If an officer asks to see your weapon?

[unclejumbo]

Its never been an issue for me but if I was asked if I had a firearm during a traffic stop I would definately not inform him that I am. In my mind, the safest thing for myself and the officer is to not let him know Im armed until its obvious to me he may find out by accident (such as making me step out of the vehicle or searching me)
A couple of you have said it would be illegal to lie and say "NO", is there case law or statutes to back that up? Ive never heard of anyone being charged for lieing unless they are sworn.

You are correct. Lying about carrying a firearm is not an offense like giving a false name. I would caution you that a flat out lie, if discovered, will cause the officer to be a great deal more suspicious of you. That may lead to more inconvenience at the least. At worst, seeing a firearm on someone that has just told you they don't have one may result in your removal from your vehicle at gunpoint. An officer may make the assumption that you are in possession of the firearm unlawfully because you lied about it.

My recommendation is that if your firearm is well concealed and you are confident it won't be seen while retrieving your documents, I wouldn't offer my LTCF or the information that you are armed unless you feel more comfortable doing so. If the stop progresses beyond the citation/warning type where you are being asked to exit the vehicle, I would then offer the information in the manner described below.

If you are asked directly, I wouldn't lie. If you want to try to gloss over the question by asking why you were stopped, that's your call, I wouldn't. If the question is repeated, my response would be "I have a license to carry firearms and I am currently armed. The firearm is (in my waistband, in the center console, under the seat etc.) how would you like to proceed?" I would also keep my hands on the steering wheel because "watch the hands" is one of the training mantras of police everywhere. By no means do you want to reach for it or toward its location without being directed to do so.

I wouldn't use Leplat's anger with the police as your guide. Dome light on at night, roll your window down enough to make communication easy. Turn the radio off so you can hear what the officer is saying and he can hear you. You really don't want to confuse "hands on the wheel son" with "hand me the wheel gun."

During a traffic stop, if you make it sufficiently difficult by not rolling down the window, keeping the stereo up etc. you can and most likely will be ordered out of the car. You have no right to refuse the demand. I did it only a couple of times in my twenty years; to the people that did those things.

Some cops are dicks. More cops are dicks if you act like a dick.

Lastly, "am I being detained" is a stupid question during a traffic stop where you were pulled over. Yes, you are being detained or you would still be driving down the road.

[PA Traveler]

Its never been an issue for me but if I was asked if I had a firearm during a traffic stop I would definately not inform him that I am. In my mind, the safest thing for myself and the officer is to not let him know Im armed until its obvious that he may find out by accident (such as making me step out of the vehicle or searching me)

For me if not asked directly, I would not volunteer the information. If asked directly I might respond with a question. (I try think through how I would handle things, often.)

If the question is persistant, and I think avoiding it might result in being asked to exit the vehicle, I would then inform. If its potentially going to be discovered by accident I'd rather avoid the surprise.

In most traffic stops, it likely won't be asked. I been stopped maybe four or five times in my adult life, and never been asked.

[LongOneShortOne]

You have "rights" even before the LEO "reads you your rights"... they are called God-given Rights, as enumerated and guaranteed in The Constitution. That piece of parchment is a powerful tool and weapon for the common citizen, but not if you don't know it. Also, why would the driver have to exit the vehicle on a simple traffic-stop? It would have to be a Terry stop to be legal. Keep your weapon out of sight, and it will be out of the mind of the LEO. I believe it would be legal to keep my doors locked, and the windows up except to talk to the LEO, and pass papers. Any questions asked me by the LEO beyond the reason for the traffic-stop would just be a fishing expedition, and I'm are not required to cut his bait. I wouldn't get smart-#$$ at all, and if LEO does, that's when I claim "The Fifth."

[unclejumbo]

Also, why would the driver have to exit the vehicle on a simple traffic-stop? It would have to be a Terry stop to be legal.

Not that I love Wikipedia but this is the first one that popped up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] In the interest of officer safety, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer. Drivers[14] and passengers[15] may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment

[ray h]

Any questions asked me by the LEO beyond the reason for the traffic-stop would just be a fishing expedition, and I'm are not required to cut his bait.

This is my understanding. If the question is irrelevant to the investigation, Im not legally obligated to tell the truth.
Its also my understanding that once you verbally invoke the 5th, anything you say after that is inadmissible so at that point you can lie your ass off and it cant be used against you, even if it is revelant.

[IronSight]

Its also my understanding that once you verbally invoke the 5th, anything you say after that is inadmissible so at that point you can lie your ass off and it cant be used against you, even if it is revelant.

I'm not so certain about that. Expect anything you share voluntarily to stand a chance of making it in court.

[ray h]

Not that I love Wikipedia but this is the first one that popped up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] In the interest of officer safety, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer. Drivers[14] and passengers[15] may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment

Not to nit pic, but isnt that what the laws are about.
There is a difference between "armed and dangerous" and "armed or dangeerous".
In the example above the subjects must be considered armed AND dangerous.

[PA Traveler]

This is my understanding. If the question is irrelevant to the investigation, Im not legally obligated to tell the truth.
Its also my understanding that once you verbally invoke the 5th, anything you say after that is inadmissible so at that point you can lie your ass off and it cant be used against you, even if it is revelant.

Nope. You have the right to remain silent. (Not talk.) The fifth amendment gives you protection against being forced to incriminate yourself. Once you start talking (waive that right and break your silence) anything you say is fair game. At that point you've volunteered to incriminate yourself.

[Valorius]

What do you say...If an officer asks to see your weapon?

"Go buy your own pig" is not advisable.

[mosseater]

What about politely acknowledging it's an affront to your rights, but in the interest of both your safety you will divulge the info. Something like:
I know I have no legal obligation to answer the question, but in the interest of both our continued safetly during this stop, I will tell you I do have a LTCF and am currently carrying a sidearm in "X" location. How would you like to proceed?

I was under the assumption that if you did something illegal incipient to a stop, they then had a right to ask certain questions, related or not. On the other hand, if you are stopped for no apparent reason (ie, casual contact or dui checkpoint, for example), you are under no obligation to cooperate. Am I wrong that your being stopped for a violation gives them more leeway in asking questions? I know you don't have to incriminate yourself, but is asking about a legal activity really incrimination, or is it all about being none of their damn business? Not being smart, just want clarification.