LEO Right to disarm legal Concealed Carrier?

[EMtnMan]

Same in NM

New Mexico's relevant law is exactly the same as Texas. The wording is almost verbatim.

I always refer to the actual law when addressing questions like this, and, respectfully, you should too. I am in Texas and this applies here only. It is Texas Government Code Section 411.027 (a).

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the
officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the
officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall
return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license
holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder
is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if
the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or
committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license
holder.

 

[dkirkland]

not sure

It is my understanding that in TX the LEO can ask you to disarm and retain control of the firearm for the duration of the encounter. It is at the LEO's discretion. I could be wrong about this, so I offer it up to the group.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Islander: Methinks you are playing word games with SC law when you clearly distinguish between informing him you are CC and not informing him you are armed. I guess you are saying that if you inform/show him you are CC permitted, which you must do, and he then asks you whether you are armed, you can respectfully decline to answer the question. It may not be in the written law, which may be an oversight on the part of the legislature (therefore I agree with you) but some degree of common sense would tell me that if an LEO, who does not know who you are or what your are or what you are up to, knows you are CC permitted and then gets a negative response to the "rest of the story", is not going to be a bit suspicious of your intentions way beyond your constitutional rights. I can tell you with certainty if I were an LEO and understood your correct interpretation of the law, as written, I would still be suspicious as heck and you would be stopped for quite awhile, until my superior officer is informed, and either shows up or informs me that you are correct in your posturing and I should allow you to go on your way. Just sayin---please understand that I agree with your interpretation of the law--I just disagree with, IMO, your somewhat questionable intentions.

 

[Itstjs]

In Michigan, most police officers will not take your weapon unless they have reason to believe a crime is or has taken place, they do reserve the "right" to take possession for "their safety" and will typically run the serial number on the weapon for what ever reason.
I too feel its a little ridicules, if you present your CPL [which youre supposed to upon being stopped] they have to run the serial number. I also find it stupid to hand over your weapon. Youre ultimately responsible for what happens with that gun, you purchased it with your own money, youre legally carrying the weapon, and youve also purchased the bullets.
Ive heard in some cases where LEOs will unload the magazine and hand the back to you empty, and if youre lucky, sometimes with the bullets in a little baggy, if at all.

 

[Islander]

Hey Islander: Methinks you are playing word games with SC law when you clearly distinguish between informing him you are CC and not informing him you are armed. I guess you are saying that if you inform/show him you are CC permitted, which you must do, and he then asks you whether you are armed, you can respectfully decline to answer the question. It may not be in the written law, which may be an oversight on the part of the legislature (therefore I agree with you) but some degree of common sense would tell me that if an LEO, who does not know who you are or what your are or what you are up to, knows you are CC permitted and then gets a negative response to the "rest of the story", is not going to be a bit suspicious of your intentions way beyond your constitutional rights. I can tell you with certainty if I were an LEO and understood your correct interpretation of the law, as written, I would still be suspicious as heck and you would be stopped for quite awhile, until my superior officer is informed, and either shows up or informs me that you are correct in your posturing and I should allow you to go on your way. Just sayin---please understand that I agree with your interpretation of the law--I just disagree with, IMO, your somewhat questionable intentions.

No doubt about it, playing word games here. :biggrin:

But I am serious and back up my statements with the words of the actual law. Agreed, I may end up sitting on my butt for a while. In the real world, I'd probably just tell them I am armed. I like cops and get along fine with them.

However, I have absolutely no intention of drawing my weapon or allowing the officer to do so. If he insists, of course I will comply. But the officer will have to insist. I would try my very best to let him know I am a safe, licensed individual, and that I do not feel it is necessary for me to draw my weapon and add unnecessary risk to a perfectly safe situation. I would let them know that it is unlawful for the officer to ask me to do so without probably cause. Hopefully they will agree.

I'm not usually in a hurry to be anywhere, so if I have to wait for a supervisor to educate my public protectors, so be it.

 

[S&W645]

In Florida, the legal types say the cops do have the right to remove it from your possession. But unless asked, you don't have to let them know you are armed. For those who live or travel in Florida armed, you might want to pick up a copy of Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership. It is used by many jurisdictions, Courts, Law schools, and Police Acadamies as atleast a reference book. It gets updated atleast once a year to keep it current and you can download the updates.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Islander: Good reply and I certainly can agree with your current comments. I guess it only comes down to more word games--what exactly does an LEO have to do to "insist". Say the word "insist" or say "kindly remove your weapon as I tell you to and hand it to me". IMO, if he asks and you have stated your constitutional case, he is insisting.

 

[TheFollower]

I had a run of back luck with LEOs and my excessive speed earlier in the year so I got to test out the advice of my CCW instructor (retired LEO) more than once. Which was: show them your permit and inform them that you are armed and intend to fully comply with his wishes. After all no one wants a man with a gun (the LEO) to be nervous. I was told that they will know you are a permit holder the instant they run your license. Be forthright as you are the honest, law-abiding, background-checked, American citizen.

