It's legal to confiscate firearms from people with CCW's?

[ZomBrady]

Holy ****! Sounds like Officer Stern needs an injection of common sense and respect for the laws he's charged with upholding.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atla...pholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers

 

[AIbandit]

First off I would agree to drawing down on a CCW holder.
As a cop you have seconds to react to a firearm or you can die. You don't know if he has a permit or not.

As for the confiscating I think this is very situational. Just the fact that it's a lawyer that this happened to tells me the guy was probably a "I know the laws better than you" ass and not cooperating which escalated the situation.

This is a one sided story obviously you can't make a determination without both sides. The court heard both sides and chose the victor.

 

[RNMedic]

A friend of mine was pulled over locally by one of our smaller depts. Has a CCW, decorated vet 3 tours in Iraq and was on his way to his job as Exec Protection. The cop who pulled him over called 3 other cops for back up d/t his CCW status. My wife and I have both been pulled over with CCW and never had an issue. I think this cop has issues and this case should be overturned.

 

[Darky]

I don't see a problem with drawing down on a concealed carry holder. The officer didn't know the guy was a lawful carrier. He just knew he was in a high crime area and this guy had a gun. I wouldn't have pointed the gun in the guy's face on account of the possibility of a negligent discharge however. Once the license was produced, and it was determined to be facially valid, that should've been the end of it. If there is no way to confirm it beyond that point and the officer is allowed to determine it invalid as a result, what's the point of even trying for one? He lost his gun, had the license taken, I guess the only benefit derived from getting the license was that it kept him from going to prison.
The only reason I can come up with why it may have been acceptable to confiscate the weapon is if the officer had charged him with brandishing since he was able to see the weapon. IIRC, concealed carry means it's not visible. I may be wron on the law regarding brandishing, but as I understand it, that would be the only justification for confiscating a licensed CCW holder's weapon (unless he was threatening someone obviously).

 

[RNMedic]

I agree mine is always concealed. But once the license was presented then it was over.

 

[Justpunchit]

First off I would agree to drawing down on a CCW holder.
As a cop you have seconds to react to a firearm or you can die. You don't know if he has a permit or not.

As for the confiscating I think this is very situational. Just the fact that it's a lawyer that this happened to tells me the guy was probably a "I know the laws better than you" ass and not cooperating which escalated the situation.

This is a one sided story obviously you can't make a determination without both sides. The court heard both sides and chose the victor.

As someone working in the field I'd done exactly that. Couldn't agree more.

 

[cjsxj87]

Only thing the lawyer did wrong was let it show. He should of hid it better if he was concealing it.

 

[kastein]

I suspect the guy was being an arse (and probably deserved it), but some of the stuff the officer said is just plain unconscionable, like "I'm the only one permitted to carry a gun on this beat"

WTF is with that?

If there was any video of the stop, I hope it ends up on break.com or liveleaks so the rest of us can judge...

 

[AIbandit]

officer said is just plain unconscionable, like "I'm the only one permitted to carry a gun on this beat"

That sounds to me like a lawyer making shit up to try and invoke the gun rights activists.
Don't get me wrong there are dumb cops but it's very much less likely compared to a dumb cocky lawyer.
I agree a dashcam w/sound would be nice.

 

[kastein]

That sounds to me like a lawyer making shit up to try and invoke the gun rights activists.
Don't get me wrong there are dumb cops but it's very much less likely compared to a dumb cocky lawyer.
I agree a dashcam w/sound would be nice.

I can believe it, though you raise a good point. I was reamed out and told I was an idiot (actually, the exact words were "you aren't very smart are you") and then reamed out AGAIN and given a 2 point, $50 ticket for running a stop sign that did not exist. On the other hand, every other officer I've ever dealt with, whether I was guilty or not, has been professional, courteous, and quite upstanding. I would not be surprised at all if the lawyer was making it up, but nor would I be surprised if he was telling the whole truth and nothing but it.

 

[Capt. Nemo]

So the whole issue is that the officer POINTED his gun at someone who he knew was armed with a gun in a high crime area?

He may have been a little over the top with some of his comments, but given the bit of the story here - it sounds to me like just good ol' police work.

 

[tbburg]

I guess the sad part is we have devolved to the point where the police automatically assume anyone armed is a criminal. Weather the officer's actions actions were right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't matter.

 

[Capt. Nemo]

I guess the sad part is we have devolved to the point where the police automatically assume anyone armed is a criminal. Weather the officer's actions actions were right, wrong, or indifferent doesn't matter.

Police have not "devolved" into automatically assuming anyone armed is a criminal.

Police training has evolved and a couple of key factors have emerged:

1) A police officer's contact with an armed subject is always reactionary. An officer's actions are based on the actions of the subject, and an officer is always going to be behind in their actions (not matter how fast their decision making process is, it is a split second behind). Because it is uncertain what the subject is actually thinking and what actions they will take, an officer needs to try to be at an advantage as much as possible.

2) A police officer has different rules of engagement and is held to a higher standard because of their training and position. Bad guys have no rules.

If a police officer saw an armed person and did not contact them, I firmly believe that would be negligence. Especially if said person walked into the nearest shopping center and killed a loved one.

 

[fscrig75]

I don't have a CCW nor have I ever seen one, but is there an 800# to call and confirm that it is valid? Do local LEOs have the ability check a state data base to ensure that it is a valid CCW?

I too would like to hear the other side of this story.

 

[Capt. Nemo]

Do local LEOs have the ability check a state data base to ensure that it is a valid CCW?

Yes, in Arizona.

 

[tbburg]

Police have not "devolved" into automatically assuming anyone armed is a criminal.

I didn't mean the police, I meant society in general.

Regardless of what training standards "evolve", a LEO drawing a weapon(with the implied threat of death that pointing a weapon at somebody entails) on a person just because they are armed, in a place where people are legally allowed to go armed, is not an improvement of the overall human condition. You can argue the point into the ground, and you're not going to change my mind.

Regardless of what we kick around here, and what actually was said on the street, the following does not seem to be in dispute:

According to the case opinion...,a police officer,.. ..,caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car,.. ..,with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney,...

For apparently walking down the street.

I'm not mindlessly knocking the police. It's not some knee-jerk lib-hippie, "Cops are bad" or a libertarian gun-nut, "I can do as I please" rant. Regardless of current police training doctrine, current court decisions, whatever:
IN GENERAL; it's a sad turn of events when the simple act of going armed in public is viewed as a criminal act, in and of itself.
Feel free to disagree. You're allowed to be wrong.

 

[DrMoab]

I was told when I got my CCW that if I was to get pulled over when the cop came up to the window, have both my licence and my CCW out and make sure that the cop was fully aware of where both my hands were (on top of the steering wheel is best) and do not panic or be surprised if the cop is a little more cautious than he normally would be.

I've been pulled over several times now and have presented both my licence and CCW. Not once have I been drawn down on or even asked to see my weapon. I wouldn't hold it against the cop if he did though.

 

[Jeepman401]

Its a tough call. In certain situations, the officers actions could be justified. What I would be more interested to know is what happened later. If the lawyer went down to the station after the cop had the chance to verify his ccw, and was allowed to leave with his firearm, then the situation was handled properly.
However, if the police didn't return his firearm to him after verifying his ccw, then it was harassment.

The comments from the cop, if it was coming from anyone but a lawyer, I would tend to believe it after living in mass for a while. The general attitude in mass is that nobody but the cops should have guns, or at least that's the attitude I have always received.

In general, the judges in the northeast seem to be anti-gun, but the fact that I saw nothing from the NRA on this probably means that the cop had a good reason for doing what he did (lawyer mouthing off) and it was a open and shut case.

 

[ECKSJAY]

con⋅ceal
  /kənˈsil/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-seel]
–verb (used with object)
1. to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight: He concealed the gun under his coat.
2. to keep secret; to prevent or avoid disclosing or divulging: to conceal one's identity by using a false name.

:callme:

 

[Capt. Nemo]

Regardless of current police training doctrine, current court decisions, whatever:
IN GENERAL; it's a sad turn of events when the simple act of going armed in public is viewed as a criminal act, in and of itself.
Feel free to disagree. You're allowed to be wrong.

Didn't know we were vying for right and wrong here - just throwing out some food for thought...

Criminal act, or threat to public safety? Viewed as a criminal act, I would agree with you - it is sad that some people view it as such.

Unfortunately, the situation is similar to many others:

A few people make bad choices and it affects the views of the general public - religion, politics, sports, etc... then factor in the media and movies!

As this whole discussion relates to the article, we only have one side of the story. Who knows what the past experiences of the officer are. Suppose he has encountered the same thing in the past where the threat was real? Suppose someone walked into the courthouse dressed like he was and made threats or killed? Was the gun holstered, or just shoved in the guys waistband? There are so many variables that it is hard to determine why he reacted the way he did, but ultimately his main concern was for his safety and the safety of the general public - otherwise he would have kept driving or eating his donut.

I've pointed my gun at people for much less - it is all based on the circumstances, training, and experience.