With all the talk around here recently about open carry and how it makes those around us react, let’s not forget that there’s still some members of law enforcement who don’t seem to recognize even permitted concealed carry. Eddie Bagdesar was pulled over in San Diego by a CHP officer who noticed that his car had some improper equipment like darkly-tinted windows, no front license plate, and blacked out covers on his taillights. When the officer approached, Bagdesar immediately informed him that he had a license to carry, and that he was armed with a loaded pistol. The officer made him climb out the passenger side of the vehicle . . .
over the center console (which can be claimed to “keep the driver away from traffic,” but is really more about keeping the potential suspect off-balance), and then had Bagdesar interlock his fingers behind his head. Bagdesar was then handcuffed, relieved of his weapon, and tossed in the back of the cruiser. After about a half hour, his license to carry was validated, he was given a “fix-it ticket” for the issues with his car, and was sent on his way. When asked why the CHP officer didn’t take Bagdesar’s carry permit at face value, a CHP spokesman responded that the situation “was handled correctly” [Surprise!] and that “Believe it or not, with technology and the Internet, you can make fraudulent documents.”
AWR Hawkins over at Breitbart has the story of a recently released Pew Study (pdf) that shows the majority of Millennials (those born 1981-1996 under their definition) oppose gun control. The study was conducted from January 23rd to February 9th, and while they did express their opposition to gun control by a margin of 50-48 percent, I find it pretty hard to get excited about a result differential that small. What do you think?
The Georgia bill that would let private property owners such as churches, bars, and some schools make their own decision on whether to allow guns has hit a roadblock in the Senate with only two working days left in the 2014 session. In 2013, the bill sailed through the House before dying in the Senate, and it looks like this year’s bill will meet a similar fate. House supporters have already stripped the bill of its most contentious proposal, the one that would decriminalize carrying a gun on college grounds, making it a civil violation instead of the current misdemeanor. With that section gone and Senate opposition still balking, it appears the bill is doomed as House supporters say that it doesn’t appear that they will bend much more. Rep. Mandi Ballinger, the fourth signer of the bill, said “I don’t get a sense that we’re willing to give up any more than we already have. It is an expansion of Second Amendment rights, and I think we’re trying to maintain that. If we keep conceding, we’re defeating the purpose.”
MattV2099 regularly does weird things with guns and food, but it doesn’t always work out the way he had planned. This week he dropped a blooper reel of sorts, his “Top 10 Fails” (unreleased footage). It’s good stuff if you’re a fan of his humor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-2i7-UO1fI
The Michigan Legislature is moving forward on three pro-gun bills this week. HB 5324 exempts all firearms records, including previously protected concealed-carry permit records, from FOIA requests. The information would still, of course, be available to law enforcement. 5324 passed the House 88-21 and now goes to the Senate. HB 5091 clarifies the existing brandishing law to define “brandish” as to ““point, wave about or display in a threatening manner with the intent to induce fear in another person.” The bill would specifically exempt guns carried in holsters or on slings from brandishing charges. 5091 passed 104-5 and also now goes to the Senate. Finally, SB 610 would legalize the manufacture, possession, or transfer of some short-barreled rifles and shotguns, providing relevant federal laws are followed. SB 610 passed the Senate back in November, and having now passed the House 103-6, will go to Governor Rick Snyder’s desk for a signature.
A short video showing how Schultz & Larsen rifles are made in Denmark. It’s promotional, to be sure, but still interesting.
.
Another example of why people adore cops so much. Fortunately for Bagdesar, he left his dog at home.
The Pew poll figures have a standard error of 2.0 percentage points. So you basically have a 50/50 split across all groups except boomers. Their polling number of 56% for gun rights is statistically significant, so the only conclusion that can made from the data is that more boomers are pro-gun rights than not.
does the 2.0% error have to be against us? could it mean that 54% are pro freedom and 46% are pro control? i am in the 1981-96 range and i didn’t take the survey so you can add another person to the pro freedom side.
With things like this, it’s best to be a little pessimistic.
