Being disarmed at a traffic stop

Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,082
Likes
1,297
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
The back story: met my soon to be new wife at the place we train about 10 years ago. I've been there for 20+ years. One of her contemporaries there, and a very cool guy and friend, is a Mass State Trooper.

The future Mrs. L. got her LTC, because I can be quite convincing, and she's very smart, and is paying attention to the shiite going on with regard to our trying times, and the prevalence of negative LEO and citizen encounters. She asked Trooper X about disarming citizens during routine encounters. His default is to disarm the LTC holder of their weapon until he verifies that they are not 'a bad guy', after which he'll promptly return their weapon. My counter is that I'd rather not relinquish my 2nd and 4th amendment rights, and my weapon, until I know that the LEO involved is not a 'bad guy'. Crickets ...

She's coming around, and Trooper X is in for an ear full ...
 
Last edited:
Consensus is that Mass has no duty to inform the officer at a traffic stop, so STFU.

If the cop orders you out of the car, then a polite, "Officer, I hold a valid LTC, and am carrying a firearm. How do you wish to proceed?" is best.

You will not win a p!ssing contest with John Law at the roadside.

There are numerous threads with both theory, and anecdotal evidence WRT the "right" thing to do, here.

In the final analysis, you're big enough to have a gun; you have to be big enough to make your decisions in this sort of instance. Though yelling, "I've got a gun!!!!!" is not the preferred method.
 
His default is to disarm the LTC holder of their weapon until he verifies that they are not 'a bad guy', after which he'll promptly return their weapon. My counter is that I'd rather not relinquish my 2nd and 4th amendment rights, and my weapon, until I know that the LEO involved is not a 'bad guy'. Crickets ...

Not surprised you heard crickets. He can't legitimately argue your position, since it is the same as his, except his includes violating rights in the process and yours doesn't. I mean, I'm sure he'd think it to be ridiculous and completely unreasonable if people demanded they disarm him until they determine he is not a 'bad guy', but somehow thinks it is reasonable for him to do the same? Sadly, cops are hypocrites who could not care less about people's rights. "Officer safety".
 
I'd rather not relinquish my 2nd and 4th amendment rights, and my weapon, until I know that the LEO involved is not a 'bad guy'. Crickets ...

and how and when exactly do you determine this? He can run your info through his mobile data terminal or via his dispatch to determine your status so I'm dying to hear how you determine if he's a 'bad guy'.

Truth is, if you do determine he's a 'bad guy', you're probably not getting a chance to use your gun.
 
My guess is hes in the minority. Also probably depends on the offixers gut a bit. Im sure some do it case by case.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
I got the whole tell/don't tell position, and you won't win the argument on the side of the road. That's been covered in depth here, and not what I want to discuss. What I think will happen, given the unrelenting and ultimately logical argument that Trooper X is faced with, delivered by the aforementioned future Mrs. L., is he'll either come over to our side or end up a quivering mess in the corner of the dojo. One cop at a time ....
 
Cops these days have a lot of reason to be on edge. You'll get father with lemon-aid then lemons. If you don't inform and he/she catches a glimpse of your piece of heat then that's going to be a whole lot more of an uncomfortable situation. To each their own - but just consider the world cops live in right now.
 
Cops these days have a lot of reason to be on edge. You'll get father with lemon-aid then lemons. If you don't inform and he/she catches a glimpse of your piece of heat then that's going to be a whole lot more of an uncomfortable situation. To each their own - but just consider the world cops live in right now.

Pretty sure it's the same world I live in.
 
Cops are never going to accept parity of power when interacting with you as a possible suspect. You can either pick a losing battle or accept that concept.
 
And here we go again...

I LOLd at "Quivering mess in the corner of the dojo".

Danielson, Look Eye! Always Look Eye!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Cops are never going to accept parity of power when interacting with you as a possible suspect. You can either pick a losing battle or accept that concept.

Yes Rob, because we are all alike.

Another Spewdrie.
 
I LOLd at "Quivering mess in the corner of the dojo".

Danielson, Look Eye! Always Look Eye!!!

- - - Updated - - -



Yes Rob, because we are all alike.

Another Spewdrie.
I don't know if that is supposed to be an insult, but I am finding it tiring. Perhaps I should start replying to your posts with "More GPP arrogance".

I stand by my statement. Are you saying that cops don't want and need a tactical edge over a suspect (even in a traffic stop) in case things go south?

I find the argument about disarming at a traffic stop silly and not really related to the fight for gun owner's rights. If your papers are in order, and you act politely, you will be on you way with you gun in just a few minutes.
 
Last edited:
Cops these days have a lot of reason to be on edge. You'll get father with lemon-aid then lemons. If you don't inform and he/she catches a glimpse of your piece of heat then that's going to be a whole lot more of an uncomfortable situation. To each their own - but just consider the world cops live in right now.


