Surrendering your Weapon to an Officer

[Kelemvor]

People usually grow out of their "fight the man" mentality long before you. I bet you even painted those little anarchy symbols on your fingernails in high school didn't you? I honestly don't think you deserve a permit with your attitude.

Lol, somebody definitely ate their Troll-O's this morning.

[Guest clsutton21]

I just grew into it in 2008. I am completely against anarchy all I am advocating is that our government obey its own laws.

You obviously only read what you like. The officer broke NO laws when he took your gun and placed it on the roof of your car. Once again, there were NO laws broken....ALL laws were obeyed perfectly. There is NO law saying he can't take your weapon from you. Is English not your first language? Or do you just have a problem with comprehension?

[Guest H0TSH0T]

um just to side track here for a sec, do you know what anarchy is? if so please tell us/me, ok i will let you in on a little secret you practice anarchy everyday, we all do, we make decisions that mutual benefit our selves and those whom we interact with with out the government telling us what to do or who we talk to or subject matter, anarchy is part of the American spirit, it is how we became America in the first place. so please if you don't understand something please ask, and don't confuse anarchy with nihilism. we are here to help.

[Guest jth_3s]

You obviously only read what you like. The officer broke NO laws when he took your gun and placed it on the roof of your car. Once again, there were NO laws broken....ALL laws were obeyed perfectly. There is NO law saying he can't take your weapon from you. Is English not your first language? Or do you just have a problem with comprehension?

The Officer was not correctly interpreting the law in the first place. He is suppossed to have reason to fear his safety before he takes my gun. I am an HCP holder and I guaruntee you that more innocent civilians have been killed by rouge cops than cops by HCPers so I dont see what he feared. Had this been taken to court it would have likely been ruled that he had no reason to fear for his safety. If the law were to really mean as he interprets it, it would be in violation of the 2nd Amendment becasue it infringes on our right to Keep and Bear Arms. I have no Problem with the officer, he has been taught this by his superiors.

[Guest clsutton21]

.

Edited October 28, 2009 by clsutton21

[Guest clsutton21]

The Officer was not correctly interpreting the law in the first place. He is suppossed to have reason to fear his safety before he takes my gun. I am an HCP holder and I guaruntee you that more innocent civilians have been killed by rouge cops than cops by HCPers so I dont see what he feared. Had this been taken to court it would have likely been ruled that he had no reason to fear for his safety. If the law were to really mean as he interprets it, it would be in violation of the 2nd Amendment becasue it infringes on our right to Keep and Bear Arms. I have no Problem with the officer, he has been taught this by his superiors.

Did you ask him if he was in fear of his life? And why would the makeup police be after you?

[Angus]

Awww..cmon now...it is a kinda funny thread, but we don't need to pick on the dude too hard.

No biggy man, ya got disarmed as the LEO is allowed, ya got yer weapon back, and yer nutz are still attached......not like he took a bite outta yer cheeseburger.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

I just grew into it in 2008. I am completely against anarchy all I am advocating is that our government obey its own laws.

was intended as reply to this not your Nancy paint, but i also can forgive you.

Edited October 28, 2009 by H0TSH0T

[Guest jth_3s]

Did you ask him if he was in fear of his life? And why would the makeup police be after you?

LOL I need to go to bed after that. I wasnt sure enough about the law to question it at the time.

[Guest jth_3s]

Awww..cmon now...it is a kinda funny thread, but we don't need to pick on the dude too hard.

No biggy man, ya got disarmed as the LEO is allowed, ya got yer weapon back, and yer nutz are still attached......not like he took a bite outta yer cheeseburger.

I know I wasnt making a big deal about it. I started this thread to ask about the law and it evolved into this but I like a healthy conversation about law.

[TNRobocop]

Actually the only one that violated the law is the OP.

Everything else is just sandy mangina bitching.

[lowbud]

I've been stopped so many times I can't count them and I always inform the officer I am legally armed. I have been disarmed about half the time. It really depends on the cop. Some don't care, others will take it every time.

Do I care if they lay it on the car, no, take it with em, na... as long as I get it back.. who really cares. it's within their descretion to disarm you or not.

I dunno what I would do if I was a cop. People are crazy.. even those legally carrying guns. Hech for all I know the bastard will go postal when I come back with a ticket in my hand.

anyway.. if it bothers ya.. don't carry a gun.

[strickj]

I really wanna know what all was said in the 7 pages of this thread...but I find it to be a daunting task when its obviously about someone bitching about having their gun placed on a car.

