NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: unfy on February 19, 2014, 04:53:01 PM
-
Just some food for thought.
Last night - after trip to Capital and a full day of work, was at a gas station near my new place and chatting with a Sarpy deputy. I sadly don't recall his name, but like most officers he was a nice guy.
Anyhoo, the conversation turned to carry stuff... and in the middle of the carry conversation I had asked what the preference was on declaring as a permit holder who is not armed. His take was this:
He immediately stated that he understands that if you're not carrying you don't have to declare. And that the preference depends on the officer etc.
This particular guy would prefer someone who does have a carry permit that is NOT armed to go ahead and declare said fact. That way when they run your ID and see that you DO have a permit, they don't have to wonder WTF is going on.
He had talked about a woman who had a permit and TWICE didn't declare while in the presence of this guy (not sure if he was backup both times or what... the second time she was being arrested for something ELSE, btw). They confiscated the gun, issued receipt, etc.
Just as an aside - the whole declare ya do have a permit and aren't armed seems to be a decent idea in a State that requires declaration anyway. This way if they return and are nervous - you're not staring down the barrel of the officer's glock :P.
-
Just as an aside - the whole declare ya do have a permit and aren't armed seems to be a decent idea in a State that requires declaration anyway. This way if they return and are nervous - you're not staring down the barrel of the officer's glock
This approach makes all the sense in the world. And is what I suggest to my CHP classes. It's just good old plain common sense. It clears the air. Gets the Gun Thing out of the way.
sfg
-
I'm going to watch this discussion with interest. I have been of the mindset not to declare if not carrying. If a glock is pulled on me because officer sees I have a carry permit and I didn't declare, that is an experience to be used to rectify the bs duty to inform part of the law and indicate a possible issue with said officer's ability to do their job effectively and safely.
The practible part of me agrees to get it out there and avoid possible uncomfortable situations, although the wrong officer could be set off by declaring. That would be rare, I believe, but I am aware of it happening.
-
Are any officers going to believe you? Once they see you have a permit, they are going to question you anyway. I can see the point to tell the officer you don't have a gun, even though the permit holders are probably the most honest of the two people at site of the stop.
-
i declare all the time and its always the first thing i say.
i usually say something like: "Hello officer. I am a Nebraska concealed carry permit holder. I am/am not carrying. How would you like to proceed?"
-
Are any officers going to believe you? Once they see you have a permit, they are going to question you anyway.
Every officer I've talked to (a dozen or so) have all said same thing: concealed carry folks aren't "the problem" and that they generally trust them because they went through the legal hoops to get their permit.
The practible part of me agrees to get it out there and avoid possible uncomfortable situations, although the wrong officer could be set off by declaring. That would be rare, I believe, but I am aware of it happening.
Given that you know they are going to discover you have a permit at any rate, it seems to make sense to help diffuse a possible nervous situation that might happen soon - before it occurs.
I know plenty of folks don't trust the police, or have negative views of them. I have strong suggestions for police brutality - and am wholly against the militarization of the police. But, for me: the police start out with a bit of respect and have to earn more / lose said respect themselves on a personal basis. You're also in a situation that needs to get resolved (either by disagreeing with the officer or getting your citation/warning) - a bit of respect in both directions goes a long way. At the very least, they can make your life very uncomfortable for a few hours if you decide to be an ass to them, so showing some respect can go a long way.
I've had one officer attempt to keep control of a given situation via talking constantly which made my initial declaration requirement a bit rude (having to forcibly interrupt him heh)... but I've not yet had a bad experience concerning carrying / officers.
I know of a singular video or story of folks of similar above situation where the officer went ballistic after not letting someone declare (in a state requiring it), but I don't believe any have happened here in NE. That officer was also punished, for what it's worth.
I'm going to watch this discussion with interest. I have been of the mindset not to declare if not carrying. If a glock is pulled on me because officer sees I have a carry permit and I didn't declare, that is an experience to be used to rectify the bs duty to inform part of the law and indicate a possible issue with said officer's ability to do their job effectively and safely.
What combination of things could occur that would cause an officer to draw on you for not declaring ? Being in a bad part of town, giving the officer attitude, how you were driving in the first place, maybe the officer got swung on by the guy before you, some instinct fires up ? Surly it would probably be astronomically impossible for the 'gun drawn' situation to occur... but ...
You'd really like to use something as innocuous as a 3AM traffic stop to put yourself in a situation where your life might be in danger as a protest against a law you disagree with ?
There are better ways to do so. An easy one off the top of my head: go dig up statistics of states with or without the declaration requirement and how it affects officer safety.
