This scares the hell out of me (LEO attitudes toward CCW)

[melensdad]

I have to say first that I am a law abiding citizen, with the possible exception of the occasional speeding ticket in my youth. Other than that I'm 47, successful enough to be retired at my tender age, respected in my community, involved in charity fund raising, civic matters, etc. So I am, by most standards, a pretty decent guy. I think I am pretty run of the mill in my views of politics, and I respect the police, know several officers personally.

But I stumbled upon this thread and if this is the attitude of the typical police officer then we are in trouble. Now I remind you I am friends with several LEO, but they have not had the opportunity to see me in a traffic stop situation so maybe this is how they REALLY FEEL about my CCW?

Disarming CCW carriers. - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Oh, and pay attention to Post #22, but don't skip down to that one!!! This thread is a couple hundred posts long. It should be REQUIRED READING for members of this forum.

 

[epsylum]

Post 24. He doesn't understand how the Constitution works. It lays out what the government can and can't do. Freedom falls on the side of the citizenry, not the government. Besides I am pretty sure "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty much covers it. Psst Mr. PeteGould, the 2a is talking to the GOVERNMENT (that means LEOs among others).

Police are people and therefore there are all kinds of LEOs. Some are mindless government robots who think that only police should have guns and there are some that are completely on our side.

That being said, the thing that scares me in case of the need of the people to use the 2A government reset swtich (i.e revolt), is the fact that it has been proven that the majority (note: not all) of people will do a lot of bad things just because an authority figure told them to. The "I was just following orders" line heard at the Nuremberg trials was more true than many believe.

ETA: Just read some more. Holy cow there are some goobers on there. Post 53. He is actually trying to use the "they didn't have automatic weapons when they wrote the 2A" argument. Sorry, you lose when you pull that idiotic gem out.

 

[Dogman]

melensdad, understand that what you're reading is a very very small number of LEO out of something like 700,000 across the county, from reading several of the posts take one thing out of them, that the officers want to go home at night and their safety is the first thing on their mind. It's like the people that ask do I look like a criminal? well yeah you do since criminal look like everybody else.
Just like any other profession there are cops that are legends in their own mind and a**holes. As far as #22 he's no different than any other anti.
The large majority of LEO don't have a problem with ccw.

 

[epsylum]

The large majority of LEO don't have a problem with ccw.

All the times I have dealt with LEOs while armed, I have never had a problem.

 

[4sarge]

I have to say first that I am a law abiding citizen, with the possible exception of the occasional speeding ticket in my youth. Other than that I'm 47, successful enough to be retired at my tender age, respected in my community, involved in charity fund raising, civic matters, etc. So I am, by most standards, a pretty decent guy. I think I am pretty run of the mill in my views of politics, and I respect the police, know several officers personally.

But I stumbled upon this thread and if this is the attitude of the typical police officer then we are in trouble. Now I remind you I am friends with several LEO, but they have not had the opportunity to see me in a traffic stop situation so maybe this is how they REALLY FEEL about my CCW?

Disarming CCW carriers. - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Oh, and pay attention to Post #22, but don't skip down to that one!!! This thread is a couple hundred posts long. It should be REQUIRED READING for members of this forum.

I'm Guilty of Not reading all of the posts but I'm afraid that this situation will only worsen over time. You have young cops who were not brought up in a gun culture (other than theirs), lack of adequate or gutless supervision, Liberal City or State political leanings and lack of much needed American history and legal traditions. IMHO the DC Cop particularly needs an attitude adjustment. It's getting scarier in the US all of the time

 

[Lars]

That attitude is pretty frightening. If I was asked to surrender my weapon during the traffic stop, I believe I would peacefully.

If I was treated like a criminal, I would allow that as well. Followed by writing everybody in charge surrounding that department. Wanting to be/feel safe is something I can understand the officers wanting to do. Treating a law abiding citizen like a criminal without warrant, I'd not take lightly.

 

[epsylum]

I'm Guilty of Not reading all of the posts but I'm afraid that this situation will only worsen over time. You have young cops who were not brought up in a gun culture (other than theirs), lack of adequate or gutless supervision, Liberal City or State political leanings and lack of much needed American history and legal traditions. IMHO the DC Cop particularly needs an attitude adjustment. It's getting scarier in the US all of the time

I detest how they started berating the one LEO standing up for citizen's rights by saying that he "lives in a sparsely populated area" or some crap. Yeah because your rights depend on population density. :rolleyesedit:

 

[Bill of Rights]

the DC Cop particularly needs an attitude adjustment.

I didn't read all the posts either, but I read this @$$hole's posts how yeah, he'll disarm anyone he da*n well pleases (paraphrased) because his safety is important.

Two thoughts came to mind: 1) Why is his safety and comfort more important than mine, if what I've committed is an infraction, not even a misdemeanor, let alone felony?

2) Just exactly how many licensed, law-abiding CCW holders has a DC cop ever met, especially on the job?