From Appendix A: Data Sources:
“telephone interviews conducted Feb. 14-23, 2014 among a national sample of 1,821 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, ”
1821 sampled.
2010 Census data gives us very approximately 80 MILLION people between 15 and 34, so close enough-ish to how Pew defines a Millennial.
1821 / 80,000,000 = 0.000023 = 0.0023%
As diverse is our population is in terms of geographic mores and subculture distributions, there is simply no way statistically possible that that sample can be considered ‘representative’ of any single group defined by only one parameter (such as age).
I submit the error is greater than 2%.
Since you can’t poll every single person in the United States within each group you use a subset called a sample, but there’s a built in error for this method. This error is known as the standard error or standard deviation, which is based on a pure mathematical formula.
If the difference is greater than the standard error the data is considered “statistically significant”. For all of the groups, except boomers, from a statistical standpoint the numbers are no different than a 50/50 split because the difference in polling is within the range of the standard error.
With Boomers the difference in polling is greater than the standard error so the only conclusion that can be made from the data is that more boomers are pro-gun rights than not. You now have a 101 lesson on how to read a poll correctly.
“You now have a 101 lesson on how to read a poll correctly.”
Since I’ve written statistical analysis software, published and presented scientific data, taught graduate students and done consulting work on data analysis in industry and medicine (including interpretation of statistical clinical data), a 101 lesson in “manipulation with numbers” is not really needed. 🙂
I was not suggesting that they had to sample the whole population. But, as you suggest the purpose of doing statistical analysis is to measure (or more accurately, if we are being honest) to guess predictive power. As you so rightly state, the only way to gage that power is via statistical significance.
I did not want to get into this in my original post in an attempt to remain brief, but the only way measuring such a small sample can have any statistical significance is if the underlying distribution is known.
To assume the underlying distribution is known for any sociological metric is absurd. Our population is simply too diverse. That was my point.
There is no one single “group” within our population; “Milllennials” don’t believe any one thing. Shoot. Look at the (very small, in comparison) group on THIS site and all the disagreement that occurs on various topics, and we have a common-bond that biases our presence here. That common bond bias is FAR more unifying than an arbitrary parameter like “18-33” or any such.
The bottom line is error in predictive power of this poll…telling me the odds of “pro-gun” of a randomly selected “millennial”…is far, far greater than a 2.6% “margin for error” represents. That 2.6% number comes from some very, very gross assumptions about the nature of the underlying distribution, which, quite simply, cannot be known for such a diverse population so narrowly sampled.
If they sampled 1821 people spread evenly over the 50 states, that only 36 people per state. Most states in the country have two or three distinct geographic regions with different subcultures. Let’s say on average two. So, we are sampling 18 per region. Now, let’s say within each of those regions, we sample roughly 50-50 from the two major parties.
We are down to 9 in our “sample.” Let’s got to a 50-50 split male-female. Down to 4-5 people per sample.
There is no way, simply no way, this is “representative” of anything, because you cannot show any kind of simple correlation to the question being asked. The size of the subgroup matters, and a very, very detailed statistical analysis of these various sub-group effects on the overall conclusion matters a lot.
If you don’t believe that, take a look at any clinical trial medical journal. They don’t just give a test pill to a (small sample) group and say “yes it worked” or “no it didn’t.” They have to try to measure the effect of sub-sampling.
In short, we don’t know if this data is biased by political party, sex, geographical region, the fact that they polled more goths than jocks, people interested in computers vs less tech types. True, they cannot cover ALL these bases completely, but that’s why the sample sizes have to be either (a) large enough to guess the sub distributions are sampled and / or (b) specifically narrow in scope (polling black women in California, for example, would be better than “all people across the US”).
There’s a reason in upper division sociology coursework (not 101 classes) students are taught the problems and limitations of “surveys” in real scientific research.
These polls make good soundbites and precisely nothing else. Or, would prefer your doctor to test new medicines this way-pick 1000 random people from a broad spectrum of groupings and give them test meds with no controls and no real data analysis?
