Freedom Isn't Free - Buy a Gun.
https://vagunforum.net:443/phpbb/
That is correct...you are in no way obliged legally to inform...here in NOVA I will wait until they ask.gunderwood wrote:Legally in VA, no you don't.CK1 wrote:You just need to notify the LEO about the gun when your about to make movements due to his request for you to produce your credentials.
That's why IF i were to get pulled over, i would already have my License and registration out on the console awaiting the officer to walk up. That way i don't have to do any reaching while hes at the windowCK1 wrote:My brother-in-law is a Fairfax county cop and he said many times it's really more about how the info is conveyed.
Do Not:
Start right off when the cop gets to your window say, "I have a gun and a permit to carry it."
Even if you're trying to be up front and make the cop aware. Remember 90% of all robberies start off with those famous words "I have a gun".
Do:
Convey the info more like this perhaps; (With both hands on the wheel) "Good evening officer." That's it. THEN, when he ask for your license and reg. say "No problem. But 1st please be advised that I have a CCWP and I do have a firearm at my right hip. My license is in my wallet... My reg is... and I will have to reach to my... Is that OK? You get the picture.
You just need to notify the LEO about the gun when your about to make movements due to his request for you to produce your credentials.
That's actually not recommended either, since your movements to get those items may be viewed as furtive by the officer.06bolton5pt3 wrote: That's why IF i were to get pulled over, i would already have my License and registration out on the console awaiting the officer to walk up. That way i don't have to do any reaching while hes at the window
We could go round and round on this.CK1 wrote:Yeah, that was what my brother-in-law was saying. The movement in the car is always a trigger for alert by the officer.
And what I meant by "You need to" is you SHOULD notify him about the gun once he's asked you to get move to get your lic. & reg.
It's just good gun etiquette. Think about the logic... He doesn't know you and he almost surely doesn't know about the gun at your hip. Now he's asked you to move to get something harmless (lic. & reg.) that just happens to be very near something that could kill him if you were that type of person. And whether or not you are that type of person, he has no idea.
It seems to me there are just some things we should do as a courtesy to our fellow earth inhabitants when it comes to guns.
If you are being pulled over for a traffic violation, then the officer has a reason to initiate that interaction. Its not about trying to "get anything on you". Its about enforcing the law.gunderwood wrote:In a S2I interaction, you are being observed to determine if the state can get anything on you.
I have to disagree with you here ProShooter. I think it's all about finding out anything that they can find out. This is why they run your license to see if you have any warrants. Are you doing anything illegal other than speeding? They may ask questions specifically to pry into these areas to determine whether or not there is a reason to take you "Downtown".ProShooter wrote:If you are being pulled over for a traffic violation, then the officer has a reason to initiate that interaction. Its not about trying to "get anything on you". Its about enforcing the law.gunderwood wrote:In a S2I interaction, you are being observed to determine if the state can get anything on you.
Let's not put our tin foil hats on just yet...
The point that I was trying to make is that the reason for the initial stop is not "trying to get something on you". Its about the violation. A Police Officer is trained to ask questions that you may or may not choose to answer. Nothing wrong with him asking though. That is his job.allingeneral wrote: I have to disagree with you here ProShooter. I think it's all about finding out anything that they can find out. This is why they run your license to see if you have any warrants. Are you doing anything illegal other than speeding? They may ask questions specifically to pry into these areas to determine whether or not there is a reason to take you "Downtown".
I'm not saying that every interaction will be like this, but every interaction certainly has the potential to.
Let's look at an example:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "I don't allow searches of my personal property"
Officer: "OK, here's your ticket for driving 68 in a 55. Have a nice day"
End of discussion.
Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: As the officer leans into your car to retrieve the backpack, he sees something under your seat that catches his eye "Sir, please step out of the vehicle"
You: Comply
Oh boy...here we go!!!
Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: The officer retrieves the backpack and notes that it is clearly not empty - it has papers and a box of ammo from when you went to the range last weekend "Sir, why did you lie to me - this backpack has ammunition in it"
You: "Oh, I forgot that was in there"
Officer: "Do you have any guns in the car"
You: "None of your business"
Officer: "Sir, what are you trying to hide - Please step out of the car"
Uh oh - here we go again!!
So, I have to say that I'm happier with scenario number 1 where I refuse to provide any more information than is necessary for the officer to deal with the issue at hand - a speeding ticket.
ProShooter wrote:It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law![/b]
It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law!
I never said the point of the stop was to go fishing. I said the point of asking unrelated questions, like Allingeneral demonstrated, is to find out if there is anything else they can get you for. That isn'tProShooter wrote:The point that I was trying to make is that the reason for the initial stop is not "trying to get something on you". Its about the violation. A Police Officer is trained to ask questions that you may or may not choose to answer. Nothing wrong with him asking though. That is his job.allingeneral wrote: I have to disagree with you here ProShooter. I think it's all about finding out anything that they can find out. This is why they run your license to see if you have any warrants. Are you doing anything illegal other than speeding? They may ask questions specifically to pry into these areas to determine whether or not there is a reason to take you "Downtown".
I'm not saying that every interaction will be like this, but every interaction certainly has the potential to.
Let's look at an example:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "I don't allow searches of my personal property"
Officer: "OK, here's your ticket for driving 68 in a 55. Have a nice day"
End of discussion.
Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: As the officer leans into your car to retrieve the backpack, he sees something under your seat that catches his eye "Sir, please step out of the vehicle"
You: Comply
Oh boy...here we go!!!
Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: The officer retrieves the backpack and notes that it is clearly not empty - it has papers and a box of ammo from when you went to the range last weekend "Sir, why did you lie to me - this backpack has ammunition in it"
You: "Oh, I forgot that was in there"
Officer: "Do you have any guns in the car"
You: "None of your business"
Officer: "Sir, what are you trying to hide - Please step out of the car"
Uh oh - here we go again!!
