PA state trooper disassenbled my gun during traffic stop

[stainless]

To answer a few questions...this absolutely DID happen to me, It was about 9:15 at night and in a previous post somebody thought it was odd for the state police to do a traffic stop and I agree, it was odd because of the line of questioning the trooper who approached me asked.

What road and or intersection did this occur at? Just curious. Thanks.

[stainless]

You need to contact your state rep too, especially if your rep is Darryl Metcalfe, he's very pro gun.

Metcalfe is in the Burgh area, not this area. I subscribe to his newsletter. Good stuff.

[Jhaydeno]

They feel the need to do so because law abiding compliant citizens sometimes become non compliant as soon as you give them their gun back and they will shoot an officer as they walk away

If that's the case, officers need to take a wheel off a car and hand you the lug nuts too; you know, "for officer safety", or something like that. I'm sure there's been an officer somewhere that was run over too...

It's disappointing that an organization that is supposed to serve the public has become one that shows such distrust for the public they serve.

[streaker69]

Metcalfe is in the Burgh area, not this area. I subscribe to his newsletter. Good stuff.

I'd still contact him, it can't hurt.

[WCMG]

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. (I don't see it that way) Clearly we can see from this post what happens when you DO inform. And we’ve seen numerous similar posts of the problems that come with informing an officer who isn’t necessarily knowledgeable on the law regarding firearms, seizures, and “registration”. But there also can be issues with NOT informing when you’re asked. If for some reason the stop should come to the point where you actually do need to inform the officer, like he asks you to exit the vehicle for some reason, now you’re in a situation where the officer is likely to blow his stack because you “lied” to him. At which point, you are probably in for a rectal examination of your life and vehicle while he tries to find some way to teach you a lesson. So I’m still wondering if there is a “magic bullet” response that allows someone not to lie, doesn’t arouse suspicion, doesn’t give the officer the impression you are being “confrontational”, and has hopefully minimal blowback if it comes to a point where someone actually does need to tell the officer they’re armed. Perhaps it’s a unicorn and just doesn’t exist, but with all the LEOs on the forum I would certainly be interested to hear what kind of responses they think might fit the bill. Obviously, the real problem is that some LEOs take a citizen’s asserting their constitutional rights as either evasiveness, some sort of evidence of wrongdoing, or that they’re a troublemaker, and that if you don’t “have anything to hide” then you should simply do whatever it is the officer wants you to do. Fixing that mindset should be the solution, but until that happens(soon right?) we still need to figure out a way to successfully navigate traffic stops. I think the closest I have heard to that kind of response is, before answering any questions, if the officer doesn’t expressly tell you the nature of the stop, ask what it is in order to set the scope of the investigation, and then politely tell the officer you will not be answering any questions outside of the scope of the investigation. At least then they cannot pinpoint a particular question that they feel someone doesn’t want to answer. Hopefully one of these days we will come up with that “magic bullet” response, or that officers will stop viewing citizens exercising their rights as impertinence, but until then I’m glad we keep having these conversations because it helps to work towards at least one of those goals.

It's pretty simple and numerous comments have been made, but not informing is not lying. It's an LEO's job to catch bad guys and once you start answering questions like "Have you stopped anywhere else tonight" or such nonsense, you are opening yourself up. Have your license, registration, and insurance ready when they walk up to your car, politely say "I will be more then happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present" and stick with the plan... sure, your stop will be longer then the normal stop (I have had several stops last 45+ minutes), but at the end, I always drive away safely with my rights still intact. Don't be confrontational, don't be rude or mouthy, keep both hands on the steering wheel and simply answer EVERY question they asked with "I will be more then happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present" or "No" when he asked if they can search anything. Of course they will always say, "I'll just get a warrent" and my reply is always "Good luck with that".

Let's practice:

LEO: Do you have any illegal items in your car?"

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: Can I search your car?

DRIVER: No

LEO: Where are you heading:

DRIVER: I will be more then happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: I see you have a license to carry.. do you have a weapon in your car?

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: If you don't start answering my questions, you are going to jail?

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: What are you doing in this neighborhood (actually been asked this)

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: You are being very defensive, what are you trying to hide

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: You are not under arrest, but you will be if you don't answer my questions: (I been told this too)

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present



Remembering, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good man should do nothing.

[Berncly]

So I called the PSP internal affairs division left a message got a return call explain to the Corporal who called me from internal affairs what happened he wouldn't offer me an opinion on whether it was routine training for state troopers to do what these guys did or not but he did say he needed it in writing and he's going to mail me a form that I can fill out and send back and then the complaint will be reviewed and I should be contacted.

