Pulled over for the first times since having a permit

[JohnGageMN]

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I'm stopped at a traffic stop, I hand over the DL and the PTC together. If the LEO asks if I'm carrying, tell him/her "Yes" since it's better for them to find out upfront than down the road where then they would have a reason to suspect you for hiding other things as well.

Let's take the second part first: The law says you MUST disclose if asked. Period. End of story.

As far as saying "NO!" to the cop who wants to hang on to your gun during a stop...You're going to refuse to comply? And that will be followed by WHAT "action," exactly. A three minute staredown? Or you staring at the business end of the cop's pistol?




Let me know how that works out for you. Have you given ANY thought as to what will happen next after you say the equivalent of "from my cold dead hands." ??

Tman, as with most things he posts, this should be added to class material of "what NOT to do".

[XDM45]

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I'm stopped at a traffic stop, I hand over the DL and the PTC together. If the LEO asks if I'm carrying, tell him/her "Yes" since it's better for them to find out upfront than down the road where then they would have a reason to suspect you for hiding other things as well.

Let's take the second part first: The law says you MUST disclose if asked. Period. End of story.

As far as saying "NO!" to the cop who wants to hang on to your gun during a stop...You're going to refuse to comply? And that will be followed by WHAT "action," exactly. A three minute staredown? Or you staring at the business end of the cop's pistol?

Let me know how that works out for you. Have you given ANY thought as to what will happen next after you say the equivalent of "from my cold dead hands." ??

Tman, as with most things he posts, this should be added to class material of "what NOT to do".

You need to read and understand what I said.

Here it is again in simpler terms:

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I hand the cop a gun when he asks for it to hold it so he feels safer during a traffic stop, knowing he will give it back,that's different than confiscation. The gas station attendant doesn't "confiscate" my credit card when I had it to her either. Neither of those are confiscation, which is where it's taken and NOT given back; and it's that which I refuse to partake in. Clear now?

Tman, take into account just because some people on here can post, doesn't mean they can read or actually understand what they've read.

[Countryfried Frank]

I may hate myself a little (lot) for asking this but WTH.

A credit card represents an account that contains money. A firearm has a magazine or cylinder that contains ammunition. When you hand your card to the gas station attendant you are paying her for the goods and or services that have been provided to you. Even though the physical card is returned the money is taken from your account. Is it ok for the cop to return the physical firearm but take the ammunition from the magazine or cylinder in return for the service that he or she provides to you and the people from which their agency derives their power during the course of your hypothetical interaction?

[XDM45]

I may hate myself a little (lot) for asking this but WTH.

A credit card represents an account that contains money. A firearm has a magazine or cylinder that contains ammunition. When you hand your card to the gas station attendant you are paying her for the goods and or services that have been provided to you. Even though the physical card is returned the money is taken from your account. Is it ok for the cop to return the physical firearm but take the ammunition from the magazine or cylinder in return for the service that he or she provides to you and the people from which their agency derives their power during the course of your hypothetical interaction?

Well............

When you do a credit card transaction, the funds are held in a pending status for 72 hours usually. Only once the merchant posts, do they receive the funds from the credit card agency. This is different than using an ATM card or a Debit card in which the funds are immediately pulled from your account over one of the financial networks such as Star or Pulse. So technically, when the clerk hands you the credit card back, no money has been taken and only a promissory electronic note has been given that when the merchant posts the transaction for payment, that the card company will approve it, so in short, it's not taken from your account right away. There's also other differences as well, but I won't get into that, but I get your point. (Of course our money isn't backed by gold or anything either so that's a promissory note on our good word I guess?)

The LEO is a public servant, and the ammo is purchased goods which normally cannot be taken without legal justification to do so. I can certainly understand the LEO emptying the revolver of cartridges and at the end of the traffic stop, handing both back in their separate form while stating to not put them together until after the officer has left. I could also see the magazine being removed, but not emptied with the same instructions given. Unlike criminals, a PTC/CCW holder isn't likely to go off and do something crazy or illegal like shoot a cop, and while the LEO's risk is less, there's still a risk so I can understand it. IF a LEO feels the need to separate ammo from the gun, they are either new, paranoid, overly cautious, or have some just cause to do so, and if they have just cause, then there's bigger issues for the PTC/CCW holder than the LEO emptying their gun. Of course in that case, the faster you are disarmed and taken down, the better for them.