So, I have to say that I'm happier with scenario number 1 where I refuse to provide any more information than is necessary for the officer to deal with the issue at hand - a speeding ticket.
The reason that they run your license is not to find out of you have a warrant. Its to ensure that your license is valid. Now, any good dispatcher will automatically check that but that is not the goal. There are many officers who stop cars, give a quick warning and send you on your way with even calling in the stop or your name. What police do know from experience is that a simple thing such as a bad inspection sticker often leads to other things....so they ask questions while they issue a summons. Nothing wrong with that. My simple answer to all of this is, don't get caught doing anything that you shouldn't be doing; speeding, bad inspection sticker, etc. If you are breaking the law, you deserve to be caught. Law abiding citizens should want the police to catch wrongdoers. It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law!
, that is part of an officers training. You know that so don't play coy.allingeneral wrote:ProShooter wrote:It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law![/b]
oh, come on now...I've been saved by a flasher on numerous occasions! lol
I don't know him either, I'm going to start asking leos, who probably know less about guns then I do, to hand over their weapons when interacting with me. I just want to be safe. If I'm carrying or not is none of his concernCK1 wrote:Yeah, that was what my brother-in-law was saying. The movement in the car is always a trigger for alert by the officer.
And what I meant by "You need to" is you SHOULD notify him about the gun once he's asked you to get move to get your lic. & reg.
It's just good gun etiquette. Think about the logic... He doesn't know you and he almost surely doesn't know about the gun at your hip. Now he's asked you to move to get something harmless (lic. & reg.) that just happens to be very near something that could kill him if you were that type of person. And whether or not you are that type of person, he has no idea.
It seems to me there are just some things we should do as a courtesy to our fellow earth inhabitants when it comes to guns.
No, I simply would like people who break the law to be held accountable for their actions. That is my utopian dreamTaggure wrote:It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law!
Why would you want them to get pulled over? To line the county coffers and make thier quota?
I could care less about the county coffers and quotas (which really don't exist, by the way).I've said it before and I'll say it again. Arguing that handing over a legally carried OC/CC gun is safer for anyone is absurd on the face of it.cigarmanva wrote:I don't know him either, I'm going to start asking leos, who probably know less about guns then I do, to hand over their weapons when interacting with me. I just want to be safe. If I'm carrying or not is none of his concernCK1 wrote:Yeah, that was what my brother-in-law was saying. The movement in the car is always a trigger for alert by the officer.
And what I meant by "You need to" is you SHOULD notify him about the gun once he's asked you to get move to get your lic. & reg.
It's just good gun etiquette. Think about the logic... He doesn't know you and he almost surely doesn't know about the gun at your hip. Now he's asked you to move to get something harmless (lic. & reg.) that just happens to be very near something that could kill him if you were that type of person. And whether or not you are that type of person, he has no idea.
It seems to me there are just some things we should do as a courtesy to our fellow earth inhabitants when it comes to guns.
That wasn't the reason we added them at all:Taggure wrote:I know I know the speed limits are there for our safety...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#JustificationFuel efficiency sometimes affects speed limit selection. The United States instituted a National Maximum Speed Law of 55 mph (89 km/h) as part of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act in response to the 1973 oil crisis to reduce fuel consumption.[41] According to a report published in 1986 by the The Heritage Foundation, a Conservative advocacy group, the law was widely disregarded by motorists and hardly reduced consumption at all.[42] In 2009 The American Trucking Associations called for a 65 mph speed limit and also st national fuel economy standards claiming that the lower speed limit was not effective at saving fuel.[43]
The key here is mean speed of traffic for probability, not the absolute. I.e. all vehicles traveling at a similar rate for the likelihood of a crash, while (duh) higher speed crashes tend to be more severe.Traffic engineers observe that the likelihood of a crash happening is significantly higher if vehicles are traveling at speeds faster or slower than the mean speed of traffic;[n 10] when severity is taken into account the risk is lowest for those traveling at or below the median speed and "increases exponentially for motorists driving faster".
Again, speed differentials, not absolute speed. I.e. absolute speed gives a rise in KE, which is a x^2, but speed deltas rise at a x^4 or exponentially faster.It is desirable to attempt to reduce the speed of road vehicles in some circumstances because the kinetic energy involved in a motor vehicle collision is proportional to the square of the speed at impact. The probability of a fatality is, for typical collision speeds, empirically correlated to the fourth power of the speed difference (depending on the type of collision, not necessarily the same as travel speed) at impact,[35] rising much faster than kinetic energy.
Not on paper, maybe - but show me an officer who doesn't write any tickets and I'll show you another opportunity for a +1 in the jobs created column....ProShooter wrote: I could care less about the county coffers and quotas (which really don't exist, by the way).
As an aside, nothing was more sphincter-tightening than being in the far left lane of the autobahn and coming across someone doing 55 mph in that lane. Always a new American to Germany.gunderwood wrote: What this means is that changing the speed limit has very little impact on safety on a modern interstate. Getting everyone to drive at similar rates of speed is a much better idea, which I might point out is exactly what happens when people ignore the speed limits and just keep up with the flow of traffic. Statistically that new flow rate, which is higher than the posted speed limit, is safer now than actually attempting to maintain the limit since it has a huge delta from the mean.
I would like to start by saying that I am new to this forum. I have frequently used this forum as a source for information. But I decided to join recently because I have some questions and thought I would put in some of my two cents and experience dealing with the subject at hand.ProShooter wrote:
No, I simply would like people who break the law to be held accountable for their actions. That is my utopian dream