If an officer asks to see your weapon?

[Heckler N Koch]

Not always, unless there are LT's out there doing routine traffic stops. People have had their firearms confiscated in such a manner. Even if it is an LT making the decision, it doesn't matter, as the procedure shouldn't be done. Confiscating a firearm just because it doesn't show up in the illegally kept database is wrong. Let alone even running it to begin without mitigating circumstances.

I can't say what, whom or why this is all too speculative. Bbl.

[Heckler N Koch]

Lol, this forum seems to be more addictive than the others. Okay, see you all later tonight.

[streaker69]

I can't say what, whom or why this is all too speculative. Bbl.

This is not speculation, this is happening, and if you're asking to see someone's firearm with no justification other than to run the number, you're part of the problem.

Here's some reading for you:

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/630...nfiscated.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/1137...auburn-pa.html

Here's some about officers thinking that guns need to be registered:

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...egistered.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/961...record+of+sale

I have personally heard our local county radio proactively using the ROS database to tell officers arriving on a scene if there's guns "registered' to the address they're responding to. Regardless if it's a registry or not, it's being used as one, and the information can many times be incorrect, putting an undue burden upon citizens.

ETA: Here's some more:

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-car...y-firearm.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/240...n-dispute.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...-gun-back.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/125...-firearms.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/227...-carrying.html

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/914...hawley-pd.html

Adding more:

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...g-walmart.html

[GunLawyer001]

. . . . Confiscating a firearm just because it doesn't show up in the illegally kept database is wrong. . . .

To expand on the facts of this, for those showing up to the party late:

The Uniform Firearms Act explicitly prohibits any "gun registry".

§ 6111.4. Registration of firearms
Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any government or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership within this Commonwealth. For the purposes of this section only, the term “firearm” shall include any weapon that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.

The Pa State Police require every dealer to send in a Record of Sale Form after every handgun is transferred via an FFL. Those forms are entered into a Record of Sale Database, which is a searchable list of guns and people that links the people top specific guns, by serial number, make and model.

A few years back, the Allegheny County Sportmens League sued the Commonwealth to stop them from keeping this Database.

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...J-1-2003mo.pdf

The Supreme Court of PA allowed the Database, on the theory that it was NOT a complete and accurate record of gun ownership in PA. Handguns may legally be transferred between spouses, parent & child, grandparent & grandchild, between any parties via any Sheriff, privately manufactured, or brought into the state when the owner moves, and none of those would be reflected in the Database.

So the Court decided that the Database wasn't illegal PRECISELY BECAUSE it was full of holes.

Now, local police call serial numbers into the PSP to be checked against the Database, and they very often match up unless they're stolen. But a significant number of guns DO NOT match up, and legally speaking, that means NOTHING. You have no obligation at all to have a gun "registered" to you because the Database is not a registry. If a handgun is not in the Database, or it's listed as being sold to someone other than the possessor, that by itself is not legal grounds for a cop to do anything at all.

So we have cops treating the Database like a registry, while that Database is only permitted by the Court because it is NOT a registry. This is a fundamental problem.

Further, police shouldn't routinely be running serial numbers anyway. They can run the car's license plate because it's visible to all, but they can't confiscate your wallet and run the serial numbers of your currency to see if it's been stolen. They have no legal right to seize your property and conduct a search in the absence of any "plain view" observation of criminality. (If they saw a bomb in your car, then sure, they can act on that observation, because not only are bombs illegal in PA, in a lot of cases even fake bombs are contraband (see § 5516. Facsimile weapons of mass destruction.)

So it's a two-fold problem. Cops shouldn't be routinely seizing guns from people stopped for traffic offenses. And when they do, they shouldn't be routinely misusing the Record of Sale Database.

Lying to the police is not illegal or immoral if the citizen is attempting to compensate for wrongful conduct by the police. As an extreme example, if a Dutch citizen were asked in the 1940's "are there any Jews hiding in your building?", the "right" answer would be "no", because the police and the authorities were acting immorally (although they acted within the law of the time.)