With that,Im not going to read any of it,so if anyone wants to give me a brief play-by-play commentary,it'd be much obliged

Extra points for Madden voice!

Edited October 28, 2009 by strickj

[lowbud]

ya know after reading all this crap a question comes to mind. If you are so hung up on all the laws and "THE MAN" putting the kabosh on your constitutional rights, why then hell did you even get a carry permit?

Isn't that in itself against the constitution? You should be F'n livid!

Now go stick it to the MAN!

[ukerduker]

I've been stopped so many times I can't count them and I always inform the officer I am legally armed. I have been disarmed about half the time. It really depends on the cop. Some don't care, others will take it every time.

Do I care if they lay it on the car, no, take it with em, na... as long as I get it back.. who really cares. it's within their descretion to disarm you or not.

I dunno what I would do if I was a cop. People are crazy.. even those legally carrying guns. Hech for all I know the bastard will go postal when I come back with a ticket in my hand.

anyway.. if it bothers ya.. don't carry a gun.

As I was reading this thread I kept thinking one thing: Don't scratch the paint, don't scratch the paint, don't scratch the paint.... It only took 61 posts before someone touched on my main concern.

Call me silly, I guess.

[Worriedman]

As I was reading this thread I kept thinking one thing: Don't scratch the paint, don't scratch the paint, don't scratch the paint.... It only took 61 posts before someone touched on my main concern.

Call me silly, I guess.

I keep an older Leupold scope cleaning cloth in the glove box for just such an occasion. If the nice officer ask me to remove and hand over my weapon, I ask him to place it between the gun and the paint.

Have been stopped a few times, don't think a THP officer has ever asked me to produce the weapon, local officers nearly always do. I drive a lot, could teach the Defensive Driving Course.

Some departments tell their officers to take possession, some do not. As long as they treat my weapon with respect, I do not have a problem with it, as the practice is per the code. More than likely it is more a "Better Safe than sorry" stance on the the Dept.'s part than a slap at the OP.

[Semiauto]

How many of you would/have surrendered your backup weapon?

[Fallguy]

These types of incidents where officers disarm HCP holders is one of the reasons why some people argue not to tell the officer you're armed in the first place.

+1000

[Guest canynracer]

he did NOTHING wrong...you do not get to choose what he feels, that is rediculous...he ALSO COULD HAVE REMOVED THE BULLETS FROM THE MAGS< AND HANDED EVERYTHING BACK TO LEAVE YOU TOTALLY DISARMED ...if he felt the need to take it during the stop, he can... be glad he didnt completely take it all apart and tell you to WAIT TILL he leaves before loading back up.

dont break the law and you WONT surrender it!!!

Are you KIDDING me??? infringing on rights??? Oh good lord...

[Guest Old goat]

How many of you would/have surrendered your backup weapon?

Uh, yes I would have.

[Fallguy]

While I admit I think the OP is making a slightly bigger deal out of this than need be......there are some somewhat valid points being made IMO.

First, Yes, the law does say a LEO can disarm a HCP holder if he feels it is needed for the officer's, HCP holders', or the public's safety. If this is officer felt that...then ok. I also agree no one can really know what he felt. But....how many agenices do instruct their officers to or indvidual officers simply disarm EVERYONE? I feel (have no way of knowing) the intention of the law was to allow LEOs to disarm those they thought might cause a problem....not to disarm EVERYONE.

Also....I have to say...I would hate to see ever see it "common place" to simply hand over your firearm because a LEO wanted it. Granted in some cases it may be necessary, but in others it may not.

I think the OP once he has learned there is a law that allows it, is not so much faulting the officer, but the law and maybe the officer's/agnecies inturpriation of it.

[TGO David]

I'm not griping about the officer. Im griping about the way he has been taught to interpret the law.

...

This is the perfect excuse for Federal firearms confiscation. If the Government is not allowed to disarm someone, that compromises government safety. But I see where you are coming from

First of all, he didn't interpret anything. He followed the law according to what it allows him to do. You can't seem to get that through your head.

Hmm, let's go the "common sense" route for a minute. The number of times a HCP holder has shot/killed or attempted to do so to an officer during a traffic stop or any other situation? The number of times an officer has over reacted and shot someone by mistake? So, using common sense just who is the greater danger to who?

This has anything to do with anything ... how?

all I am advocating is that our government obey its own laws.

Then shut up and stop posting. Your wish was granted yesterday! When the officer, an appointed representative of your local government, instructed you to disarm he did so in according to the government's own law.

