PA state trooper disassenbled my gun during traffic stop

[staylo]

Absent other circumstances, sure, some cops will over reach. But there is a huge difference in pucker factor between sitting in the car knowing you have a firearm and not saying and standing at that same window not knowing the occupants intentions or motives. I have first hand experience of both positions, do you ?

I would inform all day long if I KNEW that it wouldn't turn into a soup sandwich once I did, with me standing on the side of the road with the officer disarming me, running my firearm for 'registration', and/or disassembling it, all with a possible side-dish of confiscation should the non-existant 'registry' not return a result because the firearm was purchased out-of-state, or was a gift, or was an inheritance, etc., etc. In other words, if every officer knew the laws/constitional rights, and played by the laws/constitional rights, and didn't violate the laws/constitional rights because of fear, or ignorance, then I would bet more law-abiding citizens would be forthcoming about being armed. But when citizens do their part and inform for 'officer safety' and get jacked up by having their gun confiscated, disassembled, or are treated like a possible criminal, it shouldn't be a surprise when citizens start protecting themselves by keeping that information confidential. I guess what I'm saying is, if officers would like to be told every time someone is legally armed, then they should stop engaging in behavior that makes citizens regret doing it, or think "well, I'll never inform if that's what happens when you do!". And it doesn't matter if only a tiny minority of officers do it. It poisons many more encounters because, just like some officers who don't know who is a criminal and who is a law abiding citizen so they treat every citizen like a possible criminal, the citizen doesn't know who is a well-informed officer who will not violate their rights, and who is a power-tripping ignoramus who thinks that his badge gives him the AUTORITAH to demand the citizen do whatever he says, so they assume that every officers is a possible JBT and withhold that they are armed. I feel bad for you guys, and by you guys I mean officers who are civil servants who follow the laws/constitional rights, as opposed to JBTs, because they JBTs definitely make your jobs harder to do, but it's not coming out of a vacuum. Social Media has allowed citizens to reveal to the world what bad cops do, and more people are becoming suspicious of officers. It's an in-house problem that needs to be solved in-house, and then it's going to take some PR work to overcome.

[The Lieutenant]

Reasonable suspicion of what? Doesn’t Terry require reasonable suspicion of a SPECIFIC crime having been, or being committed, and not just some unknown SOMETHING? If you have no reasonable suspicion of an actual and specific crime having been, or being committed before you find out the driver was not forthcoming regarding a concealed firearm(Assuming they have a valid LTCF), and if not being forthcoming about the firearm is not itself a crime, how does finding out about the firearm give you any new knowledge about an actual and specific crime? That sounds more like “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!” That sounds more like, “I’ve taken it personally that you had the temerity to be untruthful when I asked you a question, so now I’m going to (to use your words) bend you over in anally rape you(metaphorically speaking), while I take your car and life apart until I can find something.”

The traffic stop.... be it a stop sign or speeding violation is the "crime". It doesn't matter what it is other than the officer has a LEGAL justification for detaining you. And here is the whole crux of what I'm getting at... Having a firearm in your possession is only one prong of Terry. 1) ARMED. Just because you are armed does not in of itself mean you are dangerous. Now, there are some courts that have ruled that mere possession of a firearm meets the second criteria but I'm not arguing that.

Once the issue comes up that you lied to the officer about possessing a firearm...however that is. You have now satisfied the second prong of Terry, that you are 2) DANGEROUS. And the officer is not going to have much of a hard time articulating such. Once that happens, additional liberties will be taken away from you for an additional short period of time.

This has nothing to do with “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!”, it has everything to do with deciding to lie to someone and their being consequences to doing so. In this case it's lying about possessing a firearm, getting caught, and then the reasonable response to such... reasonable being the key word.

[The Lieutenant]

I would inform all day long if I KNEW that it wouldn't turn into a soup sandwich once I did, with me standing on the side of the road with the officer disarming me, running my firearm for 'registration', and/or disassembling it, all with a possible side-dish of confiscation should the non-existant 'registry' not return a result because the firearm was purchased out-of-state, or was a gift, or was an inheritance, etc., etc. In other words, if every officer knew the laws/constitional rights, and played by the laws/constitional rights, and didn't violate the laws/constitional rights because of fear, or ignorance, then I would bet more law-abiding citizens would be forthcoming about being armed. But when citizens do their part and inform for 'officer safety' and get jacked up by having their gun confiscated, disassembled, or are treated like a possible criminal, it shouldn't be a surprise when citizens start protecting themselves by keeping that information confidential. I guess what I'm saying is, if officers would like to be told every time someone is legally armed, then they should stop engaging in behavior that makes citizens regret doing it, or think "well, I'll never inform if that's what happens when you do!". And it doesn't matter if only a tiny minority of officers do it. It poisons many more encounters because, just like some officers who don't know who is a criminal and who is a law abiding citizen so they treat every citizen like a possible criminal, the citizen doesn't know who is a well-informed officer who will not violate their rights, and who is a power-tripping ignoramus who thinks that his badge gives him the AUTORITAH to demand the citizen do whatever he says, so they assume that every officers is a possible JBT and withhold that they are armed. I feel bad for you guys, and by you guys I mean officers who are civil servants who follow the laws/constitional rights, as opposed to JBTs, because they JBTs definitely make your jobs harder to do, but it's not coming out of a vacuum. Social Media has allowed citizens to reveal to the world what bad cops do, and more people are becoming suspicious of officers. It's an in-house problem that needs to be solved in-house, and then it's going to take some PR work to overcome.

