DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Duty to Inform for Concealed Carry. Yes or No?

Maine has constitutional carry. If a Maniac is carrying without a permit, they have a “duty to inform.” In an encounter with the police, citizens are required to tell cops they’re packing heat without being asked. If a Downeaster has a carry permit, they can stay shtum. [Click here to check out your state’s law.] Huh? Anyway, cops are generally relieved when they see a CHL – it tells them they’re probably not dealing with a bad guy. But where do you draw the line? Should a convicted felon have to declare his criminal record when encountering police? What’s your take on firearms-related “duty to inform” laws? No biggie or an unacceptable infringement?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I believe it is an infringement. Just as one should not and does not have to inform law enforcement what kind of socks one is or is not wearing.

  2. avatar Art out West says:

    I am opposed to the “duty to inform” laws.

    Still, I plan to inform, if I ever get pulled over while CCW, just to be considerate.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      +1

      Even before AZ had duty to inform, I always would inform officers if I was carrying. For the most part, it was a non event. In other parts of the country, I’m sure it wouldn’t be treated in the same professional manner. I still think the laws are BS.

      1. avatar Mark Horning says:

        AZ does NOT have a duty to inform. Never has.

        In AZ you have a legal requirement to “answer truthfully if asked”. You have no duty to volunteer the information.

        1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

          That’s my understanding as well. Don’t ask, don’t tell is good enough for me. I’ve never once been asked.

          My personal policy is if I were asked to step out of my vehicle or something I’d volunteer that I’m armed to avoid any misunderstandings. Otherwise what I’m carrying is about as relevant as anything else I’m wearing beneath my clothes.

    2. avatar HAVE GUN says:

      I haven’t been pulled over while carrying. I always kinda figured if I were pulled over it would just depends on if I think it would do me any good or not.

    3. avatar JSW says:

      Although I’ve been informed MN requires a CCW holder to show our permit when asked for a DL during a stop, I do not agree that I should be required to show a permit. In fact, I think every person should be carrying and every cop should be aware we’re all carrying. After all, armed people are a lot more considerate than when only one is armed…

      But I must remind all, I’ve been accused of being crazy, so take it for what it’s worth.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        It really pays to know the laws. Like them or not, the law is what it is. I figure that in most police encounters, they are in a position to deploy firepower faster than I am (especially if I am seated in a car), so concealed carry is just too risky for me (and just me). The laws here are such that even self-defense shootings are illegal (at home or traveling). I probably have a better chance of a successful legal defense against a shooting in my home than a self-defense incident outside. We do have a provision to claim what is called an “affirmative defense” to a self-defense shooting, but being arrested, jailed and then go through the courts is just too unattractive. Which I guess is the point of it all.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          What country are you in?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I live in the most repressive nation ever conceived or established. The nation from which all evil in the world originates and emanates. The single nation that is responsible for the wretched economy and living conditions of the Cuban people due to refusal to be among the 130 other nations with trade agreements wit Cuba. The nation that stole its entirety from indigenous peoples while creating all its wealth on the backs of non-white immigrants.The nation that is an embarrassment to the community of nations because this nation so far refuses to freely provide every desire in life at the entire expense of the wealthy. The nation that requires a great deal of maturing before it can take its place among those whose empires have long lost their luster and glory, but represent the wisest of council.

          And not Texas.

  3. avatar gs650g says:

    Do plainclothes police have a duty to inform?

  4. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    not sure if we have a duty to inform here in AZ.

    Thus far, my only interactions with police are infrequent traffic stops. I have found that offering up that i have a weapon is a good way to reestablish “compliance” after breaking some traffic law.

    If y’all want to say that needing to establish submissiveness to an officer is messed up, no argument from me, but at the same time i’ve still gotten let off with warnings every time.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Before Constitutional Carry, AZ had no “duty to inform” law. After CC passed, we do. That was part of the compromised bill.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Incorrect.
        No duty to inform, but must produce permit if requested from police.

        http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/arizona.pdf

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Okay, now I’m curious.

          How is one compelled to produce a permit in a Constitutional Carry state?

          Cops says, “Do you have a permit” and CC-ers says, “No.” End of story?

          Why would the cop bother asking in a Constitutional Carry state? From where I sit, that makes no sense at all (which is not to say it doesn’t happen, but…is there permitless carry or isn’t there?).

        2. avatar Vhyrus says:

          We still have permits for reciprocity and in some limited areas only permit holders can carry. Basically, if a cop asks if you’re armed you have to answer truthfully, and if he asks for your permit you have to produce it if you have one. You don’t have to preemptively volunteer either.

        3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          My understanding was if you didn’t have a CCW permit, you had to tell an officer when they initiated contact. But, I did get that piece of info from my friend who is a MCSO deputy… and they’re never wrong. 😉

          You always had to tell them if they asked.

  5. avatar Erik says:

    I’m ok with it because I believe it protects me, more so then the officer. Regardless of law, I always inform law enforcement that I am carrying and ask them how they wish for me to proceed. From my experience, they are more calm and reasonable then from before I carried firearms.

