Concealed Carry - What Have You Got?

[AbleGuy]

Re this thread....it matters little what you have if you cannot carry it without fear of an unreasonable possession prosecution.

So here’s one issue, where if we’re lucky, this ruling may catch on in other states:

Oregon Supreme Court Bans Police Officers From Asking Random Questions During Traffic Stops

“A recent ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court has banned a controversial policing practice: No longer can officers use a broken taillight or a failure to signal as a justification for scouting a driver’s car for illegal guns or drugs.

The ruling instructs officers to stick to questions “reasonably related” to the reason the driver was pulled over, effectively ending law enforcement’s ability to turn a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for a more serious offense.“*

Couple this ruling with the newer SCOTUS one saying LEO’s can’t unreasonably stall your roadside vehicle stop while they wait for another officer to arrive with a drug/gun sniffing dog and maybe some of our rights to travel freely in the U.S. without undue hassles are coming back a bit.

Much as many may feel we already have more than enough federal rules and regs and would like the feds to just butt out of their personal business, here’s one area where a uniform federal law would really be of help. To protect legal gun ownership these days, we need a strong federal law creating 50 state parity and reciprocity for CCW permit holders and other legal possessors of firearms.

It’s become way too ridiculously problematic to try to stay legal while traveling from state to state with all of the inconsistent and different and even punitive gun restriction laws impacting legal gun possessors. Oddly enough, in other situations, this type of an inconsistency in state laws has been ruled an unconstitutional infringement of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I’ve got no understanding as to why the NRA has never pushed for a lawsuit on this issue.



*https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-supreme-court-bans-police-officers-random-questions/

 

[BritKLR]

If we’re lucky, this ruling may catch on in other states:

Oregon Supreme Court Bans Police Officers From Asking Random Questions During Traffic Stops

“A recent ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court has banned a controversial policing practice: No longer can officers use a broken taillight or a failure to signal as a justification for scouting a driver’s car for illegal guns or drugs.

The ruling instructs officers to stick to questions “reasonably related” to the reason the driver was pulled over, effectively ending law enforcement’s ability to turn a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for a more serious offense.“*

Couple this ruling with the newer SCOTUS one saying LEO’s can’t unreasonably stall your roadside vehicle stop while they wait for another officer to arrive with a drug/gun sniffing dog and maybe some of our rights to travel freely in the U.S. without undue hassles are coming back a bit.

Much as many may feel we already have more than enough federal rules and regs and would like the feds to just butt out of their personal business, here’s one area where a uniform federal law would really be of help. To protect legal gun ownership these days, we need a strong federal law creating 50 state parity and reciprocity for CCW permit holders and other legal possessors of firearms.

It’s become way too ridiculously problematic to try to stay legal while traveling from state to state with all of the inconsistent and different and even punitive gun restriction laws impacting legal gun possessors. Oddly enough, in other situations, this type of an inconsistency in state laws has been ruled an unconstitutional infringement of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I’ve got no understanding as to why the NRA has never pushed for a lawsuit on this issue.



*https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-supreme-court-bans-police-officers-random-questions/

Oregon’s a little late to the table, by almost 30 years.........most traffic stop time limits based on pretextual stops and/or K9 response time were established by case law in the early 90’s. If a 4 legged Officer couldn’t respond within 20 minutes of the intial stop the stop became too long and the driver was sent on their way. As for pretextual stops, same thing and I sure wouldn’t want to be that officer detaining someone roadside for 50 minutes hoping to find a permitted gun........ouch.

 

[MOguy]

Oregon’s a little late to the table, by almost 30 years.........most traffic stop time limits based on pretextual stops and/or K9 response time were established by case law in the early 90’s. If a 4 legged Officer couldn’t respond within 20 minutes of the intial stop the stop became too long and the driver was sent on their way.

It should have never been an issue.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[BritKLR]

It should have never been an issue.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Thanks......but, you do recall what was happening in the US in the 80-90 that hadn’t occurred before and LE was scrambling to deal with it and created the case law we’re discussing. Yet, they worked at it with no prior legal guidance (state or federal), knowledge base, experience, historical context, training and huge community/political pressure and some mistakes were made and corrected. I remember federal judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys actually ask if we could really just walk up to someone and talk with them.......police citizen contact......Terry v Ohio.....etc.....things have changed.

 

[brentbba]

Okay let's look at that scenario another way, say you work in Nevada where open carry is legal and handguns concealed on your person in your vehicle are also legal, what do you do on a traffic stop where the driver doesn't tell you about a firearm and has no obligation to tell you?
To clarify my question, what do you when you haven't been notified and see a handgun?

Just caught up on this thread. Kind of got off track on what you've got to an interesting discussion of CCW. Just got my NV, UT and AZ CCW's and hopefully CA here shortly. Interview with the OC Sheriff and application went well. Read a lot of law about all four of these states and before traveling back to any of them will certainly 'brush up' on CCW laws. I 'believe if my memory is any good' AZ is the only one of these four states that requires you to inform an LEO by law of your CCW and carry. On to NV as some of what NevadaLover says that I quoted above is not entirely correct. You can only concealed carry ON YOUR PERSON with a CCW (CFP in NV). You can conceal off your person say in a glove box or elsewhere legally. Info shamelessly stolen from the USCCA site:

Is It Legal to Open Carry in Nevada?
Open carry is legal in Nevada. Anyone 18 and older who can legally possess a firearm may openly carry virtually anywhere in the state.
Can I Carry a Loaded Gun in My Car in Nevada?
Yes, but you can only concealed carry with a Nevada Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP) or a license/permit from a state Nevada honors. Without a permit, a handgun may not be concealed on your person. It must either be entirely visible or in a concealed place away from your person.

Funny anecdote: NV CFP Instructor said in Las Vegas (Clark County) that it is legal to open carry down the strip, but that you might get a visit from the local PD regardless as most tourists there are unaware that it's legal and will likely call 911! We all got a laugh out of that!

Now, personal choice for me (and not pushing my choice on anyone else) and out of my respect for LEO's - I'd rather inform an LEO right up front and let them instruct me on how to proceed for their safety and mine too! I've read plenty of discussions on various boards on whether to inform or not when the law doesn't say you must and there's reasons for both as have been articulated here on both sides of the aisle. Each of us has to make that choice for ourselves.

Edit - looked up AZ - only required by law to inform an LEO if asked, so if the LEO doesn't ask, you don't have to tell.

 

[GHI]

Re this thread....it matters little what you have if you cannot carry it without fear of an unreasonable possession prosecution.

So here’s one issue, where if we’re lucky, this ruling may catch on in other states:

Oregon Supreme Court Bans Police Officers From Asking Random Questions During Traffic Stops

“A recent ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court has banned a controversial policing practice: No longer can officers use a broken taillight or a failure to signal as a justification for scouting a driver’s car for illegal guns or drugs.

The ruling instructs officers to stick to questions “reasonably related” to the reason the driver was pulled over, effectively ending law enforcement’s ability to turn a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for a more serious offense.“*

Couple this ruling with the newer SCOTUS one saying LEO’s can’t unreasonably stall your roadside vehicle stop while they wait for another officer to arrive with a drug/gun sniffing dog and maybe some of our rights to travel freely in the U.S. without undue hassles are coming back a bit.

Much as many may feel we already have more than enough federal rules and regs and would like the feds to just butt out of their personal business, here’s one area where a uniform federal law would really be of help. To protect legal gun ownership these days, we need a strong federal law creating 50 state parity and reciprocity for CCW permit holders and other legal possessors of firearms.

It’s become way too ridiculously problematic to try to stay legal while traveling from state to state with all of the inconsistent and different and even punitive gun restriction laws impacting legal gun possessors. Oddly enough, in other situations, this type of an inconsistency in state laws has been ruled an unconstitutional infringement of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I’ve got no understanding as to why the NRA has never pushed for a lawsuit on this issue.



*https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-supreme-court-bans-police-officers-random-questions/

I'm gonna go against my better judgement and respond to this. Specifically to the statement "if we’re lucky, this ruling may catch on in other states:." Here's why. I'm all for investigative traffic stops. Somebody needs to do it or the bad guys would go unchecked. Do folks get stopped who are legit not and not doing anything wrong. Absolutely. Did they do something that at least warranted the stop? Probably. I'm not gonna touch the bad apple in every profession. We know they exist.

Here's a lame example of an investigative stop in Michigan. There's much more to the story than what you'll probably dig up in the media. I know you're good. Old dude gets stopped for a legitimate reason and cop initiates some BS conversation. It leads to reasonable suspicion something more is going on. K9 pooch called in and guess what. Millions of dollars of powder cocaine located. The BS conversation was about all the fast food bags crumpled up in the back seat and the fact the old timer couldn't remember the name of the dude he was coming to visit in Michigan. Again, there's more to the story. The cops already had a really good idea, but you gotta make it legal and that started with the roadside interview.

Now had that troop not been able to talk to the drug mule other than "license, registration and insurance please" we may have never stopped that shipment of dope. Yea, Yea the chase vehicles carrying double the amount got through. I know.

There’s a True Story Behind ‘The Mule’: The Sinaloa Cartel’s 90-Year-Old Drug Mule (Published 2014)

Is Leo Sharp a senile day-lily farmer who was taken advantage of by drug smugglers? Or did he know exactly what he was getting into?

www.nytimes.com

 

[NevadaLover]

I'm gonna go against my better judgement and respond to this. Specifically to the statement "if we’re lucky, this ruling may catch on in other states:." Here's why. I'm all for investigative traffic stops. Somebody needs to do it or the bad guys would go unchecked. Do folks get stopped who are legit not and not doing anything wrong. Absolutely. Did they do something that at least warranted the stop? Probably. I'm not gonna touch the bad apple in every profession. We know they exist.

Here's a lame example of an investigative stop in Michigan. There's much more to the story than what you'll probably dig up in the media. I know you're good. Old dude gets stopped for a legitimate reason and cop initiates some BS conversation. It leads to reasonable suspicion something more is going on. K9 pooch called in and guess what. Millions of dollars of powder cocaine located. The BS conversation was about all the fast food bags crumpled up in the back seat and the fact the old timer couldn't remember the name of the dude he was coming to visit in Michigan. Again, there's more to the story. The cops already had a really good idea, but you gotta make it legal and that started with the roadside interview.