[fuller malarkey]

XDM45 wrote:

You need to read and understand what I said.

Here it is again in simpler terms:

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I hand the cop a gun when he asks for it to hold it so he feels safer during a traffic stop, knowing he will give it back,that's different than confiscation. The gas station attendant doesn't "confiscate" my credit card when I had it to her either. Neither of those are confiscation, which is where it's taken and NOT given back; and it's that which I refuse to partake in. Clear now?

Tman, take into account just because some people on here can post, doesn't mean they can read or actually understand what they've read.

Considering your statements of "handing a cop a gun he asks for"........ I think your immediate time might be better spent checking to see if you aren't a high priority on a list belonging to a guy named Darwin.

[Countryfried Frank]

My point is that you were comparing apples to oranges. A credit card is nothing more than a container for money. A firearm is more than a container for ammunition. It is a tool and a weapon. Voluntarily handing a card to a clerk to facilitate a purchase is different than complying with a request or demand to surrender (temporarily or not) a firearm. FWIW, our representative republic may not be ideal but I believe it is working within rather than without. Strong absolutist statements may work well at political rallies but are probably not ideal in other more diverse settings.

[XDM45]

XDM45 wrote:

You need to read and understand what I said.

Here it is again in simpler terms:

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I hand the cop a gun when he asks for it to hold it so he feels safer during a traffic stop, knowing he will give it back,that's different than confiscation. The gas station attendant doesn't "confiscate" my credit card when I had it to her either. Neither of those are confiscation, which is where it's taken and NOT given back; and it's that which I refuse to partake in. Clear now?

Tman, take into account just because some people on here can post, doesn't mean they can read or actually understand what they've read.

Considering your statements of "handing a cop a gun he asks for"........ I think your immediate time might be better spent checking to see if you aren't a high priority on a list belonging to a guy named Darwin.

I guess I should be exact on here. key-rist.

If you want exact steps ok, fine.

Cop pulls me over.
I hand him my PTC with DL.
He asks if I'm carrying.
I reply in the affirmative.
I ask him how he wants to handle it.
I follow his instructions to a T.

Better?

Chances are much more likely he will either ask me to leave it in the holster or he will remove it himself. I said "hand it to him" as more of a overall phrase of having him take control of it. I'll be more literal from now on, but you know it's going to turn my already long-winded posts into layman lawyerease because now I'll have to lay it all out exactly step by step, not assume anything. I'm sure lawyers will correct me, which will lead into longer posts where I must correct things while getting a free law lesson, all for the purpose of dotting the Is and crossing the Ts so that people don't get their undies in a bunch on here.

[XDM45]

My point is that you were comparing apples to oranges. A credit card is nothing more than a container for money. A firearm is more than a container for ammunition. It is a tool and a weapon. Voluntarily handing a card to a clerk to facilitate a purchase is different than complying with a request or demand to surrender (temporarily or not) a firearm. FWIW, our representative republic may not be ideal but I believe it is working within rather than without. Strong absolutist statements may work well at political rallies but are probably not ideal in other more diverse settings.

Well, I see your point, but you know money is also a tool and a weapon right? It's a tool to use to get things you want, and it can be used as a weapon as well. For example, anyone can sue anyone for anything, they may not win, but if you can outspend and out lawyer someone, you can use that as an advantage to take them down financially, basically suing them into bankruptcy. At an apartment complex I lived at in 2006-2010, as a matter of course, they will file civil lawsuits on everyone that left. It cost $75.00 per person to file in small claims court. Since many don't show up, the rental company wins and gets a judgment against said person, who then when they apply for a loan, mortgage, etc, is affected by this and will often times pay, even unjustifiably so, in order for them to get the loan, or whatever they want. I consider that an attack, an aggressive move, using money as both a tool and a weapon against me. Of course I went to court, defended myself, won and then counter sued as well, went to court, won again, etc.

So is money a tool? Yes.
Is money a weapon? Yes, it can be used as such.
Is a gun a tool? Yes.
Is a gun a weapon? Yes, by legal definition and purpose.

I don't see much of a difference. In fact, money can be a lot deadlier than a gun. Let's have the US stop spending on forego aid and see third world countries die off without food that we didn't pay to create and ship over to them. If we don't spend the money, people die. Not spending it could be considered a form of weaponizing money. My point is that it's all in how you want to look at it. Guns may be apples and money may be oranges, but their both fruits and thus are more alike than not.

