This can't be true

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

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

 

So, being in TN, could we ask to see a supervisor after we have stated we do not consent to any search or seizure like this Portland, Maine law student did?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRUCpv3DdVo

Edited February 25, 2013 by AmericanWorkMule

[TMF]

So, being in TN, could we ask to see a supervisor after we have stated we do not consent to any search or seizure like this law student in OR did?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRUCpv3DdVo

I'm sure you could ask for a supervisor no matter the situation, but TN law is different than OR law, and in TN the officer would have PC if he saw a weapon and this guy was OCing. You have to show a permit if you're seen carrying a firearm or you will get cuffed and stuffed.

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

True, wasn't thinking.

 

 

I'm sure you could ask for a supervisor no matter the situation, but TN law is different than OR law, and in TN the officer would have PC if he saw a weapon and this guy was OCing. You have to show a permit if you're seen carrying a firearm or you will get cuffed and stuffed.

[LagerHead]

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.

 

The crap hole part obviously wasn't a quote. I was just stating that this is by far the best policed and most respectful gun forum I have frequented yet you felt it necessary to disparage it. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to disagree. Nothing more and nothing less was intended or implied. 

[East_TN_Patriot]

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.

 

No, I don't think we are.  The same general rules apply regardless of whether you are on foot, in your vehicle, or in your home.  There are just different nuances about how the rules are applied.  Generally, the courts have said that an officer is lawfully authorized to take possession of a weapon during a police/citizen encounter.  I posed the question in this debate to a Tennessee prosecutor I know and he confirmed that the possession of a TN carry permit doesn't change the circumstances as it relates to 4th Amendment issues and taking possession of a weapon during a police/citizen contact.  I don't necessarily disagree that an officer doesn't need to seize a weapon to assure safety, but the courts have generally said that seizing the weapon is perfectly acceptable.  Take for instance the search incident to arrest and the "wingspan" rule that says an officer can search anywhere within a suspect's "wingspan" for weapons and contraband following arrest.  In that case, the suspect is arrested and presumably totally separated from any weapons, but the police can still search.  If the officer makes contact with you and legally detains you to investigate any infraction of the law, the officer can disarm you and take possession of the weapon for the duration of the contact.  

To reiterate my earlier point, what you or I think is constitutional is essentially irrelevant to what the law deems constitutional (for better or worse).  Our system is based on the principle of judicial review and precedent, which serves to interpret the law and how it is applied.  I don't know off hand of any specific cases that have made a constitutional challenge related to a permit holder and I suspect there aren't any because someone with a valid carry permit and a lawfully carried weapon is not charged with a crime, thus no real constitutional dilemma is triggered as the law sees it.  I know there are multiple cases related to search and seizure and officer safety, which is the basis for my points here.  It would seem that this question has no clear answer and likely won't be answered by the SCOTUS because there is no criminal case to require an appeal.  More likely, there may be an Attorney General's opinion out there somewhere, so I'll peruse the web a bit for that.  Being a criminologist and not a legal scholar, my access to legal resources is limited.

EDIT:  I did some searches of Tennessee AG opinions, but did not find anything specifically related to the permit holder question (at least as I am interpreting it here).  The few I looked at related to search & seizure tend to follow the basic case law.  I found a site that has a good overview of search and seizure law so if people are interested, there is the link:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro01.htm

Edited February 27, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest ab28]

I have told police at a sobriety checkpoint I was carrying, they looked at my DL and HCP, said have a nice day. I inform an officer if I get pulled over than I am armed and have a permit. I haven't had an issue with it.