Give up weapon upon request when pulled over?

[Kutnupe14]

I will be waiting anxiously for one of the posters on here to prove me wrong. I was around when the law was created. I know WHY it was created. I have been in Judge Collins' Court (it's in her court because she specializes mental/emotional illness) testifying for taking action via this law. Her "mental illness" court is the ONLY court taking these cases. I tire of these internet lawyers. Put your money where your mouth is. Plenty of posters create a thread about their weapon getting removed during a traffic stop and everyone whines and moans but NOTHING gets done. I have yet to see a single lawsuit for this "obvious" breach of law. I will happily accept that I am wrong if someone would actually PROVE me wrong...by taking this to court.

The gauntlet has been cast....

Lol

 

[Kutnupe14]

even if he does ask you dont have to tell him, indiana is a state where you do not have to inform

And at that point, "if" a weapon is found (after a blatant lie) you should expect to be disarmed.

 

[Bunnykid68]

And at that point, "if" a weapon is found (after a blatant lie) you should expect to be disarmed.

Why? Because we are a clear and present danger ?

 

[2A_Tom]

Denny is your right to disaam citizens extralegal or can you cite IC or case law to back it up.

All of the posts so far are anecdotal and mean nothing.

"I have.... I haven't.... I won't.... I would." Doesn"t stand up in a COURT of LAW.

You may be right, but the only law on that subject talks about a dangerous person.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why? Because we are a clear and present danger ?

Yes, lying puts safety concerns at the top of my list. If you don't want to be disarmed stand up for your rights and speak up. Don't lie, unless you have something actually "illegal" to hide.

 

[Denny347]

Yes, lying puts safety concerns at the top of my list. If you don't want to be disarmed stand up for your rights and speak up. Don't lie, unless you have something actually "illegal" to hide.

Lying puts you on the top of my list. I loath them. I am a VERY easy going guy 99% of the time, smile and pretty up beat with the people I come in contact while at work. However, I catch you lying to my face, I go full "Gunnery Sergeant Hartman" on you. So much so that I will lose my voice. Any breaks go out the window.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I would think muggers, robbers, murderers and such would be at the top of the list, not just someone that committed an infraction and lied to you because you were being nosey

 

[Ted]

A LEO may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person:

• has committed,
• is committing,
• or is about to commit a crime;

and that the person stopped is armed and presently dangerous.

 

[Ted]

Denny is your right to disaam citizens extralegal or can you cite IC or case law to back it up.

All of the posts so far are anecdotal and mean nothing.

"I have.... I haven't.... I won't.... I would." Doesn"t stand up in a COURT of LAW.

You may be right, but the only law on that subject talks about a dangerous person.

Lets be clear that Denny's authority to disarm someone isn't a 'right'.

People have rights. Agents of the government merely have the authority of law, unless the authority is breached in violation of the law.

 

[Denny347]

I would think muggers, robbers, murderers and such would be at the top of the list, not just someone that committed an infraction and lied to you because you were being nosey

I don't ask those questions routinely. I only ask them if there is a reason to. If I am asked a question by the person I stopped, I will be up front and honest. It is out of respect I do this. I get pissed when the respect I give is thrown in my face. Then again, I don't take weapons usually on traffic stops unless I think I need to (I do work in the worst area on Indy). However, that is my choice, there is no legal precedent/law that says we can't, it is officer choice.

 

[2A_Tom]

A LEO may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person:

• has committed,
• is committing,
• or is about to commit a crime;

and that the person stopped is armed and presently dangerous.

So you have sort of described a terry stop what does that have to do with disarming a citizen for no articulable reason?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't ask those questions routinely. I only ask them if there is a reason to. If I am asked a question by the person I stopped, I will be up front and honest. It is out of respect I do this. I get pissed when the respect I give is thrown in my face. Then again, I don't take weapons usually on traffic stops unless I think I need to (I do work in the worst area on Indy). However, that is my choice, there is no legal precedent/law that says we can't, it is officer choice.