As for " Voluntarily handing a card to a clerk to facilitate a purchase is different than complying with a request or demand to surrender (temporarily or not) a firearm."
I agree.

As for "our representative republic may not be ideal but I believe it is working within rather than without."
I think it works for the most part, but not ideally. Nothing is perfect, and it could be improved in many ways and in many areas.

"Strong absolutist statements may work well at political rallies but are probably not ideal in other more diverse settings."
I think that depends. You need to carefully pick choose your battles.

For example, If someone comes to confiscate the guns of each American, some people will give them over without a fight for their freedom, while others will be very absolutist and go all "James Yeager" on them regardless of the outcome. To each their own on whatever they decide to do or not do; but for me, there's a line in the sand for a few things, and those things are worth fighting for or dying for at any cost.

I think absolutism has it's place, albeit a very limited place, it does have one. (You know the old saying - if you don't stand for anything, you''ll fall for everything) What that place is, where it is, and what it's for, that depends on each individual. I can't really say what that is for anyone except myself, what their line in the same should be, etc.

While I'm in no hurry to rush head first into it, I'm not afraid of death at all. An absolute for me is that I won't suffer imprisonment, slavery, tyranny, torture, etc, all of which are far worse fates than death; and all of which come when guns are removed from a society that could formerly and legally own them.

[JohnGageMN]

XDM45 wrote:

You need to read and understand what I said.

Here it is again in simpler terms:

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I hand the cop a gun when he asks for it to hold it so he feels safer during a traffic stop, knowing he will give it back,that's different than confiscation. The gas station attendant doesn't "confiscate" my credit card when I had it to her either. Neither of those are confiscation, which is where it's taken and NOT given back; and it's that which I refuse to partake in. Clear now?

Tman, take into account just because some people on here can post, doesn't mean they can read or actually understand what they've read.

Considering your statements of "handing a cop a gun he asks for"........ I think your immediate time might be better spent checking to see if you aren't a high priority on a list belonging to a guy named Darwin.

<sarcasm>
You don't understand, he's the resident expert at all things related to firearms and safety. Without his wealth of knowledge we would all certainly have repeatedly negligently used our guns over the last year since he got into shooting. </sarcasm>

[fuller malarkey]

You need to read and understand what I said.

Here it is again in simpler terms:

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I hand the cop a gun when he asks for it to hold it so he feels safer during a traffic stop, knowing he will give it back,that's different than confiscation. The gas station attendant doesn't "confiscate" my credit card when I had it to her either. Neither of those are confiscation, which is where it's taken and NOT given back; and it's that which I refuse to partake in. Clear now?

Tman, take into account just because some people on here can post, doesn't mean they can read or actually understand what they've read.

Don't want to appear to be picking fly excrement from pepper, but you're attempting to dish out an internet beat down by alluding a poster's inability to comprehend and failure to recognize superior intellect when encountered......and in the same post offer some truly confusing and questionable positions and contentions that by your own admission require in depth explanation.

For example, the above in yellow.....are you in possession of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance? When the law walks off with your firearm, time of return and conditions of return might just hinge on what information the check returns, making "knowing he will give it back" a difficult prediction, doesn't it? All it takes is someone that reports a firearm stolen to get a few numbers wrong, out of sequence, transposed...of course this serial number's problem could become aggravated by a couple different people handling the entry of a serial # into NCIS...and retrieving it....you are found in possession of a suspected stolen weapon. Your real history or the firearm's is irrelevant at the moment, isn't it? So when something is confiscated by a person intent on building a criminal prosecution against you, the return of that something is subjective.

Maybe it's just a poor command of the language, and certain allowances should be made for you, but you might want to ask yourself if you've displayed anything here to support that you are in a position to dish out beat downs for comprehension and clarity.

[yukonjasper]

All I can tell you is it from talking to several cops that I know, including Sheriff's an and chiefs the they all agreed in all said they would prefer that you told them up front. If they accidentally see a gun, your going to have a much worse day, then the inconvenience of giving you a hard time about carrying.

While I can understand the cops WANTING to know everything. They likely don't NEED to know.

If the gun isn't going to be discovered during the course of the contact - like if you're asked to get out of the car - what possible good would it do you to disclose?

