| Author | Post |
|---|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 02:54 pm |
|
ccwinstructor wrote: JoeSparky wrote: ccwinstructor wrote: lostone1413 wrote: Notso wrote: Just curious, Why did you tell him you were armed in the first place?
That is a very very good question I for one say nothing never have never will
He was carrying openly. If I thought an officer would observe that I were carrying, and I carry openly a good bit, I would inform him of the fact that I was armed as a courtesy and to prevent surprise.
I have gone both ways on this. It depends on the circumstances. Several states, such as Texas and Utah, require that you inform the officers that you are armed if you are carrying a concealed firearm.
Utah DOES NOT require one to inform and has not for at least a full year. Utah also allows CC Permit holds to carry on campus of ANY state school, that is K-College. Utah also has no concealed requirement.... the permit mearly ALLOWS one to conceal-- it does not require it.
Glad to hear it. It is hard to keep up with all the changes in the law. It is good that most of them are in the right direction for a change (with regards to carry of firearms).
Addirtionally, as of May 12, 2009....
If you can legally possess a firearm and are in a vehicle you own or are authorized to use, you may without a concealed carry permit:
have a loaded or unloaded firearm concealled or not concealled while in said vehicle.
The gottcha is if you don't have a permit and get stopped within the 1000 foot school zone boundry then IF YOU PUT A FOOT ON THE GROUND WHILE YOU HAVE THE FIREARM IN YOUR POSSESSION, YOU HAVE JUST VIOLATED THE LAW!!!!
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
ixtow wrote: You were rewarded for giving up your rights, and would most likely have been punished for asserting them.
It is merely an assumption, but an educated one, that you would not have gotten a warning, but a citation.
Hardly an "educated" assumption. Just a guess, seems to me. No way to support or reject it. Therefore, it falls out as insignificant, speculative....
Seems like a decent stop, though it would have been better without disarming the driver. Also, the question about whether there was one in the pipe is mystifying--any verbal answer is unimportant.
Last edited on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 03:15 pm by HankT
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 08:09 pm |
|
JoeSparky wrote: ccwinstructor wrote: JoeSparky wrote: ccwinstructor wrote: lostone1413 wrote: Notso wrote: Just curious, Why did you tell him you were armed in the first place?
That is a very very good question I for one say nothing never have never will
He was carrying openly. If I thought an officer would observe that I were carrying, and I carry openly a good bit, I would inform him of the fact that I was armed as a courtesy and to prevent surprise.
I have gone both ways on this. It depends on the circumstances. Several states, such as Texas and Utah, require that you inform the officers that you are armed if you are carrying a concealed firearm.
Utah DOES NOT require one to inform and has not for at least a full year. Utah also allows CC Permit holds to carry on campus of ANY state school, that is K-College. Utah also has no concealed requirement.... the permit mearly ALLOWS one to conceal-- it does not require it.
Glad to hear it. It is hard to keep up with all the changes in the law. It is good that most of them are in the right direction for a change (with regards to carry of firearms).
Addirtionally, as of May 12, 2009....
If you can legally possess a firearm and are in a vehicle you own or are authorized to use, you may without a concealed carry permit:
have a loaded or unloaded firearm concealled or not concealled while in said vehicle.
The gottcha is if you don't have a permit and get stopped within the 1000 foot school zone boundry then IF YOU PUT A FOOT ON THE GROUND WHILE YOU HAVE THE FIREARM IN YOUR POSSESSION, YOU HAVE JUST VIOLATED THE LAW!!!!
Oh REALLY... that's awesome to hear. I hadn't even noticed that little mod to AZ law go through (been watching the 'firearms in your car while at work regardless of what your employer says/thinks' one instead, but haven't seen/heard anything on that recently either.)
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:02 am |
|
Thoreau wrote: JoeSparky wrote: ccwinstructor wrote: JoeSparky wrote: ccwinstructor wrote: lostone1413 wrote: Notso wrote: Just curious, Why did you tell him you were armed in the first place?
That is a very very good question I for one say nothing never have never will
He was carrying openly. If I thought an officer would observe that I were carrying, and I carry openly a good bit, I would inform him of the fact that I was armed as a courtesy and to prevent surprise.
I have gone both ways on this. It depends on the circumstances. Several states, such as Texas and Utah, require that you inform the officers that you are armed if you are carrying a concealed firearm.
Utah DOES NOT require one to inform and has not for at least a full year. Utah also allows CC Permit holds to carry on campus of ANY state school, that is K-College. Utah also has no concealed requirement.... the permit mearly ALLOWS one to conceal-- it does not require it.
Glad to hear it. It is hard to keep up with all the changes in the law. It is good that most of them are in the right direction for a change (with regards to carry of firearms).
Addirtionally, as of May 12, 2009....
If you can legally possess a firearm and are in a vehicle you own or are authorized to use, you may without a concealed carry permit:
have a loaded or unloaded firearm concealled or not concealled while in said vehicle.
The gottcha is if you don't have a permit and get stopped within the 1000 foot school zone boundry then IF YOU PUT A FOOT ON THE GROUND WHILE YOU HAVE THE FIREARM IN YOUR POSSESSION, YOU HAVE JUST VIOLATED THE LAW!!!!
Oh REALLY... that's awesome to hear. I hadn't even noticed that little mod to AZ law go through (been watching the 'firearms in your car while at work regardless of what your employer says/thinks' one instead, but haven't seen/heard anything on that recently either.)
Don't be mistaken... I am bragging about recent changes to UTAH law... NOT ARIZONA!
|
Thoreau
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:27 am |
|
Doh! Wishful thinking I suppose =(
|
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 12:36 am |
|
HankT wrote: ixtow wrote: You were rewarded for giving up your rights, and would most likely have been punished for asserting them.
It is merely an assumption, but an educated one, that you would not have gotten a warning, but a citation.
Hardly an "educated" assumption. Just a guess, seems to me. No way to support or reject it. Therefore, it falls out as insignificant, speculative....
Seems like a decent stop, though it would have been better without disarming the driver. Also, the question about whether there was one in the pipe is mystifying--any verbal answer is unimportant.
Education by experience is not discredited simply because you lack it or look the other way when the evidence presents itself. Pretend there is no way to support or reject an item, and thusly dismiss it by omission. Lying by omission. Asserting there is only one idea, by omitting all others... Who falls for that old gag anymore?
You're always fun, Hank. You make excellent practice for the slight-of-hand deceptions that Liberals/Media tend to play.
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 04:36 am |
|
ixtow wrote: HankT wrote: ixtow wrote: You were rewarded for giving up your rights, and would most likely have been punished for asserting them.
It is merely an assumption, but an educated one, that you would not have gotten a warning, but a citation.
Hardly an "educated" assumption. Just a guess, seems to me. No way to support or reject it. Therefore, it falls out as insignificant, speculative....
Seems like a decent stop, though it would have been better without disarming the driver. Also, the question about whether there was one in the pipe is mystifying--any verbal answer is unimportant.
Education by experience is not discredited simply because you lack it or look the other way when the evidence presents itself. Pretend there is no way to support or reject an item, and thusly dismiss it by omission. Lying by omission. Asserting there is only one idea, by omitting all others... Who falls for that old gag anymore?
You're always fun, Hank. You make excellent practice for the slight-of-hand deceptions that Liberals/Media tend to play.
ixtow,....ixtow....
Hey, are you the same ixtow who recently spake:
ixtow wrote:
A man who puts words in my mouth and then tries to attack me for what he just did, is not a person I have any intellectual fear of. In fact, I find those last 3 words to be oxymoronic.
and
ixtow wrote: ...You're putting words in my mouth and erecting a straw man to argue with. As such, you discredit yourself and prove your position to be nothing more than that of a Captain Ahab looking for someone's ass to kick.
...
Blah blah blah, why am I even talking to you? F yourself in the A.
and
ixtow wrote:
I never said there was. I see you want to put words in my mouth too?
The spelling is similar. Darn similar. Izzat you?
|
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 04:38 am |
|
HankT wrote: ixtow wrote: HankT wrote: ixtow wrote: You were rewarded for giving up your rights, and would most likely have been punished for asserting them.
