Surrendering your Weapon to an Officer

[Guest clsutton21]

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.

Still banging this ho, eh?

You still haven't pointed out where it says in the constitution that an officer of the law has no right to temporarily place your weapon in easy sight. Once you point this out to me, then I will accept that your 10th amendment argument. And before you do, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an officer of the law temporarily placing your weapon in easy sight.

[Guest jth_3s]

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

+1:up: If I had been yelling at him or acting like I could go crazy and kill him by all means take it. In that case I would not be calling this law Unconstitutional and would completely support the legislation. The Part I have a problem with is when they use it as an excuse to take a gun from everyone they pull over.

[Guest jth_3s]

Still banging this ho, eh?

You still haven't pointed out where it says in the constitution that an officer of the law has no right to temporarily place your weapon in easy sight. Once you point this out to me, then I will accept that your 10th amendment argument. And before you do, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an officer of the law temporarily placing your weapon in easy sight.

The 9th Amendment states "The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Temporarily taking a weapon for no reason is a violation of my rights

[Guest clsutton21]

The 9th Amendment states "The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Temporarily taking a weapon for no reason is a violation of my rights

You don't know if he had a reason to or not, I thought we had discussed that you have no idea how he felt. Or did you read his mind?

[TNRobocop]

And of course you take no responsibility in this at all by breaking the law (granted traffic law) in the first place that invited the man into your life.

[Kegger]

Does this guy not realize that there are very few laws left in the land that are truly Constitutional?

Welcome to the 21st century dude. The Constitution is but a piece of paper to politicians. And if you try to use the "Constitutional law" argument with an officer of the law, or a judge for that matter, they are just gonna look at you like you're stupid.

The law, as it's written, is the law. They do not care if you think it's unconstitutional. You will still have to follow and abide by it.

[Guest jth_3s]

Does this guy not realize that there are very few laws left in the land that are truly Constitutional?

Welcome to the 21st century dude. The Constitution is but a piece of paper to politicians. And if you try to use the "Constitutional law" argument with an officer of the law, or a judge for that matter, they are just gonna look at you like you're stupid.

The law, as it's written, is the law. They do not care if you think it's unconstitutional. You will still have to follow and abide by it.

I know there are very few constitutional laws, and it is sad our country has come to that. I follow laws to the best of my ability but its easy to forget a seatbelt. I would never try to argue law with a cop, that is what courts are for.

[Worriedman]

Does this guy not realize that there are very few laws left in the land that are truly Constitutional?

Welcome to the 21st century dude. The Constitution is but a piece of paper to politicians. And if you try to use the "Constitutional law" argument with an officer of the law, or a judge for that matter, they are just gonna look at you like you're stupid.

The law, as it's written, is the law. They do not care if you think it's unconstitutional. You will still have to follow and abide by it.

So true, but then, that is what 2010 is for. Change the legislators if you want to change the law!

[Guest canynracer]

Still banging this ho, eh?

My new sig line!!!!!

[Semiauto]

Does this guy not realize that there are very few laws left in the land that are truly Constitutional?

Welcome to the 21st century dude. The Constitution is but a piece of paper to politicians. And if you try to use the "Constitutional law" argument with an officer of the law, or a judge for that matter, they are just gonna look at you like you're stupid.

The law, as it's written, is the law. They do not care if you think it's unconstitutional. You will still have to follow and abide by it.

Then why all the fuss here about the 2nd Amendment to that useless piece of paper? If the Constitution is, indeed, a relic, the federal government does not need "us", as it has all the power and all the money.

[TGO David]

Does this guy not realize that there are very few laws left in the land that are truly Constitutional?

Welcome to the 21st century dude. The Constitution is but a piece of paper to politicians. And if you try to use the "Constitutional law" argument with an officer of the law, or a judge for that matter, they are just gonna look at you like you're stupid.

The law, as it's written, is the law. They do not care if you think it's unconstitutional. You will still have to follow and abide by it.

And now we venture from the realm of fact into the realm of personal opinion...

[JayC]

Try put yourself in his shoes and see how you would like sticking your head in someones vehicle. Whether you like the law or not you were breaking the law. This man doesn't know you all he knows is you were breaking the law and just told him you had a weapon in the glove box. Lighten up he is just doing his job, as far as talking him out of inforcing the seatbelt law he didn't make the law he just swore to uphold the law.

Lets put thing in perspective here, the seatbelt law is an administrative charge not a criminal one, there is a big difference between the two. It's one thing to investigate criminal activity and need to disarm a suspect in a crime. It's totally different to treat administrative charges the same as criminal ones.