Blessings,
B

 

[epsylum]

I didn't read all the posts either, but I read this @$'s posts how yeah, he'll disarm anyone he da*n well pleases (paraphrased) because his safety is important.

Two thoughts came to mind: 1) Why is his safety and comfort more important than mine, if what I've committed is an infraction, not even a misdemeanor, let alone felony?

2) Just exactly how many licensed, law-abiding CCW holders has a DC cop ever met, especially on the job?

Blessings,
B

He's a cop in DC. He works for an area that is about as close to a "police state" as anywhere in the country. He is used to being part of the elite class.

 

[Episcopus]

I think that I should be able to disarm any officer that wants to disarm me. I am not safe if he has a gun and I don't, and why is his safety more important than anyone else's?

In my admittedly vivid imagination, the conversation goes like this:

Officer: "Citizen, I am going to have to disarm you for officer safety. Please step out of the vehicle so that I may safely reach your lawfully owned and carried weapon."

Episcopus: "Very well, Officer, but I must also disarm you for citizen safety, please hold still while I unholster and secure your lawfully owned and carried weapon."

Officer: "But I need my gun for officer safety"

Episcopus: "Funny, I need my gun for Episcopus safety. How about this, you take my gun and I take yours, but you keep your mags and I will keep mine. That way, we are both equally safe! No one has any useable weapons anymore."
​

How do you think that would go over?

 

[Lars]

If He's in DC, shouldn't he be arresting anyone who is carrying a firearm in their car, or on their person?

I thought there was an outright ban on guns.

Which would lead me to believe, at least in HIS situation, he's very not used to the idea of law abiding gun owners.

Either way, it's out of line in my opinion. As the stopped motorist, all I could do is whatever he wanted me to. And take it up with "The powers that be" after the fact.

 

[Lars]

I think that I should be able to disarm any officer that wants to disarm me. I am not safe if he has a gun and I don't, and why is his safety more important than anyone else's?

In my admittedly vivid imagination, the conversation goes like this:

Officer: "Citizen, I am going to have to disarm you for officer safety. Please step out of the vehicle so that I may safely reach your lawfully owned and carried weapon."

Episcopus: "Very well, Officer, but I must also disarm you for citizen safety, please hold still while I unholster and secure your lawfully owned and carried weapon."

Officer: "But I need my gun for officer safety"

Episcopus: "Funny, I need my gun for Episcopus safety. How about this, you take my gun and I take yours, but you keep your mags and I will keep mine. That way, we are both equally safe! No one has any useable weapons anymore."
​

How do you think that would go over?

If he had a sense of humor, with a laugh. If not, with you in handcuffs, strip searched, and detained for impeding an investigation or some other nonsense.

 

[Barry in IN]

I saw that thread recently. I didn't read it all- I couldn't bring myself to.

I did notice that it seemed to be only a couple of people that were really bad, at least in the two pages I made it through. One of those was the LEO from DC, whose location could explain a lot of his ideas.

It seemed to be turning into an argument over violating one's Constitutional rights by being disarmed for a few minutes. I don't think it is unless they keep the gun, but don't think that was the point of the original post.

My question about disarming- Why do it if it isn't necessary?
Disarms often seem to happen just because there is someone to disarm and not because they were acting hostile or in a theatening manner.
If the stop is going OK, and the person stopped is cooperative and compliant, why start handling guns?

You start handling guns, especially when someone may be a little nervous, accidents are bound to happen.
And the armed citizen isn't the only one I'm thinking about.

The last time I got stopped was also the only time I was "disarmed". The stop was over, and I was about to leave when I leaned over to put my registration back in the glove compt and he spotted my mag pouch (I was on my way to a match and had snapped on a second pouch as I left the house).
Then the panic hit him. What had been a pleasant and cooperative stop for him suddenly became an emergency...at least he thought so.

He asked for my gun to unload it "for our safety", and rather than get shot by the side of the road, I handed it over. He then tried to unload it, but since he was apparently not familiar with single action autos, he struggled and fought with it while trying to pull the slide back with the safety on. All the while, the muzzle was being waved across his car, me, and the entire neighborhood as he pulled, struggled, and fought harder with it.
How that was "safer" for anyone than just leaving the gun in my holster is beyond me.
I despise lawsuits, but had he shot me with my own gun that day, I would have made an attorney very happy.

Clearing a loaded a gun you are not familiar with has some element of risk to it. Doing it when you are evidently afraid of the things to begin with, and having the added element of being along the side of the road with cars racing behind your butt doesn't make it any easier.
Why do it if you don't have to?

 

[bigcraig]

The DC cop needs to seek therapy, as his elitist attitude will get him killed on day.

Wouldn't hurt him to read the Constitution again either.

Or know the definition of a civilian.

 

[Episcopus]

Wouldn't hurt him to read the Constitution again either.