    If I tell them I have a weapon instead of them seeing it to find out, I feel like it’s a much better scenario for the carrier.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      If the practice protects you, and we are talking about potentially protecting your life, not just a scratch, then why would you need a law obligating you to carry out that practice? Aren’t you a grown man?

      Do you need a law mandating that you look left, look right, look left again, before crossing the street? That would protect you, too, but is it really the government’s job to compel you in this manner?

      What about stop, drop and roll? If you should ever find yourself aflame, but panic and just run around in circles instead of stopping, dropping and rolling, should you be prosecuted when (if?) you leave the hospital for not having carried out what is a great practice to protect you from burning to death?

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        “…then why would you need a law obligating you to carry out that practice?”

        From where I type, it’s about [the illusion of] protecting the police. As we PotG know, criminals are under no obligation to incriminate themselves, so THEY aren’t going to say anything.

        Many law-abiding citizens, well, obey the laws. Many of that subset even obey laws that they disagree with ’cause it’s the law.

        So a “duty to inform” law is another means to remind we subjects that we are not in charge.

        As others have noted, most up-front PotG would mention the CC piece if that were perceived to eliminate the surprise (e.g., your traffic stop has morphed into “please get out of the car”).

        Just a thought.

  6. avatar JB Karns says:

    The very concept of having some ‘duty’ to any govt apparatchik is anathema to fundamental individual Liberty and a free society.

    Govt and its members have a ‘duty’ to respect and to secure the Liberty and freedom of individuals.

    Nearly everything govt (and its enforcement/compliance arm, the police) does and imposes upon the populous is anathema to Liberty and to the fundamental and proper role of govt in a free society and this ‘once’ Constitional Republic.

    The fact that so few grasp and conceptualize this, or even care, speaks to exactly how precarious the future of the Republic and of Liberty itself is.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      ^This!

      I will inform, but it shouldn’t be a requirement.

    2. avatar ThomasR. says:

      They were called from the beginning of our republic “public servants” as a reminder to them, as well as to us, that they serve us, not vice a versa.

      But that has definitely been forgotten by many.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      “duty to inform” is just another gun control law that affects only the law abiding citizens. I’m sure the police apprciate being advised that you are carrying a weapon since it gives them one less thing to worry about, but if you are illegally carrying a weapon the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a violation of your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination to be force to admit that you are breaking a law.

      So, if you are legally carrying a weapon you are required to tell the cop you have a weapon. If you are illegally carrying a weapon you are not required to report this crime to the officer and you are allowed to lie if he asks you.

    4. avatar billy-bob says:

      Absolutely agree. However I would hate to get ventilated on the side of the road during a traffic stop because one cop yells gun! and his rookie partner starts busting caps.

  7. avatar Craig says:

    It’s just another infringement ripe for abuse, as has ALREADY happened.

  8. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    There is no rational purpose for informing anyone you are carrying, unless they can see it plainly all by themselves. Some aggressors are easy to spot, and some are not. Nobody can “see” another person’s intentions, with or without a “permit.” It would seem wise if we all gave some thought to this. The “cops” also need to be aware that anyone “might” be an aggressor and decide to harm them, since they can’t really tell just by looking most of the time. Depending on the cops, it might be better to tell them… but, then again, maybe not. Only the individual involved should make that decision.

    Why should there be a different standard of awareness between “us” and the cops? And, just maybe, the cops need to be less eager to pull over anyone not obviously endangering others. Maybe even need that much more caution in those cases, no?

  9. avatar Jason says:

    I see no reason not to inform if I am having a legal interaction with the police. If you inform them, they may ask/instruct you to disarm or make sure you don’t reach toward where you have informed them you stored your firearm (if off body). They will not be surprised or freak out if they happen to see a firearm on you or in your car. IF you do not inform them, and they see a firearm and believe you may be reaching for it, they may think their life is in danger and shoot you.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      “if you inform them, they may ask/instruct you to disarm ”

      All the more reason not to inform them. No government employee should be allowed to disarm any citizen who is not actually under arrest. If anything, we the citizens should be able to require the government employee to disarm while they deal with us.

  10. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    There’s no justification for imposing a duty to inform. Legally, it imposes a new burden on carriers that police can exploit for their own purposes. If you didn’t inform and they somehow discover you’re carrying, then you’re a liar by omission. What else are you lying about? What does that lie open the door for police to do that they wouldn’t have been authorized to do but for the lie? Duty to inform gives police a gotcha card they can play.

    Culturally, it adds another layer of distance between police and private citizen, implicitly labeling every lawful carrier as a would-be cop killer. I take offense at that. Besides, it’s a completely ineffective policy.

    If you’ve jacked that car or you have wants & warrants and you’re prepared to shoot the officer to escape, then what the hell difference does some silly duty to inform make? Duty to inform is pretty much made moot once you crash past that whole duty not to shoot a police officer in the face thing.

