NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: ILoveCats on June 17, 2014, 11:42:20 AM
-
Ok, the one and only question that occurs to me after my CHP class (and I'm sure it was my fault and I spaced out for a second during the 'law' portion, and simply haven't re-reviewed my materials) pertains to off-body "carry" in a vehicle with non-CHP passengers.
Hypothetical: CHP-holding driver and non-CHP-holding passenger (adult spouse, adult child, minor child ... take your pick) are going on a summer road trip (staying within state lines for purposes of simplicity). CHP-holder takes pistol off body for road trip comfort reasons and places pistol in center console (or in glove box, or under driver's seat ... take your pick). The point is, it's within reach of the CHP holder and is quite reasonably his since he's driving his car, but it's also within reach of a non-CHP-holder.
Couple is pulled over at friendly NSP road checkpoint and driver declares CHP status and, when asked by LEO where it is, informs that it's in the center console (etc.) and driver claims it as his own.
Is the non-permit-holding passenger in any trouble with the law?
A search of this forum talks about hypotheticals where nobody "claims" a weapon, but I don't see a discussion of where somebody, a CHP holder, overtly does, and if that unequivocally alleviates any legal issues for the one, two or seven other people in the vehicle.
-
I would say no, but I'm no lawyer.
It (the firearm) has been verbally labelled as being a possession of the CHP holder, should be no problem in my eyes.
-
Keep it on your person...problem solved. "Carrying a gun should be comforting, not necessarily comfortable." -Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch
-
Everyone with unencumbered access to pistol needs to have a CHP. If it is a little closer to driver, than other passengers, and the driver has the CHP, you are still in violation.
If you want a handgun in a console, glove box, etc., unlocked, everyone in the vehicle, front seat, backseat, last seat of a 15 passenger work van, must have a valid CHP and a second form of ID, military or state issued.
To pass as your handgun, and yours alone, it must be on your person, and under your control.
I understand when this CHP legislation was first passed, this was not interpreted this way. A driver could leave his gun, in the console, under his seat etc. A few gangs in Omaha were getting one ride along person with a clean record to apply and get a CHP, and then gang members were holding guns in the car.
Now, everyone in the vehicle, having access to any handgun, must have a valid CHP.
If you have someone in the vehicle that cannot get a CHP, teen, toddler, keep your gun in your holster.
-
break the weapon all down into its individual components while you are pulling over to the side of the road as suggested previously on this forum.
problem solved... >:D
66bigblock
-
It belongs to everyone in the vehicle because of Brad Ashford. I believe it was LB63 that made this change. The reasons cited above regarding Omaha gangs prompted Ashford to push for this change.
This is one of those laws that is also only selectively enforced. I had an occasion where I was stopped and had a handgun in the glove box AND had a passenger in the vehicle. I notified, as required, and was asked where the gun was. The OPD officer did not ask anything of the passenger.
I'm sure there are many possible reasons why.
-
Thanks!
-
My plan is to put it in plain sight and unloaded before pulling over. I will tell them it is there, also. I won't be carrying concealed at that point.
-
Lets assume you and your wife both have a CHP, and you decide to get a little more comfortable by removing handgun from Concealed Carry to console carry. I personally am not comfortable with a loose handgun outside of a holster, loaded, out and about, exposing the trigger. If your custom is to move your handgun about from place to place, throughout the day, get a holster, that stays on the gun.
This is one choice I use for Concealed Carry. It is a DeSantis Mad Max leather holster. So comfortable, you do not need to remove it. However, if you do wish to take your gun off, undo two snaps, and the gun and holster, as one unit, comes off nice and easy. Goes back on easily as well. The snaps are directional, so pressure from the loops against your belt, cannot undo the snaps. Great product! The holster snaps, not being over the gun itself, reduces the thickness of the unit, making for a more comfortable day. The wide stance of the leather belt loops, also makes for a stable and secure nesting between two pants loops on your trousers, and keeps the holster in one place..
(http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/145/145039.jpg)
-
As pointed out in this thread, it is up to interpretation of the contacting officer, what avenues he (they) want to walk down once the traffic stop takes place. What makes a traffic stop go bad, is anything that will make the officer uncomfortable, especially if the uneasiness is due to a fear for his personal safety. No officer wants to get shot.