-
Most recent post seemed aggressive. That was my intent. Apologies if stepped on any toes.
-
I, of course, would react according to the officer's attitude and see that nothing escalates the stop. I am not one that is going to be in a car at 3 am, gun or not, either. I don't think an officer would pull a gun on someone just for seeing they have a permit.
I did have a DOT ask me one time if I was carrying (before permit). I said "No, why?" ??? He had seen my purchase permit in my wallet. I have yet to be pulled over since getting my permit and am still wondering how to handle it, this is a good thought provoker. I drive for a living but company policy dictates no weapons, even though my bosses are pro-carry.
Do any of you have a gold star on your license? If you haven't heard about it, I encourage you to look into it.
-
Mntnman --- Please elaborate on the "gold star" mentioned in your post.
-
You can google 'gold star drivers license'. Has to do with federal legislation mandating additional personal data be included imbedded in the card.
-
I have yet to be pulled over since getting my permit and am still wondering how to handle it, this is a good thought provoker.
Care to clarify 'this' in relation to thought provoking ?
If you're armed, you declare. If you're not armed - up to you to decide if you declare or not (purpose of this thread was to give one officer's opinion on the matter).
I've been in a stopped car at least once (as passenger).
I've had non vehicle official contact 3 or 4 times at least.
Outside of the duty to declare and that the officers have reacted favorably - nothing terribly interesting to note in my particular experiences.... other than maybe it's a bit of an ice breaker and gives ya something to idly chat about heh. I believe all but one of my encounters involved a "oh, what do you carry?" question :)
-
Do any of you have a gold star on your license?
I just got a new license when we moved two months ago, and thought that it was a Nebraska badge indicating a CHP, but then my wife (no license) had the same gold star. I had thought that the DMV wasn't allowed to mark our licenses...
Found this:
https://cis.org/real-id-implementation-report
-
Was just looking at www.gunowners.com (http://www.gunowners.com) and the Quinn VS Texas article.
Not sure if this is on topic or not....but it seems a carry permit has other potential consequences. :o
John Quinn was asleep in his bed when Texas police broke down his door in the middle of the night, and shot him when he reached for a weapon, thinking his home was being invaded. The police were there to serve a search warrant for his son, Brian, who they suspected of dealing drugs.
The only justification for the no-knock raid that police gave was that John Quinn owned a firearm. The police claimed that firearms ownership was enough to present a danger to law enforcement, even though they knew John Quinn had a concealed carry permit — meaning the state of Texas had pronounced him to be a safe, law-abiding citizen.
-
No knock warrants are wholly illegal IMHO.... but that doesn't change the reality of the situation (that such things exist).
In regards to Quinn -> officers in question should have been charged with murder (prolly second degree). At least, that's what should happen legally ... cough.
But yes, you do provide an excellent example of registration (for say concealed carry in this case) leading to heavy handed gov't action. Most site confiscation, but this is a good alternate example.
-
By "this" I mean this thread's discussion.
-
A lot humans once given this type of power are no longer people. Too bad he didnt get a shot off and make them reassess how things may go and weigh the risks properly.
I never declare when not carrying. Youve been beat down to believe this a privilege. Im not anti cop or anything but if they pull me over for 1 out 3 brake lights out, then they can ask if i am carrying to which I will not respond if I am not carrying.
We both have laws to follow I can be a literal bastard too just like them.
Last time I was pulled over I didnt declare because I wasnt carrying and the didnt ask. Good cops.
Was just looking at www.gunowners.com (http://www.gunowners.com) and the Quinn VS Texas article.
Not sure if this is on topic or not....but it seems a carry permit has other potential consequences. :o
John Quinn was asleep in his bed when Texas police broke down his door in the middle of the night, and shot him when he reached for a weapon, thinking his home was being invaded. The police were there to serve a search warrant for his son, Brian, who they suspected of dealing drugs.
The only justification for the no-knock raid that police gave was that John Quinn owned a firearm. The police claimed that firearms ownership was enough to present a danger to law enforcement, even though they knew John Quinn had a concealed carry permit — meaning the state of Texas had pronounced him to be a safe, law-abiding citizen.
-
National ID Card. It looks like half of the states are not complying. I have seen it claimed that citizens in nonparticipating states won't be able to board planes without a passport.
-
The Quinn example also has to be taken with a grain of salt. The essense is alarming. Researching the whole story leaves me confused on who is who and what really happened. Appears the event is still a legal quagmire and who might be playing what angle.