    The proof? A number of officers have been murdered by killers who moved with infamous speed, surprise and violence of action. It can and has happened across the country in recent years. Those two Nevada cops murdered during lunch at Cici’s. The Boston cop murdered in his car by the marathon bombers who needed his gun. Those two New York cops murdered in their patrol car for, I’m not even sure exactly what motive. Deputy Goforth was randomly murdered while pumping gas into his marked cruiser at a gas station I drive by almost every day. None of these killers announced themselves or their intentions, let alone that they were carrying.

  11. avatar Jeffro says:

    In this state, the bars close at 2:30am. I pull out of my driveway for work at 2:55am. I have been stopped by virtually every jurisdiction between my driveway and employers parking lot. That’s 50 miles of different jurisdictions. 12 if you don’t count townships. I’ve been stopped in every jurisdiction. Reasons include, I thought your taillight was dim, I thought your license plate light was out, I thought your headlight was dim, I thought you were weaving in your lane, You didn’t use a turn signal to change lanes, and more………..ad naseaum.

    I now, roll down all windows, I don’t care if its 15 degrees out. Turn on all interior lights. Shut off car and place keys on roof. Have all paperwork in hand and hands on wheel the the trooper/deputy/officer reaches my car. Helps to keep me from being shot. That would ruin Christmas for sure. I inform whether I am armed or not, and I also inform that this encounter is being recorded audio and video with a live upload to the cloud. In response to the usual questions of ‘Where you been?, and Where you going?’, I gently remind the LEO that this is still (for the most part) free country.

    I wear a hi-viz vest with reflective tape at work, so usually I have it on while driving to. When the question has been asked, ‘Are you going to work?’, I’ve answered, no, I wear this as a fashion statement.

    Being stopped by a revenue generator, trolling for a DUI for plausible, yet obviously false reasons has soured me on police in general.

    DUTY to inform is an infringement. Informing, just might keep me from getting shot.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Out of curiosity, how do you do your cloud based video recording?

    2. avatar ThomasR. says:

      Yeah. Some cop stopped me at night coming back from a late shift when the bars were getting out. My license plate light actually was out. I was CC’ing at the time,(we have no duty to inform here in NM), while checking my papers, she asks me where I was coming from, I say “that is private business” in a matter of fact tone; she asks where I was going; “that is also private business”, then she gives me a verbal warning about the light and I go on my way. No heart burn or taking of offense by the cop.

      Another time I was coming back late from work and I started to wander across the line from fatigue. A cop stopped me and asked me to step out of the car to do a field sobriety test. I told him at that time that I was OC’ing a full sized pistol on my belt and a pocket gun. He laughs and says, “armed and dangerous, I see”, I smile and say “Only to the bad guys”. So he says, just to stay in the car, put my hands on the door ledge and he does the nystagmus check of my eyes. We talk guns a little bit, then he waves me on and says to have a good day.

      Most cops here in NM have been professional and polite, at least in my experience.

    3. avatar LongPurple says:

      I share your experiences with the “manufactured purpose of vehicle stop” by police. One LEO told me I had “one taillight out, and the other barely aglow”. I had two spare bulbs in the open console which I showed the officer, offering to change them on the spot.
      He (of course) said that would not be necessary, and let me get on with my travels. I checked the lights when I got to my next stop — both were perfect.

  12. avatar Mason says:

    In MI, I have a duty to inform, hasent come up yet, I don’t really have a problem with It.
    Unfortunately, I don’t make small talk with uniformed officers if we’re in line for lunch, to avoid ‘informing’.
    Now that I think about it, I think I’m being silly

  13. avatar Wade says:

    I don’t mind telling the police officer I have a weapon and where it is located. The last thing I want is to “surprise” the officer. Some police officers are on edge and looking for a reason to jam someone up. I politely and directly inform the officer I have a permit and a weapon as well as the weapon location. After that it is up to the officer what I do next. I follow instructions and move in a slow deliberate manner.

    1. avatar JB Karns says:

      Seems a perfect representation of a subservient, obedient, compliant citizen, here in ‘new’ america.

      Pardon me whilst I go vomit.

  14. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Nope. Last thing I need is to tell a cop on an otherwise very routine traffic stop that I have a gun. I am left handed so I carry left side. While seated in a car it is extremely difficult to see by anyone not in the car so very low chance of him noticing. I already have my papers in hand ready to hand to him when he gets there so no need to fumble around the car looking for crap.

    Now, if for some strange reason he would ask me to exit the vehicle, then I would let him know before stepping out.

  15. avatar Damon says:

    The Supreme Court already ruled on this for the criminal aspect. Technically, anyway.

    In Haynes V. Unites States, the Supreme court ruled that criminals do not have to register weapons in accordance with the NFA because it would violate their rights under the fifth amendment. Same principal here, a prohibited person would not be required to inform a LEO they are carrying because of the same reason.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/390/85.html

    Oh, and unacceptable infringement for the rest of us. Unless I have shot someone or am threatening to for whatever reason, whether or not I am armed is irrelevant.

  16. avatar Cknarf says:

    In Illinois, it’s not required unless we’re asked.

    I still hand over my permit with my licence anyway, because my CCW comes up when they run the DL.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      If your State permission slip comes up when they run your DL, what is the purpose of handing it to the LEO with your license? If he/she notices your CCL and it concerns them they have the obligation to approach you and ask if you are currently armed.

