CSEMARTIN Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 My friend Angelo and I were at work tonight planning a trip to a conference this weekend when I received a 911 page to my house. I called home, and my wife explained that Angelo's wife was trying to get ahold of him- he had left his pager at home and his cell phone was turned off. Apparently, Angelo's wife caught a man staring in their home through a window- approximately 20-30 feet from the house. Angelo and I immediately drove over there. While Angelo drove I called his wife on the cell phone to find out what was going on. Two minutes later we arrived and intercepted the individual outside of his home. While still on the phone with Angelo's wife, I told her to call the police. The police were there within five minutes. I immediately disclosed that I was carrying a pistol concealed. The officer asked me where it was and proceeded to disarm me. The man was questioned, checked for warrants, etc. and sent on his way. As it turns out, the man was waiting for a ride because he had just finished some sort of DUI class across the street. Since he technically wasn't on the property, the police told us there wasn't anything more they could do. The police officer returned my pistol and left. This was the first time I have ever encountered a situation like this. Since I am originally from Illinois- a state notorious for police officers that are anti-gun and less than cordial, it was nice to have a positive experience with the police in Michigan. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Interesting situation... but real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I have a different opinion. Why did he need to disarm you? YOU were legal. Were you more apt to shoot the guy after the police arrived than before? It doesnt make sense, you are legal and just because they show up now you have to be disarmed. If you were the indiviual under suspicion then I wouldnt have a problem with it. Its my gun, its legal and I dont want to give it up to anybody. For this very reason I dont offer the fact I am carrying to anybody. I know some states it is required to inform the police, not in Kentucky. Moderators- I know, this borders on Political but I kept it low key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Chuck! Keep it quiet! If word gets out Kentucky is an open carry state, with no permit required, and we only pay to get the concealed carry permit so we can have the element of surprise all those gun nuts will overrun the place and you will wind up with an apartment complex on the back 40. Chris, Glad you had a good experience with the local police. But Chuck brings up a good point. Did the police ask if you were armed? Are you required by law to just volunteer the info if an officer is within so many feet? Just haven't gotten used to living in relative freedom yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I agree with Chuck 100%. A cop that disarms you under those circumstances is absolutely UNprofessional and is acting wrongly. It may be "legal" for him to abuse you that way, but that does not make it right or acceptable. Unfortunately, the law in Michigan requires people to offer the information when they come in contact with law enforcement types. It's a stupid, stupid thing, but that's their law. Even more unfortunately, there will be plenty of cops who will stupidly feel the need to disarm everyone they encounter "for their own safety" or some other bogus reason. Accidents and negligent discharges happen when guns are HANDLED, not when then are in holsters (and concealed at that). Aside from the obvious political issues and right vs. wrong, this is an enormous safety issue. If you're not threatening anyone and you're not under arrest or suspected of some kind of violent act, there is no need for anyone to even ask about whether or not you have a weapon, much less "disarm" you. How many cops know how to safely handle a cocked and locked 1911 with a 3# trigger? Not many, and I suspect that among those who feel the need to disarm every non-cop they meet are, a vast majority have no idea how to handle a 1911 safely. ARGH. I don't what's worse ... the poorly behaved cops doing it, or the people who think it's okay for them to do it and don't even question it when it happens to them. ARGH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I am wondering why there was a need for a DUI class. What did they teach...how to use a straw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I was in a car with two other competitors on the way back from a match which got stopped. Once the driver answered the question about guns (I was carrying and admited it when asked), the officer called in two backups (which arrived with sirens). All the backups did was watch while the officer wrote a warning slip, which is the same as letting the driver off. Other than the backups an order for us not to move around too much, it was totally uneventful. The officer concluded by mentioning we were doing nothing wrong by carrying, as we were simply exercising our right to be armed. Not bad treatment for Massachusetts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bill Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I agree with Chuck 100%. A cop that disarms you under those circumstances is absolutely UNprofessional and is acting wrongly. It may be "legal" for him to abuse you that way, but that does not make it right or acceptable. I need to disagree with my big purple buddy! (and my favorite blaster supplier - Chuck) Did Chris state that he felt "abused"? Here is my interpretation from the boys in blue: 1. Recieve a radio call about a prowler that has been confronted by the reporting party. 2. Arrive on scene and view the prowler confronted by reporting party. 3. Because it IS a confrontation between people, caution is exercised until the facts are known. 4. A member of the reporting party calmly tells the officer (following the state law) that he is legally carrying a firearm. 5. The officer calmly has the firearm secured (*probably per department policy*) during the "fact finding" of the confrontation. 