LEO seizure of a handgun

[dac1842]

AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT. I HAVE A CHL, I WOULD NOT BE OFFENDED IF AN OFFICER DISARMED ME, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF HE DIDN'T. HIS SAFETY COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM THE LEAST LIKELY PERSON ON THE PLANET TO BE A THREAT TO AN LEO, BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. HE HAS TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT HE GOES HOME TO HIS FAMILY EACH NIGHT. REMEMBER THIS, BUNDY WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE A THE NATIONS WORST SERIAL KILLER FOR YEARS.

[dihappy]

Then it would no longer be in your possession, custody, or control, or not a potential threat to the officer.

Not true- courts have ruled that if it was within reach while you were in the vehicle, then it still can be searched. The reason being is that once the LEOs allow you back into the car then you would have access to the weapon and could thus engage the officer.

And he WOULDNT be in danger when he gives it back to you?

Hogwash!

[dihappy]

I absolutely agree: the less handling, the safer. Especially for officer who have never been trained on anything other than their department-issued Glock -- I really don't like the idea of them clearing a Condition One 1911.

You can say that again!

[seamusTX]

AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT.

How do you deal with roll call?

- Jim

[Keith B]

AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT.

How do you deal with roll call?

- Jim

I am sure there is no problem with that Jim. My guns speak to me all the time saying 'Take me to the range, we're hungry. Feed me Seymor!!!!!'

[dihappy]

When you are required to take a physical agility test, a written examination, a preliminary interview with an investigator, fill out a personal history packet that is over 50 pages of detailed personal info including all financial info/school history/address history/driving record/etc., have your references, neighbors, spouse and relatives (and others) interviewed by investigators, be subject to a drug screening, be orally interviewed/interrogated by a panel of veteran officers, submit to a medical examination, be polygraphed about everything in your life, endure many hours and literally thousands of questions of psychological evaluation, be interviewed by a psychologist, and pass an interview with the chief of police...all so that you can then take 775 classroom hours of instruction in a police academy and then take and pass the state TCLEOSE examination...all before being issued a license to carry a handgun.

When you have done all of that then you can say that your background was the same as the background for a LEO. The entire process for a LEO from the time they apply to the time they are able to carry a weapon will typically take about a year. It's not quite the same as a CHL background check.

All that and youd expect all cops to be cream of the crop. Sadly they are still capable of abusing their power and even commiting murder.

I guess reason enough to suspect the lowly CHL'er of posing a threat to a cop.

[dihappy]

AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT. I HAVE A CHL, I WOULD NOT BE OFFENDED IF AN OFFICER DISARMED ME, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF HE DIDN'T. HIS SAFETY COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM THE LEAST LIKELY PERSON ON THE PLANET TO BE A THREAT TO AN LEO, BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. HE HAS TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT HE GOES HOME TO HIS FAMILY EACH NIGHT. REMEMBER THIS, BUNDY WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE A THE NATIONS WORST SERIAL KILLER FOR YEARS.

Fortunately for us, the law is written so that the officer must "reasonably believe" that disarming us is for his safety and not just because he believed in "gun control"
.

[flintknapper]

AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT. I HAVE A CHL, I WOULD NOT BE OFFENDED IF AN OFFICER DISARMED ME, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF HE DIDN'T. HIS SAFETY COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM THE LEAST LIKELY PERSON ON THE PLANET TO BE A THREAT TO AN LEO, BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. HE HAS TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT HE GOES HOME TO HIS FAMILY EACH NIGHT. REMEMBER THIS, BUNDY WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE A THE NATIONS WORST SERIAL KILLER FOR YEARS.

So....you are O.K. with an officer taking ANY measure (Carte Blanche) to ensure his safety? Or have I misread your post?

[LedJedi]

AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT. I HAVE A CHL, I WOULD NOT BE OFFENDED IF AN OFFICER DISARMED ME, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF HE DIDN'T. HIS SAFETY COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM THE LEAST LIKELY PERSON ON THE PLANET TO BE A THREAT TO AN LEO, BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. HE HAS TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT HE GOES HOME TO HIS FAMILY EACH NIGHT. REMEMBER THIS, BUNDY WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE A THE NATIONS WORST SERIAL KILLER FOR YEARS.

biggest load of hogwash i've ever heard.

What about the right of the citizen to protect himself from others (and the officer)? Officers can be dirty just like everyone else. The only cop I want touching my gun is the one I let shoot it at the range.

Leo does NOT get a higher safety priority than me. Leo chose that job knowing its risks. I understand he doesn't know that i'll be the first one at his defense, but that's not my problem and still doesn't give him any more right to safety and defense than me.

Leo's right to disarm a civilian who is not an immediate and serious threat is a violation of the 2nd amendment imo. These cops that run around disarming folks as a matter of policy as soon as they find out they're armed should have their TECLOSE certification revoked.

[stevie_d_64]

AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT. I HAVE A CHL, I WOULD NOT BE OFFENDED IF AN OFFICER DISARMED ME, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF HE DIDN'T. HIS SAFETY COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM THE LEAST LIKELY PERSON ON THE PLANET TO BE A THREAT TO AN LEO, BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. HE HAS TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT HE GOES HOME TO HIS FAMILY EACH NIGHT. REMEMBER THIS, BUNDY WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE A THE NATIONS WORST SERIAL KILLER FOR YEARS.

