contact with a Police Officer and informing them of a weapon.

[okshooter26]

I was just thinking and I admit I'm not an Attorney or Judge and I have not attended one day of law school. But I was curious on opinions of everyone, especially those who have attanded Law school and wether they believe or do not believe that being required to tell a Law Enforcement Officer that you are carrying a concealled weapon conflicts with your right to free speech(1), your right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures(4) and of course a possible violation of your right to remain silent(5). Any thoughts?

 

[Adam Striegel]

Personally I think it's a good idea for people carrying concealed to let the cops know when they make contact so there's no confusion or misunderstandings later down the road. If you're not breaking the law or have something to hide, there's no problem in letting the LEO's know you're carrying.

 

[okshooter26]

I agree it is a good idea and I always do identify the moment I speak to a police offcier. but I'm more curious if the law is constitutional rather than ethical or a good idea. I hope that my post is not interpreted as a rude comment.

 

[Adam Striegel]

Even if it wasn't the law, I'd still do it. I have friends in law enforcement and I'm trying to get into the reserve program. From that point of view I would just rather know if the person I'm making contact with is armed or not. Someone telling me up front and showing me a permit would be less likely than a felon scum bag that's going to draw down on me.

 

[okshooter26]

I would rather know as well but my beliefs are not always inline with the Constitution. I would like people not to be able to protest at Soldiers funerals or burn the flag but its still constitutionally protected as free speech. I wonder if this law were challenged in court if it would be found to be constitutional or unconstitutional. Also there can in fact be a problem depending on what Officer you are dealing with. I was polite and courteous and a complete open book to a police officer while chatting with his colleague that was already informed of my weapon and was not bothered but the other officer used it to search me and take my weapon from me as he didnt like me carrying it and to treat me like a criminal. until he was informed of the weapon everything was fine. hasseled

 

[McGuire]

I would rather know as well but my beliefs are not always inline with the Constitution. I would like people not to be able to protest at Soldiers funerals or burn the flag but its still constitutionally protected as free speech. I wonder if this law were challenged in court if it would be found to be constitutional or unconstitutional. Also there can in fact be a problem depending on what Officer you are dealing with. I was polite and courteous and a complete open book to a police officer while chatting with his colleague that was already informed of my weapon and was not bothered but the other officer used it to search me and take my weapon from me as he didnt like me carrying it and to treat me like a criminal. until he was informed of the weapon everything was fine. hasseled

The constitution protects you from the government, it doesnt keep someone else from popping you in the mouth. Also, the fact that you have a CCW permit makes it ILLEGAL for police to search you based soley on the fact that you have a weapon and told them about it, as required by law. So that officer was in violation of protocol and should be reprimanded for illegal search and seizure. Knowing your rights is the most important thing, what the law provides you, your rights are not afforded to you ONLY when you are being stopped or questioned. Your rights are active all the time. If you tell the police you have a permit and a weapon on you, it is unlawful for him to search you and take the firearm based soley on that fact, now if you were called in for brandishment or you were swerving and he stopped you, he might be worried. But simply letting the cops do what they want, simply because they are the police, is a way to get searched and convicted while having never committed a crime. Not saying police are bad, but their expressed job is to catch and convict, that doesnt leave much room for you trying to explain yourself. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

 

[okshooter26]

Great call. Thank you I think you are right. simply refusing a search is probably the best way. not necessarily resisting a search that you refused though as I dont want to be accused of resisting arrest. But I think you are right on.

 

[Strokin04]

You will have less contacts with police if you stop hanging out with women of the night that you pick up on MLK at 3am in the hood. Then you don't have to worry about being searched or even talking to police.

 

[DoctorJJ]

Personally I think it's a good idea for people carrying concealed to let the cops know when they make contact so there's no confusion or misunderstandings later down the road. If you're not breaking the law or have something to hide, there's no problem in letting the LEO's know you're carrying.

.

This always makes me cringe.

 

[oklaccer]

Even if it wasn't the law, I'd still do it. I have friends in law enforcement and I'm trying to get into the reserve program. From that point of view I would just rather know if the person I'm making contact with is armed or not. Someone telling me up front and showing me a permit would be less likely than a felon scum bag that's going to draw down on me.

That "felon scumbag" is protected by the 5th and is not required to disclose that he has a weapon. Why should a LAC be required to disclose? Whether you know he is armed or not, the LAC is not going to "draw down on" you. So why do you feel the need to hold the LAC to a higher (?) standard than the BG?

