What the Hell?

[1shot(bob)]

There is a huge difference between 'little' and 'zero'. Would you say there is 'little' chance of a Virginia Tech scenario happening at OU or 'zero' chance? What were the odds at VT?

If it's reasonable for him to disarm you for his safety, would it be reasonable for you to disarm him for your safety? "OK officer. How about we both lay our guns on the trunk while you write this ticket?"

 

[redmax51]

Many officers are injured or killed during "routine" traffic stops.I will do what the LEO asks.no problem with him securing my weapon.

 

[BadgeBunny]

If you are speeding or running a red light or have a burned out tail light you are not a law-abiding citizen ... just saying

 

[Werewolf]

The Attorney General has plainly stated that "inspection" does not affect the issues laid out in Terry V. Ohio and is superseded by federal caselaw.

The legislators who wrote it were concerned about officers using traffic stops as opportunities to check for stolen guns or to develop a database of serial numbers, not to deny the officer the safety that caselaw provides him/her.

However since the Terry decision is usually applied to potential criminal activity that might be assisted by a firearm, before I would choose to disarm someone, I would be certain I had reason to do so, not disarm someone as a matter of course.

However, it is unlikely that an officer will articulate his suspicion if he is diasarming you via Terry, and he is under absolutely no obligation to do so, so my advice would be to do exactly as he says until the duration of the contact is over and if you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint later.

The only time I have disarmed a CCW holder was when the individual had committed some other type of crime or had shot someone in self-defense in which case the disarming was for evidentiary purposes not officer safety.

I am not in favor of disarming someone during the course of a traffic stop but the legislation's intent is not to prevent it from occurring on the basis of officer safety.

Michael Brown

A very thought provoking response, Michael:

So based on Terry:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)

...the OK law as written is essentially moot if the officer considers the liscencee dangerous since any traffic stop is based on a driver having committed a crime even if only a misdeamor.

That said Michael: the key to making your analysis valid that it is within an officer's right to disarm on a traffic stop is the "may be armed and presently dangerous" part of Terry. One could connect the dots and logically arrive at the conclusion that any CCW liscencee, being armed, is therefore automatically dangerous (a stretch IMO) thus making the OK law essentially moot as all an officer must do if questioned about disarming a motorist after the fact is voice a belief that the motorist seemed to be dangerous.

Though I do not believe that officers are routinely disarming motorists with CCW's, based on much narrative evidence (narrative being all that is available to me as I have not been stopped for a traffic violation in the last 20 years or so to the best of my recollection) there is still a whole lot of room for abuse.

However, it seems to me, that the way the law is worded...

TITLE 21 § 1290.8. Possession of license required-notification to police of gun Section E - Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

...that the intent of the legislature is to prohibit OK peace officers from automatically disarming CCW holders during a traffic stop unless probable cause that some other more serious crime has been or will be commited. If that truly is the intent then Terry only applies as noted above (which IMO won't be very often).

If that was not the intent of the law then the only conclusions that can be drawn about the law is that the legislature created a law that they knew had no teeth to pander to the gun rights crowd or they were ignorant of the law regarding Terry v Ohio.

Neither conclusion paints the legislature in a very good light but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

[Werewolf]

...I don't sweat complying with this request, nor do I don't feel my safety is compromised by doing this. Generally people are not victims of robbery or assault while they are a participant in a traffic stop.

There is something fundamentally wrong about using the word comply and request in the same sentence. Comply means one has no choice while request means one does.

Interesting that when addressing the issue of people people not being victims of robbery or assault while they are a participant in a traffic stop that the poster provided a caveat with the proviso "Generally...".

Hey! Just sayin'.

 

[1shot(bob)]

If you are speeding or running a red light or have a burned out tail light you are not a law-abiding citizen ... just saying

Nor does it make a criminal worthy of losing my rights.
If they put enough laws on the books it will make us all criminals. A LEO once told me he could follow me for 2 miles and find reason to stop me. As you know, there are that many laws on the books already.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Nor does it make a criminal worthy of losing my rights.
If they put enough laws on the books it will make us all criminals. A LEO once told me he could follow me for 2 miles and find reason to stop me. As you know, there are that many laws on the books already.

So what you are saying is that it's okay to just follow the laws you want to and ignore the others that inconvenience you in some way and that any LEO unfortunate enough to cross your path on his way out of the donut shop parking lot should just give you a pass?

Gotcha.

 

[1shot(bob)]

Yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying. Sheesh. How the hell did you get that out of what I said?

 

[BadgeBunny]

Yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying. Sheesh. How the hell did you get that out of what I said?

Where'd the hell did you get the idea that speeding and running red lights was not breaking the law??

 

[1shot(bob)]

Is that whats called a red herring?
Do you have any comments concerning the topic at hand?