      If handing over the permission slip without being asked makes the cop more relaxed then finding out on the computer should have the same effect.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      CCW comes up when they run the DL

      Cool. Same as Cuba and North Korea. Where do you live? Probably has eliminated gangbangin murders.

  17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I oppose “duty to inform” laws because they violate my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. In fact I believe all “duty to inform” laws are blatantly unconstitutional … the U.S. Supreme Court simply has not had a chance to nullify a case yet.

    Whether or not it is wise to inform a police officer that you are armed is a different matter.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      For the record, the pertinent verbiage of the Fifth Amendment is as follows: “…nor shall be compelled i any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

      This has been interpreted in “Miranda” as the right to keep silent in the presence of law enforcement since “Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law.”

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        So, if you are armed in violation of the law, you cannot be forced to admit that fact. It would be “self-incrimination”.
        However, if you are lawfully armed, your admission of the fact that you are armed can no more be used as “evidence against you in a court of law”, than an “admission” that you have an unopened can of beer in the trunk.
        Assuming there is no law against what you are doing, saying you are doing it simply cannot put you in any legal peril.
        IMHO, A law demanding such a non-incriminating statement could only be overturned by appeal to “privacy”, not 5th Amendment grounds, unless the carrying of the gun was illegal.

  18. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    This is why it’s permitless carry and not Constitutional Carry. The legislature can levy requirement in the carrier.

  19. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I believe everyone has a duty to inform the friendly police office what color and style of underwear they are wearing, and if they have custom racing stripes on them.
    Reasonable and sensible underwear safety.
    Everytown for Underwear Safety.
    Moms Demand Panties.

  20. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    IANAL, so please correct me if I’m wrong: don’t “duty to inform” laws only apply during a non-consensual interaction with law enforcement – i.e. at a minimum, an investigatory detention?

    If you are engaged in a consensual interaction with a police officer (i.e. if the answer to “Am I free to go?” is “Yes”), then “duty to inform” does not apply.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Laws vary by state and their interpretations can vary within a state, so it’s always a bit iffy. In Texas, the relevant code is Sec. 411.205. Requirement to Display License:

      “If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.”

      They already know, anyway, since your license plate is linked to your driver’s license, which is linked to your carry license. The penalty for failure to provide your license was repealed several year ago, so it’s moot from that standpoint.

  21. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    We have no duty to inform here. However, the guy who taught my ccw class is a cop. He said that he would find out anyway when they run my license, but letting a cop know beforehand puts them at ease because they all just want to go home at end of shift. Also, informing I have a weapon at the onset and a permit lets them know I am a good guy. Cop said he always would take it easy on those who had a permit. I have been stopped 7 times for way excessive speeding. Never got a tix. Cops say thanks for letting me know about your weapon. Please slow down and have a good day. No reason to be a prick with them doing their jobs and being “right” could mean a big fine and ticket.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      If an off-duty LEO is stopped by an on-duty LEO, the first thing he does is to show his badge. That implicitly informs the officer making the stop that the guy he stopped is (lawfully) armed.
      “Duty” or not, I would always inform if stopped. It is both good manners and good sense. If I were in the officer’s place, I would want to know. From my “civilian” viewpoint, I don’t want that officer discovering the gun I’m carrying, and jumping to the wrong conclusion.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Uhhh………..more like that explicitly informs the officer making the stop that if he gives this off-duty cop a ticket for some minor traffic offense, then he’s turning against his little cop community and their lifestyle of living above the law, and he’ll be shunned by the rest of the local cops for it.

        Don’t call me a cop hater. Don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve been IN the vehicle before, more than once, when we’re stopped and the off duty officer/driver got out of the ticket because he flashed his badge. I’ve heard the banter between them and know exactly what their little gentleman’s agreement is all about.

        1. avatar LongPurple says:

          No quarrel. The purpose of flashing the badge and its “side effect” are both true. I think there are some states where an LEO is required to identify himself as a cop when questioned by another.
          A NYC cop I know told me about how (back in the bad old days) a NY cop in NC would show his badge in a traffic stop and be asked “Where is your off-duty piece?” If the “Yankee” said he was carrying concealed, he would be hassled, maybe even arrested. The NYC cops returned the favor, from what I recall he said.
          Of course, the law is different now and a cop can carry concealed anywhere.
          Too bad we can’t all do the same.

  22. avatar Jon in CO says:

    No duty to inform here, but don’t lie if asked. Been pulled over with my wife twice in state, never been asked. Pulled over in Eden, TX, at 12:30am on a road trip, wasn’t asked then, nor the way to TX getting stopped in Raton, NM.

    Since we have CO plates, we must be moving drugs to the border.

  23. avatar tyler says:

    I personally do not inform unless asked, as I see no reason to get into it, if its concealed and its a lawful interaction. Unless that is, I’m in a vehicle, since I have my firearm in a holster by my knee. In that case, my hands are on the wheel and I let the officer know I have a gun near my leg before I reach for my license or reg. I then wait for them to tell me how they would like to proceed.

