One officer did say that while he would probably assume you were not carrying, he now has a couple of questions in his mind:flintknapper wrote: I mean...do officers go on a heightened state of alert to learn there is gun present (other than their own). If so, then the best thing to do would be to treat everyone as armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.
If I do NOT present my CHL (and the officer knows the law) then he/she must draw one of two conclusions:
1. I don't have my weapon with me (so didn't present the license as per the law).
2. I do have my weapon but forgot to show I.D. or have some sinister reason not to.
I would much prefer that LEO's assume that law abiding CHL's simply do not have their weapon with them, then to suspect otherwise (assuming no other suspicious activity).
Frankly, I just don't see how knowing a CHL is armed or not benefits the officer in anyway.
I can see where the officer knowing the person is a CHL holder "might" put them at ease a bit....as most are law abiding/reasonable citizens.
For one thing, unless the officer physically confirms (takes control of/or establishes presence) that a firearm exists then he is just taking the word of the CHL.
As far as disarming the CHL holder, the officer unwittingly places him/herself in a position to be ambushed unless they hold you at gun point, remove you from the vehicle, and disarm you "from the position".
It's ridiculous IMO, that we need to show I.D. or disclose our status (armed/unarmed) for a simple traffic stop. It is not required of those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act.
1. Is the individual actually carrying and just accidentally forgot to present his CHL?
2. Is the individual carrying, and trying to hide something?
All of them did state they would come back and state they noticed you had a CHL and ask if you were carrying anyway, so they are going to find out unless you lie (which no good guy is gonna do right?)
I know we should be looked upon as totally law abiding citizens since we have clean records to the our licenses, but I think sometimes the nature of the LEO has to be on the side of suspicion; it has to come with the job. I think it just puts them at ease that you were willing to provide them the info voluntarily and that you are not someone who might be trying to hide something. Right, wrong or indifferent, that seems to be the way it is for the LEO's I have asked.
