Stopped by LEO while carrying

[CQB Elite]

As a sworn LEO we DO have some type duty to act, TCA Title 38 Chapter 3

I don't have to stop people speeding or running red lights, stop signs ect, True.. But in our dept we have a duty to act policy on duty. We also have a policy off duty. We don't have to run after shoplifters, bank robbers, pull out guns or anything that would endanger ourselves or public safety off duty. Simple observation and reporting is all we are required to do...

I'm glad to see people carrying legally, I had a HCP before I was a LEO and will continue to keep it.

On traffic stops I never ask a person with a HCP in good standing to ground their weapon. I usually get handed the HCP with a drivers license and I always ask if there are any weapons for my own safety HCP or not. When I run the DL it will tell me if the HCP is valid and I'll know if the person is armed or not already.

The only time I do ask them to ground or secure is if I'm conducting any type of investigation, this includes traffic accidents. Most of the time I get asked "Do you want me to secure it" I don't disarm them I ask them to ground it and secure it unless it's a situation which would require me to disarm the person.

There is a TCA allowing a peace officer to disarm a valid HCP holder with respect to safety. I have run across many turds that have a HCP and carry that shouldn't and it's only a matter of time before they lose that privilege.

Thanks for clearing that up. Stay safe!

[Dolomite_supafly]

Got one on my arm too. Be glad to show it to you to remove any doubt..... amongst other things

What class #?

Dolomite

[GhstFace38]

Big city police here, I don't disarm permit holders. I simply ask them where it is then tell them if theirs stays where it is mine will stay where mine is.

Moving on.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

[CQB Elite]

Big city police here, I don't disarm permit holders. I simply ask them where it is then tell them if theirs stays where it is mine will stay where mine is.

Moving on.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

I like that response! Thanks and stay safe!

[Worriedman]

As a sworn LEO we DO have some type duty to act, TCA Title 38 Chapter 3

Could you expound, and expand on that please?

[Worriedman]

Big city police here, I don't disarm permit holders. I simply ask them where it is then tell them if theirs stays where it is mine will stay where mine is.

Moving on.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Thank you!

[DaveTN]

Could you expound, and expand on that please?

Cops can’t stand by and not act regardless of how some people may interpret a Supreme Court decision. Not only is it a crime in some states; it’s a violation of department policy in most departments that could lead to dismissal. They do the best with what they have to work with, but can’t be held civilly liable for your protection if they can’t get there in time.

He can fill us in on what he’s talking about, but I would guess this is part of it for Tennessee. Not sure what 38-3-109 has to do with it, but anyway...

38-3-111. Officer failing to perform duties prescribed in §§ 38-3-108, 38-3-109.

Any peace officer who knowingly fails or refuses to perform the duties required by § 38-3-108 or § 38-3-109 commits a Class C misdemeanor.

Code 1858, § 4941 (deriv. Acts 1825, ch. 19, § 6); Shan., § 6902; Code 1932, § 11426; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 38-211; Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 113

38-3-108. Duty to arrest.

It is the duty of all peace officers who know, or have reason to suspect, any person of being armed with the intention of committing a riot or affray, or of assaulting, wounding, or killing another person, or of otherwise breaking the peace, to arrest such person immediately, and take such person before the court of general sessions.

Code 1858, § 4939 (deriv. Acts 1825, ch. 19, § 1); Shan., § 6900; Code 1932, § 11424; impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 68, § 3; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 38-208.

38-3-109. Bond to keep the peace.

A person arrested pursuant to § 38-3-108 shall be required to give bond in not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), with good security, to keep the peace; and, on failing or refusing so to give the required bail, the person shall be committed to jail until bail is given, or the person is otherwise discharged according to law.

Code 1858, § 4940 (deriv. Acts 1825, ch. 19, §§ 1, 5); Shan., § 6901; Code 1932, § 11425; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 38-209

[Guest DanE479]

TO clear up the Indiana permit issue:

Indiana's handgun carry paermits are controlled and issued by the Indiana state police. YOu apply for the permit at the local police department level using state generated paperwork, and youget fingerprinted there. Once the paperwork is completed, it goes to the state for issuance of the permit. THe local level LE agencies do not administer anything about the program.

I am not a current LEO. I was one for a short while, but I have mostly worked as a high-risk armed security officer specializing in HUD and section 8 property security and gang-supression security work among other things.

I've been on the two way range more than once, and it sucks. Officer safety is paramount. It also makes sense from a financial standpoint. THe fewer officers killed or seriously injured in the line of duty means lower overall costs for the police department.

Anybody that says that officer safety is less important than their annoyance level can eat a dick.

[mikegideon]

This is all very easy for me. It's not that I respect their authority so much, but I really repect the job they do. Having a friend shot up so badly that he has to wear a bag for the rest of his life (and he was wearing body armor) makes me want to do everything I can to make them feel safe. It's the least I can do.

It's a very hazardous gig these days, and they do it anyway.

[bubbadavis]

Anybody that says that officer safety is less important than their annoyance level ...

I don't know of anyone who has said anything close to that. However, the officer's safety is not more important than the citizen's safety.

[Guest DanE479]

I don't know of anyone who has said anything close to that. However, the officer's safety is not more important than the citizen's safety.

That quote is both true and false situational dependent. THere are times where a police officer must sacrifice the safety of one or more individuals for the safety of a greater number of people.

Suffice it to say, You can argue all you want on this forum; it's just the internet. Next time you get pulled over adn the officer wants to disarm you, tell him no just for poop and giggles. See what happens... I bet you lose, but you'll be sticking to your principles... You'll definately have the time for the cost-benefit analysis while you're in jail or on the ride home with a hefty ticket.

[GhstFace38]

I'd like to add to my previous post. I don't disarm HCP owners personally. That doesn't mean I dont have the right to and it doesn't mean I haven't done it in the past. I've arrested plenty of people with HCP's who were armed while I was dealing with them.

I had my HCP before I was a LEO so I feel for them. As stated sometimes my safety, or my need to take control of a situation necessitates the disarming of an individual. That being stated I personally do not believe disarming every HCP holder is the answer. Though alot of Officers do.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

[CQB Elite]

What class #?

Dolomite

Guess we will never know the answer....

[Dolomite_supafly]

Guess we will never know the answer....

Dolomite

[bubbadavis]

That quote is both true and false situational dependent. THere are times where a police officer must sacrifice the safety of one or more individuals for the safety of a greater number of people.

Suffice it to say, You can argue all you want on this forum; it's just the internet. Next time you get pulled over adn the officer wants to disarm you, tell him no just for poop and giggles. See what happens... I bet you lose, but you'll be sticking to your principles... You'll definately have the time for the cost-benefit analysis while you're in jail or on the ride home with a hefty ticket.

Note that I never said I wouldn't disarm for an officer. My argument is that it is more dangerous for all involved to disarm me than to tell me to leave the weapon alone and keep my hands in plain sight. That's also the case for the vast majority of permit holders.

You've made it clear in this thread that only LEO opinions matter to you. You have also made it clear that LEOs are more important than citizens to you.

Basically I'm done trying to have a rational conversation with you. Welcome to my to my ignore list.

[BlackHawk93]

'

Edited April 12, 2011 by BlackHawk93

[Guest DanE479]

I know he's ignoring me but I have to get a parting shot in to Bubba:

I'll freely admit that I think that in terms of safety, it is more important for a police officer to maintain his safety over that of a civillian should that choice arise.

Having been on both sides of this particular fence, officer safety trumps any other situation. Simple math. I'm also curious to see what blackhawk deleted...