The Officer was not correctly interpreting the law in the first place. He is suppossed to have reason to fear his safety before he takes my gun.

The presence of the firearm alone was enough reason for him to be concerned for his safety and yours. If the gun made the officer nervous, so be it. I'd rather the firearm be controlled in such a way that he was comfortable than have the presence of the firearm cause an unnecessary escalation of force.

If the law were to really mean as he interprets it, it would be in violation of the 2nd Amendment becasue it infringes on our right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Did I miss where he confiscated your firearm and never gave it back to you? Holy crap, man. If the police in your town are just running around disarming citizens and not giving them their firearms back, you're totally justified here!!!

I know I wasnt making a big deal about it. I started this thread to ask about the law and it evolved into this but I like a healthy conversation about law.

No, you were making a big deal of it or this thread wouldn't even exist. Clearly there are two sides to this thread so far: 1.) your side and 2.) the healthy conversation about the law side.

How many of you would/have surrendered your backup weapon?

By law you are required to.

Also....I have to say...I would hate to see ever see it "common place" to simply hand over your firearm because a LEO wanted it. Granted in some cases it may be necessary, but in others it may not.

I think the OP once he has learned there is a law that allows it, is not so much faulting the officer, but the law and maybe the officer's/agnecies inturpriation of it.

See my previous comments about the firearm being controlled easing the officer's concerns. If that's what it takes for me and him to both walk away from a routine traffic stop alive and minus any additional bodily orifices, then I'm going to comply as is expected of me by the law.

I think what some people are missing here is that this provision in the law was likely written in much the same way that the requirement for a HCP holder to abstain from drinking alcohol while carrying in an establishment that serves but does not post. It's there to spell out common sense for the people who don't have much of it.

Carrying a gun into Applebees as afforded by the new legislation? Awesome! Don't drink!

Carrying a gun and get pulled over for doing 55MPH in a 35MPH zone? Awesome! If the officer insists that you disarm, in accordance with the law, do it and remove potential fuel from the fire.

[TGO David]

Another thought just occurred to me, in sort of an Epiphany of The Obvious sort of way:

All of this boils down to being a responsible firearms owner, which is what TGO seeks to promote. Being responsible means following the laws as they exist. If we feel that a law is improper or truly infringes upon our rights, we should endeavor to change those laws through the appropriate legal channels.

Being responsible in any area of our lives requires a modicum of common sense. A responsible dog owner doesn't allow his 125 pound overly aggressive Rottweiler to roam the neighborhood eating children. A responsible car owner doesn't drive drunk. A responsible gun owner observes the cardinal rules of gun safety and equips themselves with a fundamental knowledge of what is and is not legal regarding their use and carrying of their firearm.

In this case, the original poster should now know that he was wrong, that the Officer was correct and that no laws were broken nor were any of his rights trampled upon. If he disagrees with the latter, then he should start a grass roots effort to get TCA 39-17-1351 (t) repealed or changed to his liking.

While I don't support the proposed adjustment to the statutes, I do support his right to dissent. If he is looking for supporters, I'm sure that he can find an ally in someone like Voldemort. That alone is a good indicator of how absurd the idea is.

[Fallguy]

See my previous comments about the firearm being controlled easing the officer's concerns. If that's what it takes for me and him to both walk away from a routine traffic stop alive and minus any additional bodily orifices, then I'm going to comply as is expected of me by the law.

Of course I would have complied as well.

But in all honesty, while I don't want to do anything to alarm an officer, easing his concerns and worries is not is not my main concern. Especially irrational (not saying that was the case in this case) worries and concerns.

I mean it would ease the concerns of some in Nashville/Washington D.C. if we weren't allowed to carry or even own firearms.

Of course I don't want to do anything to cause me to go to jail, but at the same time doesn't mean that all actions by those that would take you are correct either.

[Semiauto]

David, your willingness to abide by the "law" will not serve you well when/if the government decides to take your firearms. Katrina showed us the usurpation that local governments can devolve to. If you are willing to follow the "law" and the "law" is to surrender your AR15, then I assume that you would do it.

The computer in the LEO cruiser should link the license plate to the HCP, if the HCP is driving his/her own car. The LEO should know the background check has been completed on the HCP and the odds that the HCP is now a crazed felon are greatly reduced compared to a blind traffic stop. The LEO should actually feel less "nervous" and should feel more secure knowing that a good percentage of HCP's (including me) would assist them in their time of need.