6. The facts are discovered, the gentlemen with the firearm is returned his gun (*probably per department policy*), and due to the legal situation, the prowler is released. I may be incorrect, but that is my guess on how the events went. Chris, if I am incorrect please correct me. It is my guess that the officer was simply following the departments SOP (Standard Operating Procedure), and following his instincts on safety. Its my $0.02, but I thought I would share. This is the "What I Like" forum right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRNinTX Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I got stopped in WV coming back from A5 this summer. 81 in a 65. When I drive I keep my carry gun in a cheap holster stuck between the front seats of the truck. The trooper walked up to the truck, asked what I was doing with a gun there. I showed him my VA CHP and DL, told him I always travel with the gun and he said OK. He wrote me for a 78 in 65 (no reckless), put some code on it so the ticket would not be forwarded to my insurance for points and told slow down an little and have a nice day. He didn't get bent out of shape at all, ask me to give him the gun or anything like that. I thought that was professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 State laws and departmental policies vary. If it really gets your knickers in a knot, have your lawyer draft a letter to the department. Basically, express your alarm at law enforcement officers handling unfamiliar firearms as a routine matter, and question the assignment of liability. If an LEO handles a firearm he is unfamiliar with, and there is an AD as a result, who buys what got shot? Be prepared for legal boilerplate which can be distilled to: Our officers are highly trained and know how to handle any firearm, and we do it for officer safety. An individual officer responding may want/be required by the department to secure all known weapons, for his own safety. A pair of officers could have one interview the CCW holder (while leaving him armed) and the other interview the miscreant. As far as the law and procedure is concerned, forget all ideas you may ever have had about "fairness." The law is concerned with the law, and the department with maintaining low liability exposure and officer safety. (Sometimes on the other order.) In all, it sounds like things were handled well. Just out of curiosity, can you PM me about which city it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougCarden Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 My Officers have been trained that if a person has a valid CCW and is armed to treat them like any other good guy. There is no need to inspect the weapon or check the serial # for wanted hits. I could tell you stories of other officers that have not been trained, and honest to god sometimes dont even know that we have a CCW permit for citizens in our state. They dont even cover this at the academy. Now that I am a supervisor I can change that, but as we all know change is well accepted and happens quickly... Rhino, my friend, I understand your points and they are well served, but if I am rolling up to a dangerous situation in which I DO NOT know any of the participants, and one says he has a blaster, I will politely ask where it is, and given the severity of the situation may relieve him of it temporarily. I will not turn my back on a person in this situation until I know it is safe. I want to be able to go home and finish my reloading on the 1050 for the match this weekend . Also remember that the caller probably gave all the correct information to the dispatcher, while the Officers heard this, "10-25 @#@$ address for a prowler, dresses as #$$$. Be advised callers husband is enroute to the location as well. Officers show up, dont know who is who, and then one guys says he has a gun. Officer Safety trumps CCW temporarily. Rhino, things are good getting better. Hope to see you at SSC this year! DougC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 While stopped at a truck stop my RV was scraped by truck that was turning a corner. Called the TX Highway Patrol and an officer was dispatched. When the officer arrived and I explained what had happened I was asked for my proof of insurance. It was in the console of my Ford Super duty.. I did inform the trooper I had a handgun in the console and asked him if he wished me to show or hand the gun to him. Looked me in the eye - briefly - said "naw" and went back to his notebook. Got stopped in Antlers OK - speeding on the way out of town - Got out, handed both my drivers and CCL to the local officer. Told him I had 3 or 4 guns in my truck. Looked me over - said slow down and let me go. When I got on the Indian Nations Turnpike about 1 mile later and stopped for fuel at the tollway fuel plaza I mentioned to the young "Goth" store attendant that I had been stopped in Antlers and that the cop had let me go. He replied he had never heard of anyone not getting a ticket when stopped by officer "whatever." I really think some LEO recognize the trouble you go to and the checks that are run on a CCL holder and it might actually be a good thing. YMMV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sac Law Man Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I thought this was a forum about shooting??? Lets leave the cop bashing for Rosie O'Donnells web site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Uhhhh... Bashing? Bash cops - Not.. Discussion - Yes. Now bashing Rosie would be a HUGE event! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Doug, I understand where you are coming from I think but it just doesn't make sense to me. If I had a gun on me and felt like doing bodily harm to a cop, I sure as hell would not tell him I had a gun on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougCarden Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Jake, You are on the right track. Only problem is that we have nanoseconds to gauge people, their demeanor, their dress, their body posture, what they are saying, how they are saying it, what their eyes and hands are doing and where they are looking. Add to that three people that are trying to tell Officers their side of the story at the same time and some getting loud, pissed that the Officer isnt listening to them more.....and then one says he has a CCW and carrying a weapon. What is the Officer alone supposed to do when his backup that could speak to the Person with the gun and