Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gorsuch and concealed weapons and the 4th Amendment

That's how interactions should go, I totally agree.

The issue is that carrying concealed without a permit is illegal in that state. The cop saw a concealed weapon; PC of a crime in progress, which permitted the stop.

The issue is that carrying concealed without a permit is illegal in that state. The cop saw a concealed weapon; PC of a crime in progress, which permitted the stop.

I've shown my CHL every time I've been asked for my D L, which is what we are required to do in Tx. IF WE ARE CARRYING. Sometimes the cops ask me where my firearm is but usually they don't.

I've never been disarmed but it wouldn't bother me if they wanted to.

I'm not carrying to protect myself from cops.

Some of you sound as if YOU are.

It helps if you understand that your license is actually just an affirmative defense against prosecution for an activity which, on its face, is illegal.

Since it's illegal to drive without a license, is it okay to pull over any car since the act of driving is probable cause to believe the driver may be driving without a license? That's silly.

The appeal decision of this case specifically talks about vehicles and licensing as a comparison brought about by the defendant. His argument was bullshit as stated in the appeal and yours is also.

As the judges properly stated, the act of driving without a license is a small percentage of drivers and there is no way for the officers to know who does and doesn't have a license thus they cannot blindly stop drivers for suspicion of DWLS.

In this care the officers were responding to a report of armed individuals, they physically saw the gun protruding from his pants and ccw in that state is ILLEGAL by statute. The ccw becomes an affirmative defense to violation of the law as stated by the appeal judges. The officers were not guessing if the defendant was armed as they physically saw the gun when the guy bent over and his shirt rode up.

Also he was hardly "forcibly" disarmed, as the appeal verdict also clearly stated that officer simply removed the gun from his pants as the defendant opened the door to walk through and his shirt again rode up exposing the gun.

So yes under Terry the officer suspecting a crime (again ccw is illegal in that states) is allowed to pat down, disarm and detain an individual for as little time as necessary while assertaining if a crime has been committed.

Why the big issue with an officer simply disarming someone during a contact? Are we against keeping our police officers safe as possible? If your legally carrying you should have nothing to hide and will get your gun back and be on your way shortly.

I'm curious why you are so against this when in this case it seems the officers used discretion and followed the law.

The appeal decision of this case specifically talks about vehicles and licensing as a comparison brought about by the defendant. His argument was bullshit as stated in the appeal and yours is also.

As the judges properly stated, the act of driving without a license is a small percentage of drivers and there is no way for the officers to know who does and doesn't have a license thus they cannot blindly stop drivers for suspicion of DWLS.

In this care the officers were responding to a report of armed individuals, they physically saw the gun protruding from his pants and ccw in that state is ILLEGAL by statute. The ccw becomes an affirmative defense to violation of the law as stated by the appeal judges. The officers were not guessing if the defendant was armed as they physically saw the gun when the guy bent over and his shirt rode up.

Also he was hardly "forcibly" disarmed, as the appeal verdict also clearly stated that officer simply removed the gun from his pants as the defendant opened the door to walk through and his shirt again rode up exposing the gun.

So yes under Terry the officer suspecting a crime (again ccw is illegal in that states) is allowed to pat down, disarm and detain an individual for as little time as necessary while assertaining if a crime has been committed.

Good reply, I appreciate it. So in this jurisdiction this is how the state allows LEO's to handle CCW. Okay, I don't understand anyone allowing that but I get it.

Now add national reciprocity into the mix. Now add bad actor states (NY/NJ/etc) allowing cops to engage and disarm any CCW's who have a gun print without first checking to see if they have a permit. Heck, Chicago PD is on record as saying they have no problem with cops shooting CC holders in their jurisdiction.

I can start throwing out examples of legal CCW's who have been shot down by cops during bad stops if you want a different example. Surrounded by multiple cops, some yelling "GET DOWN" and others yelling "DROP THE GUN" and then the guy gets killed when he tries to unholster and drop the gun. Guy dead because the cops couldn't simply ask first if he had a permit.

https://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/

However, even with ConCarry, in the situation of a perceived crime in progress and Terry Stop, officer safety WILL still permit the disarming of persons of interest until legality of possession and actions are ascertained.

Totally agree, but we need some case law saying that disarming citizens is done with limits... there were no limits discussed in this case, which was the whole point.

Calhoun, do we one better. Find me ANY state with a statute banning concealed carry that states ccw is an affirmative defense to same law that doesn't allow an Leo to disarm an individual.

Hell is there even any state that has a law specifically barring an LEO from disarming a citizen during a Terry stop or while conducting an investigation?

I'm doubtful such exists.

Agreed. However, in that case the carrier was carrying illegally on several levels. No reason to get into lawful carry as it did not apply.

It occurs to me perhaps this cop was using judgment when he forcibly disarmed this guy. Was the clerk covered in prison tats? Did the cop have prior knowledge of this man as a felon?

Law enforcement is a job I could not do. I give a great deal of credit to those individual who can.

Totally agree, but we need some case law saying that disarming citizens is done with limits... there were no limits discussed in this case, which was the whole point.