1) Lady Trooper. Hand my license and permit and inform of the fact that I am armed. She asked where it was located. "At 4 oclock on my hip, ma'am". "OK" Hands me the permit and "I'll be right back" cha-ching, ticket for speeding.

2) Local LEO. Asks why my permit is separate from my driver's license. Advice from CCW instructor, in case they want to lift your DL, you still have your permit. Plus expiration dates are not in sync. After he write me up, cha-ching, he asks what was I carrying, "Glock 19". "Nice gun" was his response.

3) Local LEO. Similar story. Looks at permit, asks where the weapon was, writes me a speeding ticket.

3 out of 3 good experiences. Expect the cost of said tickets which more than ruled out the purchase of a backup weapon. And yes, I drive much slower now.

 

[TheFollower]

Buddy of mine was in TX a year or so back when pulled over. "Where is your weapon?" "Uh, which one?" He was CCW with three! Plus a couple more in a duffle in the back seat. Officer had him assume the position, disarmed him, and wrote him a speeding ticket.

 

[Texas]

Stormtroopers can do whatever they want. The law is on their side. I just don't want to be shot by some trigger happy Barney or Barbara Fife...

 

[B2Tall]

Don't argue with a LEO when it comes to weapons. You may be right in the long run but you'll lose in the short run, gauranteed. Just do what they tell you and argue with them after they feel safe. It's not like they're asking you to do a handstand and whistle Dixie while their dog takes a leak on you. These people put their lives on the line every day so a request by them for you to secure your weapon (or hand it over for the duration of the encounter) seems pretty reasonable. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to need access to my gun while I'm dealing with a LEO. When the encounter is over I'll return my gun to my normal carry status.

I'm friends with a number of Broward Deputies and they all have a gazillion stories about civilians escalating a situation and ending up in jail all because they won't agree to a simple, reasonable request ("leave the property" or "put your pistol in the glovebox" or "you appear intoxicated...if you drive your car I'll pull you over", etc. etc.). I'm not going to spend the night in jail by trying to be some armchair lawyer.

 

[B2Tall]

Now that I think about it, I probably would strongly urge and cajole the officer to reconsider, letting him know that he has no legal authority to disarm me, and then turn over my gun if he escalated, cause I'm not going to get shot for being in the right. I'll write a letter afterword.

Now, back to sending in that state law language for this thread!

I believe that most, if not all, LEOs have quite a bit of wiggle-room when it comes to determining when a situation is possibly dangerous. It's a huge gray-area and the officer is going to be allowed to use his discretion.

Judge: "Officer Jones, why did you confiscate Mr. Smith's gun?"

Officer Jones: "Because, Judge, Mr. Smith appeared highly agitated [or slightly intoxicated, or a bit disoriented, etc.] and I didn't feel comfortable with him having a firearm on his person"

Judge: "Thank you Officer Jones. You may step down."

Get my drift?? In a case like this the law is always going to side with the law. I doubt very much if a judge or a supervisor is going to say "Well you shouldn't have felt threatened. You were wrong to disarm him." Swallow your pride, avoid a night in jail (or worse), and just follow the officer's instructions.

 

[kelcarry]

Somewhat late to this thread. Pardon me if I repeat or have actually replied on one of the 6 or 7 pages. I have read some of the replies and, quite frankly, hanging on every word or lack of words of individual states' regulations and laws may lead you to the conclusion that you do not have to tell an LEO you are armed or that you do not have to give him your firearm if asked--all during his exercise of his legal duties and responsibities-- is just playing with the common sense intent of the laws and regulations. You want to get lawyered up and all that crap, and proudly stand by your legal rights-fine, have at it--but you are playing word games with laws and regulations that may not have been written well and may have loopholes but, IMO, the intent is very clear, and your responsibilities are very clear. An LEO is doing his job and you should be following his instructions--you don't like it take it up with the Chief or your lawyer but on the street, he is in charge. Just sayin. Do what you gotta do, and I will do what I gotta do. End of story.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

Stormtroopers can do whatever they want. The law is on their side. I just don't want to be shot by some trigger happy Barney or Barbara Fife...

Sorry, but I just cannot let this comment go. As a former Police Officer, I strongly resent being called a Stormtrooper. Perhaps you had an experience with a LEO that you felt did not treat you in the manner you wished, but until you have been there, don't judge.

I have stopped many cars, almost always at night, since that is when I choose to work, where I could not see in the car and did not know who was in the car and what they were doing. I had no intention of letting one of them shoot me, so I took whatever precautions I felt necessary to provide for my safety, the safety of my partner and the safety of those in the car I was stopping.

Back then, there was no such thing as legal carry in Texas, so if you had a gun you went to jail. If I were still an officer in Dallas, I still would take those same precautions but taking into consideration that it is legal to carry a firearm under the legal parameters in that state.