After reading the PDF again I realized that the actual standard error was 2.6%. This doesn’t change anything as the outcome is the same.
Yes; it’s still not “Research.”
My experiences would seem to support the conclusion as well. I actually had no idea I was considered a millenial. What would be more interesting us to find out the average age of new gun buyers- I bet a majority of them would be under 40 in this group exactly.
Given that the majority of yot are idiots until they hit 30 there is good news here. As they age and mature they will become smarter/more conservative. These group has already figured out they were morons in swallowing Obuma’s line of hopey changy BS. Makes them smarter/more pragmatic than their idiot babyboomer grandparents.
Unfortunately the Pew Poll results are very misleading. At least half of the Millennials are hipsters meaning their responses were given ironically because the common expectation is that everyone already knows the answer to any question being posed. A quarter of the remaining respondents, while in the company of females, posed as pro-gun in order to display a manly persona, but really have never knowingly been within 50 feet of a firearm. On top of that approximately 80% of that demographic has not worked more than 90 hours since they were born and most likely could never afford even a Glock, although Glock is far too mainstream for them anyway. I fear that demographic is far more anti-gun than suggested by the Pew Poll.
At least Michigan appears to be moving forward. The lack of SBRs must be terrible.
I disagree hipsters a universally hated by my generation and everyone my age who finds out I have an ak beggs to come to the range
That’s because they all play COD, so they want a taste of the real thing.
If it gets them to care or even think about gun rights it is worth it
In this case, that’s a positive.
Concur!
Yes – it is interesting, when I was at the big range/LGS near me recently (Nexus in Davie) there were some younger people around, and they were eyeballing the suppressors in the glass case near the range doors. The first thing they mentioned was “something something my gun in Call of Duty has one of those…”
I haven’t touched a console game in years, but I guess you can kit out your gun in CoD. But yes, if CoD at least gets them interested, then those of us who actually possess and carry real firearms can intercept and explain how things really work.
I do disagree with the age range for Millenials – I’d say the cutoff birth year is 1986-87. But however, it is all environmentally dependent. Millenials in Florida can’t get enough of the idea of guns and wanting to use them. There’s a few Miami hipsters who can’t stand the idea, but all they do is bitch, they don’t (thankfully) participate in the legislative process. For the most part, the children want to go to a range (especially now that we have “boutique” ranges like Nexus and Lock and Load) and fire a weapon.
Millenials up north are usually anti-gun. I have younger relatives up that way who think my little bitty Px4 subcompact is Death personified. I mean yeah it is lethal when employed correctly, but the way they act you would think it fired some sort of magical nuclear-tipped guided bullets, not bog-standard 9mm Gold Dots.
Same here. I was born in 94 and I’ve brought 5 friends out shooting for the first time, and this is in NJ. Already have a mosin and mossberg 500. And that’s after a 6,000$ court case and a year and a half wait for my FPID (I’ll tell that story eventually)
Millenials are young. It’s normal for young people to be more liberal and progressive than their elders. It’s heartening to see that at least half oppose gun control. As they age the numbers will grow in our favor.
We may be witnessing a whole new generation of Carter Republicans.
I sure hope you’re right!
Carter Republicans? I’ve heard of Reagan Democrats, but this is new to me.
Same thing. For all the damage Nixon did to the Republican party, Carter stepped in and showed everyone that the Democrats were even worse. At least you had a job when Nixon was president. The situation is pretty similar today between Bush and Obama.
@Gov – But Carter was one term.
As long as Obama isn’t three terms, we’re not completely lost. And you know there are a bunch of people who want to see that happen by any means necessary.
@ Gene, sadly Romney was no Reagan. Add to that, Carter had the Iranian hostage crisis while Obama ‘killed Bin Laden’ (personally I think it was the Navy SEALs).
