This can't be true

[DaveTN]

No, it's not a matter of an obligation, I just refuse to be subjected to laws that don't exist. I don't know all the laws, but if the laws I do know, if I happen to be conducting myself in a legal manner and an officer decides to tell me I'm breaking a law that I know for a fact does not exist, I will absolutely challenge that officer to arrest me on that charge. I guess I'm just the crazy one here that doesn't believe that law enforcement have the powers to create laws. And no, you can't be charged with crimes that don't exist. That would be impossible. You can be arrested, but not charged.

No one here is arguing that the law that you can’t chamber a round exists…. Because it doesn’t. We are all 100% in agreement. Did the cop say it? We don’t know and neither does the OP. But we do know that all you have to do is post that a cop said something wrong and everyone will jump on it. Whether or not it happened is immaterial.

Edited February 10, 2013 by DaveTN

[gregintenn]

I have the utmost respect for good LEOs, but I have ZERO tolerance for a bully or dumbass with a badge.
 

You've stated my feelings for LEOs much more succintly than I ever could have! :up:

[DaveS]

I think he’s a retired Fireman. Everyone loves them and they get to do pretty much whatever they want, but I don’t think searches is one of them.

 

 

Sorry Sir, but I currently work as an LEO! I love my self too and my job!! And will do whatever it takes to get it right!! Thank You so much!

 

Dave S

Edited February 10, 2013 by DaveS

[DaveS]

Sorry I came on kinda strong there DaveTN! Yes I'm a retired FF/EMT and current part time LEO, but I was laughing so hard I pert' near fell out of my chair!!!

Good day to all!!

 

Dave S

[Jason in TN]

Thanks for the replies here sorry it took a little bit to get back to you he was carrying concealed but you could see it ot the bulge under his shirt. Was walking around at a local flea market. The deputies were there too and saw him was stopped by them he showed his carry permit. Which up to this point I would think every thing is fine. Then they held him there while they ran the serial # on his gun is what I was told. That to me seems a little much. When that was over they returned his pistol and told him you can not carry on in the chamber.
That is the story as I was told. I did not see it happen but saw him a few min after it happened and he was so mad he could hardly talk about it.


Jason

[TMF]

No one here is arguing that the law that you can’t chamber a round exists…. Because it doesn’t. We are all 100% in agreement. Did the cop say it? We don’t know and neither does the OP. But we do know that all you have to do is post that a cop said something wrong and everyone will jump on it. Whether or not it happened is immaterial.

Well I'm not the type of person that likes to bash LEOs or jumps at the opportunity to point out wrongdoing. I almost always side with the Popo on stories regarding shoots or whooping a bad guy's butt, but in cases like this where it is a matter of sheer derelict I take exception. My original response was the that the OP's buddy should contact the Sheriff and let him know about it, because obviously these two need to be corrected. I'm sorry, but there is zero excuse for any LEO not to know laws on legal/illegal carry.

[Jason in TN]

I would agree he should have contacted the sheriff but I am sure he will probably do nothing. If it had been me I probably would not have handled it very well. I would have had to say something. I don't see where they had the right to hold him and run the serial # on his gun. Once the permit was shown and no law was broken then you would be free to go on your way. At least that is how I see it. Edited February 11, 2013 by Jason in TN

[Makiaveli]

You seem to very seriously misunderstand what the difference is between a lawful order and what is the law. A cop can tell me to keep my hands out of my pockets, but he can't tell me that the act of putting my hands in my pockets is in it of itself a crime. So, for example, if an officer tells me to keep my hands out of my pockets during a stop that is a lawful order. If a cop says, "hey, it's illegal to put you hands in your pockets" I'm going to tell him that it isn't illegal, and then put my hands in my pockets.

This wasn't an officer giving a lawful order. This was two dummy officers that need to pull their heads out of each other's asses. They said "this is the law." I once again made very clear, you can't be charged with a crime that doesn't exist. I will gladly get booked at a jail for committing a false crime after telling informing an officer that he needs to research the law.