Once the officer sees you are a valid CHP holder, he knows he has pulled over a person that has passed an FBI background check. That lowers his fears a great deal, and will put most officers at ease.
For constitutional carry folks, having a gun in plain sight, not concealed, does not tell him he pulled over someone that passed an FBI background check. The presence of a gun in the vicinity of a vehicle driver and passengers, will make for an uneasy police officer. While you may be in your rights, to possess a handgun in this fashion, I advise against it, because of the stress it imparts to the officers working the traffic stop.
-
Once the officer sees you are a valid CHP holder, he knows he has pulled over a person that has passed an FBI background check. That lowers his fears a great deal, and will put most officers at ease.
Wishful thinking! There may be one or two Peace Officers in any given organization that profess feeling this way. As long as there is another firearm present most officers will not relax one iota until the stop is complete even if the stop was on an armed off-duty officer.
For constitutional carry folks, having a gun in plain sight, not concealed, does not tell him he pulled over someone that passed an FBI background check. The presence of a gun in the vicinity of a vehicle driver and passengers, will make for an uneasy police officer. While you may be in your rights, to possess a handgun in this fashion, I advise against it, because of the stress it imparts to the officers working the traffic stop.
So, if someone does not have a concealed carry permit or they are waiting for it to come in the mail and they are carrying in the only legal manner available to them your advice is to leave their guns at home because it might stress some servant of the people.
So in your view the only people that have the Right to keep and bear arms is those that do it in your approved manner?
-
So in your view the only people that have the Right to keep and bear arms is those that do it in your approved manner?
LOL. In Gary's defense I think that's a textbook example of a non sequitur. At the very least it's putting words in someone's mouth. I think the intent was pretty clear when he said "... in your rights" (but) "... advise against it."
I can see his logic and agree with it in many contexts, and imagine that you really have to put traffic stops in context like that. Cherry County sheriff pulling over a pickup and seeing a gun on the dash (and several in the rack in the back window) may not think anything of it. City PD cop pulling over car of 20-somethings with loud booming music and 20” rims may have a different perspective. Sorry if that’s not PC.
-
While you may be in your rights, to possess a handgun in this fashion, I advise against it, because of the stress it imparts to the officers working the traffic stop.
Feral he is advising that law abiding citizens forego their rights to make some public servant less nervous.
He is also suggesting that because a person has had an FBI background check that it will put any and all public servants at ease. There are just too many public servants and civilians that think only the police should have guns and private citizens should not have guns, even with a background check.
Anytime there is more than an officers firearm at a traffic stop the officer will be on high-alert even if the person/s being stopped are other public servants.
As an American citizen it is not in my job description to curb my Rights to make a public servant all touchy feely.
Because so-called good cops refuse to cross the thin blue line bad cops are enabled by that in-action.
-
break the weapon all down into its individual components while you are pulling over to the side of the road as suggested previously on this forum.
problem solved... >:D
66bigblock
With one hand, IIRC
-
Alright folks... I'm new to this State, but I've decided to call it "home". (I moved here recently from Louisiana). Nebraska is a lovely State that has won my heart.
With that being said, I must say: I am absolutely shocked about the gun laws here. :o(In a negative way). I'm use to carrying my Beretta or Glock in my car without the need for a CHP, and Open Carrying without anyone batting an eye unless I walk into a store, or restaurant. If I got pulled over, (only happened once when a tail light went out), I would politely say the following with my hands on the upper left hand side of the steering wheel: "Sir, for your protection and mine, I have a loaded firearm in my vehicle that I would like to make you aware of at this time." -And THAT WAS THAT. No uneasiness by the LEO because he understands the State Laws. He runs a quick check on me with dispatch, and we are off on our merry way. ;D
This is going to take some getting use to. (The Nebraska State Laws). The only reason why I never got a CHP in Louisiana is because I always saw it as a ludicrous money-making opportunity for certain individuals in the local gun community; indeed, they often were against any moves by State Legislators towards a Constitutional Carry because it would infringe on their "honey pot".