It is merely an assumption, but an educated one, that you would not have gotten a warning, but a citation.
Hardly an "educated" assumption. Just a guess, seems to me. No way to support or reject it. Therefore, it falls out as insignificant, speculative....
Seems like a decent stop, though it would have been better without disarming the driver. Also, the question about whether there was one in the pipe is mystifying--any verbal answer is unimportant.
Education by experience is not discredited simply because you lack it or look the other way when the evidence presents itself. Pretend there is no way to support or reject an item, and thusly dismiss it by omission. Lying by omission. Asserting there is only one idea, by omitting all others... Who falls for that old gag anymore?
You're always fun, Hank. You make excellent practice for the slight-of-hand deceptions that Liberals/Media tend to play.
ixtow,....ixtow....
Hey, are you the same ixtow who recently spake:
ixtow wrote:
A man who puts words in my mouth and then tries to attack me for what he just did, is not a person I have any intellectual fear of. In fact, I find those last 3 words to be oxymoronic.
and
ixtow wrote: ...You're putting words in my mouth and erecting a straw man to argue with. As such, you discredit yourself and prove your position to be nothing more than that of a Captain Ahab looking for someone's ass to kick.
...
Blah blah blah, why am I even talking to you? F yourself in the A.
and
ixtow wrote:
I never said there was. I see you want to put words in my mouth too?
The spelling is similar. Darn similar. Izzat you?
Putting things in bold print doesn't create a correlation, it's used to emphasize a pre-existing one. Do you need more instruction this? You have made no point whatsoever.
You asserted that there is no basis of support for an officer rewarding a person for giving up their rights, as opposed to throwing the book at those who assert them.
You don't even need to venture into a LEO forum to see it. There are several examples right here. "Just do what The Man says, you deserve what you get for thinking that you have rights." The experiences that precede this are too numerous to require a citation, and fall into the realm of "general public DUH."
I have not put words in your mouth by pointing out that you tried to bury that.
You fail.
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 04:44 am by ixtow
|
protector84
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 475 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:10 am |
|
A lot of people frequently reference the 1,000 foot school zone law. I don't know about Utah law (and btw this is an Arizona forum) but the school zone law is a federal law, not a state law. Here in Arizona, the state school zone law conflicts with the federal school zone law and therefore considering that police officers only enforce state and local laws and the fact that we have "states' rights" means the federal law in most cases won't apply. Arizona law does not prohibit firearms within any specified distance from a school but only states that firearms are not allowed on school property unless pre-approved in a school program or if the firearm is locked unloaded and out of sight in a vehicle before entering the actual school grounds. Clearly that contradicts the federal law which prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet of a school unless the individual has a license. The law is unconstitutional both at the federal and state levels as well.
|
protector84
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 475 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:10 am |
|
| post deleted by protector84 Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:18 am by protector84
|
protector84
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 475 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:10 am |
|
| post deleted by protector84 Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:17 am by protector84
|
protector84
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 475 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:16 am |
|
| post deleted by protector84 Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 07:17 am by protector84
|
Crossfire Jedi
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:02 pm |
|
Good job Tyler, there is no reason to give the police a hard time..even if they are new to the job. Follow instructions and always have a voice recorder handy.
http://www.arizonadefensegroup.com
Arizona Only Forums
|
JesseL
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 07:29 pm |
|
I got pulled over on my motorcycle here in Prescott a couple weeks ago. My license plate had disappeared and I had already filed for a replacement with the MVD, but the new one hadn't arrived yet.
I was carrying concealed (hard to get my riding jacket behind my holster) and I gave the officer my CWP along with my DL, registration, and insurance info. I don't like giving cops any surprises and I've always found the local police to be very accepting of armed citizens.
So when I handed over the stack of paperwork including the CWP, the officer asked if I was carrying and I replied "Yes sir". That was it. He nodded and went back to his car to check out the status of my plate. He came back to let me know that the MVD had already listed my old plate as unusuable and issued a new one and sent me on my way.
There was no further discussion about my pistol and not even any show of concern that I had it. I don't think the whole thing could have possibly gone better. I wish all police were as cordial, respectful, knowledgeable, and polite as they seem to be in Prescott. 