 

I very clearly understand the difference. The two things are not even remotely similar. However you have to obey a lawful order from a cop. If he says you are under arrest so turn around etc, that's a lawful order. It doesn't matter THEN AND THERE what he is arresting you for. As you state, that's a matter for the courts later.

 

Thus, if he decides to arrest you for chambering a round after being told not to, then what part do I not understand?

 

 

As to your later post, "sheer derelict"? Making a mistake is dereliction of duty? They didn't arrest him, and "lose the paperwork" so he missed court and had to stay over the weekend. They didn't see an armed person and decide to go the other way.

 

You got one thing right. You and I do live in different worlds.

[TMF]

I very clearly understand the difference. The two things are not even remotely similar. However you have to obey a lawful order from a cop. If he says you are under arrest so turn around etc, that's a lawful order. It doesn't matter THEN AND THERE what he is arresting you for. As you state, that's a matter for the courts later.

 

Thus, if he decides to arrest you for chambering a round after being told not to, then what part do I not understand?

 

 

As to your later post, "sheer derelict"? Making a mistake is dereliction of duty? They didn't arrest him, and "lose the paperwork" so he missed court and had to stay over the weekend. They didn't see an armed person and decide to go the other way.

 

You got one thing right. You and I do live in different worlds.

 

An officer telling a citizen that they are breaking a law that doesn't exist is derelict.  Sorry. 

 

The OP made it clear that the officers did not issue a lawful order, they told him he was breaking the law, hence my reference of them making up a law that doesn't exist.  So I'm not sure what you're debating here.  If this was a thread about what lawful orders an officer can give then maybe you'd be contributing, but it is not and you are just trolling.

[Makiaveli]

An officer telling a citizen that they are breaking a law that doesn't exist is derelict.  Sorry. 

 

The OP made it clear that the officers did not issue a lawful order, they told him he was breaking the law, hence my reference of them making up a law that doesn't exist.  So I'm not sure what you're debating here.  If this was a thread about what lawful orders an officer can give then maybe you'd be contributing, but it is not and you are just trolling.

 

Trolling? No you are either not reading or not understanding my posts.

 

Either way, I am not going to waste more time on this.

[jughead]

this old man has been stopped 2 times in 17 years for traffic violations. 2 state troopers and one county officer have read me the riot act for carrying cocked and locked and a round in the pipe. one even unloaded my weapon and told me to put it under the seat. he said i couldnt open carry even in my vehicle. good thing about it though they were so upset with the weapon they decided not to write a ticket. both tickets would have been EXPENSIVE.

[daddyo]

If no one had anything to hide, why would you not consent to the serial number being run?

 

Dave S

 

That's not the point, Dave. I resent being subjected to an invasive search just to board a commercial aircraft. According to my sister, I should have no objections if I "have nothing to hide". After all, according to her, it makes us all safer. But we all know what Mr. Franklin said about safety and liberty.

 

If you "have nothing to hide", then why not just let the police search your vehicle?

 

Why are law-abiding citizens treated like potential criminals when there is absolutely NO evidence that they have committed a crime?

Edited February 18, 2013 by daddyo

[daddyo]

Right, I just detest the idea of suing government agencies and taking money from the tax pool. Of course, if a systemic problem exists the only way to solve it is to make it painful and hurt their bottom line. I'd just hate to see the good officers of a PD feel the pain of budget cuts because of negligent/substandard performance of one of their peers. I like it when the person responsible gets the pain.

 

There's money in the tax pool? Does that mean that I'll collect my SS benefits after all?  :woohoo:

[quesogrande]

I don't consent to anything more than I am legally and morally obligated to. I have great respect for local law enforcement and will assist them if I have knowledge that will help them solve a real crime. I will not assist an officer in a fishing expedition. The officer can either have PC that he can defend in front of a judge (because he will have to) or he can fuck off and go do his job and let me get on with my day.