I still see my right to bear arms being regulated by privilege type law and hoops. Then that regulation process being manipulated and subject to interpretation by law enforcement. It is that manipulation/interpretation that disturbes me since I have seen too many examples of citizens being subject to a chain of events by individual lack of understanding or manipulation of law.
-
unfy and others: No knock warrants are not illegal, see state statute 29-411. It reads in part: " if the judge or magistrate issuing a search warrant has inserted a direction therein that the officer executing it shall not be required to give such notice"
-
Back to the gold star on the DL. I don't have one, but I renewed by mail without going in to the court house. I wonder if that may have something to do with it. Mine was issued 7/2012 so it may have not yet been implemented either.
-
Back to the gold star on the DL. I don't have one, but I renewed by mail without going in to the court house. I wonder if that may have something to do with it. Mine was issued 7/2012 so it may have not yet been implemented either.
I just went to the DMV about 6 months ago to renew since I moved and my license has no star on it. Did I miss something, what is this star supposed to mean?
EDIT: Just went back and found the link. Nevermind.
-
Back to the gold star on the DL. I don't have one, but I renewed by mail without going in to the court house
Ditto
-
That license was issued in December. His wife just renewed and has one, also.
-
I get a new license in April. I already have to submit finger prints (hazmat), so i can assure you that I'll get a "star of David." It irks me that this is one of the states cooperating with the Feds.
-
unfy and others: No knock warrants are not illegal, see state statute 29-411. It reads in part: " if the judge or magistrate issuing a search warrant has inserted a direction therein that the officer executing it shall not be required to give such notice"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Masked men in body armor and firearms constitutes an attack on my house. They can show me the warrant first so that no one gets shot, thank you very much.
I know that no knock has been heard by the 9th Circuit, but the decision is something that is quite silly and dangerous IMHO. Concerning this thread - where the intent of declaration while carrying is for 'officer safety', and what individual opinions might be of declaring while NOT carrying - plenty of folks (innocent civilians AND officers) have died during no knock raids.
Concerning the 9th's opinion, see it: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1925613501885957853&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1925613501885957853&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
There was a recent case where the raid happened and THEN the warrant was issued after the fact. Isolated case, I know - but still :P.
-
What we need is a law that states that anyone in a position of authority that violates a citizen's constitutional rights can be sued, and they must pay for any and all legal fees and penalties out of their own pocket. I believe Florida has a similar law.
This might be out there a bit, but has anyone seen the new Robocop movie? I thought it pushed a pro-drone agenda used on civilians. It was kind of unnerving. I hope it never comes to something like that.
When protect and serve turns into intimidate and harass, it might be time for the people that pay their salary to reign in their authority. I personally don't have any problems with law enforcement being issued just a badge and a whistle. The authority must always be with the people.
-
What we need is a law that states that anyone in a position of authority that violates a citizen's constitutional rights can be sued, and they must pay for any and all legal fees and penalties out of their own pocket. I believe Florida has a similar law.
The entire United States has that law. It's called a 1983 action.
-
The entire United States has that law. It's called a 1983 action.
Unless you fall into Obama's daydream of what his son might have looked like, this administration doesn't care about your rights. Especially your second amendment rights.
I think that is why we must act as a state, if the feds refuse to.
-
OK. I see.
"There oughta be a law! Oh.. There is? Well... There oughta be another law!"
Sorry, I don't see that as the solution.
-
I'm just going to walk away from this one. Sorry.
-
OK. I see.
"There oughta be a law! Oh.. There is? Well... There oughta be another law!"
Sorry, I don't see that as the solution.
I gotta agree that more laws ain't the solution
-
I got to disagree. If the laws strengths my 2nd amendment rights I'm all for it.
-
Was hanging out at Moeller Arms today for a few min....
There was a conversation (unstarted by me) about someone's friend who had an encounter with an officer that was of the opinion that you have to declare even if not carrying. Obviously the officer was wrong, but he did harass the poor guy (allegedly).
I dunno if this was a county deputy or city police officer. Nor do I know where it occurred other than here in NE.
No, I'm not saying this strengthens my food for thought (note my initial post about the deputy that knows ya aint gotta if ya aint got it on ya). It's just something else to throw on/at the fire :).
-
What the Law giveth, the Law can taketh away.
-
A few years back( before Iowa recognized our permit) I was in the scale house on I-80. The DOT officer just wanted to do a paperwork check. Everything checked out but he asked if we could go outside and do a quick safety check of the truck I was driving. Again everything checked out except a light being out. He stepped up on my side board and stated the only reason he came outside was that he noticed I had a ccw and, wanted to know if I was carrying? I wasn't because my company didn't allow it. He then gave me a ticket for the light.( fix it). I think had I declared the ccw I never would have had that safety check or ticket.
