London OH PD stop

[willbird]

There are a lot of things the police would prefer I do for their convience and comfort. That said, for the most part I refuse to do so on the basis that they are my employees and I am not about to give up my rights to give them a warm fuzzy feeling.


I am polite, helpfull, but beyond that they have their job, and I am their employer, and we each have rules we must follow and respect.

Bill

[ScottyPotty]

In my class..........we were taught to tell the officer if we were carrying or not....it was nice that we had the sheriff of Medina county and a few officers come for a Q&A session.......Plain and simple....I will tell them if Im carrying or not......it is common curtisity with the officer. it will make them relax and know that I have nothing to hide and im one of the good guys......maybe it will even get out of the speeding ticket ...............thats just what Im going to do.

I can see the point of if "its not the law" and you certinaly shouldnt get a ticket for it.......that does make me mad!

[dan_sayers]

I agree with your logic. Just wanted to point out the flipside to the coin. There ARE cops out there that are particularly bothered that they aren't the only armed ones out there. For you to divulge that when not required to may appear to them as you flying it in their face. Or that maybe you're trying to barter your way out of a ticket. Maybe a tad unrealistic, but I've read somebody suggest that and it makes sense, so I thought I'd offer it as a counterpoint.

[EE]

I have seen in a number of threads the suggestion that we should carry a copy of the law in order to set an LEO straight if he/she is mistaken about some part of the law. I wonder: even if one were very courteous in pointing out the officer's error, couldn't this make matters worse? I'm sure some officers wouldn't mind getting their error corrected by someone they stopped, but others might be (mistakenly, I think) insulted by such an action.

What you guys think about this?

As far as notifying the LEO when I am not carrying, I think I would do so as a matter of courtesy. I don't see where it undermines our rights to go a small step further than we have to in this case.

EE

[SMMAssociates]

EE:

My vote is to notify regardless.... It's too easy to misunderstand "must notify if carrying" as "must notify".... LEO's have enough new law to assimilate constantly as it is, and somewhat subtle stuff, even though it's important to us, may get missed.

(Not to mention the more important issues like "plain sight" and "felony touching".)

I've always felt that arguing with an LEO who thinks he's right is futile, however a polite "Officer, I believe your interpretation may be in error. If you'd care to see a copy of the applicable statutes...." might get a favorable response.

(Or at least a nicer cellmate .)

Seriously, being polite is where it's all at anyway, so the trick is to do that, and to guess if the Officer is going to be willing to listen. You may have to accept the citation and contest it later....

(If you're about to be hauled off to the greybar you might as well ask for a supervisor - you might get lucky.)

Regards,

[Matt Cush]

All very good points, but if I may give my humble opinion, I will "not" notify when not carrying.
It is neither my lifes calling nor my lifes wish to be a LEO trainer and I will not start that endeavor in the area of CCW. Should this happen I will take my citation, go to court and quietly win. This should at least in the particular municipality clear the way for other CHL's to follow the law as it is written and taught, because getting beat in court will educate the law enforcement for the next guy or gal.
If my son happens to be driving my vehicle, he will not be announcing because he is no more armed than I would be in that same situation.
The law is the law, and it will continue be enforced incorrectly if we modify it for every uneducated LEO's convenience.
Laws are not convenient, they are not up for personal interpretation, by us or LEO's.
I am not trying to be argumentative, but I simply refuse to [Expletive Deleted -- TR]because they can't do it themselves. This is a clear instance of an uninformed power trip by local law enforcement. But I will give them only enough rope to hang themselves with.

[deanimator]

All very good points, but if I may give my humble opinion, I will "not" notify when not carrying.
It is neither my lifes calling nor my lifes wish to be a LEO trainer and I will not start that endeavor in the area of CCW. Should this happen I will take my citation, go to court and quietly win. This should at least in the particular municipality clear the way for other CHL's to follow the law as it is written and taught, because getting beat in court will educate the law enforcement for the next guy or gal.

You are 100% correct. Those who wish to enforce the law should first obey it.

The thing I find so disturbing about some LEOs is their insistence on being exempt from the laws which bind everyone else. In Illinois they were going to ban firearms possession by those convicted of domestic violence. Everything was alright until the Chicago police union discovered that cops weren't exempt. They pitched a hissy fit so violent it made National Public Radio.

Unless you want to live in a two tier samurai/peasant type society with cops in the samurai role, you'd better be willing to hold them to the law, and you'd better be willing to endure hardships to do it, too.

I grew up in Chicago. I've seen what happens when the police enforce the law but aren't bound by it.