thoughts on being disarmed

[flechero]

In an effort not to hijack another thread, I figured I better start a new one.

Sadly, I actually feel fortunate that I was not disarmed on either of my stops since getting my chl (almost 8yrs ago) Let me first say that- if I act in a way to make a LEO so uncomfortable that you question your safety then I expect to be cuffed and stuffed... if not, I expect to be left "as is." After all, the garden variety 72 in a 65 speeding stop is not a violent assault.

So when the LEO disarms you, does he/she frisk you for a 2nd weapon? Because if there really was any "need to disarm" for officer safety, then it would absolutely warrant the search and frisk for a BUG or knife, because there would be probable danger. (and certainly a need to not trust your answers) Do they search the car for additional weapons, if they allow you to stay with it while running your info? And if that's actually needed, they should cuff you as well. If they take your word for it that you have only one weapon, then they are assuming you told the truth and are comfortable with that and you- Which means the whole disarming not at all "legit."

It seems like in most reports of being disarmed, the chl is "trusted" and the LEO just takes the volunteered weapon away out of habit. That practice is more dangerous, IMO, than just leaving the weapon holstered on the seated driver.

Am I off base?

[WildBill]

I know that I have no criminal intent. The LEO does not. As long as I get my handgun back in the same condition, I wouldn't get overly upset.

[Longshot38]

This is a multi-sided coin. From the officers view point if he feels the need to take you weapon from you during a traffic stop for his safty then I must question his professionalism. Those of us that have taken the time to obtain a CHL (which translates to we have a clean record as well) pose little to no danger to that officer, and they know this. At the same time civil servants, while they work in inherently dangerous profession, deserve to feel same while on the job. Now another side of this coin. Personally I do not consent to any search w/o a warrant. But I'll be more then happy to wait on a warrant if the officer is so inclined to obtain one. Thus if you offer up your weapon to the officers possession in order to secure it then you have provided an opportunity for the serial number on your firearm to be run. And while this shouldn't be a problem in most cases I know of more then one incident where a stolen firearm found it's way into unknowing hands. And with this bit of information then the officer all of a sudden has MUCH more leeway with you and your property during the stop. And as a final thought on this. Coming from some who has spent their entire career in civil service I will say this. If an officer decides that I am a legitimate threat to himself or others then I would rather have him/her do what is legally is right and detain me in cuffs until he feels comfortable with the situation then show is level of discomfort by acting inappropriately. But if I don't give the officer a reason to feel uncomfortable then a professional should have no reason to detain me.

[WildBill]

This is a multi-sided coin. From the officers view point if he feels the need to take you weapon from you during a traffic stop for his safty then I must question his professionalism. Those of us that have taken the time to obtain a CHL (which translates to we have a clean record as well) pose little to no danger to that officer, and they know this. At the same time civil servants, while they work in inherently dangerous profession, deserve to feel same while on the job. Now another side of this coin. Personally I do not consent to any search w/o a warrant. But I'll be more then happy to wait on a warrant if the officer is so inclined to obtain one. Thus if you offer up your weapon to the officers possession in order to secure it then you have provided an opportunity for the serial number on your firearm to be run. And while this shouldn't be a problem in most cases I know of more then one incident where a stolen firearm found it's way into unknowing hands. And with this bit of information then the officer all of a sudden has MUCH more leeway with you and your property during the stop. And as a final thought on this. Coming from some who has spent their entire career in civil service I will say this. If an officer decides that I am a legitimate threat to himself or others then I would rather have him/her do what is legally is right and detain me in cuffs until he feels comfortable with the situation then show is level of discomfort by acting inappropriately. But if I don't give the officer a reason to feel uncomfortable then a professional should have no reason to detain me.

Let me get this straight. You don't want to be disarmed, but if you offer up your weapon they can run the serial number, but you won't consent to a search, and would rather be in handcuffs that sitting in your car sans handgun. Does that sum it up?

[gringo pistolero]

So when the LEO disarms you, does he/she frisk you for a 2nd weapon? Because if there really was any "need to disarm" for officer safety, then it would absolutely warrant the search and frisk for a BUG or knife, because there would be probable danger.

No. It's either a useless feel good measure or it's an excuse to harass the good guys. Like 90% of the TSA rules and procedures.

