Mike D and LEO's .. question..

[TexMax]

Simple answer.......YES!!!!

Long answer.........YES SIR!!!!

Sometimes I prefer to ask the person trying to figure out why an LEO should not be able to do something, "WHY NOT???" Instead of trying to convince someone about the legality of an issue, where they are not going to like the answer, and most of the time will not accept the answer, it's easier to leave them to answer their own question.

Sorry. But that's not how this country operates. "innocent until proven guilty". Never should
I have to explain (police officer or otherwise) why a person cannot take some action against me.

[rhester]

I have to strongly disagree here....I've searched cars and found dope for less....just sayin!

Here you go..............Gonna get things going the wrong way!!!! You make yourself sound like a "Barney Fife" when you make a statement like that. This statement appears as if you are not using a legal search, which you probably are but you haven't explained yourself.

[DorothyNotKeegan]

Here you go..............Gonna get things going the wrong way!!!! You make yourself sound like a "Barney Fife" when you make a statement like that. This statement appears as if you are not using a legal search, which you probably are but you haven't explained yourself.

No barney fife here....you obvioudly don't know me!

I'm no getting into this on this thread or any other thread....read my short and sweet post above!

[TexMax]

Nope, I'm out

[flufster]

Nope, I'm out

so you do know him!!!! LOL

Just messin Keegan!!!

EDIT: Dang it, it was changed before I could quote it!!!! LOL

[systemnt]

Thanks Keegan.. sometimes the simplest answers make the most sense.

[TexMax]

so you do know him!!!! LOL

Just messin Keegan!!!

EDIT: Dang it, it was changed before I could quote it!!!! LOL

I'm too quick .

And that was not in reference to Keegan

[rhester]

Sorry. But that's not how this country operates. "innocent until proven guilty". Never should
I have to explain (police officer or otherwise) why a person cannot take some action against me.

Your right. But your wrong as well. What to many people want is an explanation before action is taken. Sorry but that is not the way things work when it comes to my safety or anyone that works with me. Simple explanations work with someone that is truly looking for the simple answer. Arrest, search and seizure can be both simple and very difficult. Trying to explain details during a traffic stop are generally impractical. So the answer to the question is still....YES SIR.....
When a person has a weapon the officer has the right to seize the weapon for their safety. The officer then has the weapon in their possession and has the right determine if that weapon is stolen. The weapon is in the officers possession and the owner no longer has an expectation to privacy for anything with that weapon. There is no further search that is protected because the weapon is not secured, it is not in a locked container, it is not in a home, etc. Still there can be a flury of questions about why this and why that. Case law, penal code, Bill of Rights.....Try to explain it all, I can't.

[DorothyNotKeegan]

I'm too quick .

And that was not in reference to Keegan

It's a good thing because I did read it!

I just have to work sometimes.....dang it!

[DorothyNotKeegan]

so you do know him!!!! LOL

Just messin Keegan!!!

EDIT: Dang it, it was changed before I could quote it!!!! LOL

I'm glad he wasn't talking to me.....don't I have something that you want Chris?

[TexMax]

It's a good thing because I did read it!

I just have to work sometimes.....dang it!

What u gonna do about it?

Jk don't put me on the "list"

[flufster]

I'm glad he wasn't talking to me.....don't I have something that you want Chris?

HEHEHE.....I cant remember what he said but I think it was a positive response Thats how I knew he knew ya!!!

[Bullydog]

Your right. But your wrong as well. What to many people want is an explanation before action is taken. Sorry but that is not the way things work when it comes to my safety or anyone that works with me. Simple explanations work with someone that is truly looking for the simple answer. Arrest, search and seizure can be both simple and very difficult. Trying to explain details during a traffic stop are generally impractical. So the answer to the question is still....YES SIR.....
When a person has a weapon the officer has the right to seize the weapon for their safety. The officer then has the weapon in their possession and has the right determine if that weapon is stolen. The weapon is in the officers possession and the owner no longer has an expectation to privacy for anything with that weapon. There is no further search that is protected because the weapon is not secured, it is not in a locked container, it is not in a home, etc. Still there can be a flury of questions about why this and why that. Case law, penal code, Bill of Rights.....Try to explain it all, I can't.

I find explaining yourself IS the best way to handle these situations. I can still be safe while asking and answering questions. I dont care what I have stopped someone for. And 99.9 percent of all CHL holders will tell you they have and gun and gladly allow you to keep it until the stop is over.

They have the right to know why Im doing what Im doing. They may not like the answer and that's ok to. One of the primary division's between public trust and law enforcement has always been our lack of communicating what we are doing and why. When we act heavy handed and appear to demand respect....we lose all respect IMO. Just sayin.

[systemnt]

I find explaining yourself IS the best way to handle these situations. I can still be safe while asking and answering questions. I dont care what I have stopped someone for. And 99.9 percent of all CHL holders will tell you they have and gun and gladly allow you to keep it until the stop is over.

They have the right to know why Im doing what Im doing. They may not like the answer and that's ok to. One of the primary division's between public trust and law enforcement has always been our lack of communicating what we are doing and why. When we act heavy handed and appear to demand respect....we lose all respect IMO. Just sayin.

I wanna be pulled over by you!!!

no..wait.. uh.. well you know what i mean...just kidding... no i mean..uh..crap..

[Tommyh]

There is no further search that is protected because the weapon is not secured, it is not in a locked container, it is not in a home, etc. Still there can be a flury of questions about why this and why that. Case law, penal code, Bill of Rights.....Try to explain it all, I can't.

doesnt the castle doctrine make your car part of your home now? if youre in your car with your weapon concealed, doesnt that mean its at home?