http://www.themountainmail.com...ID=4&ArticleID=22820

The concealed weapons file maintained by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation will be purged by June 30 under the "sunset provision" of Colorado statute 18-12-206(3)(b) by the 2007 Colorado General Assembly.

Information previously submitted by law enforcement agencies regarding concealed carry weapons permits statewide will no longer be available, Chaffee County Sheriff Pete Palmer said recently.

Palmer said the Colorado bureau will no longer accept or maintain future data.

"All other provisions of the state law remain in effect," he said.

Colorado residents will be allowed to receive concealed handgun permits and previously issued valid permits remain valid. The database is the "sole portion of the concealed handgun law that will sunset," Palmer said.

A good win for gun rights

Sorry I don't understand this at all. If someone has a forged "Colorado concealed permit" there is no way for law enforcement to check it, right? What about expired permits? And this is a win for gun rights?!!!
Peter.

Unfortunately Peter, certain law enforcement agencies in this state has a history of abusing such information, so it's best not to let them know if you don't have to. Denying information to those who would abuse it is a victory for freedom.

Well AS, that certainly does not seem to be the stated justification. Let's see:
"Littrell said it is "better if the permit is not on your license because permit holders can get arrested in another state" for carrying a concealed weapon into that state if they are pulled over by law enforcement."
So we are not going to have a database because if someone is concealed carrying illegally in another state they could be arrested!!!! Well, if they come to Florida and are concealed carrying illegally, I would certainly hope so!
Sorry, the logic completely escapes me. The questions I raised about forged permits and expired permits still seems to be unanswered. Maybe it doesn't matter?!!!
Peter.

Having an out of state CCW record when police run your sheet gives the police "probable cause" for a search.

I've been stopped at night, routine traffic, and the police -- because they have the CCW record on the DMV sheet -- have treated me like I was "armed and dangerous." Lights in the windows, "Hands on the steering wheel where we can see them, no sudden moves!" Guns drawn . . .

-- Some police, some stops. Not all of them, nor even most of them.

Peter I wouldn't expect you to "get it". I don't think you were they type of officer that went around violating people civil right just because they chose to get the training, finger printing, and pay the fee to exercise their constitutional right. Denver cops go out of their way to harass concealed carry holders, even when they are not carrying. They believe that just because you hold a CCW, it gives them the right to treat you like a criminal, and violate your rights. Unfortinatly, that means it better if THOSE cops don't know you have it.

Antilope the new Wis law has some decent safe guards it along with some fines for officers who get over aggresive.

No public data base, officers can only axcess to see if you have a vailed permit. They can not retain those records.The way I read it dispatch will not even beable to log the info down.

We learned a lot from other states mistakes.

OK, AS, now I understand!!! It also seems that the CCW permit is linked in some way to your drivers license, which is not the case in Florida (as far as I know!).
Peter.

Peter, I belive you are correct regarding the Flordia CCW. When I took my class it also qualified a person to receive the Flordia permit.

P-Dog. That's very good to hear about the new WI permit. I hope more states follow you example. As more and more people decide to carry, I believe office training on this issue, will become more importatant. A proper understanding and respect for the CCW community could build some strong bridges between the two communities.

Not that I doubt it, . . . . BUT

Once anything gun related gets on a database I doubt that all copies will ever go away.

quote:

Having an out of state CCW record when police run your sheet gives the police "probable cause" for a search.

Where do you make this stuff up from?

quote:

quote:
Having an out of state CCW record when police run your sheet gives the police "probable cause" for a search.



Where do you make this stuff up from?

Mike, the average citizen doesn't know the difference between Probable cause, reasonable suspecion, and third catagory, (what's it called) that allows an office to conduct a search for weapons to insure their safety. Many people perceive these officer safety searches as being widely abused. Since the Supreme Court has ruled, that during a traffic stop, so long as ANY violation has actually occured, regardless of how minor, any evidence discovered in such a search is admissable in court. In some jurisdictions, the fact that a peson holds a CCW is considered ample reason for an office to search your vehicle for weapons, to ensure officer safety during a traffic stop. I"m not saying this is the way it shoudl be, but it's easy to see how this could be used as a pretence, and abused. Denver is somewhat notorious for this.

AS,

I think you may be taking some short cuts with your descriptions and the way the law works.

First, there is no PC to search just because a traffic violation (infraction) has occurred. I would be interested in what SCOTUS case you are referring to. Now if someone is arrested during a traffic stop, that is a completely different issue. An arrestable offense; i.e., a misdemeanor can lead to the search of the the entire vehicle not simply a traffic violation. Beware in some jurisdictions, Las Vegas I believe is one, all traffic violations are arrestable (i.e., take into custody) offenses.

Second, what you may be trying to refer to is that IF a probable cause search is justified then any evidence found in the search is admissible evidence. Providing that the evidence was found in a place that was consistent with the original target of the search.

Third, I would be curious to know in what jurisdictions you believe that a CCW is determined to be PC for a search for Officer Safety reasons. Related to this point, the court is not going to allow evidence taken from your pocket if a "pat search for weapons" was performed and your pocket contained nothing that was consistent with the outline of a weapon. In other words a pat search for weapons does not allow the officer to go into your jacket pocket if there is no object reasonably in the shape of a weapon.

Now do officers over step their bounds, sure it happens. But I would suggest anybody who wants to have a CCW might want to consider obeying the law of the land.

With respect to any PD being notorious for something...I would ask you to consider this.

Think about all the internet news articles you read about firearms, hunting, or other subjects in which you are quite knowledgeable. Ask yourself what percentage of the information in those articles is accurate or presented in the correct logical manner. I suspect you will say that the amount of inaccuracy and unsupported logic is quite high.

I would suggest that you might want to apply that same percentage to news articles you read about events involving law enforcement and the law.

Mike:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Let me begin by saying I'm not an attorney, nor have I ever played on one TV.

The case I was refering to is Arizona vs Johnson, which extended the original Ohio vs Terry to vehicle stops. Writing for a unaminous court, Ginsberg said a passenger in a vehicle may be frisked, even if the officer has no reason to belive the person is/has committed a crime, if they suspect the individual is armed and dangerous. It's my understanding that Denver takes great liberty with this ruling. They consider a CCW reasonable suspecion a person is armed, and therefore dangerous. I personally know CCW holders who were pulled over for minor infractions, ordered out of their car and patted down multiple times by DPD after getting their CCW, and having that little notation added to their drivers license.

Couple this with:

Minnesota v Dickerson the Surpremes also said, that when an officer conducts a patdown for weapons, if he feels something that is plainly contraband, it may be siezed. Hmmm wonder how this related to the frequency of above pat downs?

As far a police being able to throw you in jail for ANYTHING, it was:

Atwater vs Lago Vista that said it was acceptable to arrest a person and take them to jail for a seatbelt violation, that carried a maximum penalty of $50.00. Ms. Atwater then had to pay several hundred dollars in bail for a $50.00 ticket. That ties into your reference to searches "incident to arrest."

If you look at something like the Madison Five incident, we can see where officers did more then "step out of bounds" but actively went out of their way to actively harass law abiding armed citizens, with not one, but two sets of false charges that after 9 months were finally dropped. So much for those citizens obeying the law of the land.

You made an apt point that often news reports are erronious, so in that spirit about something in your neck of the woods. In much of California citizens are reduced to open, unloaded carry. It's reported in the press that in your state, EVERY department ALWAYS stops a citizen engaged in open carry to check their firearm and run their ID. Even if the same officer has checked the same citizen 10 times in the past, they will continue to do it every time they are sited carrying in public. In your experience, how do these reports compare with the reality on the ground?

Of course Mike, I'm not a professional, my interest is just in trying to stay legal, so I'm sure there is a lot in this I may have missed.

Antelope I belive the Madison 5 stand to have the city of madison pay them a fair amount of cash.

When the new Wis CCW lawgets signed on Friday some good safe guards go in to place also.

AS,

Officers for a long time have had the right to conduct a pat search for weapons of anybody they contact if they have a reasonable belief that the person is carrying a weapon and is dangerous. The real connection I think you are making is to Minnesota v. Dickerson and stating that a pat search for weapons can be taken into a broader search if the officer "feels something that is plainly contraband".

You may wish to re-read Minnesota v. Dickerson because the cocaine was thrown out in that case and the reason cocaine was thrown out is because of what I referenced above in my previous post. In short, the officer's pat search went beyond a pat search for weapons. The officer did not recognize it as rock cocaine until he further squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket's contents (through the outside). While Terry entitled the officer to place his hands on the suspect's jacket and to feel the presence of the lump in the pocket, his continued exploration of the pocket (even from the outside) after the officer concluded that it contained no weapon was unrelated to the pat down weapons search under Terry. Because this further search was constitutionally invalid, the seizure of the cocaine that followed was also invalid.

Atwater vs Lago Vista does not say it is acceptable for the police to take a person to jail for a seatbelt or other minor violation. Atwater says that because a seatbelt in that jurisdiction of Texas is written as a misdemeanor (as opposed to an infraction) then you can be arrested and of course subsequently searched. The law generally contains very precise "logic", may not be logic everybody agrees with. Two scenarios may seem very similar but one small change in the sequence of the logic makes a big difference.


I am not aware of the Madison 5 but will look into it. However, I will assume it was some type of improper use of police authority based on your comments directed at CCW or other gun carrying citizens. I am not sure the of the logic of your point. If police officers unlawful harass and abuse their authority (including searches)towards punk rockers with purple spiked hair, it does not mean that having purple spiked hair is now unlawful or probable cause to be searched. It means you have some LEOs that were "jerks".

With respect to anything in the CA media regarding guns and the police I would rate the accuracy at less than 50%.

However, even if the media report is true. The described behavior of the officer would not be unlawful nor be harassment. Loaded open carry in CA is unlawful. Therefore, it is not unlawful nor harassment for the officer to check and see if the weapon is loaded every time the officer sees the weapon being carried.

Mike,

your signature list, where it discusses PF actions; you neglect to mention that military/LEO usage of such actions is predicated on unit tactics. Whereas hunting is a solo or group of two wielding firearms.

Rich

PS: PF actually means Passing Fad!

Mike, thanks for the clarification.
I knew that the cocaine in Dickerson was thrown out, but I was under the impression it was because the officer did not have sufficient cause for the pat down. Your explination actually makes more sence.

As for Atwater, I missed that the Texas seatbelt law was written as a misdemeanor. Knowing that, the ruling makes a lot more sence. Every place I've ever lived it's been a infraction, I never even considered it would be written as a misdemeanor.

Here's are two articles on the Madison 5, The second one included the audio of actual 911 call. Please note, Wisconson has no "stop and identify" law.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/ne...2c-001cc4c002e0.html


http://www.examiner.com/gun-ri...e-there-s-no-problem

IMO part of this problem stems from the city attorney, and other officials who supported this type of behavior. As P-dog shooter metioned, the city is now facing a Federal Lawsuit. Of course this still amounts to a great deal of heart ache caused by a group of LEO's failing to repect citizens rights, and failing to be properly supervised by the City Fathers.

I understand that loaded carry is illegal in CA. Generally, as I understand it, in order to perform a seach, an officer must have a reasonable belief that a person is committing, or about to commit a crime. So lets say you've stopped "Joe" 10 times open carrying in CA. Each time see the empty magazine well before you take his gun, search the chamber for a round, detained him for 30 minutes while you run his ID to see if he's a felon. Everytime the sidearm was empty, and his record was clean. At what point is it no longer reasonable for you to BELIEVE that just because you see Joe open carrying that he is committing, or is about to commit a crime?

Lets say the firearm has a loaded chamber indicator in plain sight. Chamber indicator says it's not loaded. Is such a search still "reasonable" in your mind?

quote:

So lets say you've stopped "Joe" 10 times open carrying in CA. Each time see the empty magazine well before you take his gun, search the chamber for a round, detained him for 30 minutes while you run his ID to see if he's a felon. Everytime the sidearm was empty, and his record was clean. At what point is it no longer reasonable for you to BELIEVE that just because you see Joe open carrying that he is committing, or is about to commit a crime?