That's like saying because there is a law against having leaves in your yard the enforcing officer needs to handcuff you for his safety when informing you of the violation, not racking your leaves is against the law, but is not criminal, and neither should be treated as such.

[Guest GT_Rat]

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

My initial post stated a perfectly valid reason that applies to any traffic stop. Again, guess who the judge will side with.

[JayC]

Let me throw this at you . I was at Wal-mart about 2 months ago in Knoxville. I always carry concealed but while I was bent over looking at something my shirt raised up enough to show my gun on the mid of my back. Their was a cop there that seen it he walked up and ask if I had a permit, I said yes. He disarmed me while he ran my info in I guess to see if my permit was revoked. Well he took the mag and the round in the chamber out and told me not to reload it until I got out to my car, was he right to do this? I just don't see the need for him to unload my gun. What if I was hold up on my way back to the car.

Technically under state law you're not required to GIVE him your HCP, only DISPLAY it for him on his request. Also the key phrase to ask is "Am I free to go?", unless he has RAS that your permit has been revoked he is obligated to allow you to leave (and if you do this before he gets the idea in his head to disarm you in the first place he can't disarm you)...

It does appear that the request for you to stay disarmed after you are discharged by the LEO is an unlawful order under state law. State law clearly indicates once you have been discharged the officer must allow you to be armed...

Now there maybe a law that would kick in reloading in the middle of a public place, I'm sure some of the LEOs and former LEOs could comment on some of the ways you could be charged for that, but going to a bathroom stall and reloading or a changing room would likely not not open you up to said charges.

Also, just to point out that if an officer has a problem with you displaying your HCP but declining give him the HCP, that technically under state law it's illegal for him to take possession of your HCP without a written letter from the Department of Safety authorizing him to do so.

[JayC]

Yeah because that process has worked out so well... Care to tell me how many officers were convicted for breaking the law during the gun confiscations of Katrina? How about the people who ordered or authorized the confiscations? How many lawsuits have resulted in a single penny of actually damages being paid to the victims? Let alone punitive damages? How many people are still trying to get their firearms back YEARS after the city and state agreed to do so?

The FACT is while some people did get there guns back, many just disappeared into the hands of the police who illegally confiscated them and will never be returned.... Since the police illegally did not provide receipts for the firearms they were confiscating (BTW yet another CRIME under LA law) many people don't even have proof their firearms were taken or which officer had done so... No public settlements have ever been announced, people are still fighting in court to get $500 in damages to replace a rifle take... NOBODY has ever been arrested of even charged... The DA didn't even form a grand jury to look into charging anybody.

No offense but it's just as much of a fairy tale to say you'll get payback through the courts as you'll stop them on your doorstep.

Pretty tough talk from someone who is sitting behind their computer speculating about what someone else would do. I wonder if your tone would be the same if the circumstances involved you standing in your doorway refusing to budge while a SWAT team entry guy has a shotgun in your face and is demanding that you comply, while your family watches on in horror.

I know we all have our limits, but seriously... my family needs their husband/father/son/brother alive more than I care to push a point while an officer has a gun in my face.

I can and would fight the battle to get my gun(s) back later, through legal channels. If you're the guy who is going to become a chalk outline to prove a point... more power to you. I'm going to be the guy who lives to sue the **** out of the city/state/Federal government if they trample my rights.

[JayC]

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.

I'm sorry but you sir are incorrect... It is not illegal to not carry ID, you are not required in the state in question to provide ID to an officer in this case.

The same would true in TN except for the carrying part. Because all types of carry require a permit and we're required to display that permit upon request.

[JayC]

Correct, but the 10th states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The states can not make a law that violates the US Constitution. Infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is strictly prohibited.

Bingo, and even if that was not the case, the 14th amendment clearly applies the 2nd amendment to the states.

[TGO David]

No offense but it's just as much of a fairy tale to say you'll get payback through the courts as you'll stop them on your doorstep.

I'm not going to debate the probable outcome of a lawsuit. One method (stopping them at the doorstep) will result in either incarceration or suicide-by-cop depending on how violently you resist. The other method (through the courts) will result in either success or failure.

You can choose whichever you want. There's no disgrace for me in living to fight another day.

[JayC]

You can't be charged for failing to provide ID in TN or NC, it is not interfering with police duty or investigation of a crime to not ID. Under TN law you must take some action to interfere sitting like a lump on the side of the street, or not saying a word isn't against the law.