-
Mike, as I read your story, you got looked at further because of your vood guy card tied to your licence to drive. I see this as a great reason for it not to be that way. Most of us think that, I believe.
-
Mike, as I read your story, you got looked at further because of your vood guy card tied to your licence to drive. I see this as a great reason for it not to be that way. Most of us think that, I believe.
I am with you on being tied to my DL. My point was that had I disclosed the cow he might not have gone out and done the safety check.
-
Mike, as I read your story, you got looked at further because of your vood guy card tied to your licence to drive. I see this as a great reason for it not to be that way. Most of us think that, I believe.
I believe, not sure but I believe, there is SCOTUS case law that says something like 'open carry or ccw permit is not enough to justify further stuff'. Kinda like how in some / many places, not wearing your seat belt isnt enough to get you pulled over as a 'primary' offense.
Just as a philosophical aside:
Concerning strengthening / weakening laws etc....
The USA has been around for over 200 years. Nebraska has been a State for nearly 150 years. Surly after all these years there is no need to pass NEW laws and that everything has been covered already ?
-
Just as a philosophical aside:
Concerning strengthening / weakening laws etc....
The USA has been around for over 200 years. Nebraska has been a State for nearly 150 years. Surly after all these years there is no need to pass NEW laws and that everything has been covered already ?
Sadly, doesn't stop our "representatives", who feel a need to do something,even if it's wrong. >:D
An old saying from ancient Greece, IIRC : 'More laws , less justice'. :(
-
Yes, SCOTUS says legal, open carry is not grounds to stop and question someone.
-
For me it’s about safety, it’s the major reason I DO carry. Safety in all things. Not advising an officer weather carrying or not is a safety issue, my safety. I don’t like having guns pointed at me, I don’t like officers yelling or even getting a bit upset when they are armed. The very last thing I want to do is irritate him/her, so I opt for the safety of making it plain that I have one and I am/am not carrying. Think about it folks, why do you carry if not for safety?
Safety first, last, and always. Anything else is a testosterone high.
-
Just as a philosophical aside:
Concerning strengthening / weakening laws etc....
The USA has been around for over 200 years. Nebraska has been a State for nearly 150 years. Surly after all these years there is no need to pass NEW laws and that everything has been covered already ?
"Job Justification" for those who are elected. "See what I DID?!?!"
-
Safety first, last, and always
Ben Franklin thinks a bit differently
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Call it testosterone induced bravado if you want, but I will not be declaring unless I am armed, because I am just not willing to give up any more liberty than I am forced to
-
Ben Franklin thinks a bit differently
Call it testosterone induced bravado if you want, but I will not be declaring unless I am armed, because I am just not willing to give up any more liberty than I am forced to
I wouldn't call telling a police officer who is making official contact that you are unarmed giving up an "essential liberty." I understand what you are getting at, but to me it's not a fundamental issue since you know it's going to come up anyway when he runs your license and sees you have a CHP. It's just saving him the trouble and allowing you to better manage the interaction to your own benefit.
-
One of the problems is that there are WAY TOO MANY LAWS in this country.
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29326904495/16-a-problems (http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29326904495/16-a-problems)
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ops0m9rS1r3ynm3.png)
It has happened before in other countries. Here are some solutions:
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29327306986/16-b-solutions (http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29327306986/16-b-solutions)
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8oqfocGtA1r3ynm3.png)
Those are introductory cartoons. The rest are on the website.
Or, buy the book. It is a great read:
http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598391836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348005559&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598391836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348005559&sr=1-1)
-
I've decided I will not declare unless I am carrying. The law states that I declare while carrying and I will obey the law.
I refuse to be treated as a criminal for declaring I am not carrying. I can't see that happening in Nebraska, but if it does, it will be on video as I have now gone to that for all contact. Trust begins with the cops in a situation with me as I am not a criminal, and unless when they stop me and the car is reported stolen, I am still not a criminal or a threat to them. All they have to do is ask if I am carrying and I will answer the question. I trust less people in this world every day, and I cannot see it getting any better with so many wanting to take everything you have one way or another. Hence, the reason I carry.
-
After giving this more laws or less laws more thought, I can see I was wrong.
We shouldn't need more laws to give us the rights we already have. We just need to get rid of the laws that are suppressing our rights.
-
A little over a year ago I got pulled over for speeding on Pacific St in Omaha. I wasn't carrying and didn't inform the officer. He never asked and the contact for all intents and purposes was good - except for getting a ticket. That's how it should be. I don't offer any more info than I am legally obligated to.