  24. avatar TXGungal says:

    Have not been pulled over since getting LTC, but if ever pulled over will give DL & LTC at the same time & disclose. . Might as well, since it’s required and in Texas the license is tried to drivers license. If you are do not have a handgun with you, you do not have to carry the LCT. But you might be chewed out if you show both but don’t have a handgun with you. My sister in law got chewed out by a cop for that reason. He asked her “why the hell do you not have a pistol with you?, ever heard of road rage?” She did get off with a warning after mentioning her dad was a Ft. Worth cop. I gave her one of my snub nose .357 revolvers for EDC, more for my peace of mind than anything else.

  25. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I think it’s pretty stupid. When TX first passed CHL, you had DTI whether armed or not, we all assumed that was so cops could harass those with licenses. Cops weren’t interested, so the requirement moved to only if armed. I doubt felons advise anyway. Now we hear that cops can stop and harass open carriers, check their licenses, etc, although they still can’t stop and harass CC folk, no probable cause. Supposedly the probable cause for OC is, well, OC. Really dumb, I got a super hassle once from town cops after announcing, they had pulled me over in a parking lot for an inspection sticker 2 weeks out of date, and treated me as though they thought I was gonna use my LCP to start a shootout with 2 armed cops over a violation which does not even carry a punishment if you go get inspected. REALLY bad.

  26. avatar Colorado Kid says:

    Out of respect and courtesy, yes. It tells a LEO a lot about your demeanor and character. If stopped, window rolled down and both hands on the wheel before LEO approaches…”Good morning officer. I have a CCW, weapon is on my right hip. How would you like to proceed?” Never a problem, and a “Thank you!” every time.

    1. avatar JB Karns says:

      It was said:

      “Out of respect and courtesy, yes. It tells a LEO a lot about your demeanor and character. If stopped, window rolled down and both hands on the wheel before LEO approaches…”Good morning officer. I have a CCW, weapon is on my right hip. How would you like to proceed?” ”

      Umm, really? This, to me, merely showcases a degree of perceived ‘cop worship/hero worship’ and directly indicates citizen subservience, compliance and obedience to the will of and dictates of ‘The State’.

      One must surmize that this is a ‘poultry feces’ victimless traffic stop, which are overwhelmingly used by the armed-apparatchik enforcement arm of ‘The State’ to extort money from people, reinforce that ‘The State’ is supreme and wil force you to bend to its arbitrary rules and which is also used overwhelmingly as an excuse to stop people who are no threat to anyone and who have harmed nor intruded upon nobody, to check their papers and root around for other violations of regulations, ‘statutes’, codes and other societal control-mechanisms mandated and enforced by ‘The State’.

      To even care what the apparatchik believes about one’s ‘character’ in such a predatory encounter, let alone what the apparatchik sees as being your ‘demeanor’…well, it speaks to what I initially said.

      One’s demeanor should be to convey by the most appropriate means that such intrusive police-contact by ‘The State’ is not only unwelcome and incompatible with the proper role of ‘Peace Keeping’ in a free Constitutional Republic, but that it is not to be tolerated beyond what is immediately required to prevent an escalation into some use of force by either party.

      A bit o’ displeasure and visable push back and displayed nonconformity would do wonders in resetting the predatory govt paradigm if practiced widely by free-men, but, then…we all know that ‘new’ americans are largely a compliant, subservient, obedient lot who bend over for anything at all that ‘The State’ dictates…mostly wthout even a grumble.

      This, of course, then shows the few who actually hold to fundamental Liberty Principles and who are not subservient to the whims of govt and its minions, as extremists and potential domestic enemies of ‘The State’ in the eyes of the citizen herd and of ‘The State’ itself and its apparatchiks.

      Hell, I bet many thank the enforcement apparatchiks for ‘their servce’ and for doing what they do.

      I got that frequently from people when I was still in uniform and it gave me the creeps then and still does so now.

  27. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    There are two entirely separate issues under discussion here, and the question of whether or not it is a good idea to inform an enforcer that you are armed is not what RF asked. The real question is whether or not a law requiring you to inform the enforcer is an infringement. And that is definitely is. Moreover, it is a violation of the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd: the right to free speech includes the right to remain silent.

    For the record, I can definitely see that there may be circumstances where I would choose to inform an enforcer that I’m armed, but that would be my free choice.

  28. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    Absolutely not. You should not be made a criminal for simply not telling a cop soon enough. That being said, I think it’s a good idea to inform the police, but I oppose it as a requirement.

  29. avatar Mk10108 says:

    In California. On my CCW permit, it states….If contacted by law enforcement and carrying a concealed weapon, you must advise the officer of the presence of a firearm either on your person or otherwise present.

    No need for an opinion in CA. Rules is rules.

    1. avatar Stoopid1 says:

      Such a good little sheep.

  30. avatar Neal says:

    I find this very interesting as I live in Canada and we can’t carry regardless. It’s very intriguing to see the different viewpoints on the subject matter! 🙂

  31. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Since the only time most of us will encounter an officer of the law is for a traffic violation. There is a way to avoid that. Don’t break traffic laws. I try not to exceed speed limits by more than 5mph, signal all turns and lane changes and stop at stop signs. Since I have been doing that I never have to inform anyone.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      I don’t want ANY contact with the police of ANY sort, so indeed I try to conduct myself in a fashion to avoid interactions with the police.

