Surrendering your Weapon to an Officer

[EMTRN]

David, your willingness to abide by the "law" will not serve you well when/if the government decides to take your firearms. Katrina showed us the usurpation that local governments can devolve to. If you are willing to follow the "law" and the "law" is to surrender your AR15, then I assume that you would do it.

The computer in the LEO cruiser should link the license plate to the HCP, if the HCP is driving his/her own car. The LEO should know the background check has been completed on the HCP and the odds that the HCP is now a crazed felon are greatly reduced compared to a blind traffic stop. The LEO should actually feel less "nervous" and should feel more secure knowing that a good percentage of HCP's (including me) would assist them in their time of need.

The plate is not linked to your HCP, only your DL is linked to your HCP. I can find out who the registered owner of the car is, and if he has a HCP but most officers simply run the plate before initiating a traffic stop.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

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 He disarmed me while he ran my info in I guess to see if my permit was revoked.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.

Edited October 28, 2009 by GLOCKGUY

[Mike.357]

Besides how can you people criticize me for wanting privacy when you were the very people raising hell about open records of HCPers, there is no difference.

big difference. You did something to initiate an interaction with the police.

With the Commie Appeal list none of us did anything to cause that interaction.

[Semiauto]

The plate is not linked to your HCP, only your DL is linked to your HCP. I can find out who the registered owner of the car is, and if he has a HCP but most officers simply run the plate before initiating a traffic stop.

I was stopped in Germantown a few years ago by a nice officer and he asked me for my permit before he asked for my license. I did not know him, so I assumed the license plate was linked to the HCP database.

[TGO David]

David, your willingness to abide by the "law" will not serve you well when/if the government decides to take your firearms. Katrina showed us the usurpation that local governments can devolve to. If you are willing to follow the "law" and the "law" is to surrender your AR15, then I assume that you would do it.

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.

[LagerHead]

I agree. You need to grow a thicker skin.

Who's going to even know it's you? And do you think a criminal is really going to trail a "hard target?"

Wear your seatbelt and don't give the trooper a reason to pull you over

That's where I was headed. But I do see your point about the officer and fear for his safety. But I also understand the world the cops live in, so to me, it falls under the category of "no blood, no foul."

[Fallguy]

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.

IMO...No.

What if something would have happened where you needed it while on the way back out to your car?

I acknowledge that it could have been dangerous to reload it in the store, but so was removing it from you and unloading it.

[Semiauto]

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.

I can imagine John Adams stating that he would sue the British Government to get their "rights". Do you think King George would grant those "rights". Where have we gone in 235 years? We no longer pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. This incrementalism has brought us to where we are today. Our own well being and security takes precedent over any perceived freedoms.

My oath was to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was not to give in and sue later. If that day comes, my guns will not be in my house, and I assume that I and my family will not be there, either.

[TGO David]

I can imagine John Adams stating that he would sue the British Government to get their "rights". Do you think King George would grant those "rights". Where have we gone in 235 years? We no longer pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. This incrementalism has brought us to where we are today. Our own well being and security takes precedent over any perceived freedoms.

My oath was to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It was not to give in and sue later. If that day comes, my guns will not be in my house, and I assume that I and my family will not be there, either.

If the day comes that they come for ALL OF OUR guns, then you won't be alone. What that means in context to my own personal resolve is my business and not something I'm going to post about on the Internet.

We each make peace with our own decisions, because they lead to actions that we may be called upon to answer for with our own lives. No one else can share in that sacrifice.

Anyway... talk's cheap. If the day comes that they "come for your guns" I hope you live up to what you've typed here and that you don't become a martyr that no one else remembers a year down the road.

[macville]

I'm confused on why some of you say the LEO was following the law by disarming the OP. The cop never said he was disarming the OP because of anyone's safety. It was simply, "give me your gun." The law CLEARLY says for someone's safety. Something has to be indicated that someone's safety is at stake for a firearm to be taken during a stop. Taking EVERY HCP's gun during a stop (if the department says to) is illegal. It's that simple. Think of it this way...if one of us were stopped, disarmed, and then took the cop to court over being disarmed, what is the cop going to say to the question, "what made you feel in danger, or that anyone else might be in?" The cop is going to have to tell him something was said, or some action happened that showed there is danger (or might be.) Simply having a handgun with a valid permit IS NOT a sign of danger. If it were, then we wouldn't have permits BECAUSE WE WOULD BE DANGEROUS ALL THE TIME! Something else to consider is, is the cop were to say, "well he had a look", then what exactly does that mean? I've seen some crazy looking people and ghetto types in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean they are automatically dangerous. If so, 3/4 of the people on peopleofwalmart.com should be stopped and arrested for being "dangerous looking."

All I'm saying is that the law states the needs a valid reason to disarm someone with a HCP. If the law said, "LEO may disarm anyone with a HCP and gun" and nothing else, then yeah, it's a legal disarming. Otherwise, show/tell me a reason. Simple possesion of a legal handgun is NOT a valid reason.