Good point- 

[LagerHead]

This is a troubling statement to me, and made by an LEO or a retired LEO by the moniker below his name.  Why is the decision of a citizen of this country to decide to announce his desire to apply a constitutional right to a situation have "something to hide"?.  It may seem a trivial matter, but to me, running the serial number of a firearm for no apparent reason sits right up there with "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" which is used a lot by LEO's when they have no real reason and a legal search is not possible.  If the person responds with, "I don't submit to searches of my personal property without due cause."  suddenly they  have "something to hide"?  Every time an LEO coerces a citizen by subversion, into something they know is unconstitutional, they are pushing us a little further away from freedom and closer to "I need to see your papers!"

 

Agree 1000%. I don't like being treated like a criminal unless I'm acting like one. 

 

 

Neither of those cases apply. Tennessee law puts the gun in the hands of the Officers legally, without a warrant or a search. Keep in mind you are in a state where carrying a gun is a crime.

If they ask you for permission to run the number you can tell them “No” if you like. I wouldn’t think they would ask you for your permission any more than they would ask your permission to run your license plate number for stolen.

 

Yea, it's past time for us to decriminalize acting in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. Waaaaaay past time. 

 

Since you apparently don't want to debate, I won't. Why?

 

For example, take the conspiracy comment. You took it completely out of context. I was referring to the situation in the OP, and saying that under those circumstances etc. I was trying to head off someone say Well what about if.....

 

Yet you didn't ask WTF I was talking about, you just jumped straight into ripping me a new one and insulting me.

 

Is it any wonder the other forums I visit have a low opinion overall of this forum.

 

No, but one has to wonder why continue to frequent such a crap hole. And as you know, we have a long history of changing our behavior based on the opinions of those other forums that are so wonderful they get about 10% of our viewership so please feel free to enlighten us. We're all ears.

 

[DaveS]

This is a troubling statement to me, and made by an LEO or a retired LEO by the moniker below his name.  Why is the decision of a citizen of this country to decide to announce his desire to apply a constitutional right to a situation have "something to hide"?.  It may seem a trivial matter, but to me, running the serial number of a firearm for no apparent reason sits right up there with "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" which is used a lot by LEO's when they have no real reason and a legal search is not possible.  If the person responds with, "I don't submit to searches of my personal property without due cause."  suddenly they  have "something to hide"?  Every time an LEO coerces a citizen by subversion, into something they know is unconstitutional, they are pushing us a little further away from freedom and closer to "I need to see your papers!"

I wonder if you mind your tags being run to see if your vehicle is stolen? Your tags stolen? Your boat registration being run if it was stolen? If someone steals something from you, gun or otherwise, wouldn't it be nice if a cop ran a serial number and got you your stolen property back? Life is not as one sided as you would like.

By the way, I removed my "monikers" from below my name.....getting beat up over it all the time is getting a little old. I only put them there because ME, MYSELF and I are very proud of what ME, MYSELF and I has achieved in ME, MYSELF and I's lifetime!

 

Dave S

Edited February 19, 2013 by DaveS

[Guest PapaB]

I wonder if you mind your tags being run to see if your vehicle is stolen? Your tags stolen? Your boat registration being run if it was stolen? If someone steals something from you, gun or otherwise, wouldn't it be nice if a cop ran a serial number and got you your stolen property back? Life is not as one sided as you would like.

By the way, I removed my "monikers" from below my name.....getting beat up over it all the time is getting a little old. I only put them there because ME, MYSELF and I are very proud of what ME, MYSELF and I has achieved in ME, MYSELF and I's lifetime!

 

Dave S

 

If I'm driving down the road, parked in a public lot, or out on the lake in a boat, I have no problem with LE running my plainly visible registration information. I do, however, take exception to them coming onto my private property to do the same. Even more so if they say I have to open my garage so they can run registrations on whatever they may find.

 

Just because I have a gun (or a car), and those are items that have been stolen at times, doesn't mean they have the right to treat me like a criminal that may have stolen them. This is the concept behind probable cause. Running the serial number of a gun without probable cause, simply because a gun is an item sometimes taken by thieves, brings us one step closer to jackbooted thuggery. Should we allow them to retain us while they determine whether we legally live at our residence because people have illegally squatted at times? Perhaps we should be required to let them come into our houses and run the serial numbers on our electronic items to check for theft?