      That having been said, merely obeying the law is NOT a guarantee that you won’t have contact with the police. I’ve personally been involved in a “pretext” stop by the Lakewood, Ohio police. A friend’s wife was taking me to the Cleveland Amtrak station early in the morning. A cop pulled us over, stating that she was “weaving”. It was an out and out LIE. What he was REALLY doing was trolling for drunk drivers, messing with mostly INNOCENT people. If we’d been a little bit later, I would have missed my train.

      Obeying the law LESSENS your chances of contact with the police. It doesn’t ELIMINATE it.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Close enough to zero to count.

  32. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    5th admendment people.

    Any law enforcement/government person that harasses me about my weapon will be shot.

    1. avatar James in AZ says:

      They’re not even worth spending your ammo on

    2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      Stoopid really is. If you are legally carrying a gun you have no Fifth Amendment rights to give up since you aren’t commiting a crime.

      Be that as it may I stoopid is an anti-gun troll.

      1. avatar Stoopid1 says:

        At this point in the conversation (if you were the government agent) you’d be sporting 2 or 3 brand new holes courtesy of Ruger.

        Civics that bitch.

        1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          Only a true troll would.say that either that or someone confined to a state mental institution.

  33. avatar James in AZ says:

    Ok so i have to give up 5A to exercise 2A without harrassment?

    How about the cops give up their “officer safety first” so we dont get under gunpoints before even remotely posing a lethal threat?

    1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      You obviously aren’t a troll, just a little short on your civics. If you are a prohibited person and you have a concealed firearm then you don’t have to answer because you would be incriminating yourself. However, if you are honest citizen legally carrying then you must inform if that’s the law. Honest citizens can argue on 4th Amendment grounds, felons and other prohibited persons get to plead the 5th.

      I hope that improves your understanding of the Bill of Rights.

      1. avatar James in AZ says:

        Well, a concealed carrier in such a state does have an obligation to inform as long as the law stays in the book, before some group bring it to the test and beat it down.

        That doesnt make it a law that does us any good in actuality. The AWB was in effect for 10 years, we had to obey, but nobody said it was any good or constitutional.

        What you said didnt in one bit improve my mental deficiency.

        As for whether it’s a 4A or 5A issue, why not both?

        The 5A defends against self incrimination. Being a felony convict or being spotless clean, the said concealed carrier faces a very true possibility of self incrimination, were he/she to tell the cop about the gun. No one knows all the laws, which applies to the cops to a whopping degree. Here where i live carrying a gun is a given no biggie. In states or cities appearing a bit more “purple”, you bet there exist cops who would smack you down the instant they hear “gun”. Or what if they run your licence place and the system identifies you as a released convict because your plate was stolen before? Being silent about the gun protects the gunner from incrimination by a less-than-perfect cop. In a perfect world such cops or systems wouldnt exist and it’s none of 5A’s business but sadly we all know it’s not the case.

        1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          It does make a difference. If you are legally carrying there is no crime so can’t incriminate yourself. However, duty to inform can be construed as violating your right to be secure in your person or property. If your state truly has constitutional carry as opposed to permitless carry I would think duty to inform would not be legal. Permitless carry is still the state granting you a priveledge.

        2. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “It does make a difference. If you are legally carrying there is no crime so can’t incriminate yourself.”

          The mere absence of criminal activity on your part is no guarantee of you not running afoul of the law.

          Pennsylvania has an incomplete, inaccurate “sales registry”. If your firearm was in your family before that law came into effect, or if you legally bought it out of state and moved to PA, it will NOT be in that “registry that’s not a registry”.

          There are documented cases of cops in PA becoming aware of a firearm in a traffic stop, the firearm not being in the “registry that’s not a registry”, and cop STEALING the gun, requiring the owner to engage in an expensive legal process to recover his stolen property.

  34. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

    While we’re at it, we also must make sure that we reveal our religious and ethnic affiliations to officers of the law. It’s important not only for them, but the saftey of everyone around them. Do you really want a bunch of Jews just walking around unattended and unknown? Why, your nieghboor could be a Jew. Wouldn’t you want to know if he was? We need these racial safe guards to protect our children. Could you imagine, one of your children playing in the street, unknowingly with a Jewish child. They may be invited into their home and exposed to all kinds of Jewish behavior. Not in my Riech! Cough* I mean America.

  35. avatar RickP says:

    I don’t like it as any slight misstep to provide notice to an anti-gun cop only gives him probably cause and nothing but trouble. Besides, they get the info on their MDT anyway.

  36. avatar glenux says:

    “In an encounter with the police, citizens are required to tell cops they’re packing heat without being asked.”