In my case, if I wanted to hurt the officer, the best opportunity was while he disarmed me solo at the side of the road. I was in better shape than him and I studied BJJ so making physical contact with me was much more dangerous than allowing me to keep the gun. If I was a bad guy, it would be a major tactical mistake on his part. As a good guy, it didn't accomplish anything except destroy my respect for him and his department.

Even worse, after he disarmed me, he had me stand next to the unlocked tailgate of my SUV. Then he turned his back to walk to his car to play with his computer. There was a loaded AR15 just inside the tailgate. Those rounds would have penetrated soft body armor even better than my pistol's ammo.

It's not about safety. Harassment maybe, but not safety.

[TexasGal]

I have decided to just not let this bother me overmuch. If it makes the officer feel safer, fine. If he/she thinks it is what they are supposed to do, then I am dealing with someone who has had poor training or works for a department that isn't comfortable with CHL. I figure if I maintain my cool, I have a better chance of them maintaining theirs. Maybe the next chl holder will be trusted just a little more. As for running the serial number. I hope people are not carrying guns around they don't know for a fact are clean. That is sort of a no-brainer. Maybe cousin Vinny isn't the right guy to get your EDC from

[G.A. Heath]

I see both sides of the issue
Here's my take on things against being disarmed:
1. Modern Handguns are most safely handled when left in their holsters unhandled, in that state the odds of a negligent discharge are so remote that it is for all intents and purposes impossible.
2. Many officers are not familiar with any firearm other than what they qualified with or are issued (sometimes that knowledge is questionable, see story below).
3. Officers are not immune to NDs.
4: Unfortunately "Bad People" and idiots occasionally become police officers.

My take on why officers can disarm CHLs:
1: It's not just traffic stops where this applies, CHLs are people and people can need a cooling down period.
2: It provides the officer with some mental comfort to disarm someone they feel uncertain about, if they don't secure the other party it is a favor to them.
3: An officers job is dynamic, they makes dynamic judgement calls (This CHL seems like an OK guy, but something doesn't seem right so I'll disarm him).
4: Unfortunately "Bad People" and idiots occasionally get CHLs.

In the end it's a judgement call on the officers part where they decide if they should disarm someone and if that is enough or if they should further restrain them.

The Story I referenced above:
I was sharing the range one day with a newly minted officer, just out of the academy, who wanted to get some practice in. Unfortunately he went and purchased ammo and didn't realize that handguns used specific cartridges. I happened to have a handgun of similar design (A Sig Sauer) to what he was issued (Also a Sig), in the caliber he bought ammo for, so I invited him to borrow it. His handling of the the firearm was extremely safe and he was accurate to a level that truly impressed me, But I noticed something odd, he would hit the decocker after chambering a round or when comming off of target. When he brought the weapon onto target he would use his left thumb to cock the hammer back for single action operation. After seeing this about ten times I asked him "Why do you keep cocking the hammer when you are on target?" His response was "Because I put the safety on." I explained that what he thought was a safety is actually a decocker and that the weapon would function in double action mode when the hammer was down. After I explained this he tells me "I wondered how our instructor was able to do that!" At that point he spent the rest of his time practicing the double pull of the gun. Firearms training is a very small part of the overall training an officer recieves and while it may seem unlikely there are officers who have never handled or fired a firearm other than what they are trained on and are issued.

[Lambda Force]

I know that I have no criminal intent. The LEO does not.

I don't know the guy dressed like a LEO has no criminal intent. Maybe we should swap guns to be fair.

[kjolly]

I liked theTexasGal answer. +1

[The Annoyed Man]

I liked theTexasGal answer. +1

I see both sides of the issue
Here's my take on things against being disarmed:
1. Modern Handguns are most safely handled when left in their holsters unhandled, in that state the odds of a negligent discharge are so remote that it is for all intents and purposes impossible.
2. Many officers are not familiar with any firearm other than what they qualified with or are issued (sometimes that knowledge is questionable, see story below).
3. Officers are not immune to NDs.
4: Unfortunately "Bad People" and idiots occasionally become police officers.

