if someone seems agitated, uses threatening words, etc. Disarming just because you want to disarm someone because something MIGHT happen does not follow the law. If we were to follow the same thought, then police should be able to search your car without consent because they "might" just have drugs, illegal weapons, etc. I understand the point of the law, (keep LEO's safe), but when no actions or words demonstrate an intent to hurt the LEO, them permit holder, or someone else, the LEO really does not have a legal right to disarm the permit holder. It's really that simple.

Nothing was infringed on. You didn't have you handgun for maybe 10 minutes. That amendment was created so that you couldn't have your firearms removed from your custody permanently. Furthermore, I think you are the one interpreting the laws wrong. The state law that says an officer can take your firearm is not unconstitutional at all(as pointed out by my above explanation) so the 10th has absolutely no purpose here except to say that since the constitution does not say "an officer can't remove a handgun from a citizen's possession for any period of time", that the state can make it's own law governing that particular item.

I guess you think the whole permit thing is constitutional, right? Because I personally believe that the permit and the laws on where we can't carry are unconstitutional. In fact, the writers of the Constitution made it pretty clear that carrying arms everywhere was what they meant: Founding Fathers Quotes

Here's one of the issues I have with taking away a firearm from a personal who is legally carrying it. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. I know you might think that means only in a court of law (AKA: you are charged with a crime), but how is that any different in this case really? If the permit holder says something or does an action that makes the LEO feel like something could happen, then fine. But if nothing is said/done that has anything to do with the firearm, then how can they feel unsafe? In fact, they should feel safer considering the stats on permit holders. Yes, be safe, but you are FAR more likely to be shot by someone who doesn't have a permit than someone who does.

Matthew

[macville]

And BTW, I may just write the AG for an opinion. Of course, it's kinda pointless since the last gun related opinion obviously ignored the law.

Matthew

[Fallguy]

I'll admit when I'm wrong, you aren't required by the state to have an ID on you. Although you aren't required, it could be seen as interfering with police duty and could cause trouble. He would have to present his HCP no matter the situation since his handgun was clearly visible. I'm sure the officer wanted his DL so that he could check permit status. He did ask for the permit first, after all.

*

*HCP traffic stop question - Tennessee - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum

But honestly, this thread isn't about that video or the ignorant cameraman in it.

If you are speaking of the guy in the video from NC.....the open carry of handgun without a permit is legal in NC. It doesn't require you identifing yourself or having a permit any more than carrying a basketball with you.

Now if you are in TN, that is 100% correct, you must have your HCP on you when armed and present it to the officer.

However I'm still not sure how if you are just standing around, not driving, not being armed but not having goverment issued ID could be seen as interfering with police duty. Even if he suspected you of a crime...again all you have to do is identify yourself, by verbably stating your information. As EMTRN said it would make it easier of course to have a DL.

You're right this thread isn't about about the video, but I was scolded rather well when I told I shouldn't respond if I didn't know what I was talking about....so I just wanted to get clarification on everything (like having ID) that was being talked about.

[USMCJG]

If you are speaking of the guy in the video from NC.....the open carry of handgun without a permit is legal in NC. It doesn't require you identifing yourself or having a permit any more than carrying a basketball with you.

Now if you are in TN, that is 100% correct, you must have your HCP on you when armed and present it to the officer.

However I'm still not sure how if you are just standing around, not driving, not being armed but not having goverment issued ID could be seen as interfering with police duty. Even if he suspected you of a crime...again all you have to do is identify yourself, by verbably stating your information. As EMTRN said it would make it easier of course to have a DL.

You're right this thread isn't about about the video, but I was scolded rather well when I told I shouldn't respond if I didn't know what I was talking about....so I just wanted to get clarification on everything (like having ID) that was being talked about.

+1. And the cameraman in the video wasn't ignorant, he actually knew the law and his rights. The officer was ignorant of the law, but at least he took the time to get clarification.

[Guest jth_3s]

If you keep stowing your firearm in the glovebox with your proof of insurance and registration, and you begin omitting that little detail when a cop asks you for those other two items... be sure to let us know how it works out for you!

I dont normally keep it in my glove box and I wont do it again. I just had it in there because I was about to head on a long trip. If I have the weapon where the officer is going to see it of course I will tell him. I like living to much:D

[DaveTN]

The Officer does what he needs to do to go home at the end of his shift…. Period.

There are no “rights†involved. It is a crime to carry a loaded gun in Tennessee. What you have are privileges that you bought from the state; they don’t mean squat. Also, the “All HCP holders live at the foot of the cross†really gets old. An Officer would be a fool to assume that since you spent 8 hours smoking and joking at a range and paid the state $115 you won’t shoot him.

If a cop gets in a bad situation will citizens stop and help? Certainly they will. Will they be HCP holders? Probably not; since there are so few.

But you have the right idea, if you feel that he is doing something wrong; go file a complaint. Someone will explain to you how things work; they will explain what the law is and what their department policy is.

So your idea is to ask a Police Officer if he feels threatened, after you have acknowledged you are armed? Please get video of that.

[Semiauto]

Should citizens, then, trust LEO's that carry guns? Personally, I don't trust anyone I don't know. The THP had a little splainin' to do recently that exposed a few bad guys that wore uniforms. A couple Memphis cops recently shot it out. A female THP shot her sig other off duty with her duty weapon a couple years ago.