Matthew

[TGO David]

I'm confused on why some of you say the LEO was following the law by disarming the OP. The cop never said he was disarming the OP because of anyone's safety. It was simply, "give me your gun." The law CLEARLY says for someone's safety. Something has to be indicated that someone's safety is at stake for a firearm to be taken during a stop. Taking EVERY HCP's gun during a stop (if the department says to) is illegal. It's that simple. Think of it this way...if one of us were stopped, disarmed, and then took the cop to court over being disarmed, what is the cop going to say to the question, "what made you feel in danger, or that anyone else might be in?" The cop is going to have to tell him something was said, or some action happened that showed there is danger (or might be.) Simply having a handgun with a valid permit IS NOT a sign of danger. If it were, then we wouldn't have permits BECAUSE WE WOULD BE DANGEROUS ALL THE TIME! Something else to consider is, is the cop were to say, "well he had a look", then what exactly does that mean? I've seen some crazy looking people and ghetto types in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean they are automatically dangerous. If so, 3/4 of the people on peopleofwalmart.com should be stopped and arrested for being "dangerous looking."

All I'm saying is that the law states the needs a valid reason to disarm someone with a HCP. If the law said, "LEO may disarm anyone with a HCP and gun" and nothing else, then yeah, it's a legal disarming. Otherwise, show/tell me a reason. Simple possesion of a legal handgun is NOT a valid reason.

Matthew

If you want clarification on this, I suggest contacting your district's State Representative and asking them to solicit an official written opinion on the subject from the Attorney General. You can then take that written opinion, photocopy it and keep it on your person at all times for any occasion during which a LEO may ask for your sidearm.

This beats having a heated discussion about the matter with an officer on the side of the road. The guy with the badge will win that argument, even if only temporarily. You can certainly appeal it later, for whatever good it may do you.

Just a thought.

[Guest GT_Rat]

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.

[Guest canynracer]

well put GT...

[Guest gunslinger707]

Originally Posted by Kelemvor

If you looked or acted suspicious and had the weapon within direct reach, I can see him asking you to relinquish your weapon, but with it in the glovebox, I don't really see the point. As far as the roof of the car goes, where else would he have to put it while standing next to your car? Into his waistband? Really, he was being paranoid or overbearing by feeling the need to disarm you of a weapon that was out of reach, but he could have taken the gun back to his car or put it on the roof, either would have irritated most people.

"He left it there and went back to his car"

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

[Guest jth_3s]

I know this isnt Tennessee But I just wanted to get some of your opinions on the guy in this video. Was he in the right or in the wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWhsF9I9lOc

[Guest clsutton21]

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.

[TGO David]

"He left it there and went back to his car"

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

I call this a compromise. The officer left the weapon in plain sight where both he and the weapon's owner could see it. No cries of the officer taking the firearm back to his squad car and running the serial number or fondling it in an inappropriate manner. Likewise, the officer could see where the firearm was and clearly would notice if the owner were suddenly going for the gun.

Maybe I'm just trying to see the positives in this, but it sure seems like some of you are damned and determined to see the negatives.

[Guest clsutton21]

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.

[Guest jth_3s]

I call this a compromise. The officer left the weapon in plain sight where both he and the weapon's owner could see it. No cries of the officer taking the firearm back to his squad car and running the serial number or fondling it in an inappropriate manner. Likewise, the officer could see where the firearm was and clearly would notice if the owner were suddenly going for the gun.

Maybe I'm just trying to see the positives in this, but it sure seems like some of you are damned and determined to see the negatives.

I have to give you that, he left the gun where it was actually easier for me to get to than in the glove box and I appreciate that.

Edited October 28, 2009 by jth_3s

[Guest clsutton21]

I have to give you that, he still left the gun where it was actually easier for me to get to than in the glove box and I appreciate that.

You must be pretty ignorant. David's statement clearly said that officer left it where he could see it and you could see it. Or do you drive a clear car with a clear glove box compartment?

[Guest logicprevails]

The OP seems to not get the fact that the law is constitutional. The US constitution vests powers not specifically enumerated in it with the states (the 2nd is directed at preventing a disarming of the public as a whole by a nanny-state, not a temporary hold for officer safety). It is constitutional (TN constitution) that the legislature can regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. TCA 39-17-1351 obviously complies with that constitutional intent, and therefore is constitutionally valid. He seems to pose that a temporary legal hold of a firearm during contact by a police officer is tantamount to a police state disarming the populace.

The officer also has no obligation to articulate to the person he is in contact with that he has a reasonable fear. Being an officer in contact with any armed person (legally or not) potentially creates a situation that may cause reasonable fear for any officer and would be deemed so in court.

[Guest jth_3s]

The US constitution vests powers not specifically enumerated in it with the states.

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.

[Fallguy]

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.

You are not required to carry ID in all states. AFAIK in TN there is no law that requires you to carry govement issued ID. If there is, I would like to see it. If you armed - you need a HCP, If you are driving - you need a DL, If you are checking out a book - you need a library card, but just standing on the street corner - you don't need any ID. As was posted in another thread TN does not have a stop and ID law. But even if you were required to ID yourself, verbably giving your name, address and DOB is identifiying yourself.

You must be pretty ignorant. David's statement clearly said that officer left it where he could see it and you could see it. Or do you drive a clear car with a clear glove box compartment?

It would seem you may be the one that can't read...jth_3s said he wished the officer would leave it where he could get to it...not just see it as David said.

[Guest clsutton21]

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.

[Guest clsutton21]

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.

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.