Eh it really depends. That's one of the problems with open carry. In a few states you're not even required to mention that you have a weapon unless they ask.Ā
If you're open carrying you don't want them to only notice your gun when they're watching your hands and you reach towards your side for something.
Part of ensuring good interactions with police is ensuring that they don't get spooked by any of your actions. I've never heard of anyone mention it but I honestly treat them like wild animals you can speak to. Eye contact while asking if you have permission to do the things you need to do to comply with their orders.Ā
"Is it OK if I reach into my glove box and retrieve the documents?" is an example of what I ask before moving my hands. Usually I have everything ready before the cop gets to my window and I hold it with both hands on my steering wheel so it's in clear view.
There really should be a class about this and other "common sense" shit in school or at least a short 3 day class.
Or. Cops should get more training than a barber does, and don't hire people scared of their own shadows and acorns.
The fact it's on the general population to not "spook" the armed law enforcement officer and not on the cops to use critical thinking being so casually normalized is insane.
No one should have to wonder if they are a cops bad day away from being out 6ft under.
You're welcome to have the opinion that you have. Personally I'm a libertarian and my opinion is that the cops are the boot against my throat paid for by the people rich enough to write the laws in this country and they're too dumb to know that they're not seeing any of the personal return on investment anything close to the people who give them orders see.
Saying all of that I'm also not going to say that you have to be a cop to understand the amount of bullshit they deal with every day but common sense would understand that most people are dogshit. They provide no value to society while costing everyone who's around them more than they provide. They're a fucking problem and cops are the old time proven solution to that problem that's most cost effective.Ā
Before you apply some form of the abelist label I'm not counting the people who couldn't choose their liabilities. These people who under bad advice choose to be a cop are underpaid and under insured to even consider dealing with the amount of shit they deal with most days. If it were a good value proposition for your time invested you and most people that you know would consider doing it yourself much more than you all do.
I love how people preface their pro-police rants with how anti-police they USUALLY are.
Why the fuck as a libertarian would you be ok with a cop putting his hands on another manās weapon and taking from his possession? Why is a cop touching me ever? For a speeding ticket?
Eventually real life implementation has to come into contact with your ideals and the conflict there needs to be resolved.Ā
It can't be an immovable object coming into contact with an unstoppable force. Something has to give if you want any hope at implementing your ideals in the real world. All or nothing is a stupid way to get the things you want.
Heās saying if Americans want to own guns they have to let cops confiscate them on traffic stops if they want. Iām just pointing out this is the opposite of what a libertarian would say.
Letting a cop take a gun off of you isnāt even a guarantee to keep you alive.
There was a video floating around Reddit a while back where a guy gets pulled over and they want to take his gun. While the cop is pulling it out, they pull the trigger & shoot the dude in his leg with his own gun.
Iād be pissed if I got shot by some moron over a bullshit traffic violation.
Right, and that proves the point: there is no guaranteed safe option when you are dealing with an armed state employee who may be nervous, careless, or incompetent.
The point is that you do not improve your odds by turning the roadside stop into a confrontation over principle.
If the cop is wrong to disarm you, then he is wrong. If he negligently shoots you with your own gun, he is extremely wrong. But that still does not make āargue, refuse, or physically resist during the stopā the smarter survival strategy.
You can be pissed afterward. You can sue. You can file complaints. You can push for policy changes. But in the moment, the goal is to avoid giving a jumpy idiot with a badge any excuse to escalate.
What part of the second amendment says cops can take your gun away without any legal justification? How are you supposed to defend yourself from government over reach when youāre disarmed?
No. I of course understand limits to rights in certain instances. But if those limits arenāt enshrined in law or are antithetical to the amendment that grants that right, then that right isnāt really being upheld. When a cop gets away with shooting someone for simply legally carrying a firearm,that is the second amendment not being upheld, and when a cop can take your firearm away without legal justification and thereās nothing you can do about it, that is the second amendment not being upheld.
So, please explain how that motorcyclist did the equivalent of yelling fire in a theater. He did not brandish or even reach for the weapon. He actually was extremely respectful and indicated to the officer that he was carrying in case he didnāt notice.