confirm everything the ideal way is at least 4 minutes ideal to 10 minutes or more? Things are a little different on the other side. We do the best we can with what we are given, and yeah some cops are jerks, and not all are shooters. We shooters have to stick together though... Most people that I deal with that have CCWs always want to show me the gun I tell them that is OK, dont need to see it, and we always have a shooting converstation in which I try to get them to come to our next match. Unfortunately most dont, and they usually have only fired a few rounds through the gun.....I give them advice if they ask, but I do what I can. Have a good one guys, DougC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 One thing to keep in mind, no matter what, is the law and it's requirements. If you don't like the law or its application, a discussion with the peace officer in the line of duty, in the field, regarding your weapon really isn't the time or place. BTW, I'm starting a hi/low pool as to the number of posts it takes before this thread, itself, gets disarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I think it would be a scary situation for an officer to come onto a scene knowing someone was armed and NOT knowing what the situation actually was or what was going down - Who done What? Just because someone says - Hey I'm a good guy.. Too much trust might get a cop killed. Now that I have said that. I believe in personal freedom and can be quite adamant about my rights - including the one to not be harassed by someone in authority - even if they happen to be a police officer. However, in the situation described I would like to think I would understand the position the responding officer was in, and would have no problems or hard feelings if asked to surrender my weapon. Some cops may be jerks.. But, I'm really surprised that there aren't a hell of a lot more considering the shit they have to deal with on a day to day basis.... .02 Again - your milage may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberkid Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Big Dave, Its at 16 right now, I'll put $10 in the pot that it doesnt make 30 posts. I think the reason for that is that both sides are making valid points. From the LEO side I can totally see and understand the disarming of a legal CCW holder for another measure of temporary safety. But, as a legally armed civilian, aint no copper takin my blaster before I do something wrong. I dunno BD, we shall see how it ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I have a slight problem with the officers actions also but I can understand them. Of course the officer is also on private property assumedly at the friends house. I am that the legality of disarming people might vary between the states when on private property versus being on the side of a road. I would also assume that the need to tell the officers about carrying also varies on private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Big Dave, Its at 16 right now, I'll put $10 in the pot that it doesnt make 30 posts. I think the reason for that is that both sides are making valid points. From the LEO side I can totally see and understand the disarming of a legal CCW holder for another measure of temporary safety. But, as a legally armed civilian, aint no copper takin my blaster before I do something wrong. I dunno BD, we shall see how it ends. Under the law, refusing to turn over your blaster when ordered by LEO is "doing something wrong", and you can confidently assume it will be dealt with as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I'm intentionally being pessimistic because politics isn't polite conversation. Not that it is unworthy conversation, just not polite. KK - I agree, great points are being made on both sides that is my cause for concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Same for TX CHL law-- an officer can disarm the CHL holder for a short period of time if needed (see: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf#page=64 ). I've been stopped several times and while they occasionally ask where it is, they never ask me to hand it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bill Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I think that this thread is good discussion and not out of line. I think it is good for everybody to see everyone's point-of-view. I have been in most levels of law enforcement (local, state, federal), and I have encountered plenty of people with CHLs and have never felt the need in any of THOSE situations to temporairly disarm anyone. If any of my finely-tuned ( ) warning sensors urged me to disarm any of them, I would have done it without hesitation, in the most appropriate way possible. As stated earlier, it is impossible to Monday morning quarterback someone's dynamic situation without knowing the facts that THEY knew. To understand that type of dynamic situation is to: see it, hear it, and smell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 For the record ... I didn't intend to bash cops per se, although I will freely verbally "bash" any that act as the one in the original story did! It's the bad behavior I'm going to bash, regardless of whether it's a minority or majority of working cops. I understand DougC's postion, and I don't think I disagree with him. I understand why the police pretty much need to disarm people in certain situations until things are sorted out. MY PROBLEM is with this "disarming" nonsense as a routine, standard procedure, and we all know it really is for far too many cops (one would be too many)! In the example in the original message, part of the problem is that the poster didn't feel abused! THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM! He accepted something that was inherently wrong and thought it was "professional" because the cop was apparently polite about it. Being nice when you're doing wrong doesn't make it right. Logically, if someone TELLS you they have a concealed weapon and a license in a non-threatening manner, how would that make them more of the threat than an unknown? It makes no sense. Furthermore, the safety of the officer(s) in question is NOT more important than the safety of any other law abiding citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts