Give up weapon upon request when pulled over?

[Concerned Citizen]

So what I am reading is that IC clearly states that the Officer must be able to articulate why he felt the person was potentially dangerous and why he felt it necessary to disarm said person. However, the Officers say they all know the judge and that they can get away with it so rights be damned they will do as they please. Oh, and any passive, verbal resistance will be met with brute force. Ok, got it.

That's not what I'm hearing. There is a difference between TEMPORARILY disarming a person during a traffic stop, and CONFISCATING a firearm and not returning it.

LEO's have the authority to TEMPORARILY disarm you simply for their own safety without having a reason to believe that you are a dangerous person. If they CONFISCATE your firearm & don't give it back, THEN they have to provide a written report and show their reasoning for believing you to be a dangerous person.

 

[Birds Away]

That's not what I'm hearing. There is a difference between TEMPORARILY disarming a person during a traffic stop, and CONFISCATING a firearm and not returning it.

LEO's have the authority to TEMPORARILY disarm you simply for their own safety without having a reason to believe that you are a dangerous person. If they CONFISCATE your firearm & don't give it back, THEN they have to provide a written report and show their reasoning for believing you to be a dangerous person.

I am fairly certain that once it has been determined that you have a valid LTCH that there should be no further inquiries regarding the weapon. If that is the law then please explain how they can disarm you temporarily or otherwise? I am really curious because based upon some posts in this thread it appears to not matter at all what the law says. They do what they feel comfortable doing and no one holds them accountable.

 

[Denny347]

So what I am reading is that IC clearly states that the Officer must be able to articulate why he felt the person was potentially dangerous and why he felt it necessary to disarm said person. However, the Officers say they all know the judge and that they can get away with it so rights be damned they will do as they please. Oh, and any passive, verbal resistance will be met with brute force. Ok, got it.

Geeez, this again. This should be in a FAQ.

Please refer to my posts in a few of these threads in reference to the error in your line of thought.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ty_how_not_to_take_it_back-2.html#post3186122
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...pon_request_when_pulled_over.html#post3141725

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_firearms_at_traffic_stop.html#post3060218

 

[Kirk Freeman]

LEO's have the authority to TEMPORARILY disarm you simply for their own safety without having a reason to believe that you are a dangerous person.

Really? What case do you base this upon?

 

[Rookie]

Really? What case do you base this upon?

Average citizen v. Because I can

 

[Kirk Freeman]

COULD be possible under certain circumstances (that whole reasonableness thing), e.g. if report of someone driving around shooting into the air.

 

[Birds Away]

Geeez, this again. This should be in a FAQ.

Please refer to my posts in a few of these threads in reference to the error in your line of thought.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ty_how_not_to_take_it_back-2.html#post3186122
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...pon_request_when_pulled_over.html#post3141725

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_firearms_at_traffic_stop.html#post3060218

Your stating the same thing over and over again doesn't necessarily make you correct. Please don't take this as any personal disrespect and definitely no disrespect is intended to your profession. But when the law is clearly written and it is just as clearly disregarded, well, that is wrong. The fact that nothing has been done to correct these extra-legal activities does nothing to make them any more legal. It just serves to reinforce bad behaviour. Sorry but that is the way I see it. If the law is very clear and you very clearly ignore it, then you are wrong.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

LEO's have the authority to TEMPORARILY disarm you simply for their own safety
without having a reason to believe that you are a dangerous person.

Really? What case do you base this upon?

I do not base that on any case or IC. I base that on actuality. It happens all the time, police don't get hassled for doing it, and they don't have to write up a report explaining why they did it.

Not saying it's right, not saying I agree with it, just saying that it happens, & there doesn't seem to be anybody in law enforcement that believes that it's a violation.

If police, judges, & prosecutors see it as an acceptable safe practice, and the IC doesn't expressly forbid it, then in my mind that settles it...they can do it.

If I ever am asked to disarm, I will politely & respectfully tell the officer that I don't believe he has the authority to do it, and that it's unsafe to do so, but if he insists, I'm not making a federal case of.