-
Sound's like a lot of folk are scared of police contact on here. So you declare to be "not carrying" even though you have no legal obligation to do so, for fear of the police officer's reaction? Seem's we have a police state mind set running rampant and that is the true issue at hand.
-
Sound's like a lot of folk are scared of police contact on here. So you declare to be "not carrying" even though you have no legal obligation to do so, for fear of the police officer's reaction? Seem's we have a police state mind set running rampant and that is the true issue at hand.
I wouldn't argue with you, but I'm not looking to be a test case, martyr, or role model. If I get pulled over and I'm not carrying, it costs me nothing to tell him right up front and diffuse a situation and maybe create some sort of connection with the cop (as most of them are gun owners themselves). I wouldn't call it an essential point of liberty since he has access to my permit records and would be fully within his authority to pull me out of the car and pat me down for his own safety.
Until there is more general acceptance and clear limits on police conduct with regard to citizens gun rights, I'm taking the path that's going to get me back on the road soonest without pissing off the cop who pulled me over.
-
I wouldn't argue with you, but I'm not looking to be a test case, martyr, or role model. If I get pulled over and I'm not carrying, it costs me nothing to tell him right up front and diffuse a situation and maybe create some sort of connection with the cop (as most of them are gun owners themselves). I wouldn't call it an essential point of liberty since he has access to my permit records and would be fully within his authority to pull me out of the car and pat me down for his own safety.
Until there is more general acceptance and clear limits on police conduct with regard to citizens gun rights, I'm taking the path that's going to get me back on the road soonest without pissing off the cop who pulled me over.
So, you would tell him you drink alcohol and smoke pot too, but don't have any in the car right now? The police are known to instill fear on people in order to get easy convictions. While it doesn't happen out here where I am, there are countless videos on Youtube of it. Fear is their greatest asset, even when it isn't necessary.
I also don't argue with them, they know as soon as they look at you if you are getting a ticket or not. I'll just take the ticket and be on my way.
-
So, you would tell him you drink alcohol and smoke pot too, but don't have any in the car right now? The police are known to instill fear on people in order to get easy convictions. While it doesn't happen out here where I am, there are countless videos on Youtube of it. Fear is their greatest asset, even when it isn't necessary.
I also don't argue with them, they know as soon as they look at you if you are getting a ticket or not. I'll just take the ticket and be on my way.
I don't smoke pot and don't drink and drive. Both are illegal, so I probably would be reluctant to 'fess up to that sort of behavior in the presence of law enforcement.
I've never been pulled over while carrying, but have twice been with a buddy who was pulled over while carrying. Once in Bellevue and once in LaVista. Both times we drove away after after a warning and a brief discussion on handguns. I've managed to talk my way out of a few tickets myself. I find establishing a rapport, being respectful, and making the cops job easier tends to smooth the transaction.
Is that giving up some sort of liberty? I don't really think it is, it's just managing the situation on a personal level.
-
Didn't expect this to be such a thorny thread. Oops.
Can someone with some history go about saying who requested the 'declare while carrying' clause ? It might help this discussion. I know that this was all a long time ago, but it really might help this thread a bit.
There are a lot of bad stories seen on the news of police acting quite badly and some police policy / militarization that is definitely cause for concern.
Most of those stories come out of LA or NY (or personal stories I've heard from Chicago).
But I have yet to meet an officer that gave me pause here in Nebraska.
Until such time as I see otherwise: officers will be greeted with a smile, a hand shake, and be called sir... as well as afforded all the other politeness and pleasantries any other human deserves.
And for those wondering, not declaring while not carrying becomes a liberty discussion as it relates to privacy and stuff. There is a lot of 4A stuff relating to 'papers please' if no one's considered it :D
-
I wouldn't argue with you, but I'm not looking to be a test case, martyr, or role model. If I get pulled over and I'm not carrying, it costs me nothing to tell him right up front and diffuse a situation and maybe create some sort of connection with the cop (as most of them are gun owners themselves). I wouldn't call it an essential point of liberty since he has access to my permit records and would be fully within his authority to pull me out of the car and pat me down for his own safety.
Until there is more general acceptance and clear limits on police conduct with regard to citizens gun rights, I'm taking the path that's going to get me back on the road soonest without pissing off the cop who pulled me over.
Now you are getting what I am saying. I have a beer or two at home, it is legal. I have a gun at home, it is legal also. Since I don't drink or drive, and sometimes leave the house without a gun, I don't go blabbing to anyone that I drink and shoot, but don't have any of it with me. Both are legal, neither are required to be told to an officer, unless he asks of course. If I were asked about either one, I would tell the officer that I don't have either in the car.