 

No Dave, I don't think you would agree with those things. I do hope however, you see the similarities to the problem of running a gun registration. It could easily be construed as a violatiion of our Constitutional rights. The police have the right to ask if you have a firearm on your person when they learn you have a HCP. You are required to temporarily turn it over upon request. Complying does not include permission to run the serial number of the firearm any more than being stopped by LE provides them permission to go through your phone without cause.

:2cents:

[Q-tip]

The car tag analogy doesn't necessarily apply. Yes, if my car was stolen, I would want cops running plates of similar vehicles. Plates are always in plain view when not on provate property, and are not in any way intended to be hidden. We have laws requiring our license plate numbers to be visible. 

 

On the other hand, if I had a flatscreen TV, MacBook, or other similar expensive item stolen from me, I would not want police randomly pulling such items from vehicles in normal traffic stops merely to run the serial number. It's a violation of the 4A, and it's a dangerous road to go down when I allow routine 4A violations just to get my TV back. 

 

If the 4th Amendment was something worth dying for to millions in our country's history, I figure not violating it in random traffic stops is worth the chance of not getting my stolen TV, laptop, or gun back. I'll keep my liberty over my flatscreen.

[Makiaveli]

Agree 1000%. I don't like being treated like a criminal unless I'm acting like one. 

 

 

 

Yea, it's past time for us to decriminalize acting in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. Waaaaaay past time. 

 

 

No, but one has to wonder why continue to frequent such a crap hole. And as you know, we have a long history of changing our behavior based on the opinions of those other forums that are so wonderful they get about 10% of our viewership so please feel free to enlighten us. We're all ears.

 

 

Having trouble editing the quote on this pc so just going to leave it as is.

 

@ LagerHead Please go back and note that I didn't say this place was a crap hole. Second, popularity doesn't mean you are right. Obama comes to mind. More people voted for him than anyone else running.

 

That said, I come here because certain sections contain information I find useful and/or entertaining. Also, some people here (OhShoot is the first one that comes to mind) are willing and able to explain using facts, logic etc to explain their point. I respect him because even when he schools me, he isn't disrespectful. 

 

Some on here though, enough to apparently give this place a reputation, are disrespectful. Some here apparently lack basic concepts of logic, are completely incapable or unwilling to even consider a different viewpoint, take comments out of context, etc. If I say something on here, then it's because I believe it to be true. Doesn't mean it is the truth currently, or that it was ever true. It may simply be my opinion. If someone disagrees, then by all means say so. Tell me why you think (or can prove) I am wrong.

 

But when someone takes what I say and twists it, then I attempt to correct them. In this thread, I finally decided this battle wasn't worth fighting, and walked away. 

 

Lastly, I personally think this forum has its good points. I also think it is a great place for the media to come and get comments to use in their biased stories. So I will continue to visit as long as I am welcome.

[East_TN_Patriot]

OK, people are not understanding the issue here.  The issue as I understand it in this debate is whether or not an officer has the authority to run the serial number on your firearm during a police/citizen encounter.  At the end of the day, the answer is yes with two key points: 1) was the reason for the initial stop lawful, and 2) did the officer have opportunity to view the serial number lawfully.  Assuming the answer to number 1 is yes, then the focus is on point number 2.  The question is now, can the officer disarm you without your consent?  Not being an attorney and not feeling like doing a bunch of legal research, I can only speak in generalities in my capacity as a criminologist and former LEO.  Generally, the SCOTUS has given law enforcement pretty broad latitude in seizing a weapon from people they encounter.  Once the officer has lawfully taken possession of your firearm, then plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run that serial number.  If they ask and you consent to hand your weapon to them, plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run the serial number.  Tack on the fact that Tennessee law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public.  Determining that one is in possession of a firearm in the State of Tennessee easily meets the reasonable suspicion standard required under the Terry v. Ohio (1968) to frisk an individual and take possession of any weapons they discover.  

The Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee an absolute right to privacy, but protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government.  I think that it would be somewhat extremely difficult to argue that one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regards to serial numbers on firearms that are legally possessed by the police.  

[TMF]

OK, people are not understanding the issue here.  The issue as I understand it in this debate is whether or not an officer has the authority to run the serial number on your firearm during a police/citizen encounter.  At the end of the day, the answer is yes with two key points: 1) was the reason for the initial stop lawful, and 2) did the officer have opportunity to view the serial number lawfully.  Assuming the answer to number 1 is yes, then the focus is on point number 2.  The question is now, can the officer disarm you without your consent?  Not being an attorney and not feeling like doing a bunch of legal research, I can only speak in generalities in my capacity as a criminologist and former LEO.  Generally, the SCOTUS has given law enforcement pretty broad latitude in seizing a weapon from people they encounter.  Once the officer has lawfully taken possession of your firearm, then plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run that serial number.  If they ask and you consent to hand your weapon to them, plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run the serial number.  Tack on the fact that Tennessee law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public.  Determining that one is in possession of a firearm in the State of Tennessee easily meets the reasonable suspicion standard required under the Terry v. Ohio (1968) to frisk an individual and take possession of any weapons they discover.  
The Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee an absolute right to privacy, but protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government.  I think that it would be somewhat extremely difficult to argue that one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regards to serial numbers on firearms that are legally possessed by the police.  

Yeah, I thought that was all understood. The issue I had was the officer citing a law that doesn't exist, then a member getting his panties in a wad about whether or not a cop can dictate to non-existent laws, which you can't be charged with breaking laws that don't exist. That is amateur hour stuff, and the cop needs to be called on it. As for the rest, all legal though I believe the law should be changed.

[Guest PapaB]

OK, people are not understanding the issue here.  The issue as I understand it in this debate is whether or not an officer has the authority to run the serial number on your firearm during a police/citizen encounter.  At the end of the day, the answer is yes with two key points: 1) was the reason for the initial stop lawful, and 2) did the officer have opportunity to view the serial number lawfully.  Assuming the answer to number 1 is yes, then the focus is on point number 2.  The question is now, can the officer disarm you without your consent?  Not being an attorney and not feeling like doing a bunch of legal research, I can only speak in generalities in my capacity as a criminologist and former LEO.  Generally, the SCOTUS has given law enforcement pretty broad latitude in seizing a weapon from people they encounter.  Once the officer has lawfully taken possession of your firearm, then plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run that serial number.  If they ask and you consent to hand your weapon to them, plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run the serial number.  Tack on the fact that Tennessee law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public.  Determining that one is in possession of a firearm in the State of Tennessee easily meets the reasonable suspicion standard required under the Terry v. Ohio (1968) to frisk an individual and take possession of any weapons they discover.  
,
The Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee an absolute right to privacy, but protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government.  I think that it would be somewhat extremely difficult to argue that one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regards to serial numbers on firearms that are legally possessed by the police.  

 

There are, in fact, 2 issues here. Is it legal, as you've addressed, and is it Constitutional? Just because it is legal doesn't make it Constitutional. Washington DC had the law behind them when they blocked Heller from having a handgun in his home, but that law was still unconstitutional. As you noted, Tennessee law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public which may in itself be a violation of the Tennessee Constitution. Many of us consider it an 'unreasonable seizure' for LE to remove a firearm from an HCP holder for a traffic violation. Asking you to separate yourself from the firearm should be a sufficient protection for the LEO (ie. put it in the glove box and step out of the car or put it in the trunk, or pu bed or back and return to your seat). Taking possession can be construed, by reasonable people, as unnecessary. There is no real 'need' for LE to get access to your serial number during most traffic stops, unless the person is acting wonky or an arrest is made.