The young and dumb are the Democratic base and Obama is now underwater with them too now. Young people are learning a tough lesson about how all the promises the Democrats make amount to one big pile of BS. They went to college, they ran up tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and now their living with their moms working at McDonald’s. If a Republican gets in and the economy rebounds the Democrats will lose those voters for life. People tend to shift toward conservatism as they get older anyway.
It’s difficult to imagine being required to climb out the passengers side simply because one has a CCW permit. I’m not sure I’m even able to do so without considerable trouble but here is a thought, what I can do is kill anyone standing at my drivers window anytime I so chose. This sort of behavior has to stop, it accomplishes nothing for officer safety and in the long run likely reduces it.
There’s certainly no way I could do it. He’d just have to shoot me, I guess. Extra hero points that way.
This is what caught my attention: “On the permit, issued by the San Diego County Sheriff, it clearly states that Bagdesar is permitted to carry two Glock pistols as protection for his auto body shop and the deposits he makes on a regular basis.”
I think the media here is as much the enemy as the CHP officer was. But that’s pretty much par for Nazifornia these days.
Tom
Ha nazifornia made me laugh
It’s an epithet I’ve used for years. Alas, it’s not funny to me. My cousin lives in San Jose, and I’ve long wished for a constructive way to persuade him and his family to leave that hell hole before it’s too late, but I guess when you make a few hundred thousand a year it’s easier to just stick your head in the sand and substitute your own reality instead.
Tom
I agree, Nazifornia is very accurate. I have relatives trapped there (too broke to move; no comparably-paying job prospects elsewhere); it’s sad to see.
So the implication is that he can protect his auto body shop and his deposits, but not himself. Nice.
Correct, and it is a despicable thing. Just like gun-free zones. How is one’s life worth less in one place but not another?
Other than open courtrooms in session, and jailhouse cell blocks I can’t think of or agree to ANY restriction on the carry of a sidearm
That is all.
Tom
Yo, Matt. Why all theYour Commenting Too Fast notices? Even when they’re an hour apart? I’ve emailed RF about this twice but it’s still happening.
This one got thru.
I don’t know. There have been multiple reports of this, and we’ve reached out to the tech boffins, but so far, no resolution.
“Boffins”? Have you been talking with Brit-talk RF too much?
I actually picked it up from Top Gear, and I use it it rather infrequently.
Infrequently, good. “Boffins” gobsmacked me
Top Gear? In that case, all is forgiven, forget I said anything, go about your business.
Probably having difficulty gerting throug all the ads.yahoo.com alerts…
FYI, California surprisingly is not a “duty to inform” state. No need to inform an officer that you’re packing.
True, except that some sheriffs, like San Diego County Sheriff Gore, include a duty to advise as a restriction or requirement on the license.
And I’m sure that if an undeclared weapon is found in the car by the LEO high excitement will ensue.
“with technology and the internet…” cops should be able to verify creds near-instantaneously, instead of holding a law abiding citizen captive.
Slow connection?
Never mind…
something or someONE was slow, that’s for sure! It’s hard to believe it takes 1/2 hrs to verify a CCP, when it only takes minutes to run a BG check on a driver’s license.
I just ran across an anti gun article disguised as a sports article on espn. It’s titled “troubling questions in pistorius case”. I don’t know how to link the article but give it a gander.
What’s that hash all about? Is that supposed to be a photo, or what? Can you edify us?
In the email? It’s the script from the intro video. I don’t know why it did that.
My wife Dianne and I used to go to our local Old Country Buffet for Sunday brunch about every other weekend. I was always carrying, sometimes openly (and we only had the cops called on us 4 times!). One morning the manager was talking with Dianne and mentioned that “some people find your fiance kind of intimidating when he’s carrying a gun like that.” Di looked over at my 6’5″ 300+ pound, shaved head, bushy-bearded self and replied “some people find him kind of intimidating even when they *don’t* know he’s carrying a gun!”
Cool!
I’m not big or physically intimidating in any, way, shape or form. My wife says, “You look very grumpy all the time. You just look like the kind of person no one wants to talk to.”
I find that pretty funny (and sort of compliment in an odd way). I have to keep working on my tactical scowl.