-
I enjoyed reading that series. In fact I should go back and reread it...
One of the problems is that there are WAY TOO MANY LAWS in this country.
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29326904495/16-a-problems (http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29326904495/16-a-problems)
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ops0m9rS1r3ynm3.png)
It has happened before in other countries. Here are some solutions:
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29327306986/16-b-solutions (http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29327306986/16-b-solutions)
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8oqfocGtA1r3ynm3.png)
Those are introductory cartoons. The rest are on the website.
Or, buy the book. It is a great read:
http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598391836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348005559&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598391836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348005559&sr=1-1)
-
Ben Franklin thinks a bit differently
Call it testosterone induced bravado if you want, but I will not be declaring unless I am armed, because I am just not willing to give up any more liberty than I am forced to
The comment was in reference to firearms and safety, not politics. In my book advisements are not a political issue but a safety issue. The day the state does away with that requirement then I also will not advise, at least until I feel my safety may be in jeopardy.
I realize that what I do for a living irritates some around here, but I don’t work for the NFOA so I would rather be treated like other members who have more conventional jobs. I don’t bring my work into this forum, please don’t do it for me.
-
My comments have nothing to do with your job, but rather your statement
Safety first, last, and always. Anything else is a testosterone high.
I think it was a rather pointed political jab, and and so was my response.
-
As a Sheriff's Deputy I guess I really don't care one way or the other, because the stop will be conducted the same way either way. My usual response to "I have a Gun on me" is "Well don't shoot me" or "Keep yours holstered and so will I", in a light joking manner. I was a CCW holder long before I became a LEO, I know it can be nervous for the CCW holder at times.
Telling me "I don't have a gun on me", would, if anything, probably make me take notice of you as I'd just find it an odd statement to make.
As to the declaration portion of the law, I think it is a pointless piece of legislative.(Then again I wish we had Constitutional Carry)
Then again, I am in rural Western Nebraska, I am sure things go quite different in the Metro areas.
-
My comments have nothing to do with your job, but rather your statement
I think it was a rather pointed political jab, and and so was my response.
Obviously we think differently. I consider my safety when running into a police officer as paramount, and I am in no physical shape to jump out of the car or to take on a cop. No wish to either, in a previous incarnation I was one. The relative safety (or lack thereof) of a normal traffic stop is one of the reasons I am no longer one. I have kids, lots of them, and they would have a very hard life without me in the picture. What I do now is far safer, and keeps me on the very outer edge of the LEO circle. It’s comfortable here.
The "testosterone" bit was about the "macho" thing one sees so often now days in social media (of which the NFOA is certainly a part, we have all seen them here). The “Anonymity” of the internet allows people to bluster and put on a show simply because they CAN be anonymous, hence the testosterone injection from such activity. One can refuse to think about safety on social media and bluster all day every day, but the reality is that when we have a firearm on us safety is our first concern. Ben Franklin didn’t have an armed police force to deal with, to be concerned about. In fact he didn’t even like the idea of a standing army, as concerned many of our founding fathers. The local constable, if armed, carried the very same weapons Ben had in his closet at home or in his hand.
Bucket got the point, managing the interaction for the safety and benefit of all. The officer can manage it, sure, but then again so can we as citizens. Cops are my friends, and I respect them and the job they do. The job has changed a great deal since I did it, the criminals are more coarse, more ruthless, more apt to shoot and without care of who is harmed by their actions. My father was a cop, he never wore a vest in his entire career. Times were gentler then, fewer armed criminals and more general respect in our communities. Now days cops without a vest are rare, and in my opinion are not real bright.
-
As a Sheriff's Deputy I guess I really don't care one way or the other, because the stop will be conducted the same way either way......
You seem to be a reasonable fellow but YoutTube is filled with video evidence of a LOT of LEOs who are not. If you don't mind my asking, ... I am assuming that, with a CHP, if I get stopped the LEO will already have gotten my info from my license plate number and already knows that I have a CHP. Is that true for all LEOs in the state or just those in large cities?
IF I am NOT carrying at the moment and do not say so, isn't he right in assuming that I AM carrying and that I violated the law by not announcing that? To me, this seems like a gray area that can be exploited by over zealous LEOs and prosecuting attorneys. So, despite you concern about someone annoucing that they are not carrying, if I am ever stopped the first words out of my mouth will be "As you many know, I have a CHP, and/but I want you to know that I am/not carrying."
