Tips When Stopped By Police While Armed

[Caneman]

Originally Posted by RunningOnMT

I agree with all of your objections to violations of your rights the last several posts refer to. However, this all started with discussing the requirement in some states to notify a police officer that you are licensed to carry and are armed.

Look at it this way; Society imposes rules, restrictions, and obligations, on it's individual members through certain social contracts. There is a social contract between police and those they serve. Now in doing their job of protecting all of us, law enforcement officers regularly come in contact with some members of our society who do not respect the law, and who pose a very real threat to the law officers own life. So in accepting the security the law officer provides, we also accept the rules our legislative representatives have obligated us to.

If you don't except the whole concept of a social contract, then you are an anarchist. If that's the case, the point I'm trying to make is moot. Otherwise, it is only reasonable that we do our part to reduce the risk the LEO faces in the performance of his or her duty on behalf of us. The very act of informing the LEO you are armed tells him that you respect the law and the job he is doing, thereby reducing the perceived threat he may feel from you. In doing this you help the LEO serve you better. What's so bad about that?

sanity.

[Double D]

Originally Posted by RunningOnMT

I agree with all of your objections to violations of your rights the last several posts refer to. However, this all started with discussing the requirement in some states to notify a police officer that you are licensed to carry and are armed.

Look at it this way; Society imposes rules, restrictions, and obligations, on it's individual members through certain social contracts. There is a social contract between police and those they serve. Now in doing their job of protecting all of us, law enforcement officers regularly come in contact with some members of our society who do not respect the law, and who pose a very real threat to the law officers own life. So in accepting the security the law officer provides, we also accept the rules our legislative representatives have obligated us to.

If you don't accept the whole concept of a social contract, then you are an anarchist. If that's the case, the point I'm trying to make is moot. Otherwise, it is only reasonable that we do our part to reduce the risk the LEO faces in the performance of his or her duty on behalf of us. The very act of informing the LEO you are armed tells him that you respect the law and the job he is doing, thereby reducing the perceived threat he may feel from you. In doing this you help the LEO serve you better. What's so bad about that?

note: Just had to edit this post when I reread it today and saw I used "except" where I should have used "accept".
How embarrassing. But hey, it ws late when I typed it.

I can see your point. I understand the lowlife scumbags the cops have to deal with on a daily basis and I respect that. The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less and the lawmakers have taken it upon themselves to ILLEGALLY create laws that make us have to follow several more steps in order to ensure those rights, making THEM wrong already. They have overstepped the 2nd amendment and tacked on whatever rules and laws they feel should go along with it. We are FORCED to obey these illegal laws or go to jail. So, when a mayor says run numbers on permit holders guns, its way, way out of line and hopefully one day he and others like him will be ousted. Yea, maybe I hyjacked the thread, maybe it needed hyjacked. ANY laws outside of the 2nd amendment are bullcrap.

[Blurr]

Originally Posted by RunningOnMT

I agree with all of your objections to violations of your rights the last several posts refer to. However, this all started with discussing the requirement in some states to notify a police officer that you are licensed to carry and are armed.

Look at it this way; Society imposes rules, restrictions, and obligations, on it's individual members through certain social contracts. There is a social contract between police and those they serve.

The rules are laid out clearly in the Bill of Rights and the United States constitution, the law enforcement officer and those imposing regulations are subject to those laws as well.
RIghts are something which cannot be legislated away, you may make a law with guidence, say what type of arms, but you may not restrict the ability of a citizen to ever carry (bear) a weapon.
That can only be taken away via the courts after you have proven yourself a real threat to society, not in a mere subjective nature.

Now in doing their job of protecting all of us, law enforcement officers regularly come in contact with some members of our society who do not respect the law, and who pose a very real threat to the law officers own life. So in accepting the security the law officer provides, we also accept the rules our legislative representatives have obligated us to.

And the rest of society comes into contact with those undesirables as well, I am sure a convenience store clerk would like each customer to walk thru the door with their hands up and in clear view at all times.
And if the shopper made a sudden move they could tase/pop them and say "hey I thought he was armed" and as we know, since consistently for decades that is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, that would be an easy assumption to make.
Do you think that would fly ?
If not then why?

If you don't accept the whole concept of a social contract, then you are an anarchist. If that's the case, the point I'm trying to make is moot.

so since the legislators do not follow the Law of the constitution they are anarchists?

Otherwise, it is only reasonable that we do our part to reduce the risk the LEO faces in the performance of his or her duty on behalf of us. The very act of informing the LEO you are armed tells him that you respect the law and the job he is doing, thereby reducing the perceived threat he may feel from you. In doing this you help the LEO serve you better. What's so bad about that?

note: Just had to edit this post when I reread it today and saw I used "except" where I should have used "accept".
How embarrassing. But hey, it ws late when I typed it.

Edit: see above post

[raven818]

My grandfather told me to never discuss politics, or religion ( ya can't win ).

I think he left out another category.

[time2shoot]

I have never even thought about it if it was requierd here in south dakota. I just tell them. some times they ask why i'm telling them. I reply with the truth. I tell them, I don't feal like geting shot.

[soundguy]

anyone ever have a LEO ask you WHY you were carrying? I did one time.

I gave him the ' any legal purpose' answer.. he didn't like that.. so my next one was 'lawfull self defense'

not sure WHY he wanted to know past just know ing was allowed to carry, and was carrying.

I know on any atf form 4 papers I've fileld out, the palce where you explain the 'need' for the 'whatever' I always simply put personal colelction, and was never questioned on that.