Is there any legislation currently in the works in Nebraska's Unicameral towards a Constitutional Carry?!? And if not, is there anyone running for office who would push for it? (They'd win my Vote).
Not trying to turn Nebraska into Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Wyoming.... but I saw the slippery slope that Colorado, (where I'm originally from), went down during the original Bush Sr./Clintonista AWB through the current 2013 High-cap Ban on Mags Law. Nebraska being a Rural-oriented, Red State, there shouldn't be this murky gun laws like I'm seeing.
Someone, please educate me.
-
Blake, this may help you understand why things are the way they are here in Nebraska.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/21/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0921-NEmain/fivethirtyeight-0921-NEmain-blog480-v3.png)
State Senators are elected to serve in our Unicameral in each of 49 districts, with each district containing around 37,000 constituents. Where there is high population concentration, there are more Senators. Higher population concentrations contain most of the state's liberal democrat voters. Kinda sucks, but that how it is here.
I'm with you on Constitutional Carry.
I shouldn't need permission from the state just because I may want to have my shirt covering my weapon, it really is silly.
-
Whoa. I knew that Lincoln was a bastion for the DNC, but that is eye-opening, to say the least. So if I were to compare this situation to Colorado, Lincoln is Denver-Boulder, Omaha is Colorado Springs(!) ;)
Hmmm.... I'm wondering if some grass-roots support, via Pro-2A, from the rural areas could produce something more favorable?
Sooo glad I didn't move to Lincoln despite my commute to work. ;D
-
Regardless, thanks much Farmer Rick.
I should've Googled that.
-
LOL I must say: this would definitely explain the crazy looks from the Lincolnites over my NRA Sticker on my car. ;)
-
Welcome to the state.
Whatever sticker you have on your vehicle, Gary's trumps it. You have to see it to believe it.
-
I have friends that are police officers. I appreciate just how much stress it is to pull over a 22 year old car, with no tags, with questionable folks at the wheel. I have done ride alongs, I have shot with SWAT team leaders on police firing ranges. Their job is never easy. Many pay with an ultimate sacrifice.
Some facts about LEO's
On average, more than 65,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year and some 23,000 are injured annually.
-The deadliest year in law enforcement history was 1974 when 268 officers were killed. The deadliest decade was the 1970's when a total of 2,182 officers died, or 218 each year. That figure has dropped dramatically in the 1990's to 152 per year.
-A total of 1,533 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the last 10 years, an average of one death every 58 hours or 153 per year. There were 130 police deaths in 1999.
-There are approximately 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers now serving in the United States. About 10 percent of them are female.
Source:
http://www.leoaffairs.info (http://www.leoaffairs.info)
My class does not seek to lower the rights of the 2nd amendment. Far from it. However, I do teach, in all traffic stops, do whatever it takes to lower the stress level of LEO's on the scene. It is in everyone's best interest. Work with LEO's, not turn the traffic stop into a civics lesson.
A traffic stop should be like a pit stop at the Daytona 500,. Quick and easy. It is dangerous for everyone, to be stopped along side the road while traffic is going by, and it is best to yes sir, no sir, and get it over with.
-
Welcome to the state.
Whatever sticker you have on your vehicle, Gary's trumps it. You have to see it to believe it.
Or you could just compare signature lines.
-
Welcome to the state.
Whatever sticker you have on your vehicle, Gary's trumps it. You have to see it to believe it.
I rarely drive through traffic with this displayed. I try to drive under the radar a little better than that. However, my version of this bumper sticker, covers my tailgate on my F-550 Ford. Yep, 4 feet long!
I most often drive around town, with my tailgate down. I do display it in front of my shop sometimes. Brings a chuckle to students. The wording is rather fitting for a large truck.
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/25/9c/d4/259cd44540fda1a5aea674a0f9953bf2.jpg)
-
Alright folks... I'm new to this State, but I've decided to call it "home". (I moved here recently from Louisiana). Nebraska is a lovely State that has won my heart.
