Duty to Notify....change? Maag: Police don't need gun warning - Ohio

[rdm6680]

Maag: Police don't need gun warning

Maag: Police don't need gun warning | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

 

[NavyLCDR]

The law definitely needs to go away. It does nothing for officer safety and only sets up hurdles for law abiding citizens to jump over in order to lawfully carry a gun. The person interesting in shooting a police officer is not exactly going to stop and tell the officer about the gun first because of this stupid law.

I like this from the article:

Police who stop someone for a traffic violation will know through a check of the vehicle’s license plate whether that person has a conceal carry permit, Robinson said.

You guys must have some incredible technology in Ohio to be able to determine who is DRIVING a vehicle based upon it's license plates! In Washington, the officer can only find out about who the registered owner of the vehicle is based upon the license plates, but that does not indicate who may by driving the vehicle. And what if it is a vehicle registered to a corporation?

 

[DarrylHadfield]

OH LEO are notorious about NOT checking... and Cinci PD are, to put it mildly, lax.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the duty to inform - although I do agree with it. Personally? I think the Duty to Inform shouldn't be a law.. it should be common sense.

"Officer, I wanted you to be aware that I do have my firearm with me, just so there are no surprises." Unstated: So you don't shoot me because you flip your top!

Stating that it's necessary to inform LEO in the event of a traffic stop is nothing more than entrapment by police.. I think it's wise for someone carrying a permit to speak up about it to a police officer, but it shouldn't be an offense NOT to.

I simply fail to grasp many of the laws about firearms.. people are all too caught up in this idea that "the government" will protect them.. the government has ZERO requirement to protect you. The police have ZERO requirement to protect you. Period. Check the mandates.. not one state that I've heard of has anything on the books that says they're responsible for your protection.

YOU are responsible for your protection.

Laws prohibiting gun ownership or firearms possession while traveling do nothing more than make things easier for criminals... because the criminals are, by definition, in violation of the law - so they won't care anyway.

It just makes things safer for Criminals.

 

[longslide10]

The law definitely needs to go away. It does nothing for officer safety and only sets up hurdles for law abiding citizens to jump over in order to lawfully carry a gun. The person interesting in shooting a police officer is not exactly going to stop and tell the officer about the gun first because of this stupid law.

I like this from the article:


You guys must have some incredible technology in Ohio to be able to determine who is DRIVING a vehicle based upon it's license plates! In Washington, the officer can only find out about who the registered owner of the vehicle is based upon the license plates, but that does not indicate who may by driving the vehicle. And what if it is a vehicle registered to a corporation?

I believe Virginny has the ability as well. There must be something with the DMV when you apply for a registration or renewal

 

[longslide10]

I don't think it's a good idea to inform. It only puts LEO's on edge for no reason and it won't be a ccw holder that causes him/her harm, it's the criminal with an illegal firearm and in no way will they announce they have one. The law is asinine.

 

[Elspeth]

It's tagged to the license plate...so whoever the vehicle is registered to. We had to explain to our 16-year-old daughter what to do if she gets pulled over, since her truck is registered to my husband. It does make me a little nervous to think what might happen is she were to get pulled over by someone like our dear Officer Harless.

The only time I could really see it being useful to an officer to know I have a gun is if I am going to shoot him. Since I'm not, and since generally people planning on killing cops don't have their carry permit, I think it's pretty pointless.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the duty to inform - although I do agree with it. Personally? I think the Duty to Inform shouldn't be a law.. it should be common sense.

"Officer, I wanted you to be aware that I do have my firearm with me, just so there are no surprises." Unstated: So you don't shoot me because you flip your top!

Why do you think it is common sense to inform and that you agree with informing the LEO about your lawfully possessed and carried firearm?

