"Do you have any *OTHER* weapons in the vehicle...?"

[adymond]

That's great in theory, but I'm assuming that LEOs will usually ask "the question" as soon as they get to you. You're obviously not "free to go" at that point, because you're still being detained in connection with the traffic stop.

What then? Do you think most LEOs are simply going to move on to the next question if you refuse to answer or you give a cute answer like "I don't have any illegal weapons"?

It may be within your rights not to answer, but the issue here is how best to minimize the violation of your rights by further action (getting you out of the car, patting you down, taking your gun, running the serial number, etc.)

Perhaps another good answer to deflect the inquiry (assuming you look the part) would be: "Do I look like someone who would carry a weapon in my car?" Not only may that wrongly be interpreted by the cop as a "no" so he moves on to what's relevant, it is basically also another way of saying "do you have a reasonable suspicion that I'm armed"?

The best way to minimize the infringement of your rights is to not sanction them in the first place. It's not a "cute" answer to tell an LEO you are not in possession of anything illegal. It is a truthful answer to a shitty question designed to put you between a rock and a hard place.

I am sure it will happen where I am pulled over and an LEO will see my Gadsden sticker, then come to the driver's window and see my Gadsden hat I wear often and I will be asked about weapons in my vehicle. It is bound to happen. I know I will not sanction in illegal investigation. I will verbally resist, I will not give any verbal indications that the office might use to further detain me. I will ask for the citation so that I may be on my way. One thing I will NOT do is provide the officer with any sort of consent from the beginning. I will not answer his fishing question with anything but the truth, but it will not be an answer he will want to hear.

[zackattack784]

It may be within your rights not to answer, but the issue here is how best to minimize the violation of your rights by further action (getting you out of the car, patting you down, taking your gun, running the serial number, etc.)

What a sad world we live in if we have to give up some of our rights because our LEO's show such blatant disregard for the law...

[rikilii]

To easy for the cop to throw right back at you with something like " As a matter of fact..............." or even a more true statement based on experience " I've found all kinds of people carrying weapons in my career"

Looking clean cut and law abiding in appearance may carry subtle visual que's that subconsciously lowers someone's guard. Asking a question based on appearance is nearly sure to result in a retort to deflect it right back. The 9-11 Hijackers didnt board the planes dressed in Arab Robes , they dressed as prototypical young professionals. Khaki's , button down shirts, etc. So what does someone that would carry a weapon look like ?

Sure, but my thought was that the officer may take that question as a "no" and move on, and even if he doesn't, it forces him to articulate a basis. If he has a reasonable basis for suspecting that you have a weapon, he can frisk you and disarm you while your are being detained. But if he can't articulate a basis other than "well, anyone could be armed", then he can't legally do so. He could make you get out of the car, however, and if he sees your weapon, then once again, he can disarm you "for his safety".

The best way to minimize the infringement of your rights is to not sanction them in the first place. It's not a "cute" answer to tell an LEO you are not in possession of anything illegal. It is a truthful answer to a shitty question designed to put you between a rock and a hard place.

I am sure it will happen where I am pulled over and an LEO will see my Gadsden sticker, then come to the driver's window and see my Gadsden hat I wear often and I will be asked about weapons in my vehicle. It is bound to happen. I know I will not sanction in illegal investigation. I will verbally resist, I will not give any verbal indications that the office might use to further detain me. I will ask for the citation so that I may be on my way. One thing I will NOT do is provide the officer with any sort of consent from the beginning. I will not answer his fishing question with anything but the truth, but it will not be an answer he will want to hear.

I should have put the word "cute" in quotes because I meant to convey the idea that the response will most likely be viewed by the cop as "cute", and that he will react accordingly, not that the response is actually cute.

Again, the issue here is how do you deflect the question without actually answering it while at the same time minimizing the chance that the officer will dwell on it issue and further inconvenience you and/or literally harm you. It's great to stand up for your rights come hell or high water, but for some of us that's not really an option. I personally can't afford to get tagged with a DC citation, I have neither the time nor the resources to vindicate myself by suing the municipality if my rights are violated, nor can I really afford the publicity of such a conflict. So I'll just have to get by the best that I can.

[son of the revolution]

It's great to stand up for your rights come hell or high water, but for some of us that's not really an option. I personally can't afford to get tagged with a DC citation, I have neither the time nor the resources to vindicate myself by suing the municipality if my rights are violated, nor can I really afford the publicity of such a conflict. So I'll just have to get by the best that I can.