 

[Adam Striegel]

That "felon scumbag" is protected by the 5th and is not required to disclose that he has a weapon. Why should a LAC be required to disclose? Whether you know he is armed or not, the LAC is not going to "draw down on" you. So why do you feel the need to hold the LAC to a higher (?) standard than the BG?

By that I meant a felon on that run that would rather gun you down than talk to you. Especially since they don't have the right to be carrying a fire arm in the first place.

Legal carriers aren't the ones you have to worry about.

 

[oklaccer]

Legal carriers aren't the ones you have to worry about.

Exactly my point. We are not the ones you have to worry about, so why do we need to disclose more than the BG's of the world. Whether we disclose or not (in accordance with the law), we are not a threat. Having to disclose is like being assumed guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Adam Striegel]

Exactly my point. We are not the ones you have to worry about, so why do we need to disclose more than the BG's of the world. Whether we disclose or not (in accordance with the law), we are not a threat. Having to disclose is like being assumed guilty until proven innocent.

I would do it just because I wouldn't want any surprises for the cop if he did a pat down. Not that I expect to be doing anything illegal, but mistaken identity and goofy things like that do happen.

 

[Wall]

I would do it just because I wouldn't want any surprises for the cop if he did a pat down. Not that I expect to be doing anything illegal, but mistaken identity and goofy things like that do happen.

If you didn't you'd be in violation of the law

 

[Adam Striegel]

If you didn't you'd be in violation of the law

I know ... Was just saying I'd still do it even if it wasn't the law because.

 

[okshooter26]

.

This always makes me cringe.

I agree Its sad to me how we as a nation are being accustomed to the idea of our rights turning into priveleges. I truly do not mean any disrespect to anyone that feels opposed to my opinion as they have right to inform and legal responsibilty to do so in accordance with the way or laws are currently written.
I also wanted to reiterate that I did not start this thread as a discussion of wether it is right or wrong or any other moral issues to inform law enforcement. I started it to discuss wether or not the law that requires you to inform law enforcement is a violation of our right to free speech, our right to be free of search and seizures and our right to remain silent. I personally believe that forcing me to speak and dictating what I must say about what the contents of my vehicle and or my person are is a pretty blatantly disregard to the constitution. Just my opinion.

 

[Lance Jensen]

McGuire I think you're an idiot... If you are lawfully contacted and I perceive you as a threat the courts have allowed me to protect myself as a Police Officer. I've been in law enforcement for 14 years and haven't met any cops looking to screw someone over. We are just doing our jobs and your cooperation makes that happen much easier. I am about as PRO second amendment as they come, but stupidity makes gun owners look like idiots everyday. Educate yourself and be reasonable... that's the best advise I can give anyone. Until the courts rule the second amendment allows a gun owner to do whatever they please we have to go by our court rulings. pretty simple.

....and my opinion on the open carry is that it is a back door to enforcing gun control. We'll see how many morons start harassing law enforcement with their "rights".... We will see laws changing in Oklahoma

 

[dennishoddy]

....and my opinion on the open carry is that it is a back door to enforcing gun control. We'll see how many morons start harassing law enforcement with their "rights".... We will see laws changing in Oklahoma

I'm really interested in seeing your opinion on how open carry is going to enhance gun control.

 

[DoctorJJ]

Lance,
Do you routinely disarm CCW permit holders as a matter of protecting yourself? I've read this entire thread and I haven't seen where anyone advocates that an officer can't protect themselves. The situation the OP described however, if that's how it happened, shouldn't give any officer concern for their own safety and shouldn't give them the authority to disarm a citizen.

I know you are an excellent officer and that's why I want to get more of your opinion. Thanks.

 

[Chambers]

The 5th amendment is about not incriminating yourself in criminal proceedings, 'not to be a witness against oneself.' It doesn't give you the right to fail to comply with things that are lawfully regulated by the state gov't. How is requiring you to notify an officer that you are exercising your right self incriminating? It's not, if you're legal. Practically, if you are doing something that is regulated by the state gov't and requires a license, the LEO needs to know about it so they can enforce the law. If you're driving a car, it's obvious. The cop knows to ask for your DL. Concealed carry, by nature, is not obvious. Many other states just require providing the CCL at first contact.

Informing LEOs that you're carrying is more for your safety than theirs. Surprising them is a bad idea. If a cop finds out you're carrying a gun unexpectedly...face, meet pavement.

As for the situation that started this whole thing...3 am, empty parking lot, ghetto. Criminals hang out there, not responsible gun owners. Maybe there had been some vandalism or robberies in the area and your vehicle or appearance was similar to a suspect. Maybe not. A hair stood up on the back of the officers neck. He wasn't right in his actions, but he wasn't completely wrong either. Cops aren't perfect.