    That totally depends on the state law.
    Some states require you to voluntarily divulge and some you don’t have to divulge unless you are asked.
    But if you are asked, you are supposed to tell.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/

  37. avatar fteter says:

    Although my state law explicitly states that, in an encounter with law enforcement, I don’t have to ask…I always volunteer the information as a matter of personal policy. Why? First, it promotes the idea with the LEO that I’m a responsible citizen…indicated by the possession of a CC license. Second, I’ve found the LEO always appreciates the “stand up guy” approach…and goodwill with an officer is always a positive thing.

    But it’s a matter of personal choice. I’m opposed to any law that mandates such disclosure as a requirement. Feels like an infringement.

  38. avatar Katy says:

    My understanding is that in TX, if you car carry without LTC, you do not have a duty to inform. If you have an LTC and have no firearm in the car, you do not have a duty to inform (although, they will see you have an LTC and come back asking about it). If you have an LTC and have a firearm, you do have a duty to inform.

    Minor sure if that’s right or no, but I will admit that I would inform anyway. Most cops will approach from the passenger side, and since I carry at 4:00, they will likely see it or the print anyway. I’d rather they know and know that I am not reaching for my gun vs. wallet that not know and think I am reaching for the gun and end up looking like hamburger.

  39. avatar Mudshark says:

    No duty to inform in Ks. However if Im ask to step out of the vee-hickl , I do. Cops are less nervous that way, it doesnt bother me to let them gain pocession of the firearm during the stop. No use getting cocky with a cop, they got a badge, a gun, and a judge on their side.

  40. avatar John Smith says:

    The answer to this is simple if you take a moment to think about it.
    Do we have a duty to inform? Absolutely. We have a moral and responsible duty to inform and thereby deescalate a situation before it happens.
    Should it be law? Absolutely not.
    For a criminal this would be a violation of their 5th amendment right. That being the case making it a law for non-criminals would be a violation of their 14th amendment right.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      “Do we have a duty to inform? Absolutely. We have a moral and responsible duty to inform and thereby deescalate a situation before it happens.”

      From whence does this alleged “duty” arise?

      What “situation” needs to be “deescalated”? In all likelihood, it’s a stop for a minor traffic offense. What needs to be “deescalated”?

      If I’m a fleeing felon, wouldn’t FALSELY notifying give me an opening to shoot the cop after things have been “deescalated”?

    2. avatar JB Karns says:

      It was declared that……”Do we have a duty to inform? Absolutely. We have a moral and responsible duty to inform and thereby deescalate a situation before it happens.”

      WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, WTF is wrong?

      There is no ‘duty’ at all, moral, responsible or otherwise, to an intrusive govt minion, in this exemplar, the police.

      THEY are the only ones who have a ‘duty’ and that duty is to the populous, to secure the people’s liberty and to simply keep the peace. Of course it is well establised that this ‘duty’ and the proper role of policing in a free society, has been utterly usurped and abrogated.

      Quite the opposite, in fact. There is an individual’s duty to fundamental liberty principles (well, for those who actually have and hold to them) to NOT willingly and compliantly knuckle under to intrusive and predatory govt actions when no harm has been done to another’s Life, Liberty or Property……..read the overwhelming percentage of ‘police contacts’ imposed on the indoctrinated and compliant populous.

      I believe that ol’ TJ had something specific to say about this…….

      “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” -Thomas Jefferson

      Now, read that one once more and see if the concept penetrates the fog of govt indoctrination and over a century of population control efforts.

  41. avatar James69 says:

    Well this is what me and the wife do. When contacted by the police, traffic stop, roadblock etc. Hand the officer your DL and your CCW. NEVER SAYING THE WORD GUN…… That’s right never say the word GUN. If the officer want’;s to know more he’ll ask. 100% of the time (so far) the next thing the Officer say’s is “Be safe and have a nice day” at least in my neck of the woods.(Alabama)

    I also don’t know how other states work but if you are a convicted sexual offender, It’s printed on your ID, DL in bright red lettters.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      “Hand the officer your DL and your CCW. NEVER SAYING THE WORD GUN”

      In Ohio, that could get you arrested and your CHL revoked. You must VERBALLY notify.

  42. avatar Craig says:

    Many of you as part of the defense of you position TO inform state that informing the cop ‘makes him feel more comfortable’. WHY? Statistically CCL holders a LESS likely that COPs to commit felonies. That means that I have more to fear from the cops than they have to fear from me. The argument that “it’s for the officer’s safety” is BS.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Given their decades’ long history of firearms related pratfalls (often fatal to innocent citizens), I’d feel more “comfortable” if any NYPD cop locked his gun in the trunk when talking to me.