So basically, motorists are advised to deny the presence of firearms during any routine traffic stop. When the police stop abusing their authority, then that advice will change.

[streaker69]

Just to build on this some more, the "authorities" have the citizens over a barrel when it comes to illegal confiscations that occur. Unless you're carrying your $5000 custom built 1911 that never jams, chances are you're not going to fight to get your firearm back. Who's going to spend $2000 in legal fees to get a $500 Glock back? The authorities know this, as it's been going on for quite some time.

I'm sure there's a few out there that will fight to get their Glock back, just on principle, but your average person just doesn't have that kind of cash laying around, and it isn't like you can sue the officer for the illegal confiscation.

[mosseater]

snip....we're at the bottom of the totem poll , we don't get to make the rules of the game.

I can't tell you how much I've learned on this board in the past year since I've joined, and I want to stay on message examining the facts of OP's original question. I'm sorry if this comes across as ad hominem attack to H n K, but to be honest, he comes across as the typical cop. To the snipped post above, I'll agree, you don't technically make the rules of the game. You and your brethren do, however, bend them to fit your need of the moment without sometimes having the legal knowledge or Constitutional authority to back up your usage, hoping it will bear fruit on another branch of the tree. In other words, what I've been saying for quite a while, what I've found to be true in the limited dealings I've had with LEO over the years, and specifically, the last incident that put the final nail in the coffin that my "trustworthyness" of the police is buried in:

The "law" IS what the cop SAYS it is when they show up.

To hell with what statute says, to hell with what your intentions were. He'll decide, you get to fight it out in court at your expense if you don't agree. If the statute says one thing and you did another, doesn't matter if you can prove it to him on the spot. Doesn't matter if what you did was actually legal. No worries! He'll just apply what HE deems applicable, even if it's a lie. Sucks to be you.

To you, Sir, I say HA! Double HA, in fact! Your above quote is the biggest pile of steaming, disingenous, bovine deficant I've seen for at least day or so.

[forby]

Lying to the police is not illegal or immoral if the citizen is attempting to compensate for wrongful conduct by the police.

Can you site the law?

I'm not questioning you, I am just curious.....

I thought lying to the po po was a crime anytime?

[GunLawyer001]

Can you site the law?

I'm not questioning you, I am just curious.....

I thought lying to the po po was a crime anytime?

Which law would that be? I'll have to refer you to the Crime Code, Title 18, and the absence of any statute which criminalizes orally uttering unsworn falsehoods to Pennsylvania police officers, where the goal is not to implicate some third party.

You won't find any law that allows most behaviors, you'll only see laws that prohibit certain behaviors, while sometimes making exceptions. For example, the use of force is authorized sometimes, as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force.

Now, FEDERAL cops (and other Federal officers) are a different matter, which I think I've explained. People can and do go to jail for innocuous false statements to Feds, which is why you shouldn't usually talk to Feds. You also shouldn't play with wasps, juggle razor blades, run with scissors, or elect freshmen Senators to the Presidency. Some things are just obviously a bad idea.

[Doughdaddy]

and then are you in possession of any weapons? If the answer is yes, a check must be done, it's required by higher ups, not me.

You stop rather short of something important here, you say it is not your requirement but the higher ups. If you know this is wrong and that you have no legal basis to confiscate and check the gun against a registry that is not supposed to exist, why do you do it? Just because the LT says so? If he said "Boys, tonight we are going out and taze every Mexican we stop" would you do that? There is no legal basis to do so and in fact, as the database is illegal, so is randomly tazing people (as is profiling).

My next questions are, is there a mandate telling you to do this? Is there written policy that you can provide us, primarily one that quotes PA law allowing this as your LT's mandate? What happens if your LT reviews your dash video, sees that you have not violated someones 4th Amendment rights tonight about illegal confiscation? Does he reprimand you? Are you docked pay? What I am getting at is what is the incentive you have to violate someones Constitutional rights?

[CartBone69]

GunLawyer001

I have a question. If you are pulled over for something and a police officer does ask you if you have a gun in the car and you do say yes and they ask you for your gun for what ever reason do you have to comply with the request or can you tell them no?