And of course this is a situation which only each individual person can decide, as you apparently have, which is fine and of course your right to do so. It appears from your statement that you are willing to tolerate a small violation of your rights for the sake of convienence. Most people dont have the resources to fight a prolonged legal battle. But what you should understand by now, is that if your in the right, and your cause is righteous, you would almost certainly receive significant support including fund raising for legal fee's , as several other members here have. And its the " small violations " of civil rights without consequence that only serve to re enforce to the bad cops out there that they can operate with impugnity.

Its no different then back on the school playground. A bully is a bully. And the bully didnt leave you alone because you gave into his demands , he increased his demands with each encounter and was emboldened until he choose to pick on someone that stood their ground and gave him a good smack down ( speaking figuratively in the case of LEO's of course)

[rikilii]

And of course this is a situation which only each individual person can decide, as you apparently have, which is fine and of course your right to do so. It appears from your statement that you are willing to tolerate a small violation of your rights for the sake of convienence. Most people dont have the resources to fight a prolonged legal battle. But what you should understand by now, is that if your in the right, and your cause is righteous, you would almost certainly receive significant support including fund raising for legal fee's , as several other members here have. And its the " small violations " of civil rights without consequence that only serve to re enforce to the bad cops out there that they can operate with impugnity.

Its no different then back on the school playground. A bully is a bully. And the bully didnt leave you alone because you gave into his demands , he increased his demands with each encounter and was emboldened until he choose to pick on someone that stood their ground and gave him a good smack down ( speaking figuratively in the case of LEO's of course)

I think my statement is more that I may be willing to tolerate a very small violation of my rights (e.g. answering a question I'm not legally required to answer) if I think it increases my chances of avoiding an even larger violation of my rights (e.g. being physically searched, disarmed, and/or physically abused).

By itself, I have nothing against informing an LEO that I am armed. The only reason I would not want to answer that question is that I know it is often likely to lead to further disruption of my day and, frankly, compromise to my safety.

We all have to tolerate small violations to our "rights" all the time. I consider it a violation of my rights that I have to pay up to 12% of my income to fund the retirement of someone else's grandmother. I consider it a violation of my rights that I have to pay thousands of dollars per year to fund 13 years of education for other people's kids, even if those kids get Ds and Fs and end up shoveling shit for a living or worse, end up in prison. I comply with these violations because I know that non-compliance will almost certainly result in an even greater violation of my rights for which I will have no recourse.

Again, my question relates to how best to avoid or minimize the violation in the first place, and how best to set the stage for a claim if you can't avoid it. Being combative (refusing outright to answer the question) probably rarely the best way to do this. I think you're most likely to minimize the violation and risk if you either outsmart the cop, or cooperate a little.

[PennsyPlinker]

Again, the issue here is how do you deflect the question without actually answering it while at the same time minimizing the chance that the officer will dwell on it issue and further inconvenience you and/or literally harm you. It's great to stand up for your rights come hell or high water, but for some of us that's not really an option. I personally can't afford to get tagged with a DC citation, I have neither the time nor the resources to vindicate myself by suing the municipality if my rights are violated, nor can I really afford the publicity of such a conflict. So I'll just have to get by the best that I can.

You've been given some good answers, but you don't seem to be satisfied with them. The quote above says a lot to me about that. It looks to me like you still have several choices though.

1. Stop driving in a way that causes you to be pulled over frequently. I have a total of two moving violations in 35 years of driving. There are those who will testify that I don't drive like a little old lady either, but I have the sense to drive well and avoid things that cause police to pull me over.

2. Stop carrying so you don't have to worry about being searched or inconvenienced for carrying. If the answers you have gotten so far aren't good enough, there isn't really anything more for you. Leave your gun at home so you aren't inconvenienced by its presence.

3. Just roll over and let the nice policeman do whatever he wants to you so it is over quickly. Maybe he'll kiss you before you leave.

If it is going to be too much trouble for you to stand up for your rights, it is best not to exercise them. It is the height of gall to expect others to come up with ways for you to "safely" exercise them so nobody bothers you for it. Maybe you could PM Madam Raven, Mtn Jack, gnbrotz, or Pa Patriot to get a succinct view of what they think about your concerns.

[Pa. Patriot]

Why would anyone even answer this question? Am I free to go officer? That's all I would say. Why would anyone even consider giving in to their fishing expedition is beyond me.

ETA:

The answer is NO NO NO NO NO. You don't have to say a single word, not one.

Ding!

He can ask me what I had for breakfast if he wants, I won't answer that Q, or any others, without an attorney present.


LEO: Do you have any weapons in the car?
Me: Excuse me officer? What did you say the purpose of this stop was again?


Wash, rinse, repeat. Substitute "am I free to go?" occationally to mix things up a bit.