Joining this one late but I have had the same question. I think that there are some people who believe that the DL and PTC combo will result in no charges or a warning. Sort of a get out of jail free card. I've never tested the theory and I don't plan to anytime soon. I subscribe to the thought that less is more and unless I'm asked to step from the vehicle or somehow the weapon would otherwise be discovered.

[yukonjasper]

All I can tell you is it from talking to several cops that I know, including Sheriff's an and chiefs the they all agreed in all said they would prefer that you told them up front. If they accidentally see a gun, your going to have a much worse day, then the inconvenience of giving you a hard time about carrying.

While I can understand the cops WANTING to know everything. They likely don't NEED to know.

If the gun isn't going to be discovered during the course of the contact - like if you're asked to get out of the car - what possible good would it do you to disclose?

Joining this one late but I have had the same question. I think that there are some people who believe that the DL and PTC combo will result in no charges or a warning. Sort of a get out of jail free card. I've never tested the theory and I don't plan to anytime soon. I subscribe to the thought that less is more and unless I'm asked to step from the vehicle or somehow the weapon would otherwise be discovered.

[XDM45]

you're attempting to dish out an internet beat down by alluding a poster's inability to comprehend and failure to recognize superior intellect when encountered
I think it's along the lines of people who are grammar nazis, more concerned with that then the message. As for the lack of comprehension, that happens to everyone both in reading and in writing in a text based medium since most communication is non-verbal. No one is immune from it.

and in the same post offer some truly confusing and questionable positions and contentions that by your own admission require in depth explanation.
I don't know if it requires in-depth explanation, but it appears to me people want an all-inclusive, rock solid, no flawed statement, and even that some would still nitpick at, so meh. Whatever.

When the law walks off with your firearm, time of return and conditions of return might just hinge on what information the check returns, making "knowing he will give it back" a difficult prediction, doesn't it?
Yes, it's a gamble, of course, but then so is driving, walking across the street, being born, everything. So no difference there. Life is a gamble as is everything in it. It's just a matter of how much risk you're willing to gamble.

All it takes is someone that reports a firearm stolen to get a few numbers wrong, out of sequence, transposed...of course this serial number's problem could become aggravated by a couple different people handling the entry of a serial # into NCIS...and retrieving it....you are found in possession of a suspected stolen weapon. Your real history or the firearm's is irrelevant at the moment, isn't it? So when something is confiscated by a person intent on building a criminal prosecution against you, the return of that something is subjective.
...and the 16 year old cheerleader or the 43 year old soccer mom looks down at their phone to text while you're crossing the street and runs you over, or the IRS gets your taxes wrong even though you filed them correctly or..... you want 100% guarantees in life? HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA!!!! Not gonna happen. Yeah, numbers could get transposed, but the chances of that are far less than "No officer, you can't have my gun." and get shot for it or charged with something else, who knows. Again, assessment risk and gamble.

Maybe it's just a poor command of the language, and certain allowances should be made for you, but you might want to ask yourself if you've displayed anything here to support that you are in a position to dish out beat downs for comprehension and clarity.
My command of the language is quite fine thank you very much. I do make allowances for you though since I feel the need to help the less fortunate.

[fuller malarkey]

XDM45 wrote:

You need to read and understand what I said.

Here it is again in simpler terms:

If any "authority" figure or organization wants to confiscate guns, my answer is always NO!! Followed by action.

If I hand the cop a gun when he asks for it to hold it so he feels safer during a traffic stop, knowing he will give it back,that's different than confiscation. The gas station attendant doesn't "confiscate" my credit card when I had it to her either. Neither of those are confiscation, which is where it's taken and NOT given back; and it's that which I refuse to partake in. Clear now?

Tman, take into account just because some people on here can post, doesn't mean they can read or actually understand what they've read.

Considering your statements of "handing a cop a gun he asks for"........ I think your immediate time might be better spent checking to see if you aren't a high priority on a list belonging to a guy named Darwin.

<sarcasm>
You don't understand, he's the resident expert at all things related to firearms and safety. Without his wealth of knowledge we would all certainly have repeatedly negligently used our guns over the last year since he got into shooting. </sarcasm>

Point taken. Thanks for helping me know my place.

[XDM45]

post edited due to lack of coffee to charge up my brain cells.

Nevermind. Nothing to see here now. These aren't the droids you're looking for.