Yeah, that makes all of us law abiding gun owners look really intelligent. What an idiot or should I say JustinIDIOT?
Printable View
So, how's everyone's Monday going thus far?
Couldn't most of this be avoided by taking several actions?
1. Don't drive in a manner in which you attract police. (I need to remind myself that since I tend to speed, but then, I-95 and sometimes the Turnpike are like the PA Autobahn, some days...)
2. Don't flaunt your weapon or your LTCF at an unavoidable traffic stop. There's no need for them to know you are carrying.
3. Don't mouth off at the officer or act like you have something to hide. Be respectful. And hopefully your car doesn't smell like drugs or alcohol so they don't have any reason to ask you to step out.
If all three of the above are followed....I would highly doubt that most people would have reason for the police to even ASK "Are you armed?" If, for some strange reason, they DID ask....if one is respectful and honest, I imagine the gun would be looked at and handed right back.
I know we have rights but we should be more angry at the idiots who cause the police to be jumpy and suspicious rather than the police themselves (although, disclaimer, I realize there ARE bad, cranky, or power hungry cops out there.). For instance, social workers view all parents as "bad", even if they're good, because of all the abuse cases they see. It makes me angry at the idiot parents ruining things for everyone else. Same with police....they see so much trash that if we start acting suspicious or angry at a traffic stop, they're gonna probably assume we are trouble and they're going to give us a hard time.
And that is part of the problem. Departmental policy is in violation of the 4th Amendment. A gun should be not be treated differently than a cell phone or a chainsaw. We don't, as a matter of policy, take those things to ensure they aren't stolen and everything is on the level. We, as police, have no right to seize personal property to determine that it is legally owned unless there is probable cause to do so.
As to the officer safety issue, I have mixed feeling there. It is difficult to write a citation and keep your eyes on the violator. At the same time, if the person has volunteered that they have an LTCF and a firearm, there is little reason to believe them to be a threat. I was always more comfortable when someone volunteered the information, but I'm a gun guy. I said I wouldn't volunteer it because there are a lot of police officers that aren't gun guys and really do believe that citizens should not have them.
Obviously I welcome you to the forum, but I must disagree with this procedure.
It's absolutely impossible for you to verify legal ownership during just a few minutes throughout the stop. There is no registry in PA for you to match owner to weapon and the PSP just emphasized this point (I can't find the thread at the moment).
Handling the firearm makes the situation less safe than leaving it be, in my opinion, unless you know that the driver is prohibited from owning it (active felony warrant showing up, for example).
I'm not against you asking, to be clear, or against you checking for active warrants or prohibited/unprohibited status of the driver if you're given a "yes" answer. I'm just against a preemptive seizure based on nothing but speculation that treats law-abiding citizens like dangerous gang members.
Asking a law-abiding citizen to surrender a weapon while you run an impossible to verify 'verification' is absurd if you ask me.