With that being said, I must say: I am absolutely shocked about the gun laws here. :o(In a negative way). I'm use to carrying my Beretta or Glock in my car without the need for a CHP, and Open Carrying without anyone batting an eye unless I walk into a store, or restaurant. If I got pulled over, (only happened once when a tail light went out), I would politely say the following with my hands on the upper left hand side of the steering wheel: "Sir, for your protection and mine, I have a loaded firearm in my vehicle that I would like to make you aware of at this time." -And THAT WAS THAT. No uneasiness by the LEO because he understands the State Laws. He runs a quick check on me with dispatch, and we are off on our merry way. ;D
This is going to take some getting use to. (The Nebraska State Laws). The only reason why I never got a CHP in Louisiana is because I always saw it as a ludicrous money-making opportunity for certain individuals in the local gun community; indeed, they often were against any moves by State Legislators towards a Constitutional Carry because it would infringe on their "honey pot".
Is there any legislation currently in the works in Nebraska's Unicameral towards a Constitutional Carry?!? And if not, is there anyone running for office who would push for it? (They'd win my Vote).
Not trying to turn Nebraska into Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Wyoming.... but I saw the slippery slope that Colorado, (where I'm originally from), went down during the original Bush Sr./Clintonista AWB through the current 2013 High-cap Ban on Mags Law. Nebraska being a Rural-oriented, Red State, there shouldn't be this murky gun laws like I'm seeing.
Someone, please educate me.
Blake, why on God's green earth would you move to this God forsaken state? We're in the top 10 most taxed state in the Union, and in Lincoln you can't carry a knife that has a 3" (I think) blade. Don't know about Lincoln, but in Omaha (which includes Millard and Elkhorn) and you don't have a CCW, you are SUPPOSE to register your firearms with the OPD. Which you know is one step closer to confiscation.
Why do I live here you may wonder? Taking care of old family members. As much as I dislike this state, family comes first.
-
Blake, why on God's green earth would you move to this God forsaken state? We're in the top 10 most taxed state in the Union, and in Lincoln you can't carry a knife that has a 3" (I think) blade.
3.5", not 3.0". Just to nitpick.
That being said, I wouldn't equate Lincoln to Boulder and Omaha to Colorado Springs. Lincoln doesn't have that "I'm SO open-minded my brain has fallen out" vibe that Boulder does. And large sections of Lincoln have common-sense. They just are in the minority, though at least it isn't a small minority.
Omaha, on the other hand, is a place that loves it when the government takes charge and handles everything, and no one else should even attempt to do so.
That's over-stating the case, but by less than you'd think. :(
I'll note: I like Nebraska a lot, myself. And yes, people are working toward constitutional carry. It is just going to take awhile----but considering how we've gotten this far (from where we started) we are doing it, step by step.
-
----but considering how we've gotten this far (from where we started) we are doing it, step by step.
For those of us that have been there or nearly so from the begining (of the NFOA) it is truley amazing what has been done. I never would have believed it was possible. The momentum can only be maintained by keeping their (Unicameral) feet to the fire.
Thanks for the reminder JT!
-
I'm really interested in this topic. When I took my CHP class, I kinda argued a bit with the instructor on this one cause it just seems so ridiculous.
Not trying be be snarky here, just looking to follow their logic. To me, it seems to be the exact situation if I have four handguns in a black range bag (that just looks like a gym bag) on the back seat. I drive over to my buddies house to pick him up to go out to the range. He's a non-CHP guy.
On the way, I get stopped at a safety check, speeding, whatever. Being the good CHP holder, I mention these pistols to the officer
By their logic then, the officer could then charge my friend with concealed weapons. I really can't fathom that. So this means I cannot carry weapons in my vehicle with non-CHP holders? I drive a Dakota and I'm not going to put them in the bed. They have be be in the cab.
But if I had them out in plain sight laying on the seats we're ok? So they rather have weapons out bouncing around the vehicle rather than properly stowed?
I just think it'd be a real *expletive* of a officer to hassle people on this. Of course, assuming you're passing the attitude test to begin with.
I really think I'd have to go to a jury. I can't believe that 12 people with any common sense would uphold this.
Sorry for ranting on this....it just seems so stupid.
Joe
-
I think many people are over thinking this. I have asked law enforcement (mainly deputy sheriff's) about this and they say no problem. They understand going to the range, they understand that the person in the seat next to you doesn't have a sidearm on in an IWB under his shirt. They understand that the weapons in the range bag are (must be-remember the range Nazis stating that the weapon has to be safe at all times it is not on your belt-in previous threads) unloaded.
