What If LEO Wants My Weapon During Traffic Stop?!

[Sparky1]

I am a Viet Nam vet and a retired master electrician; good citizen and taxpayer (driving for fifty-years with no citations at all)...somehow though that all goes down the dumper if you get the wrong LEO doing the stop. I better get my GoPro running!

 

[BC1]

I would leave it at "if they ask I tell them where it is". I am not going to offer to proceed in any manner, if they want me to do something, they can tell me what they want me to do. I have never had any mention of a firearm made by myself or an officer during a traffic stop, so it has never been an issue for me.

I was asked about weapons a couple years ago during a brake-light stop. I told him I had the gun and a CCW license. He didn't ask to see it. Just wanted to tell me the brake light was out. I guess us old guys don't raise much of a question.

 

[Eidolon]

I know I’m really only summarizing what’s already been said but if you don’t tell them you’re armed unless you are legally required to or asked this will be a moot question anyway.

I strongly suggest that you become very familiar with your state’s laws regarding the officer’s authority to disarm you, really with your state’s concealed carry and use of force laws in general.
If the cop asked me to surrender my weapon I’d ask him how he wanted me to do it and follow his instructions to a T.

I am unaware of any state where you have the right to refuse to surrender your firearm upon the officer’s demand but assuming such a state existed I can’t imagine such a refusal ending well for you. I’d hand over the weapon, keep my mouth shut and as soon as the stop is over contact a really good lawyer

 

[Sparky1]

Agreed, the letter of the law in Illinois is that you do not have to declare; only inform if directly asked by the LEO. The mindset of most everyone I talk to though, is to hand over the CCL along with the driver's license. Not sure what way to go on that myself. And yes, I would follow the officer's directions explicitly. I too, am not aware of any jurisdiction where you can refuse to surrender your weapon (being forcefully disarmed certainly would not be a pleasant situation!).

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

Thank you...in Illinois we are not required to inform either. Apparently they can tell by your tags if you have a CCL; course you may be a passenger in someone else's vehicle and they would not have a clue. On the other side of the coin, I suppose they would assume my wife was carrying if she were driving my car (which she normally does).

Any LEO worth a darn will know the life story of the person the vehicle is licensed to BEFORE he ever gets out of his patrol car.

So, yes, if it's your vehicle that you are driving he/she already knows you have a CCW permit.

When I was learning to drive I was always told that if I was pulled over by the cops to always be polite, do want ever the cop said to do and NEVER argue with a man that has a badge, a gun and a license to kill, it rarely turns out in your favor.

On a different thread one of the basement dwelling idiots BRAGGED about being pulled over by the cops in a high crime rate area and backed down an entire geared up Tac Team when they questioned him. Sure he did.

Like someone else said, on the side of the road isn't the time to argue with a cop. Only a complete fool or total idiot would do that.

Paul

 

[BluesStringer]

Howdy,

Any LEO worth a darn will know the life story of the person the vehicle is licensed to BEFORE he ever gets out of his patrol car.

So, yes, if it's your vehicle that you are driving he/she already knows you have a CCW permit.

To Sparky: Now would be a good time to learn that you have nothing to learn from the above poster. He is apparently unaware that there are 50 states in this country, all with different carry laws, at least four with Constitutional Carry (meaning no permit is required to carry concealed or open at all), and many states do not connect a permission slip to either car registration or driver's license information. Maybe yours does, and maybe it doesn't, but the above post would be completely inadequate to inform you one way or the other.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not an LEO is "worth a darn," which is a good thing if having that information were really important to them, because most aren't, including the above poster.

Blues

 

[Rocketgeezer]

I was asked about weapons a couple years ago during a brake-light stop. I told him I had the gun and a CCW license. He didn't ask to see it. Just wanted to tell me the brake light was out. I guess us old guys don't raise much of a question.

Yea I see that in the last few years, I guess they figure us old farts are not much of a threat

 

[NavyLCDR]

The mindset of most everyone I talk to though, is to hand over the CCL along with the driver's license. Not sure what way to go on that myself.

Why would you offer the CCL along with the driver's license when not required to by law? It has nothing to do with a traffic stop. If you had a medical license would you offer that? Or a pilot's license? Or a building permit?

 

[apvbguy]

Howdy,



Any LEO worth a darn will know the life story of the person the vehicle is licensed to BEFORE he ever gets out of his patrol car.

So, yes, if it's your vehicle that you are driving he/she already knows you have a CCW permit.

you're not quite right, in some states the ccw permits are linked to dmv records here in FLA they are not. the fact that the barneys should not be connecting dmv records to firearms data was the reason that FLA concealed records licenses are processed by the licensing division of the Dept of Agriculture. In FLA a cop making a traffic stop has no way of knowing if the driver has a permit. he has to get into the DOACS's data base which is not in any cops's car

 

[Eidolon]

To Sparky: Now would be a good time to learn that you have nothing to learn from the above poster. He is apparently unaware that there are 50 states in this country, all with different carry laws, at least four with Constitutional Carry (meaning no permit is required to carry concealed or open at all), and many states do not connect a permission slip to either car registration or driver's license information. Maybe yours does, and maybe it doesn't, but the above post would be completely inadequate to inform you one way or the other.

To be fair Sparky has already stipulated that in his state your tag is tied to your (whatever Illinois calls a concealed pistol license) and Sten's response was directly to him

 

[ljnowell]

you're not quite right, in some states the ccw permits are linked to dmv records here in FLA they are not. the fact that the barneys should not be connecting dmv records to firearms data was the reason that FLA concealed records licenses are processed by the licensing division of the Dept of Agriculture. In FLA a cop making a traffic stop has no way of knowing if the driver has a permit. he has to get into the DOACS's data base which is not in any cops's car

The OP lives in IL, here in IL the CCL is attached to a persons name in the LEADS system. If they run your DL or the plate of a vehicle registered to you it will come back with a CCL.

