I was disarmed by a police officer

[ChamberedRound]

Once you inform the officer you're armed, I believe it's at his discretion as to whether or not you should be disarmed for the duration of the stop. Just as you have the right to not be submitted to unreasonable search and seizure, the LEO also has the right to guarantee his safety and the safety of others.

Some officers might disarm you, some might ask you to clear your own weapon, some might not ask you to do anything. Some might draw on you and throw you against the hood. It all depends on the context of the stop and the LEO's assessment of you and the situation, and (unfortunately) the moral character of the LEO. If you don't like how the officer handled the situation after the fact, file a complaint or hire a lawyer; it's your right.

This is just my opinion, but given the OP truthfully answered the question about being armed, I don't like that the officer treated him like a criminal and made him stand with his hands on the hood. Ask him to either clear his own weapons, or surrender the weapons to be cleared.

Now that I've said all that, everyone here should realize one important fact: in PA a person lawfully carrying a weapon has NO DUTY TO INFORM. If you are concerned that you won't get treated fairly by the officer if you were to inform them, then DON'T INFORM THEM. You can't lie to the officer if asked, but if it doesn't come up, then you're not obligated to provide such information.

[WWGunslinger]

I really don't have much to add but I wouldn't have a problem with LEO disarming me in that situation.

[Joe Smith]

CR: I'm with you on this one 100% In the case of the OP the officer asked and he provided the information. That was proper. I see no reason to inform the officer unless he asks first. If he does not ask and I am legal then it is no big deal.

[nlcrsn]

Yes the officer has the right to stop you, disarm you, Terry pat, and possibly do a full frisk and yes the terry pat is different than the frisk! But aside from that,
LEO's are involved in alot of hazardous situations daily, out of respect, and understanding his concern for his safety, give them a break! He gave it all back, even commented on one of the weapons( hygene!) lol, Just remember they are required to put themselves in harms way, civilians are required to retreat, unless in their home. LEO's feel the way all of us responsible weapons owners feel , SAFETY FIRST, that was his only intention... to go home at the end of the day!

[Skuggi]

I'm only ok with this, in the manner that the officer treated you which seemed to be damn good. and that I know from my officer buddies traffic stops are damn scary anymore for them. They have all seen just as you probably have in the genre of "Worlds Blankiest Blank" Where some person is pulled over, they wait for the officer to get there and start blasting away.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by wewo

So it is kinda silly to ask about a weapon, a felon will either shoot first or lie, whereas a law abiding citizen (excluding traffic violations) will answer honestly and therefore should not need to be disarmed because law abiding citizens do not shoot other than in self-defense. Certainly a felon will not have a valid LTCF. Just pointing out the apparent flawed logic, I do not necessarily disagree with disarming in that situation, I'm still on the fence. ...

Good points, however because of these points I do disagree with the disarming in a traffic stop in the context mentioned.

To me, it seems clear that the act of disarming the stopee is putting the officer in much more danger than if he left the guns in the holsters.

Two scenarios, He's a bad guy or he's a good guy.

1) Felon, bad guy, axe murderer, whatever:
By asking and then disarming, the officer is pushing the issue, forcing it to come up in other words. Guy may panic and fight, shoot, etc.
If he disarms at the beginning of the stop he has no idea if the guy is good, bad, or indifferent. Seems unnecessarily risky.
Now, if he were to run the guys ID first, and it comes back he is a bad guy, then he can call for backup, etc. before disarming him. Seems like a much smarter procedure to me.


2) good guy, LTCF, etc. Only thing this disarming is doing is creating a chance for an ND. Slight, but still a possibility.
Better to leave the guns in their holsters IMO.


JMO, I would not do it that way if I was the 5-0 but I am not the 5-0 so take it for what it's worth

[wewo]

Query whether the question is a proper one and must be complied with. If a felon the possession of a gun is illegal and he could refuse to answer on 5th Amendment grounds. If a LTCF holder than there is nothing illegal, its like asking "are you a Democrat" (obviously it is different but you get my point). Perhaps the proper response is "I have no duty to answer that question".

Also query whether a LTCF holder could refuse to be disarmed? And if so what would be the LEO's response. Perhaps the driver could say "I am legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon and I do not consent to be disarmed, Please call a Sargent to the scene" . Any comments on these scenarios?

of course all that being said I would comply if only because I would be more embarrassed by causing a scene than by being temporarily disarmed.

[D-FENS]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

2) good guy, LTCF, etc. Only thing this disarming is doing is creating a chance for an ND. Slight, but still a possibility.
Better to leave the guns in their holsters IMO.

I agree, how does a cop remove two concealed and loaded firearms and a knife while also holding license and registration?

IMO, it would be much safer and more intelligent to ask for his LTCF, make sure it's current. If so, then the officer should know he doesn't have a record(as it should be revoked otherwise) and because he offered the information and license and registration for the vehicle, how much danger is he really in? I'd say less than the balancing act mentioned above.

EDIT: Not to say this would sway the law but it seems like a more logical and safer practice.

[TonyF]

Last word on this issue from me is that there is a huge difference between the realities of the street and a safe, sterile internet forum.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Last word on this issue from me is that there is a huge difference between the realities of the street and a safe, sterile internet forum.

True enough.
But in the reality that is the street I fail to see how disarming someone (you know nothing about) that admits they have a weapon is safer than leaving the weapon be and going to find out who you are dealing with, first.

To me it seems safer that way.


I myself have admitted being armed during traffic stops (at least two that I recall) and I was not disarmed. I feel everyone was safer for it.