Usually where the problem starts is when someone starts telling the officer that they can do whatever they want because of the 2A and everything goes downhill from there.
Use common sense, don't speed (why is it alright to break one law and not another?), treat everyone as you want to be treated.
-
I think many people are over thinking this. I have asked law enforcement (mainly deputy sheriff's) about this and they say no problem. They understand going to the range, they understand that the person in the seat next to you doesn't have a sidearm on in an IWB under his shirt. They understand that the weapons in the range bag are (must be-remember the range Nazis stating that the weapon has to be safe at all times it is not on your belt-in previous threads) unloaded.
Usually where the problem starts is when someone starts telling the officer that they can do whatever they want because of the 2A and everything goes downhill from there.
Use common sense, don't speed (why is it alright to break one law and not another?), treat everyone as you want to be treated.
I agree with you 100% on that. I guess my question is, is this the way the law actually is?
That's the part I fund so ludicrous. That our lawmakers which are supposed to be intelligent thinking individuals would go along with something worded this way.
I'm rather late to the party here for CCW as I've always lived out in rural areas where we really don't get much hassle from law enforcement as long as you aren't being a dumb ass. I really haven't concerned myself with what is going in at the state level. My mistake obviously. But I should have known that lack of common sense isn't just limited to Washington.
I guess I just find it amazing. Anyway, as you suggested, I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing for over 50 years. :)
-
I'm really interested in this topic. When I took my CHP class, I kinda argued a bit with the instructor on this one cause it just seems so ridiculous.
Not trying be be snarky here, just looking to follow their logic. To me, it seems to be the exact situation if I have four handguns in a black range bag (that just looks like a gym bag) on the back seat. I drive over to my buddies house to pick him up to go out to the range. He's a non-CHP guy.
On the way, I get stopped at a safety check, speeding, whatever. Being the good CHP holder, I mention these pistols to the officer
By their logic then, the officer could then charge my friend with concealed weapons. I really can't fathom that. So this means I cannot carry weapons in my vehicle with non-CHP holders? I drive a Dakota and I'm not going to put them in the bed. They have be be in the cab.
But if I had them out in plain sight laying on the seats we're ok? So they rather have weapons out bouncing around the vehicle rather than properly stowed?
I just think it'd be a real *expletive* of a officer to hassle people on this. Of course, assuming you're passing the attitude test to begin with.
I really think I'd have to go to a jury. I can't believe that 12 people with any common sense would uphold this.
Sorry for ranting on this....it just seems so stupid.
Joe
That exact scenario happened to me about 2 years ago in Papillion on the way to the Bullet Hole. This was before I had my CHP, so didn't even know it was an issue. My buddy told him about the guns in the bag on the back seat in the cab and that was the end of it. He didn't even get a ticket.
Knowing what I know now, I could have been charged. I'm not sure there would have been any public purpose served by doing so.
It may have been mentioned already in this thread, but the purpose behind it was to eliminate a situation where a car full of gang bangers and felons has a weapon hidden in the console or under a seat and the one guy without a record is in the back seat with a CHP claiming it's his. Not sure if that was actually ever a problem, but that's the legislature's reasoning, as it was explained to me.
-
our lawmakers which are supposed to be intelligent thinking individuals
Joe58....therein lies the problem. It is presumed that "elected officials" have a modicum of intelligence (except of course Rod Moeller when he is elected)
-
Is the gun loaded?
That is an important question when discussing this section of the law. If you are going to the range do you have an unloaded gun in a range bag or case and ammunition in a box. That is a very different scenario (and not where this law would be applied) than having a loaded gun in your glove box or center console.
-
(except of course Rod Moeller when he is elected)
I haven't seen his name on a ballot. I'm not sure how smart he is, but maybe smart enough not to run for office? ;)
-
Write In Canidate!....Rod Moeller aka the best choice for district 12! I'm gonna start knocking on doors!
What if we had 3 or 4 legitimate NFOA members in the 49 seat unicameral? Get them in the judiciary committee & we would be passing bills like Georgia & Kansas!