By informing the police officer of your lawfully carried and possessed firearm, you are accomplishing one thing, and one thing only. You are inviting that LEO to handle your firearm uneccessarily "for officer safety" placing you, the officer, and innocent bystanders in more danger from a negligent discharge than if the gun was left on your belt in the holster. If you are just going to sit in your car and sign a ticket, or receive a verbal warning, what difference does it make if the officer knows or doesn't know about your lawfully possessed and carried firearm that you have no intention of touching? Someone who is going to shoot at the officer isn't going to tell them about a gun anyway (requirement of law or not).

If you are going to be frisked and he might handle the gun unknowingly... that would be a time to inform them of the gun that might have some benefit to it.

 

[wuzfuz]

When I was on the job in Arizona, the law was very specific, you were required to inform police you might come into contact with that you were armed with a permit. As a deputy sheriff, that was the last thing I wanted to hear. I knew of many officers who had a set routine when they approached a car, and like the rather famous case, they got real snotty if you tried to tell them anything that they hadn't asked you. For me, it was an inconvenience, because SOP was to place the firearm on top of the car until the contact was concluded. If the person seemed hinky at all to me, then I would take the gun and secure it temporarily while I ran the gun, the subject and the vehicle. Last I heard, there had been very few revocations of CCW permits, so they must have been doing okay.

 

[Derby]

Some of the commenters in newspaper article mentioned that it is not a bad law, rather it was a bad officer. When a citizen does something that hurts other people, the citizen may or may not get punished by the courts but the legislators will rush to pass a law to prevent the same thing happening in the future. Why not repeal a law that an officer used to abuse a law abiding citizen?

 

[WOP2]

I have taken the course of instruction, and hold a valid license that allows me to carry in Ohio. The law in my home state does NOT incorporate duty to inform. The law in Ohio states you have an immediate and compelling DUTY to inform. While I find the law draconian in Ohio, I still must obey it, as I must obey the laws of all states I am licensed to carry in. Don't be a hero, or worse, a test case for the Ohio Supreme Court. YOU MUST OBEY THE LAWS REGARDING CARRY IN THE STATE YOU ARE CARRYING IN! Read HR 822, which is not yet the law (must be passed by the Senate and signed by Obama), and even there, you will need to be familiar with the minor and major variations in carry law for 49 states. Illinois has no provision for carry.

 

[DarrylHadfield]

@NavyLCDR: Because, as you said... if he's going to frisk me, I want him to know up front what he's going to find, so there aren't any surprises. Assuming your handle is due to real-life stuff... ever been shot, or "merely" shot AT, in the line of duty? It makes you a little paranoid of ANYONE who might have a weapon. Perhaps I ought o have clarified, too, that I don't feel it's necessary to inform the LEO unless I'm asked to get out of the car to be frisked.. until the potential for the LEO to get 'bent outta shape', he doesn't need to know if I'm carrying.

@Derby - I agree wholeheartedly. Good police officers who have a level head, will likely have no issue with being told... although personally, I think the Duty to Inform is still not worth the paper it's printed on.

@WOP2: I suspect you may have meant that Ohio is not your home state? What is your home state?

 

[tdeanl]

I've been stopped in Georgia,where I had a carry permit (Moved-have another state's now).As a matter of NOT making the officer nervous,IF I were asked to step out,I handed them my liscense,proof of insurance,and carry permit.One asked where I was carrying (right side hip) and asked me to keep my hand away from that area. No other problems. I don't like nervous people with guns around me,so I do what I can to not make them nervous- interior light on during a night stop/liscense check,etc. Being polite,no smart ass remarks,keeping both hands visible. Most police officers have sense and are on our (Law abiding citizen)side.

 

[FTG-05]

There's only three reasons to inform any LEO during any encounter that you have a weapon (excepting when you're actually had to use the weapon) and those are:

- Duty to inform state
- Asked if you're armed or weapons in the vehicle
- Asked to step out of the vehicle.

Out side this, there is no valid reason to inform the officer. If he's doesn't ask, then there's no reason to potentially escalate the situation by telling him you're armed. If he doesn't ask and therefore doesn't appear to care, why should I? Why should you?

All this talk about telling him out of "respect" and to make him "comfortable" is nothing more than delusional feel-goodism.