While giving false statements or push an officer would be against the law.

Also, open carry in NC does not require a permit to open carry and as such unless the officer had RAS that he was not allowed to carry (was a felon, too young, mentally defective) he had no right to request ID under NC law.

You're correct that in TN he would have had to have a permit, hopefully one day we too can be free like the citizens of NC

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.

[strickj]

You can't be charged for failing to provide ID in TN or NC, it is not interfering with police duty or investigation of a crime to not ID. Under TN law you must take some action to interfere sitting like a lump on the side of the street, or not saying a word isn't against the law.

While giving false statements or push an officer would be against the law.

Also, open carry in NC does not require a permit to open carry and as such unless the officer had RAS that he was not allowed to carry (was a felon, too young, mentally defective) he had no right to request ID under NC law.

You're correct that in TN he would have had to have a permit, hopefully one day we too can be free like the citizens of NC

Well,if you carry a gun,you must provide your HCP,which is ID.

IF you're not carrying,and you fail to provide ID,you can be taken until they find out who you are.

[Guest HexHead]

Yeah because that process has worked out so well... Care to tell me how many officers were convicted for breaking the law during the gun confiscations of Katrina? How about the people who ordered or authorized the confiscations? How many lawsuits have resulted in a single penny of actually damages being paid to the victims? Let alone punitive damages? How many people are still trying to get their firearms back YEARS after the city and state agreed to do so?

The FACT is while some people did get there guns back, many just disappeared into the hands of the police who illegally confiscated them and will never be returned.... Since the police illegally did not provide receipts for the firearms they were confiscating (BTW yet another CRIME under LA law) many people don't even have proof their firearms were taken or which officer had done so... No public settlements have ever been announced, people are still fighting in court to get $500 in damages to replace a rifle take... NOBODY has ever been arrested of even charged... The DA didn't even form a grand jury to look into charging anybody.

No offense but it's just as much of a fairy tale to say you'll get payback through the courts as you'll stop them on your doorstep.

Those cops deserved to be fired upon. They were no better than the other looters in the city. And no different.

[JayC]

I'm not going to debate the probable outcome of a lawsuit. One method (stopping them at the doorstep) will result in either incarceration or suicide-by-cop depending on how violently you resist. The other method (through the courts) will result in either success or failure.

You can choose whichever you want. There's no disgrace for me in living to fight another day.

I agree, just stating that here is a perfect example where they 'came for the guns' and a lot of people lost their guns forever, no officers were charged with obviously criminal activities caught on national news broadcasts, and we've all just gone back to business as normal like it won't happen again.

There should be more of an outrage within the self defense/2nd Amendment community over this kinda stuff...

[JayC]

Well,if you carry a gun,you must provide your HCP,which is ID.

IF you're not carrying,and you fail to provide ID,you can be taken until they find out who you are.

In TN yes you must have an HCP and must DISPLAY it when requested by law enforcement...

In NC you are not required to have a permit to open carry, and therefore are not required to carry ID.

If you're not carrying ID in TN or NC you can not be held unless the officer has RAS that you have committed, in the process of committing, or about to commit a crime. Otherwise you are not required to ID yourself in both states.

Officers may wish for you to carry ID because it makes their jobs easier, but it's not required and they can not hold you for failing to have ID in TN. (Obviously again we're not talking about carry or driivng here, both of which require you to have you permit or licenses with you).

[JayC]

Those cops deserved to be fired upon. They were no better than the other looters in the city. And no different.

My point was that we really need to work to change the law and treat all criminals the same including the ones who happen to wear a badge. If we continue to give officers a pass on laws such as the one being discussed here, or giving them the benefit of the doubt, then when it comes time to collect the firearms nothing will happen to stop them.

At the very least they should be held to the same standard as the rest of the citizens, if not a higher standard, and sadly that just is not the case today in TN or anywhere else in this country.

[Guest HexHead]

I agree, just stating that here is a perfect example where they 'came for the guns' and a lot of people lost their guns forever, no officers were charged with obviously criminal activities caught on national news broadcasts, and we've all just gone back to business as normal like it won't happen again.

There should be more of an outrage within the self defense/2nd Amendment community over this kinda stuff...

Actually, many states including TN passed laws making what happened in the wake of Katrina specifically illegal. Not that I necessarily think that would stop an asshat like Serpas from following the example set by his old boss.

It would be interesting to see which Metro officers refused to follow an illegal order and which choose to become targets.