 

[apvbguy]

The OP lives in IL, here in IL the CCL is attached to a persons name in the LEADS system. If they run your DL or the plate of a vehicle registered to you it will come back with a CCL.

the OP's state of residence is irrelevant to my response which was directed at a post that stated that a cop always knows if you have a permit or license to carry a firearm, I corrected his comment to reflect the reality that what is common practice in some states is not SOP in many other states.

 

[ljnowell]

the OP's state of residence is irrelevant to my response which was directed at a post that stated that a cop always knows if you have a permit or license to carry a firearm, I corrected his comment to reflect the reality that what is common practice in some states is not SOP in many other states.

That's great, but for the OP it was a correct comment, so you didn't fix anything.

 

[BluesStringer]

To be fair Sparky has already stipulated that in his state your tag is tied to your (whatever Illinois calls a concealed pistol license) and Sten's response was directly to him

To be fair, when you lay with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Sparky posited that "apparently" permission slips are tied to tags, but he doesn't appear to know that for sure. The rest of Stench's BS post was telling lies about something I said in another thread in reply to a post of his in which he not only supported the blatantly unconstitutional practice of "stop and frisk," but supported it for blatantly racist reasons to boot. He trolled for a response and got the best one I could give, advise a new member to steer clear of the lying fool.

You know, just to be fair and all.

Blues

 

[peeker]

Wow. Lots going on here lately.

While I agree that you should exercise your rights, I also agree that on the side of a road with a sworn leo is not the time or place. Comply. Let him hang himself. By all means, give him a good length of proverbial rope to do it. Then after the fact, call the dept and file a complaint with internal affairs. Or even get a lawyer and file suit against the department, and therefore the officer, to deliver the smack on the pee pee they deserve.

Failure to comply with the leo WILL end badly for the 'offender'.

 

[Deanimator]

Comply.

Comply but NEVER consent... to ANYTHING.

And where lawful, ALWAYS use a recording device of some sort. The automatic presumption of veracity and an active imagination are a BAD combination. When I'm carrying, I'm recording.

 

[NavyLCDR]

... blatantly unconstitutional practice of "stop and frisk,"...

When the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, it is, no matter what yahoos on gun and right-wing nonthinker forums say.

You should read the Declaration of Independence sometime. Just because the Supreme Court says the government's actions are Constitutional in no way shape or form makes those actions Constitutional. It is the citizen who determines what actions the government has the authority to take, not a panel of government appointed judges.

Of course we have allowed the government to infringe on the 2nd amendment to the extent that we longer have the ability to fulfill our duties set forth in the Declaration of Independence and now we are stuck waiting for the Federal government to spend its way to collapse just like the USSR did and having Socialist presidents like Obama is only speeding up the process.

 

[apvbguy]

... blatantly unconstitutional practice of "stop and frisk,"...

You should read the Declaration of Independence sometime. Just because the Supreme Court says the government's actions are Constitutional in no way shape or form makes those actions Constitutional. It is the citizen who determines what actions the government has the authority to take, not a panel of government appointed judges.

Of course we have allowed the government to infringe on the 2nd amendment to the extent that we longer have the ability to fulfill our duties set forth in the Declaration of Independence and now we are stuck waiting for the Federal government to spend its way to collapse just like the USSR did and having Socialist presidents like Obama is only speeding up the process.

try that defense the next time you are in front of a judge for any sort of weapons possession charges, you'll get to enjoy long term prison love

 

[XD40scinNC]

They will most assuredly insist they do it. Just make sure you are in front of their camera when it is done. If you have a permit then they shouldn't even ask for the weapon and if they want to run a check to see if it is stolen then state you would like to keep your property on your person but you will gladly read the numbers for him/her.

If they disarm you (for officer safety) and take the gun to their car, then you should file a request under the FOI act to find out if they ran the serial number of your gun, which is a violation of your 4th amendment rights (unlawful search) if the stop is only for a traffic violation.

But if they do make the request, be sure you are in range of their vehicles camera.

I was involved in a minor wreck earlier this week, property damage only, the other persons fault. Cops came, and I informed him I was armed (state law requires I inform), and that was basically it, he said OK, then went about doing the paperwork for the accident.

 

[NavyLCDR]

This has to be the single most misinformed, preposterous, flatly wrong take on any legal topic I've ever seen in an internet forum. It's so fundamentally and breathtakingly wrong on so many levels, from so many perspectives that it would be impossible to debunk it item by item. That would also be a waste of time because the understanding (not!) of the underlying concepts and principles demonstrates that an attempt to explain, even using small words and short sentences, would meet with the deer-in-the-headlight look. Unbelievable.

I would expect nothing less from a government ass kisser like you.

Do you recognize these words: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now, would you care to explain to me how it is wrong to say that the government has infringed upon the 2nd Amendment Right of the citizen to keep an bear arms to such an extent that it is now impossible for the citizen to fulfill their duty to throw off a tyrannical government? The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that the citizen maintained the capability to provide for themselves a free state - just like the founding fathers had just done against the British government. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first step taken by the government to ensure that the citizen would be unable to throw off the government which is their duty to do as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

try that defense the next time you are in front of a judge for any sort of weapons possession charges, you'll get to enjoy long term prison love

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Constitutionality of the government's actions. Governments have been violating citizens' God given rights and jailing them in violation of those rights ever since the first government was ever instituted.