Sorry AS, I don't understand the logic here. Suppose Joe was seen by a cop who did not verify the weapon was unloaded. Ol' Joe goes on to rob a bank and kills someone. An investigation shows that the cop had seen Joe but said "well the last 10 times his gun was unloaded so I didn't bother checking this time". What would the public (or anyone) say about this behaviour on the part of the cop? Personally, I would say that the cop was not doing his job!
Peter.

And Joe just couldn't load the weapon after he was asked and then rob the bank.

Such foolish thinking.

Replace gun with carring a bible , Koran or newspaper. Guns are to the 2nd as free speech is to the frist.

And don't give me the old BS about yelling fire in a movie theather. one can always carry the word fire with them and use it if there is a fire. Use words illegaly and go to jail same should be with firearms.

Rich,

The natural extension of your logic is that designers of military weapons think a certain level of unreliability is acceptable because it is "ok" if one soldier's rifle fails because he will likely be be fighting along 6 or 7 other soldiers. Somehow, I don't think that is the way military rifle designers think.

AS,

You have raised a couple three points simultaneously, I will try to answer in an "organized" manner.

1. probable cause for a detention (think Terry) is different than the probable cause for a pat search for weapons which is different than probable cause for an evidentiary search.

2 A detention is justified if the officer has reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot and a person is somehow connected to that criminal activity. The detention can only last as long as reasonable.

3. A pat search for weapons takes very little reasonable suspicion. The court has given officers pretty broad authority. But remember the search is limited to locating weapons. An officer will have a more latitude in MN in December than AZ in the July given the clothing of the subject.

4. A evidentiary search is going to require much more articulable probable cause that a crime has been committed and the specific person is a suspect.

Now back to your Joe scenario. As PDS and Peter mentioned given Joe has the ability to load the gun moments after the officer leaves 10 times in 10 days may not be unreasonably.

With respect to the time you mentioned, 30 minutes is probably always unreasonably to detain waiting for a warrant check. Once the officer determines that the weapon is unloaded, he probably can't detain the subject for more than about 7 or 8 minutes for a warrant check. I have had to release subjects I was detaining only for moments later to have dispatch come back with a "hit".

Regarding the loaded chamber indicator, it pretty irrelevant in my opinion. Four reasons come to mind. 1) From a safety perspective would you "trust" a gun is unloaded because of that indicator - probably not, so why should the officer "believe" it. 2) You can't reasonably expect the office to be familiar with all types of handguns and their specific loaded indicator 3) the indicator could be tampered with and 4) Along the lines of what Peter said it just wouldn't be prudent. "Oh, I saw the chamber indicator was indicating empty so I decided not to check." Pretty poor police work.

P-dog, Here's my thinking:
The courts have held (I think it was Terry, but Mike can correct me if I'm wrong), that in order for an office to stop and frisk you without a warrent, they must be able to articulate the reason they believe you are breaking, or are about to break the law. It's important to note, the standard is not how you COULD be breaking the law, i.e. you COULD be a felon, or the chamber COULD be loaded, but why the officer believes you ARE a felon in possesion, or the firearm IS loaded. In addition the officer must belive that you as a person are dangerous. In an Arizona case (I'm trying to remember which one) it was held that because an individual was recently released from prison for multiple violent felonies, and had known gang affiliations, it was reasonable for the Officer incident to a stop to search this individual for weapons. My question for Mike was the other side of the same coin. At what point is it NOT reasonable for an officer to consider a person to be comitting, or about to committ a crime, and dangerous, just because they are engaged in legal, open, unloaded carry?

Mike I see we were typing at the same time.
Again, I thank you for taking the time to clear that up. I'm sure you can understand how all these varied meanings for the same words (probable cause) can be so confusing for the average citizen.

quote:

2) You can't reasonably expect the office to be familiar with all types of handguns

Nope, I do not expect that. But if you've checked my sidearm 10 times, I would expect you had figured out how it worked. I would also expect you to remember that you personally checked me the day before, and the day before that, and the day before that, and I keep coming back with no warrants. I would also expect to you to reflect back on your 30 years of LEO experience and realize that open unloaded carry is not the profile of a bank robber, or gang banger headed out for a drive-by.

