If an officer asks to see your weapon?

[twency]

There is no legal basis to do so and in fact, as the database is illegal, so is randomly tazing people (as is profiling).

I agree that the database is illegal (or would be under any rational reading of the law). But since the PA Supreme Court found otherwise, I don't think you're going to get very far trying to convince a cop to violate a standing order to use it, on that basis that you and I think it's illegal.

[donm]

I agree that the database is illegal (or would be under any rational reading of the law). But since the PA Supreme Court found otherwise, I don't think you're going to get very far trying to convince a cop to violate a standing order to use it, on that basis that you and I think it's illegal.

The real issue is that many LEOs, and apparently the PPD in general and HnK in particular, choose to treat it as a registry. The PSP clearly says that's wrong:

The biggest misconception about the ROS information is that it is a registry of all firearms. This is not the case. PA statute prohibits maintenance of a firearms registry. Further, the data housed in the ROS database does not include long guns, firearms that are brought into the state, and certain exempted transfers of handguns between individuals as stated below....The confiscation of a firearm should never be solely based on a negative response to a firearm records query.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal...2_2011_pdf_pdf, page 3, The fact that a firearm is not in the database, or shows up as having been purchased by someone else (say, a grandparent), indicates absolutely nothing about its ownership.

[GunLawyer001]

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?

The courts have increasingly sided with cops and against citizens on issues like this, going back at least to "Terry stops", which allow cops to pat you down just because they want to talk to you (if they can articulate some sort of suspicion, usually "I thought I smelled marijuana".) Cops are allowed to disarm you and search for weapons "for officer safety" under a variety of circumstances that defy logic.

If the cop demands your weapon, you should probably comply, because he will probably insist, then grab you, and if a fight starts you WILL lose. Pennsylvania law actually prohibits you from using force to resist even a clearly unlawful arrest. I personally believe that it's unconstitutional to forbid citizens from resisting unlawful arrests, but I'm not exactly going to fund the test cases on that issue, and if the only witnesses are you and the cop, and maybe that recording that will be under the control of the cop while you're in cuffs, then the odds are long against you.

Seriously, use the "Anne Frank" model: If you know that an honest answer will result in bad conduct from the authorities, then don't provide that honest answer. If it's a Federal agent asking, then don't say anything, because lying to any Fed is a crime. But staying silent is not.

[Overscore]

When I got home I shot out an Email to Sheetz telling them that I no longer will be spending money at any of their stores and that my job has me all over the state and I have never seen so many people being harassed by the police as they are at the Indiana stores.
The Indiana paper is filled with arrests in the Police Log section where the police "stopped" a person at the Sheetz on Wayne ave or 4th street.
Screw them and their fishing and screw Sheetz right along with them.

All it took for me to write them off was the introduction of one of those stupid-ass club card things. It's a CONVENIENCE STORE, for the love of Horus. Sad too, because Sheetz is so much better than Wawa as far as the food goes, but Wawa will have to suffice now.

[Deleted]

The courts have increasingly sided with cops and against citizens on issues like this, going back at least to "Terry stops", which allow cops to pat you down just because they want to talk to you (if they can articulate some sort of suspicion, usually "I thought I smelled marijuana".) Cops are allowed to disarm you and search for weapons "for officer safety" under a variety of circumstances that defy logic..

GunLawyer….

As you correctly stated there is no provision in Title 18 prohibiting making false statements in the field to the police. However I am confident that if someone were to lie and say they were unarmed when they in fact they had a firearm on their person it could easily be articulated to meet the “dangerous” prong of Terry.

For example… the question comes up, are you armed and the answer is no. At some point during the encounter the officer can articulate the possession of a concealed firearm… say he sees a bulge…. Or the shirt rides up, exposing the firearm. We have obviously satisfied the “armed” part…. Then the articulation would begin about the lie fulfilling the “dangerous” part in the mind of a reasonable officer.

In the end, without some sort of crime all would work itself out but it would most likely lead to a tense moment and a disarmament. Your opinion?

[GunLawyer001]

GunLawyer….

As you correctly stated there is no provision in Title 18 prohibiting making false statements in the field to the police. However I am confident that if someone were to lie and say they were unarmed when they in fact they had a firearm on their person it could easily be articulated to meet the “dangerous” prong of Terry.