Tools in the tool box, as they say.
“some improper equipment like darkly-tinted windows, no front license plate, and blacked out covers on his taillights.”
Well, nothing there to arouse any reasonable suspicion or concern.
Eye roll.
I don’t know the laws there, but if they are calling it “improper equipment,” there well might be a duly passed law or ordinance. Fair? Maybe not. But…
In SC, for example, we did have window tint laws on the books, and some places to have laws about those taillight cover thingy’s.
The cop may not have been technically in the wrong if such laws exist. Now, the real question is why do they exist…is there some real public interest they serve, or are they only hooks to give PC for traffic stops?
Always a fair question…
None of this is to justify the officer’s over-the-top behavior during the stop, nor does it address officer discretion in making the stop even with PC. But, the stop itself may not have been strictly “totally unjustified” from the LEO point of view.
In at least two of the items, the reason given would be “safety.”
Taillights are supposed to be a certain brightness and, more importantly, be unobstructed from the original design approved by the DOT.
I’ve heard two reasons given for tint limits. Both are safety related. On the front windows in Florida, the limit is higher (windows are less tinted) than on the back windows. That’s to ensure the driver can see through them. As someone who has 5% tint on his front windows, I can attest that it can make it quite hard to see at night. The other oft-stated reason is that perennial favorite, “officer safety,” because the officer can’t see what’s going on inside the car when he approaches it if it’s too dark.
I live in Florida and have a black interior, so I have 5% (limo) tint all the way around, and even have 30% on my windshield. I’ve been ticketed for it precisely one time in 15 years, and that ticket was in lieu of an actual speeding ticket. My point being, in my experience tint is something they don’t care about unless you give them other things to care about.
In the Formerly Free State of Maryland that car would be a veritable cornucopia of safety violations. The fox tail, headlight covers and “ooga”/”Dixie” horn were all that was missing.
Go around looking all “La Raza” idiot wannabe and big the cops pull you over. The drug dog must have been busy or would have doggie poop in his seats.
I was wondering about the concealed carry in the car issue, I usually have my EDC on my hip. I have no problem informing the LEO about my permit and firearm, just to show I’m law abiding and up front. I’m pretty sure I’m required by law to produce the CPL upon demand. So good, so far.
However, when said LEO asks me to disarm myself, particularly if firearms aren’t the reason for the stop, like a taillight out or something else innocuous, do I have a right to refuse? The LEOs can usually come up with some kind of copspeak like “it’s for your safety as well as mine. Really? Disarming me makes me safer? You’re standing there with your full size duty piece a couple of feet from my face. I would pretty much have to unbuckle, get under my shirt, make all kinds of monkey motion to get a shot, and by that time the LEO will have pretty much unloaded on me. Probably my dog, too.
As a responsible gun (and dog) owner, I’m all about complying with the po po, but I’m also pretty firm on the 2A. To me, infringing with no specific probable cause on my constitutionally, “lawfully approved” right to carry (by asking/forcing myself to disarm) would be the the law overstepping their authority. THAT is where I have a serious issue.
I’m seriously looking for the best answers the innerwebz can give me to evaluate from my own frame of reference. Any takers? RF?,Cliff? Matt? Rich? LEOs? I’m not worried about Dirk since he’s probably in post SxSW apaplexy after the photo thing.
Regards
Well, you might get a better answer from lawyers on this one than from me, because I’ve never felt the need to disarm anyone who wasn’t being arrested. However, I believe the terms of a Terry stop, which is when an officer both has some reason to believe a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, and also has reason to believe that the person being stopped is linked to that crime, include the right of the officer to conduct a limited search of the suspect for weapons.