I take measures to ensure I go home each night as well...The section in the code "gives" authority to do so, but only under circumstances where it is reasonably determined that doing so will ensure the safety of the officer, and persons in the area...NOT under any presumed personal or department policy...

So if you are ok with it, and want to be disarmed, thats your position, not one that anyone I know here would personally accept lightly...Sure, it won't be fought out on the street, but it will be handled in a more reasonable manner and time, befitting our reasonable dispositions...

So...If you don't mind me asking, do you still believe in "gun-control"???

[stevie_d_64]

Then it would no longer be in your possession, custody, or control, or not a potential threat to the officer.

Not true- courts have ruled that if it was within reach while you were in the vehicle, then it still can be searched. The reason being is that once the LEOs allow you back into the car then you would have access to the weapon and could thus engage the officer.

And he WOULDNT be in danger when he gives it back to you?

Hogwash!

Well, I've seen the stories about how the firearms are unloaded, dissassembled, magazines unloaded, and at the conclusion of the stop, the citizen is instructed not to touch or do anything with the firearm till they leave...

Considering the volitility of this issue, the sources and stories due tend to divide and conquer us sometimes...

I sleep pretty good at night knowing my disposition and attitude if I am stopped, will not give any Law Enforcement officer any reason to think they need to do anything but write the citation...

[Odin]

When you are required to take a physical agility test, a written examination, a preliminary interview with an investigator, fill out a personal history packet that is over 50 pages of detailed personal info including all financial info/school history/address history/driving record/etc., have your references, neighbors, spouse and relatives (and others) interviewed by investigators, be subject to a drug screening, be orally interviewed/interrogated by a panel of veteran officers, submit to a medical examination, be polygraphed about everything in your life, endure many hours and literally thousands of questions of psychological evaluation, be interviewed by a psychologist, and pass an interview with the chief of police...all so that you can then take 775 classroom hours of instruction in a police academy and then take and pass the state TCLEOSE examination...all before being issued a license to carry a handgun.

When you have done all of that then you can say that your background was the same as the background for a LEO. The entire process for a LEO from the time they apply to the time they are able to carry a weapon will typically take about a year. It's not quite the same as a CHL background check.

All that and youd expect all cops to be cream of the crop. Sadly they are still capable of abusing their power and even commiting murder.

Most are. Some aren't, but it's a tiny fraction of a percentage. Some officers started out good and changed, some slipped through the process, some departments have more lax standards, and an awful lot of the bad cops you see are probably the result of the recent (since the 80's) trend in law enforcement to hire "diversity" at all costs. Many standards have been lowered and many exceptions to the rules have been made in the name of political correctness, and we all pay for that. Further, as the younger generation takes more positions of power in society the rules change and standards are relaxed because the Gen X and later folks think the old standards were too strict and served no purpose. Look for increasing "bad cop" incidents as police departments across the nation change their standards and practices to hire a politically correct workforce of ex-criminals and drug users. And some cops were just plain bad people before they became a cop, but like i said that's such a tiny percentage.

I guess reason enough to suspect the lowly CHL'er of posing a threat to a cop.

I never suggested that.

[AFJailor]

I dont understand why all of you are making comments about how bad it is for it to be a general policy to disarm ALL CHL's. Unless I have missed something no one is saying that, it is a good thing, just that they think if an LEO decides for WHATEVER reason that he needs to disarm them, then he should do so. So stop jumping everyones bones that disagrees with you. I have yet to see anyone that has brought forth anything saying that any department has a policy to disarm CHL's. How many of you have ever even been disarmed? I think that people are getting awfully upset where there doesnt even seem to be a problem.

The fact of the matter is this...as stated by pretty much everyone in this thread, an LEO has the authority to disarm an individual if he REASONABLY believes they present a threat to his safety. This threat is determined by the objective reasonableness of the officer on scene. You may never know why he disarmed you (should it ever happen in the first place) but I think it is safe to assume that most LEO's would not disarm you without good reason.

[anygunanywhere]

Most are. Some aren't, but it's a tiny fraction of a percentage. .

Same with CHLers. Most are great. Some aren't but it's a tiny fraction.

Respect works both ways.

CHLers expect to be treatd as non-threats and not be subject to the whims of LEOs. LEOs want to be treatd with respect by CHLers. I do not know of anyone on this board who would not. I respect LEO, I fully intend to treat any interaction with one in a positive manner.

Just don't disarm me. I will not do anything to make you feel threatened. I expect the same from you.

Anygun

[flb_78]

My original intent of this thread was to get a general feel, not for being disarmed, but in how it is done.

Could the officer order you out of the vehicle and search for your handgun without a warrant or permission from the owner.

The general opinion on the matter from the ones who answered the original question is, "YES", an officer can order you out of the vehicle and search to find your gun and anything else found during the search can be used against you, even though no warrant was issued and no permission was given for the search.