\preaching
FormerNavy wrote: The only real way to stop it will be for a criminal who had his gun S/N called in in such a way to win a suppression of evidence motion and appeal.... If a LAC challenges it the court will likely find they had no grounds and were not really inconvenienced...
The thing that most LEO don't really consider is that none of this occurs in a vacuum. No, a LAC that challenges such action, won't have any grounds to stand on in court. But, there has been damage done in his mind and that damage is to the LEO and department's reputations.
I've never had my gun taken for "officer safety", but if it happens, I would definitely insist that the gun and holster be removed together. I'd also later get the recording of the radio traffic to see if the serial number was called in. My criminal record, or more properly, lack thereof is readily apparent when the officer runs my plates before ever approaching me. I'd find asking for the weapon to be mildly insulting. Running the SN on the firearm would be a violation of my privacy and my rights in my mind.
That's where reputation comes into play. While I've never had my gun taken, something else happened almost 20 years ago. I was driving and dropped my cigarette. It was near the door, and I simply opened the door and let the wind pull the burning cigarette out of the truck. Less than a minute later, I was pulled over. The Marion city PD officer had seen me open and hold open my door for a couple seconds and, from the conversation we had, was basically curious to see what was up. Honestly, had he just left it there, or said he pulled me over because opening the door while in motion is a violation or dangerous, I would have been fine with it. What he came up with to give as a reason to pull me over was that I was speeding. I looked at him funny and said, you know how fast I was going, right? He replied, 35 but this is a 25 zone. I then pointed to the 35MPH speed limit sign less than 100 feet in front of us and pointed out that we passed another less than a mile back. Now we have a problem.
A couple days later, we were both seated in the Chief's office and the officer admitted that he lied about the reason for pulling me over. The Chief, correctly, pointed out that his officer can legally lie to me. DOES NOT MATTER. After that, if this particular officer says the sun will come up in the East, I'm gonna look West come dawn. His word is worthless, and the word of any officer of that department has to be viewed with heavy skepticism.
Fast forward about 2 years later and I get a letter to report for jury duty. Officer #2 who was riding with the guy that pulled me over is on the stand. I find that I can't give his testimony of exigent circumstances more weight than the testimony of the couple that insist there was no fight and an illegal search. Hung jury and a drug dealer gets away with it because I can't trust the word of that cop. If a cop has absolutely no reason to remove my firearm from the holster and run the SN on my firearm, but does so anyway, how can I trust in court when that cop, or any officer of that department, says he has RAS or PC to search someone else?
To me, it's not about whether CHL's are good guys or not. It's about police holding up their end. Doing things the right way. Not abusing the public trust. Because when we give police the powers we do, it's all about trust.
/sermon