Carry in vehicle with non CHP-passengers

[ILoveCats]

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.

[gsd]

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.

[bullit]

Keep it on your person...problem solved.  "Carrying a gun should be comforting, not necessarily comfortable." -Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

[Gary]

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.

[66bigblock]

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... 


66bigblock

[RLMoeller]

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.

[ILoveCats]

Thanks!

[Mntnman]

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.

[Gary]

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.. 

[Gary]

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. 

[Gunscribe]

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?

[ILoveCats]

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.

 

[Gunscribe]

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.

[00BUCK]

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... 


66bigblock

With one hand, IIRC

[Blake74u]

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.   (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.    

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.

[FarmerRick]

Blake, this may help you understand why things are the way they are here in Nebraska.



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.

[Blake74u]

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.

[Blake74u]

Regardless, thanks much Farmer Rick.

I should've Googled that.

[Blake74u]

LOL  I must say:  this would definitely explain the crazy looks from the Lincolnites over my NRA Sticker on my car.   

[ILoveCats]

Welcome to the state.

Whatever sticker you have on your vehicle, Gary's trumps it. You have to see it to believe it.