Why is it scary?
Michael Brown
Michael Brown
The mayor's take on the situation. Not the stop. Not the officer's actions. Just the mayor's answers.
While I can speculate that the mayor is probably anti-gun, I'm not bothered by his answers.
It seems like people are getting upset because of his terminology but what he's saying seems reasonable; when the police stop you, there are certain things you would normally be able to do but you cannot continue to do until the stop is over i.e. a suspension of certain rights.
I think the caller's position is not reasonable from what I heard in the conversation.
This is not to say the mayor does or does not have some sort of agenda in reference to firearm ownership but this doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.
Michael Brown
First of all, the Cop appeared friendly, professional, and respectful. Despite what some of the comments seem to imply, the Officer does not appear anti-gun, and in fact seemed delighted that the driver was an NRA member. Furthermore, he even lauded the driver's choice of firearm. A friendly encounter if I ever saw one (and I have).
Second, what the Mayor said is generally true. When signaled by law enforcement to pull over, SOME of your rights are, for a certain time, suspended. At that point, you do not have the right to continue unimpeded and must pull over. Certainly not ALL of your rights are suspended, only SOME. (To me at least, the driver seemed to have a hard time grasping that concept).
I won't get into whether or not it was appropriate or legal for the officer to temporarily secure the firearm, only that he was friendly and respectful about it.
Second, what the Mayor said is generally true. When signaled by law enforcement to pull over, SOME of your rights are, for a certain time, suspended. At that point, you do not have the right to continue unimpeded and must pull over. Certainly not ALL of your rights are suspended, only SOME. (To me at least, the driver seemed to have a hard time grasping that concept).
I won't get into whether or not it was appropriate or legal for the officer to temporarily secure the firearm, only that he was friendly and respectful about it.
I agree that there is not enough here to be disturbing to me. I, too have been through LEO contact since I received my CCL. Two contacts, the officers didn't even give me time enough to verbally inform them that I had a weapon ... they walked up and started asking questions or simply requested my DL and InsVer. I did provide them the opportunity to see my CCL as I handed them my documents and I figured if they did want to know any more about whether or not I was carrying at the time, they had been properly notified and the next move was up to them.
The third time, the officer came up with an attitude about my driving and accused me of something I did not do and I disputed his statement as I handed him my documents, again with my CCL in plain view. He took the documents, came back and issued me a warning only.
I had another situation in which I had consumed a couple of beers and had secured the weapon in my vehicle. The officer had asked if I was armed and I told him that the weapon was in the vehicle. He did not see any need to take any further action and the weapon stayed in the vehicle. When the contact was over, I asked if it was OK with the officer if I retrieved my cell phone from the vehicle to make a call. He said yes. I reached in and tried to unclip the cell phone from the strap of the gun bag, but ended up yanking the bag out on the snow in front of the officer. He looked at the bag, looked at me where I was standing frozen with my hands to my side. I told the officer, "You might want to pick that up." He asked if the gun was in it and I said yes. He picked it up and walked to the other unit. They unloaded the gun, ran the serial, then I could hear them talking about how nice it looked. When everything came back clear, they returned the gun to my hand and we all left the scene.
I consider all four of these contacts to be positive for all of us involved.
As with the Shreveport stop, we all walked away safe. In a close contact situation such as these stops, officer safety does take precedence. When the gun bag landed on the snow, I made a conscious decision to allow the officer to handle the gun. I could have acted like it was just a fanny pack and picked it up myself, but I felt that would have been disengenuous (sp?) of me and my desire for LEO to have no doubts of my verasity the next time we might have contact.
There will always be a give and take between citizens and law enforcement. We are all still trying out the boundrys of an armed citizenry and some LEO are going through a major adjustment in how they perceive that armed citizen. In the past, most of their contacts with armed citizens was of a confrontational nature, and suddenly it's not in all cases.
As CCL armed citizens, how we respond and react during LEO contact will help shape each officer's perceptions of whether or not Concealed Carry is a good thing. I'm not saying to let LEO walk all over you about the gun, but give it a little thought and be prepared. The officer you convert today may be the advocate of tomorrow.
The third time, the officer came up with an attitude about my driving and accused me of something I did not do and I disputed his statement as I handed him my documents, again with my CCL in plain view. He took the documents, came back and issued me a warning only.
I had another situation in which I had consumed a couple of beers and had secured the weapon in my vehicle. The officer had asked if I was armed and I told him that the weapon was in the vehicle. He did not see any need to take any further action and the weapon stayed in the vehicle. When the contact was over, I asked if it was OK with the officer if I retrieved my cell phone from the vehicle to make a call. He said yes. I reached in and tried to unclip the cell phone from the strap of the gun bag, but ended up yanking the bag out on the snow in front of the officer. He looked at the bag, looked at me where I was standing frozen with my hands to my side. I told the officer, "You might want to pick that up." He asked if the gun was in it and I said yes. He picked it up and walked to the other unit. They unloaded the gun, ran the serial, then I could hear them talking about how nice it looked. When everything came back clear, they returned the gun to my hand and we all left the scene.