[rikilii]

You've been given some good answers, but you don't seem to be satisfied with them. The quote above says a lot to me about that. It looks to me like you still have several choices though.

1. Stop driving in a way that causes you to be pulled over frequently. I have a total of two moving violations in 35 years of driving. There are those who will testify that I don't drive like a little old lady either, but I have the sense to drive well and avoid things that cause police to pull me over.

2. Stop carrying so you don't have to worry about being searched or inconvenienced for carrying. If the answers you have gotten so far aren't good enough, there isn't really anything more for you. Leave your gun at home so you aren't inconvenienced by its presence.

3. Just roll over and let the nice policeman do whatever he wants to you so it is over quickly. Maybe he'll kiss you before you leave.

If it is going to be too much trouble for you to stand up for your rights, it is best not to exercise them. It is the height of gall to expect others to come up with ways for you to "safely" exercise them so nobody bothers you for it. Maybe you could PM Madam Raven, Mtn Jack, gnbrotz, or Pa Patriot to get a succinct view of what they think about your concerns.

Yes, I've gotten several "good answers" but only one or two of them actually address the original question. So no, I'm not satisfied. Maybe that's all I'll get, maybe not. I'm fully aware that you and many others on this board think that there is only one right way to deal with this situation. I don't agree. I started this thread to discuss an alternative approach, not to discuss what has been discussed ad nauseum before. There's no "gall" involved, it's just a discussion, and people who are firmly glued to the saddles of their high horses don't need to participate in the discussion if it offends them so much.

Did I say that I get pulled over often? Why does that even matter? Do any of us get mugged or attacked often? No. Yet we still carry, we still spend thousands of dollars practicing for that one event that most likely will never happen, and we still spend hundreds of hours on this forum discussing it.

[rikilii]

Ding!

He can ask me what I had for breakfast if he wants, I won't answer that Q, or any others, without an attorney present.

You are no more required to answer that question with an attorney present than you are to answer it without one present.

LEO: Do you have any weapons in the car?
Me: Excuse me officer? What did you say the purpose of this stop was again?


Wash, rinse, repeat. Substitute "am I free to go?" occationally to mix things up a bit.

In reality, how do you think most cops will react to this kind of response? Again, I know that's perfectly within my right, and if I'm not late for a meeting, and feeling masochistic, I might just do that if it ever comes up. But I'm just interested in what some people think of other ways of potentially handling it.

One way or another, many cops who ask you this question are going to violate your rights, whether it's simply asking you the question, or going ballistic when you refuse to answer it.

[PennsyPlinker]

Did I say that I get pulled over often? Why does that even matter?

Well gee riki, I was just going by your own report. Maybe I misunderstood?

I've been pulled over many times, but never asked to get out.

How 'bout I make my one dimensional thinking as simple as I can for you? I have had numerous encounters with police officers. Some have been coincidental while open carrying, like the time I found myself standing next to a PSP officer in my local gun shop. Then there was the time - two times actually, when I sat next to a PSP SWAT team in the Starlite Diner and ate my breakfast.

Some have been because of a MWAG call, where I have been approached by police officers.

Then there have been a couple of accidents where the other person hit me (remember, no moving violations to me except two speeding tickets in 35 years), and a couple of fishing expedition DUI checkpoints.

This list is not exhaustive, but rather examples of various situations in which I have found myself. While most have been in PA, police were called in FL when a lady backed into my truck. I was CC there, as that was the law. But in all instances except one, I have never been asked about weapons. Sometimes they already knew - after all, they could see my gun in plain sight. In those other cases, I did not divulge any information that would even hint at a gun. Maybe they just assume a guy my size doesn't need one. Lots of people seem to think that.

In one case, I was at the local PSP cop shop to get my fingerprints for some special paperwork. After being relieved of my gun and my knife, the officer asked me if I had any other weapons with which I could hurt him.

"Only my hands, officer, but I'm not planning on using them for that today."



But while I have never encountered the question, I have planned for it. You have to know what you are going to do before it happens. You will not have time to think it through, weigh the issues, and make a decision. I will at least give you credit for attempting that with your thread here. But when you write that it is too much of an inconvenience to stand up for your rights, I have to wonder why you even bother. If you are that worried about being jacked up by a cop for simply carrying, how do you think you are going to act if you are faced with the possibility of pulling the trigger on another human being? Hmmmmm??? It's not easy you know. There is a built in inhibitor in most human beings. Actually, it is built into all human beings, but some have it burned out of them during the developmental process. Most of us never have to test it. But you are already running behind the curve if you are worried about standing up for your rights, and are willing to state that it is too much bother for you. That is really all the farther I had to read. Too bad you didn't put that in the beginning of the thread.