I would do whatever I felt was necessary, within the law, to provide for the safety of all concerned. That does not make me or any officer a Stormtrooper.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey rabbit: I guarantee you that on these forums and in the public, your supporters outnumber the "citizens", like Texas, who have to refer to or think of you as a "stormtrooper" by a very very large multiplier. Just remember that only sticks and stones can hurt your bones but words from people who have to resort to trash cannot and never will hurt you. God Bless You and have a wonderful and safe and healthy Xmas and New Year.

 

[Texas]

Hey rabbit: I guarantee you that on these forums and in the public, your supporters outnumber the "citizens", like Texas, who have to refer to or think of you as a "stormtrooper" by a very very large multiplier. .

to kelcarry

We are all CITIZENS of this great country. This is why I can express my opinion without fear of retribution.
At the same time criticism of the governmental organizations and it's policies does NOT make me less of a patriot then anybody else.... Remember that...

to Rabbitcreekok

We can only judge things from our experience. I lived in Texas over 20 years and I have yet to meet/see/hear about a policeman that has a good attitude, well natured, calm and does not exhibit some form of sociopathic tendencies. Most of the cops that I had misfortune to come in contact with seemed to thrive on fear and intimidation. They all appeared to have genuine feeling of contempt and mistrust towards the rest of the population....
Soooo, if there's any "good cops" out there...I haven't met any...ever...
Never happened...

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Texas: You are so distracted with your filthy language that you cannot even read nor tolerate comments concerning same. I did refer to you as a citizen, but you apparently missed that comment. What you should have said is that your language, re: stormtrooper, was uncalled for and apologize. Apparently you and others, who somehow cannot express dissenting opinions without demeaning language, has nothing to do about being a citizen and acting/talking like a toilet but says a lot about your character and ability to deal with people in a sensible and responsible manner.

 

[Kasper]

Hey Texas: You are so distracted with your filthy language that you cannot even read nor tolerate comments concerning same. I did refer to you as a citizen, but you apparently missed that comment. What you should have said is that your language, re: stormtrooper, was uncalled for and apologize. Apparently you and others, who somehow cannot express dissenting opinions without demeaning language, has nothing to do about being a citizen and acting/talking like a toilet but says a lot about your character and ability to deal with people in a sensible and responsible manner.

This just goes to show how judges and others will take the word of an Officer over that of the citizen. As Texas said he was going from his own experiences with the police officers he had to deal with. I can say that 25 years ago police Officers treated people with more respect then they do now. Why is it that the officers right to safety is more important then my right to safety. I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that the Officers is going to do anything that would cause me to worry about my safety so why do officers get away with labeling me as a potential threat that needs to be disarmed for their safety. I Should have the same abilities they have. As they are the ones who took the job knowing the risks involved with being an Officer of the peace.

As Texas pointed out and has been the case with me more police officers now treat every citizen as a trouble maker and then get pissed when the citizen tells them what they are trying to do is not within their legal duty as an officer.

The problem police officers have now is that the disrespectful officers are the ones that are remembered by the citizen and not the officers that do their job with pride. Out of the last five times I had to deal with officers only one was respectful and didn't give the impression that I was just another scumbag he had to deal with before clocking out to go home. As for the highway patrol officers they have all been respectful I would rather deal with highway patrol then with the local police officers.

It is hard job and one that I know I could not do due to I do not like being shot at and if someone was shooting at me then ran out of bullets and wanted to surrender and go to jail I would still shoot him or her in the knee caps as a reminder not to shoot at a police officer, So due to that I know I can not be a police officer. So I would like to say thank you to all who have chosen to be a police officer.

 

[chieftmc]

If Indiana state law does not allow police officers to confiscate firearms on (public) highways, locals can't either.

In Indiana, there is NO distinction between Concealed or Open carry !

We are issued "Carry" permits. We are NOT required to announce we are carrying but I personally think it a good idea to ease the tension.

 

[MONTANA]

The discussion on what folks would do if pulled over when carrying concealed has me wondering in what states the LEO can legally disarm a citizen who is legally carrying a firearm. It is my opinion that unless there is specific language in the law of your state, it is not legal for a LEO to (1) take your weapon or (2) make you unholster or unload or otherwise disarm yourself unless you are being detained.

Personally I think it introduces risk to hand your loaded weapon to a LEO, or even to unholster it yourself while sitting in the vehicle. There is no reason to do it if you aren't being detained. If there is no legal precedent, I’d rather not do it and would at least attempt to convince the officer that it is the safest thing to do. Of course, if I am being detained, that is another question entirely. My contention is that just as I would not be obligated to surrender my shoes, comb, or shirt to the officer, he has no right to demand possession of my firearm without probably cause.

I know in CA they can perform a "safety check" on you gun if you open carry.

I am specifically asking about a simple LEO encounter where you are not breaking any laws (other than perhaps a traffic violation) and are not being detained.

I fear what the legal ramifications might be, but if an officer tells me to hand over my firearm, I will immediately place my hands on top of my head turn the armed side of my body slightly toward him and respectfully say "I actually prefer that you take the firearm if I am required to be disarmed". I definitely do not want to put my hand on a firearm during a routine stop, even when instructed to do so. What does everyone else think about this decision?