Now had that troop not been able to talk to the drug mule other than "license, registration and insurance please" we may have never stopped that shipment of dope. Yea, Yea the chase vehicles carrying double the amount got through. I know.

There’s a True Story Behind ‘The Mule’: The Sinaloa Cartel’s 90-Year-Old Drug Mule (Published 2014)

Is Leo Sharp a senile day-lily farmer who was taken advantage of by drug smugglers? Or did he know exactly what he was getting into?

www.nytimes.com

So in your world it's better to inconvenience everybody because some may be doing wrong?

Can't even begin to question this thought process so I'm just gonna leave it here.

 

[BritKLR]

I'm gonna go against my better judgement and respond to this. Specifically to the statement "if we’re lucky, this ruling may catch on in other states:." Here's why. I'm all for investigative traffic stops. Somebody needs to do it or the bad guys would go unchecked. Do folks get stopped who are legit not and not doing anything wrong. Absolutely. Did they do something that at least warranted the stop? Probably. I'm not gonna touch the bad apple in every profession. We know they exist.

Here's a lame example of an investigative stop in Michigan. There's much more to the story than what you'll probably dig up in the media. I know you're good. Old dude gets stopped for a legitimate reason and cop initiates some BS conversation. It leads to reasonable suspicion something more is going on. K9 pooch called in and guess what. Millions of dollars of powder cocaine located. The BS conversation was about all the fast food bags crumpled up in the back seat and the fact the old timer couldn't remember the name of the dude he was coming to visit in Michigan. Again, there's more to the story. The cops already had a really good idea, but you gotta make it legal and that started with the roadside interview.

Now had that troop not been able to talk to the drug mule other than "license, registration and insurance please" we may have never stopped that shipment of dope. Yea, Yea the chase vehicles carrying double the amount got through. I know.

There’s a True Story Behind ‘The Mule’: The Sinaloa Cartel’s 90-Year-Old Drug Mule (Published 2014)

Is Leo Sharp a senile day-lily farmer who was taken advantage of by drug smugglers? Or did he know exactly what he was getting into?

www.nytimes.com

It's only funny (and painful) because it's true......there was saying within the interdiction teams, "the biggest drug distributors in the US was the US Postal Service, FedEx, UPS and us.........because of all the potential cases we had to let go because we couldn't articulate reasonable suspicion".
It really hit home when the same mule you let go gets interdicted with 10 kilos of cocaine, gun and your business card in his pocket......lots of fun and love from your brothers and sisters.......oh well, you move on to the next case.

 

[NevadaLover]

Can I Carry a Loaded Gun in My Car in Nevada?
Yes, but you can only concealed carry with a Nevada Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP) or a license/permit from a state Nevada honors. Without a permit, a handgun may not be concealed on your person. It must either be entirely visible or in a concealed place away from your person.

TIL, thought the law read different about in vehicle carry.
Edit: checked with a friend who is a captain in a local department and he corroborated your fact, thanks for pointing that out, my pistol is usually hidden in it's compartment but I may have done this one or twice in the past before it was put away.

 

[GHI]

So in your world it's better to inconvenience everybody because some may be doing wrong?

Can't even begin to question this thought process so I'm just gonna leave it here.

In a way, yes, but it's not everybody being inconvenienced. If you already did something to draw their attention to you, don't you want somebody to do something about it.

 

[NevadaLover]

In a way, yes, but it's not everybody being inconvenienced. If you already did something to draw their attention to you, don't you want somebody to do something about it.

So a tail light that blew out is a valid excuse to be interrogated and held at a stop longer than it takes to write a fixit ticket?
Ever heard of the 4th amendment? nevermind I'm going to bow out before I say something christian or dendy take offense to.

 

[GHI]

So a tail light that blew out is a valid excuse to be interrogated and held at a stop longer than it takes to write a fixit ticket?
Ever heard of the 4th amendment? nevermind I'm going to bow out before I say something christian or dendy take offense to.

Well yea. Coming from Brownsville going to Chicago in a vehicle not registered to you and stinking of fresh unsmoked bud with a sack full of cash in a McDonalds bag. There's nothing unreasonable about asking follow up questions.

 

[Teachyboy]

It really varies depending on what I'm doing and where I'm going. G 26 to ruger Alaskan in 454.

 

[MOguy]

In a way, yes, but it's not everybody being inconvenienced. If you already did something to draw their attention to you, don't you want somebody to do something about it.

Only what was done that drew the attention. Do it as quickly, respectfully and professional as possible. If there is truly other issues revealed that is fine but to harass somebody because you feel you can is wrong.

 

[GHI]

It really varies depending on what I'm doing and where I'm going. G 26 to ruger Alaskan in 454.

I've got the Diamond D chest holster for the Alaskan when concealment is not a big deal. I also have a pancake type belt holster made by Simply Rugged. I carried it the other day just for fun. It actually conceals quite nice paired with a flannel and vest. Who knew?