-
I think a permit is known by DL number, not license plate number. I could be wrong, but just because one person has a permit in a family that shares a car does not mean everyone that drives it does.
-
I am assuming that, with a CHP, if I get stopped the LEO will already have gotten my info from my license plate number and already knows that I have a CHP.
The link is actually to the Nebraska Operator's License through NE Department of Motor Vehicles electronic records.
If you know an LEO with a dashboard computer, you can ask him to run your NE Operator's License through the system by OL Number. Your name will come up in RED at the top of the screen, alerting the LEO that SOMETHING IS UP WITH YOU!
Down below at the bottom of the screen will be a one line comment, also in RED. Something like:
>Felony Warrant
>Escaped Convict
>Weapons Permit
So---the LEO may be a Bit More Alerted than as with the "Ordinary" traffic stop.
Some states outside Nebraska are also linked to this system.
sfg
-
You seem to be a reasonable fellow but YoutTube is filled with video evidence of a LOT of LEOs who are not. If you don't mind my asking, ... I am assuming that, with a CHP, if I get stopped the LEO will already have gotten my info from my license plate number and already knows that I have a CHP. Is that true for all LEOs in the state or just those in large cities?
Your CHP is not tied to your license plate. It is tied to your driver's license. As such, merely running your plate will not give the LEO information about your CHP status. It isn't until he runs your driver's license that he will be informed that you have a CHP.
IF I am NOT carrying at the moment and do not say so, isn't he right in assuming that I AM carrying and that I violated the law by not announcing that?
No.
To me, this seems like a gray area that can be exploited by over zealous LEOs and prosecuting attorneys. So, despite you concern about someone annoucing that they are not carrying, if I am ever stopped the first words out of my mouth will be "As you many know, I have a CHP, and/but I want you to know that I am/not carrying."
When he first comes up to your car, he won't know. If you want to tell him that you aren't carrying, that is up to you.
-
Your CHP is not tied to your license plate. It is tied to your driver's license. As such, merely running your plate will not give the LEO information about your CHP status. It isn't until he runs your driver's license that he will be informed that you have a CHP.
No.
When he first comes up to your car, he won't know. If you want to tell him that you aren't carrying, that is up to you.
As SimperFi pointed out, with the LP# the LEO, IF he has a dashboard computer, can connect it to the operator license, which will flag the name in red and contain a comment, also in red, "weapons permit". That I did not know, but assumed to be the case.
Ergo, when an LEO approaches your car and asks to see your DL I am going to assume that he already knows that I have a CHP. What he does NOT know is if I am armed or not. By law I am supposed to inform him/her immediately if I am. If I do not then the LEO has two choices: 1) assume that I am not armed, or 2) assume that I am armed but I have violated the law by not immediately informing him/her.
Both are assumptions. An aggressive, anti-2A LEO could, especially in a jurisdiction with an aggressive district attorney, anticipating that I am armed but negligent, ask if I am armed. If I am, I'm going to jail and lots of other hurts will fall down on me, but that would be my own fault. If I am not, would he/she then charge me anyway because I didn't announce such at the beginning of the contact? That's an attorney bill and legal test I do not want to undertake.
-
As SimperFi pointed out, with the LP# the LEO, IF he has a dashboard computer, can connect it to the operator license, which will flag the name in red and contain a comment, also in red, "weapons permit". That I did not know, but assumed to be the case.
That isn't what he said. Specifically, he said:
The link is actually to the Nebraska Operator's License through NE Department of Motor Vehicles electronic records.
If you know an LEO with a dashboard computer, you can ask him to run your NE Operator's License through the system by OL Number.
Note that at no time did he say "license plate." He said operator's license. So no, when they run your license plate, they will not have information about your CHP status, as the license plate isn't linked to a driver's license number in that way.
I also note that my source for this information (which is probably every CCW instructor's source for this information) is the state patrol.
Ergo, when an LEO approaches your car and asks to see your DL I am going to assume that he already knows that I have a CHP.
So---you are given information that says that this information isn't available to the LEO until they run your driver's license, but you are going to assume that they have it when they come up to get your driver's license so that they can run it?
What he does NOT know is if I am armed or not. By law I am supposed to inform him/her immediately if I am. If I do not then the LEO has two choices: 1) assume that I am not armed, or 2) assume that I am armed but I have violated the law by not immediately informing him/her.
Both are assumptions. An aggressive, anti-2A LEO could, especially in a jurisdiction with an aggressive district attorney, anticipating that I am armed but negligent, ask if I am armed.
True. However, the point at which they would know this (and presumably, given your hypothetical, do it) would be after they've run your driver's license.