Just sayin'.

[Guest gunslinger707]

Originally Posted by gunslinger707

Guess this statement blow's the "officer safety"argument out of the water !!!!

Don't act so smug. Would you rather be able to see the gun and know if someone is reaching for it before you return to the car? Or would you like the idea of walking up to the car and not knowing if the gun is ready to shoot? You really need to think things through before you type. Hastiness is not your friend.

Cl and David the statement was made tongue in cheek ergo the big grin's !

[Punisher84]

This is how I feel about this thread.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Wait, wait, wait.... there should still be some proof or an explanation that the LEO should be able to provide when asked why he disarmed someone. Your above thinking is along the same lines of I'm doing it because I can, and not because of any good reason. LEO's can just do something because they WANT TO (not legally at least.) I do not see how, if you are polite, friendly, etc. the LEO has any reason to believe you will attack them. The whole point of the law is if someone seems agitated, uses threatening words, etc. Disarming just because you want to disarm someone because something MIGHT happen does not follow the law. If we were to follow the same thought, then police should be able to search your car without consent because they "might" just have drugs, illegal weapons, etc. I understand the point of the law, (keep LEO's safe), but when no actions or words demonstrate an intent to hurt the LEO, them permit holder, or someone else, the LEO really does not have a legal right to disarm the permit holder. It's really that simple.

The law does not say that he has to give you or anyone else any reason. Just that if he perceives there is a reason he has the legal right to do so, in the interest of public safety and his personal safety. He may be called to give a reason if there is some legal challenge but the scenario I stated is an easy example. Yes that includes the question of something that MIGHT happen because the most normal seeming people can suddenly become irrational and violent without any indication or warning. Trying to equate it with an illegal search and seizure fishing expedition is a ludicrous corollary. Search and seizure laws are there to prevent officers from fishing for something to charge you with. Temporarily disarming you has no purpose other than the officer ensuring his safety with no legal repercussions. You won't be arrested and charged because the officer temporarily disarmed you. The LEO does have the right per TCA, per the TN Constitution, and the US Constitution in that it reserves the right to make those laws to the state.

[Guest grimel]

This has anything to do with anything ... how?

See my previous comments about the firearm being controlled easing the officer's concerns. If that's what it takes for me and him to both walk away from a routine traffic stop alive and minus any additional bodily orifices, then I'm going to comply as is expected of me by the law./QUOTE]

Well, you brought up "common sense" in allowing the officer to disarm you for HIS protection:

Originally Posted by TGO David

Man, give it about 10-15 more years and you won't care near as much about the petty crap as you do right now. Things like a cop disarming you for his protection during a routine stop will seem like a pretty inconsequential, common sense thing and you won't even think twice about it being left on the roof of your car.

Your premise it's for his safety and concerns is based you claim on "common sense". Well, common sense doesn't stand up to the facts of the matter. At best the idea of disarm everyone is a simplistic idea to avoid legal action; at worst it is some idiots idea to promote blind compliance.

[Guest highvoltage]

if i were the leo i would have done tha same thing. you just don't know what anyone might do this day and time. i try too look at there point of view on that.so if it happens to me i would not take it personal.so long as i get it back after the stop. since i have gotten my hcp i wear my seat belt for just that reason so i won't get stopped and have to deal with it. leo have a tough job.so there safety and going home to the family is a high priority for them. try think whats going on in his mind when he is walking up to that door not knowing if you had a bad day and might go over the edge. its the law and it is there for a reason. good luck and wear that seat belt

[Guest jth_3s]

The LEO does have the right per TCA, per the TN Constitution, and the US Constitution in that it reserves the right to make those laws to the state.

The 10th Amendment clearly states that the state can not make any law that is in violation of the US Constitution. The US Constitution PROHIBITS the Federal and State Governments from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[macville]

The law does not say that he has to give you or anyone else any reason. Just that if he perceives there is a reason he has the legal right to do so, in the interest of public safety and his personal safety. He may be called to give a reason if there is some legal challenge but the scenario I stated is an easy example. Yes that includes the question of something that MIGHT happen because the most normal seeming people can suddenly become irrational and violent without any indication or warning. Trying to equate it with an illegal search and seizure fishing expedition is a ludicrous corollary. Search and seizure laws are there to prevent officers from fishing for something to charge you with. Temporarily disarming you has no purpose other than the officer ensuring his safety with no legal repercussions. You won't be arrested and charged because the officer temporarily disarmed you. The LEO does have the right per TCA, per the TN Constitution, and the US Constitution in that it reserves the right to make those laws to the state.

He may not have to give you a reason on the spot, but if you take him to court, he will have to give a reason. He's ONLY allowed to disarm you if he REASONABLY believes for the protection of himself or someone else. If simply having a legal firearm is reason enough, then I state again that we should not be allowed to carry firearms at any time. I think the key word is reasonably. I don't think the simple possession of a legal firearm is "reasonable". If something is said or done that would indicate harm to be done to someone, then by all means. If not, I fully believe that the LEO does NOT have the power to disarm someone. That goes against what is said in the law and the spirit of the law.

I guess if you get stopped and the cop asks to disarm you, you should ask why he believes anyone is in danger/needs protection. I think that would be very telling.

Matthew