When someone is stopped for a traffic violation, it is automatically a Terry stop, because the violation is a crime (however trivial it may seem). However, police don’t automatically have a reason to pat someone down just because they have a legal reason to stop someone. To actually do a frisk, you have to have clear and specific reasons to think the person is armed. Things ranging from knowing them from a previous arrest where they were armed, seeing a weapon shaped bulge in their clothing, knowing the crime you believe they were involved in is commonly associated with weapons, or even knowing you are in an unusually high crime area, or seeing that the person keeps reaching for a pocket or their waistband despite instructions to not do so. There is not a set number of points you need, but you need to be able to explain why you thought it was appropriate.
If someone tells me that they are armed, with or without a permit, then that is a good reason to think they are armed. If they’re already being lawfully detained on a Terry stop, then this is enough to allow temporary seizure of the weapon. Notice I said allow, not justify. My personal view is that even if something is legally justified, it is not always needed or appropriate.
I have been on more than a few traffic stops where someone tells me they have a valid permit and that they are armed, and I have never taken someone’s weapon, even when they offer it to me (verbally, haven’t yet had someone just whip it out and ask me to take it). I ask to see the permit, thank them for exercising their rights and for taking the trouble to get the permit in the first place, and in every case so far, I give them a warning for the traffic issue.
Hasdrubal,
Is a motor vehicle code violation really a “crime”? A civil infraction, yes. But I am having a hard time calling it a “crime” that satisfies the requirements for a Terry stop.
We need an attorney to weigh in on the legal definition of a “crime” (as mentioned in the requirements for a Terry stop) and legal definition of a traffic stop for motor vehicle code violations.
Not an attorney, but “crime” is defined in statute. Yes, motor vehicles offenses are “crimes.”
“Barracks lawyer?” The opinion is worth every penny paid…
While the specific definitions of what is a crime, and what police can enforce will be found in each state’s laws, I am not aware of a state where police do not have legal authority to enforce traffic law.
In WA, some odd points about who can enforce what are that city police can’t do evictions, only the sheriff’s deputies are allowed to do that. Police in general can’t enforce court ordered parenting plans, but a restraining order issued by the same judge for the same people is fair game.
I had half a neighborhood wanting me to take action against a guy for building code violations. We didn’t touch him until a dozen cases had been written for the guy ignoring a stop work order issued by the city attorney, and then a contempt warrant had been issued. Because, of course, the police don’t have authority in WA over building code issues.
Check your state laws if you want to know more.
Jus Bill – directed at my comment? Snarky intent?
To clarify:
I was a LEO and just reported on what I was taught in legal classes (at a State Criminal Justice Academy) taught by lawyers. Read your state’s statutes on traffic laws and you will see language like “is a misdemeanor with a penalty of …”
The question was are traffic violations criminal violations or civil? The answer is pretty straightforward, and does not take a lawyer to answer.
Who prosecutes a case in traffic court? Another party that has suffered a tort? No; a representative of the state.
What is the violation? A listed state statute with statutorily defined penalties.
What is the basis for a traffic stop? Probable Cause.
What is the standard for conviction? Reasonable Doubt, not “preponderance of evidence” as generally seen in civil court.
Sometimes folks try to make these things to be harder than they really are…
Sigh…further clarification: The statute MAY contain language defining an offense as a misdemeanor. So, at least some traffic offenses are very clearly “crimes.”
And, to make it more specific to this particular case, if this were in SC (for example), from SC Title 56,
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t56c005.php
we see 56-5-5015 Sunscreen Devices:
“(K) A person who owns or operates a motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor triable in magistrate’s court and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days. ”
And just for grins, since there’s a lot on the Internet about speending NOT being a “crime,” in SC speeding is also so defined in statute (see 56-5-1520):
“(G) A person violating the speed limits established by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction for a first offense, must be fined or imprisoned as follows:”
Hasdrubal, great response thank you for sharing.+1 Interweb point. +1 life point for being one of the good guys.
Hannibal hits it on the head. Unless I think something nefarious is afoot I don’t see a reason to take it from someone. I usually ask what and where they are carrying, or why they aren’t, ask how they like their carry piece and tell them to leave it in the holster. CCW holder usually get a warning for whatever the infraction was.