I know my "Joe" scenerio was a tough one, and I'm not sure it's ever been adjudicated, so at best we are trying to second guessing where the courts. But considering that Kalifornia is in the 9th Circuit, it's not too hard to imagine which direction they would go the issue.

AS,

The number of previous "times" the officer checked you with and it turned out to be unloaded doesn't really matter. What matters is the "situation" this time. Also, the lack of a "profile of gangbanger or bank robber" is not really relevant because crime in question is simply carrying a loaded gun in "a public place".

Your point regarding familiarity after with the 3 or 4th time is only one of the four reasons.

Let me pose another situation to you. Your a little eccentric you like to drink water out of an empty Budweiser bottle. Just because the officer has pulled you over 10 times and the bottle had water in it, does the officer say on the 11th time "there is Joe tipping a Budweiser bottle but 'I know' it's only water". Remember we are not talking about drunk driving, we are talking about the violation of open container.

No he pulls you over each and every time as he should.

Haveing conducted tens of thousands of traffic stops ect.

There is the strict enforcement of the law and a lot of commom sense enforcement.

Yes I could stop Joe every time I saw him tipping the beer bottle up. Would I no If I stopped him a few times and he was legal why would I waste my time stopping him again again.

Resonable susupsion proable cause ect good common sense goes a long ways,

The only reason to continue to stop and question someone that always been legal is to harass them because I didn't like what they were doing.

Abusing your authority has never set will with me.

Pdog,

I was being a bit extreme in my example, I agree with your point...in the long run you ended up hurting the overall LE mission.

Mike, I'm glad you finally came around.

Considering the amount of level headed common sense you bring to most threads, I was disappointed it took you so long to admit there comes a point where the continued checking of the same individual is no longer "Good Police Work" and crosses over into a waste of police resources and harassment of an honest citizen. Considering that you appear to be a highly experienced, very professinal Office, who is an active member of the shooting community and it took YOU this long to see it, how long would it take the average cop?

Regardless if it's legal or not, it doen't take very much of this kind of abuse for a PD to alienate the entire local gun owning community. Considering that 40% of American household are legal gun owners, I don't see the upside in unnecessarily damaging is relationship, but that's exactly what many PDs have accomplished. But this bring us back to the beginning of the thread, and it's why Colorado CCW holders are happy that certain PD's will no longer know they hold a valid CCW.

But more importantly, I'm glad you can around.

AS,

You mat have misunderstood the intent of my previous posts. My previous posts (excluding the snarky B.S. comment about always pulling over Mr. Budweiser) were not meant to express what I would do or what I thought was "right". So you should not necessarily think of me as "coming around." I would probably handle the situation differently than always stopping Mr. Budweiser or thinking that if I continue to "check Joe Open Carry" that I am somehow improving public safety or progressing the mission.

My previous posts were about what is permissible behavior on the part of LEOs and what is legally justifiable not what is necessarily my view of the right behavior.

I am glad you made your last post because it raises an important issue in my mind.

Police Officers usually have several options in how to respond to any given situation and the options can be widely different and have widely different results. Often "civilians" assess the Officer based on what they would have done or would have liked the Officer to have done and if the Officer did something different label the Officer's action as "wrong". The actions are are first and foremost different which isn't necessarily wrong.

Case in point. I have a justified reason to stop you. I employ good tactics and speak to you from a distance of say 8-10 ft. You charge me in an attack. I can:

1) Step out of the way and wait see what you do when you stop and turn back towards me

2) Step out of the way and perform a takedown as you pass by

3) I can step out of the way and pepper spray you when you stop and turn back towards me

4) Step out of the way and deliver a 3 count strike with my baton when you stop and turn back towards me

Four very different responses all completely justifiable and reasonable

I Know this: if the same cop stopped me ten days in a row for the same thing, I would begin to suspect either A) his sanity, or B) his attitude. Overzealous cops give the normal cops a bad name and understandably build resentment throughout the general population against police in general. With the increased militarization of police and unnecessary SWAT shootings making the papers, cops are going to have an increased degree of difficulty doing their required jobs. If the economic situation continues to deteriorate and civil unrest ensues, I would not want to be a cop in the inner cities, at the very least. And likely elsewhere, as well.