My take on why officers can disarm CHLs:
1: It's not just traffic stops where this applies, CHLs are people and people can need a cooling down period.
2: It provides the officer with some mental comfort to disarm someone they feel uncertain about, if they don't secure the other party it is a favor to them.
3: An officers job is dynamic, they makes dynamic judgement calls (This CHL seems like an OK guy, but something doesn't seem right so I'll disarm him).
4: Unfortunately "Bad People" and idiots occasionally get CHLs.

In the end it's a judgement call on the officers part where they decide if they should disarm someone and if that is enough or if they should further restrain them.

The Story I referenced above:
I was sharing the range one day with a newly minted officer, just out of the academy, who wanted to get some practice in. Unfortunately he went and purchased ammo and didn't realize that handguns used specific cartridges. I happened to have a handgun of similar design (A Sig Sauer) to what he was issued (Also a Sig), in the caliber he bought ammo for, so I invited him to borrow it. His handling of the the firearm was extremely safe and he was accurate to a level that truly impressed me, But I noticed something odd, he would hit the decocker after chambering a round or when comming off of target. When he brought the weapon onto target he would use his left thumb to cock the hammer back for single action operation. After seeing this about ten times I asked him "Why do you keep cocking the hammer when you are on target?" His response was "Because I put the safety on." I explained that what he thought was a safety is actually a decocker and that the weapon would function in double action mode when the hammer was down. After I explained this he tells me "I wondered how our instructor was able to do that!" At that point he spent the rest of his time practicing the double pull of the gun. Firearms training is a very small part of the overall training an officer recieves and while it may seem unlikely there are officers who have never handled or fired a firearm other than what they are trained on and are issued.

These answers, in this order.

First of all, as to the chain of ownership of any guns I've bought used, I can provide it. So while there is some small risk that I bought a stolen weapon, it is not only a tiny risk, but I have no problem fingering the person who sold it to me and passing some of that risk on to them. Yes, there is the inconvenience of the extra legal attention, and there is the financial hit from having a gun I purchased in good faith confiscated, but I can assure you that the person who sold it to me will cover that loss in cash because it would rapidly become too painful to them not to. That would become my mission in life.

As far as officer comfort and safety goes....I'm for that, even if it means I have to practice a little humility. As I've stated many times, I am a very religious person. I justify being armed partly because the scriptures tell me to be. I also justify humbling myself because the scriptures tell me to be humble......which is against my natural inclinations, so I have to work at it. Pride goeth before the fall and all that stuff, so I'm not inclined to get my back up if it makes the officer more comfortable to have me disarmed. I'm not wild about it, and I am a bit nervous at the idea of someone who doesn't know what they're doing handling my gun, but I'm not going to get all up on my high horse about it either. I just want to survive the encounter with as little fuss as possible and no ticket.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

G. A. Heath's shortened quote: Unfortunately he went and purchased ammo and didn't realize that handguns used specific cartridges.

Are you telling us that a newly minted officer, who will be carrying a pistol every day for his job, didn't realize
that he had to buy the specific caliber for his gun? Really?

Whoa! If he doesn't know about his own gun, he would not be smart about handling other people's guns.

SIA

[hillfighter]

As for running the serial number. I hope people are not carrying guns around they don't know for a fact are clean. That is sort of a no-brainer. Maybe cousin Vinny isn't the right guy to get your EDC from

I hope you don't have anything in your house that's illegal. Does that mean the police should be allowed to search your house without a warrant at any time?

[WildBill]

As for running the serial number. I hope people are not carrying guns around they don't know for a fact are clean. That is sort of a no-brainer. Maybe cousin Vinny isn't the right guy to get your EDC from

I hope you don't have anything in your house that's illegal. Does that mean the police should be allowed to search your house without a warrant at any time?

The law allows the LEO to disarm a CHL, so that isn't anything you can do about it. Whether or not they can legally run the serial number without a warrant, I am not sure, but I would guess they can.

[C-dub]

I'm probably at least 60/40 on the side of the officer on this one. Haven't we all seen at least one of those videos where some seemingly small or insignificant person gets stopped for an extremely minor infraction and then flies off the handle at the officer? I don't think I would feel good about being disarmed, but would try to get over it as long as it was returned to me.

I don't have any experience in this area yet because I try very hard not to do anything to put myself in that situation.

[Oldgringo]

Apparently, something was done to draw the attention of the LEO/s. What would/could cause the disarmament in the first place?