One exception is when the gun is sitting in the open like on the passenger seat or floorboards. I’ll usually secure it clear it and then check for a CCW permit. I usually give them a safety lecture on where that piece could end up in a sudden stop or crash before I return it.
Very well stated Hasdrubal, thank you for the articulate examination of the Terry stop concept, it’s one that I’m intimately familiar with and you’ve just stated it much better than any officer I’ve spoken to about it. It’s also one that is often misinterpreted and often applied incorrectly, particularly in regards to contraband rather than weapons.
For what it’s worth, the “Terry Stop” is, in my observation, one of the most misunderstood applications of law among LEO’s.
We used to have to do monthly “legal” training. Almost every month’s ‘refresher’ was to study a real appellate case that involved Terry v Ohio or other general 4th Amendment issue.
Some of the cases had some subtleties that one had to really noodle out, but some were so obvious you had to ask, “What was that officer thinking?” You can fill in your own blanks on that.
Hot damn! I knew if I let it soak overnight something would come out. I’m making the assumption you are or were an LEO. I appreciate your input, now I gotta go read the others .
For your own protection here on TTAG, you should avoid phrases like ” haven’t yet had someone just whip it out and ask me to take it”. Unless someone got to it first, it’s like blood in snark infested waters.
Thanks
You might want to read this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/11/chris-fusaro/how-a-cop-deals-handles-a-routine-traffic-stop/
LEO’s have the authority to have control over your firearm during a traffic stop and until the conclusion of the traffic stop. However, the ‘duty to inform’ varies widely from state to state. All the LEO’s I know, or have had conversations with, advise you to inform the officer of your firearms status even if no such requirement exists (of course). I’ve had a few traffic stop encounters over the last 10+ years (some as driver, some as passenger). Every cop handles it differently. Some just want you to keep your hands visible. Some have disarmed me and done random stupid things. I remember carrying a P99 and the cop asking me where the mag release was. After trying to verbally tell him, I pointed to it on the trigger guard and he flipped out at me while not realizing he was sweeping a second arriving officer. Some have been really professional about it. The ones that have detained my firearm have all returned it with the slide locked back, the mag out and the extra round in hand. All place it somewhere (like on the floor of the car or back seat) and asked me not to load up until they left. Hope that helps some.
Good link. I guess the best thing for me to plan for here is the meme I was always educated with, “just calmly comply with the officer”. I know this is flame bait here on TTAG, but having an officer a couple of feet from me with a tactical advantage while we’re both carrying loaded .40 cals is probably not the time and place to debate my civil and constitutional rights. Whether right or wrong, that’s probably for another time. If he goes all “crazy bad cop” on me, hopefully the dash cam’s a rollin’.
Yah I guess you can make fake documsnts like fake badges and imper sonating a police officer.
That was not handled correctly and a complaint nweds to be filed against the officer and his dept.That same treatment was done to an open legal carry resident in Las Vegas.A complaint was filed a lawsuit as well and 3000 metro police had to go to school on how to properly approach open carriers. What the chp officer did was Illegal.h amendment violation to start with.Illegal search and siezure, unlawful detainment.Etc…
If any CCW holders are being treated unfairly – which seemed to be the case here – I recommend filing a complaint with specific grievances. The CHP has a relatively decent complaint policy. You could also not comply, but that has its own risks. Calling for a supervisor could also be totally appropriate.
There are so few carry permits in CA that some cops don’t handle it appropriately.
Before I was more aware of my rights, I granted a police officer permission to do a quick search of my car after she saw what looked like marijuana on my center console during a stop for my vehicle being too loud (the flex pipe was no longer secured, it was pretty loud.) It was just grass and debris because my car was a mess and I’d recently cut my way-too-long lawn the day before. I should have told her to FOAD and that I didn’t consent to a search, but I was naive at the time.
Granted, she didn’t make a fuss about my pistol…so that’s all well and good I suppose.
If she saw suspected contraband she did not need consent to search since it was in plain view.