For example… the question comes up, are you armed and the answer is no. At some point during the encounter the officer can articulate the possession of a concealed firearm… say he sees a bulge…. Or the shirt rides up, exposing the firearm. We have obviously satisfied the “armed” part…. Then the articulation would begin about the lie fulfilling the “dangerous” part in the mind of a reasonable officer.

In the end, without some sort of crime all would work itself out but it would most likely lead to a tense moment and a disarmament. Your opinion?

The act of concealing a weapon under your coat is no different than lying about it, so far as it sufficing to be evidence of being "dangerous". Further, Terry requires that the subject be armed, dangerous, and engaged in some sort of criminal conduct, doesn't it? Having a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous, alone, isn't enough for an officer to lay hands on him. The citizen has to be armed, dangerous, and reasonably likely to be committing a specific, articulable crime. "Up to something" probably isn't enough, although I suppose that loitering behind the bank at 3 AM with a can of gas, some rags, and a crowbar would raise some red flags in my mind, even if it wasn't certain whether it was arson, burglary, or just someone removing nasty grease stains from his favorite crowbar.

That being said, sure, it will piss off a cop if he finds out that you lied about a gun. Of course, it pisses off the citizen when a cop takes his gun away, unloads it, puts the cartridges in a bag, runs the serial number, checks it against the list of stolen guns, and keeps it while he figures out what the Record of Sale Database really is. But apparently, not pissing each other off isn't a priority on either side.

Cops get mad when citizens fail to waive their 4th Amendment rights and allow a warrantless search. They get mad when citizens fail to waive their 5th Amendment rights and tell the cop what contraband might be in the car. Frankly, it's not the job of the citizen to bend over and grasp his ankles fast enough to please others (well, in Vegas it might be....) So it's really more the job of the cops to obey the mandates of the Constitution, less the obligation of the citizens to waive their rights.

[gnbrotz]

Also, if there's a law, mandate or specific procedure that you don't like, we're at the bottom of the totem poll , we don't get to make the rules of the game.

Did your oath of office mention anything about the laws and/or constitution of the Commonwealth, or was it just to be obedient to your superiors?

The mindset you portray may cost (probably otherwise good) officers to be injured and killed if our country continues down this path. I believe there are many who are growing increasingly tired of this attitude from agents of the government, and will not continue to simply accept it.

[Deleted]

GL...

No one is talking about being pissy or mad or bending over for anyone. And I am very well aware of the crime requirements of Terry. The question of possession of a firearm on a traffic stop should not even be coming up during your normal everyday encounter with the police.

When there is an allegation of some sort of criminal activity by the public and it is being investigated by the police I will have to disagree that lying about possessing a firearm is a good idea. Yes, concealment alone is not evidence of one being dangerous... but what I am questioning is the court's opinion of weather lying about being armed would in their eyes satisfy the dangerous prong.

[Doughdaddy]

GunLawyer….

As you correctly stated there is no provision in Title 18 prohibiting making false statements in the field to the police. However I am confident that if someone were to lie and say they were unarmed when they in fact they had a firearm on their person it could easily be articulated to meet the “dangerous” prong of Terry.

For example… the question comes up, are you armed and the answer is no. At some point during the encounter the officer can articulate the possession of a concealed firearm… say he sees a bulge…. Or the shirt rides up, exposing the firearm. We have obviously satisfied the “armed” part…. Then the articulation would begin about the lie fulfilling the “dangerous” part in the mind of a reasonable officer.

In the end, without some sort of crime all would work itself out but it would most likely lead to a tense moment and a disarmament. Your opinion?

My opinion, although you didn't direct it to me, is that this is not correct. Under that assumption, the "dangerous" part could be fulfilled by the "lie" of answering no to a question of "Do you know how fast were you driving?" or even answering 55 if you were obviously doing 80. Saying someone is "dangerous" for telling a lie is a very broad and vague statement. If any officer asked if you have an ipod on you, you say no but do, does that make you dangerous?

I don't understand why you think it is acceptable to harass a licensed gun owner who has not broken any laws but a traffic violation.

[Deleted]

I don't understand why you think it is acceptable to harass a licensed gun owner who has not broken any laws but a traffic violation.

Where are you getting this from? I have said a million and one times that firearm possession on a traffic stop should by case law be a non issue. The courts have already ruled that there should be no questioning on traffic stops outside the nature of the stop itself barring some sort of additional RS that a violation of law is occurring.

I understand fully that these problems exist on traffic stops with an uneasy frequency and it should not be happening. I am talking about if one were to find himself as the subject of a criminal investigation.