(or am I wrong & it's specifically spelled out somewhere that they can't do it?)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I do not base that on any case or IC. I base that on actuality. It happens all the time, police don't get hassled for doing it, and they don't have to write up a report explaining why they did it.

My confusion stems from your use of "right".

Practice is one thing, right/grant of authority is another thing entirely.

 

[Denny347]

Your stating the same thing over and over again doesn't necessarily make you correct. Please don't take this as any personal disrespect and definitely no disrespect is intended to your profession. But when the law is clearly written and it is just as clearly disregarded, well, that is wrong. The fact that nothing has been done to correct these extra-legal activities does nothing to make them any more legal. It just serves to reinforce bad behaviour. Sorry but that is the way I see it. If the law is very clear and you very clearly ignore it, then you are wrong.

No hard feeling or disrespect here. You are fitting a round peg in a square hole. It fits but it was not intended to. Therein lays the ambiguity. You are referencing is "Jake's" law. In fact it will be 8 years tomorrow that Jake was killed by Kenneth Anderson, thus creating the movement to create a law that could have prevented it (arguable of course). This article and ones like it show what the law was intended to correct. Traffic stops were NEVER in their minds when drawing up this law. I think the difference will be argued that a firearm on traffic stop is a detainment, and a removal from a firearm from a house etc is a seizure.

Tragedy Prompts Calls To Strengthen Ind. Gun Laws - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

 

[ATM]

...This article and ones like it show what the law was intended to correct. Traffic stops were NEVER in their minds when drawing up this law...

If our legislature is that incapable of crafting codes which actually match their intent, they should seek more help from those more qualified to do so and then simply rubber stamp the finished product once it's been reviewed.

We are all presumably bound by whatever nonsense they manage to pass regardless if it ends up making sense or even addressing their original notion.

Right?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Geeez, this again. This should be in a FAQ.

Please refer to my posts in a few of these threads in reference to the error in your line of thought.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ty_how_not_to_take_it_back-2.html#post3186122
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...pon_request_when_pulled_over.html#post3141725

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_firearms_at_traffic_stop.html#post3060218

Well then, allow me to retort.

Gunn v State, 49A02-1102-CR-82
Gunn v State, 49A02-1102-CR-82

Gunn v State, 49A02-1102-CR-82

 

[Concerned Citizen]

My confusion stems from your use of "right".

Practice is one thing, right/grant of authority is another thing entirely.

You are quite correct. When I originally stated that they have the authority to do so, I was probably wrong. But I don't think they are not allowed to, or forbiden to, disarm someone, according to laws on the books.

 

[CathyInBlue]

My understanding of life in a Constitutional Republic, especially one based upon such a foundation as this:

Section 1. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

If the law doesn't say the government can do a thing, then the default assumption must be that that power is reserved to the people, and so the government can not do that thing.

 

[Rookie]

The problem is, those words mean nothing to our government.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

My understanding of life in a Constitutional Republic, especially one based upon such a foundation as this:


If the law doesn't say the government can do a thing, then the default assumption must be that that power is reserved to the people, and so the government can not do that thing.

You & I can argue that one all we like, but reality is different. Our government at almost every level pushes that limit, (I'm not talking about local LEOs) and constantly does things & then claim the constitution or our laws don't say they can't do it, to push whatever agenda they have. That's what keeps our SCOTUS so busy.

 

[downzero]

It seems to me that it is likely that at some point, a citizen is going to respond with force to this sort of behavior, and it's going to be really bad for all involved. I don't know why a law enforcement officer would want to handle my firearm during a traffic stop, nor why they'd want me to lie or refuse to answer their question as to whether I am armed. This is also why I don't have any gun related stickers or anything on my trucks, because I don't want this sort of hassle.

It's a shame that it has to be this way.

Fortunately, I don't get stopped very often and the behavior described here is not the norm.

 

[cobber]

My understanding of life in a Constitutional Republic, especially one based upon such a foundation as this:


If the law doesn't say the government can do a thing, then the default assumption must be that that power is reserved to the people, and so the government can not do that thing.

Amen!