  43. avatar Chris Morton says:

    1. Mandatory notification serves no good purpose. On the one hand, it offers an anti-gun cop the opportunity to act out. On the other hand, it lulls a gullible cop into a false sense of security.
    2. Here in Ohio, there’s mandatory notification. On multiple occasions, cops have ORDERED people to remain silent, then ARRESTED them for obeying their commands and not notifying.
    3. In Ohio you are required to notify ONLY if you are ARMED. Naturally cops are pushing the envelope to demand that people notify when NOT armed. I had a cop once try to push that. My response? “No.”
    4. Except when exposure is imminent, voluntary notification is foolish. In Pennsylvania, which does NOT require notification, they have a “registry that’s not a registry”. There have been a number of instances in which drivers voluntarily notified cops that they were armed, at which point their firearms were seized and run against the partial and frequently erroneous “registry that’s not a registry”. When the firearm were not found in the “registry that’s not a registry”, they were stolen from the users, requiring legal proceedings, expensive both monetarily and in terms of time wasted.
    5. If somebody is notifying unnecessarily as a sign of “respect” and “courtesy” to a cop, are they also showing the same “courtesy” to counter people at McDonalds, checkout girls at the grocery store, and the guy behind the counter at 7-11 at 3:00am? If not, why not? Don’t you respect that minimum wage, UNARMED clerk at the “stop and rob”? He can’t even defend himself.

  44. avatar Sam I Am says:

    In my jurisdiction, the matter is clouded. If a cop simply approaches you and talks about anything other than identification, you are not required to declare CCW. But if the cop asks you for identification, you are required to produce both a primary identification (government issued) AND declare CCW. Required identification now becomes primary identification and CCW card. No idea why the distinction, especially since almost every conversation with a cop begins with, “Can I see some identificaiton?”

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      In Ohio, if you have a CHL or recognized equivalent, AND you are armed, AND you are “stopped for a law enforcement purpose”, you must:

      1. “Promptly” (nowhere defined in the Ohio Revised Code) VERBALLY notify the LEO who “stopped” you. Merely presenting the CHL does NOT meet the requirement.
      2. IF REQUESTED, present the CHL and another form of ID (driver’s license, etc.).

      Given that there have been multiple instances of cops ORDERING CHL HOLDERS TO REMAIN SILENT during stops, then arresting them for obeying that command instead of notifying, anyone stopped WHILE ARMED in Ohio would be well advised to notify, AT ALL COSTS. I would shout over the cop to notify if necessary. Given that I carry a running voice recorder when armed, it’s going to be a tough sell for the cop either to claim I didn’t notify, or that my notifying in spite of his interference constitutes some sort of crime.

  45. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    So, in Ohio the common mistake of using “verbally” when you mean “orally” is now codified into law?
    /pedant

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      At least in Lakewood, “orally” can have unintended connotations. I’d rather not chance it, Sheldon…

  46. avatar Jimmyjames says:

    In my state it is duty to inform only if “approached” by a LEO. Approached meaning being stopped on the street and asked to see your papers or stopped by a blue light (but only because they have probable cause…yeah right) or at a unconstitutional yet somehow legal roadblock. My motto…STRIVE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY, a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America but a right walked all over by states (rights?).

  47. avatar MeRp says:

    Honestly I don’t think there should even be a duty/legal requirement to tell the truth to police, much less proactively inform them of anything.
    If the state of affairs becomes such that they are required to be honest with us, then I could possibly accept laws requiring honest answers to certain (specific) questions, including “are you carrying a firearm or other weapon concealed on your person?” But, even then, only if the answers cannot be used against you in the court of law and the answers cannot be used as any level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In other words; they should only be used for safety; e.g. “are you carrying?” “yes.” “please produce them and place them here.” or “you’re under arrest, are you carrying?” “yes” “where are they, so that I can remove them safely, without risk to yourself or anyone else.”

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      In other words; they should only be used for safety; e.g. “are you carrying?” “yes.” “please produce them and place them here.” or “you’re under arrest, are you carrying?” “yes” “where are they, so that I can remove them safely, without risk to yourself or anyone else.”

      That line is such a load of horse manure.

      The safest place for a firearm is in its holster. Removing a firearm from its holster decreases safety, both for the person carrying, and for the person handling/removing the firearm from its holster.

    2. avatar Dave says:

      I think you bring up a good point. I’ve often wondered if there is a conflict between the duty to inform and the right to not self-incriminate (5th Amendment). For example, say I am unknowingly in a restricted zone (perhaps there’s a school around the corner that is less than the mandated distance, but this is my first time in the area, and I’m just passing through). I get pulled over for a routine traffic stop, and I’m in a duty-to-inform state. Does the law require me to incriminate myself? Even in an “on request” state, if the officer asks me, am I then required to incriminate myself?

      Sounds like all of these duty-to-inform laws are potentially unconstitutional, and it will just take the right circumstances to enable a legal challenge.

      Fact is, that my state originally had a duty to inform law with the original CC law, but then they eliminated it. The only justification I heard makes plenty of sense. By policy, all law enforcement officers treat any contact as if they are potentially armed. And the reality is, that an armed person without a CC permit is probably much more dangerous, and much less likely to know (let alone, obey) the duty-to-inform law than CC permit holder. This simple fact is true for all states.

      So, not only is a duty-to-inform law pointless, but it is also potentially unconstitutional. Inasmuch as such a law might give an officer a false sense of security, a duty-to-inform is actually a counter-productive and dangerous law.

      Those of you in duty-to-inform states should point this out to your legislators and request that they repeal such laws.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Duty to Inform for Concealed Carry. Yes or No? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/desantis-gunhide-question-day-duty-inform-concealed-carry-yes-no/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email