I agree with what was mentioned before, that if you want to pursue this in a serious manner then it must be in writing.
Personally, if it was me and I wanted to follow this up, I would not approach it alone.

I would talk to an attorney that specializes in gun rights, and I would draft a letter for the attorney to rewrite on his own letterhead.
This would provide me some protection, it would make the department take it seriously, and it would make any officer think twice about retaliation if that is a concern.
I tend to side with officers in many somewhat questionable situations, but this incident seems excessive and deserving of a response.
My end goal would not be directed at a particular officer, but rather to encourage a departmental wide or statewide protocol regarding this issue in the future.

Accomplishing this goal would require that it goes above me or the officer involved.
A gun rights attorney that shared my concerns and goals may be willing to share his letterhead free of charge in order to effect positive change statewide.
This effort would probably require all correspondence to be forwarded to politicians that would be sympathetic to causing a statewide policy change.
Having a gun rights attorney correspond with the politicians would also help the matter to be taken seriously.

[PhillySoldier]

Someone touched on this earlier in the thread and I dont know if this is still a problem but I remember years ago it definitely was; where the police would take your gun and if it wasnt in there sales registry then you didnt get your property back until you showed paperwork that you owned the gun.

Does anyone know the legality of declining them taking your gun? I dont think they should be asking for it in the first place but I thought it wasnt really a choice if they did actually do so. A long long time ago I did have something similar where the cop took my gun and he had already left before I realized this but when he gave my gun back (bullets separate and loose in a bag) I found afterwards he kept a lot of the bullets. I had a mix of different type and apparently he gave back only the hollow point bullets. Just to add all that I had were legal

[Berncly]

Someone touched on this earlier in the thread and I dont know if this is still a problem but I remember years ago it definitely was; where the police would take your gun and if it wasnt in there sales registry then you didnt get your property back until you showed paperwork that you owned the gun.

NYC was/is doing this to LEOs carrying under LEOSA to discourage them from carrying there.
Sheepdog advocates that LEOs carry a copy of their gun ownership paperwork in their wallet to defend against this harassment in NYC.

[danhr]

It's pretty simple and numerous comments have been made, but not informing is not lying. It's an LEO's job to catch bad guys and once you start answering questions like "Have you stopped anywhere else tonight" or such nonsense, you are opening yourself up. Have your license, registration, and insurance ready when they walk up to your car, politely say "I will be more then happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present" and stick with the plan... sure, your stop will be longer then the normal stop (I have had several stops last 45+ minutes), but at the end, I always drive away safely with my rights still intact. Don't be confrontational, don't be rude or mouthy, keep both hands on the steering wheel and simply answer EVERY question they asked with "I will be more then happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present" or "No" when he asked if they can search anything. Of course they will always say, "I'll just get a warrent" and my reply is always "Good luck with that".

Let's practice:

LEO: Do you have any illegal items in your car?"

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: Can I search your car?

DRIVER: No

LEO: Where are you heading:

DRIVER: I will be more then happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: I see you have a license to carry.. do you have a weapon in your car?

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: If you don't start answering my questions, you are going to jail?

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: What are you doing in this neighborhood (actually been asked this)

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: You are being very defensive, what are you trying to hide

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present

LEO: You are not under arrest, but you will be if you don't answer my questions: (I been told this too)

DRIVER: I will be more than happy to answer your questions once my attorney is present



Remembering, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good man should do nothing.

I would reply to your post, when my attorney is present

[theshadow]

I agree with what was mentioned before, that if you want to pursue this in a serious manner then it must be in writing.
Personally, if it was me and I wanted to follow this up, I would not approach it alone.

I would talk to an attorney that specializes in gun rights, and I would draft a letter for the attorney to rewrite on his own letterhead.
This would provide me some protection, it would make the department take it seriously, and it would make any officer think twice about retaliation if that is a concern.
I tend to side with officers in many somewhat questionable situations, but this incident seems excessive and deserving of a response.
My end goal would not be directed at a particular officer, but rather to encourage a departmental wide or statewide protocol regarding this issue in the future.

Accomplishing this goal would require that it goes above me or the officer involved.
A gun rights attorney that shared my concerns and goals may be willing to share his letterhead free of charge in order to effect positive change statewide.
This effort would probably require all correspondence to be forwarded to politicians that would be sympathetic to causing a statewide policy change.
Having a gun rights attorney correspond with the politicians would also help the matter to be taken seriously.

one other thing I would recommend, take a lesson from the prosecutor's handbook, and include things that are marginal but also reasonable, such as "Attempted suppression of rights under color of law. By harassing lawful carriers the individual is discouraging the exercise of the right to bear arms, and violating the PA Constitution as well."