LEO perspective

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: LEO perspective

Post by Werz »

glocksmith wrote:...but then again I've been told I'm naieve :D
Only in your spelling:

Adjective: naïve
Noun: naïveté
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by glocksmith »

Best thing you've said all week Werz :lol:
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 8965
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by Mr. Glock »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
glocksmith wrote:
xpd54 wrote:[Forgive me for saying that this is a bit naive.
If you think that's "naive" aka naieve, then how about this: IMHO the whole purpose of obtaining a CHL is to be spared such treatment. I do all the requirements, jump through all the hoops, pay the fees, and play by the rules so I won't have to be treated like a criminal. They tell me to notify or else...so I do...and I'm rewarded with being disarmed and my weapons SN# called in to see if it's stolen...then I'm handed it back unloaded and told not to reload until we've gone our separate ways. ++++ me I guess. No good deed goes unpunished. Forgive me for saying it, but as the years go on I'm beginning to move closer to the POV that maybe by playing the CHL game I am part of the problem...the more you give "them" the more "they" want. I suppose it's naieve of me to think that the 2A was supposed to guarantee that I didn't have to go through all this just to exercise my right to bear arms?
I've come to learn over the years that a CHL means nothing more than one is given permission to take that gun on their hip and put a coat over it.

A CHL does not mean one is a law abiding citizen.
A CHL does not mean one has training to use that weapon properly and safely.
Does not mean....certainly.
A higher probability than the general public... yes
OFCC Patron, GOA, SAF, YouTube 2A Patreon, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: LEO perspective

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Mr. Glock wrote:Does not mean....certainly.
A higher probability than the general public... yes
Not good enough odds for me to bet my life on it. I sure wouldn't expect a LEO to do so, either.

As for checking the SN#, yes, it sucks, but how many of us have a locking case that we can put our firearm in right before handing it to an officer?

That would be MY preference, but I'm not going to keep a NanoVault in the front seat with me, nor am I going to rummage around behind my seat in the truck to dig one out, not with a nervous cop at the window.

If, however, I DID manage to get a gun stored in a NanoVault and toss it up on my dash, there is no way in Hades that I would unlock that sucker for the officer. He can take the whole thing and hang on to it, but I ain't gonna' open it. He took it for "officer safety"? It was safely locked in the box and THAT is what I would tell the judge.
MyWifeSaidYes
CroManGun
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:29 am
Location: Paarmaa!

Re: LEO perspective

Post by CroManGun »

carmen fovozzo wrote:
glocksmith wrote:IDK Carmen, I wish you would have quoted someone from above, so we know which point you're talking about.

Seems the discussion is now leaning towards the whole notification thing. As I implied above, during my encounter with CPD, I'd have been better off if I'd just kept my mouth shut and not notified...and I have been better off if I was CC'ing without a CHL (since they never frisked me). Because I did everything by the book, the situation was made more complicated and unpleasant for me.
The Point.....Not all CHLH are LAC......see how easy that was...that is what I said many years ago and got negative remarks from it..
Good to see that you stood your ground and didn't surrender your common sense to those spewing the negative remarks. Once again, great minds think alike! :wink:
Genuine Scooter Trash
Member: NRA/OFCC/AAA/GER/AFG
Former Member: Amish Chippendales
I Am Not A Lawyer, But I Have Played One In Real Life
CroManGun
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1613
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:29 am
Location: Paarmaa!

Re: LEO perspective

Post by CroManGun »

glocksmith wrote:IDK, I guess what I'm really saying was, look at the big picture. This was originally a discussion about the questionable practice of LEO's calling in a CHL holders weapons serial number to see if it is stolen. So, take a step back and look at all you have to go through to get to that point. You have to be 21 and a law abiding citizen who can pass all the requirements spelled out on the 4473 - then you have to pass the NICS background check. Then you have to complete and pass the state mandated 12 hour course, at your own expense of course. Then you must report to the local S.O. and be photographed, fingerprinted and pass another background check which is more detailed than the NICS the LGS did. Again, at your own expense. You have to "maintain" that valid CHL by obeying all laws...which you do. In the event of a traffic stop, you are required to notify...which you do. And, after all that, and here's the big point...you shouldn't be subjected to even greater scrutiny and suspicion by having your carry weapon undergo a background check to ensure its not stolen. That, to me, seems like mere harassment by the LEO...more a case of because they can than out of necessity. Is getting stopped for a tailight out grounds for calling in a weapons serial number? I'd say no...but then again I've been told I'm naieve :D
Unless you know the complete history of EVERY gun you purchase, there is always the possibility of ending up with a stolen gun. Having a CHL cannot protect you from that. The gun you buy from some trusted forum member (also a CHL) might've come from a face-to-face (not FFL) buy at a gun show from some guy who bought it at another gun show, etc., ad infinitum. Do YOU have the SN checked before you buy? Did HE before he bought it? Probably not. There's always a market for hot merchandise and firearms are no different.