Edited February 24, 2013 by PapaB

[East_TN_Patriot]

There are, in fact, 2 issues here. Is it legal, as you've addressed, and is it Constitutional? Just because it is legal doesn't make it Constitutional. Washington DC had the law behind them when they blocked Heller from having a handgun in his home, but that law was still unconstitutional. As you noted, Tennessee law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public which may in itself be a violation of the Tennessee Constitution. Many of us consider it an 'unreasonable seizure' for LE to remove a firearm from an HCP holder for a traffic violation. Asking you to separate yourself from the firearm should be a sufficient protection for the LEO (ie. put it in the glove box and step out of the car or put it in the trunk, or pu bed or back and return to your seat). Taking possession can be construed, by reasonable people, as unnecessary. There is no real 'need' for LE to get access to your serial number during most traffic stops, unless the person is acting wonky or an arrest is made.

Except the courts would disagree with you.  They would say that it is not unreasonable for the officer to temporarily disarm you.  In fact, they have made several exceptions to the 4th Amendment allowing officers latitude in situations specifically related to firearms.  The police can search your home while there for another lawful purpose if they have reasonable suspicion that there is an armed person hiding there who may pose a threat.  The police are able to search you and the area within your immediate reach if you are arrested inside of your home pursuant to an arrest specifically to search for weapons.  The police do not have to get a warrant in order to search your vehicle pursuant to an arrest specifically to look for weapons.  The police can pat down your outer clothing for a weapon if they have reasonable suspicion you possess a weapon.    A stop is a lawful detention under the 4th Amendment as long as there is reasonable suspicion you are involved in criminal activity or they have witnessed a violation of the law. While you are detained, the officer has the authority to investigate to determine whether you are actually involved in a crime.  If the officer knows you have a weapon in your possession, it has long been determined that it is not unreasonable for the officer to disarm you until the conclusion of the stop and/or the determination that you do not pose a threat.  This is why many officers will choose to disarm the individual until they can confirm the individual's carry permit is valid, that the person isn't wanted, etc.  

Let's just say, for instance, that you are the officer and you have stopped a car for speeding.  You contact the driver, he makes a statement that he is a permit holder and has a gun in the vehicle.  You decide to let him keep the firearm, take his permit and license, and go back to your patrol car to run everything.  You then discover that he is wanted for a violent crime like killing his wife or something.  Now you get to figure out how to arrest the guy and hope that in the meantime he hasn't decided to put a bullet in you because he's not eager to sit on death row.  Or, perhaps the driver bought the gun from someone he met in the parking lot of a gun show and it turns out that the gun is stolen.  Or maybe the guy's permit has been revoked.  Whatever the case, the courts are very likely going to say that being temporarily disarmed by a LEO during a legal investigative stop is not "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment.  Now, you may not like that, but at the end of the day, it's up to the courts to decide what is "unreasonable" and we can't pick and choose which court decisions we want to follow.  The officer retains discretion on whether or not they choose to disarm someone.  When I was a LEO, I generally allowed permit holders to maintain possession of their firearm unless there was some other set of circumstances that made me do otherwise.  In the few times I have been stopped by law enforcement, I have never been disarmed.  If I were to be disarmed, I personally wouldn't like it, but I don't blame the officer either as long as it's done in a professional manner without idiotic lectures about why I don't need to carry a weapon or incorrect statements about firearms law.

[Guest PapaB]

East_TN_Patriot,

You're discussing being searched and disarmed, the commision of crimes and reasonable suspicion. I'm discussing traffic stops and unreasonable seizure, a different topic entirely. My whole point is that you can be disarmed and separated from your weapon without it being seized. Being stopped for failure to yield, speeding, or some other traffic violation doesn't provide PC for a vehicle search outside of 'in plain view', something else has to trigger that. The LEO always has the right to ensure his safety, he just doesn't need to seize your weapon to accomplish that. I know the courts haven't stopped that practise, that doesn't make it right. Has there been a Constitutional challenge upholding, specifically, the right to seize a weapon, rather than disarming an individual without seizure? The statements you made are correct, they're just not germain to what I was discussing.

[Worriedman]

 If they ask and you consent to hand your weapon to them, plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run the serial number. 

What if the Citizen hands over his weapon IN a holster that precludes viewing the serial number without requiring the Officer to remove it? The number is not in plain view at that point.