AZkopper, that wasn't you was it?
|
Notso
Activist Member
| Joined: | Sun May 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | Laveen, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
| I had a similar experience in Texas recently. They have a requirement to notify there, so I told him I was armed, he asked where it was(on my hip) and that was the last of it.
|
AZkopper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 11:00 pm |
|
JesseL wrote:
AZkopper, that wasn't you was it?
nope, sorry
|
davesnothere
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mesa, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 05:13 am |
|
Years ago, when I was living in Sierra Vista I often considered open-carry, but because my place of work was on Fort Huachuca and it would have been less than convenient, I never did.
However, I did know a number of folks that did open-carry due to their off-post work locations and the ease of vehicle storage (even though many of them could have been fired for it). One friend of mine, Tom, told me that he ALWAYS informed officers at traffic stops that there was a gun in the vehicle. Well, not always. The first time he was carrying and didn't inform resulted in his being put on the ground, none too kindly, by the Cochise County Sheriff Deputy who was surprised and threatened by the presence of a gun.
The encounter ended in Tom being given back his firearm and informed that its just best, from a courtesy standpoint to inform, just so there are no surprises.
Surprises can lead to very bad situations, and even though we are working at exercising our rights, there is no real reason to be an ass about it in my book.
I'd sooner inform an officer and avoid a misunderstanding, or worse.
|
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
CWP in FL doesn't require to inform, and there is also the Peaceable Journey bit that means I don't even need a permit if it's in a container with a cover. Including glove-box or even tupperware.
I take it case by case. Does Fuzz have an attitude? Was I actually speeding or doing anything wrong? Do I have a light out I don't know about?
If Mr./Mrs. Fuzz has an inappropriate demeanor, asks me 'do you know how fast you were going?' when I was doing 3-5mph UNDER the limit... You can be sure, I'm not going to be nice back.
Or a quick walk up to the window "Hey, you got a light out bud." "Thanks!"
There are no 'surprises' because I always have my "License, registration, and proof of insurance" ready before s/he gets there. What 'surprise' is going to come up?
I'm curious where these 'surprises' come from. Actual event: I was pulled over by the FHP doing 85 in a 65. Yeah, I was late for work! And damn that dude was fast, I hadn't even pulled out my wallet and he was already standing there. "I'd love to get my Registration for you, but it's in the glove-box with my .380." "No problem, just don't point it at me [chuckles]."
I got a warning. 
|
davesnothere
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mesa, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 05:48 am |
|
I'm not sure where the "surprises" come from, but if Tom's experience was true, I'd rather avoid it. Then again, there might be a cottage industry in law suits against departments who have overzealous officers.
I'm not the guy to be the CEO of that particular cottage though.
I see the point on both sides of the argument, and my side is so close to the "if I'm not doing anything wrong why should I object to the search" argument, that I'm almost disgusted with myself.
|
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 06:10 am |
|
davesnothere wrote: I'm not sure where the "surprises" come from, but if Tom's experience was true, I'd rather avoid it. Then again, there might be a cottage industry in law suits against departments who have overzealous officers.
I'm not the guy to be the CEO of that particular cottage though.
I see the point on both sides of the argument, and my side is so close to the "if I'm not doing anything wrong why should I object to the search" argument, that I'm almost disgusted with myself.
If there is such a cottage industry, I'm all for it. I don't care what 'good' an officer thinks s/he is doing; crapping on my Bill of rights is not something s/he has any authority or right to do. I don't care how 'earned' s/he thinks it is. I live and work in those same 'dangerous places' where s/he does. Police Officers don't have a more dangerous life than any of the people that the courts have repeatedly stated they have no legal duty to protect... They certainly don't have a 'right' to better protection than I do.
[And just a note in advance. I don't care if you want to flame me for that or lecture me on what you think I need to learn. Shut the hell up. Most of them do far more harm than good. this is not directed at anyone in particular, just anyone who wants to give me @$%& for daring to approach the ivory tower and spit on its lies.]
Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 06:11 am by ixtow
|
Current time is 09:56 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