I consider all four of these contacts to be positive for all of us involved.
As with the Shreveport stop, we all walked away safe. In a close contact situation such as these stops, officer safety does take precedence. When the gun bag landed on the snow, I made a conscious decision to allow the officer to handle the gun. I could have acted like it was just a fanny pack and picked it up myself, but I felt that would have been disengenuous (sp?) of me and my desire for LEO to have no doubts of my verasity the next time we might have contact.
There will always be a give and take between citizens and law enforcement. We are all still trying out the boundrys of an armed citizenry and some LEO are going through a major adjustment in how they perceive that armed citizen. In the past, most of their contacts with armed citizens was of a confrontational nature, and suddenly it's not in all cases.
As CCL armed citizens, how we respond and react during LEO contact will help shape each officer's perceptions of whether or not Concealed Carry is a good thing. I'm not saying to let LEO walk all over you about the gun, but give it a little thought and be prepared. The officer you convert today may be the advocate of tomorrow.
I wasn't so much disturbed by the mayors refrence to the suspension of rights as I was in his lack of understanding the difference between rights and priveledge in the context of driving. There is no right to drive in most states it is a priveledge and as such we must agree to certain regulations i.e. the surrender of our DL and inusrance information on request to an officer who has just cause to stop us, our 1st, 2nd, and most importantly 4th amendment rights have not been suspended in any way. The Mayor needs to educate himself on the differnce between rights and priveledges.
As a CCW holder I have agreed to certain regulations as they pertain to officer safety during official contact. Their is no suspension of my 2nd amendment right so much as I have voluntarily agreed to cooperate to the fullest extent by notifying an officer of the fact that I have a weapon and allow him based upon his training and instinct decide what he needs to do in order to insure his safety during the duration of our contact.
I haven't listened to the full conversation but I suspect the mayor misspoke and the gentelman involved is probably is upset at a perceived violation of his "rights" when he was in fact driving under a priveledge system and was ticketed and or charged for violation of some laws.
Of course that was shreveport Louisiana and La. law is based upon napoleonic code and not british common law so their could well be a right to drive as part of that states constitution.
Just my .02
As a CCW holder I have agreed to certain regulations as they pertain to officer safety during official contact. Their is no suspension of my 2nd amendment right so much as I have voluntarily agreed to cooperate to the fullest extent by notifying an officer of the fact that I have a weapon and allow him based upon his training and instinct decide what he needs to do in order to insure his safety during the duration of our contact.
I haven't listened to the full conversation but I suspect the mayor misspoke and the gentelman involved is probably is upset at a perceived violation of his "rights" when he was in fact driving under a priveledge system and was ticketed and or charged for violation of some laws.
Of course that was shreveport Louisiana and La. law is based upon napoleonic code and not british common law so their could well be a right to drive as part of that states constitution.
Just my .02
I wouldn't have a problem if that's how a cop chose to handle the situation if he pulled me over.
I do think it's odd that he was concerned with what was "inside" the vehicle and found it necessary to remove the firearm from "inside" the vehicle when he was having a conversation with the guy "outside" the vehicle. Doesn't seem to me that the weapon was putting anyone at risk where it was. It's also weird that he imediately asks him if he has a weapon, I've been pulled over several times and never been asked that question. That could just be a regional or department thing though.
The cop seemed pretty professional, I would have told him about what I was carrying and then asked what was on "his" hip.
The mayor was out of his element and that was obvious. But I would have never called the mayor after that stop, that guy is making something out of nothing.
I do think it's odd that he was concerned with what was "inside" the vehicle and found it necessary to remove the firearm from "inside" the vehicle when he was having a conversation with the guy "outside" the vehicle. Doesn't seem to me that the weapon was putting anyone at risk where it was. It's also weird that he imediately asks him if he has a weapon, I've been pulled over several times and never been asked that question. That could just be a regional or department thing though.
The cop seemed pretty professional, I would have told him about what I was carrying and then asked what was on "his" hip.
The mayor was out of his element and that was obvious. But I would have never called the mayor after that stop, that guy is making something out of nothing.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
- Reaction score
- 1,562
I'm not familiar with Louisiana CCL laws so can't comment on the officers action.
As for the Mayor I think he cold have used a better choice of wording but technically he is more or less correct in his statements.
Oklahoma has this clause in the SDA
I suppose it would be up to the individual officers discretion of course if he is going to consider 65 in a 55 as a crime or not though.
As for the Mayor I think he cold have used a better choice of wording but technically he is more or less correct in his statements.
Oklahoma has this clause in the SDA
I suppose it would be up to the individual officers discretion of course if he is going to consider 65 in a 55 as a crime or not though.
Similar threads