Cops just need to actually know the laws they enforce, not be bullies/*******s, and use common sense. Usp45ct is correct, its the exact same world for everyone.
 
Cops are never going to accept parity of power when interacting with you as a possible suspect. You can either pick a losing battle or accept that concept.

By parity of power you mean fair fight? Not to wade in to the NES v. LE debate, but I think it's reasonable to assume most of us agree fair fights are foolish, no matter who is involved. The idea of a fair fight is useful only as an excuse for whoever lost.
 
I don't know if that is supposed to be an insult, but I am finding it tiring. Perhaps I should start replying to your posts with "More GPP arrogance".

I stand by my statement. Are you saying that cops don't want and need a tactical edge over a suspect (even in a traffic stop) in case things go south?

I find the argument about disarming at a traffic stop silly and not really related to the fight for gun owner's rights. If your papers are in order, and you act politely, you will be on you way with you gun in just a few minutes.

Its got nothing to do with "the argument", I find it silly as well. As far as the tactical edge you refer to, yes, cops want and need it when pulling over a car (you use the word suspect) and dealing with the operator.
Cops are trained to think everyone is armed, and to act accordingly. What we are seeing today, is improperly trained cops, and a media that gobbles it up. Im a 28 year veteran, and Ive yet to shoot anyone as a police officer. Why? Because I was vetted, trained properly, and have common sense.
Feel free to call it GPP arrogance, Im ok with that. I dont know what you do for a living, but I do know I would look at your industry on a case by case basis, not lumping them all in to one group. You referenced "detail$" in a different thread earlier, which is all fine and well. Sitting up there in the sparsely oxygenated air might have fogged your brain a bit, but Im pretty sure if you were a cop, youd work details too, because bills need to be paid. Id bet my life youve had a ticket fixed or given a "favor" by your friends on the PD that youve discussed previously.
 
I can think of far more justified shootings of civilians by police officers than justified shootings of officers by civilians. Of that, I can think of a great many CCW's who fired first.

While I think it bullshit that police tend to treat everybody as a criminal, I can see the logic in their approach.
 
I can think of far more justified shootings of civilians by police officers than justified shootings of officers by civilians. Of that, I can think of a great many CCW's who fired first.

While I think it bullshit that police tend to treat everybody as a criminal, I can see the logic in their approach.


Excellent comment.
 
Id bet my life youve had a ticket fixed or given a "favor" by your friends on the PD that youve discussed previously.
With all due respect, you would lose that bet if you are talking about favors using their official position as police officers. I generally conduct myself in such a way that I don't need police "favors" to avoid trouble, however I'm less than perfect, and pay one speeding ticket every 15 years or so. I live in a green town and get my LTC the old fashioned way - politely apply with a spotless record and all paperwork in order.

But, I did have a retired cop friend pick me up at my house 3 times a week when I needed to get to medical treatment while my wife was at work but was on no-drive status due to a recent hip replacement. I'm not sure if that counts as a "police favor".

And, no I don't lump all cops into a single group. It seems all the ones I meet are nice reasonable people with a professional approach to their jobs, but I read about enough abuses in the news to be cautious about concluding my personal experience is indicative of all of them.

I don't consider your opinions arrogant, as they tend to be well reasoned and sincerely written. I was referring to the labeling of my comments as "spewdries" (which I assume to be an invented insult, but I've been called worse) that takes the discussion into the ad hominem realm which crosses the line of polite discourse.
 
Last edited:
and how and when exactly do you determine this? He can run your info through his mobile data terminal or via his dispatch to determine your status so I'm dying to hear how you determine if he's a 'bad guy'.

Truth is, if you do determine he's a 'bad guy', you're probably not getting a chance to use your gun.

This. Think this through and answer honestly: are you really prepared to draw down and shoot a cop in cold blood just because you've decided he's "bad?"

Thought not.

Unless you are, then the "I'm hanging onto my piece until I've determined your intentions, JBT!" argument makes no sense.
 
Unilaterally telling the officer that you are carrying needlessly escalates things.


So proper behavior WHENEVER dealing with LE can best be summarized in 4 statements.

1) Don't volunteer any information.
2) If asked, tell the truth
3) Don't argue or resist on the side of the road. You will get your chance in court. Where you and the officers are equals.
4) Audio and video record whenever possible. Ideally content should go directly to the cloud so if officer deletes content from or destroys the device, the content remains.

Applied to carrying guns, it goes like this.

Don't volunteer that you are carrying a gun.
If asked, answer truthfully.
If the officer wants to disarm you, don't argue or resist.

Don

p.s. I've had the chance on 2 occassions to cross examine an officer in court. It was a lot of fun and pretty exciting to deconstruct his argument. I won. But it was only in front of a magistrate.
 