I sure am glad I live in Michigan. We have a legislature controlled by the conservatives but with a healthy amount of liberals. To see such one-sided voting tallies on these pro-gun rights measures is very satisfying.
Too bad our national representatives and senators don’t feel the same way. Kildee, Stabenow, and Levin are shills.
Levinson is retiring after this term…..
To dark of tint,no front plate, dark brake light covers…..
This guy must just like to get pulled over……
Pimpmobile.
I still don’t understand the brake light/headlight covers- let’s take a piece of equipment that was designed to let people see you and avoid smashing into you at speed, and make it not work anymore, and drive around like that. Yes, this seems like a good idea, worthy of my hard earned dollars to implement.
In my experience, they don’t cause them “to not work anymore,” they just dim them a little bit. They’re still quite visible. For a while, when people were putting smoke-colored covers over their headlights, I thought that was a little dumb, but even still, I’d bet many of those were still more light-transmissive than most of the sun-whitened plastic headlights I see every day.
I last until around the 2 minute mark of Mattv2099’s weak ass video. Good grief. Why does TTAG promote such stupidity?
Sense of humor, do you have it?
At least now you should know not to click on links to his videos. All on you from here on out if you subject yourself to such “stupidity.”
Isn’t it just AWESOME how well personal responsibility works?
Oh JR, you are soo right bro.
To be fair, you were warned.
That’s what I try to do. Some folks just refuse to listen.
Well, I clicked thru to the CCW article and read it and all the comments, and the CH 10 clip, and the stupid you-tube video he made showing off while driving, which might give you some sense of this permit holders Justin Bieber-like maturity and “entitlement” attitude.
Judging by the known fact pattern on vehicle infractions, by a supposed auto shop owner who would have known better, my gut instinct is to support the CHP officers judgement to err on safe side.
There is also a safety factor here, that is especially true in So Cal, where people routinely speed on the interstate, and half the drivers obviously never took Drivers Ed in high school, but picked it up in Hong Kong, Manila, or Mexico City, as between the old folks crawling in the left land with cruise control set on 55, and the Fast and Furious wannabes zooming in and out, and sometimes the fastest traffic being on the far right- at 75 or 80, it can get a bit hair-raising. And that’s on a sunny day, never mind after dark when the drunks are sometimes every 4 car….
Most every overpass between the border and north of LA is named after a CHP or LEO hit by a car on a traffic stop. Sometimes people stop in the stupidest places or where the shoulder is skinny- and that’s not always the drivers fault- there’s lots of road segments under seeming never-ending repair and others simply lacking ANY shoulder, as new traffic lanes have been made out of them, on old constrained by development freeways jammed into urban areas, especially in LA, so it can be hard to find a place to pull over for a half mile or more.
The safest place is inside the back of the cop car, and if this guy was acting like a total jerk, and the CHP guy was alone, it would only make sense to secure him there, for his own safety and the officers while checking on the permit validity, including asking him to get out on the right side. Especially if the CHP felt it possible there *might* be some heated discussion on the side of the car- it would be MUCH safer on the shoulder side, than next to passing traffic.
I’d have to double check terminology on CA CCW carry- and I have been researching this in detail, and nothing comes up about where to secure a SECOND gun, so its probably a gray area-
ie: having ONE loaded handgun on your person, under your immediate control, does make sense,
but having ANOTHER loaded handgun, unsecured, away from you- doesn’t.
Note: by CA law, legal transport of a handgun (without CCW) means unloaded, in a locking container. And a glove box or utility compartment is well known to be NOT a locking container, that is covered in multiple gun forums, and in CCW permit class training that I have reviewed.
So, maybe that second loaded, unsecured gun raised a concern, that when combined with the wannabe ghetto boy vehicle with multiple infractions, and a bad attitude, just added up to “be cautious” and double-check.
I think this CCW owner is the kind of guy who makes the rest look bad. Theres no law that says he cant be a jerk, of course, but a little common-sense would go a long way for this guy, and he’s obviously not getting it.
Millennial here (1982). Full support of constitution and oppose gun control.
Comments are closed.