CCW QUESTION FOR FL LEO

[Mike TRT]

Originally Posted by Mountain Cop

if they keep their gun on their hip, I will as well.

MC

thats a good one !!!

[bwzimmerman]

ok, my answer to your question, and note I am a recruit in MD. Now, through the training I have recieved, the frist thing is officer safety. Now I know you are a good upstanding citizen, but think of this, that officer knows you have a weapon, and you have a CCW, but that doesnt mean anything. Whos to say you didnt just get into a domestic with you wife and shot her, and now leaving the scene and he just happens to pull you over right after that. I dont blame him for his actions, he let you keep you weapon but to be safe he took your ammo. Now that part I didnt understand is him asking you to pull out your weapon, If i felt i needed to disarm you I would ask you out of the car, and take the weapon out myself. Him taking you ammo and asking you why you have a CCW is not a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights, and if you want to get technical, the 2nd Amendment doesn say anyone can carry a weapon, it allows the formation of state controlled "milita" ie. National Guard.

As for the 8 MPH over ticket, while i wouldnt give a ticket for 8 MPH, he can cause you are speeding. I know in MD they have certain roads where they are stricter then other due to the fact that those roads and highways come from problem/ drug areas.

Well, that is my explaination of your question....please dont flame me or try to make me look stupid cause I am a recruit. Like I said, the most important thing is officer safety, and he has the right to ask you for your weapon.

BZimmerman

[bwzimmerman]

oh...I almost forgot, they also tell us to tell the officer, that you are armed, and not to wait for him to ask just incase he doesnt and next thing he sees your weapon and now your in a dangerous situation. You did the right thing by clearly displaying your CCW, license, registration and telling him you have a weapon on you.

BZimmerman

[rbyrd]

Can't let you get away with this one. I do not think the officer asking is against the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd is not just for a militia. That is Liberal drabble and not true. Here is what the Constitution of the United States says:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those are two different things the Forefathers are stating there. A regulated Militia meaning a standing army (National Guard) due to the fact during the Revolutionary War they had a hard time paying, and trouble keeping continuity (same ammo, guns, uniform) across the board with the militia that help win that war. But, it was the farmer and the carpenter and etc. that made up that militia. The Constitution is not for the giving of Rights, but the LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT. Our forefather's did not trust a large government and it is the right of the people to own and bear arms.

The Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. God almighty gives us our Rights not this or any other government gives the people rights, but a framework for the people to establish laws that we are to abide by.

Again:
1.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
2.) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So technically you are Wrong and I would like to know who told you that?

Finally, I have to say the fact we are required to have a CCW license does not sit well with me. I think it is against our rights. Now other things we believe we have rights to, are not so, like being able to drive a car on the roads. That is a privilege and not a right.

"Him taking you ammo and asking you why you have a CCW is not a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights, and if you want to get technical, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anyone can carry a weapon, it allows the formation of state controlled "militia" i.e. National Guard".

[Sandy]

Even though I have a concealed carry permit, I don't keep my pistol "on" me when I'm driving. I usually have it secured in one of three places allowed by the laws of my state for those without permits, in plain view, in the console, or in the glove compartment.

I haven't been stopped for anything in years, but have been through a few license checks. I wouldn't volunteer to the officer that I had a firearm in the car unless asked, then I'd answer truthfully. I've been through license checks when I had a loaded pistol in plain view on the seat next to me, and the officer didn't say a word about it.

Granted, I live in a "red" state, where we gun owners are treated with a little more respect than in certain other states.

[Lurch]

(sorry for going further off topic..)

Actually some might argue that rbyrd courts have upheld that we have a right to free travel on public highways. Technically speaking the state should *not* be able to require a license to grant someone what is/should be a fundamental right. Not that I'm going to push my luck but it is an interesting read, and I do agree with it to a certain extent.

Link

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

and...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

and...

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

and...

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.

Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

[Oni]

"Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous. "
So, business calls on a cellphone would be considered as an illegal activity or am I missing something painfully obvious?

I think the officer did a right by de arming the driver, though he should have taken the gun as well as HulkXD mentioned. I honestly don't know what standard procedure is, but the driver will get his gun back if everything checks of course hopefully. (Legally owned firearm, CCW License, Warrant check, License check)

[gsh341]

Originally Posted by bwzimmerman

Him taking you ammo and asking you why you have a CCW is not a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights, and if you want to get technical, the 2nd Amendment doesn say anyone can carry a weapon, it allows the formation of state controlled "milita" ie. National Guard.

BZimmerman

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This does recognize the individual the right to bear arms. To understand it appropriately you have to understand the way people spoke and wrote 200 years ago. Perhaps this can help you understand better.

Fresh food, being necessary for a well fed populace, the right of the people to keep and use Refrigerators, shall not be infringed

This statement is essentially the same, just different words. The first 2 parts are just giving the reason why the people have the right to own refrigerators, correct? Thus the 2nd Amendment is just saying that because we need a militia to secure a free state, the people (not the militia, the people) will not have their right to bear arms infringed.

As to the officer taking the guys bullets, I can understand why, I just don't think he did it in a proper manner.

[bwzimmerman]

I like your example. Well, I do believe we have rights to bear arms, but just remember there are alot of people in this world that are as sane, and sensible as we all are. I know guns can be bought easily on the streets, but like someone once told me," Locks can easilly be defeated, just just keep the honest people honest." I believe that the same with guns and gun control. I have heard people say gun control keeps honest people disarmed and the criminals armed. This is a tough topic, with pros and cons to both sides.

What I did want to say was, I didnt want you to make a big deal, cause if this officer gets "burned" for doing what he though was right and keeping him safe.

BZ

Originally Posted by gsh341

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This does recognize the individual the right to bear arms. To understand it appropriately you have to understand the way people spoke and wrote 200 years ago. Perhaps this can help you understand better.

Fresh food, being necessary for a well fed populace, the right of the people to keep and use Refrigerators, shall not be infringed

This statement is essentially the same, just different words. The first 2 parts are just giving the reason why the people have the right to own refrigerators, correct? Thus the 2nd Amendment is just saying that because we need a militia to secure a free state, the people (not the militia, the people) will not have their right to bear arms infringed.

As to the officer taking the guys bullets, I can understand why, I just don't think he did it in a proper manner.

[03RangerXLT]

a copy and past of what i just posted in another thread:
last yr when i was 25, i was pulled over for expired tag and not yielding to a funeral (the lead police vehicle stopped and he was waving, turns out he was not waving for me to go through, but for the cop behind me hahaha). well, i pulled over, put both windows down, pulled my keys and hung them out of the window. then as the officer approached my vehcile, i told him that i had a legally concealed firearm on me. he asked were it was, i told him my right hip. he tehn had me slowly unbuckle and exit my truck. he pulled up my shirt to gain access to it and i told him it was condition one. he had me sit back in my truck as he cleared my weapon in front of me, hten told me to sit tight. he stuck my gun in his belt and placed the mag and round in his vehicle, then returned ofr my drivers liscence and permit. after running everything, he returned my paperwork, then the magazine (told me to put it in the cup holder) then teh gun (told me to put it ont he passenger seat, then searched his pocket for what he termed my "barny fife bullet". after that he apologized to me for pullign me over!! I was shocked. he didn't say anything else about what i was pulled over for! Then he thanked me for thinking of him as he approached the vehicle! I was shocked lol