It's an in-house problem... sure is. But understand that there are a shit-ton of houses and Me, Carson, and whoever else can't clean up anyone's house but our own. It's no different than any other issue... racism for example. Can I solve racism in your house and save your children from becoming racists just like their dad? Not a chance!

[marinville]

The traffic stop.... be it a stop sign or speeding violation is the "crime". It doesn't matter what it is other than the officer has a LEGAL justification for detaining you. And here is the whole crux of what I'm getting at... Having a firearm in your possession is only one prong of Terry. 1) ARMED. Just because you are armed does not in of itself mean you are dangerous. Now, there are some courts that have ruled that mere possession of a firearm meets the second criteria but I'm not arguing that.

Once the issue comes up that you lied to the officer about possessing a firearm...however that is. You have now satisfied the second prong of Terry, that you are 2) DANGEROUS. And the officer is not going to have much of a hard time articulating such. Once that happens, additional liberties will be taken away from you for an additional short period of time.

This has nothing to do with “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!”, it has everything to do with deciding to lie to someone and their being consequences to doing so. In this case it's lying about possessing a firearm, getting caught, and then the reasonable response to such... reasonable being the key word.

How about the fact that no one is obligated to justify or announce their possession of a firearm or any other legally owned possessions during a freaking traffic stop. What does being armed for self defense have to do with whatever reason the driver was pulled over?

Personally, Im not playing your game, and I will tell you as much if I encounter you. If you think that justifies you "bending me over" well, I disagree, strongly enough that my lawyer will be arguing the point to a judge if it comes to that.

[The Lieutenant]

How about the fact that no one is obligated to justify or announce their possession of a firearm or any other legally owned possessions during a freaking traffic stop. What does being armed for self defense have to do with whatever reason the driver was pulled over?

Personally, Im not playing your game, and I will tell you as much if I encounter you. If you think that justifies you "bending me over" well, I disagree, strongly enough that my lawyer will be arguing the point to a judge if it comes to that.

Not a damn thing.... and it doesn't have to. For years I have warned (and will continue to do so) everytime someone advocates lying to the police about possessing a firearm that it can lead you down a dark path if it's discovered that you are lying about it. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. It's not illegal to do, it will just be an unpleasant experience and there will most likely be no recourse. There is no game being played here.

[Parrisk]

Here is a real question.. GUNLAWER please help.. and I believe this has been covered but never really answered.

PA Has no law that requires you INFORM upon being stopped. Ohio says upon first contact you MUST INFORM.. even before they ask

HOWEVER.. once the officer asks "DO YOU HAVE ANY WEAPONS IN THE VEHICLE OR ON YOUR PERSON?" What is the legality if you lie????

[DK23]

Not a damn thing.... and it doesn't have to. For years I have warned (and will continue to do so) everytime someone advocates lying to the police about possessing a firearm that it can lead you down a dark path if it's discovered that you are lying about it. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. It's not illegal to do, it will just be an unpleasant experience and there will most likely be no recourse. There is no game being played here.

Just for my personal clarification, when you say "lying to police" do you mean not informing them or telling them no if asked?

[streaker69]

Just remember boys and girls, if you lie to a cop, that's a sign of disrespect, but if a cop lies to you, that's just doing their duty.

[marinville]

Not a damn thing.... and it doesn't have to. For years I have warned (and will continue to do so) everytime someone advocates lying to the police about possessing a firearm that it can lead you down a dark path if it's discovered that you are lying about it. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. It's not illegal to do, it will just be an unpleasant experience and there will most likely be no recourse. There is no game being played here.

The game being played is often called fishing, such as even asking about firearms or where I'm coming from or where I'm headed, none of which is relevant or any of your business. You pulled the driver over for a moving violation, not a suspected felony. Ask for the necessary documents, write the ticket, then piss off. Anything other than this, for me personally, is going to result in non-compliance.

[The Lieutenant]

Just for my personal clarification, when you say "lying to police" do you mean not informing them or telling them no if asked?

Telling no if asked and you in fact have one.