All this having been said, I still don't think that the OP was treated right if everything happened as he said. It's a case of might makes right; they have the right to do it because they have the might to do it. Another fine example of "officer discretion" in action.
Genuine Scooter Trash
Member: NRA/OFCC/AAA/GER/AFG
Former Member: Amish Chippendales
I Am Not A Lawyer, But I Have Played One In Real Life
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by glocksmith »

It's kinda funny that, in all the OC videos I've watched on Youtube, I've never seen a LEO confiscate their weapon and call it in to see if it is stolen. It's funny that a guy can walk down Main Street with an AR slung over his shoulder...then be a law-debating a++ toward the LEO...yet seemingly get off easier than I do as a CHL holder. :?
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by FormerNavy »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
glocksmith wrote:IDK, I guess the discussions come full circle - back to reasonable suspicion and probable cause . IMHO my simply having a CHL and a firearm on my person is not grounds to suspect that it may be stolen. And, I'll bet that if we could brew up the stats on encounters between CHL holders and LEO's, we'd find that running serial numbers of firearms was irregulalry practiced. Again, officer discretion comes into play.
I guess the big question is how do you stop it? You can't make a blanket law that says an officer can't run it because then criminals would get off with stolen firearms. At best you could make a law that says officers can only run it if they have other charges, but that may result in people being charges with something stupid just to allow the officer to run the gun.

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...
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: LEO perspective

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

We need someone to develop a thin, opaque locking cover to "protect" the serial number from damage...a cover that would not hamper the operation of the firearm.

Maybe something molded into the frame during manufacture, or that could be melted into or glued onto the frame by a competent gunsmith/armorer.

It wouldn't help most serial number happy stampers like Glock, but might work for other models that have a serial number in only one location.
MyWifeSaidYes
dlgeorge
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:17 am
Location: Ottawa Lake, Michigan (very close to Ohio)

Re: LEO perspective

Post by dlgeorge »

Doesn't the officer have to return the gun in the same condition that it was in when he took it, meaning loaded and one in the chamber, if that's how you carry. I'm 99% sure that is the law in Michigan where I live.
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by Brian D. »

dlgeorge wrote:Doesn't the officer have to return the gun in the same condition that it was in when he took it, meaning loaded and one in the chamber, if that's how you carry. I'm 99% sure that is the law in Michigan where I live.
It doesn't often play out like that here in Ohio, according to multiple accounts on this forum. Usually the officer does one of three things after a licensee informs:

1) They instruct the CHL holder to NOT touch the firearm, and proceed with writing the ticket or whatever initiated the interaction to begin with.
2) They take control of the firearm* unloading it for the duration of the stop. Then they instruct the licensee to NOT handle or load it until the LEO has left. This doesn't comply with the letter of our law, but I don't recommend going against the "it's for officer safety" argument, that brush paints a wide swath in the legal system.

*Sometimes they instruct the licensee to unholster and unload the firearm safely before handing it over. In other instances they take the firearm themselves, sometimes not being at all familiar with how that particular handgun operates. To my way of thinking neither of these techniques is very safe or prudent.

3) On relatively rare occasions the officer will go so far as to field strip the gun and empty all the rounds out of the magazine. That method is WAY over the line to me and I'd feel compelled to go up that agency's chain of command pretty high to make an official complaint.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: LEO perspective

Post by djthomas »

dlgeorge wrote:Doesn't the officer have to return the gun in the same condition that it was in when he took it, meaning loaded and one in the chamber, if that's how you carry.
No. The law merely requires that the officer return it at the termination of the stop (2923.16 (J)). If, and only if, he fails to do so does the statute that uses the word "condition" come into play (2923.163). Reading that whole section for context I think the intent is that the physical condition of the firearm be preserved. That is it isn't returned with more damage than it came in with. Prior to 2923.163 being enacted there were stories about nice guns being seized being reluctantly returned months later looking like they'd been taken out to the range or worse instead of being preserved as the evidence they were purported to be.
glocksmith
Posts: 3918
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:04 am
Location: Cincinnati/SW Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by glocksmith »

Brian D. wrote:Then they instruct the licensee to NOT handle or load it until the LEO has left.
They did that with me when I was walking on foot and a fair distance from my home. I told them I was going to load it NOW (and I did :D ) in their presence...my only other option being doing it later - possibly in view of neighborhood residents who would no doubt call in an MWAG and get me stopped by the police again.
Give em' Hell Pike!!!
racer265
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:33 am
Location: Minerva Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by racer265 »

When I get the opportunity to talk to my wifes cousin, (He is an officer for OHSP) I am going to ask him about the policy on when and why an officer should, or would have reason to run a serial number on a firearm..?? After thinking back on the subject what would the officer have done If I protested with something like STOP I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH OF MY PROPERTY! yelled out the window at him? I still got a ticket from the incident, but the officer did cut me a break on the overall speed. The other question that comes to mind is, If you protest does it do any real good? or just infuriate the officer so he looks for anything to write you a bigger ticket and or another ticket?
Cruiser
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Mercer County, Ohio - what is yours?

Re: LEO perspective

Post by Cruiser »

racer265 wrote: (He is an officer for OHSP)
What State is OHSP? Not familiar with that one!
Abandon ye all HOPE!
Post Reply