Last edited:
Unilaterally telling the officer that you are carrying needlessly escalates things.


So proper behavior WHENEVER dealing with LE can best be summarized in 3 sentences.

1) Don't volunteer any information.
2) If asked, tell the truth
3) Don't argue or resist on the side of the road. You will get your chance in court. Where you and the officers are equals.

Applied to carrying guns, it goes like this.

Don't volunteer that you are carrying a gun.
If asked, answer truthfully.
If the officer wants to disarm you, don't argue or resist.

Don

p.s. I've had the chance on 2 occassions to cross examine an officer in court. It was a lot of fun and pretty exciting to deconstruct his argument. I won. But it was only in front of a magistrate.
can i add a number 4? video/audio record where posssible. its up to you how, but dont shove a phone in his/her face.
 
Unilaterally telling the officer that you are carrying needlessly escalates things.


So proper behavior WHENEVER dealing with LE can best be summarized in 3 sentences.

1) Don't volunteer any information.
2) If asked, tell the truth
3) Don't argue or resist on the side of the road. You will get your chance in court. Where you and the officers are equals.

Applied to carrying guns, it goes like this.

Don't volunteer that you are carrying a gun.
If asked, answer truthfully.
If the officer wants to disarm you, don't argue or resist.

Don

p.s. I've had the chance on 2 occassions to cross examine an officer in court. It was a lot of fun and pretty exciting to deconstruct his argument. I won. But it was only in front of a magistrate.

can i add a number 4? video/audio record where posssible. its up to you how, but dont shove a phone in his/her face.

yeah...this and this...it's been said on here a thousand or so times. You will not win a fight with a cop in the side of the road. It's a suck position to be put in but he/she can do that to you. The bad ones will because they know they can get away with it most of the time and for you to do anything about it you will need to spend money and the good ones won't because they are decent human beings and support equal rights for all or most or however you perceive them to be. Your only recourse is in court. Not complying and arguing on the side of the road is only going to make the cop escalate. i don't need or want that. I would prefer to be bringing charges against the cop if needed rather then being charged by the state because I was stupid and stubborn on the side of the road. Once you resist almost everything he/she does at that point they have the support of the law on his/her side.

It's good we all know our rights or think we do anyway. But there is always a time and a place to fight the battle. With cops I would not consider a traffic stop the most ideal place. Court would be the best place. If you are right then why not go to a place that puts the support of the law on your side rather than on the side of the cop.
 
Cops these days have a lot of reason to be on edge. You'll get father with lemon-aid then lemons. If you don't inform and he/she catches a glimpse of your piece of heat then that's going to be a whole lot more of an uncomfortable situation. To each their own - but just consider the world cops live in right now.

. . . and I've posted this dozens of times!! If a cop is going to see your gun while you are seated in a car, you have a real problem with properly carrying/wearing a gun and need to address that ASAP! Think about that statement and if you are in line at a stop & rob, grocery store, Wal-Mart, etc. if your gun becomes visible you will get into a very uncomfortable position with arriving police about "a man with a gun"! One must always dress around the gun, it shouldn't be visible when reaching for your wallet/DL/anything.


Cops are never going to accept parity of power when interacting with you as a possible suspect. You can either pick a losing battle or accept that concept.

When a cop stops a car they have no idea what else might be involved . . . the driver/passenger might be wanted for murder, drug trafficking, on the run from warrants, etc. So of course a good cop is going to be extremely cautious until they can ID the people involved as basically decent human beings. So in that light, the police have more power than the person stopped. I agree that "roadside lawyering" is a very losing proposition and best left to the courtroom instead.
 
Since this isn't in the Massachusetts specific section, I'll add that in some states you are obligated by law to inform the officer that you're carrying a firearm. Know the laws of the state that you're in.
 
Since this isn't in the Massachusetts specific section, I'll add that in some states you are obligated by law to inform the officer that you're carrying a firearm. Know the laws of the state that you're in.


And no matter what state you are in I believe Lens advice is right on....forget about becoming a roadside lawyer. I think that is pretty universal and will not help you in any state.
 
I am more interested to know if MSP is aware that the driver has an LTC when they run the plate and approach the car. If they are aware and choose not to broach the subject despite seeing a stack of target stands in the back seat (hypothetically), that is interesting to me.

If the officer asks and gets a positive response, what is the SOP at that point?

If the officer chooses to disarm you, do you unload the weapon first or trust the officer to unload it? SOP?
 
Last edited:
I dont know that there is an SOP so to speak. I know a lot of cops, none of them that I talk to regularly disarm drivers lawfully carrying. Having notified city and MSP when pulled over, Ive never had it be an issue.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Back
Top Bottom