If I am, I'm going to jail and lots of other hurts will fall down on me, but that would be my own fault. If I am not, would he/she then charge me anyway because I didn't announce such at the beginning of the contact? That's an attorney bill and legal test I do not want to undertake.
And again, the answer is: No. If you are not carrying you have NO obligation to say anything. If he attempts to claim such, he is wrong, and it will fail in court, and it will not be any sort of "test." The law is quite clear, and there is no grey area.
-
Lots of good common sense here. But, I sort of know for a fact that some Deputies will run "driver's information" from the registered owner from the license plate ahead of the actual contact. No all, just some.
-
Lots of good common sense here. But, I sort of know for a fact that some Deputies will run "driver's information" from the registered owner from the license plate ahead of the actual contact. No all, just some.
No argument. But I will note that the ones I've talked to don't happen to do that hardly at all, primarily because the owner may not be the driver, and unless there was something particularly interest-worthy (from a "this is potentially dangerous behavior, and I haven't even talked to the driver yet" point of view) about the vehicle, they don't see the need.
It is certainly true that no matter what the LEO "knows," there is no requirement to say anything if you aren't carrying---and that isn't a grey area under the law.
-
Some good info, yes CCW is tied to your OLN, not the plate.
I do not have a computer in my patrol vehicle. I call in the plate, stop, approach/greet, get paperwork/walkback, then run the person.
-
Some good info, yes CCW is tied to your OLN, not the plate.
I do not have a computer in my patrol vehicle. I call in the plate, stop, approach/greet, get paperwork/walkback, then run the person.
And if you see he has a CHP will you assume that if he didn't say anything he isn't carrying? Or, if he is carrying and didn't say so until you walked back after getting his info, is he guilty of not announcing that he is carrying?
-
I've been a bit busy, haven't checked to see if this has been posted in another thread or not...
But, SCOTUS declined to hear a challenge to a judge issuing a no-knock warrant based solely on the fact that a gun was registered at a given address. (ie: registered gun = no knock authorized)
How does that 'decision' apply to this thread ? Discuss. :P
Maybe I shouldn't keep the gasoline next to this thread hehehehe
-
I think that was just wrong on all counts. Unfy, I think you are going to cause me to increase my blood pressure meds!!!
-
One of my friend's husband got pulled over tonight by LPD. He wasn't carrying so didn't inform. Officer told him he was required to inform even if he wasn't carrying so she texted me to check. Second text she sent said the officer said you should always inform regardless. Obviously the officer was wrong. I sent him the contact info for LPD and encouraged him to make contact with reference to the statute so LPD could better train their officers.
-
One of my friend's husband got pulled over tonight by LPD. He wasn't carrying so didn't inform. Officer told him he was required to inform even if he wasn't carrying so she texted me to check. Second text she sent said the officer said you should always inform regardless. Obviously the officer was wrong. I sent him the contact info for LPD and encouraged him to make contact with reference to the statute so LPD could better train their officers.
Thumbs up!
-
Obviously the officer was wrong.
The Officer didn't think so at the time, and he is the one with the force of law, and a sidearm, behind him. Would it really be a good idea to engage in a debate with him about his knowledge of the law? If he/she is that uninformed about the CHP, what else does he/she misunderstand? And after the debate heats up you'd never know exactly when various other misunderstandings of the law would be applied to you ... refusal to follow a lawful order, impeding justice, resisting arrest. Check YouTube for a laundry list of bogus charges that people have ended up have to hire lawyers and spend lots of money to defend against.
It would be just a lot easier to say up front "I have a CHP but I am not carrying."
-
The Officer didn't think so at the time, and he is the one with the force of law, and a sidearm, behind him. Would it really be a good idea to engage in a debate with him about his knowledge of the law? If he/she is that uninformed about the CHP, what else does he/she misunderstand? And after the debate heats up you'd never know exactly when various other misunderstandings of the law would be applied to you ... refusal to follow a lawful order, impeding justice, resisting arrest. Check YouTube for a laundry list of bogus charges that people have ended up have to hire lawyers and spend lots of money to defend against.
It would be just a lot easier to say up front "I have a CHP but I am not carrying."
My friend was cooperative with the officer. He explained that the State Patrol officer who taught his class told them it wasn't required to notify. At that, the officer dropped it and said, "I won't do anything about it this time." I simply stated that the officer was wrong and that his/her training needed to be improved. My friend got a speeding ticket, had a civil conversation with an officer, and drove away safely. Wasn't so bad. I recommend, in my classes, that people notify even if they aren't carrying, but that it is their right not to notify.