He needs to do more than read it, he needs to understand it. A remedial Constitutional law class couldn't hurt him. Maybe then he would know that it is a power granting document, not a power limiting one. If the Constitution, or the cases interpreting it, don't say that the Government can do something, the Government can't do it. A couple of posters said something along the lines of "show me where the constitution says I can't," and that is just plain wrong.

 

[melensdad]

Do any of you notice, as the thread progresses the anti-CCW officers seem to be urban officers and they cite examples like Chicago, DC and NY City . . . funny but last time I checked, those were all cities where CCW is non-existent. They also seem to attack the officers who are more rural.

So apparently the Constitution only applies to people who live OUTSIDE of the urban areas? Do you think these guys have actually understood anything they have written?

 

[Lars]

Do any of you notice, as the thread progresses the anti-CCW officers seem to be urban officers and they cite examples like Chicago, DC and NY City . . . funny but last time I checked, those were all cities where CCW is non-existent. They also seem to attack the officers who are more rural.

So apparently the Constitution only applies to people who live OUTSIDE of the urban areas? Do you think these guys have actually understood anything they have written?

I doubt it. Then again, I don't think the Constitution is on their minds. I think they are working within the guidelines laid out by their departments. Fighting the officers on the street will get you nothing but handcuffs. Going after the Mayor/Sheriff/city manager/etc. after the fact is a more likely way to see something change for the better.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I got all the way to the post where the guy was saying " I suppose you want felons to have the right to carry?"
What he doesn't realize was we use to hang felons and therefore felons having guns wasn't an issue.
The attitude by the majority of posters was alarming. I too had it in my mind if I was ever stopped I would voluntarily hand over my LTCH and notify the LEO.... not anymore.

 

[Glock Lover]

I didn't read all the posts either, but I read this @$'s posts how yeah, he'll disarm anyone he da*n well pleases (paraphrased) because his safety is important.

Two thoughts came to mind: 1) Why is his safety and comfort more important than mine, if what I've committed is an infraction, not even a misdemeanor, let alone felony?

2) Just exactly how many licensed, law-abiding CCW holders has a DC cop ever met, especially on the job?

Blessings,
B

His safety is more important than yours. Oh no, here it comes. How many times have regular law abiding citizens on a traffic stops had to shoot it out with a cop to protect themselves, hmm. Doesn't seem you are in to much danger of having to use your firearm against him. You guys won't like what I have to say about this. I think you need to quit whining and get over it!! If an officer pulls me over and I tell him I have a CCW and he disarms me until the traffic stop is over for "safety" reasons. WHO GIVES A FLYING FLIP!! I will get it back, everything will be alright, life will go on, I'll get a starbucks on the way home. But, But, But the cop should have trusted me...Why...I don't trust you...I don't trust anyone, it's him that is in the worse situation pulling over a car having no idea what he might be getting into, I'll be the bigger man for a few minutes and let him feel safer while he checks things out. Oh no my freedom to carry, for him not to search me whatever whatever whatever, cry me a river. You will be alright. When cops start pulling people over and after finding out they are a CCW holder, and have a clean record, and then turn around and shoot them for no reason, Ok then we might have to start worrying. I think you will be alright except for maybe some finger prints on your weapon. Told you you wouldn't like my take on it.

 

[Episcopus]

His safety is more important than yours. Oh no, here it comes. How many times have regular law abiding citizens on a traffic stops had to shoot it out with a cop to protect themselves, hmm. Doesn't seem you are in to much danger of having to use your firearm against him. You guys won't like what I have to say about this. I think you need to quit whining and get over it!! If an officer pulls me over and I tell him I have a CCW and he disarms me until the traffic stop is over for "safety" reasons. WHO GIVES A FLYING FLIP!! I will get it back, everything will be alright, life will go on, I'll get a starbucks on the way home. But, But, But the cop should have trusted me...Why...I don't trust you...I don't trust anyone, it's him that is in the worse situation pulling over a car having no idea what he might be getting into, I'll be the bigger man for a few minutes and let him feel safer while he checks things out. Oh no my freedom to carry, for him not to search me whatever whatever whatever, cry me a river. You will be alright. When cops start pulling people over and after finding out they are a CCW holder, and have a clean record, and then turn around and shoot them for no reason, Ok then we might have to start worrying. I think you will be alright except for maybe some finger prints on your weapon. Told you you wouldn't like my take on it.

But how many law-abiding citizens have the cops had shootouts with? The answer, of course, is ZERO because you are not a law-abiding citizen once you shoot at a cop. Also, how many cases are there of fake police pulling people over and doing anything from just messing with them to raping them? I could go to a costume shop and get a police uniform, then spend a couple hours messing with the electronics in my car to make my lights strobe and start making traffic stops. Just because he walks to the window and says "I'm a cop, give me your gun for my safety" doesn't mean he is. If he can't trust that I won't shoot him, why should I trust that he is really a cop and not an imposter that is going to take my gun to his "cruiser", then come back and shoot me or rob me, or do any other bad thing to me? No one person's safety is any more important than any other person's, period.