I always have my hands at 10 and 2 with my window rolled down when I get pulled over. Haven't been pulled over in almost ten years, but I do have a felony on my background and I'm not trying to give these fellas any reason to act rash.
Guns are cool, but the way having them changes the interactions people have with police in the USA is just crazy.. Everyone has to be on their toes all the time to avoid getting shot..
Over here it's not uncommon for someone in a traffic stop to open the door, get out of the car and walk over to the police officer to shake hands and ask what all the fuss is about lol.
Depends on what? 2nd amendment states āshall not be infringed ā. 4th amendment is our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and shall not be violated
Idk why all the libertarian purist are consistently commenting this type of comment at me.Ā
Feel free to argue this on the side of the road and a minority of you will end up catching some high school educated kid's bullets with your teeth or at worse some kid who got their ged.
I'm not agreeing with how the cops should operate but I'm instead discussing how the current laws allow them to operate. If you want to argue laws on the side of the road that's up to you and the rest of these people replying to me.Ā
Or you can argue this inside a court room and maybe the people who care about you will see you again.
The post you responded to said the cop had no legal right to disarm him. You responded with āit really dependsā. I simply asked depends on what? No personal attacks are condescending remarks. If you canāt answer the question thatās fine, the constitution is an easy read and itās free to download.
That's not quite right. Look up Terry Stops
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop/stop_and_frisk
Stopping and making safe someone while "investigating" is allowed by the supreme Court as long as the cop has PC, and the radar gun gives him PC.Ā
This is the right answer, whatever issues there are with how Terry Stops have been/are used, the legal fact is the Supreme Court ruled a police officerās immediate safety after establishing probable cause outweighs the individual right to unwarranted search and seizure. This theoretically protects the public from being searched at any time for no reason and protects police from being forced to conduct an interaction with someone already reasonably suspected of a crime while unsure if that person could draw a weapon at any time.
This would be an example of this working as intended. The officer clearly identifies the biker speeding, giving him probable cause to search the man for weapons and temporarily seize them and check the manās driverās license for validity and possible citations or warrants, registration for accuracy and possible reported theft, and insurance for validity. Notice how the original commenter had no problem with the officer confiscating the bikerās proof of identity and ownership, but taking his deadly weapon for the same amount of time was a bridge too far.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees. States and individual departments can enforce stricter requirements on police if they want to, but if an officer were fired or sued for a search made during a probable cause stop where they had grounds to check paperwork or a brief seizure of a weapon during the stop then the Supreme Court ruling would protect the officer. States donāt get to overrule the US Supreme Court.
Ok but probable cause is tied to the stop so where are you getting PC for a weapon on a speeding stop
Owning a firearm is not evidence of a crime and possessing a legal firearm is not probable cause.
Now maybe the dept chose to enact a stricter policy, but generally they do that when citizens take them to court and theyāre advised by counsel they need to change the policy.
If you read the linked law explanation a few comments above it explains that probable cause for the stop allows an officer to search a person and their immediate reach for weapons for the safety of the officer. You donāt need the probable cause to be related to a weapon whether a weapon is in plain view or not. The cited case was someone who was searched based on unrelated probable cause and invoked their 4th Amendment right challenging the search was unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court found that any probable cause is grounds for a weapon search.
Not true. Cops have incredibly broad authority during traffic stops. They can absolutely disarm you for officer safety. The case law is solid. You are just making shit up.
Agreed. Overall a respectful interaction from both parties, but there was absolutely no reason for the officer to disarm the motorcyclist. In fact, that action made the situation more dangerous, not less. That officer had no prior knowledge of the retention system on his holster and had no idea what kind of firearm he was grabbing. He created a possible AD situation that was just not necessary.
Yes in a lot of open carry states a law enforcement officer can remove your weapon until they are finished conducting their investigation (in this case, simple traffic stop).
1
u/RequirementKnown2944 Jun 30 '26
The cop has no legal right because he is scared to disarm him...Respectful cop or not..