I follow your logic there. My telling lies is more to the point if I get pulled over for an infraction and the officer asks me a question about weapons, he will get either silence or a lie. Sounds like if you were the one to pull me over the odds are you would not be asking me stupid questions

 

[2A_Tom]

Lets be clear that Denny's authority to disarm someone isn't a 'right'.

People have rights. Agents of the government merely have the authority of law, unless the authority is breached in violation of the law.

OK I'll call you denny if you like.

I acquiesc to your correction if you willadmit that they derive ONLY their JUST authority from the will of the people.

 

[ATM]

And at that point, "if" a weapon is found (after a blatant lie) you should expect to be disarmed.

However, the post you responded to never suggested lying, it simply stated that one need not inform even if asked.

 

[elliotle]

Or the classic, "There's nothing illegal in my vehicle."

Or the futuristic, "This is not the gun you are looking for."

Technically that isn't futuristic, as that quote is from a long time ago, in a galaxy far away...

 

[Ted]

So you have sort of described a terry stop what does that have to do with disarming a citizen for no articulable reason?

Yes, I did exactly described a Terry Stop.

No, I didn't state, 'no articular (sic corrected) reason'. I merely stated the criteria for LE to disarm someone. Don't read into what is clearly stated.

OK I'll call you denny if you like.

I acquiesc to your correction if you willadmit that they derive ONLY their JUST authority from the will of the people.

My name is Ted, and for the purpose of INGO, only Ted.

The government, as well as their agents, only derive authority from the people....lawful or otherwise. If the people allow their rights to be trampled, that is in itself, consent.

 

[Ted]

I follow your logic there. My telling lies is more to the point if I get pulled over for an infraction and the officer asks me a question about weapons, he will get either silence or a lie. Sounds like if you were the one to pull me over the odds are you would not be asking me stupid questions

Lying to the PO-PO is almost always a bad idea. Better to exercise your silence.

 

[Kutnupe14]

However, the post you responded to never suggested lying, it simply stated that one need not inform even if asked.

Fair enough, refusing to answer isn't the same as outright lying.

 

[Burnsy]

The above is what you should do .... but
I wouldn't do it unless I was independently wealthy and could afford to risk losing my job for getting a criminal record (all employers in my field do criminal checks).

I, being the family raising chicken that I am, would comply.
It happened to me before. I was made to unload my Ruger SP101, hand the man my "boowets" then my pistol, then my license. He took them back to his car and probably did unspeakable things with them.
My feeling was that he did this to make himself feel safe.
Then he returned my boowets and gun and gave me a speeding ticket.

This was years ago. After being edumacated on INGO, I now know that I was violated and wronged. But I also know that the local law enforcement didn't label me as trouble and didn't stop me every time I passed by doing maybe 5 miles an hour over.

Finally, just slow down and don't get pulled over.

Possible learning experince for me here.

Personally I would not touch my gun let alone unholster it even at the request of a LEO. If he/she wants to take it against my consent, I think it's best that the LEO unholster and unload it if they are going to insist on it.

Reaching for my gun in the presence of a LEO just seems like a bad idea to me. I would rather stand there with my arms away from it and refuse to touch it than end up with a few new holes due to a misunderstanding.

 

[Mackey]

Possible learning experince for me here.

Personally I would not touch my gun let alone unholster it even at the request of a LEO. If he/she wants to take it against my consent, I think it's best that the LEO unholster and unload it if they are going to insist on it.

Reaching for my gun in the presence of a LEO just seems like a bad idea to me. I would rather stand there with my arms away from it and refuse to touch it than end up with a few new holes due to a misunderstanding.

I understand what you're saying. But at the time it seemed a bad idea not to follow the officer's specific directions. BTW the gun was in the glove box. He said "Remove the gun and place it on the passenger seat." After this he said, "clear the cylinder and hand me the 'bullets'." Then he said, "hand me the gun handle first." (to the best of my recollection).

I'm just not into giving an LEO crap in a small community. Life's too short.